04/04/2022 - Minutes
April 4, 2022 Page 1 of 8
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes, April 4, 2022
Members Remote in via Microsoft Teams
Link to virtual hearing online: www.tigard-or.gov/virtualPC
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 (K7) Tiruvallur
Commissioner Watson
Absent: Commissioner Miranda
Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen
Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Joe Wisniewski, Assistant City Engineer,
Jeremy Tamargo, Assistant City Engineer; Shelby Rihala, City Attorney
COMMUNICATIONS ² None.
CONSIDER MINUTES
President Hu asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the revised draft
March 14, 2022 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
HEARING STATEMENTS FROM PRESIDENT HU
´I call to order the City of Tigard Planning Commission and reconvene the Commission for the
purpose of the continued hearing regarding the Cedarbrook application case number ZCA
2021-00001; SDR 2021-00001.
April 4, 2022 Page 2 of 8
On March 14, 2022, the Commission closed the public hearing and left the record open for 21
days. The first 7 days was for open comment, the following 7 days for rebuttal, and the last 7
days was for final written argument by the applicant. The record is now closed, and no
additional testimony may be received. 7KHSXUSRVHRIWRQLJKW·VPHHWLQJLVWRGHOLEHUDWHDQG
make a decision on the case before us.
&RPPLVVLRQHU.HVKDYDQHYHQWKRXJK\RXZHUHQ·WDWWKH0DUFKWKKHDULQJ\RX·UHVWLOO
eligible to take SDUWLQWKHGHOLEHUDWLRQDQGGHFLVLRQWKLVHYHQLQJLI\RXEHOLHYH\RX·UHSUHSDUHG
for the hearing, which includes getting yourself up to speed with all the relevant facts and
arguments presented. Please state for the record whether you plan to take part in the
deliberation and decision of this case.µ
&RPPLVVLRQHU.HVKDYDQ7LUXYDOOXUDQVZHUHG´<HV,EHOLHYH,KDYHUHYLHZHGWKHUHFRUGV
VXIILFLHQWO\DQG,·PUHDG\WRSDUWLFLSDWHLQWKHGHOLEHUDWLRQDQGGHFLVLRQPDNLQJµ
CALL TO ORDER
I call to order the City of Tigard Planning Commission and reconvene the Commission for the
purpose of the continued hearing regarding case number ZCA2021-00001 / SDR2021-
00001. On March 14, 2022, the Commission closed the public hearing and left the reco rd open
for 21 days. The first 7 days was for open comment, the following 7 days for rebuttal, and the
last 7 days was for final written argument by the applicant. The record is now closed, and no
additional testimony may be received. The purpose of tonLJKW·VPHHWLQJLVWRGHOLEHUDWHDQG
make a decision on the case before us.
QUESTIONS
President Hu asked the commissioners if they have any questions of the staff or applicant
pertaining to the written materials received since March 14th.
