02/28/2022 - PacketPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – February 28, 2022
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503 -639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1
City of Tigard
Planning Commission Agenda
MEETING DATE: February 28, 2022 - 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Microsoft Teams
Link to virtual hearing online: https://www.tigard-or.gov/PCmtg
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m.
3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m.
4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:04 p.m.
5. CEDARBROOK QUASI-JUDICIAL ANNEXATION /
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 7:05 p.m.
CASE NO. ZCA2021-00001 / SDR2021-00001
Staff: Associate Planner Agnes Lindor
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; Tax Lots 800, 900, and 1000.
6. OTHER BUSINESS 9:05 p.m.
7. ADJOURNMENT 9:10 p.m.
February 28, 2022 Page 1 of 3
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes, February 28, 2022
Location: Members & Public Remote via Microsoft Teams
CALL TO ORDER
President Hu called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: President Hu
Vice President Jackson
Commissioner Brandt
Commissioner Miranda
Commissioner Roberts*
*(entered meeting late due to technical difficulties)
Commissioner Schuck
Commissioner (K7) Tiruvallur
Commissioner Watson
Absent: None
Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director; Agnes
Lindor, Associate Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Joe
Wisniewski, City Engineer, Jeremy Tamargo, Assistant City Engineer;
Shelby Rihala, City Attorney; Joe Patton, Sr. Administrative Specialist
COMMUNICATIONS ² Vice President Jackson reported that the State of the City was
coming up on March 2nd at 6:00 p.m. He encouraged people to sign up on the city website.
Community Development Director, Tom McGuire introduced himself and informed the
commissioners that Commissioner Ali Quinones had informed city staff that she was in the
process of moving out of the City of Tigard. Since she would no longer live in Tigard, she
submitted her resignation to the Planning Commission effective February 17, 2022.
CONSIDER MINUTES
President Hu asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the 1/31/22
minutes; there being none, President Hu declared the minutes approved as submitted.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
President Hu opened the public hearing.
CEDARBROOK QUASI-JUDICIAL ANNEXATION /
February 28, 2022 Page 2 of 3
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 fou r-story assisted living and
memory care facility with associated parking, landscaping, and other site improvements.
LOCATION: 9355 and 9415 SW Hall Boulevard
HEARING STATEMENTS
President Hu read through the required statements and procedural items from the hearing guide .
There were no abstentions; there were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict
of interest. Ex-parte contacts: President Hu informed the commissio ners that he had received a
text from a friend of his who had heard about this case on the Neighborhood App. He directed
his friend to the city website where she could get information on the hearing and told her he
FRXOGQ·WGLVFXVVWKHFDVHZLWKKHU$GGLtionally, he had sent an email to city staff and had copied
Vice President Jackson on it in which he mentioned that he found some scrivener errors on the
revised staff report. He did not, however, discuss the case in any way with Vice President
Jackson. Site visitations: Four of the commissioners had visited the site of the proposal:
Commissioners Brandt, Miranda, Vice President Jackson, and President Hu. No one from the
audience challenged the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission.
STAFF REPORT
Associate Planner Agnes Lindor introduced herself and began her staff report by pulling up a
PowerPoint and sharing her screen.
TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES
Shortly after Ms. Lindor began her presentation, Assistant Community Development Director
Tom McGuire apologized for having to interrupt the presentation. He said he had been
speaking to the technical folks and he was very concerned that the public may not be seeing or
hearing the presentation. He noted there appeared to be 71 attendees from the public, and he
ZDVSUHWW\VXUHWKH\KDGQ·WKHDUGDQ\WKLQJ+HVDLGKHWULHGWZRRUWKUHHWLPHVWRJHWLQWRWKH
meeting from the website and it appeared there was no broadcast of the commission itself.
There were sound problems, video problems, lagging, and it looked as though there may be
duplicate meetings. It soon became evident that the meeting software was not working correctly .
Mr. McGuire asked for a recess to check into the technical difficulties.
RECESS
President Hu called for a recess.
After some time, 0U0F*XLUHVDLGWKDWLWGLGQ·WORRNDVWKRXJKWKHPHHWLQJZRXOGEHDEOHWR
continue due to the technical difficulties that were being experienced. After consulting with
February 28, 2022 Page 3 of 3
President Hu, staff, the city attorney, and the applicant, he suggested that the hearing be
continued to a time /date certain. He suggested March 14 at 7:00 p.m.
MOTION
Commissioner Brandt made a motion to continue the hearing to a date certain, March 14, due to
the technical difficulties. Commissioner Tiruvallur seconded the motion.
VOTE
President Hu: ´7KRVHLQIDYRURIWKHPRWLRQSOHDVHUDLVH\RXU YLUWXDO KDQGDQGVD\aye.µ(LJKW
in favor, none opposed. The motion to continue the meeting to March 14 passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
ADJOURNMENT
President Hu closed the hearing and adjourned the meeting at 8:17 p.m.
__________________________________________
Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary
_________________________________
ATTEST: President Yi-Kang Hu
Full Name Email
4172032862
12068514585
13039100517
13108012154
13108955645
14197999208
14258912290
15033479805
15036470021
15037012592
15038197898
15039010843
15309212210
15416701115
15599607610
18146673865
18148807978
19494665487
19712855140
19717176582
Aaron Clark aaronc@lenityarchitecture.com
Abraham Furman (Guest)
Agnes Lindor agnesl@tigard-or.gov
Ahsha Miranda (Guest)
Andrew (Guest)
andrew becker andrew_becker@beaverton.k12.or.us
Anthony Ames anthony.ames@citrix.com
Barrett Johnson (Guest)
Bo (Guest)
Bob Wilks (Guest)
Brandon & Jana (Guest)
Brandon Herbst (Guest)
Brian
Brian & Tara (Guest)
Brian Hernandez
Bryan Hamburger
Caleb Salstrom caleb.salstrom@westcoastcloudstrategies.com
Chris Klingman (Guest)
Clint Wilkins (Guest)
Courtney & Joe Davini
Craig Schuck (Guest)
D. Monnin, Terra Science, Inc (Guest)
Dana Larson
Dana Larson (Guest)
David Hulbert davidh@lenityarchitecture.com
David Monnin, Terra Science, Inc (Guest)
Devin (Guest)
DH (Guest)
Diane Bowman (Guest)
Dolly Specht
Dolly Specht (Guest)
Dom (Guest)
Doreen Laughlin doreen@tigard-or.gov
Eddie (Guest)
Eric Bizon
George Brandt (Guest)
Gus&Jamie
Ian & Jasmine Buchanan (Guest)
Jacob Kovac (Guest)
Jacob Mosby (Guest)
Jamie Watson jamiew@opsisarch.com
Jan Erickson (Guest)
Jeanette Shaw
Jenny
Jenny McGinnis jenny.mcginnis@tigard-or.gov
Jeremy Schoenfelder jeremys@mosaicdevelopmentservices.com
Jeremy Tamargo jeremyt@tigard-or.gov
Jessica A. Flint JFlint@gevurtzmenashe.com
Jessica Brocanelli
Jim Long (Guest)
Joe
Joe Patton JoeP@tigard-or.gov
Joe Wisniewski joew@tigard-or.gov
John
John (Guest)
John Roberts (Guest)
Joli Parks (Guest)
Jolin Gard
K7 Tiruvallur (Guest)
Kate Farrand (Guest)
Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
Katie McFaddin (Guest)
Keelan Cleary KeelanC@tigard-or.gov
Kenneth Dobson (Guest)
Kenny
Larson, Karin D Karin.Larson@providence.org
Laura (Guest)
Laura Christensen (Guest)
Lina Smith (Guest)
Marc Butchas m.butchas@classiccollision.com
mel phillippi (Guest)
Michael Neunzert (Guest)
Mike Dalton (Guest)
Muwafaq (Guest)
Nate Blaszak (Guest)
Nathan Jackson (Guest)
Nicole Berg (Guest)
PS
Pws
Rachel Stoller (Guest)
Read McFaddin (Guest)
Reem Alkattan ralkattan@warnerpacific.edu
Rios, Dustin Dustin.Rios@columbia.com
Rob Ruedy (Guest)
Robert Smith (Guest)
Robin Furman (Guest)
Sam Thomas samt@lenityarchitecture.com
Scottie (Guest)
shaila & justin (Guest)
Shannon Curran Shannon.Curran@reeferd.com
Shelby Rihala shelbyr@tigard-or.gov
Stephen Perry (Guest)
Steven Neils Steven.Neils@koin.com
Stoller, Daniel Daniel.Stoller@nike.com
Sunny Freestone SFreestone@rivermarkcu.org
Teresa Gipson (Guest)
Test (Guest)
Tim & Alison Ross (Guest)
Tim Ross
Tom (Guest)
Tom McGuire TomM@tigard-or.gov
Tracy Brophy (Guest)
Trent Riley trent.riley@zones.com
Vanda Makris
Wendie Kellington wk@klgpc.com
Yi-Kang Hu (Guest)
2/28 6:28 PM Meeting started
[2/28 6:28 PM]
Steven Neils (External) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:29 PM]
Stephen Perry (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:32 PM]
Tim & Alison Ross (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:33 PM]
Tim & Alison Ross (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 6:34 PM]
Tim & Alison Ross (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:35 PM]
Tim & Alison Ross (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 6:37 PM]
Jolin Gard (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:38 PM]
Jolin Gard (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 6:41 PM]
Unknown user has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:42 PM]
Tracy Brophy (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:43 PM]
Joe (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:43 PM]
Courtney & Joe Davini (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:44 PM]
Rob Ruedy (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:44 PM]
Tim & Alison Ross (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:46 PM]
Kenneth Dobson (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:47 PM]
Rachel Stoller (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:48 PM]
Tom (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:48 PM]
Nate Blaszak (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:49 PM]
Kathleen Noonan (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:49 PM]
Mike Dalton (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:50 PM]
Stephen Perry (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:51 PM]
Michael Neunzert (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:51 PM]
Diane Bowman (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:52 PM]
Shannon Curran (External) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:52 PM]
John (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:52 PM]
Joli Parks (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:52 PM]
Bo (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:53 PM]
Jan Erickson (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:54 PM]
4172032862 (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:54 PM]
4172032862 (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:54 PM]
John Roberts (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:55 PM]
Rios, Dustin (External) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:55 PM]
Brian & Tara (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:57 PM]
Chris Klingman (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:57 PM]
shaila & justin (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:57 PM]
Teresa Gipson (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:57 PM]
Barrett Johnson (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:57 PM]
Bryan Hamburger (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:57 PM]
Ian & Jasmine Buchanan (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:58 PM]
Unknown user has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:58 PM]
Unknown user has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:58 PM]
Dom (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:58 PM]
Jacob Kovac (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:58 PM]
Brandon & Jana (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:58 PM]
Trent Riley (External) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:58 PM]
Jessica A. Flint (External) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:58 PM]
Jessica A. Flint (External) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:58 PM]
Dolly Specht (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:59 PM]
Stoller, Daniel (External) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:59 PM]
Stephen Perry (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:59 PM]
Jolin Gard (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:59 PM]
Laura Christensen (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 6:59 PM]
Jim Long (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:00 PM]
Clint Wilkins (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:00 PM]
mel phillippi (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:00 PM]
DH (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:00 PM]
Muwafaq (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:00 PM]
Caleb Salstrom (External) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:01 PM]
Lina Smith (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:01 PM]
mel phillippi (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:01 PM]
Laura Christensen (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:02 PM]
Brandon Herbst (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:02 PM]
Vanda Makris (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:02 PM]
Vanda Makris (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:02 PM]
andrew becker (External) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:02 PM]
John (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:02 PM]
Jim Long (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:03 PM]
Abraham Furman (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:03 PM]
Jacob Mosby (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:03 PM]
John (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:03 PM]
Katie McFaddin (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:03 PM]
Eddie (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:04 PM]
Scottie (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:04 PM]
Devin (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:04 PM]
DH (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:04 PM]
DH (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:05 PM]
John (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:05 PM]
Tim & Alison Ross (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:05 PM]
Tim & Alison Ross (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:06 PM]
Laura (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:06 PM]
Stephen Perry (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:06 PM]
Lina Smith (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:06 PM]
Lina Smith (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:06 PM]
Brandon Herbst (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:06 PM]
Brandon Herbst (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:07 PM]
John Roberts (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:07 PM]
John Roberts (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:07 PM]
Jacob Mosby (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:07 PM]
Tim & Alison Ross (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:07 PM]
Brandon Herbst (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:07 PM]
Jacob Mosby (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:08 PM]
Brandon & Jana (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:08 PM]
Nicole Berg (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:08 PM]
Eddie (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:08 PM]
Jacob Mosby (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:08 PM]
Brandon & Jana (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:08 PM]
Jacob Mosby (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:09 PM]
Unknown user has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:09 PM]
Unknown user has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:09 PM]
Tim & Alison Ross (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:09 PM]
Michael Neunzert (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:09 PM]
Eddie (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:09 PM]
Michael Neunzert (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:09 PM]
Gus&Jamie (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:09 PM]
Gus&Jamie (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:09 PM]
Robin Furman (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:10 PM]
Abraham Furman (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:10 PM]
Brian Hernandez (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:10 PM]
Jolin Gard (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:11 PM]
Read McFaddin (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:11 PM]
Lina Smith (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:11 PM]
Robin Furman (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:11 PM]
Lina Smith (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:12 PM]
Eric Bizon (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:12 PM]
Eric Bizon (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:12 PM]
David Hulbert (External) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:12 PM]
Abraham Furman (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:13 PM]
Laura (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:13 PM]
Abraham Furman (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:13 PM]
Laura (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:13 PM]
Abraham Furman (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:13 PM]
Stephen Perry (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:13 PM]
Unknown user no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:13 PM]
Robin Furman (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:14 PM]
Unknown user has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:14 PM]
Laura (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:15 PM]
Bob Wilks (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:15 PM]
Wendie Kellington (External) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:15 PM]
Dolly Specht (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:15 PM]
Nicole Berg (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:15 PM]
Nicole Berg (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:15 PM]
Nicole Berg (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:15 PM]
Gus&Jamie (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:15 PM]
Tim Ross (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:16 PM]
Tim Ross (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:16 PM]
Nicole Berg (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:16 PM]
Laura (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:16 PM]
Jeremy Schoenfelder (External) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:16 PM]
John Roberts (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:17 PM]
Jenny (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:17 PM]
Brian Hernandez (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:17 PM]
Laura (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:17 PM]
Shelby Rihala has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:17 PM]
Aaron Clark (External) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:17 PM]
Robin Furman (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:18 PM]
Dolly Specht (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:18 PM]
Jenny (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:18 PM]
Nicole Berg (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:18 PM]
Nicole Berg (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:18 PM]
Gus&Jamie (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:19 PM]
Laura (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:19 PM]
Gus&Jamie (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:19 PM]
Jenny (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:20 PM]
Jenny (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:20 PM]
PS (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:20 PM]
PS (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:20 PM]
PS (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:20 PM]
Brian & Tara (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:21 PM]
Eddie (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:21 PM]
John Roberts (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:21 PM]
Eddie (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:21 PM]
Lina Smith (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:21 PM]
Dana Larson (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:21 PM]
Dana Larson (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:22 PM]
Ps (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:22 PM]
Ps (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:22 PM]
Lina Smith (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:22 PM]
Lina Smith (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:23 PM]
Test (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:23 PM]
Dana Larson (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:23 PM]
Dana Larson (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:23 PM]
Lina Smith (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:24 PM]
Dana Larson (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:24 PM]
Dana Larson (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:25 PM]
Devin (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:25 PM]
John Roberts (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:25 PM]
Nicole Berg (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:25 PM]
Pws (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:25 PM]
Pws (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:26 PM]
Pws (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:27 PM]
Jenny (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:27 PM]
Jenny (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:27 PM]
Dom (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:29 PM]
Dana Larson (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:29 PM]
Dana Larson (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:29 PM]
Read McFaddin (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:31 PM]
PS (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:31 PM]
Marc Butchas (External) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:31 PM]
Jenny (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:31 PM]
George Brandt (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:31 PM]
Jeremy Tamargo has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:31 PM]
D. Monnin, Terra Science, Inc (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:31 PM]
Test (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:32 PM]
Craig Schuck (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:32 PM]
Lina Smith (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:32 PM]
Jamie Watson (External) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:33 PM]
Ahsha Miranda (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:33 PM]
Agnes Lindor has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:33 PM]
Yi-Kang Hu (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:33 PM]
Nathan Jackson (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:33 PM]
Jenny McGinnis has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:33 PM]
Joe Wisniewski has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:33 PM]
John Roberts (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:34 PM]
Dana Larson (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:34 PM]
Dana Larson (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:34 PM]
Sam Thomas (External) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:35 PM]
Lina Smith (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:35 PM]
PS (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:35 PM]
K7 Tiruvallur (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:36 PM]
Lina Smith (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:36 PM]
Scottie (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:36 PM]
Abraham Furman (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:36 PM]
Scottie (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:37 PM]
Abraham Furman (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:38 PM]
Abraham Furman (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:38 PM]
Abraham Furman (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:38 PM]
Abraham Furman (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:38 PM]
Jim Long (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:39 PM]
Jim Long (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:39 PM]
Abraham Furman (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:40 PM]
Abraham Furman (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:41 PM]
Jessica Brocanelli (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:41 PM]
Jessica Brocanelli (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:43 PM]
Dana Larson (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:43 PM]
Dana Larson (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:47 PM]
Kate Farrand (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:50 PM]
John (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:54 PM]
Lina Smith (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:54 PM]
Chat has been turned on for this meeting.
[2/28 7:55 PM]
Robert Smith (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:57 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
are we all muted AGAIN???
[2/28 7:57 PM] Anthony Ames
Looks like it
[2/28 7:58 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
I can't unmute...
[2/28 7:58 PM] Anthony Ames
And cam was turned off as well
[2/28 7:58 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
per Mayor Jason Snider -- the City Attorney is looking into this.
[2/28 7:58 PM]
Nate Blaszak (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:58 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
I gave him a heads-up.
[2/28 7:58 PM] Stoller, Daniel
Chat is back! I move that we postpone this session for at least 1 month.
[2/28 7:58 PM]
Trent Riley (External) left the chat.
[2/28 7:58 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
told him we have a mutiny! ;)
[2/28 7:58 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
I can't unmute myself. I am muted.
[2/28 7:58 PM] Rachel Stoller (Guest)
Thank you Dolly for reaching out to the Mayor!
[2/28 7:58 PM] Anthony Ames
I agree with Daniel for the reasons given. We need time to put on our schedules.
[2/28 7:59 PM] Stoller, Daniel
Please prepare for 100 people next time
[2/28 7:59 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
weird that some can talk and have video.
[2/28 7:59 PM]
Nate Blaszak (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:59 PM] Brandon & Jana (Guest)
Are we sure that if we postpone long enough that they win?
[2/28 7:59 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
I appear to have video but I am muted.
[2/28 7:58 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
I can't unmute myself. I am muted.
[2/28 7:58 PM] Rachel Stoller (Guest)
Thank you Dolly for reaching out to the Mayor!
[2/28 7:58 PM] Anthony Ames
I agree with Daniel for the reasons given. We need time to put on our schedules.
[2/28 7:59 PM] Stoller, Daniel
Please prepare for 100 people next time
[2/28 7:59 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
weird that some can talk and have video.
[2/28 7:59 PM]
Nate Blaszak (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 7:59 PM] Brandon & Jana (Guest)
Are we sure that if we postpone long enough that they win?
[2/28 7:59 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
I appear to have video but I am muted.
[2/28 7:59 PM] Anthony Ames
An hour past the scheduled start time and no meeting still. With 86 people waiting.
[2/28 7:59 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
I'm for postponing as long as it takes, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T PROCEED WITH ANY
MORE undiscussed plans....
[2/28 7:59 PM]
Nate Blaszak (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 7:59 PM] Anthony Ames
Agree with Brandon/Jana and Dolly
[2/28 7:59 PM] Brandon & Jana (Guest)
I think they win if the there is no agreement
[2/28 8:00 PM]
Barrett Johnson (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:00 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
there's gonna be a lot of dead-air on this recording, but MS-Teams meetings ALSO RECORD the
chat
like 1
[2/28 8:00 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
I have now been on the call for an hour and 12 minutes.
[2/28 8:00 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
so I would suggest you start putting your thoughts here until they deactivate this feature again!
[2/28 8:00 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
Yes, be careful what you type. They record ALL OF THIS
[2/28 8:00 PM] Tom McGuire
Nathean
[2/28 8:00 PM] Shannon Curan
Maybe we need to schedule an in person meeting so this confusion can be avoided and we all can
express our concerns
[2/28 8:00 PM]
Barrett Johnson (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 8:01 PM] Jessica A. Flint
Agreed, as well. This is very unprofessional. Holding a meeting this evening, after a 1 hour+ delay
and/or without sufficient time for desired attendees to clear their schedules if the meeting is
rescheduled, would be unduly prejudicial to community members.
[2/28 8:01 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
Yes, don't the masks come off on March 19th? Can't we meet in person?
like 1
[2/28 8:01 PM] andrew becker
This is a joke!
[2/28 8:01 PM]
Brian (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 8:02 PM] Rob Ruedy (Guest)
Now "42 presenters" and "46 attendees" shown on the Attendees listing
[2/28 8:02 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
I vote that we reschedule. By the time everyone speaks, it will be midnight.
[2/28 8:02 PM] Marc Butchas
all should vote for a "in person" meeting
like 1
[2/28 8:03 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
ZOOM IS better than MS -- but the City uses MS
[2/28 8:03 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
Ask about an inperson meeting.
like 1
[2/28 8:03 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
I am muted and can't talk.
[2/28 8:03 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
POSTPONE!!!!
[2/28 8:03 PM] andrew becker
Postpone!
[2/28 8:04 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
HOW ABOUT AN IN PERSON MEETING?
[2/28 8:04 PM] Anthony Ames
I move for another time so long as everything is on hold and no actions taken.
[2/28 8:04 PM]
Unknown user has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 8:04 PM]
Unknown user has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 8:04 PM] andrew becker
Nope!
[2/28 8:04 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
NOOO!
[2/28 8:04 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
I can't talk!!
[2/28 8:04 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
We cannot even be unmuted!
[2/28 8:04 PM] Brandon & Jana (Guest)
we need to know if there is a drop dead date that Cedarbrook wins if we don't come to an
agreement before then.
like 1
[2/28 8:04 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
no, I can't see anyone except Tom McGuire
[2/28 8:04 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
So now they're just talking among themselves????
[2/28 8:04 PM] andrew becker
I motion to continue to another date
[2/28 8:05 PM] Jamie Watson
Can't unmute.
[2/28 8:05 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
Can someone ask TOM to unmute me?
[2/28 8:05 PM] Anthony Ames
This is incredibly ridiculous.
[2/28 8:05 PM] Rob Ruedy (Guest)
Someone PLEASE provide a motion and a second!
like 1
[2/28 8:05 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
S.E.R.I.O.U.S.L.Y!
[2/28 8:05 PM] Stoller, Daniel
I move to reschedule this meeting until at least March 28, 2022
[2/28 8:05 PM] Jim Long (Guest)
echo echo
[2/28 8:05 PM]
Vanda Makris (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:05 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
I AM MUTED. PLEASE UNMUTE ME.
[2/28 8:06 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
MAKE A DECISION!!!!
like 1
[2/28 8:06 PM]
Vanda Makris (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 8:06 PM]
Vanda Makris (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 8:06 PM] Rob Ruedy (Guest)
And we lost her again!
[2/28 8:07 PM] Stoller, Daniel
We will need new notices to the neighborhood
[2/28 8:07 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
Thank You!
[2/28 8:07 PM] Jessica A. Flint
March 14, 2022 does not allow us to provide sufficient notice to desired attendees.
[2/28 8:07 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
Someone PLEASE SECOND!!!
[2/28 8:07 PM] Rob Ruedy (Guest)
Someone PLEASE second the motion!
[2/28 8:08 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
I did and got slapped down.
[2/28 8:09 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
What does it matter if my hand is raised????
[2/28 8:09 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
How many are in the Planning Commission????
[2/28 8:09 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
I don't know. They just told us to lower them.
[2/28 8:09 PM] Ahsha Miranda (Guest)
The planning commission can not vote if your hand is up
[2/28 8:09 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
Don't they all know each other????
laugh 1
[2/28 8:09 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
that is not sufficient time for all of us to reschedule.
like 1
[2/28 8:09 PM] Rob Ruedy (Guest)
Now 70 Presenters and 17 Attendees showing on the Attendee Listing for the Team Viewer...
[2/28 8:09 PM]
Unknown user no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:09 PM] Jessica A. Flint
March 14, 2022 does not allow us to provide sufficient notice to desired attendees.
like 2
[2/28 8:10 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
This doesn't allow us enough time.
like 1
[2/28 8:10 PM]
DH (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:10 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
SOMEONE TELL THEM, please!!!
[2/28 8:10 PM] Anthony Ames
March 14, 2022 does not allow us to provide sufficient notice to desired attendees.
[2/28 8:11 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
AMAZING how the tech difficulties couldn't work earlier, but now it does FOR JUST THE
COMMISSION
like 1
[2/28 8:11 PM]
Bo (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:12 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
NO!
[2/28 8:12 PM] Anthony Ames
NO, IT'S AN HOUR AFTER THE START TIME, TOM.
[2/28 8:12 PM] Dolly Specht (Guest)
I'M OUT! Sorry....but my patience only goes so far!
[2/28 8:12 PM] Shannon Curan
Still at 7pm for the 14th?
[2/28 8:12 PM]
Dolly Specht (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:12 PM]
Joe (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:13 PM] Stoller, Daniel
Thanks, Kathleen!
[2/28 8:13 PM]
Dana Larson (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:13 PM] Courtney & Joe Davini
I have been on his call 1.5 hours
[2/28 8:13 PM] Stoller, Daniel
Looks like they muted you, Kathleen
[2/28 8:13 PM]
Tom (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:13 PM] Rob Ruedy (Guest)
And now a voice of the people has been muted...
[2/28 8:13 PM] Anthony Ames
Wow.
[2/28 8:13 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
I can't believe this. Oh my gosh.
like 1
[2/28 8:13 PM]
Mike Dalton (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:14 PM] Courtney & Joe Davini
What a WASTE OF TIME
like 1
[2/28 8:14 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
YES, I've been muted.
[2/28 8:14 PM] Vanda Makris
I got kicked teams meeting and can only use chat right now
[2/28 8:14 PM]
Brandon & Jana (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:14 PM] andrew becker
WOW they muted her. This is not acceptable
like 1
[2/28 8:14 PM]
Joli Parks (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:14 PM] Anthony Ames
INCOMPETENCE.
[2/28 8:14 PM] Courtney & Joe Davini
Tax dollars spent well
like 1
[2/28 8:14 PM]
Michael Neunzert (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:14 PM] Rob Ruedy (Guest)
The public should have a say in when the reschedule is set , just like the developer chose to
reschedule to their advantage...
like 1
[2/28 8:14 PM]
Joli Parks (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 8:14 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
We have spend our money to put out flyers, with THIS DATE.
[2/28 8:15 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
Can we also get new signs
[2/28 8:15 PM] Rachel Stoller (Guest)
They muted me :(
[2/28 8:15 PM] Jessica A. Flint
How do we get added to the email list?
[2/28 8:15 PM] andrew becker
They don't care about us.
[2/28 8:15 PM] Kathleen Noonan (Guest)
The are acting for flippant, like they don't care about our opinions.
[2/28 8:15 PM] Courtney & Joe Davini
Joke
[2/28 8:15 PM] Stoller, Daniel
Freedom of SPEE(MUTE)
[2/28 8:15 PM] andrew becker
They only care about money
[2/28 8:15 PM] Rob Ruedy (Guest)
Not a good display...
