Ordinance No. 16-21 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO. 16- -), I
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION
18.330.050.B.10.B.I,TO REMOVE THE 15-FOOT SETBACK FOR GRAVES (DCA2016-00001)
WHEREAS, the city received application for the proposed code amendment to amend the text of the
Conditional Use Chapter (18.330) of the City of Tigard Community Development Code to remove
the 15-foot setback for graves; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of Chapter 18.330 is to provide standards and procedures under which a
conditional use may be permitted, enlarged or altered . . . ; and
WHEREAS, notice was provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development at least
35 days prior to the first evidentiary public hearing; and
WHEREAS, notice to the public was provided in conformance with the Tigard Community
Development Code Chapter 18.390.060.D; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 3, 2016 and
recommended with a vote of five in favor and three opposed, that Council approve the proposed code
amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on October 25, 2016, to consider the
proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has considered applicable Statewide Planning Goals and
Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; any federal or state statutes or
regulations found applicable; any applicable Metro regulations; any applicable Comprehensive Plan
Policies; and any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has determined that the proposed development code amendment
is consistent with the applicable review criteria, and unanimously approves the request as being in the
best interest of the City of Tigard.
NOW, THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The specific text amendment attached as "EXHIBIT A" to this Ordinance is
hereby approved and adopted by the City Council.
ORDINANCE No. 16-02
Page 1
SECTION 2: The findings in the September 26, 2016 Staff Report to the Planning Commission
and the Minutes of the October 3, 2016 Planning Commission hearing are hereby
adopted in explanation of the Council's decision.
SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature
by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by
number and title only, this -251-'day of 0Z=Y&Le t..... ) 2016.
a
Carol A. Krager, City RecordcW
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of L,)� ��(l�✓' 2016.
- %A
John qook, Mayor
Approved as to;!,—
City
o foCity YtoWey
Date
ORDINANCE No. 16- _21
Page 2
Exhibit A
DCA2016-00001
CEMETERY GRAVE SETBACKS
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
Explanation of Formatting
These text amendments employ the following formatting:
Str-ilethreugh - Text to be deleted
[Bold, Underline and Italic] — Text to be added
Chapter 18.330
CONDITIONAL USE
18.330.050 Additional Development Standards for Conditional Use Types
A. Concurrent variance application(s).A conditional use permit shall not grant variances to the
regulations otherwise prescribed by this title. A variance application(s)may be filed in conjunction with
the conditional use application and both applications may be heard at the same hearing.
B.Additional development standards. The additional dimensional requirements and approval standards
for conditional use are as follows:
10. Cemeteries:
a. The minimum lot size shall be five acres;
b. Setbacks:
(A)The fent yard etbaeks shall be a Fninimufn f 1 5 f ti
(B)The side.afd seth.eke shall be a minifaum f i 5 feet; d
(G)The« ar-d set1.aeks shall be a minimum of i5 feet.
i4-. For structures e*:
(A)The front yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 25 feet;
(B)On corner lots and through lots,the setbacks shall be a minimum of 25 feet on any side facing
a street, plus meet visual clearance areas, Chapter 18.795;
(C)The side yard setback shall be a minimum of 25 feet; and
(D)The rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 25 feet.
c. Adequate fencing shall be provided. A fence of at least four feet in height located at least 2-1/2 feet
from any right-of-way shall completely surround the area and shall meet visual clearance areas;and
d. There are no off-street parking requirements.
Agenda Item: 6
Hearing Date: October 3.2016 Time: 7:00 PM
STAFF REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION ■
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
120 DAYS = N/A
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: CEMETERY GRAVE SETBACK CODE AMENDMENT
FILE NO.: Development Code Amendment DCA2016-00001
PROPOSAL: The City of Tigard Community Development Code, Section 18.330.050.B.10.b.1
applies specifically to cemeteries and requires a 15-foot setback for graves from
all property lines. The Crescent Grove Cemetery has made application to the
City to approve a text amendment to the Community Development Code to
remove this setback requirement.
APPLICANT: Keith Jones OWNER: Crescent Grove
Harper Houf Perterson Righellis Inc. Cemetery Association
205 SE Spokane Street,Suite 200 9925 SW Greenburg Rd
Portland,OR 97202 Tigard,OR 97223
LOCATION: Within existing and proposed cemeteries located within the Tigard City limits.