There was a procedural question wanting to make sure the correct staff report is the one they
YRWHRQ7RP0F*XLUHVDLGKHZRXOGPDNHVXUHLW·VWKHFRUUHFWRQH
There were several questions from Commissioner Brandt. The first was regarding the
confluence of SW Montage Lane, 92nd Ave and Seller Street. From the site design that he was
DEOHWRGRZQORDGKHFRXOGQ·WVHHKRZWKDWZRXOGPHHWWKHPLQLPXPFRQGLWLRQVIRUD·ZLGH
VWUHHWLQFOXGLQJSODQWHUVVLGHZDONVWUDYHOODQHHWF+HGLGQ·WXQGHUVWDQGKRZWKH\FRXO d get the
cul-de-sac and the half street in there. Asst. &LW\(QJLQHHU-HUHP\7DPDUJRDQVZHUHG´There
DUHDFRXSOHRIWKLQJV,·OOZDONWKURXJKWRKRSHIXOO\SURYLGHFODULILFDWLRQ7KHDSSOLFDQWLV
providing the half street improvements specifically along their frontage on SW 92 ² VRWKDW·VWKH
·RIULJKW-of-way from the center line and the associated improvements. The confluence area
referenced with SW 92nd and Montage Lane is to outside of the frontage of this particular
development. So, ZKDW·VH[LVWing essentially along the townhomes south of the property line for
this proposed development is outside of the scope of where those frontage improvements from
the applicant are going to be provided. So, where the existing curb lines and sidewalks are ²
thaW·VDOOJRLQJWRVWD\XQWLOLWMRJVEDVLFDOO\WRWKHDSSOLFDQW·V property to the north. Where the
April 4, 2022 Page 3 of 8
cul-de-sac is going to be on Montage Lane ² WKDW·VIXUWKHUHDVWRIZKHUHWKHVWXERI0RQWDJH
currently is. So Montage Lane is going to be extended and the cul-de-sac bulb is going to be
SURYLGHGFRPSOHWHO\RQWKHDSSOLFDQW·VSURSHUW\RXWVLGHRIZKHUHWKHFXUUHQWVWXELVDWWKH
moment.µ
Regarding the question as to whether the applicants can actually meet the minimum standards
and characteristics as designed, Jeremy VDLGKH·GEHJODGWRGHIHUWRWKHDSSOLFDQW·s engineer on
their specific design for the site. He noted; however, that the applicant had provided plans to
Tigard staff showing those improvements for that cul-de-sac bulb on their property. He
said that wKDW·VEHHQVXEPLWWHGPHHWV7LJDUG·V standards in terms of minimum street widths and
characteristics, and staff has no reason to believe that what they proposed would not fit within
their site plan.
President Hu interjected that those questions may be a little too detailed for the Planning
&RPPLVVLRQ·VWDVN$WWKHHQGRIWKHGD\LIWKH\FDQQRWEXLOGZKDWWKH\SURPLVHGWRGRWKH\
FDQQRWEXLOGLW+HGRHVQ·WWKLQNLW·VWKHFRPPLVVLRQ·VMREWRK\SRWKHsize as to whether or not
LW·VSRVVLEOH-HUHP\7DPDUJRWKHQLQWHUMHFWHGWKDWDWWKLVSRLQWWKHDSSOLFDQWKDVSURYLGHG
preliminary engineering drawings that are in accordance with Tigard city standards in terms of
those minimum street characteristics ² right-of-way ² widths ² all of those. There will be a more
thorough, detailed PFI (Public Facilities Improvement) review once the applicant submits their
full construction drawings. So, at that time there will be a more detailed review to make sure all
those standards are being met. Based on the preliminary plan submitted, as well as the narrative,
the design for the cul-de-sac does meet city minimum standards per the code.
There was a question about the designed ·XQGHUJURXQGSDUNLQJDQGhow that would work
with regard to service trucks. The commissioner GLGQ·WWKLQNLWZRXOGEHSRVVLEOHIRUWKHPWR
put the garbage in that underground area without changing the design of their building. One of
the applicant·VDUFKLWHFWVSam Thomas, VDLGWKH\·GGRQHDGHWDLOed review of the functionality of
the service drive and access down to the underground parking. They had placed the refuse bins
in the underground parking area but with further review, and looking at the concerns of the
height limit, the opening would be aSSUR[LPDWHO\WR·LQKHLJKWIRUQRUPDOSDVVHQJHUFDUV
to go underground, but the actual refuse servicing would have to happen in the open in order to
have the clearances necessary to load the bins into the service trucks. They envision the service
trucks would back up into the Montage Cul-de-sac to go back through the site and up to Hall
Blvd.
