Loading...
03/02/2015 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 2,2015 CALL TO ORDER President Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ROLL CALL Present: President Rogers Vice President Fitzgerald Alt. Commissioner Enloe Commissioner Middaugh Alt. Commissioner Mooney Commissioner Muldoon Commissioner Ouellette Commissioner Schmidt Commissioner Smith Absent: Commissioner Feeney; Commissioner Lieuallen Staff Present: Tom McGuire,Assistant Community Development Director; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner;Lloyd Purdy, Economic Development Manager; Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant COMMUNICATIONS — None CONSIDER MINUTES February 9 Meeting Minutes: President Rogers asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the February 9 minutes. Commissioner Fitzgerald amended the Communications portion of the minutes to read that she, along with Commissioners Muldoon, Schmidt& Lieuallen had attended the traffic highway safety meeting—not just two commissioners, as had been noted in the minutes. President Rogers declared the minutes approved as amended. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING President Rogers opened the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING ASH AVENUE DOG PARK ZONE CHANGE—(ZON) 2015-00003 REQUEST:The applicant is requesting approval of a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment for two parcels approximately 0.35 acres in size located on the southwest corner of SW Ash Avenue and SW Burnham Street.The zoning designation would be changed from"PR:Park and Recreation"to "MU- CBD: Mixed Use Central Business District," while the existing comprehensive plan designation of "MU-CBD: Mixed Use Central Business District" would remain unchanged. APPLICANT: City of Tigard PROPOSED ZONE: MU-CBD: Mixed Use-Central Business District. The MU-CBD TPC Minutes 03/02/15 Page 1 of 6 zoning district is designed to provide a pedestrian friendly urban village in downtown Tigard. A wide variety of commercial, civic, employment, mixed-use, multifamily and attached single-family residences are permitted. New development and redevelopment is required to conform to the standards of Chapter 18.610. LOCATION: 12780 SW Ash Avenue, WCTM 2S102AD, Tax Lots 02800 and 02900 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390, 18.520, and 18.540; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.2, 2.12, 2.1.3, 2.1.7, 2.1.15, 9.1.3, 9.1.5, 10.1.5 and 15.2.6;Transportation Planning Rule. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Rogers read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial hearing guide. There were no abstentions; there were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site Visits: Commissioners Smith, Rogers & Schmidt had visited the site. No one wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. APPLICANT The applicant in this case is the City of Tigard. Associate Planner Gary Pagenstecher said this is a Type III Quasi-Judicial land use action—one where the decision is made by the Planning Commission. He stated that staff's recommendation is to approve this zone change. He noted that the site is a popular dog park at the location of Ash &Burnham. It was zoned public recreation January, 2014— and now the request is to zone it to mixed-use CBD —the zone it had prior to January, 2014. The rezone is being requested by the City of Tigard to facilitate a development action that Sean Farrelly (Redevelopment Project Manager) will describe in more detail if there are questions. Otherwise, the staff report shows that the applicable criteria are met and it is approvable. Sean Farrelly gave a brief rundown as to what's gone on with the Dog Park to this point. He noted that a lot of the development is in flux right now. The concept is about 150 units of market rate housing and 2000 sq. ft. of commercial on the corner of Burnham and Ash. Mixed use—and getting more people living downtown is one of the primary goals of the Urban Renewal Plan,which was approved by the voters in 2006. The site is well located—fronting Fanno Creek Park, close to Main Street, close to some services, restaurants, etc. Having more people living downtown will help Main Street businesses by providing local customers and it's getting more people who are able to make use of WES and the Bus Transit Center which is very close by this site. You can walk to the Transit Center in 5 minutes from the site. We're working on a development agreement but the site as a whole—we'd like to see this zoning returned to what it was.Just a scant year ago it was an MU-CBD. President Rogers asked Sean where the park would move. Sean answered that the dog park would move kitty corner - across the street to another city owned property; presently there's a house on it. The long term plan is to demo that house so that's where the dog park would move to. We will be recycling all the equipment that's in the present dog park—including the fencing. We've been communicating with the dog park patrons and are working with the dog park committee on getting the word out and designing the new space. It's comparable size—a little bit smaller but in some ways it will be an even better site. Vice President Fitzgerald added that last summer she had attended a design Charrette for this piece of property. She said