ZONE/
COMP PLAN
DESIGNATION: Cemeteries are permitted as a conditional use in R-3.5 and R-4.5, Low-Density
Residential;R-7,Medium-Density Residential;and I-L,Light Industrial.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.380, and 18.390;
Comprehensive Plan Goals 1,2,and 9;and Statewide Planning Goals 1,2,and 9.
SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find in favor of the proposed text amendment
(Attachment 1), with any alterations as determined through the public hearing process, and make a final
recommendation to Tigard City Council.
S'I'AI I RI?1X)R'1'7'O'I'III?Pl \NNING COMMISSION
DCA2016-00001Cemetery Grave Setback Code Ametidmcnt P.1('li 1 OI:7
SECTION III. BACKGROUND AND PROJECT SUMMARY
Crescent Grove Cemetery is located at 9925 SW Greenburg Road, Tigard, Oregon (1S1W26CD, tax
lot 100). Crescent Grove Cemetery is Tigard's only nonprofit, nondenominational cemetery, and is
one of the oldest historic pioneer cemeteries in the Portland Metro Area,with headstones dating back
to 1852. The 21.12-acre site is currently developed as a cemetery,with grave plots, mausoleum, office
building, maintenance buildings, and access roads throughout the site. The Cemetery recently
received approval for a minor modification to their Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a
new access road and drainage to serve future grave sites in a lawn are at the north end of the site.
The cemetery now intends to add additional grave sites on the remainder of their available property.
The City of Tigard Community Development Code, Section 18.330.050.B.10.b.i currently requires a
15-foot setback for graves from all property lines, which significantly reduces the amount of area
available for grave sites. Without the 15-foot setback provision,2,710 graves can be platted. However,
with the 15-foot setback in place this number is reduced by 363 to 2,347 grave sites. Therefore, the
Crescent Grove Cemetery has made application to the City to amend the Community Development
Code to remove this setback requirement.
The applicant states that this request is consistent with the International Cemetery, Cremation and
Funeral Association's 1998 position paper on "Zoning and Related. Construction Standards for
Cemeteries." Principle 1 states, "Zoning ordinances regulating cemetery development should be
geared, as a matter of policy, to maximize the efficient use of acreage for the interment of human
remains and related services." Moreover, given the Portland Metropolitan area's Urban Growth
Boundary, which limits land supply in the region, the need for efficient site planning is most
compelling. This request is further supported by St. Anthony's Cemetery, the only other active
cemetery within the City of Tigard. (See letter of support dated December 11,2015.)
The applicant contends that the additional setback requirements specific to the siting of graves do not
appreciably contribute to the public interest and place an unnecessary burden on the ability of
cemeteries to plat grave sites in an efficient manner. Being the only operating non-denominational
cemetery in the City of Tigard, eliminating the 15-foot setback code requirement will allow Crescent
Grove Cemetery Association to continue to serve the future families of Tigard and surrounding
communities for years to come.
SECTION IV ANALYSIS
The Crescent Grove Cemetery was annexed into the City of Tigard in 1986. Prior to annexation the
site was under the jurisdiction of Washington County. With a history of the cemetery going back to
1852, the cemetery far predates zoning regulations. In review of both the 1985 and 1986 Washington
County Community Development Codes, there were no provisions requiring a setback for graves,
only that the cemetery as a whole was to be fenced and a buffer established. These requirements
continue to remain in effect verbatim in the current Washington County code. (Article IV:
Development Standards,430—Special Use Standards,Section 430-27 Cemetery).
A public records request to the City of Tigard to determine the date when the grave setback was
established with the Tigard Community Development Code determined that cemeteries were
conditional uses in residential areas going back to the City's first zoning code in 1967. The first
mention of the 15-foot grave setback was in 1986 around the same time the property was annexed
into the City. Therefore it was the annexation into the City in 1986, 132 years after the cemetery was
SFAFF REPORT TO 11 IE PLANNING COMMISSION
DCA2016-00001 ccmetery Grave Setback Cale Amendment PAGE 2 OF 7
established in Washington County that the cemetery became subject to Tigard's setback requirement
specific to graves. No minutes were found from the time period from either the Planning
Commission or City Council that had discussion of the grave setback prior to adoption.
Existing requirements for fencing the cemetery perimeter, setbacks from rights-of-way, and setbacks
for structures within cemeteries will continue to remain in effect (Attachment 1).
The Crescent Grove Cemetery is surrounded by the private Washington Square Road and the public
right-of-way of SW Greenburg Road. In the 1970s agreements between the Mall and the Cemetery
resulted in a 20-foot landscaped buffer between the perimeter road and the fenced cemetery property
boundary and site line restrictions on future development on the Mall property. Allowing grave sites
to the property boundary would not be in conflict with adjacent uses.