The final question from Commissioner Brandt, ´There were technical difficulties at one of the
meetings. Are we confident that the public has been duly notified, had the proper opportunity
to ask their questions, be heard, and respond and get responded back?µ&RPPXQLW\
Development Director Tom McGuire answered´,KDYHQRGRXEWWKDWZHPHHWDOORIRXU
obligations under State Goal 5, and our own code requirements. We followed all of our
processes and procedures ² yes, there was one hearing where there were technical difficulties
and some people were unable to connect and provide information that particular evening, but
WKHUH·VEHHQDWOHDVWDPRQWKDQGDKDOIRIWLPHEHWZHHQWKHQduring which they had every
opportunity to send their comments to us by electronic mail, US postal mail, or however they
wanted to mail those comments ² and there was the follow up hearing to that two weeks later
April 4, 2022 Page 4 of 8
where they had an opportunity to provide oral commentary over the phone. Again, there were
several weeks after that to provide any written comment that they felt necessary and wanted to
SURYLGH,QDGGLWLRQWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ·VGHFLVLRQZLOOEHJRLQJWR&LW\Council, and we
will start the process again with another notice to all property owners within ·DQG will go
through this process again and have another public hearing. 6RWKHUH·YHEHHQDEXQGDQW
opportunities for the public to get comments to staff and the commission if they desired to do
that.µ
Commissioner Brandt asked that the applicant reply as well. 7KHDSSOLFDQW·Varchitect Sam
Thomas said WKH\EHOLHYHWKH\·GPHWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVIRUWKHQHLJKERUKRRGPHHWLQJWKDWZDV
held. Concerns were addressed during that meeting and subsequently answered. He said staff
had done a good job of distributing information about the project in a timely manner from the
FRUUHVSRQGHQFHWKDWWKH\·GVHHQ7KHDSSOLFDQW·VDWWRUQH\:HQGLHKellington added that all the
VWDQGDUGVDQGFULWHULDWKDWDUHUHOHYDQWWRWRGD\·VFRQVLGHUDWLRQDUHthose that are provided in the
FLW\·VDFNQRZOHGJHGODQGXVHUHJXODWLRQV, and no more. All of those have been complied with.
Regarding the cLW\·Vnotice she added, ´,DPFRQILGHQWLWFRPSOLHVZLWKDOOUHOHYDQW
UHTXLUHPHQWVµ
With regard to Vice President Jackson·s earlier procedural question, President Hu asked Tom
McGuire if adopting the staff report would include the staff memo dated February 24 , 2022.
Tom answered, ´CRUUHFWµ
DELIBERATION
President Hu asked the commissioners to one at a time briefly state whether they are for or
against ² DQGZKDWWKH\WKLQNRIWKHDSSOLFDWLRQ+HDGGHG´,I\RXDUHIRUWKHDSSOLFDWLRQLW
means that you find the application meets all the applicable approval criteria or can meet the
criteria with the conditions provided in the staff report. If you are against the application, or
would like to add new approval conditions, please state the relevant approval criterion or criteria
for the basis for your decision, DQGDEULHIH[SODQDWLRQIRU\RXUGHFLVLRQµ
Commissioner Schuck stated that he is for the project, but that he wanted to address some
RIWKH´KRWWRSLFVµ2QHLVWKHSXEOLFVWUHHW² the opening of 92nd DQGKRZLW·VJRLQJWREH´OHVV
VDIHµ+HVDLG´7KHUH·VQRGRXEWWKDWRQFHDGHDG-end street is opened up and other things are
going to be connected ² LW·VJRLQJWREHsomewhat less safe. Whether there are two more cars
that go by ² or a hundred. The important thing is that no matter what project gets built on this
parcel, 92nd has to be opened up. If they put a 140-unit apartment complex there, WKH\·GKDYH
WZRDFFHVVHVWRLWIRUHPHUJHQF\YHKLFOHV,NQRZLW·VOHVVVDIH- and I feel for the people who
live there and are enjoying a quieter environment; howevHU,WKLQNLW·VMXVWXQDYRLGDEOHDVSDUW
of the development. An alternative development ² like an apartment complex - could be quite a
bit more impactful to the neighbors around than the present proposal. Regarding how big the
EXLOGLQJLVWKHVXQOLJKW·Vgoing to be blocked (for some of the neighbors), etc. I asked one of
the people calling in to protest the application, ´$UH\RXDJDLQVWDQ\GHYHORSPHQW"µ,WVHHPV
WKDWSHRSOHVD\WKH\·UHQRWRSSRVHGWRGHYHORSPHQWEXW,GRQ·WNQRZKRZWKH\FRXOGQ·WEH-
because the only thing allowable there is a big building, unless you change the zoning. The
parking requirements seem to be lacking in the Tigard Code ² that it could say that a Senior
April 4, 2022 Page 5 of 8
&DUH)DFLOLW\ZLWKEHGVDQGDOOWKHVWDII«LQIDFW,DVNHGVWDII´:hat if there were zero
parking spaces - FRXOGLWEHDSSURYHG"µDQG,EHOLHYHVWDII·VDQVZHUZDV´\HVµ That seems like
WKDW·VQRWVRPHWKLQJWKDWVKRXOGKDSSHQ,W·GEHQLFHWREHDEOHWRSRLQWWRVRPHWKLQJWKDW
would support the parking requirements ² but lacking that, we have to lean on the applicant.
