Loading...
03/14/2022 - MinutesMarch 14, 2022 Page 1 of 11 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes, March 14, 2022 Members Remote in via Microsoft Teams Link to virtual hearing online: www.tigard-or.gov/virtualPC ´/LVWHQ2QO\µ phone number: 503-718-3816 CALL TO ORDER President Hu called the meeting to order and opened the hearing at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: President Hu Vice President Jackson Commissioner Brandt Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Schuck Commissioner Watson Absent: Commissioner Miranda; Commissioner (K7) Tiruvallur Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director; Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant ; Joe Wisniewski, Assistant City Engineer, Jeremy Tamargo, Assistant City Engineer; Shelby Rihala, City Attorney COMMUNICATIONS ² President Hu thanked the commissioners for attending the joint Planning Commission /City Council meeting that had taken place recently. He thought it went very well. CONSIDER MINUTES President Hu asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the 2/28/22 minutes; there being none, President Hu declared the minutes approved as submitted. CEDARBROOK QUASI-JUDICIAL ANNEXATION / SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CASE NO. ZCA2021-00001 / SDR2021-00001 PROPOSAL: The applicant requests to annex the three (3) properties listed totaling 2.56 acres into the City of Tigard. The applicant is requesting approval of a four -story assisted living and memory care facility with associated parking, landscaping, and other site improvements. LOCATION: 9355 and 9415 SW Hall Boulevard HISTORY OF CONTINUATION March 14, 2022 Page 2 of 11 President Hu gave a brief procedural history of the case. The Commission had voted to continue the hearing twice. The first continuation took place on January 10, when the hearing was continued to February 28 upon the request of the applicant. On that day there was no staff report, nor did they receive any public comment. During the continued hearing on February 28th, shortly after staff began the presentation, they were informed that there were technical difficulties associated with the Teams Meeting App. A recess was called and granted to check into the problem. After a while, it was evident that the technical difficulties could not be resolved that evening, so the Planning Commission voted to continue the hearing to March 15th. President Hu noted that the presentation this evening would be started again from the very beginning. HEARING STATEMENTS President Hu read through the required hearing statements. DESCRIPTION OF HEARING PROCESS President Hu gave a brief description of how the hearing would proceed: ´First the staff will give their staff report - then the applicant will make their presentation. After that, public testimony will be taken. To the members of the public - if you·GOLNHWRSURYLGH testimony, please call 503-966-$VLQGLFDWHGE\WKHSXEOLFKHDULQJQRWLFHRQWKH&LW\·V website, the phone line will be open between 7:15 pm and 8 pm. Testifiers will need to call in during that time period in order to secure a place in the phone queue for testimony. Following public testimony, staff will be given time for any follow-up or response to testimony. The applicant will then be given an opportunity to respond to all testimony.µ PROCEDURAL ITEMS Do any commission members wish to abstain or declare a conflict of interest? None. Do any commission members wish to report any ex parte contacts? President Hu noted that he and Vice President Jackson had a meeting with staff regarding the logistics of this hearing ² but nothing substantive was discussed about this case. Has any commission member visited the site of the proposal? President Hu, Schuck, Brandt, and Vice President Jackson had visited the site. To members of the public, if you wish to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission, please call the public testimony phone number 503-966-4101, and state so when we take public testimony. There were no challenges to the jurisdiction of the commission. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Agnes Lindor introduced herself and the item she was bringing before the commission ² the Cedarbrook Annexation and Site Development Proposal. She began her staff report by pulling up a PowerPoint (Exhibit A) and sharing her screen. She went over the project location development site. She noted that the annexation is 3 lots totaling 2.53 Acres and is transit-oriented zoned to R-18 thru 24. The proposed zoning will be Mixed-Use Residential 1 (MUR1). The site borders a townhouse development to the west of the site, and single detached houses to the south and east ² as well as Hall Blvd to the north. She went over the Project Summary. This will be a four-story 182-bed Assisted Living facility. She noted that since the last March 14, 2022 Page 3 of 11 staff report had recommended denial, she highlighted the following changes to the site plan that were made from the previous iteration (slide 5): 1. The public cul-de-sac shown on Montage Lane previously had been shown as a private hammerhead turnaround. 2. Regarding the loading area, the building was located closer to the street in the previous site plan ² not allowing enough room for an S-4 screen to be located on the site and it pushed the S-4 screen into the public right-of-way which, was not allowed. The applicant has moved the building back to accommodate the S -4 screen of the loading area. 3. Building set-EDFN«SUHYLRXVO\LWZDVH[FHHGLQJWKHPD[LPXPVWUHHWVLGHVHWEDFNRI feet ² now with the public cul-de-sac, it meets the maximum 20-foot set-back. 4. 