The other operating cemetery within Tigard, St. Anthony's Cemetery on SW Gaarde and SW 115 '
Avenue,is bordered on the north by six parcels developed with single family homes. The effect of the
amendment would be to allow platting of grave sites up to the fenced property boundary, which may
be objectionable by adjacent property owners. The Rev.John Henderson's letter, dated December
11, 2015, in support of the proposed code amendment, is attached to the application. The adjacent
property owners were polled by the cemetery superintendent and none objected to the proposed code
amendment.
Staff reviewed development codes of other cities in the Portland area (Portland, Gresham, Lake
Oswego, Beaverton, Tualatin) and found that none regulated for grave sites and most had only
general approval criteria for conditional uses that are applied on a case by case basis. Only Gresham
had a setback standard) that applied to cemetery boundaries, which was an exemption from
maximum setback requirements (GDC 8.0116).
In conclusion, staff finds no basis to support the grave setback requirements currently in the Tigard
Development Code. On the other hand, the reasons set forth by the applicant to remove the setback
requirements including efficient use of land and maximizing investment of local businesses are
supported by Tigard's Comprehensive Plan policies,as reviewed below. Therefore, Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council adoption of the proposed development
code amendment.
S'CAl l ItlihOR"1"1'O7'1115 PLANNING COMMISSION
DCA2016-00001 Cemetery Grave Setback(axle Amendment PAGF 3 OF 7
SECTION V. APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
This section contains all the applicable city and state policies,provisions, and criteria that apply to the
proposed Development Code amendment. Each section is addressed demonstrating how each
requirement is met. No Metro policies were found applicable.
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
(TITLE 18)
Chapter 18380:Zoning and Text Amendments
18.380.020.A Legislative text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type
Legislative IV procedure,as governed by Section 18.390.060G
Amendments
FINDING: The proposed legislative amendment is being reviewed under the Type IV
legislative procedure as set forth in the chapter. This procedure requires
public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council.
Chapter 18.390:Decision-Malang Procedures
18.390.020.B.4 Type IV procedures apply to legislative matters. Legislative matters
Type IV involve the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of
Procedures public policy. Type IV matters are considered initially by the
Planning Commission with final decisions made by the City Council.
FINDING: The proposed text amendment to the Tigard Development Code
establishes standards to be applied generally across the City. Therefore it
will be reviewed under the Type IV procedure as detailed in Section
18.390.060.6. In accordance with this section, the amendment is initially
being considered by the Planning Commission with City Council making
the final decision.
18.390.060.G. The recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the
Decision-making Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors:
considerations. 1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under
Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197;
2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable;
3. Any applicable Metro regulations;
4. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies;and
5. Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing
ordinances.
FINDING: Findings and conclusions for the proposed text amendment to the Tigard
Development Code are provided within this report. No federal or state
statutes or Metro regulations were found applicable.
CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above and below, approval criteria for a Type IV
decision are satisfied.
STAFF REPORT"1'O'll W PLANNING COMMISSION
D(:A2016-00001 Cemetery Gnve.Setback Oxlc Amendment PAGE 4 OF 7
APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
Chapter 1: Citizen Involvement
Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to
participate in all phases of the planning process.
Policy 2 The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in
each phase of the land use planning process.
Policy 5 The opportunities for citizen involvement provided by the City shall
be appropriate to the scale of the planning effort and shall involve a
broad cross-section of the community.
FINDING: Public Hearing notification requirements pursuant to Chapter 18.390.060 of
the Tigard Community Development Code were followed. A notice was
published in The Tigard Times in accordance with Tigard Development
Code Chapter 18.390 on July 21,2016. Public hearing notice of the Planning
Commission and City Council public hearings was sent to the interested
parties list on July 26,2016.
All notices invited public input and included the phone number and email of
a contact person to answer questions.The notice also included a link to the
City's webpage where the draft of the text changes could be viewed.
CONCLUSION: Based on the above findings,Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.1 Policies
2 and 5 are met
Chapter 2: Land Use Planning
Goal 2.1 Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action
plans as the legislative basis of Tigard's land use planning program.
Policy 1 The City's land use program shall establish a clear policy direction,
comply with state and regional requirements, and serve its citizens'
own interests.
Policy 2 The City's land use regulations,related plans, and implementing
actions shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive
Plan.
Policy 5 The City shall promote intense urban level development in Metro-
designated Centers and Corridors, and employment and industrial
areas.