[2/28 8:15 PM]
George Brandt (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
Yi-Kang Hu (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
Craig Schuck (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
K7 Tiruvallur (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
Jacob Kovac (Guest) and Kenneth Dobson (Guest) no longer have access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
Laura (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
Unknown user and Kate Farrand (Guest) no longer have access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
Scottie (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
Stephen Perry (Guest) and 2 others no longer have access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
4172032862 (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM] Rachel Stoller (Guest)
Email Agnes to get on the list!
like 1
[2/28 8:15 PM]
Jessica Brocanelli (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
Unknown user no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
Katie McFaddin (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
Barrett Johnson (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
Ian & Jasmine Buchanan (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
Tracy Brophy (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
John (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
Courtney & Joe Davini (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
John Roberts (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
Eddie (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
Joli Parks (Guest) and Abraham Furman (Guest) no longer have access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
Brian (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
Unknown user has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM]
Vanda Makris (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:15 PM] Rachel Stoller (Guest)
agnesl@tigard-or.gov
[2/28 8:15 PM]
Nathan Jackson (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:16 PM]
Marc Butchas (External) left the chat.
[2/28 8:16 PM]
Jamie Watson (External) left the chat.
[2/28 8:16 PM]
Rob Ruedy (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:16 PM]
Jacob Mosby (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:16 PM]
Muwafaq (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:16 PM]
Teresa Gipson (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:16 PM] Jessica A. Flint
Thank you, Rachel
[2/28 8:16 PM]
Unknown user no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:16 PM]
shaila & justin (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:16 PM] Shannon Curan
Big hugs neighbors! Way to hang in there!
[2/28 8:16 PM]
Bob Wilks (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:16 PM]
Unknown user no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:16 PM]
Ahsha Miranda (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:16 PM]
Rachel Stoller (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:16 PM]
D. Monnin, Terra Science, Inc (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:17 PM]
Jim Long (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:17 PM]
Clint Wilkins (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:17 PM]
Robert Smith (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:18 PM]
Eric Bizon (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:18 PM]
Tim & Alison Ross (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:20 PM]
Tim Ross (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:21 PM]
Andrew (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 8:22 PM]
Andrew (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:22 PM]
Bryan Hamburger (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:22 PM]
Andrew (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 8:23 PM]
Andrew (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:26 PM]
Kathleen Noonan (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:44 PM]
Jan Erickson (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 8:53 PM]
Chris Klingman (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 9:00 PM]
Kenny (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 9:00 PM]
Kenny (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 9:01 PM]
Kenny (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 9:03 PM]
Kenny (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 9:03 PM]
Kenny (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 9:04 PM]
Kenny (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 9:09 PM]
Jim Long (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 9:35 PM]
Pws (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 9:35 PM]
Pws (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 9:52 PM]
Keelan Cleary has temporarily joined the chat.
[2/28 9:52 PM]
Stephen Perry (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 9:52 PM]
Stephen Perry (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 9:52 PM]
Stephen Perry (Guest) no longer has access to the chat.
[2/28 9:53 PM]
2/28 9:53 PM Meeting ended
MEMO
Date: February 24, 2022
To: Tigard Planning Commission
From: Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner
RE: Cedarbrook Public Hearing (Case #ZCA2021-00001)- Changes to the Revised Staff
Report and Additional Public Comments Received
A number of necessary changes and edits to the Revised Staff Report (02/15/2022) have been
identified by Planning staff since the Revised Staff Report was issued. These changes and edits are
based on continued conversations with the applicant’s team and further staff review.
Additionally, staff has continued to receive public comments, and these are described later in the
memorandum.
Changes to the Revised Staff Report
The following changes have been identified and are recommended to be adopted by the Planning
Commission at the upcoming hearing. These changes would then be incorporated directly into the
Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council, should the Planning Commission decide to
move the application forward and approve these changes.
Page 3, Condition of Approval #8 to read:
Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit plans to engineering showing the
following required street improvements, for review and approval:
SW Hall Boulevard (3 Lane Arterial, half-street improvements):
o 45’ minimum right-of-way dedication from centerline
o 30’ pavement
▪ 12’ median/turn lane
▪ 12’ travel lane
▪ 6’ bike lane
o 5’ planter strip (with curb)
o 10’ sidewalk
Page 2
o Street trees
o Street lighting
o 8’ public utility easement across road frontage, outside of right-of-way
▪ Franchise utilities may be placed under the sidewalk within the public right-
of-way along the SW Hall Boulevard frontage with written approval from all
affected franchise utility providers, ODOT and the City of Tigard. Utility
locations are subject to the City Engineer’s review, modification, and
approval.
SW 92nd Avenue (Local Residential, half-street improvements):
o 27’ minimum right-of-way dedication from centerline
o 16’ pavement (on-street parking, one side)
o 0.5’ curb
o 5’ planter strip
o 5’ sidewalk
o 0.5’ public access behind sidewalk
o Street trees
o Street lighting
o 8’ public utility easement across road frontage, outside of right-of-way
▪ Franchise utilities may be placed under the sidewalk within the public right-
of-way along the SW 92nd Avenue frontage with written approval from all
affected franchise utility providers and the City of Tigard. Utility locations
are subject to the City Engineer’s review, modification, and approval.
SW Montage Lane (Local Residential, full-street improvements):
o 50’ minimum right-of-way dedication
o 28’ pavement (on-street parking, one side)
o (2) 0.5’ curb
o (2) 5’ planter strip
o (2) 5’ sidewalk
o (2) 0.5’ public access behind sidewalk
o Street trees
o Street lighting
o 8’ public utility easement across road frontage, outside of right-of-way
▪ Franchise utilities may be placed under the sidewalk within the public right-
of-way along the SW Montage Lane frontage with written approval from all
affected franchise utility providers and the City of Tigard. Utility locations
are subject to the City Engineer’s review, modification, and approval.
o Cul-de-sac bulb minimum requirements for SW Montage Lane terminus (residential
zone):
▪ 47’ minimum radius right-of-way width
▪ 40’ minimum paved width
▪ 6’ minimum curb-tight sidewalk width
o 8’ multi-use bicycle and pedestrian path (MUP) connection within a public access
easement between SW Montage Lane terminus and SW Hall Boulevard
Page 3
Page 33-34 under Section 18.410.040.A to read:
The proposed access meets the requirements of Chapter 18.920, as discussed later in this decision.
The vision clearance areas are shown on the plans and can comply with the requirements of Chapter
18.930, as discussed later in this report. This standard is met.
Page 42 under Section 18.910.030.A reference to civil sheet was changed from #106 to #105.
Public Comments
In addition, staff received the following additional comments after the staff report was published:
On February 15, 2022, staff received an email from Erin Fitzgerald expressing opposition to the
project and concerns about traffic and compatibility with existing neighborhood.
On February 16, 2022, staff received the following comments:
- Email from Tracy Brophy asking about street improvements, City Council hearing date, and
process for providing testimony at the hearing.
- A phone call from Clint Wilkins asking about hearing process and wanting to submit photos
from a trail cam of traffic volumes.
On February 17, 2022, an email from Jan Erickson with questions about the cul-de-sac and the
hearing process.
On February 18, 2022, an email from Rachel Stoller asking whether the applicant submitted plans
showing the loading areas and parking garage entrance in a different location.
On February 20, 2022, an email from Michael Neunzert asking about providing testimony.
On February 22, 2022, staff received the following comments:
- An email from Rachel Stoller requesting a copy of the latest applicant materials.
- An email from Jan Erickson requesting a copy of the latest applicant materials.
On February 23, 2022, staff received the following comments:
- An email from Anthony Ames stating that the annexation and development is not in the
city’s best interest due to the increased traffic and overloading the transportation system.
Mr. Ames also stated that the increased traffic will impact safety of the existing streets,
change the atmosphere of the existing neighborhood, and impact sensitive lands.
- Four emails from Rachel Stoller expressing disappointment in the unwillingness by the
developer to work with the neighborhood about their concerns. Ms. Stoller expressed
concerns related to negative impacts to the current neighborhood by the development; scale
and density of the development; location of service and loading areas; and insufficient
parking. Ms. Stoller also stated that development does not reflect the city’s strategic
planning vision goal and that several residents have recently sold their homes due impact
such as noise, pollution, and reduced safety that this development will cause. Lastly, Ms.
Stoller asked where to find a map of the habitat areas.
Page 4
- An email from Kathleen Noonan expressing concerns about the existing conditions of the
neighborhood streets, increased traffic and commercial traffic through the neighborhood,
removal of on-street parking, and increased noise.
- An email from Dan Stoller providing the presentation that he would like to share at the
hearing.
- An email from Courtney Sjoberg stating that the annexation and development is not in the
city’s best interest due to the increased traffic and overloading the transportation system.
Ms. Sjoberg also stated that the increased traffic will impact safety of the existing streets,
change the atmosphere of the existing neighborhood, and impact sensitive lands.
On February 24, 2022, staff received the following comments:
- An email from Jan Erickson requesting a continuance in order to have sufficient time to
review the new materials.
- An email from Rachel Stoller regarding how the proposed development does not meet the
Complete Streets Policy and specific related standards in the development code.
- An email from Kenneth Dobson asking about deadline for public comments.
- An email from Clint Wilkins expressing opposition to the project due to traffic and access
onto SW 92nd Avenue into the residential neighborhood.
- An email from Juanita Garnow asking about how garbage pick-up will be handled.
Allow sender | Block sender
You don't often get email from erinfitz_99@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important
From: Erin Fitzgerald <erinfitz_99@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 4:38 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Cedarbrook
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Dear Agnes,
Hello - my name is Erin Fitzgerald and I live in Tigard near where the Cedarbrook development may
go.
As a long-time resident of Tigard and someone who walks my dog and runs in the neighborhood often,
I'm vehemently opposed to the development. There is already a problem with increased traffic in the
neighborhood—and lots of speeders, which adds up to unsafe streets. We don't need more traffic. I
have already experienced first-hand how a new development changes a neighborhood and increases
traffic for the worse - I also live very close to where the Oak Street Lofts (apartments) were built, and it
has been a nightmare.
I've gotten to know a lot of my neighbors in the area where Cedarbrook is proposed and they too are
against the development.
Why would the City of Tigard approve a development that is clearly not wanted or good for the
community?
Tigard should not be treated like a game of Tetris - trying to fit a large development into a small space.
The development is not good for the neighborhood, our streets, and the residents who live in the area,
which includes me.
Rejecting the developer's proposal is good for Tigard and sends a powerful message that the City of
Tigard values residents' voices and making our city stronger - better.
Thank you,
Erin
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Tracy Brophy
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 10:50 AM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Cedarbrook
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Good morning Ms Agnes
Our neighborhood met last night and had a couple
of questions, after briefly going through the latest staff
report, we are hoping you can answer/verify...
1. Has the applicant/applicant's rep submitted for & do
they have approval for the street
improvements/engineering requested on Hall Blvd, SW
92nd Ave & SW Montage Ln from ODOT & the principal
engineer...The measurements with sidewalks, bike
lanes, planter strips, etc seem to go beyond the current
roadway dimensions & would encroach on both
residents' private property, the protected stormwater
areas located at SW 92nd & SW Montage Ln & wetlands
on the property in question...Is the criteria requested
in the staff report actually being required of the
applicant or still in negotiations?
2. We see the city council meeting on the 22nd & the
planning meeting on the 28th...Is that correct? And
should we have something prepared for the city council
meeting as well
3. How do we coordinate our statements for the
planning commission? Do they call on us at random or
do we get on a list of groups to speak...And since this
sounds like both the only opportunity to voice our
concern for the whole project & our provisions should it
go through, how should we voice those...Together or
separately?
Just can't thank you enough for all of your time &
help!!!
Tracy Brophy
Principal Broker, RE/MAX Equity Group
(503) 781-3158 | tracy4realestate@gmail.com
6245 SW Capitol Hwy, Portland, OR 97239 | RE/MAX Equity Group
Lifetime Achievement & Platinum Club, Diamond Platinum Masters
Circle Member & 2020 Vice President, Top 10% RE/MAX Equity Group
Agent, Portland Monthly's FIVE STAR Real Estate Agent 2011-2021,
ABR, CNE, CDPE, CRS, PSA, SRES, MRP
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Jan Erickson <jan.m.erickson@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 1:01 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Proposed Cedarbrook zoning plan
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hi Agnes,
I've got a couple of ques ons for you a er looking at the staff report and a ached documents. It looks
like the staff report was thorough and clearly spelled out what needs to be done by the Developer
before site work should start.
In looking at the site plan for the proposed Cedarbrook facility I am wondering about the nature of the
cul de sac shown in the southwest por on of the site by montage lane. Does this cul de sac connect
the private driveway thru to Montage and thus the rest of the neighborhood? Is that the purpose of a
cul de sac? I thought a cul de sac was an end to a street that doesn't go through, to create a terminus,
but I don't see any wall or barrier, nothing to indicate it is a terminus on the drawings. This instead
looks like a way to create an intersec on and a connec on/extension to the Cedarbrook private drive.
What is the city's opinion on this?
Also I was wondering about the date for the annexa on public hearing with the City Council. In the
staff report document it looks like it is on February 22nd, but that is before the public mee ng with
the planning commission on February 28th. Does the planning commission mee ng need to come
before the City council mee ng? Doesn't the planning commission make a recommenda on to the
city council? Has the annexa on already been reviewed and considered by the planning commission?
So many ques ons, but for now these seem the most important
Thanks,
Jan Erickson
C (503) 887 3522
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Rachel Furman
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2022 1:01 PM
To: Agnes Lindor; Jeremy Tamargo
Cc: Daniel Stoller; Tracy Brophy; Vanda
Subject: Cedarbrook
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hi Jeremy and Agnes,
I had a quick question regarding the proposed Cedarbrook development site plans. Originally when they
held a neighborhood meeting back in August 26,
2020 (meeting led by Mosaic Management, Tim Taylor of Adam’s Holdings, and Sam
Thomas of Lenity Architecture) the neighborhood had quite a bit of concerns
regarding the placement of the loading docks and parking entrance being in
front of the existing Brownstone townhomes. We were told that if the city
allowed them, they would move them to the front away from the existing
neighborhood, which would improve the unification of new development with existing neighborhood, as
well as reduces the impact of the community character and pollution/noise disturbance. Did the city
ever receive responses or plans with those modifications? It appears no neighborhood remarks from that
meeting were ever addressed or adapted into their current plans. I hope the Planning Commission and the
city are aware that no attempts to work with the existing Metzger neighborhood have been met, despite our
attempts.
Thank you,
Rachel
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Neunzert <neunzert@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 11:08 AM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Planning commission - public tes mony - Cedarbrook applica on
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hello Agnes,
I would like to provide public tes mony about the Cedarbrook applica on at the Planning Commission
mee ng on February 28. I have a couple of ques ons about that process:
1) Do I need to sign up somehow so that the commissioners know that I would like to speak?
2) Will I be allowed to share my screen during my presenta on?
3) If screen-sharing is not allowed, is there a way to make graphical informa on available to the
commissioners ahead of me?
Thank you,
Michael Neunzert
(503) 849-2604
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Jan Erickson
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 8:55 AM
To: Agnes Lindor; Teresa
Subject: CedarBrook proposed annexa on documents
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Good morning Agness,
We are wan ng to revisit the Annexa on applica on and would like to make sure we are looking at
the most current documents. We saw that a achment 3 was about the annexa on and we were
wondering if there have been any addi onal updates made to it.
Would it be possible to send the actual Annexa on applica on document as well as the most current
comments/replies about the proposed annexa on?
Thank you very much-
Jan
Jan Erickson
C (503) 887 3522
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Rachel Furman <refurman.slp@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 8:59 AM
To: Agnes Lindor; Jeremy Tamargo
Cc: Daniel Stoller; Tracy Brophy; Vanda
Subject: Re: Cedarbrook
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
We want the current updated applica on and supported documenta on. Most of the documents on
the share point were older. The neighborhood wants to make sure we are reviewing the most updated
documenta on and site plans and not old ones.
Rachel
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 8:56:04 AM To: Rachel Furman <refurman.slp@gmail.com>; Jeremy Tamargo <jeremyt@ gard-or.gov> Cc: Daniel Stoller <stollerd@outlook.com>; Tracy Brophy <tracy4realestate@gmail.com>; Vanda
<vmakris24@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Cedarbrook
From January 2021 to February of 2022?
Do you want the en re submi al or do you want just the site plan?
Thanks,
Agnes
From: Rachel Furman <refurman.slp@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 7:48 AM To: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov>; Jeremy Tamargo <jeremyt@ gard-or.gov> Cc: Daniel Stoller <stollerd@outlook.com>; Tracy Brophy <tracy4realestate@gmail.com>; Vanda
<vmakris24@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Cedarbrook
Ok thank you! Seems like another lie they told us. It appears that they made no adjustments to any
plan based off the August 2020 neighborhood mee ng. Absolutely nothing! I think that is important
that the city planning commission are aware of no a empts to work with the exis ng neighborhood
and just countless lies they told us during the mee ng. Also looking through the updated documents I
can’t find their updated applica on since it was done in August before the resubmited. Can you send
us a copy of the updated applica on from January or February?
Thank you,
Rachel
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 6:41:26 AM To: Rachel Furman <refurman.slp@gmail.com>; Jeremy Tamargo <jeremyt@ gard-or.gov> Cc: Daniel Stoller <stollerd@outlook.com>; Tracy Brophy <tracy4realestate@gmail.com>; Vanda
<vmakris24@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Cedarbrook
Good morning Rachel-
The applicant did not submit an alterna ve plan showing the loading areas/parking entrance in a
different loca on. Thanks,
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@ gard-or.gov
From: Rachel Furman <refurman.slp@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2022 1:01 PM To: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov>; Jeremy Tamargo <jeremyt@ gard-or.gov> Cc: Daniel Stoller <stollerd@outlook.com>; Tracy Brophy <tracy4realestate@gmail.com>; Vanda
<vmakris24@gmail.com> Subject: Cedarbrook
Hi Jeremy and Agnes,
I had a quick question regarding the proposed Cedarbrook development site plans. Originally when they
held a neighborhood meeting back in August 26, 2020 (meeting led by Mosaic Management, Tim Taylor of
Adam’s Holdings, and Sam Thomas of Lenity Architecture) the neighborhood had quite a bit of concerns
regarding the placement of the loading docks and parking entrance being in front of the existing
Brownstone townhomes. We were told that if the city allowed them, they would move them to the front
away from the existing neighborhood, which would improve the unification of new development with
existing neighborhood, as well as reduces the impact of the community character and pollution/noise
disturbance. Did the city ever receive responses or plans with those modifications? It appears no
neighborhood remarks from that meeting were ever addressed or adapted into their current plans. I hope the
Planning Commission and the city are aware that no attempts to work with the existing Metzger
neighborhood have been met, despite our attempts.
Thank you,
Rachel
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws.
If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon
Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon
Administrative Rules “City General Records Retention Schedule.”
Allow sender | Block sender
You don't often get email from anthony.a.ames@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
From: Anthony Ames <anthony.a.ames@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 3:45 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Please vote in favor of families and safety. Please vote against the
proposed Cedarbrook facility
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Agnes,
My name is Anthony Ames and my family and I live in the Metzger neighborhood. We are concerned
about the proposed Cedarbrook development under review as it will certainly affect the quality of life
in a very nega ve way in our neighborhood.
Specifically:
1. Metro Code 3.09D - Increased traffic. The area around the proposed Cedarbrook development is
not equipped for the certain increase in traffic. There are few sidewalks, the roads are narrow and
there are families, many of whom have small children playing in the few green spaces available. The
increased traffic from the proposed facility with dozens of living units will make the neighborhood a
dangerous area for children to play, due to increased car traffic, ambulances, and shi changes. In
addi on, several families have dogs who they walk around the neighborhood, and with no sidewalks,
families and their dogs will be sharing the same space with the massive increase in traffic. This will
certainly increase the probability of dangerous situa ons with cars, ambulances and pedestrians
sharing the same space.
2. Metro Code 3.09D - Overloading of the transporta on system. With the certain increase in traffic if
the Cedarbrook proposal goes forward, the local transporta on system will be overloaded and will not
be able to meet current community needs. This holds par cularly true if an cipated growth and
development of surrounding areas occurs.
3. Tigard Code Sec on 18.720.030A(2) - The development is NOT in the city’s best interests. Tigard is
currently known as a rela vely family friendly part of the greater Portland metro area. With a
proposed development such as the massive Cedarbrook facility in the middle of a quiet and small
neighborhood, the atmosphere of the Metzger neighborhood will change for the worse, permanently
ruining our neighborhood and losing any charm and quiet that currently exists. We are figh ng for our
right to live in a peaceful neighborhood and not to be dominated by a colossal facility in the middle of
our neighborhood. We are figh ng for our children to have a peaceful neighborhood to play in, not to
be dodging uncontrollable traffic!
4. Tigard Code Sec on 18.910.030Q – the proposed Cedarbrook facility is clearly in viola on of this
sec on as well. Nowhere in the plans for the proposed facility is there a provision to protect the
neighboring proper es. This MASSIVE proposed facility will literally be 4-5 feet away from residen al
townhomes, it will be encroaching on wetlands and destroying habitats for natural wildlife in the
neighborhood.
City of Tigard, please help us. We are figh ng to maintain our neighborhood as a livable neighborhood
for our families and to raise our children in a safe environment. The roads in the area are simply not
equipped to handle the increased traffic, and there will be safety issues as a result. The sec ons and
codes listed above are just a sampling of viola ons that the proposed Cedarbrook facility would
create. Further viola ons of Tigard city codes include: policies for traffic as well as for construc on.
Not being truthful about what cons tutes a "dwelling", annexa on of space and land use. For these
reasons, my family and I are asking the City of Tigard to PLEASE help us to maintain our neighborhood.
Please vote in favor of families and safety, please vote against the proposed Cedarbrook facility.
Regards,
Anthony Ames
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Kathleen Noonan <kathleennoonan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 9:38 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Comments for the Record - Cedarbrook Development Proposal
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hello Agnes,
I would like to add these comments to the record for the Public Hearing: Planning Commission.
Cedarbrook Annexation and Site Development Review
(ZCA2021-00001 / SDR2021-00001)
Hello, my name is Kathleen Noonan and I am a homeowner at The Brownstone at the Square
townhomes located on 92nd Avenue. The proposed Cedarbrook development site is directly across the
street from my home and would surround the townhome complex on 3 sides. I would like to address
the issues of safety for the neighboring community and the residents most directly impacted by this
proposal but before I discuss those points, I would like to talk about the Metzger community and why I
decided to purchase my first home in this neighborhood.
The city of Tigard is a small, friendly community that is clean and safe, and people get to know their
neighbors. The most important factor when deciding on a location to purchase my home was safety
and livability. I have lived in several apartments in Tigard over the last 20 years and loved the small-
town feel of Tigard, the people, and the way of life. It’s away from the hustle and bustle of Portland, but
close enough to shops and services. I have lived in my home at Brownstone for 7 years and I love my
neighbors, my community and my home and I can’t imagine living anywhere else.
I am a runner, a walker and a cyclist, and I enjoy that I can throw on my shoes and walk out the door
for a walk in the neighborhood to enjoy exercise and nature. The proposed development site is 2
blocks from Metzger elementary school and our community is composed of many families and children.
Parents walk their kids to and from school, some walk home alone and after school kids are out riding
their bikes and playing with others along the streets. We also have many dog walkers, cyclists, and
runners in the area and we love the safety and walkability of our community.
The streets in our neighborhood are quite narrow, and most of them do not have sidewalks, so we are
forced to walk directly on the streets. The development company has created a design to have a
passthrough from one of our dead-end streets, Montage Lane, open up to their private drive into the
parking structure and a cut through to the front of the building. Montage lane is 7 feet from two
Brownstone buildings that house 6 homes each. A study prepared by Kettleson & Associates in 2021,
for the developer, has shown the Cedarbrook development would increase traffic by an additional 484
cars per day. The study stated that 80% of the traffic would likely go through the front entrance at Hall
boulevard, and 20% would go through the back entrance near Montage lane. I believe those numbers
are inaccurate and that more would drive through the Montage lane entrance, as it’s closer to the
freeway, and a direct line to the parking garage. The route around the building from hall boulevard to
the parking garage is a narrow and curvy road, and it stands to reason that more than 20% will use the
back entrance, through our community.
The other road through Brownstone, 92nd Avenue, runs in front of buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6, and is a
narrow road that dead-ends 25 feet before it connects to Hall boulevard. Residents have a one car
garage and a carport, and many of us use the on-street parking for additional cars, and guests. We
have approximately 9 spots on 92nd Avenue for street parking and any overflow has to park outside of
our community farther down the street. Because this is a dead end road, the only cars and vehicles we
have now are homeowners, guests, and delivery vans that utilize this road. The planning design for
92nd Avenue shows the “Emergency Entrance '' for drop-offs and pick-ups for all emergency vehicles,
including ambulatory services, fire trucks and other medical transit. This plan also takes out all of the
street parking on 92nd Avenue and Montage Lane. This means any guests would need to walk 1-2
blocks to buildings at the far end of 92nd Avenue, on the streets, to get to our residences. During the
winter months, this could mean dark and rainy conditions, walking on the street to get to a sidewalk.
This is dangerous and a safety hazard with the increased traffic. Especially the type of traffic we
anticipate. Neither 92nd Avenue or Montage Lane are equipped for heavy traffic or the influx of traffic
Cedarbrook would bring to our streets. I measured the road as described in the proposal for 92nd
Avenue, of 27 feet from center-line, and even with the developers extending into their property, this is
going to be an extremely narrow street. This proposal would greatly harm our ability to live outdoors
and to enjoy the community and to walk our dogs, exercise and allow our children to play outside. The
traffic for this development will not cease at 5pm Mondays through Fridays like a regular business. This
is a 24/7 memory care facility that will have employees, doctors, medical staff, and visitors coming and
going at all hours. Therefore, our community will never get a break from the traffic, the congestion, and
the resulting noise and safety issues.
We chose to live in Tigard for community, safety and livability. The City of Tigard’s “New Vision” for their
2020-2025 Refreshment Plan, from the City's website states: “An equitable community that is walkable,
healthy, and accessible for everyone”. Results from the 2021 April Open House show that 54% of the
voters like a "Focus on pedestrian and bicycle improvements, reduced building heights, and a fiscally
responsible and incremental approach that focuses on community needs". All of these reinforce Tigard
Resident's desire to keep Tigard a healthy, and walkable comunity. On top of everything else I have
addressed tonight, I work from a home office and spend most of my time on zoom calls and phone
calls. I can’t imagine trying to work with sirens blaring on a constant basis. We love our community and
want to stay here, live here and enjoy our homes. Several neighbors have already sold their
townhouses, because of this development proposal, and new “for sale” signs are popping up every
week. A new one appeared last week at building three, and if this development is approved, I will also
need to sell my home and move to a safer and quieter community. I am heartbroken by the thought of
selling my first “home”, but I can’t live in a community with that much traffic, safety issues and the
ongoing congestion and noise. I ask you to consider all of our comments and concerns and reject the
approval of this development plan. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Regards,
Kathleen Noonan
mobile - 949-466-5487
kathleennoonan@yahoo.com
From: Courtney Sjoberg <courtneyesjoberg@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 10:47 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Cedarbrook
[You don't o en get email from courtneyesjoberg@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at
h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.]
Hi Agnes,
My name is Courtney Sjoberg and my partner and I live in the Metzger neighborhood. We are
concerned about the proposed Cedarbrook development under review as it will certainly affect the
quality of life in a very nega ve way in our neighborhood.
Specifically:
1. Metro Code 3.09D - Increased traffic. The area around the proposed Cedarbrook development is
not equipped for the certain increase in traffic. There are already very few sidewalks, the roads are
narrow and there are families, many of whom have small children playing in the few green spaces
available. The increased traffic from the proposed facility with dozens of living units will make the
neighborhood a dangerous area for children to play, due to increased car traffic, ambulances, and shi
changes. In addi on, several families have dogs who they walk around the neighborhood, and with no
sidewalks, families and their dogs will be sharing the same space with the massive increase in traffic.
This will certainly increase the probability of dangerous situa ons with cars, ambulances and
pedestrians sharing the same space.
We walk regularly and it is already dangerous in current condi ons with no sidewalk space and not
enough streetlights. We have to wear reflec ve gear and tons of headlights and flashlights to feel safe
walking a er dusk.
2. Metro Code 3.09D - Overloading of the transporta on system. With the certain increase in traffic if
the Cedarbrook proposal goes forward, the local transporta on system will be overloaded and will not
be able to meet current community needs. This holds par cularly true if an cipated growth and
development of surrounding areas occurs.