6LQFHWKHUH·VQRVWDQGDUG,GRQ·WVHHDQ\UHDVRQWKDWZHKDYHSDUNLQJEHVRPHWKLQJWKDWZH
would hold against a project. I hear lots of complaints from the neighbors. As a commissioner,
,·GOLNHWRWHOOWKHQHLJKERUVWKDWIURPZKDW,·YHREVHUYHGWKHFLW\GRHVJRRXWRIWKHLUZD\WR
OLVWHQWRSHRSOH,VXSSRUWZKDWWKH&LW\·VGRQH7KH\GRQ·WKDYHDQDJHQGDKHUH,QIDFWWKH\
WDONYHU\OLWWOHWRXVDERXWLW7KH\GRQ·WSURYLGHWKHLURSLQLRQV,W·VYHU\matter of fact and
professional. I say that because a lot of the arguments are against the city and I get it, and I
understand how that might feel, but I just want to encourage my fellow citizens that I think
WKH\·UHGRLQJDJRRGMREHYHQWKRXJKLWPLJKWQRWIeel like it sometimes. I also agree with
President Hu ² the city has an engineering department and all these little things that seem to
come up ² they have to get those squared away with the cLW\HQJLQHHUV,IVRPHWKLQJGRHVQ·W
work, they have to figure out what does work and what meets the code. All that said, ,·PLQ
favor of the project.
Commissioner Brandt is for the annexation of the property; however, he does not support
this application. He thinks that would be a good thing for the City of Tigard. But for the
Cedarbrook Assisted Living ² KHFDQ·WVHHKLPVHOIVXSSRUWLQJLW+H·VQRWFRQYLQFHGWKDWWKH
street widths, turning radius and the partial treatment of SW Montage Lane and SW 92 nd
AvenuHLVJRLQJWREHVXIILFLHQWIRUZKDW·VJRLQJWRKDSSHQZLWKWKHWUDIILFQHHGLQWKHUH
because of the incredibly small footprint of the existing road. He believes the destruction of the
white oak trees and no plan to replant that species is problematic. He believes this is a lofty
SURMHFWEXWQRWDJRRGORFDWLRQIRULW,WGRHVQ·WILWWKHFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG7RR
many unanswered questions of the applicant and too many things that would have to be settled
EHIRUHKH·GIHHOFRQILGHQWWKDWWKH\PD\EHFRXOGPDNHWKLVZRUN+HFDQ·WJHWSDVWWKHVWUHHW
LPSURYHPHQWV+HFDQ·WVHHLWZRUNLQJ +H·GKDYHWRVHHWKHPWDNHWKH0RQWDJH&XO-de-sac and
the 92nd Ave. entrances off the table.
Commissioner Watson PLUURUV&RPPLVVLRQHU6FKXFN·VFRPPHQWVIRUWKHmost part. She
XQGHUVWDQGVWKDWWKHUHLVDJUHDWDPRXQWRIFRQWURYHUV\DPRQJWKHQHLJKERUV7KHUH·VQRWDQ
extension of the residential neighborhood that she thinks a lot of the people are hoping for ²
DPRQJVWRWKHUWKLQJV6KH·VV\PSDWKHWLFWRWKHQHLJKERU·VIHHOLQJV, EXWWKHUH·VDORQJSHUPLWWLQJ
process. The planning review is just the beginning. The legality of it is not in question for her.