FINDING: The proposed amendment is not regulated by state or regional requirements
and would serve the Cemetery Association's interests in maximizing the
STAFF REPORT TO T11E PLANNING COMMISSION
DC:A2016-00001 Cmetery Grave.Setback Code Amendment PAGE 5 OF 7
development potential within the existing grounds of the Crescent Grove
Cemetery. The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan and implements applicable provisions as shown in the
analysis in this report.The Crescent Grove Cemetery is located in the Metro-
designated Washington Square Regional Center, where the proposed
amendment would support more intense urban level development. The
proposed development code amendment would update the implementing
regulations as the legislative basis of Tigard's land use planning program.
CONCLUSION: Based on the above findings,Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 2.1 Policies
1,2,and 5 are met.
Chapter 9: Economic Development
Goal 9.1 Develop and maintain a strong,diversified,and sustainable local economy.
Policy 1 The City shall establish strategies to retain and encourage the growth
of existing businesses.
FINDING: The proposed text amendment would allow maximum use of land designed
for the cemetery's purpose of providing internment opportunities to future
generations,which would help maintain a sustainable local economy.
Goal 9.3 Make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live and do business.
Policy 2 The City shall adopt land use regulations and standards to ensure a
well-designed and attractive urban environment that
supports/protects public and private sector investments.
FINDING: The proposed text amendment would remove a standard that unnecessarily
restricts private sector investment within the city.
CONCLUSION: Based on the above findings,Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 9.1,Policy 1
and Goal 9.3,Policy 2,are met.
THE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES ADOPTED UNDER OREGON
REVISED STATUTES CHAPTER 197
The City's Comprehensive Plan incorporated the Statewide Planning Goals and was acknowledged by
the state as being in compliance with state law;therefore,the Statewide Goals are addressed under the
Comprehensive Plan Policies Sections.The following Statewide Planning Goals are applicable:
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement;Goal 2: Land Use Planning;Goal 9: Economic Development;
SECTION VI. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF COMMENTS
The City Attorney reviewed the proposal and determined that there were no state provisions or land
use laws applicable to cemetery grave site setbacks.
STAFF RI:PORI'TO TI IF,PLANNING COMMISSION
DCA2016-00001 Cemetery Grave Setback Code Amendment PAGE,6 OF 7
SECTION VII. OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS
Metro Land Use and Planning and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
had an opportunity to review this proposal and did not respond.
SECTION VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No public comments were received.
SECTION IX. CONCLUSION
The proposed code amendment complies with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals, the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan, and applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. Therefore,
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the
proposed amendment included in Attachment 1 of this report.
September 26,2016
PREPARE"B : G ry agenstecher DATE
Ass to Planner
l September 26,2016
APPROVED BY: Tom cGuire DATE
Assistant Community Development Director
Attachment 1: Draft Text Amendment,Chapter 18.330—Conditional Use
S'I'AI-'I�RI{l'OR'1'1'0'1'11E PLANNING COMMISSION
DCA2016-00001 Cemetery Grave Setback Cale Amendment PAG 1'.7 OP 7
DCA2016-00001
CEMETERY SETBACKS
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
Explanation of Formatting
These text amendments employ the following formatting:
Striket#raegh - Text to be deleted
[Bold, Underline and Italic] — Text to be added
Chapter 18.330
CONDITIONAL USE
18.330.050 Additional Development Standards for Conditional Use Types
A.Concurrent variance application(s). A conditional use permit shall not grant variances to the
regulations otherwise prescribed by this title. A variance application(s)may be filed in conjunction with
the conditional use application and both applications may be heard at the same hearing.
B. Additional development standards.The additional dimensional requirements and approval standards
for conditional use are as follows:
10.Cemeteries:
a. The minimum lot size shall be five acres;
b. Setbacks:
i. Fer-gmyes effl�-
;
(G)The Fear-yaFd setbaeles shall be a minimum ef 15 feet,
ii. For structures only:
(A)The front yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 25 feet;
(B)On corner lots and through lots,the setbacks shall be a minimum of 25 feet on any side facing
a street, plus meet visual clearance areas,Chapter 18.795;
(C)The side yard setback shall be a minimum of 25 feet;and
(D)The rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 25 feet.
c. Adequate fencing shall be provided. A fence of at least four feet in height located at least 2-1/2 feet
from any right-of-way shall completely surround the area and shall meet visual clearance areas;and
d. There are no off-street parking requirements.