3. Tigard Code Sec on 18.720.030A(2) - The development is NOT in the city ’s best interests. Tigard is
currently known as a rela vely family friendly part of the greater Portland metro area. With a
proposed development such as the massive Cedarbrook facility in the middle of a quiet and small
neighborhood, the atmosphere of the Metzger neighborhood will change for the worse, permanently
ruining our neighborhood and losing any charm and quiet that currently exists. We are figh ng for our
right to live in a peaceful neighborhood and not to be dominated by a colossal facility in the middle of
our neighborhood. We just bought our home less than a year ago and are planning to start a family.
This would be detrimental to our future children and their ability to play outside.
4. Tigard Code Sec on 18.910.030Q – the proposed Cedarbrook facility is clearly in viola on of this
sec on as well. Nowhere in the plans for the proposed facility is there a provision to protect the
neighboring proper es. This MASSIVE proposed facility will literally be 4-5 feet away from residen al
townhomes, OUR TOWNHOME, we are right on the property line. It will be encroaching on wetlands
and destroying habitats for natural wildlife in the neighborhood.
City of Tigard, please help us. We are figh ng to maintain our neighborhood as a livable neighborhood
for our families and to raise our children in a safe environment. The roads in the area are simply not
equipped to handle the increased traffic, and there will be safety issues as a result. The sec ons and
codes listed above are just a sampling of viola ons that the proposed Cedarbrook facility would
create. Further viola ons of Tigard city codes include: policies for traffic as well as for construc on.
Not being truthful about what cons tutes a "dwelling", annexa on of space and land use. For these
reasons, my family and I are asking the City of Tigard to PLEASE help us to maintain our neighborhood.
Please vote in favor of families and safety, please vote against the proposed Cedarbrook facility.
Regards,
Courtney Sjoberg
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Rachel Furman <refurman.slp@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 7:17 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Cc: Daniel Stoller
Subject: Cedarbrook Comment
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
I would like to submit another comment to the planning commission.
Hello, my name is Rachel Stoller and
I am a resident in Metzger Neighborhood. I live in the townhome that will be
about 5-feet from the loading dock and entrance into the parking garage of the
proposed Cedarbrook Development. Over a year ago, we were notified of a public
hearing and attended the August 26, 2020 meeting led by Mosaic Management, Tim
Taylor of Adam’s Holdings and Sam Thomas of Lenity Architecture. As concerned
residents we attended the meeting with open minds and ready to discuss this
proposed development. We brought up several concerns to the developers and were
met with haste replies that were inaccurate. Since that initial meeting our
neighborhood group that consists of over 24 households has met regularly
amongst ourselves as well as with the City of Tigard, ODOT, Washington County,
CPO4M, and Oregon’s Department of Human Services. We have actively participated
in interviews, polls and meetings regarding city’s updates including the recent
Washington Square Regional Center update. We want to thank the city for helping
us create and discuss these crucial conversations regarding the proposed Cedarbrook
Development, and are disappointed that after multiple attempts the developers
have refused to modify their existing plans based off of our feedback. Over the
past year, they have failed to reach out to any of us, despite our attempts,
and the only communication we have had with them initially resulted in bullying
and falsifying information. For example, the developers downplayed the original
ODOT and Washington County plans for Montage Ln and claimed that their proposal
to make it a private driveway for the Cedarbrook development was sufficient in
meeting the needs of all involved parties. We also asked for them to relocate
the loading dock and parking garage from existing Brownstone Townhomes and were
told the city of Tigard wouldn’t allow that, but they would if they could. This
past week I was notified by Agnes Lindor that they had never proposed the site
plan change. The developers could easily make the development for appealing and
safer for the existing community (For example, placing all parking garage
entrances and loading docks front facing, and green space between the building
and existing neighbors). We want to create a community that is safe, and
accessible, and one that grows with the community versus based off out-dated
visions. We thank the Washington Square Regional Center Update for
acknowledging that the land being proposed should be re-zoned to not allow more
than a 3-story residential building that is medium in density. It reflects how
our community is growing. Our neighborhood believes the current development
site plan is ill design and significantly impacts the safety and aesthetic of
the current neighborhood. In addition, the site plan is not supported by
current research indicating the benefits of increased greenspace and smaller infrastructure
communities for the aging population. I recommend the developers look at area
assisted living and memory care facilities, as well as meet with local experts
to educate and help guide them on current practices (including no more than one
floor for a memory care facility and having it be a continuous circle, and
having ample outdoor activities that can be modified for various physical
levels such as gardens to promote brain health. Current plans will increase
patient stress and impact brain health including their cognitive and mental
health decline.
Thank
you,
Rachel
Stoller
From: Rachel Furman <refurman.slp@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 9:04 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Cc: Diane Bowman; Dianebow; Teresa Gipson; garbar13; Vanda; Jan Erickson
(via Google Drive); Daniel Stoller; Kathleen Noonan; Anthony Ames;
STEPHEN PERRY; Tracy Brophy
Subject: Tigard's Natural Habitat list
Hi Agnes,
Can you direct us to Tigard’s list of natural habitats?
Rachel Stoller
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Rachel Furman <refurman.slp@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 9:41 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Cedarbrook Comment
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Dear City of Tigard,
It has come to my a en on that Mosaic Management has submi ed an applica on for review to annex 9355 & 9415 SW Hall
Boulevard into the city of Tigard and develop on the land. I am deeply concerned and want to voice my numerous concerns.
1. When I bought my home I had looked up the land use of the field next to me. It is currently zoned for TO:R18-24 but
recently I learned if it were to be annexed into the city of Tigard the land use would change to MUR-1 which would allow
commercial development. Surrounding the field on all 4 sides are homes (singles family homes, townhomes, and
apartments). We have created a community that children play outside, neighbors greet each other and we have been
working to keep our neighborhood accessible and safe. By allowing a 4-story assisted living/memory care facility you are
hur ng our community. You are breaking it up, and dividing the cohesion we have built between our neighbors and our
community. The 4-story building will stand out like a sore thumb and suffocate our exis ng community. This field is not like
other plots of land in the Washington Square Region, as it is completely surrounded by housing. In addi on, a recent
presenta on by Susan Shanks at the CPO 4M neighborhood mee ng, outlined their findings that the Metzger
neighborhood was not a high-density area and needed to be rezoned to “right size the original vision”. The previous
Washington Square Regional Plan is out-of-date and the updated findings that Susan and her team collected express that
clearly. Please don’t allow the change in land-use from the exis ng use of townhomes, which would complete our
neighborhood and allow us to create more affordable op ons for members of our community. I love living in the City of
Tigard as it has felt like a community, but the outdated Washington Square Regional Plan (currently being updated) does
not reflect the changes in the last 10-years that the city has gone through. By changing the land-use to allow a 4-story
building to be developed, the city would be hur ng the exis ng neighborhood, and the changes our community has made
in the last several years. As the Washington Square Regional Center update has clearly stated the need to rezone our area
to not be high-density and that update is currently being finalized, I think it is crucial that the city listen to the findings. A
new high-density project should not be annexed into a non high-density area.
2. The current submi ed land development proposal creates a private drive from Hall Blvd to Montage Lane that can not be
used by the Metzger residents. Instead it can only be used by ambulances, residents of the proposed facility, staff, delivery
trucks, etc.. The primary pick-up and drop-off entrance for the memory care unit will be within the exis ng Brownstone
Development on 92nd Ave. All visitors will be required to cut-through the neighborhood to get to the entrance. In
addi on, The parking-lot for all visitors and residents, as well as delivery docks is located on the back of the proposed
facility, which is located directly in front of one of the Brownstone Townhome rows. With current building layout having
the parking garage and delivery docks rear facing, it would be most efficient, from all major freeways, to cut-through the
neighborhood to get to the parking lot or docks, than to go around the neighborhood to the Hall Blvd entrance. On the
traffic study submi ed by Mosaic Management, to analyze the impact, they es mated that on average 512 daily trips
would be completed. Our neighborhood would argue that most visitors would come down the quickest, most efficient and
convenient path to the facility. By placing the parking garage entrance, and delivery docks at the back of the facility, thus a
majority or drivers would probably be cu ng through our exis ng neighborhood. Our neighborhood asked that a Safe
Street Parking traffic study be completed on 92nd Ave in February and March and we found out the following informa on:
going northbound 190 vehicles each day and going southbound 232 vehicles per day. The exis ng site plan would thus
significantly add more traffic, and poten ally be more than doubling it daily. I ask the city to not allow the current street
connec on from Hall Blvd to Montage Lane to be private (previously the city and ODOT had provided wri en
communica on that they would require this to be a public road). That would give another access point for traffic to be
directed and lesson the burden on the exis ng neighborhood roads. In addi on, all delivery truck docks, entrances and
parking garages should be front facing off of Hall Blvd, thus to reduce the large burden they currently would place on the
neighborhood. That would decrease a lot of cut-trough traffic as the delivery trucks would no longer have to come through
the neighborhood’s very narrow roads (on a side note our roads are so narrow we frequently have delivery trucks stuck on
92nd Ave and recently had an Amazon delivery truck hit and kill one of our trees). Lastly, I am also concerned that vehicles,
unfamiliar with the area, will be speeding through the neighborhood and not abiding by speed and road signs. This poses a
safety risk for current residents, especially kids.
3. Another area of concern I have is the vehicle parking minimum adjustment. They are asking for a 48% reduc on in what
they believed was the city’s requirement, but the city responded that there wasn’t a minimum requirement. They proposed
only 92 parking spots, for all employees, residents and visitors. As someone who has worked in similar sized assisted living/
skilled nursing facili es in the state of Oregon (I worked for Avamere- Infinity Rehab and Marquis-Consonus) I can tell you
that that number is significantly underes mated. For example, nursing shi s usually are 12 hours long with an overlap in
shi s to go over all residents (shi -change). Cer fied Medical Assistants (CMAs) and Cer fied Nursing Assistants (CNAs)
usually work 8-10-hour shi s and also have a shi -change. All ac vity coordinators, salon workers, cooks, dietary staff, care
coordinators, execu ves, directors, bus drivers etc.. usually work 8-10 hours. If we do simple math we can roughly calculate
how many people will be coming in at any given me. The proposal is for 196 residents. If we say that there will be one
CNA for every 7 residents (state requirement for day shi : h ps://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.ac on?
ruleVrsnRsn=276191) that would be 28, and for evening shi the requirement is one CNA per 9.5 residents or 21 spots.
Thus just CNA staff would be 49 individuals for change of shi during the day. However the state of Oregon also states on
that website “The numbers do not represent sufficient nursing staff. The number of staff necessary to meet the needs of
each resident determines sufficient nursing staff.” Thus with memory care residents we would expect those ra os to be
lowered. Now let’s say they have a director of nursing on each floor and one for the memory care, that would be 5 people.
Nurses (LPN and RN) we’d es mate at least one per hall (or at least 9 with the given floor plan). Then we have the dietary
staff, which if we have 2 lead cooks each shi and 5 dietary staff members for each floor (these are on the lowest end of
and o en are much larger) that would 27 spots. Currently without any administrators, therapy staff, ac vity staff, salon
staff, visitor or resident parking we are at the following individuals during a day shi change: 28+ 21+ 5 + 9+27= 90
individuals. Now if we add in administrators (an execu ve administrator, assistant administrator, financial director, spiritual
care director, ac vity staff director, care coordinator director, Director of all nursing, director or all food services, employee
rela ons, HR, front desk, assistant), and social workers (we will assume based off local assisted living facility models one
social worker on each floor) the would give us at least 20 more individuals. Now we have facility bus drivers (we will assume
one), ac vity staff at least one per floor (5 including the memory care facility), and one person for the saloon. Now we have
the following numbers: 90+ 20+ 5+1= 116. Now this doesn’t include any visitors or cars the residents may have (assisted
living doesn’t mean residents don’t drive nor that they want to get rid of their an que cars). If we assume only 10 percent
of residents have visitors (very low, considering the fact that Mosaic Management es mated most will have family within 5
miles of the facility), that would mean about 20 spots for residents. Now we are at 136 individuals without including any
home health services including PT, OT, SLP, podiatry, or den st services. Now we understand that not all 100% of those
individuals may drive. If we es mate the number of people driving in to be 75% (number based on metropolitan areas in a
study completed by Bloomberg: h ps://www.bloomberg.com/news/ar cles/2019-01-22/how-americans-commute-to-
work-in-maps) that would 87 staff members, 20 visitors or 107 spots. That is on the low end as it doesn’t take into account
any spots for residents to have a car or any home health services. The Metzger neighborhood is in a parking shortage and
can not absorb any more cars. It would be disastrous to the exis ng residents and community if the city did not uphold the
developers to the 178 parking minimum. In addi on, the comparison facili es they provided all were out-of-state and none
were in neighborhoods (all we in large centers where parking overload could be be er absorbed). Their jus fica on for the
adjustment has many flaws, and I can provide substan al evidence to demonstrate the need to not allow less than the
required 178 parking spots. The residents need to have access to services, but if there aren’t enough parking spot you are
poten ally cu ng them off from visitors and services.
The current development plan ignores the safety and parking limita ons of this area including the Metzger neighborhood and takes
away accessibility from the individuals they are hoping to bring into our community. As a concerned ci zen of the Metzger
neighborhood, I want to help my community grow, and I want to advocate for such. The proposed development is simply too large
for the land size and would be be er suited in a larger lot. I hope this le er serves as a star ng point to have open conversa ons
between the City officials, residents, and developer. Metzger is a special place to live, and I want to make sure it also remains safe
and accessible.
Sincerely,
Rachel Stoller
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Rachel Furman <refurman.slp@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 9:53 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Cc: Daniel Stoller
Subject: Cedarbrook Development Comment
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hi Agnes,
I also want the planning commission to be aware that due to the impact this
development would have on the Metzger Neighborhood and fear of it ’s
development, we’ve already had 6 neighbors sell their townhomes and two other
neighbors on 92nd Ave sell their homes this past 6-months. If they would like
wri en tes mony from these past residents, we can provide them. Many of the
current residents also worry about this development and have discussed need to
sell their place, for the well being of their families, if this development were to go
through. I recommend the city and planning commission drive through Metzger
neighborhood to see how the neighborhood feels about this proposed
development. You will find more than 30 signs against the development within our
neighborhood. Over 30 households believe this development is not in the best
interest of the city of Tigard and does not reflect their strategic planning vision goal
to make "an equitable community that is walkable, healthy, and accessible for
everyone". This development would reduce the accessibility for a pedestrian
network, impac ng the a rac veness and connec on of the current community.
This development proposal does not support growth within the city’s strategic
planning vision. Many neighbors have voiced concerns of increased pollu on, noise
and reduced safety if this development were to be developed, and if the
planning commission is in fact wan ng to make an equitable community that is
walkable, healthy and accessible for everyone, they will not approve this
development as it currently is proposed.
Thank you,
Rachel
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Daniel Stoller <stollerd@outlook.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 10:22 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Cc: Rachel Furman
Subject: Cedarbrook Proposal - Public Hearing Feb 28, 2022
A achments: Concerned Ci zen of Metzger Community - Public Hearing 20220228 -
PDF.pdf
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hi Agnes,
A ached to this email you will find a PDF version of the material I plan to present during my 3
minutes at the public hearing on Feb 28, 2022 covering the Cedarbrook Assisted Living &
Memory Care proposal. I would greatly appreciate the planning commission reviewing this
document prior to the mee ng.
Regards,
Daniel Stoller
1CONCERNED CITIZENS OF METZGER COMMUNITY | CEDARBOOK ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE PROPOSAL
City of Tigard Public Hearing | Feb 28, 2022
Metzger Community Response to
Cedarbook Assisted Living & Memory Care Proposal
Daniel Stoller
2CONCERNED CITIZENS OF METZGER COMMUNITY | CEDARBOOK ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE PROPOSAL
CEDARBROOK ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE PROPOSAL
551
DAYS SINCE
NEIGHBORHOOD MTG
AUG 26
2020
FEB 28
2022
FEB 15
2022
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
PUBLIC HEARING
>80
LETTERS / COMMENTS
FROM CONCERNED
RESIDENTS
0
ADJUSTMENTS MADE BY
DEVELOPER BASED ON
RESIDENT FEEDBACK
12 DAYS TO REVIEW STAFF REPORT 1 MEETING TO APPROVE 0 ATTEMPTS TO REACH OUT TO
COMMUNITY MEMBERS
STAFF REPORT
3CONCERNED CITIZENS OF METZGER COMMUNITY | CEDARBOOK ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE PROPOSAL
9193
9185
9161
DROP
OFF
GARAGE
ENTRANCE
9177
9169
9468
9462
9456
9448
CUT THRU TRAFFIC
MONTAGE LANE
92nd
92nd
92nd
9
4
7
5
9
4
7
9
9
4
9
1
9
4
8
3
9
4
8
7
9
4
9
5
9
4
4
5
9
4
4
1
9
4
2
9
9
4
3
7
9
4
3
3
9
4
2
5
9
4
0
1
9
4
0
5
9
4
1
7
9
4
0
9
9
4
1
3
9
4
2
1
9
3
3
1
9
3
3
5
9
3
4
7
9
3
3
9
9
3
4
3
9
3
5
1
9525 9510 9530 9550
91st
9515
9425
9435
9475
Existing
Home
Existing
Road
New
Road
L
O
A
D
92nd
9520
LEGEND
AUGUST 2020 PROPOSAL
4CONCERNED CITIZENS OF METZGER COMMUNITY | CEDARBOOK ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE PROPOSAL
9193
9185
9161
DROP
OFF
GARAGE
ENTRANCE
9177
9169
9468
9462
9456
9448
CUT THRU TRAFFIC
MONTAGE LANE
92nd
92nd
92nd
9
4
7
5
9
4
7
9
9
4
9
1
9
4
8
3
9
4
8
7
9
4
9
5
9
4
4
5
9
4
4
1
9
4
2
9
9
4
3
7
9
4
3
3
9
4
2
5
9
4
0
1
9
4
0
5
9
4
1
7
9
4
0
9
9
4
1
3
9
4
2
1
9
3
3
1
9
3
3
5
9
3
4
7
9
3
3
9
9
3
4
3
9
3
5
1
9525 9510 9530 9550
91st
9515
9425
9435
9475
Existing
Home
Existing
Road
New
Road
L
O
A
D
92nd
9520
LEGEND
JANUARY 2022 PROPOSAL
5CONCERNED CITIZENS OF METZGER COMMUNITY | CEDARBOOK ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE PROPOSAL
9193
9185
9161
DROP
OFF
GARAGE
ENTRANCE
9177
9169
9468
9462
9456
9448
CUT THRU TRAFFIC
MONTAGE LANE
92nd
92nd
92nd
9
4
7
5
9
4
7
9
9
4
9
1
9
4
8
3
9
4
8
7
9
4
9
5
9
4
4
5
9
4
4
1
9
4
2
9
9
4
3
7
9
4
3
3
9
4
2
5
9
4
0
1
9
4
0
5
9
4
1
7
9
4
0
9
9
4
1
3
9
4
2
1
9
3
3
1
9
3
3
5
9
3
4
7
9
3
3
9
9
3
4
3
9
3
5
1
9525 9510 9530 9550
91st
9515
9425
9435
9475
Existing
Home
Existing
Road
New
Road
L
O
A
D
92nd
9520
LEGEND
Cul-de-sac:
a street or passage closed at one end
Road Junction:
where two or more roads meet
JANUARY 2022 PROPOSAL
6CONCERNED CITIZENS OF METZGER COMMUNITY | CEDARBOOK ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE PROPOSAL
9193
9185
9161
9177
9169
9468
9462
9456
9448
MONTAGE LANE
92nd
92nd
92nd
9
4
7
5
9
4
7
9
9
4
9
1
9
4
8
3
9
4
8
7
9
4
9
5
9
4
4
5
9
4
4
1
9
4
2
9
9
4
3
7
9
4
3
3
9
4
2
5
9
4
0
1
9
4
0
5
9
4
1
7
9
4
0
9
9
4
1
3
9
4
2
1
9
3
3
1
9
3
3
5
9
3
4
7
9
3
3
9
9
3
4
3
9
3
5
1
9525 9510 9530 9550
91st
9515
9425
9435
9475
Existing
Home
Existing
Road
New
Road
92nd
9520
LEGEND
DAN’S PROPOSAL
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 of
Hall Blvd), add a sound reducing wall, consolidate drop off
locations into one
NEW
WALL
GARAGE
ENTRANCE
L
O
A
D
DROP
OFF
7CONCERNED CITIZENS OF METZGER COMMUNITY | CEDARBOOK ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE PROPOSAL
METZGER COMMUNITY CONCERNS WITH PROPOSAL & REQUESTED ADJUSTMENTS
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 of Hall Blvd), Cul-de-sac proposed is useless
3.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 community
2.Expanded parking options and permit parking on Montage Ln & 92nd Ave
3.Speed bumps on Montage Ln & 92nd Ave
4.Sidewalks on 92nd Ave
Allow sender | Block sender
You don't often get email from landlaw.oregon@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
From: landlaw.oregon@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 9:13 AM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Cedarbrook Annexa on and Site Development Review (ZCA2021-00001 /
SDR2021-00001)
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Gree ngs:
I intend to submit wri en tes mony regarding the above referenced land use applica on. According
to the no ce of hearing, wri en submissions are due 4:30 pm on the day of the hearing (Feb. 28).
However, I also heard that to be included in the “mee ng packet,” comments must be submi ed no
later than 2:00 pm today.
Can you please clarify. Thank you.
Kenneth P. Dobson
Attorney at Law
324 S. Abernethy Street
Portland, Oregon 97239
Office: (971) 717-6582
Mobile: (503) 684-8198
landlaw.oregon@gmail.com
www.pdxlandlaw.com
Information contained in this communication is privileged and/or confidential, intended only for the individual/entity named
above. If the reader of this notice is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify us by
phone (971) 717-6582 or email, and delete it from your computer. Thank you.
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Jan Erickson <jan.m.erickson@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 8:00 AM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Public hearing before the planning commission on Feb 28th, 2022
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Good morning Agnes,
I'd like to propose a con nuance of the public mee ng to review before the planning commission the
proposed Cedarbrook annexa on and site development review that is currently scheduled on
February 28th.
With the updated drawings and wri en materials and also the difficulty that some of us have had in
naviga ng the link to locate the desired documents, we need more me to be able to present
addi onal evidence or tes mony.
In the Staff report it states:
CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Goal 1.1: Provide ci zens, affected agencies, and other
jurisdic ons the opportunity to par cipate in all phases of the planning process. City staff posted
public hearing no ces in four public places on December 16, 2021 (Tigard City Hall, Tigard Permit
Center, Tigard Public Works, and at the subject site); city staff mailed public hearing no ces to all
necessary par es, and neighboring property owners within 500 feet of the subject site on December
16, 2021; and the City published a public hearing no ce in the Tigard Times for more than two
successive weeks (with publish dates on December 23, 2021, December 30, 2021, and January 5,
2022) prior to the January 10, 2022 public hearing before Planning Commission. City staff also posted
the public hearing informa on on the City of Tigard website, and the staff report was also posted on
this ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 19 OF 68 website 15 days prior to the public hearing before
Planning Commission.
The staff report is signed and dated on February 15th, 2022. The scheduled public hearing before the
Planning commission is on February 28, 2022. The public hearing date is only 13 days a er the staff
report was completed. This simply does not allow us enough me to fully explore, document and
respond to the new material presented by the developer and the informa on in the updated Staff
report.
Thank you for considering this-
Jan
--
Jan Erickson
C (503) 887 3522
Allow sender | Block sender
From: garbar13 <garbar13@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 12:01 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Brownstone condos on garbage pick-up day
A achments: 20220223_124758.jpg
20220223_124626.jpg
20220223_124623.jpg
20220223_124339.jpg
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hi Agnes,
Here are some photos of the Brownstone's on garbage day. What is the plan for garbage pick up if the
proposed Cedarbrook development goes through? How will my neighbors be served? The streets are
narrow, as you can see, which creates a safety hazard on those days should Cedarbrook become a
reality.
The first photo is on 92nd looking toward Hall.
The second photo depicts the Brownstone's, with Montage to the right.
The third photo is looking at the dead end Montage Lane.
The final photo was taken at 92nd and Borders looking toward Hall. Narrow street.
Thanks,
Juanita Garnow
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Rachel Furman
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 8:42 AM
To: Agnes Lindor
Cc: Daniel Stoller; Jan Erickson (via Google Drive); Vanda; Tracy Brophy;
Anthony Ames; STEPHEN PERRY; Diane Bowman; Teresa Gipson; garbar13;
Kathleen Noonan
Subject: Complete Street Policy
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hi Agnes,
You previously had stated the developer is making no safety adjustments such as
speed bumps, sidewalks, or street lights to the part of 92nd Ave that isn’t adjacent
to the development. However according to the City of Tigard “Complete Street
Policy ” that was established in 2014, the developer would have to provide safety
updates to all of 92nd Ave. A Safe Street Parking traffic study was completed on
92nd Ave in February and March 2021 and we found out the following informa on:
going northbound 190 vehicles each day and going southbound 232 vehicles per
day. The exis ng site plan would thus significantly add more traffic, even if it were
just the 20% that the developers argue would go through our neighborhood (20%
of their es mated trips generated would be 51% increase in traffic for our
neighborhood). However with the loca on of their loading dock, parking garage
entrance and memory care entrance majority of vehicles are more likely to go
through the neighborhood than around to Hall Blvd. Specifically large delivery
trucks that won’t be able to drive under their entrance awning or around their
small private drive. Their private drive would be much harder to navigate and if
their address is placed into any GPS system, per Goggle map experts, it would take
them down the public roads (neighborhood) versus their private drive. With this
much burden on the neighborhood and their address being off of Hall Blvd they
should only have access off of Hall Blvd and the neighborhood should be separated
to improve our livability.
Codes not in Compliance or being met:
18.930: "The purpose of this chapter is to establish
standards that will assure proper sight distances at intersec ons to reduce
the hazard from vehicular turning movements. (Ord. 17-22 §2).”
***There is no clear line of vision between Montage Lange and 92nd
Ave intersec on due to the Brownstone Townhomes. In such we have already had
vehicles like Amazon hit
trees and almost children due to them saying they couldn’t see them. We have
closed cases and receipts from Amazon showing they have hit and destroyed
property due to the reduced visibility 92nd Ave to Montage Lane that can’t be
mi gated due to the building structures.
18.670: "Development conformance. All new developments,
including remodeling and renova on projects resul ng in new commercial uses,
are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In
addi on to mee ng the design standards described below and other development
standards required by the development and building codes, developments will be
required to dedicate and improve public streets; connect to public facili es
such as sanitary sewer, water, and storm drainage; and par cipate in funding
future transporta on and public improvement projects necessary within the
Washington Square Regional Center. (Ord. 18-23 §2; Ord. 17-22 §2)”
***This in conjunc on to
the "Complete Street Policy ” established in 2014 by the city of Tigard
would require them to improve safety on 92nd Ave en rely. The neighborhood
would argue speed bumps, street lights, sidewalks, and a stop sign on 92nd and
borders would be the bare
minimum. A child was hit this past year on 92nd Ave due to a car not seeing
them and there being no sidewalks.
18.670 "2. Metro’s Regional
Urban Growth Management Func onal Plan target growth capacity for the
Washington Square regional center will be met by allowing mixed-use development
within the regional center at densi es appropriate for an urban center.”
***The Washington Square Regional Center Update
changes the density from a high-density to a medium density land-use which
would not allow a 186-bed facility to be developed. In addi on, it specifies
that a 1-3 story building would be allowed.
18.420 " The purposes of landscaping standards are to:
1. Enhance
the aesthe c and economic value of development and
the community as a whole;
2. Unify
new development with exis ng neighborhoods and
establish a more pleasant
community character; and
3. Reduce
stormwater runoff by providing permeable surfaces.
B. The
purposes of screening standards are to:
1. So en
and screen large-scale structures, parking lots, and
other unsightly features
from view, especially from the street frontage to create
a more pleasant
pedestrian experience; and
2. Reduce
visual impacts and provide privacy between residen al
and nonresiden al uses.