8-ft multi-use path ² because a full street connection is not required, a pedestrian connection is required ² so the applicant is showing a public access easement 8-foot multi-use path that goes from Montage Lane through the site to Hall Blvd. 5. Clear Vision area requirements were not met on Hall; however, now they are met. For the record, Ms. Lindor stated that she had received a phone call from Mr. Jim Long asking about the comment period deadline. She also received several comments up until the hearing today. A ll the public comments received had been forwarded to the commissioners prior to this meeting. Lastly, there were some staff report edits that were provided by President Hu and Vice President Jackson ² most of which were left-over scrivener errors. Those will all be cleaned up, as well as a condition in the findings that hadn·W been carried over to the Conditions of Approval. All of th ose corrections will be taken care of in the Planning Commission draft recommendation to City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the annexation meets the approval criteria in the Tigard Community Development Code, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, the Metro Code, and state statutes ² and that the proposal provides detailed information on how all of the applicable site development approval criteria and standards are met or will be met through Conditions of Approval. Based on that, the applicant materials, and staff review, staff recommends APPROVAL of both the Annexation and the Site Development Review, subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the Staff Report. QUESTIONS There was a question regarding the wetlands onsite being considered jurisdictional but not Tigard significant. Is that mainly a function of it being currently outside City limits? In other words, if the site had been a part of Tigard for the last 10 years ² would that wetland have been considered a Tigard significant wetland? NRZKHQLW·VMXULVGLFWLRQDO ZHWODQGLWPHDQVWKDWWKH&LW\RI7LJDUGGRHVQ·WKDYHMXULVGLFWLRQRYHUit and the applicant would need to pursue permits with the Army Corp of Engineers and Department of State Lands (DSL) for any kind of fill or any kind of modification to the wetland. T he Tigard Significant Wetlands are identified through the Comprehensive Plan update and are placed on our inventory. March 14, 2022 Page 4 of 11 There was a question asking´,f SW 92nd is going to be widened - and will it serve as access for emergency vehicles in two lanes of traffic and parking? Jeremy Tamargo, Assistant City Engineer addressed the question, ´Yes, regarding SW 92nd Avenue - the applicant will be providing half-street improvements including dedication of right-of-way. There will be 27 feet of right-of-way from the center line, so it will meet our local street standards in terms of the street width as well as curb, planter-strip, and sidewalk. So yes, it will be widened. The applicant has provided information² you can look on the provided Civil Sheets 103, 104, 106 and 107 showing how the improvements meet our local street standards. Regarding Emergency Vehicle access and circulation, the applicant has provided an auto turn plan showing how that circulation will be provided to and through the site.µ There was a question about ODOT standards regarding crosswalks on Hall Blvd. -HUHP\ VDLGKHZDVQ·WVSHFLILFDOO\ZHOO-versed in ODOT standards, and that question would be better directed to the ODOT Reviewer rather than him. HH·VVXUHWKDW question would be addressed through their plan review and through their permitting process. The applicant would need to meet the standards set forth in the ODOT Manual. $33/,&$17·635(6(1TATION Tim Taylor, the applicant with Adamson Buildings noted that he partnered with Mosaic Management to do the Cedarbrook Development. He said he believes the development being proposed would cause the least impact on traffic of anything that could be put on that site. $QRWKHUGHYHORSHUFRXOGWHFKQLFDOO\SXWDSDUWPHQWXQLWVDWDKHLJKWRIXSWR· on that site. If he stayed within Washington County, he could build up to 60 townhomes on that site. Going through the entire process they decided that, considering the amount of traffic that would be generated, an assisted living facility would be the best use for that site. It would provide much needed housing for seniors in the community. He noted that this property is located in an opportunity zone. What that means is that they encourage economic development in areas that are economically depressed. This is one of those zones, so they decided to balance those needs with the impact of the surrounding area7KH\GRQ·WNQRZRIDQ\RWKHUGHYHORSPHQWWKDW could be proposed for that site that would 1) create the employment opportunities that are desperately needed to coincide with the opportunity zone; and 2) align with the Washington Square Regional Center which basically is leaning toward more compact, higher density development. They believe an assisted living facility would be the best option for the surrounding area. Mr. Taylor introduced the staff and team that were present to comment if needed. Sam Thomas, Sr. Land use specialist, pulled up the applicant presentation (Exhibit B). He went through the proposal (slide 1). He noted that Mosaic Management is based in Salem, and they own and operate several senior care residences in Oregon. He went over the typical resident