6KHWKLQNVLW·VJRLQJWRFRQIRUPDQGZLOOVDWLVI\DOOWKHSHUPLWWLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVDVSDUWRIWKDW
process. She is generally supportive of approval.
Commissioner Roberts is in favor of the application. He echoes &RPPLVVLRQHU6FKXFN·V
comments DQGGRHVQ·WWKLQNKHQHHGVWRJRLQWRWKHPDJDLQ KH·VLQIDYRU
Vice President Jackson said as far as the annexation ² from ZKDWKH·VVHHQRIWKHODVWILYH
years. WKLVLVDIDLUO\´XQUHPDUNDEOHµDQQH[DWLRQUHTXHVWVRKH·VYHU\PXFKLQDSSURYDORILW
,W·VZLWKLQWKHORQJ-term plan, adjacent to Tigard lands, etc. $VIRUWKHDSSOLFDWLRQKHFRXOGQ·W
ILQGDQ\WKLQJLQWKHFRGHWKDWWKHSURSRVHGDSSOLFDWLRQFDQ·WPHHWWKURXJK&RQGLWLRQVRI
Approval. In his experience, this application is unprecedented as far as the level of participation
April 4, 2022 Page 6 of 8
² which is great. He added duration and intensity of participation. He can see the neighbors
FRQFHUQRYHUH[WUDWUDIILFDQGWKHODFNRI´ILWµLQWRWKHQHLJKERUKRRG+RZHYHUKHEHOLHYHVWKDW
most other planned developments or sub-divisions would likely create even more traffic.
Another SRWHQWLDOJRRGWKLQJ«this structure could potentially block some noise. He stated that
KH·VLQDSSURYDORIWKLVDSSOLFDWLRQ He noted also that he wanted to compliment the
QHLJKERUVIRUDFWXDOO\FLWLQJFRGHGXULQJDORWRIWKHLUWHVWLPRQ\7KH\GRQ·WKHDU that very
RIWHQ,W·VKHOSIXOEHFDXVHWKDW·VWKHRQO\EDVLVRQZKLFKWKH\FDQPDNHWKHVHW\SHVRIGHFLVLRQV
He hopes they stay organized and make their community better.
Commissioner Tiruvallur said he believes the city has done a great job providing
opportunities for the residents to send concerns that they have. The applicant has done a good
job of meeting all the requirements that the city has put forth. Some of the concerns that have
been raised are outside the scope of the application. He believes the city staff has done a good
job and he firmly believes the city has their heart in the right place and they always do a good
job ² no matter which project we take. +H·VKRSHIXOWKH(QJLQHHULQJ'HSWwill help fix some of
the issues where some people had expressed concerns. He feels there are some pieces missing.
+H·VDOOIRUGHYHORSPHQWDQGDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ+HNQRZVVRPHSHRSOHZLOOEHXQKDSS\
unfortunately, but he understands their concerns. He believes everyone heard their concerns and
the city is trying to do the best they can to accommodate. He believes this implementation is
likely the least painful implementation ² rather than an apartment complex or something like
that in this area.