C. The
purposes of tree canopy standards are to:
1. Maximize
the aesthe c, environmental, and economic benefits that trees provide by
preserving, managing, and enhancing exis ng trees and requiring plan ng
of
new trees; and
2. Implement
the comprehensive plan goals and policies related to urban forestry. (Ord.
18-28 §1)”.
***There is
currently no so ening or screening of the large-scale structure and
unsightly
features such as a loading dock from the Brownstone Townhomes. In fact,
the
loading dock and parking garage entrance is a mere 5 feet from the
exis ng
Brownstone Townhomes adjacent to the property. There has been no
reduc on in
visual impacts of a large building such as this being proposed toppling
over
current 1-level homes more any walls being developed that separate the
exis ng
neighborhood from the proposed development. Exis ng plans do not
make the
community character more pleasant but in fact reduce the walkability and
quality of exis ng neighbors lives by increasing safety concerns with traffic
and health concerns with increased pollu on. The Curren proposed
development
would reduce the economic value to eh Brownstone Townhomes and the
en re
Metzger community as a whole.
18.410 "The purpose of this
chapter is to ensure the provision of vehicle parking areas that:
A. Have
adequate capacity,
B. Are
appropriately located in close proximity to the various uses
for residents,
customers, and employees, and
C. Maintain
the traffic-carrying capacity of nearby streets to minimize
hazardous
condi ons. (Ord. 18-23 §2; Ord. 17-22 §2)”
***The current
proposal does not provide enough visitor and staff parking
for a building of
that size. They are asking for a 48% reduc on in what they believed was
the city’s requirement, but the city responded that there wasn’t a minimum
requirement. They proposed only 92 parking spots, for all employees, residents
and visitors. As someone who has worked in similar sized assisted living/
skilled nursing facili es in the state of Oregon (I worked for Avamere-
Infinity Rehab and Marquis-Consonus) I can tell you that that number is
significantly underes mated. For example, nursing shi s usually are 12 hours
long with an overlap in shi s to go over all residents (shi -change).
Cer fied Medical Assistants (CMAs) and Cer fied Nursing Assistants (CNAs)
usually work 8-10-hour shi s and also have a shi -change. All ac vity
coordinators, salon workers, cooks, dietary staff, care coordinators,
execu ves, directors, bus drivers etc.. usually work 8-10 hours. If we do
simple math we can roughly calculate how many people will be coming in at any
given me. The proposal is for 196 residents. If we say that there
will be one CNA for every 7 residents (state requirement for day
shi : h ps://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.ac on?ruleVrsnRsn=276191)
that would be 28, and for evening shi the requirement is one CNA per 9.5
residents or 21 spots. Thus just CNA staff would be 49 individuals for
change of shi during the day. However the state of Oregon also states on that
website “The numbers do not represent sufficient nursing staff. The number of
staff necessary to meet the needs of each resident determines sufficient
nursing staff.” Thus with memory care residents we would expect those ra os to
be lowered. Now let’s say they have a director of nursing on each floor and one
for the memory care, that would be 5 people. Nurses (LPN and RN) we’d
es mate at least one per hall (or at least 9 with the given floor plan). Then
we have the dietary staff, which if we have 2 lead cooks each shi and 5
dietary staff members for each floor (these are on the lowest end of and o en
are much larger) that would 27 spots. Currently without any administrators,
therapy staff, ac vity staff, salon staff, visitor or resident parking we are
at the following individuals during a day shi change: 28+ 21+ 5 + 9+27= 90
individuals. Now if we add in administrators (an execu ve administrator,
assistant administrator, financial director, spiritual care director, ac vity
staff director, care coordinator director, Director of all nursing, director or
all food services, employee rela ons, HR, front desk, assistant), and social
workers (we will assume based off local assisted living facility models one
social worker on each floor) the would give us at least 20 more individuals.
Now we have facility bus drivers (we will assume one), ac vity staff at least
one per floor (5 including the memory care facility), and one person for the
saloon. Now we have the following numbers: 90+ 20+ 5+1= 116. Now this
doesn’t include any visitors or cars the residents may have (assisted living
doesn’t mean residents don’t drive nor that they want to get rid of their an que
cars). If we assume only 10 percent of residents have visitors (very low,
considering the fact that Mosaic Management es mated most will have family
within 5 miles of the facility), that would mean about 20 spots for residents.
Now we are at 136 individuals without including any home health services
including PT, OT, SLP, podiatry, or den st services. Now we understand
that not all 100% of those individuals may drive. If we es mate the
number of people driving in to be 75% (number based on metropolitan areas in a
study completed by Bloomberg: h ps://www.bloomberg.com/news/ar cles/2019-01-22/how-
americans-commute-to-work-in-maps)
that would 87 staff members, 20 visitors or 107 spots. That is on the low
end as it doesn’t take into account any spots for residents to have a car or
any home health services. The Metzger neighborhood is in a parking shortage and
can not absorb any more cars. It would be disastrous to the exis ng residents
and community if the city did not uphold the developers to the 178 parking
minimum. In addi on, the comparison facili es they provided all were
out-of-state and none were in neighborhoods (all we in large centers where
parking overload could be be er absorbed). Their jus fica on for the
adjustment has many flaws, and I can provide substan al evidence to
demonstrate the need to not allow less than the required 178 parking spots. The
residents need to have access to services, but if there aren’t enough parking
spot you are poten ally cu ng them off from visitors and services.
18.120 "C. Minimizing
the poten al adverse impacts of commercial uses on residen al uses by
carefully loca ng and selec ng the types of uses allowed in each commercial
zone. (Ord. 18-28 §1; Ord. 18-23 §2; Ord. 17-22 §2)”.
***This proposed development would adversely impact our
neighborhood’s safety. The Planning Commission should be careful in selec ng
what type of development could be built within the Metzger neighborhood.
Homes are surrounding
This development on all 4-sides and it should remain residen al similar to the
developments around it.
This development does not meet the city’s codes based off the large holes in the
above codes that are not met. Please deny the approval of the Cedarbrook Assisted
Living and Memory Care Facility, as it is currently proposed.
Thank you,
Rachel Stoller
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Clint Wilkins
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 11:24 AM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Cedarbrook Development
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Agnes,
I highly oppose this applica on mainly because of the proposed traffic impacts!
The rou ng of traffic thru a reseden al neighborhood with substandard streets{no sidewalks, open storm
drain ditches both sides} is a safety hazard.
The applicant should be made to show direc ons how to get to S.W. 92nd to S.W. Montage because this
will show the full impact on this neighborhood.
Hall Blvd. should be the only access for this development.
If this applica on is approved as is it will destroy this once quiet neighborhood.
Is there no COMMON SENSE anymore?
Thank you,
Clint Wilkins
Cedarbrook Development-Memory Care Facility
Dear City of Tigard
I am a resident living adjacent to the proposed memory care facility, but I have also been, and currently
am, a real estate broker in the Portland Metro area for the past 20 years. I understand our city is
growing along with the rest of our Metropolis, and I do realize the financial gain for both the city & the
developer regarding this project. With that said, the proposed development does not take into
consideration highest and best use in a time when affordable housing is scarce and with no regard for
the safety and livability of the current neighborhood for which it will border.
The proposed facility will be specific to only those aging and/or in need of memory care at a monthly
cost well above median affordability and not in any way affordable housing for the mainstream. There
are 9 plus care facilities in the immediate area where on the contrary there are no homes currently
under construction geared toward affordable housing purchases
Tigard’s Complete Streets Policy of 2014 and updated again in 2019, is in no way being implemented in
the current plan. Nowhere in the proposal is there any consideration for a balance between the current
neighborhood’s pedestrian traffic, residents’ needed street parking and the additional motorized traffic
that would be using our neighborhood as a thoroughfare into the facility. The current plan only
addresses street upgrades to those areas along SW 92nd & SW Montage that are adjacent to the facility,
which are minimal, although the facility employees, vendor delivery trucks, emergency vehicles,
residents & their visitors will greatly increase traffic on all streets that intersect with SW 92nd including
SW Borders, SW Lehmann, SW Coral, SW 90th, SW Locust and all of SW 92nd, , none of which currently
have sidewalks, bike lanes or proper street signage to embody the heightened traffic.
There is no consideration for the existing neighborhood homes’ privacy from the proposed 4-story
building that will tower over the existing homes along with the additional noise pollution from the daily
and nightly use of the parking garage entrance and the delivery drop off from residents, their guests,
employees, delivery trucks (with safety beeping when backing up), emergency vehicles with sirens &
employee loitering only 5 feet from the front door of the Brownstone townhomes. Absolutely no buffer
or barrier of any kind and without the customary greenspace which has always been required when
developing new projects both residential & commercial.
I am so disheartened at the lack of attention the City of Tigard has given to the safety of its residents in
our neighborhood and what seems to be a lack of concern where instead financial gain seems to be the
primary focus.
Thank you
Tracy Brophy
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Jan Erickson <jan.m.erickson@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 1:53 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: proposed Cedarbrook facility reply to City staff report
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hi Agnes,
Proposed Cedarbrook Assisted living facility
Reply to staff report
18.230.040 Development Standards in C. Common open space.
1. Common open space is required. The minimum total area of required common open space is 10
percent of the gross site area or 750 square feet, whichever is greater. More than one common
open space area may be provided to meet this standard, but any area used to meet this standard
must be a minimum of 20 feet in width and depth.
2. Apartment developments with less than 20 dwelling units must provide at least 2 different items
from the list below within areas iden fied as common open space. Apartment developments with
20 or more dwelling units must provide at least 4 different items from the list below within areas
iden fied as common open space. a. Playground equipment or play area for children, b. Sport court,
c. Playing field, d. Lawn or garden, e. Covered sea ng, f. Swimming pool or water feature, g. Plaza or
courtyard with permanent sea ng, h. Gazebo, i. Club house, j. Workout room, or k. Other similar
item as determined by the director.
The proposed development is for an assisted living and memory care facility. None of the proposed
rooms contain permanent cooking facili es and do not meet the defini on of a dwelling unit.
Pursuant to Sec on 18.30.020, a dwelling unit is a structure or por on thereof that is used for human
habita on including permanent provisions for sleeping, cooking, and sanita on Therefore, because
the development does not include any dwelling units, this standard does not apply.
18.230.040 C. Common open space
I disagree with the city ’s assessment that these do not meet the defini on of dwelling units
and thus the standard does not apply. I believe saying these are not dwelling units is a hole in
the City of Tigard’s development code that will enable the developer ’s plan to provide
substandard site and building development. The words “Therefore, because the development
does not include any dwelling units, this standard does not apply.” actually make the
developer ’s compliance on mul ple important por ons of 18.230.040 sec on of the
development code unnecessary
Further defini on of “dwelling unit“ within the state of Oregon is below.
In ORS 456.594 Defini ons sec on lists a dwelling as:
(3)
(a) “Dwelling” means real or personal property within the state inhabited as the principal
residence of a dwelling owner or a tenant.
The residents of the proposed facility do no live elsewhere also, this is their principal
residence, so that would make it a dwelling
And in the DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AGING AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES OREGON
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 411 DIVISION 54 RESIDENTIAL CARE AND ASSISTED LIVING
FACILITIES the defini on of an assisted living Facility is:
(11) "Assisted Living Facility (ALF)" means a building, complex, or dis nct part thereof, consis ng of
fully, self-contained, individual living units where six or more seniors and adult individuals with
disabili es may reside in homelike surroundings. The assisted living facility offers and coordinates a
range of suppor ve services available on a 24-hour basis to meet the ac vi es of daily living, health,
and social needs of the residents as described in these rules. A program approach is used to promote
resident self-direc on and par cipa on in decisions that emphasize choice, dignity, privacy,
individuality, and independence.
This report by DHS calls for “consis ng of fully, self-contained, individual living units” If the
developer is not providing these prescribed ameni es, then he is building a substandard
facility.
In the same document are the requirements for individual living units within an assisted living
facility as defined by OAR 411-054-0005. A kitchene e is required under this law
411-054-0300 Assisted Living Facility Building Requirements (Amended 1/15/2015) An assisted living
facility (ALF), as defined by OAR 411-054-0005, shall be built to the following requirements and have
individual living units that have a lockable door, private bathroom, and kitchene e.
So, if this developer isn’t including a kitchene e within the units that they are providing for
the proposed Cedarbrook Assisted Living facility, then maybe they should be required to in
order that a substandard assisted living facility is not built within the City of Tigard.
Addi onally, please view the link below
h ps://www.assistedliving.org/oregon/
Assisted Living Facility Requirements
The Oregon Department of Human Resources specifies the structural requirements for a licensed assisted living
facility. Assisted living facilities must conform to the state and federal building codes, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and the Fair Housing Act.
An assisted living facility in Oregon must have:
Individual apartments that can be shared based on the resident’s choice
A kitchenette equipped with a sink, refrigerator, cooking appliance, a place for food preparation, and a
storage space
A private bathroom with a toilet, sink, and a curbless shower area
Escape windows that open directly onto the public street, yard, or exit court
A Kitchene e is required by the state of Oregon. Also, maybe the escape window needs to be
considered. How does a disabled person escape from a 4-story window during a fire? Also, it
seems that that they have a private driveway as circula on through a good por on of their
site and not a public street.
The below por ons of the Tigard Municipal Code have also been deemed as being based on
the proposed facility “not being a dwelling unit”. Which it clearly is, but this allow these
codes to be dismissed from the site development review requirements.
18.230.040 Apartments
C. Common open space
D. Private open space.
F. Vehicle and bicycle parking. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
18.230.050 Design Standards
A. Entrances. 1, 2, 3, 4
C. Facade design 1, a thru j
This hole in the codes that enables the developer to not need to comply with the reasonable
requests in Tigard Community Development code for Open space, Parking Requirements and
Façade design by claiming it is not a “Dwelling Unit” is not valid and would be harmful to the
exi ng neighborhood as well as the future residents of the proposed facility.
Thank you
Jan
--
Jan Erickson
C (503) 887 3522
Allow sender | Block sender
From: garbar13
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 12:51 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Cedarbrook assisted living /memory care proposal
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hi Agnes,
See the cover page for Mosaic which is the company running the Cedarbrook proposal. Their mo o is "Be kind
whenever possible", but that does not seem to extend to their poten al new neighbors. If their proposal goes
through, this community will be plagued with an unsafe level of traffic on our narrow residen al streets, added
noise at all hours, and over-flow parking on our already crowded street parking.
They don't seem to have concern about the people already here, nor do they seem concerned with building
community with us. Perhaps Mosaic will be open to our requests for considera on in regards to moving their
loading dock and parking garage to a less inhabited area (like up closer to Hall Blvd.) or keeping all ingress/egress
to this property only off of Hall Blvd. However, I greatly doubt that will happen without pressure from the
Metzger neighbors. The concern that looks apparent to me is the monetary/profit issue.
The company is not walking their talk.
Thanks,
Juanita Garnow
Sent from my Galaxy
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Vanda Makris <vmakris24@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 2:52 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Cedarbrook Development
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Agnes
and Planning Commission,
I am a homeowner in the Brownstone at the Square Community. My
property would sit directly next to the entrance of the memory care facility on
92nd Ave and be flanked on one
side by the building.
First,
I’d like to state that the property site appears to be too small for what the
developer is intending to do. They do not take into consideration the building
placement and how this project fits into the community, the current parcel of
land, and how detrimental it will be to the neighborhood. It appears from the
design plans presented, they only seem to care about getting their “needs” onto
the land and not how it will impact the community/neighborhood. As it
stands right now, the proposed assisted living and memory care facility will
shadow the existing 3-story townhomes by at least 14 feet, reducing
natural light to the units, especially morning sunlight on patios and/or
streaming through windows. This will cause a reduction of the quality of life
for many existing brownstone residents, and it would likely also cause an
economic burden due to the increased usage of electric and gas needed to light
and heat our homes when this vital energy source is decreased drastically.
The
current proposal also ignores the Brownstone community neighbors by placing the
least glamorous and noisiest part of its operations directly adjacent to the
front doors of several existing homes. Rather than designing a facility that
would be respectful and aesthetically more viable to the existing community,
the design team only focused on maximizing the land usage without any
concern for the neighbors and current residents of these units. Based on the
applicable criteria (18.420), this feature of the facility would be both
unsightly and would not reduce the visual impacts for the current residential
neighborhood. While the unsightly loading dock and garbage collection sites are
hidden from the frontage of Hall Blvd, it places the burden mere feet away from
the front doors of the brownstone units, which would not “create a more
pleasant pedestrian experience” for these homes. This is unacceptable to our
community and this proposal is extremely disrespectful to these homeowners.
Based
on the plans submitted, there seems to be very little permeable surfaces to
assist with stormwater runoff. The current property is flanked by a small
wetland on the south end of the property which absorbs a lot of run-off, but
there is no indication in the plans on how mitigation by covering this wetland
with cement/asphalt will be addressed, other than paying a fee. How this
activity will affect the homeowners that flank this wetland has not been
considered and for many, this could also cause an economic burden on their
properties. Also, how is the developer planning on addressing stormwater runoff
when very little, if any, permeable surfaces are present in the current plans?
In addition to the economic burdens which I’ve already mentioned,
this project will also place an economic burden regarding the value of homes in
this community. The fact that the developer wants to place the entrance to the
memory care facility on 92nd (a dead-end street) and not on the frontage of Hall Blvd
seems illogical and will place a significant burden on the residents of this
small Metzger community and will drive down our home prices. The
noise/traffic/parking burden of such a large-scale facility will make it
difficult for members in our community to rent/sell their current units. The
addition of the memory care facility entrance being on 92nd would take away all the
street parking that many residents use for their guests. This would cause
problems not only on 92nd next to the facility and brownstones but further down 92nd, in
front of other homes
which also lack sidewalks. Selling/renting these properties that lack adequate
parking (which is at a minimum as is) would be virtually impossible. The daily
activities of such a facility would dwarf the viability, livability, and
serenity of this wonderful neighborhood and drive down the value.
Thank you for your time,
Vanda Makris
From: Jenni Nelson <jenrnelson@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 5:37 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Public Hearing Comments for 2/21/22
[You don't o en get email from jenrnelson@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important at
h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.]
Dear Agnes,
I am wri ng you with sincere concern over the possibility of building a four story assisted living and
memory care facility just a block away from where my family resides. We have three children that ride
bikes, roller skate, walk to school and enjoy playing outside and this new development would take
that away from them.
My number one worry is traffic. A lot of the streets around here lack a sidewalk and in many areas we
must use the side of the road for walking and biking. My kids a end the elementary school that is
located just a few blocks away. Being able to walk to school was one of the reasons we chose to buy
our house. People that don’t live in our neighborhood have less regard for driving slower and being
watchful of pedestrians. And even if they did, the increase in traffic alone, to and from, this building
would prevent us from being able to use the streets as we do now.
Another concern is the noise. This type of facility would cause an increase in need for ambulances and
firetrucks at all hours of the day. The sirens from these emergency vehicles would impact our quality
of life greatly as we also have pets that scare easily from loud noises. Listening to sirens every day, and
possibly many mes a day, is not something I want for my current peaceful community.
Lastly, the scale alone confuses me. That lot is 2.56 acres and I’m not sure that is big enough to
accommodate the large facility that is being proposed along with a parking lot. If our streets are then
going to be overflow parking for this place than that is simply unacceptable.
I don’t see how this project will make our neighborhood be er. What value will it add? I don’t see any.
All I see is a huge nega ve impact to my neighborhood and family’s quality of life. I sincerely hope the
city considers the true consequences to us Tigard ci zens.
Sincerely,
Jenni Nelson
9620 SW 90th Ave
Tigard, OR 97124
Allow sender | Block sender
From: STEPHEN PERRY
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 4:25 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Cedarbrook resident comment
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Agnes,
To introduce myself, my name is Stephen Perry and I have been a resident of Metzger/
Tigard my en re life, some 68 years! I own two homes one at 9860 SW 92nd Ave and the
other at 9250 SW Lehman which borders 92 Ave (corner lot). My parents bought the Lehman
property in 1963 and have been in the family since. My daughter is living there now with her
family. Our family has very deep roots in the Metzger/Tigard community, I went to Metzger
Grade, Fowler Jr High, and Graduated Tigard High School. My three daughters did the same,
and now my daughter who lives on Lehman has two daughters that went to Metzger, Fowler,
and now a end Tigard. Presently my youngest granddaughter a ends Metzger Grade School.
So, I have a strong desire to keep our community safe, livable with a strong reliance on our
neighborhood. It is now a shock to see that our neighborhood is in danger to lose all the
above to Cedarbrook Annexa on and Site Development! Our neighbor ’s our horrified that
the City of Tigard has forgo en to include us in their:
Strategic Plan Vision
Tigard: an equitable community that is walkable, healthy, and accessible for everyone.
Our Strategic Priorities
Set the standard for excellence in public service and customer experience.
Create a well-connected, attractive, and accessible pedestrian network.
Ensure development and growth supports the vision.
First, Lehman is a narrow street with no sidewalks other than the west side further up Lehman
which is no help as you travel east towards 92nd Ave. I live on 92nd Ave between Lehman and
Coral, I fully aware of the street condition and was the first to blacktop it in 1983 halfway
down from Lehman. 92Ave is a very narrow street with no sidewalks and or streetlights! It is
heavily used now by pedestrians walking to and from, and especially our young children
walking to and from Metzger School. The safety conditions now are hazardous at best, with
the present approval of Cedarbrook they will become dangerous and completely out of line
with “Tigard’s Strategic Plan Vision.”
We must ask ourselves why have we reached this point, the mystery here is we see that
Annexa on is involved, why go to the trouble to Annex into Tigard? Well, what we have here
is
to follow the money, Washington County is where the proposed project is located now, the
strong leadership said NO! Well, Tigard says YES bring it to us, we will annex the property to
the City of Tigard and off you go! It is quite clear now having the annexa on approved will cut
our neighborhood out of Tigard’s Strategic Plan and any Priori es, unfortunately, are just the
disappoin ng facts in the case!
The plot thickens with the developer ’s proposal to the City of Tigard. They indicate twenty
mes in their proposal that they are exempt from being a dwelling, I looked at this and
thought that they just could not be serious, then it is right there twenty mes. I would like to
give the benefit of the doubt, but a er referencing this twenty mes, nope that is just not
correct. The reason is spelled out and is quite clear in Oregon’s Law ORS 456.594 which
states "Dwelling" means real or personal property within the States inhabited as the
principal residence of a dwelling owner or a tenant.” As we con nue this confusing claimed
exemp on, we further find that the applicant con nues to claim exemp on by “the units will
not have stoves, therefore, we are not a dwelling, Really, I have never in all my life have heard
such misinforma on, and I have been a part- me contractor for 45 years. So, let ’s look at
what the law says,
Assisted living
An assisted living residence or assisted living facility is a housing facility for people with disabilities or for
adults who cannot or who choose not to live independently.
The Oregon Department of Human Resources specifies the structural requirements for a
licensed assisted living facility. Assisted living facilities must conform to the state and
federal building codes, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Fair Housing Act.
An assisted living facility in Oregon must have:
Individual apartments that can be shared based on the resident’s choice
A kitchenette equipped with a sink, refrigerator, cooking appliance, a place for
food preparation, and a storage space
A private bathroom with a toilet, sink, and a curbless shower area
Escape windows that open directly onto the public street, yard, or exit court
No stove so what, are they going to have perhaps a microwave oven (cooking appliance) or
something similar, so not having a stove is not a factor; however, it is great misinforma on!
An inquiry to The Oregon Department of Human Resources is in order here, so they may get
involved in this development proposal. This is necessary to protect the future residences of
Cedarbrook and to draw a fair and reasonable determina on, it would be my guess that this
proposal will indeed be determined to be dwellings in which our fellow ci zens will live!
The City of Tigard owes this a much deep examina on which is based on the safety of its
ci zen's health and well-being, not a development that adds more hazards, not doing so will
destroy our neighborhood.
Steve Perry -a737capt4aa@msn.com
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Rob Ruedy <robruedy@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 4:14 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Cc: Robert Ruedy
Subject: Rely to: Cedarbrook Senior Care Development Review Hearing Tes mony
A achments: Cedarbrook_Tes mony_A achment,_Final.pdf
COT_Hearing_Tes mony_Cover_Le er,_Cedarbrook,_Final.pdf
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Good afternoon Ms. Lindor,
Please incorporate my attached written testimony compilation of two documents into
the record for the upcoming hearing on February 28th, 2022.
Definitely wished I had more time to formalize the compilation into one document, but
available time has just not allowed the formality. In the event the hearing Testimony
window is held over for the two weeks I've requested within my testimony, I'd
appreciate the opportunity afforded by that postponement to combine the two
documents and perform any other needed "housekeeping" of the documents to better
improve my written testimony to the Planning Commission and subsequent review by
the City Council, if in fact its formally approved by the prior.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to provide written testimony on this subject
hearing, and also the City's consideration of my comments in the interest that my
written testimony 2 document compilation will provide benefit to this specific
developments' Staff Report and Planning Commission Review process.
Respectfully yours,
Robert Ruedy
32-year Tigard Resident and 30-year City of Tigard Property Owner
Cell: (503) 819-7898
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tuesday, February 15, 2022, 02:28:00 PM PST, Agnes Lindor <agnesl@tigard-or.gov> wrote:
Good afternoon-
The staff report for the Cedarbrook project has been posted online and can be found here:
https://www.tigard-or.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/961/424
The hearing before the Planning Commission will take place on Monday, February 28th at 7pm.
Access to the meeting can also be found on the same page as provided above.
Please let me know if you have further questions. Thanks,
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@tigard-or.gov
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws.
If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon
Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon
Administrative Rules “City General Records Retention Schedule.”
Written Hearing Testimony Cover Letter for the Cedarbrook Development Review resolution Page 1 of 3
February 24, 2022
City of Tigard Planning Division
Attention: Ms. Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Subject: Cedarbrook Annexation and Site Development Review (ZCA2021-00001 & SDR2021-00001)
Quasi-Judicial Annexation Site Development Review rescheduled for Monday, February 28, 2022
To all concerned:
As a long-time resident and property Owner of the City of Tigard I wish to additionally submit (see closing
paragraph) into the record my subject Cedarbrook Annexation and Site Development Review hearing
testimony herein for consideration and determination of this proposed Land Use Development Review
action being formally denied based on the following:
Chapter 18.120: “Base Zones - Commercial Zones” – Please refer to the below and attached Hearing
Testimony content that addresses this topic. And more specifically “Chapter 18.120.010.c” relating to
“Minimizing the potential adverse impacts of commercial uses on residential uses by carefully locating
and selecting the types and uses allowed in each commercial zone. (Ordinance 18-28 §1; Ord. 18-23 §2;
and Ord. 17.22 §2)”
Chapter 18.210: “Residential Development Standards – Residential General Provisions”; Please refer to
the below and attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic.
Chapter 18.230: “Residential Development Standards – Apartments“;Please refer to the below and
attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic.
Chapter 18.410: “Supplemental Development Standards – Off-street Parking & Loading“; Please refer to
the below and attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic.
Chapter 18.420: “Supplemental Development Standards – Landscaping & Screening“; Please refer to
the below and attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic.
Chapter 18.670: “Plan Districts – Washington Square Regional Center Plan District”; Please refer to the
below and attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic, and more specifically to
Chapter 18.670.040.D.1b which states that “the proposal will be consistent with the desired character of
the area.” Which should concurrently and genuinely include the existing area and its current character.
Chapter 18.710: “Land Use Applications & Review Types – Land Use Review Procedures”; Please refer
to the below and attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic.
Chapter 18.780: “Land Use Applications & Review Types – Site Development Reviews”; Please refer to
the below and attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic.
Written Hearing Testimony Cover Letter for the Cedarbrook Development Review resolution Page 2 of 3
Chapter 18.910: “Streets & Utilities – Improvement Standards”; Please refer to the below and attached
Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic. And more specifically to Chapter 18.910.100
relating to the non-conformance of the proposed site plan with its absence of reflecting the proposed
Storm Water Detention and Treatment for impervious surfaces on-site within this proposed Development.
Identified within the Staff Report “Conditions of Approval” as Item 5, bullet point #2, plus Items 6 & 7.