profile & daily operations (slides 4 & 5). He noted that there will be no connection between SW 92nd Avenue and Hall Blvd. The new connection will be the extension of Montage Lane as a public cul-de-sac with street improvements, such as sidewalks, etc. The main access to the site is directly from SW Hall Blvd. He went through some photos of typical suite interiors and typical floor plans & exterior renderings (slides 7 ² 11). March 14, 2022 Page 5 of 11 He addressed some of the neighbor concerns to date via public comments (slide 12). Regarding the height of the buildings, WKHSURSRVHGKHLJKWLV·µ ² WKH085DOORZHGKHLJKWLVXSWR· He addressed a comment that had been submitted. It had stated that the proposed project will be similar in height to the nearby Lincoln Center Towers on Greenberg Road. He said WKDW·VQRW true, they·UH well below 12 stories in height. He then went over the parking ratios compared to facilities in three other cities in California as well as one in Cottage Grove, Oregon. All had similar parking space ratios. They believe the proposed parking is sufficient and in line with similar facilities (slide 14). All facilities provide enough parking on site to meet the needs of the community. He spoke to other neighbor concerns regarding traffic, parking, loading area and refuse pickup (slide 12). He addressed the neighbors concerns regarding heavy traffic along 92 nd Ave and Montage Lane (slide 16). He continued with other concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility and noise (slide 18) and went over the neighbors concerns regarding the city GHILQHG´'ZHOOLQJ8QLWVµ '8 ² giving the definition in slides 19 & 20. He summarized that this has City staff approval; it meets all approval standards; it provides a needed housing type for Tigard; provides additional jobs to the local economy; and there would be public infrastructure in an underserved area (sidewalks, streetlights, and public pathway). They would like to move forward with this project. QUESTIONS There was a question about whether 92nd would connect to Hall Blvd. No, it will not connect. There was another question regarding traffic and the 80/20% estimate vs the 95/5%. Kittelson representative, Kristin said the traffic study shows a 5% estimated site traffic out through the cul-de-sac to 92nd. They anticipate 15% coming up n/b on Greenburg, making a right turn onto Hall Blvd, and entering via the main access on Hall Blvd. Considering the site lay-out, that would give them a more direct access to the parking and the front entryway to the site. Those percentages are derived based on existing travel patterns in the area as well as engineering judgment. Only 5% is expected to access the site via SW 92nd Ave ² SW Montage Lane. There was another question about the possibility of a crosswalk on Hall. Kristin said WKH\ZRXOGKDYHWRFRRUGLQDWHZLWK2'27RQWKDWSRLQW6LQFHWKDWKDGQ·WEHHQEURXJKW up previously, WKH\KDGQ·WORRNHGLQWRRWKHULVVXHVWKDWPD\DULVHZLWKSURYLGLQJVXFKDFURVVLQJ She did note; however, that WKHUH·VOHIt turn access to both streets - and that often is an issue with requesting crossings« EHFDXVH\RX·UHSXWWLQJWKHP directly in front of left turns. She EHOLHYHVLW·V likely not a consideration at this point due to that reason. STATEMENTS REGARDING APPLICABLE CRITERIA President Hu reminded the commissioners and the public that the only issue before the Planning Commission is whether the application does or does not comply with the applicable approval criteria. If it does comply with the criteria or can, subject to the conditions of approval, the Planning Commission must approve it subject to those conditions. If the application does not comply with the applicable criteria or if the conditions of approval are not sufficient, the Planning Commission must deny the application. PUBLIC TESTIMONY March 14, 2022 Page 6 of 11 Lindsey Eick ² Not against the proposal; however, is concerned about increased access on 92nd ² a quiet neighborhood; and is concerned about additional traffic ² even if iW·VGXULQJ´RIIµ times. Against traffic filtering through the normally safe neighborhood. Robert Ruedy ² Opposed ² 'RHVQ·WOLNHWKHSUH-application process regarding testimony. He referred to his written testimony submitted earlier. He believes the staff report is incomplete and so the commission has not seen the entire record. Expressed a request for an extension. Diane Bowman ² Opposed to the development. Lives in Metzger neighborhood - iW·VSOHDVDQW as is. Regarding Greenburg & Hall - concerned about traffic & people taking shortcut s. Wants a crosswalk ² concerned about jay-walking ² a safety risk. Kathleen Noonan ² Opposed to the development. She had safety and livability issues ² said they were hazardous conditions. She believes this development would adversely affect her community. She wants an extension. Vanda Makris ² Opposed to the development. %HOLHYHVLW·VDdetriment to the neighborhood. It will cause reduction of quality of life. Believes the design team had no concern for neighbors; it will be unsightly; she·s concerned about noise problems. QUESTION to the caller from Commissioner Schuck ² ´7his is zoned commercial and could be multi-family. Are you opposed to all development?µ No ² it needs to be developed ² her issues are with this particular development. 