President Hu thinks staff has been very professional and are bending backwards for the public
in his opinion. He wanted to express thanks to the public for the overwhelmingly good turn-out
and their comments. It shows they care about their neighborhood and community. He is for the
applications because he believes they meet all the applicable approval criteria or can meet them
through the approval conditions. However, he has some comments; the first two overlap
Commissioner 6FKXFN·V+HDJUHHVWKDWWKHSURSRVHGUHVLGHQWLDOURRPVDUHQRW´GZHOOLQJXQLWVµ
as they are GHILQHGLQWKH'HYHORSPHQW&RGHEHFDXVHWKH\GRQ·WKDYHSHUPDQHQWNLWFKHQV
however, he hopes the city will consider updating or streamlining their Development Code to
either eliminate the minimum parking lot requirement outright for long-term care facilities so
HYHU\ERG\·VFOHDURQWKDW² or make the numbers dependent on something that makes more
sense - like the number of employees or visitors. +HVDLG´I find it weird to tie the number of
parking spaces with the numbers and type of kitchen a facility has. I understand the majority of
WKHQHLJKERUVFRQFHUQKDVWRGRZLWKWKHDSSOLFDQW·VSURSRVHGYHKLFOHDFFHVVWKURXJK0RQWDJH
and 92nd. I understand their concerns and wish the Planning Commission could do more to
address them. The street improvement as conditioned can meet the applicant·V approval criteria
² so as Planning Commissioners, I feel as though I have no choice but to recommend its
approval; however, I hope the applicant and the future management ² Mosaic Management ²
have been paying attention and take note of how organized and vocal the neighbors have been
when they expressed concern for their neighborhood. For future peace ² I hope Mosaic
Management will do anything in their power to keep thHHPSOR\HHVYLVLWRUVDQGYHQGRU·VFDUV
off Montage and 92nd as much as possible if this facility is ever built. Lastly, I remain deeply
FRQFHUQHGWKDWWKHDSSOLFDWLRQGRHVQ·WKDYHDFURVVZDONRQ+DOO%OYGLQIURQWRIWKH
GHYHORSPHQWVLWH2'27·VRZQKLJKway design manuals designate a long-term facility like this
as a pedestrian generating site. Their own manual even recommends a pedestrian crossing island
April 4, 2022 Page 7 of 8
DVZHOODVDSHGHVWULDQDFWLYDWHGIODVKLQJEHDFRQLQIURQWRIDVLWHOLNHWKLV,W·VYHU\GLVDSSRLQWL ng
that ODOT never brought up the possibility of a crosswalk on Hall during their numerous
discussions with the applicant. 7KHDSSOLFDQW·VSUHVHQWDWLRQLQGLFDWHGWKDWWKH\H[SHFWVRPH
future employees to utilize the bus system for their commute - and the speed limit currently on
Hall in front of the site is 40 mph. We all know that cars go much faster than that ² closer to 50
or more. The nearest marked crosswalk to the west of the site is about 1000 feet away. The
nearest to the east is about .6 miles away ² and by the way ² WKDW·VZKHUHDZRPDQZDVNLOOHG,
and her elderly mother injured by a hit and run driver about a month ago. The mayor has made
several public statements about that. I worry that the proposed street improvement will make
Hall wider and even more difficult to walk across. I worry about the safety of anybody wanting
to use the nearby bus stop - especially early in the morning or late at night. However, because
WKHSURSRVHGVWUHHWLPSURYHPHQWRQ+DOODSSHDUVWRFRPSO\ZLWKWKHFLW\·VVWUHHWVtandards, my
hands as a Planning Commissioner, are tied. The applicant has indicated they will discuss adding
a crosswalk with ODOT during the design review process and I really hope they will follow
WKURXJKZLWKWKDWµ
MOTION
Commissioner Roberts made the following motion, ´,PRYHWKDWWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ
forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council of applications ZCA2021-
00001 and SDR2021-00001 and adoption of the Findings and Conditions of Approval
contained in the staff report - including the staff memo dated February 24, 2022 ² and
EDVHGRQWKHWHVWLPRQ\UHFHLYHGµ
Commissioner Watson seconded the motion.
VOTE
In favor: Commissioners Schuck, Roberts, Watson, Tiruvallur, VP Jackson, and President
Hu.
Against: Commissioner Brandt
RESULT
The motion to APPROVE PASSES 6-1
PRESIDENT HU·667$7(0(17 TO THE PUBLIC
´Our recommendation will now go to the City Council who will hold a public hearing on this
DSSOLFDWLRQ,I\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVDERXWWKH&LW\&RXQFLO·VSXEOLFKHDULQJRUWKHDSSHDO
process, please contact the Planning Division. Thank you.µ
ADJOURNMENT
President Hu adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
April 4, 2022 Page 8 of 8
_______________________________________
Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary
________________________________________
ATTEST: President Yi-Kang Hu