Chapter 18.920: “Streets & Utilities – Access, Egress, & Circulation”; Please refer to the below and
attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic.
Chapter 18.930: “Streets & Utilities – Vision Clearance Areas”; Please refer to the below and attached
Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic.
Metro Code Chapter 3.09: “Local Government Metro Boundaries” Please refer to the below and attached
Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic.
Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 222: “Annexation of Unincorporated Please refer to the below and
attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic, and more specifically note that this
specific property is not “surrounded by a City.” It is only a part of a conceptual plan district of a City.
This alone should be grounds for denial of the proposed development incursion due to non-conformance
to the ORS Chapter 222.
In conclusion; Overall, this proposed Senior Care Development overall would be a “poorly placed
monstrosity” and a “bad fit” for the City of Tigard at this specific location. As mentioned in my prior
testimony, there are better suited locations within the city for a 75 foot maximum height structure
incorporating a high-density Residential Care & Memory Care Facility, like possibly over by the similarly
taller in height Lincoln Towers over by Hwy. 217, SW Greenburg Road, and the Washington Square
redevelopment plans across SW Greenburg Road from those towering Business Center. At that location
there are restaurants, coffee shops, commerce, activities, medical offices, and much more than an
isolated Senior Care Facility with Public Transit deprived residents. So the focused expansion and
rejuvenation of the Hwy. 217 corridor at SW Greenburg Road seems a much more accommodating
location for Mixed-use, High-density Residential, and Commercial Zoned real estate market area.
On another point of concern, and as so noted in “Section IV – Public Comments” of the most recent COT
Staff Report, apparently my prior testimony into the record during a prior Neighborhood Development
Review Meeting may have never been submitted to the City by the subject developer or its
representative(s), which to my recollection would be considered a violation of their required duties,
responsibilities and accountabilities towards taking notes and immediately reflecting verbal and written
testimony taken from all participants of said meeting directly to the City. And that the COT Development
Review requirements also tie an “affidavit of compliance” to those said developer responsibilities, which
could certainly be in direct violation of, and currently towards the City of Tigard’s requirement of a
comprehensive restart of their subject development review process. If my email was not provided in its
full form, then the Developer is not in compliance with their mandated COT responsibilities and
accountabilities. Baseline or vague summaries, by meeting facilitators or otherwise, of their memories of
that and other related meetings discussions and follow-up emails are insufficient evidence of those prior
testimonies being comprehensively incorporated into the record. This respondent requests a thorough
investigation into the matter just described for this specific proposed development, and the requirement
of full compliance with City of Tigard Development Review responsibilities and accountabilities to avoid
Written Hearing Testimony Cover Letter for the Cedarbrook Development Review resolution Page 3 of 3
the required comprehensive restart of said Development Review Application processes as so outlined
within the COT Development Code for such specified Code compliances and consequences for failure of
COT stated Development Code compliance and/or non-compliance. Your swift and direct reply to me
regarding the aforementioned thorough audit/investigation outcome is requested.
While referencing this subject proposed development City’s Staff Report I also noticed a problematic
“Condition of their Recommended Approval.” On page 2, Item #2 states apparently incoherently a
vague, misunderstood and misdirected calamity of due process for typical development Site Work. It
conflicts with the City’s “Tree Preservation and Protection”, plus “Urban Forestry Plan” objectives and
leaves the door wide open for flagrant abuse and eminent destruction of what are supposedly “Protected
Trees.” I’ve experienced this directly with an adjacent development originally similarly approved with the
same incoherent and ineffective verbiage within that “Staff Report” and its “Conditions of Approval” for
the COT’s Erika Court Subdivision project. The statement needs to be improved to read, and be
enforced, as such for this subject development Staff Recommendation “Item 2” and other COT
Development decision “Conditions of Approval’s” going forward to read: “Prior to commencing any site
clearing, grubbing, or any form of site work, the project arborist must perform a site inspection for tree
protection measures, document compliance/non-compliance with the Urban Forestry Plan, and send
written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site
inspection or required Project Arborist & Site work Contractor meeting, whichever occurs first. No
work of any kind or form shall commence on the site prior to Protected Tree and Erosion Control
measures and mitigations being comprehensively installed and inspected and recorded by both
the assigned and COT approved project arborist and the COT City Inspector for the project. The
bold verbiage would be this City Residents recommended verbiage to benefit the City of Tigard’s efforts
of their current Tree Protection and Erosion Control aspirations. Again it’s merely a well thought-out
suggestion from a negatively impacted citizen and property owner based on the current verbiage being
ineffective and detrimental to the adjacent property Owner’s trees, private property rights, and the City’s
current intent.
My request of the COT Planning Commission and City Council is to please review all the testimony and
factual information presented by myself and other City Residents and property owners relating to the
negative impacts of this proposed development prior to deciding its outcome. In the effort to obtain as
thorough a hearing and testimonies as possible, I wish to request that the Planning Commission
hold the record open for an additional two weeks for all potentially affected parties to present
their testimonies, and conversely for the developer to respond to those concerns presented to
the Planning Commission. I too would like that opportunity to apply the related COT
Development Code Sections to my testimony, and clean-up any unintended or incorrectly stated
verbiage as a “housekeeping” element to my testimony. In any event, this would assist the Planning
Commission in not making a rushed, “bad” decision by approving this poorly thought-out proposed
Senior Care Facility as it will likely become a long-term problematic outcome for Tigard if allowed to
move forward as currently presented.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Ruedy
32-year Tigard Resident and 30-year City of Tigard Property Owner
Cell: (503) 819-7898
Written Cedarbrook Senior Care Development Review Hearing Testimony Attachment by Robert Ruedy Page 1 of 4
Project Name & Case Number: Cedarbrook Annexation and Site Development
Review (ZCA2021-00001 & SDR2021-00001)
The below captures much of the core essence of my hearing testimony concerns
today on February 24th, 2022. Please apply these to my Hearing Testimony
Cover Letter submitted concurrently with the City today.
1. Clean Water Services (CWS) and City of Tigard (COT) Site Plan Submission Non-
conformances:
A. It appears that the developer’s site plan submitted for COT Planning Department Staff, Planning
Commission, and City Council approval only indicates that only the Hall Blvd impervious pavement
surfaces of this State Highway run-off will be properly accommodated with storm water detention and
treatment. Conversely, the submitting developers site plan does not appear to reflect any storm water
detention and treatment for any of the 82,926 SF of impervious surfaces proposed by the development
of this Senior Care Facility. If this is true, and the proposed site plan is non-conforming with COT and
CWS Standards, then the submission should be denied approval in lieu of a requirement to the
developer to resubmit its corrected site plan complying with such standards and undergo a repeat
development submission process with the corrected and compliant documents for COT Staff review
and public comment. Oh, and my hope is that their solution isn’t turning their underground parking and
basement offices into a Storm Detention “holding pond” for a “water intrusion” or “unforeseen flooding”
insurance claim.
2. On-site and Off-site Parking Deficiencies: With a developer proposed “Resident Load” of 197
(164+33) residents and an estimated 50-60 person “Staffing Load” for this proposed Senior Care Facility,
the total “Occupancy Load” of 247-257 occupants could be easily believed to be correct, most of whom will
be on-site 24/7 throughout each day of every month/year.
A. So of the 164 “Assisted Living” occupants, only 4 ADA Accessible Parking Spaces (merely ¼ of 1% of
the 164 Residents) seems severely unacceptable, and those 164 residents are likely to be the exact
persons planning on filling those ADA Parking spaces 24/7 daily, monthly and annually. So where will
the “non-resident ADA Accessible Parking” spaces be? And even if residents were banned from using
those minimally proposed 4 ADA Accessible Parking Spaces, how ineffective will just 4 ADA Accessible
Parking Spaces really be at accommodating guests (family & visitor), vendors, outpatient medical
providers, Agency Inspectors, and proposed Facility Staff? This proposed “plan” seems, at best, to be
poorly thought out and severely under-represented for 164 Permanent Residents that will need
adequate “Assisted Living” services and adequate parking for those services. My aforementioned
assessment doesn’t even take into account those “Assisted Living” Residents who will have “ADA
Modified Handicap Vans” with extending ramps and lifts needing oversize “ADA Accessible Van
Accommodating Parking.” Again, it does NOT appear that this proposed development meets the
needed parking for such a large Senior are Facility, especially with minimal Public Transit options and
therefore should be rejected, and NOT approved as submitted.. Please additionally reference my
“Inadequate Resident & Public Safety Issues” testimony herein.
B. Currently at an Occupant Load of 247-257 Facility Residents and Staff appears to math out at 2.62
Parking Spaces per Occupant with only 94 Parking Spaces total available. This seems highly
problematic, unacceptable, irregular, and not in compliance with City of Tigard Development Codes or
any form of “common sense” scenario. In summary, this appears to be an inadequate amount and
distribution of “Parking Quantity and Type”, and should be a core aspect to NOT approving this
development as proposed. And realistically, a Senior Care Facility of this proposed size and combined
Resident and Staff Occupancy should likely have a minimum of ten (10) and preferably twenty (20) or
more ADA Accessible Parking Spaces to accommodate all their disabled or “health compromised”
Written Cedarbrook Senior Care Development Review Hearing Testimony Attachment by Robert Ruedy Page 2 of 4
Residents, Visitors/Guests, Vendors, Outsourced Medical Providers, and Staff personnel retaining
State ADA Parking Permit Approvals.
3. Inadequate Resident & Public Safety Issues:
A. Public Transit and Mobility:
1. The Tri-Met Bus # 43 currently serves this proposed Facility’s section of Hall Blvd. albeit only
infrequently during the week, and has “No Service” on weekends what-so-ever. So how will the
Staff for this proposed facility get to and from their jobs? Well, they’ll likely drive private vehicles.
But where will these 50-60 Staff park their privately owned vehicles? Where will the Visitors,
Vendors, Outsourced Medical Providers, and others Park their personal vehicles, especially with
only limited Public Transit available? There appears to be no (ZERO) “off-street parking” proposed
anywhere around the perimeter of this massive Facility that has consumed virtually all of its
proposed site? And with only 90 total non-ADA parking spaces, even if only ½ of the 164 “Assisted
Living” Residents own a vehicle, that would take up 82 of those spaces, leaving only 8 “Non-
Resident” Parking Spaces for those 50-60 Daily, weekly and monthly Facility Staff. The math
doesn’t lie, and this facility is highly likely to severely impact the neighborhood with both Residents
and Non-residents parking anywhere and everywhere they can to, simply put “get them and their
vehicle as close as possible” to the proposed Facility, especially during the well-known “10-month
rainy season” locally. This creates an undue burden on the area neighborhood which seems to be
another reason to NOT approve this proposed development as currently designed and submitted.
2. Public Transit Access: There currently is no Tri-Met Bus Stop along the frontage of this proposed
Facility. If this proposed Facility is allowed, at some point in time to be COT Approved and
proceed, it will need to include the requirement of the developer to procure a “Formal Covered
Seating Area Bus Stop” with secured and current transit map(s) and schedule information since
many of this proposed “Senior Care Facility” Residents may not have smart phones with web
access for Public Transit scheduled routes, times, fares, etc. Many may just have a “flip phone” or
prepaid “burner phone” for emergencies, which typically have no internet access.
3. The Crosswalks: What has been proposed by the developer is severely inadequate for this
Facility. With many of the “Assisted Living” Residents being of limited ambulatory capacity (i.e.
walkers, wheelchairs, crutches and leg braces (possibly from MS or MD), and some severely
disabled but still mobile, these Residents simply just don’t move swiftly, and frequently need breaks
for heart conditions, etc. Because of this typical scenario for this type “Senior Care Facility” all
crosswalks proposed, or additionally required, will need to be ADA compliant painted crosswalks,
with ADA Accessibility on each end of each crosswalk. At SW Hall Blvd. the Facility adjacent
proposed sidewalk along SW Hall Blvd. will need not only an ADA format painted crosswalk, but
also crosswalk traffic regulation for those Residents and the public attempting to cross the 35 foot
primary access/egress driveway accommodating the proposed private road for the Facility.
Additionally at the proposed Facilities “entrance” sidewalk, that will need to extend across Hall Blvd
as an ADA crosswalk to the north side of SW Hall Blvd. as an additional traffic regulated ADA
format crosswalk to ensure safe crossing by Residents, Public Transit users, and the general
public, especially since there is no “Safe Harbor Mid-point Station” potential within the proposed 3
lane plus bicycle lane pavement width.
4. The Private Driveway/Road: It appears from the proposed developers’ Site Plan that SW 92nd
Avenue will continue to remain a dead-end road and basically eliminate SW Montage Lane from
existence. If that interpretation is correct, then this proposed “private driveway” will most certainly
become a cut-through thoroughfare (similar to an extension of SW Montague Lane) for the
neighborhood and other commuters, and would likely also fall into the category of COT City Street
requirements for neighborhood and arterial connectivity. The City of Tigard has typically not
allowed “Private Drives”, Private Roads” and/or “Private Streets” to impede or negate traffic flow
within the region and should not allow for this proposed developments private driveway or road
which connects a residential neighborhood street top a major regional highway (SW Hall Blvd.), to
Written Cedarbrook Senior Care Development Review Hearing Testimony Attachment by Robert Ruedy Page 3 of 4
be pursued without the accommodation of adequate traffic and pedestrian control lighting, ADA
Crosswalks, and turn lanes especially when intersecting a cross-street such as SW 91st Avenue
which provides additional traffic impacts to that new “cross-street intersection”. This developer’s
proposed “Private Driveway” (i.e. Road) effort may not be the intent of the Facility, but that will
become the reality of the traffic flow. There are many examples within the Tigard area that support
this scenario. I’d be happy to elaborate on those if contacted separately from and subsequent to,
this specific testimony hearing. One immediate memory is the following example; for those who
have lived near this proposed Facility’s location, we can all attest to the traffic conditions
surrounding the Thanksgiving and Christmas Holiday Seasons for those vehicles attempting to
access the Washington Square Mall and all other commerce surrounding and radiating from it. The
roads get absolutely clogged and shoppers will literally drive anywhere and everywhere to try and
get around the problem, or become part of the problem to get into and access the Mall. As
mentioned in my prior testimony on the record from an earlier “Neighborhood Meeting” hearing
discussion, the bottom-line here is that SW Montague Lane should be continued through the
proposed Development site to intersect SW Hall Blvd. and SW 91st Avenue with all cross-
intersection amenities imposed on the developer and their site plan and subsequent development
aspirations. This because of the aforementioned, this specific proposed “Private Driveway”
approach is a disturbing methodology to keep neighbors and others off its extended “through street”
to a major highway intersection. It’s truly a disgrace. My recollection is that this type of site
development layout would need to include a “public through street extension” of SW Montage Lane
as a typical requirement of the City of Tigard for the reasons identified herein.
4. Proposed Location, Zoning, Building Height, and Setbacks:
A. A 46 foot high structure is unacceptable for this location with primarily single-family one (1) and two (2)
story structures surrounding more than 3 of the 4 sides, or basically 80 percent, of this proposed facility
site. If built as proposed it will likely be an eyesore and will not fit into the neighborhood and
surrounding area. Even most commercial structures in the area are a maximum two (2) story height,
like The Portland Clinic (another Specialty Medical Purpose Facility) at the intersection of SW
Greenburg Road & SW Hall Blvd. and on the adjacent corner to it are the single (1) story Colonial
Business Park.
Because of this proposed height, the area aesthetics will be severely diminished and will likely
negatively impact property and housing prices for existing homes due to this building “standing out like
a sore thumb” with multiple negative neighborhood “living condition” impacts. This aesthetic impact
may also postpone other potential home builders and developers from expanding into the area thereby
negatively impacting future developable property values.
This proposed “Senior Care Facility” is basically a “Commercial Structure” masquerading as a high-
density “Residential Apartment Building” occupied by Senior Citizens. The probable reason this
developer chose this site was likely because it was a cheap, available, and un-annexed portion of
unincorporated Washington County Land of the size that they needed to slam in a huge facility to make
a healthy profit. This type and size of Senior Care Facility likely has a place to be built, but that place
would be better suited to an urban commercial center like adjacent to the area’s well known Lincoln
Towers. There, a four (4) or more story structure would much better fit aesthetically into the
development of that area with its transit hub, versus in the proposed specifically low-rise, low-density
residential area with virtually no transit or on-street parking options. It does not appear to be within the
guidelines of what might “better suit” this site, that being a City of Tigard R-7 thru R-25 Residential Use
Zoning. This site is also at what will likely be the furthest most northern outskirt of the City of Tigard
thereby aligning with the Metzger area, with the City of Beaverton appearing to annex many of the
Written Cedarbrook Senior Care Development Review Hearing Testimony Attachment by Robert Ruedy Page 4 of 4
properties directly across SW Hall Blvd. to the north similar to Progress Downs and other properties
annexed previously into the City of Beaverton’s City Limits.
5. Noise and Visual Buffering:
A. This ill-conceived profit-based monstrosity lording over the adjacent neighborhood, and basically with
no identified visual screening or noise/sound buffering, or otherwise to negate the unwarranted
nuisances, including the increased traffic congestion and emergency vehicle loads at all hours from
frequent TVF&R Fire & Medical, AMR Ambulances, Public and Private Transport Vehicles and other
related Senior Care Facility responses to such a massive number of Facility Residents.
B. Another challenge for such a close proximity (i.e. zero or minimal set-back) structure project is the lack
of noise screening from an Emergency Back-up Standby Generator which is likely required for this type
of Senior Care Facility having numerous medical devices of its Residents that require continuous
supply power or control. The proposed developer’s site plan does NOT seem to show any such
Electrical Supply Back-up Generation device located on the premises. So where would this be
located? Again, if the site plan is non-conforming with all Agency Requirements and/or non-compliant
with DHS Requirements, then it should be denied approval and restarted with accurate and thorough
design documents. Since no matter how conceptual the project may be at the time of its submission for
City of Tigard or other agency approval, it must present the eventual build-out of these core required
elements, similar to the missing or omitted Storm Water Management System identified elsewhere in
this hearing testimony.
Again, the noise and other aforementioned related impacts generated by this proposed roughly 200
Resident Senior Care Facility would be better suited near or within a Commercial Zoned District like the
Lincoln Center Development or Washington Square Re-developments where 24/7 noise and traffic
would be considered normal and un-encumbering on businesses and their related activities not being
impacted specifically by evening and overnight traffic and other noise typical to this type and size
Senior Care Development locations.
C. As relates to any proposed or purportedly conforming landscaping tree planting screening requirements
to avert noise and provide visual buffering, I personally planted on my south Tigard property some 9
coniferous and deciduous 8 foot trees along my south property line in 1992, some 30 years ago now.
They have now finally reached some 30 feet in height to provide visual screening and noise buffering
from a recent development to my south. Had I not planted these trees in 1992 there would likely have
been a similar contentious debate regarding the adjacent development and its needed visual and noise
buffer screening a few years ago. My point in sharing this is that even if those trees were planted
tomorrow similarly on this proposed massive 4-story Care Facility, they wouldn’t provide any such
buffering for 3 to 4 decades on this proposed 46 foot structure, thereby disparaging or degrading the
adjacent neighborhood, by disenfranchising the many property owners and their other residential area
neighborhood property owners residents and occupants that would be plagued visually and audibly at
the minimum for that extensive period of time, and more likely for a considerably greater period of time.
Think about it, as if you lived next door to, or within the 500 feet COT required notification area of, this
proposed development abyss. It’s simply not “rocket science” to realize that this is the wrong location
for this massive proposed Facility.
Due to these many deficiencies identified herein, this hearing testimony respondent requests the City of Tigard
Planning Commission and City Council reject and deny the approval of this proposed COT annexation and
subsequent development.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert E. Ruedy
32-year Tigard Resident and 30-year City of Tigard Property Owner
Cell: (503) 819-7898
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Clint Wilkins
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 1:52 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Re: Traffic pictures
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Agnes,
Mail the card back to me as I can s ll use it,
Can the pictures be entered into the record?
Thank you for your help,
Clint
On Feb 24, 2022, at 1:36 PM, Clint Wilkins <wilkins3636@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Agnes,
Were you able to u lize these pictures?
Clint
Begin forwarded message:
From: Clint <wilkins3636@hotmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: Traffic pictures
Date: February 24, 2022 at 9:35:36 AM PST
To: bluepgs@yahoo.com
Begin forwarded message:
From: Clint <wilkins3636@hotmail.com>
Subject: Traffic pictures
Date: February 17, 2022 at 9:11:48 AM PST
To: AgnesL@tigard-or.gov
Agnes,
This SD card is from a Primos Trail Camera placed on my
property on S.W. Borders St. between S.W. 90th and S.W.
92nd.
It shows pictures of vehicles and pedestrians on January
6,2022 3:57pm to January 7,2022 5:02pm of approx. 267
pictures.
My old printer would take card and transfer to my computer
but the new printer does not do this or at least I can’t figure it
out!
I am sure you have IT or hunters smarter than me to figure
this out.
I hope this works and will show impact of increased traffic
from the Cedarbrook Development.
Thank you,
Clint Wilkins
Jim,
I dropped this off at City Hall to the a en on of Agnes last week but have
not heard anything back.
I also listened in on your mee ng last night and thought we had up un l
4:30 p.m. the day of the hearing to submit comments!
I am going to ask Agnes to require the applicant to show direc ons to S.W.
92nd and S.W. Montagne as this looks like the applicant wants this to
remain a secret.
Thanks,
Clint Wilkins
971-235-2529
CPO 4M Metzger, Durham, East Tigard
Washington County, Oregon
10655 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223
Initial TESTIMONY FOR CPO-4M
February 24, 2022
Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary, doreen@tigard-or.gov
Agnes K. Lindor, Associate Planner, AgnesL@tigard-or-gov
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Cedarbrook Annexation (ZCA2021-00001)
and Site Development Review (SDR2021-00001)
Dear Doreen and Agnes,
Community Participation Organization-4M (CPO-4M) unanimously approved two motions last night at
our virtual monthly meeting pertaining to the Cedarbrook Annexation and Development Application.
CPO-4M opposes annexation of this piece of property from unincorporated Washington County
to the City of Tigard code 18.720.030 (2).
Also, CPO-4M opposes the Cedarbrook Memory Care and Assisted Living Development
application for many reasons, including potential violations of the City of Tigard’s
Comprehensive Goals, traffic concerns in a residential neighborhood, and noise levels from
emergency vehicles.
We are still studying materials relating to the Cedarbrook application and look forward to
discussing these matters and our concerns in more specific detail with the Planning Commission
Monday night, February 28th, 2022. When van we see the total Cedarbrook application?
Thank you.
Yours truly,
Jim Long, Chair
503-647-0021
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Rachel Furman <refurman.slp@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 9:20 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Cc: Jan Erickson (via Google Drive); Kathleen Noonan; Vanda; STEPHEN PERRY; Tracy Brophy; Diane Bowman; garbar13; Teresa Gipson; Daniel Stoller; Anthony
Ames
Subject: Cedarbrook Development is a Dwelling based off Mosaic's own websites of similar developments
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Agnes and Planning Commission,
Below you will find screen shots of other area assisted living and memory care facili es from Mosaic Management. You will find that they call these units
"apartments" and “homes" for their residents. This terminology alone should make each unit considered a dwelling which would then require them to
meet several city codes including a parking requirement. That is important as you can see that a lot of their smaller units such as Boone Ridge of Salem
(120-units) boost that they employ 80-100 full- me employees. Thus a 186-unit facility made up of similar apartments/dwellings would employ roughly
120-150 full- me employees. There is not enough parking in their current plan for shi change for the number of employees they would need to make
state minimums. This also doesn’t take into account visitors, or home health services like PT, OT and SLP. This development proposal is made up of 186-
unit dwellings per the state defini on of a dwelling. Per OAR 411-054-0300 Assisted Living Facility Building Requirements (Amended 1/15/2015) an
assisted living facility (ALF), as defined by OAR 411-054-0005, shall be built to the following requirements and have individual living units that have a
lockable door, private bathroom, and kitchene e. If it has those requirements, then it meets the states defini on of a dwelling.
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Daniel Stoller <stollerd@outlook.com>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 7:35 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Cc: Rachel Furman
Subject: Re: Cedarbrook Proposal - Public Hearing Feb 28, 2022
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Thanks, Agnes. Would it be possible for me to share from my screen so I can annotate and control the
transi ons? If not, please let me know and I will plan accordingly.
Dan
Agnes Lindor wrote on 2/24/22 6:43 AM:
Hi Daniel-
I will be sending all the public comments over to Planning Commission today. And when
it comes your turn to tes fy, please just remind me and I will pull this up and share
screen for you to present. Thanks!
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@ gard-or.gov
From: Daniel Stoller <stollerd@outlook.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 10:22 PM To: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov> Cc: Rachel Furman <Refurman.slp@gmail.com> Subject: Cedarbrook Proposal - Public Hearing Feb 28, 2022
Hi Agnes,
A ached to this email you will find a PDF version of the material I plan to present
during my 3 minutes at the public hearing on Feb 28, 2022 covering the
Cedarbrook Assisted Living & Memory Care proposal. I would greatly appreciate
the planning commission reviewing this document prior to the mee ng.
Regards,
Daniel Stoller
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public
record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from
disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard
in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules “City General Records Retention
Schedule.”
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Michael Dalton <mdalton1649@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 3:52 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Public Hearing Comments for 2/28/22 - Cedarbrook
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hi Agnes
Here are my comments for the February 28, 2022 mee ng
From Page 43 of the staff report
According to a memorandum provided by the applicant on June 10, 2021, from Wendie L. Kellington,
the applicant has stated that the extension of SW Montage Lane for a full street connec on to SW Hall
Boulevard, in accordance with Tigard Community Development Code 18.910.030.H., is not roughly
propor onal to the impact of the development. Based on the traffic impact analysis prepared by the
applicant, dated May 19, 2020, the development is expected to generate an average of 484 daily trips,
of which 80% of the site trips are es mated to be distributed to/from the proposed site access to SW
Hall Boulevard and 20% of the site trips are es mated to be distributed to the private driveway
connec on at SW Montage Lane. The City therefore agrees that the impacts of this development are
not propor onal to the costs of a full, public through-street connec on in this loca on.
Concerns:
Based on the traffic impact analysis prepared by the applicant there will be approximately 100
more daily trips through the residen al neighborhood.
The traffic analysis was completed almost 2 years ago, May 19, 2020. How valid is the data and
the assump ons based on that data?
This development will increase traffic and nega vely impact the quality of life for all the
residents of the area
Solu ons:
Have SW Montage Lane extended as a through street connec on as per TCD Code 18.910.030.H.
Which would divert traffic from existing neighborhood streets
Leave SW Montage Lane as is with no access from the development. This would require all traffic to
enter via SW Hall
From page 51 of the staff report
BB. Traffic calming. When, in the opinion of the City Engineer, the proposed development will create a
negative traffic condition on existing neighborhood streets, such as excessive speeding, the developer
may be required to provide traffic calming measures. These measures may be required within the
development or offsite as deemed appropriate. As an alternative, the developer may be required to
deposit funds with the city to help pay for traffic calming measures that become necessary once the
development is occupied and the City Engineer determines that the additional traffic from the
development has triggered the need for traffic calming measures. The City Engineer will determine the
amount of funds required and will collect said funds from the developer prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy, or in the case of subdivision, prior to the approval of the final plat. The funds
will be held by the city for a period of 5 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy, or in
the case of a subdivision, the date of final plat approval. Any funds not used by the city within the 5-
year time period will be refunded to the developer. A Transportation Impact Study (prepared by
Kittleson & Associates, dated January 4, 2021) was submitted by the applicant (Exhibit K). Based on
the traffic analysis study submitted by the applicant’s traffic engineer, traffic calming is not proposed or
deemed necessary for the proposed development. This standard is not applicable
Concerns:
There is currently excessive speeding on exis ng neighborhood streets
This development will add at least 100 daily trips and most certainly some of those trips will be
well over the speed limit.