6KH·Vopposed to access points outside her front door that will cause a burden. Michael Neunzert ² Opposed to certain aspects of the development. Particularly the de facto truck entrance is the Montage Lane cul-de-sac. +H·VDgainst commercial traffic and wrote to the Planning Commission in December when he laid out the logic for that and what code it might be in disagreement with. He believes the driveway being proposed (from the Hall entrance around the back of the building to the cul-de-sac) is too narrow and curvy for truck use. He said LW·V a violation of the Washington County Transportation Plan and that not a single street south of that neighborhood meet any of the design criteria in that plan. Charlie Daniels ² could not be understood ² his monitor was on, causing a lot of feedback. After 2 or 3 minutes of trying to understand him, President Hu asked IT to put him back into the telephone queue. Shayla Kotadia & Justin Crest were against the proposal. Their main concerns centered around safety, particularly safety of the children in the area. Their daughter had been hit by a car and traffic is very concerning to them both. They are worried about it increasing. Currently, there are not enough lights on the streets. At night 92nd has very limited visibility. There are no sidewalks and only ditches to jump into to avoid cars if needed. They feel unsafe. They would like a crosswalk off of Hall. Rachel Stoller ² is opposed to the current development plan ² sKH·VQRWRSSRVHGWR development on that land, but it·s the current proposal with through traffic going through her neighborhood and an entrance right in front of her townhome that VKH·VDJDLQVWShe and her husband have several issues, particularly the distance from the loading dock and entrance to the parking garage right in front of their front door. Dan Stoller ² is also opposed to the development. He gave a PowerPoint presentation which Agnes shared (Exhibit C). His proposal is to move the noise of the loading dock, employee parking garage and trash pickup toward Hall Blvd while keeping Montage L ane a dead-end ² not accessible for the Cedarbrook facility . Basically, disconnect the proposed development from the surrounding community (no connection with Montage Lane, all entry/exits off of Hall Blvd). March 14, 2022 Page 7 of 11 She would also like them to add a sound reducing wall around the entire perimeter , and consolidate drop off locations into one. Juanita Garnow ² is opposed to the application as currently designed. The main concern is that the property that has been proposed to develop contains several Oregon white oak trees. Concerned about the wildlife and pollinators as well. Jan Erickson ² is opposed to the development. She read through her previously submitted written testimony. She believes the developer is being favored with their half-street utility easement and that the easement should be required to be located along the frontage of Hall Blvd outside of the required right of way . It appears; however, to be excluded from the proposed development drawings. She believes the facility is too big for the 2.56 -acre site and wants the plan and annexation denied. Steven Perry ² was unable to be understood as he had his monitor on, the content was about a minute delayed and that caused lots of feedback. After a few minutes of the feedback, Mr. Perry was put back into the queue. Theresa Gipson ² Opposed as currently designed ² She had previously submitted written testimony. Her main concern was traffic. She believes there will be an undue burden of traffic onto Montage and along 92nd. QUESTION ² Why do you think there will be a lot of traffic going through 92nd to Montage? In order to get there, \RX·GKDYHWRGULYHWKURXJK&RUHODQG/HPDQthrough there. ,W·VYHU\ indirect. Hall seems like the most direct way to access the facility. Why do you think there would be so much traffic coming from that indirect way? 6KHDQVZHUHG´)LUVWF oming off Greenburg 5GWKHUH·V/276RIWUDIILF coming up towards Hall ² particularly during holiday seasons when the road gets so crowded. People will cut-through Coral or Leman down 92nd and go through the back way through Montage. 6HFRQGO\FRPPHUFLDOYHKLFOHVDUHQ·WJRLQJWREHDEOHWRJHWLQ WKURXJK+DOODQGPDNHWKDWWXUQMXVWDVDILUHWUXFNZRXOGQ·WE e able to do so. So commercial vehicles will be coming through 92nd UDWKHUWKDQRIIRI+DOOµ FIVE MINUTE RECESS CALLED ² Commission will reconvene at 9:07. TESTIMONY CONTINUES Jim Long ² speaking on behalf of CPO4M said they are against the annexation & development . He believes this meeting should be continued . He ZDVXQDEOHWRKHDUWKHDSSOLFDQW·VDWWRUQH\ due to technical difficulties the applicant had. He agrees with many people who have already spoken and is concerned about needing a crosswalk. He noted there are potential violations to WKHFLW\·VFRGHWUDIILFFRQFHUQVLQDUHVLGHQWLDOQHLJKERUKRRGDQGQRLVHOHYHOVIURPHPHUJHQF\ vehicles. Their Attorney Ken Dobson was unable to attend this meeting and is out of cell phone range, another good reason for a continuance. +HGRHVQ·WWKLQNWKHUHZDVHQRXJKQRWLILFDWLRQ IRUSHRSOH+HGLGQ·WOLNHWKHPHHWLQJWKDWWRRNSODFHZLWK7LJDUGVWDII+HZDQWVWKLV meeting to be rescheduled to April 11. Tigard needs to follow their own Community Development Code. He believes the city should give full notice again. They need time to look at this. Sue Wirick ² is opposed to the development. Vehicle access is a major concern, and she wants all emergency vehicles to use the Hall Blvd entrance. To have them go through the neighborhood would slow down their arrival at the site. The noise from those vehicles would be March 14, 2022 Page 8 of 11 a huge issue because it could be at any time of the day. She w ants a crosswalk on 90th and Hall and wants Washington County to help with