several members of staff were there as well as many representatives of TPC Minutes 03/02/15 Page 2 of 6 the dog park. She said the dog park representatives were aware that they'd be getting a "trade off" and that they were happy with that trade off. They liked the proposed location. QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS — Commissioner Smith asked if we were getting actual market value for the property and is the developer going to pay for all the work for this park. Sean answered that this is a complicated deal with many moving parts. The price is still being negotiated because we're asking a developer to build something that this market wouldn't necessarily support. The rents aren't quite high enough to support building more of an urban style building. If this was just purely a market driven deal it would probably be a lot lower density but the Urban Renewal Plan is about getting more people living downtown and this is a good way to get people to move downtown. President Rogers noted that the City Council and Tigard staff are negotiating the deal of the property purchase and that this meeting is about the zone changes. He asked if there is a proposed zone change for the alternate dog park where the house is being torn down. Sean said that doesn't need a zone change—the zone change is correct as is. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR- None TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION Neal Brown, 13853 SW Boxelder Street, Tigard passed out a disclosure document about a YMCA because, he said, he believes in disclosing everything. He believes that since City Council and city staff put the park zone on this property last year (2014) it makes it a permanent part of the "parks" system. They could have exempted this dog park, but they chose to put the park zone on it. He said the property is used as a dog park but it could also be used for kids. Or it could change for any type of park use. He believes the city needs to prove that Tigard has too many parks and that this is a surplus —not needed in our inventory. He said when private citizens request a zone change they have to prove that there's no market for this use —but there's a market for what they're requesting the zone change for. He believes it's unconstitutional for the city to require private industry to prove their need but they don't hold themselves accountable to do it themselves. He says Tigard is losing 2,614 sq. ft. (17%) and that it's not equitable to move to a smaller park. He would like to know how much all this moving around of parks costs. He believes this is subsidized. He wants full disclosure by the city. He went on to talk about trying to get a YMCA into the City of Tigard and having it opposed by the city. Barry Sheasgreen, 9528 SW Tigard St. Tigard, OR said his property's fence line and building backs up to the existing dog park. He said no one from the city had come to talk to him about this. He wants to know why he's not heard anything about this matter until now. QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS —None. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMENTS FROM STAFF Staff came up to explain the communication process. Sean Farrelly said he'd spoken to Mr. Sheasgreen personally on a couple of occasions—at the neighborhood meeting held three months ago where he had answered the questions Mr. Sheasgreen asked him. He said he's also had at least two informal communications with him. In addition, per the Tigard Code, public TPC Minutes 03/02/15 Page 3 of 6 noticing was done. There were also informal and formal public meetings with property owners by way of the City Center Advisory Committee and Council members, as well as a notice in the Tigard Times for all of the public meetings on this topic. Commissioner Smith said, if he was the property owner, right next door to all this, that he would hope the city would go to him personally with documents showing the plan, etc. —personal contact. He wanted to know what kind of contact staff had with Mr. Sheasgreen. John Floyd, Associate Planner, came up and explained that he had assisted Sean Farrelly with the Neighborhood meeting and that he wanted to fill in a couple of gaps. In terms of notification— he stated that they'd erected signage in front of the dog park and that he'd spoken to several dog park users at that time—making them aware of the Neighborhood Meeting for the zone change. He said he'd passed out his business cards to several individuals there so he can affirmatively say that several dog park users were notified of that initial meeting. He said the intent of the meeting was about the zone change but that the conversation did veer into the future project and redevelopment potential of the site. There were extensive conversations about the possible forums —issues of parking—issues of viability of the commercial space— so he believes the intent of what was going to happen there was pretty well disclosed. In addition he said he remembers a robust conversation [about an hour] Sean Farrelly and he had with Mr. Sheasgreen about the future of that site and stated that some of that could be found in the neighborhood meeting notes. QUESTIONS OF STAFF Commissioner Smith wanted to know whether the demolition of the house on that property a done deal or is this one of those things