Solu ons:
Have the developer install traffic calming measures on all exis ng neighborhood streets. This should
include: SW Lehman St, SW Borders St, SW 92nd Ave, SW Coral St, SW 90th Ave
Leave SW Montage Lane as is with no access from the development. This would require all traffic to
enter via SW Hall
Thanks,
Mike Dalton
9322 SW Lehman Street
559.960.7610
Allow sender | Block sender
You don't often get email from shaila.kotadia@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
From: Shaila Kotadia
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 6:55 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Cedarbrook development
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Dear Agnes,
I wanted to submit comments for the public hearing for the Cedarbrook development.
I am against Cedarbrook. I live on 92nd Ave. 92nd Ave is a part of our community and is used by all
households on our street. This has allowed us to create deep bonds with our neighbors and the
surrounding communi es. There are 8 kids on our street under the age of 8 and they use the street to
play with each other. Others walking in the neighborhood with children o en join our kids to play. It is
also the route that families use to walk to Metzger Elementary. Currently, there are a lot of
pedestrians using the street and very minimal traffic. Even with minimal traffic, my two-year-old
daughter was hit by a car while riding a scooter. She was in the middle of the road trying to get off and
instead of wai ng, the car decided to try to go around her and hit her and the scooter. Fortunately,
she jumped the opposite way and was not hurt beyond a few scrapes. Had she gone the other way,
she would have been run over by the car. This trauma c experience makes me extremely worried
about this new development and the increased traffic. I cannot imagine ever le ng my kids out the
front door. They will not have the opportunity to communaly play in our front yards, we won't be able
to walk them to their preschool and next year to the elementary school, and we will not have the
same rela onship with our neighbors. We moved to Tigard with the hopes of a posi ve city life where
we could find and grow community. I believe that Cedarbrook would be detrimental to the ci zens of
Tigard.
Best,
Shaila Kotadia
From: Jeremy Tamargo
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 6:58 AM
To: Shaila Kotadia
Cc: Nicole Hendrix; Agnes Lindor
Subject: RE: Cedarbrook Public Hearing
Hi Shaila,
Responses below in blue.
We are curious as to why there needs to be an entrance off of 92nd Ave? In other words, can
Cedarbrook have one entrance/exit off of Hall like other businesses? The applicant has frontage
on SW Hall Boulevard, SW Montage Lane and SW 92nd Avenue, so the applicant has the legal
right to propose driveway access to the right-of-way at all loca ons in which the property has
frontage on a public right-of-way. The two accesses to the site are also being u lized by the
applicant to meet TVF&R emergency vehicle access requirements for the proposed
development.
Will there be sidewalks installed on 92nd Ave? Yes, the applicant is required to provide
sidewalks along the applicant ’s frontage on SW Hall Boulevard, SW 92nd Avenue and SW
Montage Lane (Condi on of Approval #8).
Will there be lights installed on 92nd Ave? Yes, the applicant is required to provide street
ligh ng along the applicant ’s frontage on SW Hall Boulevard, SW 92nd Avenue and SW Montage
Lane (Condi on of Approval #8, #12).
What will be done for the school kids who use that route to go to Metzger Elementary? Will
there be a new, safe route created to walk to the school? As noted above, the applicant is
required to provide sidewalks along the applicant’s frontage on SW Hall Boulevard, SW 92nd
Avenue and SW Montage Lane. The applicant does not meet the threshold in CDC 18.910.070
for the requirement to iden fy direct, safe (1.25 x the straight line distance) pedestrian routes
within 0.50 miles of their site to all transit facili es and neighborhood ac vity centers (schools,
parks, libraries, etc.). The threshold for this requirement is a development proposal that results
in an addi onal 1,000 vehicle trips or more per day. The applicant’s traffic study concluded that
the proposed development is es mated to generate 512 average daily trips
What analysis was conducted on the usage of the street, e.g. pedestrian counts, bike counts,
etc.? The applicant submi ed a traffic impact analysis with the land use applica on, as
required by CDC 18.910.030.CC. The TIA can be found in the submi al materials under Exhibit
K: 00_2-11-2022
Regards,
Jeremy
Jeremy Tamargo, PE
City of Tigard
Assistant City Engineer
Direct: (971) 713-0281
You don't often get email from shaila.kotadia@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
From: Shaila Kotadia <shaila.kotadia@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 6:29 PM To: Nicole Hendrix <nicoleh@ gard-or.gov> Cc: Jeremy Tamargo <jeremyt@ gard-or.gov> Subject: Re: Cedarbrook Public Hearing
Hi Jeremy, Thanks for offering to answer ques ons. Here are a few. We'll take whatever you've got! We are curious as to why there needs to be an entrance off of 92nd Ave? In other words, can Ced
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.Allow sender | Block sender
sophospsmartbannerendHi Jeremy,
Thanks for offering to answer ques ons. Here are a few. We'll take whatever you've got!
We are curious as to why there needs to be an entrance off of 92nd Ave? In other words, can
Cedarbrook have one entrance/exit off of Hall like other businesses?
Will there be sidewalks installed on 92nd Ave?
Will there be lights installed on 92nd Ave?
What will be done for the school kids who use that route to go to Metzger Elementary? Will
there be a new, safe route created to walk to the school?
What analysis was conducted on the usage of the street, e.g. pedestrian counts, bike counts,
etc.?
Best,
Shaila
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 9:23 AM Nicole Hendrix <nicoleh@ gard-or.gov> wrote:
Hi Shaila,
Quick follow up from our mee ng last week – if you have ques ons regarding the Cedarbrook
Hearing /Development Jeremy Tamargo, who works in our engineering team, offered to answer any
ques ons you may have. He is copied on this email.
Thank you,
Nicole
Nicole Hendrix
She /Her
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office, City of Tigard
Work Hours: Monday-Thursday 7AM-6PM
Cell: 503.858.9716
Desk: 503.718.2416
E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public records law.
Allow sender | Block sender
You don't often get email from anthony.a.ames@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
From: Anthony Ames
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2022 1:41 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Re: Please vote in favor of families and safety. Please vote against the
proposed Cedarbrook facility
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Thank you, Agnes. Also I'd encourage you to drive by a 3-5 block radius of where the proposed
Cedarbrook facility will be. Specifically, south of SW Hall Blvd between SW 90th and SW 92nd St. You
will see the number of placards in front of people's houses sta ng "STOP CEDARBROOK". This is not a
couple of people who are voicing concern, this is the en re neighborhood ac vely working together
to stop this company by all legal means possible from ruining where we live.
We are figh ng for our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Anthony Ames
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 6:11 AM Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov> wrote:
Hi Anthony-
Thanks for your email. It will be incorporated into the record.
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@ gard-or.gov
From: Anthony Ames <anthony.a.ames@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 3:45 PM To: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov> Subject: Please vote in favor of families and safety. Please vote against the proposed Cedarbrook
facility
Agnes, My name is Anthony Ames and my family and I live in the Metzger neighborhood. We are
concerned about the proposed Cedarbrook development under review as it will certainly affect the
quality of life in a very nega ve way in our neighborhood.
Specifically:
1. Metro Code 3.09D - Increased traffic. The area around the proposed Cedarbrook development is
not equipped for the certain increase in traffic. There are few sidewalks, the roads are narrow and
there are families, many of whom have small children playing in the few green spaces available. The
increased traffic from the proposed facility with dozens of living units will make the neighborhood a
dangerous area for children to play, due to increased car traffic, ambulances, and shi changes. In
addi on, several families have dogs who they walk around the neighborhood, and with no
sidewalks, families and their dogs will be sharing the same space with the massive increase in
traffic. This will certainly increase the probability of dangerous situa ons with cars, ambulances and
pedestrians sharing the same space.
2. Metro Code 3.09D - Overloading of the transporta on system. With the certain increase in traffic
if the Cedarbrook proposal goes forward, the local transporta on system will be overloaded and
will not be able to meet current community needs. This holds par cularly true if an cipated growth
and development of surrounding areas occurs.
3. Tigard Code Sec on 18.720.030A(2) - The development is NOT in the city’s best interests. Tigard
is currently known as a rela vely family friendly part of the greater Portland metro area. With a
proposed development such as the massive Cedarbrook facility in the middle of a quiet and small
neighborhood, the atmosphere of the Metzger neighborhood will change for the worse,
permanently ruining our neighborhood and losing any charm and quiet that currently exists. We
are figh ng for our right to live in a peaceful neighborhood and not to be dominated by a colossal
facility in the middle of our neighborhood. We are figh ng for our children to have a peaceful
neighborhood to play in, not to be dodging uncontrollable traffic!
4. Tigard Code Sec on 18.910.030Q – the proposed Cedarbrook facility is clearly in viola on of this
sec on as well. Nowhere in the plans for the proposed facility is there a provision to protect the
neighboring proper es. This MASSIVE proposed facility will literally be 4-5 feet away from
residen al townhomes, it will be encroaching on wetlands and destroying habitats for natural
wildlife in the neighborhood.
City of Tigard, please help us. We are figh ng to maintain our neighborhood as a livable
neighborhood for our families and to raise our children in a safe environment. The roads in the area
are simply not equipped to handle the increased traffic, and there will be safety issues as a result.
The sec ons and codes listed above are just a sampling of viola ons that the proposed Cedarbrook
facility would create. Further viola ons of Tigard city codes include: policies for traffic as well as for
construc on. Not being truthful about what cons tutes a "dwelling", annexa on of space and land
use. For these reasons, my family and I are asking the City of Tigard to PLEASE help us to maintain
our neighborhood. Please vote in favor of families and safety, please vote against the proposed
Cedarbrook facility.
Regards,
Anthony Ames
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record
laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under
Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the
Oregon Administrative Rules “City General Records Retention Schedule.”
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Rachel Furman <refurman.slp@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2022 2:05 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Providing Tes mony During Mee ng Ques on
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hi Agnes,
Is below correct on how neighbors would ask to tes fy at tomorrow’s virtual mee ng for Cedarbrook? I
want to make sure everyone knows how to ask to tes fy and found this in one of the instruc ons on the
mee ng page. Just want to verify!
Thank you,
Rachel
Providing Testimony
Land use cases will include an opportunity to testify during the hearing. All attendees’
microphones and cameras will be disabled to star t the meeting. You’ll need to click
on the icons in the tray towards the bottom of your screen to turn them on when you’re
called upon to testify. To raise your virtual hand at the proper time, please click on the
hand icon at the bottom of the tray. The Planning Commission President will call for
testimony and will give instr uctions at that time. Please remember to lower your virtual
hand by clicking on it after your testimony.
Allow sender | Block sender
You don't often get email from christian.albano@redfin.com. Learn why this is important
From: Chris an Albano <chris an.albano@redfin.com>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 2:01 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Cedarbrook | Assisted living in Tigard
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hi Agnes,
Can you tell me the current status for this proposed plan?
Cedarbrook Annexation and Site Development Review
(ZCA2021-00001 / SDR2021-00001)
My clients are in the process of purchasing a property nearby, and
would just like additional information.
Thanks!
Christian Albano PSA | REDFIN | Real Estate Broker |
Christian.Albano@Redfin.com
| Direct: 503.984.8581 | License #:
201217849
700 NE Multnomah Street Ste.
1550 | Portland, OR 97232
Oregon Disclosure Pamphlet
IMPORTANT
NOTICE: Redfin will NEVER email you wire instructions. Find more tips related to wire fraud here.
We care about the health and safety of our customers, agents,
and community.
Redfin is committed to guiding you through the home buying and
selling process during these difficult times, while taking proper precautions
to prevent the spread of COVID-19. You now have the option to request a live
video tour of a home, or a virtual listing consultation to discuss the sale of
a home, in lieu of an in-person meeting. Learn more about what we're doing
to keep you safe, like limiting attendees for in-person tours and
not shaking hands.
Oregon Covid Buyers Advisory
Oregon Covid Sellers Advisory
Allow sender | Block sender
You don't often get email from jcrest@stanford.edu. Learn why this is important
From: Jus n Crest <jcrest@stanford.edu>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 10:22 AM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Cedarbrook mee ng
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hi Agnes,
The following is my comment for the cedarbrook mee ng tonight. Thanks!:
I live on SW 92nd Ave between Coral and Lehman St. My concern is about the increased traffic on
92nd and the subsequent risk for pedestrians. Dozens of people walk their pets or kids on 92nd past
my house day and night. There are no sidewalks and in fact there is only a storm ditch at one end to
avoid oncoming cars. Furthermore, there are no street lights. I have turned onto 92nd at night only to
be startled by a pedestrian that I didn’t see un l my headlights illuminated them. There are
extraordinary dangers if you allow 500+ cars a day down this street day and night. With the current
amount of traffic, my two-year old daughter was already struck by a vehicle in broad daylight.
Allowing this increase without safety modifica ons endanger all of us and will destroy the vibrant
community interac ons that exist, which should be cherished by the city. Tigard should not be a place
where you hide in your home for fear of con nuous car traffic. It should value the building of
interac ve communi es and neighborhoods that are passionate about improving their surroundings
and not just their personal property.
Jus n Crest
--
Jus n Crest, Ph.D.
Research Development Strategist
Department of Pediatrics
Stanford University School of Medicine
(206) 851-4585 / jcrest@stanford.edu
Website
Allow sender | Block sender
You don't often get email from landlaw.oregon@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
From: landlaw.oregon@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 12:23 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: RE: Cedarbrook Annexa on and Site Development Review (ZCA2021-
00001 / SDR2021-00001)
A achments: Ltr-city-2-28-22.pdf
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
I have a ached comments on the above referenced land use applica ons. Please make sure
that I am signed up to provide tes mony as this evening ’s planning commission mee ng and
that you send me
a video par cipa on link to provide oral tes mony during the hearing. Thank you for your
a en on and please let me know if you have any ques ons or problems with the a achment.
Kenneth P. Dobson
Attorney at Law
324 S. Abernethy Street
Portland, Oregon 97239
Office: (971) 717-6582
Mobile: (503) 684-8198
landlaw.oregon@gmail.com
www.pdxlandlaw.com
Information contained in this communication is privileged and/or confidential, intended only for the individual/entity named
above. If the reader of this notice is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify us by
phone (971) 717-6582 or email, and delete it from your computer. Thank you.
KENNETH P. DOBSON
ATTORNEY AT LAW
telephone: (971) 717-6582 324 S.W. Abernethy Street
email: landlaw.oregon@gmail.com Portland, Oregon 97239
www.pdxlandlaw.com
February 28, 2022
Via Electronic Mail
Agnes Lindor
Associate Planner
City of Tigard Planning Division
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
AgnesL@tigard-or.gov
Re: Cedarbrook Annexation and Site Development Review
ZCA2021-00001 / SDR2021-00001
Ms. Lindor:
I represent Teresa Gipson. Please accept this letter Ms. Gipson’s first set of additional
comments concerning the above referenced land use development application.
The Proposed Development is a “Dwelling”
Staff has taken the position that many of the provisions of the Tigard Community
Development Code (“TCDC”), including certain design standards set forth at TCDC 18.230.040,
are not applicable because the proposed assisted living facility does not contain “dwelling units”
as that term is defined by the code. See Staff Report pp 26-28. Specifically, staff reasons that
because the individual residence rooms in the proposed development lack kitchen facilities, they
are not dwelling units.
TCDC 18.30.020(14) defines “dwelling unit” as:
a. “Dwelling unit” - A structure or portion thereof that is used for human
habitation including permanent provisions for sleeping, cooking, and
sanitation.
In this case, there is no dispute the proposed building will be used for “human habitation”
and includes “permanent provisions for sleeping, cooking, and sanitation.” The plans clearly
show kitchen, sanitation, and dining facilities for the residents. There is nothing in the definition
of “Dwelling Unit” that requires the “cooking” facilities be located in the same room as those
used for sleeping and sanitation. On the contrary, most residential structures, from single family
homes to large institutional residences like what is proposed here, separate cooking areas from
those used for sanitation and sleeping. Because the proposed facility as whole is clearly a
Agnes Lindor
February 28, 2022
Page 2
“dwelling unit” as that term is defined by the code, the applicant must comply with all provisions
of TCDC 18.230.040 relating to “dwelling units.”
The Proposed Cul-De-Sac is Not Allowed
The original staff report recommended denial of the application because, among other
things, the application could not meet street design requirements set forth at TCDC
18.910.030.H.2, which states in relevant part:
“All local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development
site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not
precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development
patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code.”
In this case, the original staff report found that this standard had not been met (and could
not be met with a condition of approval) because the design did not provide for through
circulation for SW Montage Lane. Original Staff Report pp. 38-39. In response, the applicant
submitted a revised application that included a cul-de-sac at SW Montage Lane, rather than
extending the street to connect with SW Hall Boulevard. However, CDC 18.910.030L states that
cul-de-sacs are only permitted when:
“environmental or topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or
strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and
through circulation”
In this case, there are no topographical barriers to extending SW Montage Lane to other
existing streets. Although there is existing development to the east of the proposed residential
center that would make a connection to SW 90th Avenue difficult, it would not preclude
extending SW Montage east and then north to make a connection to SW Hall Boulevard.
Therefore, for the cul-de-sac to be allowed, the applicant bears the burden of proving that “strict
adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation.”
Applicant has not met this burden. It does not attempt to explain how or why “strict
adherence to other standards” precludes extending SW Montage to SW Hall. Instead, it simply
argues that the impacts of this development are not proportional to the costs of a full, public
through-street connection in this location. This misstates the standard for determining when
“strict adherence to other standards preclude street extension through circulation.”
TCDC 18.910.030.H.2 states in relevant part:
“A street connection or extension is considered precluded when it is not possible
to redesign or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions.”
(emphasis added).
Agnes Lindor
February 28, 2022
Page 3
As noted above, the project can be redesigned and reconfigured to allow the through
connection to Hall Boulevard. While applicant might not like having to reduce the footprint of
the proposed facility to comply with this standard, it can nevertheless be accomplished.
Because it is entirely feasible to reconfigure the project to allow the required connectivity, strict
adherence to other standards does not preclude the street extension, which in turn bars the
creation of the proposed cul-de-sac.
The staff and applicant might argue that the extension of SW Montage to SW Hall would
amount to an exaction or public dedication subject to the “roughly proportional” standard.
However, applicant would still be free to make the connection via a private street or driveway
and not a public street dedication. That would eliminate any Dolan concerns and avoid the need
to comply with the roughly proportional requirements of TCDC 18.910.020. Finally, even
assuming the “roughly proportional” standard still applied, the applicant has failed to offer any
real evidence such as alternative design options, cost estimates, or other information
demonstrating the costs of coming into compliance with the street connectivity requirements.
The “Roughly Proportional” Standard Is Not “Clear and Objective” as Required by the
Needed Housing Statute
Even assuming the “roughly proportional” standard of TCDC 18.910.020 somehow
applied, the City would be barred from using that standard to allow the proposed cul-de-sac
under the Needed Housing Statute set forth at ORS 197.307(4), which states:
“(4) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a local government may
adopt and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures
regulating the development of housing, including needed housing.”
In this case, the applicant readily acknowledges that the “proposed development is
residential in nature and is classified as apartment development” and “provides a much-needed
housing option for Metro area seniors.” Project Narrative pp 22, 46. Because there is no
question that the proposed development is for “housing,” the clear and objective requirements of
ORS 197.307(4) apply.
TCDC 18.910.020 states: “Applicants may be required to dedicate land and build
required public improvements only when the required exaction is directly related to and roughly
proportional to the impact of the development. On its face, this provision is a “standard,
condition, and procedures regulating the development of housing.” However, the term “roughly
proportional to the impact of the development” is undefined, open to subjective application, and
is anything but “clear and objective.” Accordingly, the provision is unenforceable under ORS
197.307(4) and cannot be used to excuse compliance with the street connectivity standards set
forth at TCDC 18.910.030.H.2
Agnes Lindor
February 28, 2022
Page 4
Vision Clearance Standards Have Not Been Met
The development application must also be denied because it does not comply with the
vision clearance standards set forth at TCDC 18.930.030. In reviewing compliance with these
standards, staff noted:
“The vision clearance areas are shown on the plans but do not comply with the
requirements of Chapter 18.930 and cannot be made to comply through
conditions of approval, as discussed later in this report. This standard is not met.”
Staff Report p. 34 (emphasis added).
Despite expressly stating that the vision clearance standards cannot be met through a
condition of approval, staff later in its report goes to recommend approving the application
anyway and deferring compliance with these requirements through a condition of approval.
Staff Report p. 65. However, conditions of approval are not findings and cannot substitute for,
or be used to avoid, demonstrating compliance with approval criteria or standards. Neither staff
nor the applicant has given any good reason why compliance with the vision clearance standards
cannot be determined during the hearings on the application or why that determination should be
deferred to some later time.
Moreover, conditions of approval cannot be imposed unless there is a finding that the
compliance with the conditions is “feasible” “Feasibility means that substantial evidence
supports findings that solutions to certain problems (for example, landslide potential) posed by a
project are possible, likely and reasonably certain to succeed.” Meyer v. City of Portland, 678
P.2d 741, 67 Or App 274, 280 n.5 (1984). However, in this case, the applicant has not offered
substantial evidence that compliance with the vision clearance standards is “likely and
reasonably certain to succeed.” If there were such evidence, then there would no reason to defer
a determination of compliance with these requirements by way of a condition of approval.
Because staff has already determined that the vision clearance standards have not been met (and
cannot be met through a condition of approval), the application must be denied.
Sincerely,
Kenneth P. Dobson
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Jan Erickson <jan.m.erickson@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 3:44 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Proposed Cedarbrook u lity easements
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Agnes,
I am concerned about this-
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
Streets – City of Tigard Engineering Division. The subject property has frontage on SW Hall
Boulevard, SW 92nd Avenue and an existing public street stub from SW Montage Lane. …
Upon development of the property, street improvements are required along the property
frontage in accordance with codes (listed in my written comments)
· Code 18.910
· Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards,
· ODOT Highway Design Manual standards,
· City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards
In 18.910.50 Easements
B. Utility easements. The city’s standard width for public main line utility easements shall
be 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company, applicable district, or City
Engineer. (Ord. 17-22 §2)
Page 52 of the staff report states “The development will require an eight-foot public utility
easement along all road frontages, outside of the right-of-way.”
The city planning staff has chosen to compromise and favor the developer with their ½ street
utility easement standard in direct non-conformance with the city development standard.
Table 18.230.040 (PG 24 staff report), setbacks section, the front is clearly called out as Hall
Blvd
Regardless, this subject easement is required to be located along the frontage of Hall Blvd
outside of the required public right of way, yet it appears to be excluded from the proposed
development drawings. It is not shown on the “Site Plan, A-1” or “Civil Design” drawings as
far as I can see. So, am I missing something, or are these drawings incomplete as
submitted? In my opinion it seems this question needs to be answered before this proposed
development can be allowed to move forward. There is an 8 ft utility easement shown on A-1
but it is around the non-conforming cul-de-sac, and seemingly not along the road frontage as
requested by the City of Tigard “Staff Report.”
What is shown on the proposed site plan, along the entire Hall Blvd Frontage roadway and
located at 1.3 feet from the road right of way is a rather large and imposing building. I believe
that a “utility easement” is not allowed to be built over, thereby preventing its maintenance
and replacement needs. Therefore, it looks like the proposed north wall of the assisted living
center structure needs to be relocated to the south approximately 6 1/2 ft, per the “Staff
Report, Page 24” reflecting that portion of the structure as the “Front” and the need for the
required utility easement.
The proposed Cedarbrook assisted living facility is too big for the 2.56-acre site that it’s trying
to squeeze into. As designed, this proposed facility is not good for the existing neighborhood.
We appeal to the planning commission to look at the submitted materials and then deny
approval of the site development plan as well as the annexation. This is the right solution for
the entire neighborhood and its adjacent community.
--
Jan Erickson
C (503) 887 3522
Allow sender | Block sender
From: gordon garmire <g2p3g4@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 2:20 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Mee ng tonight
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Dear Ms. Lindor,
Is there a way for us to tune into the Council Mee ng tonight from a remote loca on? We own the
property across Hall Blvd from the proposed Cedarbrook Quasi-Judicial Annexa on and are opposed
to the project for several reasons: There are already quite a number ~>60 assisted living facili es in
the local area - why do we need such a large addi on? The traffic on 92nd will be excessive, especially
when children are walking to school along this road. The scale of the building does not fit in this
residen al neiborhood.
Thank you,
Gordon and Audrey Garmire
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Teresa Gipson <teresagipson09@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 12:18 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Opposi on to Cedarbrook
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
To the Tigard Planning Commission
My name is Teresa Gipson. I reside at 9665 SW 92nd Ave in the Metzger residential
neighborhood that is bordered by SW Greenburg Road, SW Hall Blvd and SW Locust Street.
I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed annexation of 9355 and 9415 SW Hall
Blvd to the City of Tigard and the proposed development of an Assisted Living & Memory
Care facility (Cedarbrook) at that site.
I am strongly opposed to the proposed annexation of this site from Washington County into
the City of Tigard as the annexation increases the density of the property which is not in line
with Tigard's overall Comprehensive Plan for development and the Washington Square
Development Plan. This proposed annexation is against the interest of the neighborhood.
I am strongly opposed to the developer’s proposed plan to connect Montage Lane to SW
92nd Ave. as a “private drive” and then route their commercial traffic through a 100%
residential neighborhood on local streets.
The increased traffic would create a safety risk, increase noise and pollution, decrease
walkability and impact residential property values. Any proposed development at 9355 and
9415 SW Hall Blvd should support its own traffic on-site and all access to the site should
come off Hall Blvd.
I live on 92nd Ave, I walk on the streets, children ride their bikes and walk to school on these
streets- streets which are narrow and already have limited parking capacity which is fully
utilized by local residents. Allowing reduced vehicular parking for this development from the
code requirement of 178 spaces to 92 spaces will put an undue burden on the neighboring
streets to accommodate their off-site parking. Safety should be our primary concern for our
citizens and these plans will endanger all of us.
Please consider my comments and those of all of my neighbors who are united in our
opposition to this development. Keep Metzger liviable , walkable and safe.
Teresa
9665 Sw 92nd Ave
Tigard, OR, 97223
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Teresa Gipson <teresagipson09@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 4:11 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Comments from Teresa
A achments: Teresa Cedarbrook Statement to Tigard Planning Comm 2-28-2022.docx
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hi Agnes
Attached please find my comments for this evening to make sure they are a part
of the public record.
Thank you
Teresa
As you know Over 500 days ago a neighborhood meeting was
held to discuss the proposed “High-Density Health Care Services
project” known as Cedarbrook. Those of us who attended in
good faith trusted that the City of Tigard would live up to its vision
of “an equitable community that is walkable, healthy, and accessible to
everyone “ as well as a review process that ensures that our
rights are protected from urban development that is inconsistent
with the values of our community.
We have spent 100s of hours reviewing complex documents and
codes, speaking with lawyers, attending CPO meetings, and
speaking with our neighbors. Our testimony tonight reflects those
efforts. This evening, my neighbors have dissected the
development plan and shown how the developer is trying to
convince you of their self-serving interpretation of the code, as
evidenced by minimal adjustments to the proposed plan, multiple
requests for adjustments from you and no attempts to collaborate
and participate with the citizens of this community. This
development is in no way beneficial to the citizens whose homes
are adjacent or in nearby this development.
The 2027 Comprehensive Plan and your charter charges all of
you with the responsibility to “support land development and
ensure the opportunity for citizen involvement in all phases of
the planning process. Citizen involvement, which is a key
component to a livable community helps elected officials establish
the priorities for City government.
The Comprehensive Plan also states “This value given to citizen
involvement is not a new idea, rather one long identified as an important aspect
of the planning process and neighborhood residents need to be empowered to
help develop ideas and plans that reflect the wishes of the community, as
included in Statewide Planning Goal 1”
It is clear that approval of this development is in no way aligned
with the charters of this commission to support development that
maximizes public health benefits while increasing connection
between people and community.
We ask that you put yourself in the position of a citizen and make
a decision as if this were your community, with the necessary
consideration and thoughtfulness required by your 2027
Comprehensive Plan.
Your stewardship of land use is paramount to ensuring that our
Tigard remains safe and livable for all people. Whatever
development happens on this site must adhere to the codes for
land development in a manner that honors and respects existing
and future citizens.
Thank you.
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Chris Klingman <ceklingman@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 1:09 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: RE: Cedarbrook Assisted Living and Memory Care facility
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hi Agnes,
I no ced that my email below sent last year was not included in the emails that are part of the public
record. Could you please include it as well?