street improvements by adding lighting on Montage. Courtney Sjoberg ² is opposed to the development. H er house backs to where the development will be built. She dRHVQ·WOLNHWKHWUDIILF, and pedestrian safety is a concern. She EHOLHYHVLW·Vscary and dangerous to walk around their neighborhood now. Believes it will be ZRUVH6KH·VYHU\FRQFHUQHGWKDWWKH*36DSSFDOOHG´:Dzeµwill take people through neighborhoods6KHXVHVLWDQGLW·VYHU\SRSXODU,WRIWHQWLPHVZLOOWDNHSHRSOH through neighborhoods to get to places faster. She believes Waze will bring a lot of traffic through their QHLJKERUKRRGE\GHIDXOWEHFDXVHWKHUH·VDOZD\VDORWRIWUDIILFRQWKHRWKHUVWUHHWV6KH·VY ery concerned about Waze traffic flowing into that area. Additionally, she dRHVQ·WOLNHWKHKHLJKWRI the building. Because it will be only five feet away from her front door, her natural light will be cut off. She wants the community to be taken into account ² especially those so close to the project. QUESTION: Concerning the streets being scary and unsafe. The applicant is proposing several improvements that will address safety ² sidewalks, streetlights, bike lanes and wider streets . Are those not enough to address your concern? She answered, ´If the improvements are only on Montage and that little strip of 92nd - WKDW·VDWLQ\ZDONZD\I was hoping someone would put sidewalks all through the neighborhood. I would like to know if the improvements will go all the way down 92nd ² or just right near the Memory Center and the cul-de-sac. ,IWKDW·VWKHFDVH, then LWZRXOGQ·WEHHQRXJKµ (President Hu advised her that she could go to the City Website and download the actual plan to see what exactly is proposed.) Nate Blaszak ² is opposed ² Concerned about traffic and thinks half street improvements ZRQ·WKHOS+H·VFoncerned about his privacy and views this particular proposal as the less er of SRVVLEOH´HYLOVµThe height could be worse. If they were apartments, the traffic would be higher. He dLGQ·WOLNHWKHORRSKROHVUHJDUGLQJSDrking and is concerned about people cutting through WKHQHLJKERUKRRG+HGRHVQ·WEHOLHYHWKHUHZLOORQO\EHa 5% increase in traffic. Steven Perry ² is strongly opposed ² +H·VFoncerned about the community , traffic, and streets, as well as the height of the building. REQUESTS FOR A CONTINUANCE President Hu noted that at least three public testifiers were requesting a continuance . He asked that Assistant Community Development Director, Tom McGuire address that topic after the DSSOLFDQW·VUHVSRQVH RESPONSE FROM STAFF AND THE APPLICANT Ms. Lindor replied to Mr. RueG\·VFRPPHQWDERXWDFRPPHQWOHWWHUKHVXSSOLHGWRthe developer during the neighborhood meeting phase of the project. She noted that there was not a formal application at that time. So technically that happened before, so it was never part of the record - however WKDWFRPPHQWOHWWHUZDVVXEPLWWHGZLWKWKHDSSOLFDQW·VDSSOLFDWLRQSDFNDJH She wanted to make it clear that because it was in the application package that comment letter is definitely included in the record. March 14, 2022 Page 9 of 11 Regarding the comments about protection of the wetland. As already stated, this is a jurisdictional wetland. The City of Tigard does not regulate it. That would be addressed through the state, and the Army Corps of Engineers . Regarding retaining trees ² the way our code works, there are certain canopy requirements that a development must provide. The developer can choose to provide that canopy thro ugh preserved trees on the site , or they need to plant a certain percentage of canopy on the site. For this site LW·V. And for planted trees, the applicant is providing 34%. Regarding the service and trash areas ² there is no setback requirement from adjacent property lines. The only requirement for service areas that we have is that it cannot be located within 20 feet of a street property line. Regarding the Notification of the meeting. There was proper notification provided prior to the January 10th hearing ² which was continued to February 28 and now to this date. A s long as Planning Commission makes a motion to continue the hearing to a date and time certain, we GRQ·WKDYHWRUH-notice everythin g per the regular code requirements. Regarding Traffic, Stormwater, Access and Easements Assistant City Engineer Jeremy Tamargo replied. For our local streets there are comments regarding the traffic and the traffic distribution , VRWKHDSSOLFDQW·VWHDPZill speak to that more. He wanted to point out that from the Washington County traffic count t hat was referenced ² about 200 vehicles per day are on SW 92nd. Taking that existing number ² even if you add all the approximately 500 trips generated by the proposed development, that would still be within the design range for a local street. In terms of the code requirement, the applicant is meeting City Code criteria in terms of the improvements along the project frontage on SW Hall Blvd., SW 92nd, as well as Montage Lane. A number of the callers spoke to street and sidewalk improvements south of Montage Lane. For those existing streets ² 92nd and others ² those are existing streets under Washington County jurisdiction so it would not be applicable in terms of this development but is also outside the City of Tigard jurisdiction. Regarding Emergency vehicle access for the Hall Blvd driveway. The applicant has provided that auto -turn diagram showing the circulation plan for emergency vehicles is adequate. So, from a feasibility standpoint DQGDOVRLQWKH&RQGLWLRQVRI$SSURYDOWKH\·OOKDYH to get a sign off from TVF&R in terms of insuring that emergency vehicles will be