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
October 3, 2016
CALL TO ORDER
President Fitzgerald 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 Fitzgerald
Alt. Commissioner Enloe
Commissioner Hu
Commissioner Jelinek
Commissioner Lieuallen
Commissioner McDowell
Commissioner Middaugh
Alt. Commissioner Mooney
Commissioner Muldoon
Commissioner Schmidt
Absent: Vice President Feeney
Staff Present: Gary Pagenstecher;Associate Planner; Tom McGuire,Assistant
Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin,Executive Assistant;
Greg Berry, Engineer
CHANGE OF AGENDA ITEM ORDER
President Fitzgerald told the commissioners that the applicant for agenda item #6 regarding
cemetery setbacks had asked to be heard first; she asked if anyone objected. Since no concern or
objections were expressed from the audience, the commissioners, or the other applicant,
President Fitzgerald announced that DCA2016-00001 Cemetery Setbacks would be heard first,
followed by River Terrace Multi-Family (PDR) 2016-00008; (SDR) 2016-00005.
COMMUNICATIONS —Commissioner Middaugh noted he and three other commissioners
had attended Planning Commission Training in Salem in late September and that they had
learned a lot and found it useful. The other commissioners who'd attended the training agreed.
CONSIDER MINUTES
September 12,2016 Meeting Minutes: President Fitzgerald asked if there were any additions,
deletions, or corrections to the September 12 minutes; there being none, President Fitzgerald
declared the minutes approved as submitted.
October 3,2016 Page 1 of 9
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00001 CEMETERY SETBACKS
REQUEST: The City of Tigard Community Development Code, Section 18.330.050.B.10.b.1
applies specifically to cemeteries and requires a 15-foot setback for graves from all property
lines. The Crescent Grove Cemetery has made application to the City to approve a text
amendment to the Community Development Code to remove this setback requirement.
LOCATION: Citywide. ZONES: R-3.5, R-4.5, Low-Density Residential; R-7, Medium-
Density Residential; and I-L, Light Industrial. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA:
Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.380, and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan
Goals 1, 2; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2.
QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS
President Fitzgerald 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: Commissioner Middaugh stated that his living
parents own plots at this cemetery, however he's confident he can make a decision without bias.
Site visitations: All commissioners present had visited. No one wished to challenge the
jurisdiction of the commission.
STAFF REPORT
Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard Associate Planner, explained that this was a very unusual
development code amendment- a one of a kind. The applicant did a thorough survey of the
context within which this section of the code exists in our Development Code. This exists
nowhere else that staff could find in the metropolitan area, neighboring cities, or even the
county to the extent that it references setbacks for gravesites. Staff finds that there's no reason
to keep the setback provision.
This started out as a legislative review, as development code amendments typically are, but it
was proposed by a specific landowner—the cemetery association (two) — so we revised this to
be a quasi-judicial review and provided notice to property owners within 500 feet of both of the
cemeteries. The city received no comments in response to those notices. Additionally,we
received no comments or objections from the mall owner around Crescent Grove Cemetery.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find in favor of the proposed text amendment
with any alterations as determined through the public hearing process, and that they make a final
recommendation to Tigard City Council.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
Keith Jones—Sr. Land Use Planner of Harper Houf Perterson Righellis - the applicant's
representative, introduced himself and the woman beside him - Nancy Felton, General Manager
for Crescent Grove Cemetery. Mr.Jones noted the cemetery is about 22 acres—most of it
platted. Three acres of the property is at the north end un-platted. Crescent Grove hired his firm
to come in and plat these additional gravesites, and to do a design for an access road and a
October 3, 2016 Page 2 of 9
stormwater facility. He said he helped prepare the application for this text amendment. During
that process, the 15 foot setback requirement was discovered. He said he'd had conversations
with staff to try to resolve that issue. That's when they did some research. The cemetery has
been around since 1852—a long time. The city adopted zoning in 1967 and then the cemetery
was in Unincorporated Washington County until 1986 when it was annexed. At that time, the
setback provision was placed on the cemetery. So for 132 years the cemetery did not have
setbacks, and most of the plots are platted towards the fence line. There's a concrete berm
around the boundary with a metal fence on top of that. The fence is inside the property line by
about 10 inches. So when they excavate a gravesite, it's going to be probably another foot back -
so it'll be at least two feet back from the property line. The fence is clearly demarcating the
boundaries of the cemetery.This will only apply to about two cemeteries. He noted cremations
are going up in numbers and becoming much more common;land is very finite—particularly in
Tigard where land is at a minimum. If this setback is imposed,it will effectively take away what
they calculate to be 363 grave plots. They want to plat out about 2700. So it's a significant
impact. He said that going forward— they agree with the staff recommendation to the Planning
Commission and would request the same.