Thanks,
Chris Klingman
From: Chris Klingman Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 12:43 PM To: Agnes Lindor Subject: Re: Cedarbrook Assisted Living and Memory Care facility
Thanks, Agnes!
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021, 7:40 AM Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov> wrote:
Hi Chris-
The applicant is s ll working with Engineering on approvability issues. Once we get it finalized, I will
be sending out a no ce that will include the Planning Commission hearing date/ me. Thanks!
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@ gard-or.gov
From: Chris Klingman <ceklingman@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2021 5:31 PM To: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov> Subject: Re: Cedarbrook Assisted Living and Memory Care facility
Hi Agnes,
We haven't heard of any news regarding the applica on review for the Cedarbrook Assisted Living
and Memory Care development. Has there been any progress?
Thanks,
Chris Klingman
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 5:58 AM Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov> wrote:
Thanks Chris! Will do.
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@ gard-or.gov
From: Chris Klingman <ceklingman@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 6:24 PM To: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov> Subject: RE: Cedarbrook Assisted Living and Memory Care facility
Hi Agnes,
I forgot to a ach a pe on signed by a small group of Metzger neighbors (mostly on SW 91st
Ave and SW 92nd Ave). Could you please include it in the notes?
Thanks,
Chris Klingman
From: Agnes Lindor Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 6:14 AM To: Chris Klingman Subject: RE: Cedarbrook Assisted Living and Memory Care facility
Good morning-
Received and thank you for your comments.
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@ gard-or.gov
From: Chris Klingman <ceklingman@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2021 10:50 AM To: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov>; lutbldg@co.washington.or.us;
lutdev@co.washington.or.us; lutplan@co.washington.or.us Subject: Cedarbrook Assisted Living and Memory Care facility
Hello,
We appreciate that, as city and county planners, you carry the heavy burden of ensuring that our
communi es are safe, comfortable, environmentally healthy and beau ful – in other words,
op mally livable. We also appreciate that you have to accomplish these goals by considering the
o en-conflic ng needs and requirements of various (and some mes ambiguous, insufficient,
outdated and incomplete) codes, laws and regula ons, as well as the needs, desires and
requirements of your cons tuency – residents, developers, governmental agencies and
organiza ons with environmental, cultural, poli cal and humanitarian agendas.
As residents of the Metzger community bounded by Greenburg Rd, Hall Boulevard and route 99,
we have the same goals as you do, with a par cular focus on retaining the livability of our
neighborhood.
The proposed annexa on and rezoning of 9335 and 9415 SW Hall into the City of Tigard is solely
for the benefit of Mosaic Management Inc., in order to develop the Cedarbrook Assisted Living
and Memory Care facility, and does not support your charter or our focus. The proposed
development is simply too large for the 2.5-acre parcel and will:
1. create traffic and safety hazards
2. increase noise
3. reduce walkability
4. shi the residen al ambiance to a more commercial environment
5. destroy a green area with a natural wetland
6. impact property values
The proposed development will cause an inappropriate amount of commercial traffic to be
routed through a residen al neighborhood on streets designed for local traffic only. A traffic
study commissioned by the developer es mates the facility will have an es mated 484 visits
per day and the surrounding residen al neighborhood local streets would be burdened by
about 20% of this traffic, working out to an increase of almost 100 traffic cut-throughs per
day. The addi onal traffic creates concerns about safety on these local streets from
ambulances, deliveries, employees and visitors accessing the facility.
Increasing vehicular travel, in par cular commercial vehicles, poses a safety threat. All of
the streets that will be used to access the proposed 92nd Ave. entrance and the connec on
to Montage Lane are 2-lane and many do not have sidewalks. 92nd Ave is a primary walking
route for Metzger Elementary students. There is not the space on these streets to
accommodate the addi onal traffic without crea ng safety hazards for pedestrians
(especially children and elderly residents) and reducing quality of life in the exis ng
neighborhood. The streets are ac vely used by the neighborhood, not only for the
resident ’s vehicular travel, but also for pedestrian use by many residents who enjoy walking
with their families, friends and pets on a daily basis.
The developer has requested reducing site parking spaces from 178 to 92 stalls which will
result in overflow parking for employee and visitors on local streets. The streets surrounding
the proposed development are narrow, with no shoulders and open culverts. With limited
parking capacity, parking availability is already fully u lized by local residents. Addi onal cars
parked in the neighborhood will decrease space for residents to park, as well as impede
walking and through traffic, which presents a safety hazard.
The current proposal ignores the Brownstone community neighbors by placing loading
docks, trash collec on site, and a facility entrance driveway directly adjacent to the front
doors of several homes. The 24-hour nature of this business and the day to day running of
the facility will create addi onal noise within the residen al neighborhood. The sound of
dumpsters being emp ed and ambulances transpor ng residents arriving at all hours, as
well as the addi onal traffic from facility residents and employees, will raise the level of
noise within the neighborhood, especially for the residents directly adjacent to the facility.
The property at 9355 and 9415 SW Hall is currently an open meadow with an ac ve
wetland. The proposed development building and paving footprint will prevent the natural
seepage of rainwater at the soil surface, and increase the volume and speed of water run-
off. Failure to address the impact of the natural wetlands could cause significant water
displacement and flooding of adjacent lots during the rainy season. Loss of the current
green space limits the ability of natural landscape to capture carbon dioxide and disrupts
important and declining wildlife habitat.
In addi on to the nega ve effects on the comfort and safety of the neighborhood residents
and the natural environment, a 4-story 196 bed commercial facility centrally located within
the current neighborhood will decrease property values for homes surrounding the
proposed development. Reduced property values translates to reduced tax base.
For the reasons above, we are opposed to the annexa on and development of 9355 and
9415 SW Hall Blvd to the City of Tigard as it is currently proposed by Mosaic Management
Inc. Please support the greater good by denying approval of this project.
Best regards,
Chris ne and Richard Klingman
9512 SW 91st Ave
Portland, OR 97223
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record
laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under
Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the
Oregon Administrative Rules “City General Records Retention Schedule.”
CPO 4M Metzger, Durham, East Tigard
Washington County, Oregon
10655 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223
Initial TESTIMONY FOR CPO-4M
February 2, 2022
Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary, doreen@tigard-or.gov
Agnes K. Lindor, Associate Planner, AgnesL@tigard-or-gov
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Opposition to Cedarbrook Annexation (ZCA2021-00001) and Site Development
Review (SDR2021-00001)
Dear Doreen, Agnes, Planning Council and City Council,
Community Participation Organization-4M (CPO-4M), which has both Tigard and county membership,
unanimously approved two motions last week at our virtual monthly meeting pertaining to the
Cedarbrook Annexation and Development Application.
CPO-4M opposes annexation of this piece of property from unincorporated Washington County
to the City of Tigard code 18.720.030 (2). From what we understand, some Tigard residents
have already moved from this neighborhood in anticipation of the proposed Cedarbrook
development and its consequences, and we have heard others plan to if it is approved as is.
Also, CPO-4M opposes the Cedarbrook Memory Care and Assisted Living Development
application for many reasons, including potential violations of the City of Tigard’s
Comprehensive Goals, traffic concerns in a residential neighborhood, and noise levels from
emergency vehicles.
We are still studying materials relating to the Cedarbrook application and look forward to
discussing these matters and our concerns in more specific detail with the Planning Commission
Monday night, February 28th, 2022. Contrary to city policy, the staff report has not been
available a full two weeks. We need more time to fully review the total Cedarbrook
application?
The annexation and development application seems to be mis -labeled. Access to the property
should be on SW Hall Boulevard as that is the address on public notices.
Thank you.
Yours truly, Jim Long, Chair 503-647-0021
Allow sender | Block sender
You don't often get email from mvpmdp@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
From: mel phillippi <mvpmdp@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 12:41 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Cedarbrook
A achments: SW 92nd.JPG
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hello Agnes,
I have re red in the neighborhood that will be affected by the proposed Cedarbrook development. I
walk through this neighborhood several mes a week for exercise. It has been an idyllic place to live.
As I read through the huge volume of public comments, it is clear that no one in the neighborhood
wants to see this change. I no ce that the developer has produced a traffic report that shows only
20% of the increased traffic using SW 92nd to access the facility. Any of that traffic taking the
Greenburg exit from highway 217 will no doubt turn right on Coral or Lehmann and then SW 92nd to
get to Cedarbrook. As 217 will probably be on the route of a majority of the traffic, it is hard to believe
the 20% claim. This includes the traffic bulge of employee shi changes, as well as delivery trucks,
dumpster type garbage and recycling trucks.
Many, if not most, of the residents that will be affected do not live within Tigard city limits and don't
have the opportunity to vote for Tigard city council posi ons. Is this a factor in the decision making
process? It's also important to remember that the developer has no stake in our quality of life; only a
profit mo ve.
I have a ached a photo of SW 92nd that I took a few days ago on one of my walks. This illustrates
what will be lost.
Mel Phillippi
8784 SW Coral St.
Portland, OR 97223
971 401-9465
1
Agnes Lindor
From:Daniel Stoller <stollerd@outlook.com>
Sent:Monday, February 28, 2022 1:52 PM
To:Agnes Lindor
Cc:Rachel Furman
Subject:Re: Cedarbrook Proposal - Public Hearing Feb 28, 2022
Attachments:Public Testamony Speech - Stoller, Daniel.docx
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender
Hi Agnes,
No problem, I will plan accordingly. If still possible, please add the attached document to the public
record. It's the verbiage I plan to read alongside my PDF document at tonight's public hearing.
Thanks,
Dan
From: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@tigard-or.gov>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 8:10 AM
To: Daniel Stoller <stollerd@outlook.com>
Cc: Rachel Furman <Refurman.slp@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Cedarbrook Proposal - Public Hearing Feb 28, 2022
Hi Dan-
Unfortunately not, but I am happy to share mine and you can direct me on where you’d like me to point to or which
page to show. Thanks,
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@tigard-or.gov
From: Daniel Stoller <stollerd@outlook.com>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 7:35 PM
To: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@tigard-or.gov>
Cc: Rachel Furman <Refurman.slp@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Cedarbrook Proposal - Public Hearing Feb 28, 2022
Thanks, Agnes. Would it be possible for me to share from my screen so I can annotate and control the transitions? If
not, please let me know and I will plan accordingly.
Dan
2
Agnes Lindor wrote on 2/24/22 6:43 AM:
Hi Daniel-
I will be sending all the public comments over to Planning Commission today. And when it comes your
turn to testify, please just remind me and I will pull this up and share screen for you to present. Thanks!
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@tigard-or.gov
From: Daniel Stoller <stollerd@outlook.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 10:22 PM
To: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@tigard-or.gov>
Cc: Rachel Furman <Refurman.slp@gmail.com>
Subject: Cedarbrook Proposal - Public Hearing Feb 28, 2022
Hi Agnes,
Attached to this email you will find a PDF version of the material I plan to present during my 3
minutes at the public hearing on Feb 28, 2022 covering the Cedarbrook Assisted Living &
Memory Care proposal. I would greatly appreciate the planning commission reviewing this
document prior to the meeting.
Regards,
Daniel Stoller
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If
requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public
Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative
Rules “City General Records Retention Schedule.”
My name is Dan Stoller and my wife Rachel and I are residents of the Metzger area, located within one
of the Brownstone Townhomes, directly adjacent to the proposed development and our front door,
living room and bedroom are specifically located across from the Cedarbrook loading zone, trash pickup
and employee parking garage entrance.
Agnes, can you please navigate to slide 2?
Back in August of 2020, the developer held their required Neighborhood Meeting where they used a
strategy of confusion, a commonly used tactic to make non-experts (i.e. the neighborhood attendees)
feel lost and helpless. They spoke about the approval process in non-sequential order, provided
inadequate details about what had and had not yet been completed to-date and misspoke about the
current zoning for land use. Even amid this shameful behavior by the developer, the neighborhood
prevailed and did a decent job flooding them with concerns, none of which have been addressed 551
days later.
The developer has not only failed to resolve a single concern brought up in the meeting, they’ve also
ignored more than 80 letters and comments submitted to the city and/or them by concerned residents.
I would like to make absolutely clear, the developers for Cedarbook have made zero attempts to reach
out to our community who has met 2-3 times a month since August of 2020. With that said, I cannot sit
here and accept that this single meeting is enough to approve the proposed development and that
supplemental meetings should be scheduled to ensure the neighborhood has a say in the direction of
our community.
Agnes, can you please navigate to the next slide?
What you are looking at here is a version of the proposed development from Aug 2020 that better
highlights the impact to the surrounding community. The blue boxes are existing homes, the gray lines
indicate an existing road and the green lines indicate a proposed new road. There are 2 main concerns I
have with the proposal.
First is the placement of the loading dock, employee parking garage entrance and trash pickup. Given
the amount of noise that will accompany these 3 areas of the Cedarbrook facility and the proximity to
my home (9193, directly to the left on this visual), I am deeply concerned by the complete disregard the
developers have shown toward my right to live in a safe and quiet community. Today we live in a
neighborhood where kids can run around without having to worry about massive delivery trucks from
Cisco and employees of an assisted living facility speeding through their place of work.
The second concern is the placement of the Memory Care drop off location (shown in red on the left
side of your screen). Instead of using their own land to develop the necessary roads for their facility and
ultimately use every square foot of land, the developer has found a creative, yet drastic and intrusive,
way to maximize building space by abusing the existing public neighborhood streets of Montage Ln and
92nd Ave. There is a difference between the goals of the Cedarbrook facility and the existing
neighborhood and therefore I’d like to propose not connecting this development to our community and
instead keeping Montage Ln a dead end. Doing so would mitigate many of the concerns our
neighborhood has as Cedarbook would not have an impact to traffic on Montage Ln or 92nd Ave.
Agnes, can you please navigate to the next slide?
You are now looking at the most recent version of the proposal from Jan 2022. You’ll quickly notice no
concerns from the residents have been addressed and a “cul-de-sac” has been placed as the connection
point between Cedarbook’s private drive and Montage Ln. It’s hard to believe this solution satisfies the
city and ODOT’s original desire to complete Montage Ln through to Hall Blvd.
Agnes, please navigate to the next slide.
By definition, a cul-de-sac is a “street or passage closed at one end”. I would argue this cul-de-sac does
not meet that definition and instead is actually a road junction that, against ODOT Code, connects 2
public streets via a private street. For this reason, I would believe the application does not meet the
criteria for approvability.
Agnes, please navigate to the next slide.
So with that, I’d like to leave you with my proposal. Move the noise of the loading dock, employee
parking garage and trash pickup toward Hall Blvd while keeping Montage Ln a dead end not accessible
for the Cedarbrook facility, and build a sound reducing wall around the entire perimeter separating the
proposed development and the existing neighborhood.
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Rachel Furman <refurman.slp@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 10:05 AM
To: Agnes Lindor; Jan Erickson (via Google Drive); Daniel Stoller; garbar13@aol.com
Subject: Re: Presenta on for HOA
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Agnes,
It has come to our a en on that the developer has failed to submit all comments that they have received so they
can be part of the Planning Commission’s mee ng or that the city didn’t include all submi ed in the public
comments. One of great importance are correspondences from Mr Rob Reudy to the architect firm and another
which I have forwarded below is a string of exchanges between myself and the architect. The developers lied during
the presenta on and had to email me that they were incorrect. My concern however was their lie was very large
sta ng the wrong land-use currently for the development and sta ng over 70 townhomes would be built there if not
this development. This was not correct and ended up scaring neighbors into thinking they should go along with what
the developers want and not raise any concerns. This might have prevented neighbors from furthering their
concerns and sending comments and this the developer should have to resubmit their applica on. Also in the le er
Mr. Reudy even asks for an email confirma on and receipt that his email and it ’s a achment is made part of the City
Record for this subject and future land use ac vi es. They failed to submit any of his a achments from the email. Or
did the city fail to include them? Also his le er was never included in the public comments packet. The developer
should need to refile their applica on, and current one thrown out, if they failed to provide all comments from the
public mee ng to the city per their affidavit that they would, especially since their lie during the mee ng was never
corrected and might interfere with neighborhood involvement and understanding.
Thank you,
Concerned Metzger Neighbor Rachel Stoller
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rachel Furman <refurman.slp@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Presenta on for HOA
Date: August 27, 2020 at 12:41:47 PM PDT
To: Sam Thomas <samt@lenityarchitecture.com>, Daniel Stoller <stollerd@outlook.com>
Oh ok so the estimate of townhomes that can be built was grossly overestimated
during the presentation! Thank you for the updated number.
Rachel
Get Outlook for Android
From: Sam Thomas <samt@lenityarchitecture.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 9:45:46 AM
To: Rachel Furman <refurman.slp@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Presenta on for HOA
Hi Rachel,
The current configura on of the three parcels add up to approximately 2.56 acres.
Obviously, with the right-of-way dedica ons required, the net developable acreage goes
down a bit but I believe the density maximum would be based on current gross acreage.
Thanks,
Sam Thomas
Senior Land Use Specialist
<image001.jpg>
3150 Ke le Ct SE, Salem, OR 97301
o 503 399 1090 f 503 399 0565
w lenityarchitecture.com
From: Rachel Furman < refurman.slp@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 9:03 AM To: Sam Thomas <samt@lenityarchitecture.com> Subject: Re: Presenta on for HOA
Thank you, that makes much more sense. That allows residen al homes 18-24 units/acre.
How big is the lot? I thought it was right under 2 acres in usable space.
Rachel
Get Outlook for Android
From: Sam Thomas <samt@lenityarchitecture.com> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 8:21:01 AM To: Rachel Furman <refurman.slp@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Presenta on for HOA
Hi Rachel,
Thank you for your par cipa on at the neighborhood mee ng last night. Here is a PDF
copy of the slides presented.
Also, a clarifica on on the current zoning. Washington County has the property currently
zoned TO:R18-24 according to the current GIS map.
Thanks,
Sam Thomas
Senior Land Use Specialist
3150 Ke le Ct SE, Salem, OR 97301
c 503 314 2079 o 503 399 1090 f 503 399 0565
w lenityarchitecture.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Rachel Furman <refurman.slp@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 8:25 PM
To: Sam Thomas <samt@lenityarchitecture.com>
Subject: Presenta on for HOA
Hi Sam,
Thank you for helping facilitate the mee ng and listening to our long list of concerns. If I
could get the presenta on that would be wonderful. I will then provide it to our HOA
and then all our neighbors.
Thank you,
Rachel
From: Shannon Curran <svoge001@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 8:21 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Cedarbrook updates
[You don't o en get email from svoge001@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at
h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.]
Hello Agnes, I was present for the a empted mee ng tonight. Please add me to your email list so I can stay informed with
this issue.
Thank you, Shannon Curran
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Michael Dalton
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 7:12 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Re: Public Hearing Comments for 2/28/22 - Cedarbrook
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hi Agnes
Will the mee ng start soon.
Thanks,
Mike Dalton
Independent Vista So ware Consultant
559.960.7610
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 7:00 AM Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov> wrote:
Hi Mike-
Thank you for your comments. They will be incorporated into the record.
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@ gard-or.gov
From: Michael Dalton <mdalton1649@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 3:52 PM To: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov> Subject: Public Hearing Comments for 2/28/22 - Cedarbrook
Hi Agnes
Here are my comments for the February 28, 2022 mee ng
From Page 43 of the staff report
According to a memorandum provided by the applicant on June 10, 2021, from Wendie L.
Kellington, the applicant has stated that the extension of SW Montage Lane for a full street
connec on to SW Hall Boulevard, in accordance with Tigard Community Development Code
18.910.030.H., is not roughly propor onal to the impact of the development. Based on the traffic
impact analysis prepared by the applicant, dated May 19, 2020, the development is expected to
generate an average of 484 daily trips, of which 80% of the site trips are es mated to be distributed
to/from the proposed site access to SW Hall Boulevard and 20% of the site trips are es mated to be
distributed to the private driveway connec on at SW Montage Lane. The City therefore agrees that
the impacts of this development are not propor onal to the costs of a full, public through-street
connec on in this loca on.
Concerns:
Based on the traffic impact analysis prepared by the applicant there will be approximately
100 more daily trips through the residen al neighborhood.
The traffic analysis was completed almost 2 years ago, May 19, 2020. How valid is the data
and the assump ons based on that data?
This development will increase traffic and nega vely impact the quality of life for all the
residents of the area
Solu ons:
Have SW Montage Lane extended as a through street connec on as per TCD Code 18.910.030.H.
Which would divert traffic from existing neighborhood streets
Leave SW Montage Lane as is with no access from the development. This would require all traffic
to enter via SW Hall
From page 51 of the staff report
BB. Traffic calming. When, in the opinion of the City Engineer, the proposed development will create
a negative traffic condition on existing neighborhood streets, such as excessive speeding, the
developer may be required to provide traffic calming measures. These measures may be required
within the development or offsite as deemed appropriate. As an alternative, the developer may be
required to deposit funds with the city to help pay for traffic calming measures that become
necessary once the development is occupied and the City Engineer determines that the additional
traffic from the development has triggered the need for traffic calming measures. The City Engineer
will determine the amount of funds required and will collect said funds from the developer prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or in the case of subdivision, prior to the approval of the final
plat. The funds will be held by the city for a period of 5 years from the date of issuance of certificate
of occupancy, or in the case of a subdivision, the date of final plat approval. Any funds not used by
the city within the 5-year time period will be refunded to the developer. A Transportation Impact
Study (prepared by Kittleson & Associates, dated January 4, 2021) was submitted by the applicant
(Exhibit K). Based on the traffic analysis study submitted by the applicant’s traffic engineer, traffic
calming is not proposed or deemed necessary for the proposed development. This standard is not
applicable
Concerns:
There is currently excessive speeding on exis ng neighborhood streets
This development will add at least 100 daily trips and most certainly some of those trips will
be well over the speed limit.
Solu ons:
Have the developer install traffic calming measures on all exis ng neighborhood streets. This
should include: SW Lehman St, SW Borders St, SW 92nd Ave, SW Coral St, SW 90th Ave
Leave SW Montage Lane as is with no access from the development. This would require all traffic
to enter via SW Hall
Thanks,
Mike Dalton
9322 SW Lehman Street
559.960.7610
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record
laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under
Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the
Oregon Administrative Rules “City General Records Retention Schedule.”
Allow sender | Block sender
You don't often get email from jflint@gevurtzmenashe.com. Learn why this is important
From: Jessica A. Flint <JFlint@gevurtzmenashe.com>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 8:23 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Cc: Jessica A. Flint; Jessica Flint
Subject: Public Hearing: Planning Commission re: Cedarbrook Annexa on and Site
Development Review
Importance: High
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hello Agnes,
I would like to be added to the email list for the Public Hearing: Planning Commission mee ng for the
Cedarbrook Annexa on and Site Development Review. Please add the following three email addresses
to the mailing list and al future public no fica ons:
1. jflint@gevurtzmenashe.com
2. Jflintlaw013@gmail.com
3. bizoneric@gmail.com
I would also like to raise my objec on to the March 14, 2022 date for the rescheduled hearing. March
14, 2022 does not allow us to provide sufficient no ce to desired a endees, and we should be given
adequate me to enable us to clear our schedules to a end the mee ng. The developer was able to
reschedule the ini al mee ng to suit their needs, and the same opportunity should be given to the
public. This raises a serious issue of bias toward the developer, and holding a rescheduled (for the
second me) mee ng without sufficient me for desired a endees to clear their schedules would be
unduly prejudicial to community members. Therefore, I respec ully request that the March 14, 2022
hearing date be rescheduled for a date on or a er March 31, 2022, to allow for adequate no ce and
opportunity to par cipate.
Thank you,
Jessica A. Flint | Of Counsel
**Please copy flintgroup@gevurtzmenashe.com on all client and case-related
correspondences.**
115 NW 1st Ave, Ste 400, Portland, OR 97209 408 W 9th St, Vancouver, WA 98660 _____________________________________________ OR 503.227.1515 | WA 360.823.0410 | FAX 503.243.2038 _____________________________________________ GEVURTZMENASHE.COM
FOLLOW US:
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. The information contained in
this transmission is intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee of this email, please do not review,
disclose, copy or distribute. If you received this in error, please call me immediately. Thank you.
PLEASE NOTE: We continue taking careful precautions to ensure the health and safety of our clients
and staff. While many of us continue working remotely, we remain fully available by telephone and
email. CLICK here to read our full message.
Allow sender | Block sender
You don't often get email from shaila.kotadia@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
You don't often get email from shaila.kotadia@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
From: Shaila Kotadia <shaila.kotadia@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 8:18 PM
To: Agnes Lindor; Jus n Crest
Subject: Re: Cedarbrook development
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Thank you Agnes. Can you please add me and Jus n Crest at jcrest@gmail.com to the email list for the
public hearing? We were never included on any email communica on and would like to be no fied for
the rescheduled mee ng.
Best,
Shaila
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 7:02 AM Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov> wrote:
Good morning Shaila-
Thank you for your comments. They will be incorporated into the record.
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@ gard-or.gov
From: Shaila Kotadia <shaila.kotadia@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 6:55 PM To: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov> Subject: Cedarbrook development
Dear Agnes,
I wanted to submit comments for the public hearing for the Cedarbrook development.
I am against Cedarbrook. I live on 92nd Ave. 92nd Ave is a part of our community and is used by all
households on our street. This has allowed us to create deep bonds with our neighbors and the
surrounding communi es. There are 8 kids on our street under the age of 8 and they use the street
to play with each other. Others walking in the neighborhood with children o en join our kids to
play. It is also the route that families use to walk to Metzger Elementary. Currently, there are a lot of
pedestrians using the street and very minimal traffic. Even with minimal traffic, my two-year-old
daughter was hit by a car while riding a scooter. She was in the middle of the road trying to get off
and instead of wai ng, the car decided to try to go around her and hit her and the scooter.
Fortunately, she jumped the opposite way and was not hurt beyond a few scrapes. Had she gone
the other way, she would have been run over by the car. This trauma c experience makes me
extremely worried about this new development and the increased traffic. I cannot imagine ever
le ng my kids out the front door. They will not have the opportunity to communaly play in our
front yards, we won't be able to walk them to their preschool and next year to the elementary
school, and we will not have the same rela onship with our neighbors. We moved to Tigard with
the hopes of a posi ve city life where we could find and grow community. I believe that Cedarbrook
would be detrimental to the ci zens of Tigard.
Best,
Shaila Kotadia
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record
laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under
Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the
Oregon Administrative Rules “City General Records Retention Schedule.”
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Kat333
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 7:45 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Neighbors not ge ng into the Meet
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hello Agnes,
I have a neighbor that wants to speak and he can't log in on his desktop. His name is Dana Larson and
he has tried 20 mes. I gave him the number and the conference ID code to try and log into the
mee ng. This is not good. How many people could be trying to log in and not ge ng into the
mee ng?
Regards,
Kathleen Noonan
mobile 949.466.5487 | knoonan911@gmail.com
LinkedIn
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Daniel Stoller <stollerd@outlook.com>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 7:14 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Cc: Rachel Furman
Subject: Re: Cedarbrook Proposal - Public Hearing Feb 28, 2022
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Thank you! I'd also like to let you know none of us can hear to see anything on the Teams call
right now for the public hearing.
Dan
From: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 1:54 PM To: Daniel Stoller <stollerd@outlook.com> Cc: Rachel Furman <Refurman.slp@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Cedarbrook Proposal - Public Hearing Feb 28, 2022
Great, thanks! I will add to the record and forward to Planning Commission prior to the hearing.
Thanks,
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@ gard-or.gov
From: Daniel Stoller <stollerd@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 1:52 PM To: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov> Cc: Rachel Furman <Refurman.slp@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Cedarbrook Proposal - Public Hearing Feb 28, 2022
Hi Agnes,
No problem, I will plan accordingly. If s ll possible, please add the a ached document to the
public record. It's the verbiage I plan to read alongside my PDF document at tonight's public
hearing.