where a park may, or may not, materialize. Sean answered that the house will definitely be demolished soon. They'd made a commitment to the dog park that they would replace it. Commissioner Smith went on to ask whether this would be the final destination for the dog park or would it move again and again? Sean said he can't really speculate on the future but he thinks there may be need for a larger dog park somewhere down the line, more centrally located. There's nothing in the long range plans showing a dog park in some other location, however. PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED President Rogers briefly opened the public hearing to see if Mr. Sheasgreen had other questions (as he appeared to have). The questions and comments were about what he perceived to be lack of personal notice and about the fact that he'd contacted staff about selling his property to be used for parking and hadn't heard back from them. President Rogers noted that Economic Development Manager, Lloyd Purdy,was at the back of the room and would be available to talk to Mr. Sheasgreen about that if he wanted to do so. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED No further testimony or questions from the audience allowed. DELIBERATION There were some general questions about making a motion. There was also a question as to whether conditions can be applied to a Planning Commission approval and whether they would have to be applied to this particular property. Tom McGuire,Assistant Community Development Director, came up and said "Yes, the conditions would have to apply to this property in this request." TPC Minutes 03/02/15 Page 4 of 6 MOTION Commissioner Fitzgerald made the following motion: "I move for approval of Application ZON2015-00003 and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report as received." Commissioner Schmidt seconded the motion. THE VOTE / MOTION PASSES A vote was taken. The motion passed with seven in favor and one opposed. Commissioner Smith cast the opposing vote. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING President Rogers opened the second public hearing (Legislative). POST ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA)2015-00001 REQUEST: To amend the City of Tigard's 2011 Economic Opportunities Analysis to: 1) acknowledge that slope was not applied as a development constraint factor in the Inventory of Suitable Sites (Land Supply), 2) apply slope as a suitability constraint for properties currently zoned industrial (I-P, I-L, and I- H), and 3) qualify the Assessment of Potential with respect to slope constraints. LOCATION: City-wide ZONE/COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: I-P: industrial park district; I-L: light industrial district; I-H: heavy industrial district.APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.380.020 Legislative Amendments; 18.390.060 Decision Making Procedures; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1,2, and 9; Oregon Administrative Rule 660, Division 9; statewide planning goals 1, 2, and 9. APPLICANT As the City of Tigard applicant, Associate Planner Gary Pagenstecher introduced himself and said he wanted to make sure that the commissioners had received the materials that had been sent out. They included a memo, staff report, proposed amendment—exhibit A to the staff report, and a copy of the 2011 Economic Opportunities Analysis being put up for Planning Commission recommendation to be amended; they had. He noted that the EOA (Economic Opportunity Analysis) was adopted in 2011 as part of the city's Periodic Review process with DLCD. Economic Development Manager Lloyd Purdy came up and spoke to the commissioners about how this reconciles the city's inventory of buildable lands. He said this would unlock the development potential of about 40 acres of property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed zone change. QUESTIONS OF STAFF There were a couple of questions regarding the purpose of the action. Gary Pagenstecher answered that it was mainly for clarification. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR—None. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION - None PUBLIC HEARING— CLOSED TPC Minutes 03/02/15 Page 5 of 6 No further testimony or questions from the audience allowed. DELIBERATION After a short deliberation, the consensus was that none of the commissioners had any issues with this. They believe it gives the city some opportunities that weren't there earlier. MOTION Commissioner Muldoon made the following motion: "I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council of Application CPA2015-00001 as provided to the Commission tonight in three parts without change." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald: A vote was taken, all in favor, none opposed; no one abstained. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY This item is scheduled to go to City Council on March 24th. OTHER BUSINESS Tom McGuire,Assistant CD Director came up and gave a brief rundown on some of what would likely be coming before the commission in the near future with regard to the Code and the Strategic Plan. ADJOURNMENT President Rogers adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. L......_--\)_4_5, Doreen Laughlin,Planning Co t_ 'ssion Secretary ATTE '� ; ident Rogers TPC Minutes 03/02/15 Page 6 of 6