QUESTIONS
Most questions and discussion from the commissioners centered on whether a zero set-back
might be a mistake and possibly cause problems for neighbors of cemeteries whose property
may abut it.
TESTIMONY IN FAVOR—None.
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION —None.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
DELIBERATION
Deliberation centered on whether a 2 '/z foot buffer might be better than a zero setback.
After a rather lengthy deliberation, President Fitzgerald asked all the commissioners to weigh in
with their thoughts. The commission was divided as to whether to go with staff's
recommendation or to change it to include a 2 1/2 foot buffer to prevent people from
accidentally hitting a casket while digging a fence, or perhaps planting a tree. One of the
commissioners thought that imposing a 2 1/2 foot buffer where it's not a problem (next to a road
for instance) is unnecessary and that perhaps they should require that buffer only when needed.
Others agreed with staff's recommendation as is.
President Fitzgerald said she would entertain a motion to see where the commissioners are at
and if they have a majority one way or the other. She noted that this is just a recommendation
and that the City Council could take into account the other commissioner's concerns over the 2
1/2 foot buffer idea if they believe it warrants action.
October 3,2016 Page 3 of 9
MOTION
Commissioner Hu made the following motion: "I move that the Planning Commission
forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council of application number
DCA2016-00001 and adoption of the findings contained in the staff report and based on
the testimony received." Commissioner Jelinek seconded the recommendation.
In favor, Commissioners Jelinek, Fitzgerald, Hu, Middaugh, and McDowell.
Opposed—Commissioners Lieuallen,Muldoon, and Schmidt.
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PASSES 5 -3.
RE-OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
President Fitzgerald re-opened the continued hearing from August 29.
PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) 7:05 p.m.
RIVER TERRACE EAST MULTI-FAMILY
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2016-00008;
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2016-00005
REQUEST: Concurrent Planned Development Concept Plan and Detailed Development Plan
review is requested for the River Terrace East multifamily site,which will include 141
multifamily dwelling units in nine buildings on a 4.97- acre site. The Tigard Planning
Commission approved the River Terrace East planned development conceptual plan on August
24, 2015 (case files PDR2015-00006, SUB201-50009, and SLR2015-00007). This application is
for the development of the multifamily lot of the River Terrace East planned development.
LOCATION: 13240 SW Roy Rogers Road, east of SW Roy Rogers Road;Washington County
Tax Map 2S10600 Tax Lots 01400 and 01401. ZONES: R-25(PD): Medium High-Density
Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code
Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.510, 18.660, 18.705, 18.715, 18.720, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790,
18.795 and 18.810.
QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS
President Fitzgerald 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 visitations: Commissioners Mooney,
Lieuallen, Muldoon, Schmidt, Hu, Middaugh, and McDowell. No one wished to challenge the
jurisdiction of the commission.
STAFF REPORT
Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard Associate Planner,went over the Concept Plan portion of the
staff report first. He said he will review the Detailed Plan portion of the report after the
Concept Plan has been deliberated and moved upon by the commission. (Staff reports are available
on the City website one week before public hearings.) Gary went over the history of the first hearing. He
October 3, 2016 Page 4 of 9
noted that at the August 29 hearing, staff had recommended denial of the original concept plan
because of some unsettled circumstances regarding stormwater—and also because of the
approximate ten percent slope that is characteristic of the site and how the proposal was dealing
with that. As a result of staff's recommendation to deny, the applicant requested to continue the
original hearing to have time to provide additional information to address those shortcomings
that were the basis of the denial. The hearing was continued to October 3 at that time. On
September 12 the applicant resubnutted revised plans. The reason for the denial
recommendation was that in staff's view, the natural features of the site according to the
concept plan approval criteria were not fully protected. The overall slope of the site was the
natural feature - not a sensitive land, but a natural characteristic of the land. The original
proposal had substantial retaining walls all along Roy Rogers Road at about 10 feet in height or
so and running about 500' in length. The applicant had said that was so they could level the site
sufficiently to step the buildings north to south - but not east to west. The innovation of this
newly revised proposal is where they've stepped the buildings east to west as well, and lowered
the retaining walls along Roy Rogers Road - such that staff can now recommend approval of the
concept plan. Gary noted the applicant will go into detail about the other changes they'd made.