able to access and circulate through the site. Agai n that will be a condition of approval prior to issuing the permit . Re garding stormwater for the site ² Exhibit R provided by the applicant is their preliminary drainage report that addresses those FRQFHUQVWKDWZHUHUDLVHG+HDQVZHUHG-DQ·VTXHVWLRQUHJD rding public improvement standards as well. Sam Thomas brought up the site plan (Proposed Site Plan) to explain some of the loading concerns. Between the neighboring townhomes t KHUH·VDfive-foot landscape buffer. He described how the landscaping and hardscaping would address it. The building dock would be below the adjacent grade of the townhomes to the west. There will be sidewalk that connects to Montage Lane on both sides. The 8-foot public access easement that circulates through the site to Hall Blvd from Montage lane. Around each public ROW you would have sidewalks, landscaping and street lighting. For 92nd we would have the proposed pedestrian walkway go underneath the covered entry to SW Hall Blvd. There is adequate space between the sidewalk and the building provided for streetlights (92nd, Hall and Montage Ln). March 14, 2022 Page 10 of 11 Wendie Kellington spoke to the question of traffic. She said there may be some confusion. She summarized that RQO\RIWKHIDFLOLW\·VWUDIILFZLOO use 92nd. 7KDW·VZKDWWKHHYLGHQFHLQWKH record demonstrates. It also demonstrates that it translates into two AM Peak Hour trips associated with the proposal - and only three PM Peak Hour trips will be on 92nd. That is what the only evidence in the record shows. The fact that Waze or Google or some other app is directing traffic to 92nd is not something this applicant can control. With regard to the impacts of the proposed development - we are talking about two Peak Hour AM trips, three Peak Hour PM trips and only 5% of the total traffic trips associated with the facility will use 92 nd. You have also seen that this development will leave 92 nd better than it found it. Whereas 92nd now feels dangerous ² no streetlights, sidewalks, etc. it will have those important safety features. The Hall entrances meet all city standards. The template for the internal circulation in that HQWUDQFHZDVUHTXLUHGE\79) 57KHKHLJKWRIWKHSURSRVDOLV·EHORZthe maximum height WKDW·VDOORZHGLQWKH]RQLQJGLVWULFW:HKDYHQ o opposition to having a crosswalk on Hall. The issue is tKDW·V2'27·VFDOOThere are reasons to believe they may not be willing to allow that to happen; however, tKHGHYHORSHUGRHVQ·WKDYHDQ\SDUWLFXODUFRQFHUQIRURSSRVLWLRQWRLW 7KH\·UHZLOOLQJWRUun the idea E\2'277KDW·VQRWDSUREOHP She thinks a continuance would be good. They would like to provide a roadmap. Their suggestion would be an open record , known as the 7-7-7 or continue the hearing. They leave it to staff and the FRPPLVVLRQ·V discretion. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE Tom McGuire DGGUHVVHGWKHSXEOLF·VUHTXHVWIRUDFRQWLQXDQFH² LW·VLPSOLFDWLRQVDQG what the commissioners should do about it. Tom said staff would agree with a response of the standard 777 and for the planning commissioners, this would not be a formal continuance of the hearing. We could close the public hearing tonight, but we would leave the record open for the next seven days. That means anyone could reply in writing to any of the testimony or the evidence WKDW·VEHHQSUHVHQWHG7KHQWKHUHZRXOGEH 7 days after that to provide responses to that and then as state law requires, the applicant has the final 7 days ² the final week to do the final response to that. So, in three weeks we would come back as a commission and then you could DVNTXHVWLRQVRIVWDIIDQGWKHDSSOLFDQWDJDLQDERXWWKHWHVWLPRQ\WKDW·VFRPHLQDQGWKH responses. Then you would proceed to your deliberation and decision at that point. Given the enormous volume of written testimony and several hours of testimony tonight he thinks leaving the record open and doing the 777 is sufficient. Staff·s recommendation, as well as the DSSOLFDQW·VLVto leave the record open. But the final decision is ultimately up to the Planning Commission. The public requested it so actually, by law, the record needs to be left open. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED We are considering keeping the record open, is there a motion? MOTION Commissioner Roberts moved that regarding case ZCA2021-00001 and SDR2021-00001 they keep the public written record open for the 777 format. Commissioner Watson seconded the motion. March 14, 2022 Page 11 of 11 VOTE TO KEEP THE RECORD OPEN FOR THE 777 FORMAT All six commissioners were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. The written record is open. The next meeting regarding this case will take place on April 4 th. APPEAL REQUIREMENTS If you wish to appeal, please contact the Planning Division for an explanation of appeal requirements. ADJOURNMENT President Hu adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. _______________________________________ Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary __________________________________________ ATTEST: President Yi-Kang Hu CITY OF TIGARDRespect and Care | Do the Right Thing | Get it DoneCedarbrook Annexation andSite Development ReviewZCA2021-00001 / SDR2021-00001March 14, 2022Tigard Planning CommissionEXHIBIT A CITY OF TIGARDProject LocationShaded parcels:Development SiteAcres: 2.53WA County Zone: Transit-Oriented: R18-24Tigard Zone: MUR-1Greenburg Rd CITY OF TIGARDProject Summary`Proposed Applications and Proposal:`Annexation ‡3 lots totaling 2.53 acres`Site Development Review‡Four-story assisted living care facility with 182 beds‡Associated common open space, parking lot, and landscaping. CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD1. Public cul-de-sac2. Loading area3. Building location4. S-4 screen5. 