QUESTIONS
Commissioner Muldoon questioned the staff recommendation where it was noted in the last
sentence (that he assumes refers to condition nine),where it says "Staff further recommends
that the request to defer compliance with Section 18.660.030.B to final plat approval be
granted."
Gary Pagenstecher said that looked to be an error on the staff recommendation and asked that
the Developmental Review Engineer, who was in the audience, come up and address that. Greg
Berry came up and confirmed that the last sentence in the recommendation was in error because
this isn't a sub-division. He said "Condition Nine requires the applicant to submit a written
deferral agreement- and there's no reference to a plat. Condition Nine states: "Prior to any site
work, the applicant shall submit a written deferral agreement in a form satisfactory to the City
that meets the requirements of 18.660.030.C.2.b" and that condition remains in effect. So they
have to meet Condition Nine—but there is no "plat" - therefore, the last sentence of the staff
recommendation should be stricken."
The question was asked if there are other government bodies that are involved in whatever goes
on here —Clean Water Services, etc. If so, have they made determinations, or are they in the
process of? Is there some dependence upon what we do here or vice versa—to move this matter
along? The comment letters are attached to the decision. Those comments are included in whole and have been
incorporated in the body of the recommendation to the Planning Commission. However, there is some outstanding
reviews occurring for the off-site stormwater facilities which the applicant can address.
Another commissioner said he wanted to make sure that everything in the 45 pages of
conditions was either met, deemed not applicable, or is in the process of being met. Is that the
case? Yes, that is my conclusion. The applicable criteria are met or have otherwise been conditioned to be met.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION REGARDING THE CONCEPT PLAN
October 3,2016 Page 5 of 9
Li Alligood, Sr. Planner with OTAK, the applicant's representative, introduced herself- along
with her OTAK colleague, Steve Dixon. Li went through a presentation regarding the Concept
Design (Exhibit A). She said they had reviewed the conditions of approval as had the
applicant's attorney, and they all completely agree with staff's recommendations.
Their request is for concurrent Planned Development Concept Plan and Detailed Development
Plan. They are proposing 141 dwelling units in 9 buildings within the River Terrace East
Planned Development (approved as PDR 2015-00006) —eight of those are multi-family
buildings and one is a clubhouse that includes dwelling units and also some recreational uses.
The Concept Design consists of building placement,pedestrian and vehicular circulation, as well
as usable open space. At this point, Steve Dixon came up and explained how they had decided
upon those circulation routes. Steve noted the site is characterized by the grade— an
approximate 40' fall from north to south— from the PGE substation down to the future Road A
and the forested area. The upper half slopes approximately 20' from east to west towards Roy
Rogers. That grade became the primary challenge as to how to site the buildings. He went on to
explain the Concept Plan while trying not to confuse it with the Detailed Plan. Going back to
the previous plan, they'd looked at trying to skew the buildings so that they actually sat and
worked with the grade stepping down the hill. However, that left awkward small spaces as the
buildings ran into the edges of the site and it became difficult to circulate around those. It still
left them with the challenge of addressing the fall from east to west. In theory it appears to work
better with the grade, but with the site work they were able to step those buildings and they
believe this is a more meaningful site plan.
QUESTIONS ABOUT CONCEPT PLAN —None.
TESTIMONY IN FAVOR—None
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION—None
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED FOR THE CONCEPT PLAN
DELIBERATION ON CONCEPT PLAN
After a very short deliberation - one or two comments - a motion was made.
MOTION
Commissioner Muldoon moved: "Regarding River Terrace East, Multi-Family Planned
Development PDR2016-00008 and Site Development Review SDR2016-00005, I move for
approval of the application and adoption of the findings pertaining to the Concept Plan
with its Conditions of Approval within the staff report." Commissioner Middaugh seconded
the motion.
All in favor—none opposed.
CONCEPT PLAN PASSES UNANIMOUSLY
October 3, 2016 Page 6 of 9
REOPENED HEARING FOR DETAILED PLAN
STAFF REPORT ON DETAILED PLAN
The staff ff report is available on-line at the City website one week prior to the hearing.
Associate Planner Gary Pagenstecher said he would focus his comments on—not describing the
project, because the applicant would do a more thorough job of describing it. His comments
were focused on the elements that it takes to get an approval for this project. With those
conditions— staff recommends approval.
APPLICANT CONTINUES PRESENTATION REGARDING DETAILED PLAN
Li Alligood and Steve Dixon noted that as part of the detailed design package they'd provided
some models to demonstrate what the open space looks like and how the buildings interact with
each other and with the space. These models can be seen on Exhibit A, Pages 9-11. Li and Steve
went over each page elaborating on the various features—noting particularly, the ADA
accessibility and the step down of the buildings down the site.