8-ft multi-use path6. Clear vision areaSite Plan Changes#1#2, 3, 4 #3#5#6 CITY OF TIGARDFindings`The annexation meets all applicable approval criteria in the Tigard Community Development Code, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Metro Code, and State Statutes.`The proposal provides detailed information on how all applicable site development review approval criteria and standards are met or will be met through conditions of approval. CITY OF TIGARDStaff RecommendationĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͛ƐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐĂŶĚƐƚĂĨĨƌĞǀŝĞǁ͕ƐƚĂĨĨrecommends the following:‡Approval of the Annexation‡Approval of the Site Development Review subject to conditions of approval in the staff report CITY OF TIGARDRespect and Care | Do the Right Thing | Get it DoneCedarbrook Annexation andSite Development ReviewZCA2021-00001 / SDR2021-00001March 14, 2022Tigard Planning CommissionEXHIBIT B CedarbrookAssisted Living and Memory Care9355/9415 SW Hall Blvd Proposal for New Assisted Living and Memory Care Community‡159 Assisted living suites. Mix of studio, 1 bed, and 2 bed suites‡22 memory care suites (33 beds)‡Shared common spaces include dining, activities, 2 outdoor enclosed courtyards, and exterior walking paths around the site and to public ways‡State licensed facility About Mosaic ManagementOwns/operates several senior care residences in OregonBased in SalemExcited to provide much-needed senior housing option for area residents and families Typical Resident Profile^E/KZ^/Ed,/ZϴϬ͛^нEXPERIENCING SYMPTOMS K&>,/DZ͛^EDEMENTIA (MEMORY CARE)RELATIVELY GOOD PHYSICAL HEALTH NUTRITIOUS, HEALTHY MEALS PREPARED BY PROFESSIONAL STAFFINDOOR PHYSICAL AND MENTAL WELLNESS ACTIVITIESSAFE ENVIRONMENTSECURE SETTINGSTAFF ON-SITE 24/7/365Daily Operations Proposed Site Plan Suite Interiors TYPICAL MOSAIC FLOOR PLAN Exterior RenderingViews looking SW along Hall Blvd Exterior RenderingMain Assisted Living entry and portecochereView looking SE along Hall Blvd Exterior RenderingView looking toward Memory Care entrance along SW 92ndAveView looking toward corner of SW Hall Blvd and SW 92ndAve Neighbor Concerns: Traffic/Parking‡Mosaic operates 14 other comparable facilities w/similar parking. Parking spaces have alwaysbeen adequate. ‡Proposed parking is more than adequate for proposal & in line with similar facilities.‡Parking generated primarily by staff.51 maximum staff on-site during shift change, some will use public transit/carpooling.Very few daily visitors.‡Few residents have cars. Only 5% (at most) of residents in AL have personal vehicles on site / no MC residents own/drive cars.‡On Tri-Met Line 76, with multiple stops/frequent service (nearest at 91st/Hall Blvd).‡Facility van takes residents to appointments, shopping, and local excursions.‡No on-street parking expected, and none would be allowed along Montage cul-de-sac extension.‡Loading areas -screened from neighbors with landscaping. Delivery vehicles/garbage truck access will be directed to use Hall Blvd.‡Refuse pickup occurs within underground parking.‡Low traffic generated compared to multi-family (140 MF units would be allowed after annexation with far greater traffic).EXHIBIT C Mosaic AL/MC Parking Ratios‡Proposed development 92 spaces/194 beds = 0.47‡National average parking standard for assisted living facilities is 0.4 and less for memory care Neighbor Concerns: Pedestrian Safety on 92nd/Montage‡Street improvements -sidewalks and lighting on all frontages where there are neither now;‡Street improvements -new connections from SW 92ndAve and SW Hall Blvd where they do not currently exist.‡Public access easement through site from Montage to Hall Blvd.‡No street parking along SW Hall Blvd or SW Montage Ln cul-de-sac. Neighbor Concerns: Heavy Traffic Along 92ndAve/Montage Ln‡FALSE: Majority of site traffic (95% per traffic study) will come to site from Hall Blvd and enter parking garage or covered entry from Hall Blvd.‡Only 5% of site traffic to/from Montage Ln.‡Montage Ln: Proposed facility will have just 2 trips (1 in, 1 out) during AM Peak and 3 (1 in, 2 out) during PM Peak hour traffic. Allowed Alternative Development: Multi-family‡Alternative: Once annexed, the site is allowed 140 mid-rise multi-family units.‡This allowed MF development would generate 762 daily (56 AM and 76 PM trips), 50% more AM and PM trips (onto Hall Blvd), and an order of magnitude lower on Montage Ln with assisted living/memory care facility. Neighbor Concerns: Neighborhood Compatibility/Noise‡Within the Washington Square Regional Center ;t^ZͿ͗ŝƚLJ͛ƐWSRCUpdate envisions higher density development mixed with high-quality public transit.‡Senior housing provides a soft transition between adjacent residential and SW Hall Blvd traffic.‡Staff shift changes occur at off-peak hours.‡Seniors are quiet neighbors. Neighbor Concerns: Dwelling Unit Definition‡Opponents mistakenly assert that AL units are city defined "dwelling units" because state requires a "kitchen area."xRequired kitchen area does not meet City definition of DU; therefore, not city DUs.To be a DU per City code -"permanent provisions for sleeping, cooking, and sanitation."Provision for "cooking" in AL/MC facilities is not "permanent" and is not required by the state (by design) to be "permanent."xState standard in OAR 411-054-0300(f) contemplates microwaves. Does not include"permanent" cooking facilities.xRather, state requires "kitchen area" equipped with a "removable or disconnectable" cooking appliance.$UHPRYDEOHRUGLVFRQQHFWDEOH³FRRNLQJDSSOLDQFH´LVQRWDSHUPDQHQW³FRRNLQJIDFLOLW\(again, by design).xState standard facility meets:"Each unit must have a kitchen areaequipped with the following:³ $ $VLQNUHIULJHUDWRUDQGcooking appliance that may be removed or disconnected. A microwave is considered a cooking appliance.³ % Adequate space for food preparation.³ & Storage space for utensils and supplies.³ ' Counter heights may not be higher than 34 inches." Makes Sense that AL/MC Units DUHQRW³'8´8QGHU&LW\&RGH‡All meals are provided to each resident in common GLQLQJURRPSDLGDVSDUWRIUHVLGHQWV¶PRQWKO\IHH‡DUs required to have features that do not work/make sense for AL/MC facilities to include:‡"Private open space" that is "directly accessible" from interior of DU contrary to safety needs of AL residents; ‡Vehicle/bike parking requirements when 95% of residents do not have cars and 100% do not have bicycles Neighbor Concerns: Neighborhood CompatibilityBuilding design compliments adjacent residential in style and character. Consistent with height of adjacent development Adjacent Neighborhood (SW 92ndnear Hall Blvd) Adjacent Neighborhood (SW 92ndAve Looking South) Adjacent Neighborhood (92nd/Montage Looking East) Terrace Glen: 9640 SW Greenburg RdImage source: Related California website Summary‡Staff recommends approval ‡Proposal meet all approval standards‡Proposal provides a needed housing type for Tigard‡Provides additional jobs to the local economy‡Public infrastructure in an underserved area (sidewalks, streetlights, and public pathway)‡Respectfully request your approval to move forward with this important project Questions?Thank you for your time! 1CONCERNED CITIZENS OF METZGER COMMUNITY | CEDARBOOK ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE PROPOSALCity of Tigard Public Hearing | Feb 28, 2022Metzger Community Response toCedarbookAssisted Living & Memory Care ProposalDaniel Stoller 2CONCERNED CITIZENS OF METZGER COMMUNITY | CEDARBOOK ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE PROPOSALCEDARBROOK ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE PROPOSAL551DAYS SINCE NEIGHBORHOOD MTGAUG 262020FEB 282022FEB 152022NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGPUBLIC HEARING>80LETTERS / COMMENTS FROM CONCERNED RESIDENTS0ADJUSTMENTS MADE BY DEVELOPER BASED ON RESIDENT FEEDBACK12 DAYS TO REVIEW STAFF REPORT1 MEETING TO APPROVE0 ATTEMPTS TO REACH OUT TO COMMUNITY MEMBERSSTAFF REPORT 3CONCERNED CITIZENS OF METZGER COMMUNITY | CEDARBOOK ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE PROPOSAL919391859161DROP OFFGARAGE ENTRANCE917791699468946294569448CUT THRU TRAFFICMONTAGE LANE92nd92nd92nd947594799491948394879495944594419429943794339425940194059417940994139421933193359347933993439351952595109530955091st9515942594359475Existing HomeExistingRoadNewRoadLOAD92nd9520LEGENDAUGUST 2020 PROPOSAL 4CONCERNED CITIZENS OF METZGER COMMUNITY | CEDARBOOK ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE PROPOSAL919391859161DROP OFFGARAGE ENTRANCE917791699468946294569448CUT THRU TRAFFICMONTAGE LANE92nd92nd92nd947594799491948394879495944594419429943794339425940194059417940994139421933193359347933993439351952595109530955091st9515942594359475Existing HomeExistingRoadNewRoadLOAD92nd9520LEGENDJANUARY 2022 PROPOSAL 5CONCERNED CITIZENS OF METZGER COMMUNITY | CEDARBOOK ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE PROPOSAL919391859161DROP OFFGARAGE ENTRANCE917791699468946294569448CUT THRU TRAFFICMONTAGE LANE92nd92nd92nd947594799491948394879495944594419429943794339425940194059417940994139421933193359347933993439351952595109530955091st9515942594359475Existing HomeExistingRoadNewRoadLOAD92nd9520LEGENDCul-de-sac:a street or passage closed at one end Road Junction:where two or more roads meetJANUARY 2022 PROPOSAL 6CONCERNED CITIZENS OF METZGER COMMUNITY | CEDARBOOK ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE PROPOSAL919391859161917791699468946294569448MONTAGE LANE92nd92nd92nd947594799491948394879495944594419429943794339425940194059417940994139421933193359347933993439351952595109530955091st9515942594359475Existing HomeExistingRoadNewRoad92nd9520LEGEND'$1·6352326$/1.Move loading docks, trash / dumpsters & underground parking entrance(main source of traffic) toward Hall Blvd and away from surrounding community.2.Disconnect proposed development from surrounding community(no connection with Montage Ln, all entry/exit off ofHall Blvd), add a sound reducing wall, consolidate drop off locations into oneNEWWALLGARAGE ENTRANCELOADDROP OFF 7CONCERNED CITIZENS OF METZGER COMMUNITY | CEDARBOOK ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE PROPOSALMETZGER COMMUNITY CONCERNS WITH PROPOSAL & REQUESTED ADJUSTMENTS1.Move loading docks, trash / dumpsters & underground parking entrance (main source of traffic) toward Hall Blvd and away from surrounding community2.Disconnect proposed development from surrounding community (no connection with Montage Ln, all entry/exit off ofHall Blvd), Cul-de-sac proposed is useless3.If proposed development is not disconnected from surrounding community:1.Move loading docks, trash / dumpsters & underground parking entrance toward Hall Blvd and away from surrounding community2.Expanded parking options and permit parking on Montage Ln & 92ndAve3.Speed bumps on Montage Ln & 92ndAve4.Sidewalks on 92ndAve