Ben Bortolazzo, the urban designer (and building designer) with OTAK, briefly described the
concept of the detailed design of the buildings. He noted the buildings are four stories on the
downhill side—the south side - and three stories on the uphill side to negotiate the grade. On
page 14 of Exhibit A there are examples of two of the most representative buildings - the 12-
Plex and 21/22-flex units. The number of units vary simply due to the orientation to the
building—whether there's a garage on the downhill side or on the uphill side. For instance, the
12-plex on top has the garage on the downhill side so you can have it on the uphill... that will
basically be the side that has only three stories. The architecture tries to break up the building as
much as possible—especially for the longer building—the 21/22-Plex— they try to break that
up almost like town homes so you'd try to generally emphasize the living areas so there are
typically three windows —plenty of light and air. The top units are all vaulted ceilings and they
are also trying to take advantage of views. Wherever possible they try to have living units on the
corners, therefore capitalizing on the views.
Steve Dixon went over the revised site grading and the challenges. The challenges were the high
retaining walls along Roy Rogers. They lowered them by creating additional retaining on the east
side of the project. Those walls lower the site in relation to the townhomes— so those walls will
be exposed on our site. We're not building walls up above the townhome site. They created a
terraced system of retaining walls. The grade hasn't magically disappeared but they've tried to
minimize the visual impact—which is the primary issue.
Civil Engineer Mike Peebles from OTAK talked about the grading. The initial plan had some
very tall retaining walls and they were able to get down from a 20'wall down to 8 1/2 feet at the
north end and from a 10 '/z'wall to about 4 '/z' on the south end. The grade didn't go away—
they just managed it in different places,both on the east side through grade changes, through
the building, and some terracing of walls adjacent to Roy Rogers. Stormwater facility-wise Mr.
Peebles went over pages 19 —27 of Exhibit A detailing the revisions.
October 3, 2016 Page 7 of 9
In conclusion, the OTAK team said they had worked closely with staff to address concerns
related to grading and stormwater facility design; staff recommends approval; and the applicant
respectfully requests approval of the application
QUESTIONS
With four stories—will there be stairways or elevators —will they be accessible for people with
physical disabilities? Generally speaking, these are buildings that don't have elevators, so we're required to
provide accessibility for theground floor units only.
Was the issue of traffic noise addressed? Wle don't expect there to be a noise issue.
There were a few more questions and comments regarding rental/market rates; parking spaces;
and walk-ability—which were addressed by the applicant and staff.
TESTIMONY IN FAVOR—None
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION—None
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
DELIBERATION ON DETAILED PLAN
Deliberation was very short. The consensus of the commission was very favorable. They liked
the detailed plan; the natural feature of the slope; the plan; the creative clean solution—
especially around the drainage issue; and they think the plan looks great.
The commissioners commended staff and the applicant saying they'd done a terrific job. They
feel very good about this proposal.
The large number of conditions gave one commissioner pause. However, she believes this is
much better than the first time around.
MOTION
There was an original motion made that inadvertently left off striking the last sentence of the
staff recommendation; so, after a bit more deliberation, the final motion was made by
Commissioner Muldoon and seconded by Commissioner McDowell.
"Regarding the DETAILED PLAN - River Terrace East, Multi-Family Planned
Development PDR2016-00008 and Site Development Review SDR2016-00005, I move for
APPROVAL of the application and adoption of the findings and Conditions of Approval
within the staff report and that we strike the last sentence in the staff recommendation
which reads: 'Stafffurther recommends that the request to defer compliance with ;section
13.660.030.B to final plat approval be granted' as discussed in the hearing tonight."
October 3,2016 Page 8 of 9
All in favor—none opposed.
RESULT:
MOTION TO APPROVE THE DETAILED PLAN PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
OTHER BUSINESS —Tom McGuire asked the commissioners how they thought the joint
meeting with the City Council went. The consensus was it went well and that they were
graciously received.
Tom also noted that there were new commissioners, and that they would be possibly adding
even more new commissioners at the end of the year. Because of this turnover, he asked if the
commissioners would like to set up a tour of River Terrace again. (A tour had taken place a few
years prior). The answer was yes, a River Terrace tour after the first of the year would be great.
Staff will plan on that.
ADJOURNMENT
President Fitzgerald adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Doreen Laughlin,Planning Commission Secretary
ATTEST: President Fitzgerald
October 3,2016 Page 9 of 9