Thanks,
Dan
From: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 8:10 AM
To: Daniel Stoller <stollerd@outlook.com>
Cc: Rachel Furman <Refurman.slp@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Cedarbrook Proposal - Public Hearing Feb 28, 2022
Hi Dan-
Unfortunately not, but I am happy to share mine and you can direct me on where you’d like me to
point to or which page to show. Thanks,
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@ gard-or.gov
From: Daniel Stoller <stollerd@outlook.com> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 7:35 PM To: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov> Cc: Rachel Furman <Refurman.slp@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Cedarbrook Proposal - Public Hearing Feb 28, 2022
Thanks, Agnes. Would it be possible for me to share from my screen so I can annotate and control the
transi ons? If not, please let me know and I will plan accordingly.
Dan
Agnes Lindor wrote on 2/24/22 6:43 AM:
Hi Daniel-
I will be sending all the public comments over to Planning Commission today. And when
it comes your turn to tes fy, please just remind me and I will pull this up and share
screen for you to present. Thanks!
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@ gard-or.gov
From: Daniel Stoller <stollerd@outlook.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 10:22 PM To: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov> Cc: Rachel Furman <Refurman.slp@gmail.com> Subject: Cedarbrook Proposal - Public Hearing Feb 28, 2022
Hi Agnes,
A ached to this email you will find a PDF version of the material I plan to present
during my 3 minutes at the public hearing on Feb 28, 2022 covering the
Cedarbrook Assisted Living & Memory Care proposal. I would greatly appreciate
the planning commission reviewing this document prior to the mee ng.
Regards,
Daniel Stoller
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public
record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from
disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard
in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules “City General Records Retention
Schedule.”
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Rachel Furman <refurman.slp@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 8:58 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Cc: Daniel Stoller; Jason Snider
Subject: Ques on about Comments
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Since the mee ng has been postponed again, does that mean we can s ll submit
comments up un l the day of? I want to make sure all our neighbors know if they
can submit more comments or not. Also what do we need to submit to ask the
mee ng to be moved out to March 28th or later (that way all 80 plus of our
neighbors have me to re-arrange our schedules and provide comments)? I think
we had ten plus neighbors ask that it be moved at least a month out due to
surgeries, childcare coverage and work conflicts that they had to re-arrange.
It was sad when members of the planning commission were arguing with the
neighborhood. I wish we could have had this crucial conversa on, but it appeared
there were a lot of breakdowns. I hope the recorded mee ng is sent to Mayor
Snider and City Council for them to see how members of the commission including
Mr. Yi-Kang Hu responded to our concerns. It was disappoin ng when they said no
one would be no fied of the date change unless they were on the email list.
Hopefully they will fix the technical difficul es for next me! Hope you have a great
night.
Rachel Stoller
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Anthony Ames
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 9:00 AM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Re: Cedarbrook Hearing
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Agnes,
This was an embarrassment that there were close to 90 individuals on the call and then there were
supposed technical issues, muted par cipants and a lack of respect to par cipants on the call. I'm
reques ng that the mee ng be moved to March 28 to properly allow the public to prepare and
schedule.
Anthony Ames
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 8:43 AM Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov> wrote:
Good morning everyone-
I want to apologize for all technical issues that occurred last night. I really appreciate that all of you
a ended and were ready to tes fy. We are working on a solu on to ensure that this does not
happen again. I will be emailing out another no ce with the new date and me (March 14th at
7pm) this week. I would also like to include the link to the applicant materials: 00_2-11-2022 let
me know if you cannot access the link or have addi onal ques ons. Please forward to anyone who
is not on the par es of record list that I have. Again, my sincerest apologies for the technology fail
last me.
Thanks,
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@ gard-or.gov
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record
laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under
Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the
Oregon Administrative Rules “City General Records Retention Schedule.”
Allow sender | Block sender
You don't often get email from erinfitz_99@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important
From: Erin Fitzgerald <erinfitz_99@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 9:08 AM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Re: Cedarbrook Hearing
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Thanks, Agnes.
Where is my email testimony against the development? I sent it to you on Feb 15 and want to make
sure it is part of the official record.
Erin
On Tuesday, March 1, 2022, 08:43:47 AM PST, Agnes Lindor <agnesl@tigard-or.gov> wrote:
Good morning everyone-
I want to apologize for all technical issues that occurred last night. I really appreciate that all of you
attended and were ready to testify. We are working on a solution to ensure that this does not happen
again. I will be emailing out another notice with the new date and time (March 14th at 7pm) this week. I
would also like to include the link to the applicant materials: 00_2-11-2022 let me know if you
cannot access the link or have additional questions. Please forward to anyone who is not on the
parties of record list that I have. Again, my sincerest apologies for the technology fail last time.
Thanks,
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@tigard-or.gov
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws.
If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon
Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon
Administrative Rules “City General Records Retention Schedule.”
Allow sender | Block sender
From: garbar13
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 12:02 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: New mee ng
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hi Agnes,
Last night's mee ng was a huge disappointment. I am sure your group was frustrated. I know we
were!
I am sad that I won't be able to par cipate in the March 14 mee ng. That day I am having re nal
surgery and will be face down for a week. So many delays!
I am sad that the neighbors may lose momentum with all the postponements. It has taken many hours
to keep our people in the loop. What a confusion!
Thanks for all your work.
Juanita Garnow
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Allow sender | Block sender
From: garbar13 <garbar13@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 1:16 PM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Email list
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hi Agnes,
Would you be willing to share the email addresses of last night's a endees with me so that we can
send a new mee ng reminder to all who tried to a end last night?
In lieu of that, would you be willing to send out a reminder before the March 14 mee ng? Up to now
we have just been going door to door.
Thanks,
Juanita Garnow
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
From: Clint Wilkins <wilkins3636@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 10:14 AM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: pictures
Agnes, Could you send me the pictures and any narra ve included. Was the City Traffic Engineer able to review?
Thank you, Clint
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Clint Wilkins <wilkins3636@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 10:29 AM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: pictures
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Agnes,
I would like to apologize to you for your me and efforts to make the pictures available to the public.
Jeremy's response to me says that the pictures are not related to the proposed development because S.W.
Borders St. is owned and operated by Washington County and the project has not been constructed yet.
Does that mean we will not be impacted by this development or we don’t have any say in this process?
Jeremy sent me the traffic study done by Ki elson that states 80% of the vehicles will use Hall Blvd leaving
only 20% to use other op ons.
Thanks again for no fica on and keeping us informed.
Clint Wilkins
Allow sender | Block sender
You don't often get email from bryan_robb@co.washington.or.us. Learn why this is important
From: Bryan Robb
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 3:09 PM
To: g2p3g4@gmail.com
Cc: Agnes Lindor; Todd Borkowitz; Anne Kelly
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Zoning
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hello Mr. Garmire,
The property is currently outside the Tigard city limit based on our maps and is in Washington
County’s land use jurisdic on at present. However, the property appears to be going through the
process of being annexed into the city of Tigard, at which point the city will have land use jurisdic on.
I did a search online and came across the following informa on, which is from a Feb 15 planning
commission mee ng reques ng annexa on into the city:
h ps://www. gard-or.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/2069
It appears there was already a comment period, but I’m unsure where it is in the process of going to
the City Council, so there may be an addi onal comment period.
I have not received any informa on that this annexa on is finalized. I have copied the planner at the
City of Tigard who was on the staff report if you have further ques ons.
Sincerely,
Bryan
Bryan Robb | Associate Planner
503-846-3717 direct | 503-846-4412 fax
Plan Responsibly. Build Safely. Live Well.
From: LUT Planning Commission <lutplanningcommission@co.washington.or.us> Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 2:20 PM To: Bryan Robb <Bryan_Robb@co.washington.or.us>; Todd Borkowitz
<Todd_Borkowitz@co.washington.or.us> Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Zoning
Hi Bryan or Todd, this gentleman sent an email about zoning, please see his email below. Can anyone
reach out to him to possibly provide more informa on or should he reach out to the city of Tigard?
Regards,
Susan Aguilar, EMPA | Sr. Admin. Spec.
Pronouns: she/her/hers
Washington County Department of Land Use & Transporta on
Planning and Development Services | Long Range Planning
155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS 14, Hillsboro, OR 97124
503-846-8121 direct | 503-846-4412 fax
Susan_aguilar@co.washington.or.us
In an effort to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, I am working
from home in accordance with County policy, amended 3/13/2020. I will be checking all messages
periodically. If you have an urgent matter, please call the main number at 503-846-3519.
Plan Responsibly. Build Safely. Live Well.
From: gordon garmire <g2p3g4@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 7:41 PM To: LUT Planning Commission <lutplanningcommission@co.washington.or.us> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Zoning
Dear Ms. Aguilar,
The property is at 9415 SW Hall Blvd and is the proposed site of the Cedarbrook Assisted Living and
Memory Care development that is under review by the Planning Commission of Tigard for Annexa on
into Tigard. The Tigard proposed Zoning is MUR-1 and the proposed building is a 4 story structure
covering about 2.5 Ac.I don't think that the project is appreciate at this loca on that is a residen al
neighborhood.
Regards,
Gordon Garmire (Property owner of 9380 SW Hall Blvd.)
On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 11:29 AM LUT Planning Commission
<lutplanningcommission@co.washington.or.us> wrote:
Hi Mr. Garmire, thanks for your ques on. It really depends, if it's in the city limits then it could be
the city of Tigard's jurisdic on but if it's outside the city limits, it could be Washington County's
jurisdic on. Do you have an address that you would like us to check?
Regards,
Susan Aguilar, EMPA | Sr. Admin. Spec. Pronouns: she/her/hers Washington County Department of Land Use & Transporta on Planning and Development Services | Long Range Planning 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS 14, Hillsboro, OR 97124 503-846-8121 direct | 503-846-4412 fax Susan_aguilar@co.washington.or.us
In an effort to mi gate the spread of COVID-19, I am working
from home in accordance with County policy, amended 3/13/2020. I will be checking all messages
periodically. If you have an urgent ma er, please call the main number at 503-846-3519.
Plan Responsibly. Build Safely. Live Well.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Garmire <g2p3g4@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 5:47 PM
To: LUT Planning Commission <lutplanningcommission@co.washington.or.us>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Zoning
Does the Washington County Zoning Take precedence over Tigard, or is Tigard Zoning the one that
is in force?
Thanks,
Gordon Garmire
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the County. Exercise cau on when opening
a achments or clicking links from unknown senders. Always follow the guidelines defined in the
KnowBe4 training when opening email received from external sources. Contact the ITS Service Desk
if you have any ques ons.
From: Clint Wilkins <wilkins3636@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 8:30 AM
To: Agnes Lindor
Cc: bluepgs@yahoo.com
Subject: pictures
Good morning Agnes,
Just curious if there were any requests for the pictures besides me?
If so could you send them Jeremy ’s email to me explaining why they are not related to avoid
discussion at the next mee ng even though the majority of vehicles and pedestrians are going to or
from S.W. 92nd!
Thanks,
Clint
From: Clint Wilkins <wilkins3636@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 7:44 AM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Re: pictures
Agnes,
I suggested a copy of Jeremy’s email be included with the pictures if there were any requests for the
them.
This would explain why they are not related to the project and not be a point of discussion at the
Mar.14th hearing.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Clint
> On Mar 7, 2022, at 6:27 AM, Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov> wrote:
>
> Hello Clint-
> I have not received any other requests to view the photos. Please see a ached email from Jeremy.
Thanks,
>
> Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
> City of Tigard | Community Development
> 13125 SW Hall Boulevard
> Tigard, Oregon 97223
> Phone: 503.718.2429
> Email: AgnesL@ gard-or.gov
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clint Wilkins <wilkins3636@hotmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 8:30 AM
> To: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov>
> Cc: bluepgs@yahoo.com
> Subject: pictures
>
> Good morning Agnes,
> Just curious if there were any requests for the pictures besides me?
> If so could you send them Jeremy ’s email to me explaining why they are not related to avoid
discussion at the next mee ng even though the majority of vehicles and pedestrians are going to or
from S.W. 92nd!
>
> Thanks,
> Clint
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws.
If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon
Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon
Administra ve Rules “City General Records Reten on Schedule.”
> <Mail A achment.eml>
From: Jeremy Tamargo
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 1:59 PM
To: Clint Wilkins
Cc: Agnes Lindor
Subject: RE: pictures
A achments: 22689 Hall Boulevard Assisted Living Center_final.pdf
Hi Clint,
Thanks for the email. The applicant has frontage on SW Hall Boulevard, SW Montage Lane and SW
92nd Avenue, so the applicant has the legal right to propose driveway access to the right-of-way at all
loca ons in which the property has frontage on a public right-of-way. The two accesses to the site are
also being u lized by the applicant to meet TVF&R emergency vehicle access requirements for the
proposed development.
I have also a ached the applicant ’s traffic study, which provides the an cipated distribu on of trips to
and from the proposed development site. As shown in Figure 7, the majority of the trips generated by
the site will u lize the proposed driveway on SW Hall Boulevard for ingress and egress to the site.
Regards,
Jeremy
Jeremy Tamargo, PE
City of Tigard
Assistant City Engineer
Direct: (971) 713-0281
From: Clint Wilkins <wilkins3636@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 11:33 AM To: Jeremy Tamargo <jeremyt@ gard-or.gov> Subject: Re: pictures
Jeremy, Thanks for your comments. I was trying to show exis ng vehicle and pedestrian traffic that is normal today! As the applicant will not show is direc ons to S.W. 92nd and S,W. Montage you woul
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.Allow sender | Block sender
sophospsmartbannerendJeremy,
Thanks for your comments.
I was trying to show exis ng vehicle and pedestrian traffic that is normal today!
As the applicant will not show is direc ons to S.W. 92nd and S,W. Montage you would assume that
Greenburg to S.W. Lehman to S.W. 92nd or Hall Blvd. to S.W. 90th and to S.W. Borders to 92nd. would
be the preferred routes of the 484 projected daily vehicle increase!
If the applicant would change to Hall Blvd. entrance and exit only and keep S.W. Montage blocked off
it would seem this process would solve a lot of the problems and concerns of the neighborhood.
Thanks,
Clint Wilkins
On Mar 2, 2022, at 10:29 AM, Jeremy Tamargo < jeremyt@ gard-or.gov> wrote:
Hi Clint,
Thank you for the email, narra ve and the photographs. SW Borders Street between SW
90th and SW 92nd is an exis ng street owned and maintained by Washington County. It
is outside of the jurisdic on of the City of Tigard. As the proposed Cedarbrook
development is s ll in the land use review process, the photos provided are of exis ng
traffic condi ons (dated January 6 through January 7, 2022) and are not related to
proposed development, which has not been constructed yet.
To address exis ng concerns about signs, speed bumps or traffic pa erns in Washington
County, you may contact the Land Use and Transporta on Department at 503-846-ROAD
(846-7623), Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., or use their online
repor ng tool.
Regards,
Jeremy
Jeremy Tamargo, PE
City of Tigard
Assistant City Engineer
Direct: (971) 713-0281
From: Agnes Lindor < agnesl@ gard-or.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 10:23 AM To: Clint Wilkins <wilkins3636@hotmail.com> Cc: Jeremy Tamargo <jeremyt@ gard-or.gov> Subject: RE: pictures
Good morning Clint-
The SD card was mailed back to you last week and the photos forward to our
Engineering department. Here is a link to the pictures extracted from the SD card:
h ps:// gard-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g /personal/agnesl_ gard-
or_gov/EseEeWIT5NNFqYglePUW9TABSJ-H5L3GBjSJbBXWB2nHOw?e=hrnNtE
Thanks,
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@ gard-or.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Clint Wilkins <wilkins3636@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 10:14 AM
To: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@ gard-or.gov>
Subject: pictures
Agnes,
Could you send me the pictures and any narra ve included.
Was the City Traffic Engineer able to review?
Thank you,
Clint
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public
record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from
disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard
in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules “City General Records Retention
Schedule.”
Allow sender | Block sender
From: garbar13 <garbar13@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 9:51 AM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: Cedarbrook proposal
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Agnes,
First of all, I want to recognize the stress of your posi on. I am reminded of our soldiers in Viet Nam
who were forced to "walk point" through the jungle. The point man would mi gate damage/death to
the rest of the unit if he encountered a Claymore bomb and died. There you are, taking flak for your
department.
I hereby request the Monday, March 14, 2022, mee ng be postponed un l our a orney can a end.
A er reading the a achment to your email, I am even more convinced our neighborhood group
NEEDS to have our legal representa ve present.
Frankly, I do not believe what the developers have wri en is true.
It feels as Teresa Gipson said last night that we neighbors have been minimized and disregarded.
Nothing has happened to give credence to anything but that! It feels we have the right to struggle to
defend our neighborhood against profiteers, but it seems we will have worked for no avail. I don't
believe anyone is against that property being developed, but not with a proposal of this magnitude.
The developers will profit, the city will profit, and our living situa on will deteriorate. So much for
freedom and respect for us as an en ty. No wonder people riot! When people feel unheard and
disrespected, nega ve behavior ensues.
Due to my upcoming surgery, I am unable to par cipate in this Monday's mee ng. I feel doubly
disenfranchised without legal representa on.
Thanks for all you do.
Steamrollered,
Juanita Garnow
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Rachel Furman <refurman.slp@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 11:25 AM
To: Agnes Lindor; Daniel Stoller; Jan Erickson (via Google Drive);
garbar13@aol.com; Teresa Gipson; bluepgs@yahoo.com; Tracy Brophy;
vmakris24@gmail.com; kathleennoonan@yahoo.com;
dianebow57@gmail.com
Subject: Cedarbrook Mee ng Postponement Request
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hi Agnes,
As you know I have been very ac ve in this process and have been disappointed by the mul tude of
mee ng changes, especially as most are within 24 hours of the mee ng. I did read the developers
response to the neighborhood, which con nues to highlight the lack of public opinion that they will
consider and the unwillingness to work with the community. Many of their responses were incorrect
and they chose to not respond to a majority of them. It ’s also disappoin ng that this is the first me
they have ever responded to any public comments and they con nue to report they won’t change or
modify anything based off the concerns. As was noted in the mee ng yesterday this proposal is the
largest by far a ended by the community. I hope the planning commission and city recognize the
severity and impact this proposal would have on the community, especially hindering the city ’s
proposed vision. While I have been ready to comment mul ple mes prior and hope to do so on
Monday, I also want the city to recognize that par ally due to the high amounts of stress from this
proposal my health has suffered. I ended up going into pre-term labor a er the last scheduled
mee ng and my son is in the NICU. My husband and I spend most of our me with him which makes it
challenging to a end next week’s mee ng. I am asking the commission for a con nuance or
postponement of the mee ng un l March 28th so I can focus on my family’s health, and get the
appropriate legal support from our a orney. Our neighborhood a orney will be unable to a end the
14th mee ng which unjustly impacts the public. The developers have a full army prepared against us
and we need our legal support present.
Thank you,
Rachel
Get Outlook for iOS
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Jan Erickson <jan.m.erickson@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 7:38 AM
To: Agnes Lindor
Subject: request for a document
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Good morning Agnes,
Thank you to you and Tom for taking the me last night for mee ng with the neighborhood group and
addressing our ques ons.
Could you please send over the applicant's response to the comments submi ed to the City for the
Feb 28th Planning commission mee ng?
Thanks
Jan
--
Jan Erickson
C (503) 887 3522
Cedarbrook Senior Living
(159 units of Assisted Living and 33 beds of Memory Care)
Applicant Response to Comments
3/9/2022
Various concerns have been expressed regarding the proposed facility. They are summarized
below with the applicant’s responses following. We hope you find this helpful. We reiterate that there
is no dispute that the proposal is a type of housing that is needed in the Tigard community. Staff agrees
that the proposal meets all applicable standards. We hope for your approval. Thank you for your
consideration.
(1) CONCERN: There is no dispute that the proposal is for a type of housing. Some also claim that
the proposal contains “dwelling units” and so must meet the city standards that apply to dwelling
units.
RESPONSE: Incorrect. Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) 18.30.020(D)(14)(a) defines “dwelling unit” to
require “permanent provisions for sleeping, cooking, and sanitation.” This is meant to distinguish
apartments/traditional multi-family structures from facilities like the proposal that house vulnerable
populations, where the occupants sleep on-site but their basic needs are met using common facilities –
i.e., where residents largely do not drive, but are shuttled, eat in central dining rooms served by
commercial kitchens and do not have individual units with doors to the outside. Accordingly, there are
no “permanent” provisions for cooking at facilities like the proposal, by design. Meals are served in a
central dining room, the costs for which are built into the residents’ monthly fees. Wholly removable
microwaves are included in individual units, nothing more. “Permanent” cooking facilities are unsafe –
it is notoriously easy for a vulnerable person to mistakenly leave flammables on a stove when it is
ignited, exposing themselves and others to danger. That is why permanent cooking facilities are simply
not provided. Therefore, per the city’s code there are no “dwelling units” in the proposed facility, by
design.
(2) CONCERN: Even if the facility does not technically include “dwelling units” the facility
should be forced to comply with “dwelling unit” standards.
RESPONSE: Incorrect. First, only the standards in the city’s code apply. Equally important is the
reason that the city defines dwelling units to exclude facilities without permanent cooking facilities, is
that DUs trigger requirements that expose the residents to danger or simply do not make sense. These
include requirements for "Private open space" that is "directly accessible" from interior of DU, contrary
to safety needs of residents. TMC 18.230.040(D)(2). Another is DU requirements for vehicle/bike
parking assuming able bodied residents who own cars and drive/bicycle, but here more than 95% of
residents here do not have cars by design and 100% do not have bicycles. If AL/MC facilities were
“dwelling units” that would lead to those facilities being vastly overparked. This is illustrated in TMC
18.230.040 Table 18.230.2:
(3) CONCERN: If the units do not have permanent facilities for cooking, then they will be
substandard and not meet administrative rules for such facilities.
RESPONSE: Incorrect. State licensing requirements expressly do not contemplate “permanent”
cooking facilities for AL/MC. Rather, they require the opposite – temporary cooking facilities. The
state rules require an electrical outlet for a “cooking appliance” and require that the “cooking appliance”
be easily removable or disconnectable for safety and specifically states that microwaves are a “cooking
appliance.” OAR 411-054-0300. There is no “permanent” provision for cooking in the proposed
facility.
(4) Concern: The proposed cul-de-sac is not allowed and a full street connection between Montage
and Hall should be required.
RESPONSE: Incorrect. There is no dispute that a cul-de-sac is allowed under the city code when a full
street connection cannot be required- in fact the law would allow that even if the city code did not.
There is no dispute that the law does not allow the city to require that full street connection here. There
is no dispute that the impacts of the proposed facility do not justify requiring the applicant to install a
full street connection between Montage and Hall (they are not “roughly proportional” to the project’s
impacts). A famous United States Supreme Court case to which the city was a party (Dolan v. City of
Tigard), made this holding that has since been repeated by scores of other courts including the Oregon
Court of Appeals and Oregon Supreme Court. The cul-de-sac is unquestionably allowed as an alternate
to a full street.
(5) CONCERN: The “roughly proportional” standard is not “clear and objective” as required by the
state’s needed housing statute and so cannot be applied.
RESPONSE: Incorrect. The rough proportionality standard is a federal constitutional rule that applies
regardless of any contrary state or local law. But here, state law is entirely consistent. State law says
that local governments can “adopt” only clear and objective requirements to regulate housing. ORS
197.307(4). The federal constitutional “rough proportionality” requirement was not “adopted” by the
city, it was “adopted” by the federal government and certainly was not adopted by the city to regulate
housing. State law prohibits denial of housing on local standards that are not clear and objective. ORS
227.175(4)(b)(A). The city’s compliance with the federal constitution results in approval, not denial of
this proposal for housing. Regardless, just as no state law can require local governments to violate a
persons’ constitutional civil rights based upon their race or religion, the “clear and objective” state law
requirements could not be written to excuse local governments from their constitutional responsibility to
impose only constitutional exaction conditions. In fact they are not so written, they are written to
achieve the converse – state law requires that the processes and standards applied by local government
to housing not result in unreasonable cost or delay. ORS 197.307(4)(b). The city’s observance of
federal law enables the city to achieve that.
(6) CONCERN: Vision Clearance Standards have not been met
RESPONSE: Incorrect. The proposed plans were updated to demonstrate compliance with all city
vision clearance standards per TMC Chapter 18.930, completely resolving staff concerns. The original
plans showed only compliance with ODOT standards, now they clearly show compliance with both
ODOT and city standards. The staff report explains the city agrees the applicant meets all vision
clearance requirements. The staff report contains one mistaken staff statement otherwise, that they will
clarify in their report to the commission).
(7) CONCERN: the proposed 92 parking spaces is inadequate and parking for the facility will spill
into the neighborhood.
RESPONSE: Incorrect. The only evidence is that the proposed parking meets all requirements and is
adequate for the facility. No adjustment to any applicable parking standard is requested or needed. The
proposed on-site parking is consistent with that required of other similar facilities in the city and
elsewhere and is based on many years of senior care design and operations experience by the applicant,
developer, and design team. Staff appropriately decided that the proposed parking is sufficient. If the
commission wishes, a few more parking spaces can be added by adjusting the number of compact
parking spaces, but that is unnecessary and risks overparking the facility. We understand that it is the
city policy to err on the side of limiting parking to what is needed and not to oversize parking areas.
(8) CONCERN: Loading area/refuse enclosure location is not adequately screened and will create
excessive noise.
RESPONSE: Incorrect. The loading area is proposed on the southwest corner of the site and is
separated from adjacent homes by a 5-foot-wide landscape screen with trees, spaced evenly along the
property line and is separated by a 24-foot-wide driveway aisle that ramps down to the underground
parking garage. Landscape screening is provided between the loading area and the proposed Montage
Ln cul-de-sac extension and complies with the TMC. The refuse enclosure is located within the parking
garage. As a result, there is no reasonable possibility that deposits to the refuse bins or emptying them
will result in excessive noise.
(9) CONCERN: Stormwater management for site and off-site improvements is inadequate and the
storm water easement to be given to the city is too small. The applicant should be required to
give the city more land.
RESPONSE: Incorrect. Stormwater plans have been designed and submitted by a registered
Professional Engineer that comply with City of Tigard and Clean Water Services standards and have
been reviewed by City of Tigard Engineering Staff. On-site stormwater management will include a
detention system with 1500 linear feet of detention/perforated pipe. Off-site stormwater for public
streets will be managed separately and will not mix with on-site stormwater. The width of the
stormwater easement complies with City of Tigard and Clean Water Services Standards. TMC
18.910.050(B) specifies that the “standard width” of the easement should be 15 feet unless another
distance is required by the city engineer. Here, the proposed 12-foot storm utility easement is the width
required by the city engineer and is unquestionably adequate for its purpose. A wider easement would
serve no purpose and would not meet the requirement for rough proportionality.
(10) Concern: The Applicants’ traffic study shows 20% of traffic coming from SW 92nd Ave
to access the facility.
RESPONSE: Incorrect. The Traffic Impact Analysis anticipates 95% of site traffic will access the site
from the main driveway on SW Hall Boulevard. Only 5% is expected to access the site via SW 92nd
Avenue – SW Montage Lane. This equates to approximately 26 weekday daily trips, including 2 trips
during the AM peak hour (1 in/1 out) and 3 trips during the PM peak hour (1 in/2 out).
Sincerely,
Samuel A. Thomas
Senior Land Use Specialist
Lenity Architecture, Inc.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 1 OF 68
Agenda Item: 5
Hearing Date: February 28, 2022 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: CEDARBROOK
CASE NO.: ANNEXATION ZCA2021-00001
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR2021-00001
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval to annex approximately 2.53 acres into
the City of Tigard. The proposal includes a site development review to
construct a 182-bed assisted living facility. Improvements include parking,
landscaping, common open space, and other associated site improvements.
APPLICANT: Doug Sproul; Hall Blvd Land, LLC
1900 Hines Street SE #150
Salem, OR 97320
OWNER: Same as applicant
APPLICANT’S REP: Tim Taylor; Adamson Holdings LLC
6312 SW Capital Highway #133
Portland, OR 97239
LOCATION: 9355 / 9415 SW Hall Blvd; WCTM 1S126DB Tax Lots 00800, 00900, 01000
COUNTY ZONE: TO: R18-24
CITY ZONE: MUR-1
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Tigard Community Development Code (CDC) Chapters 18.120, 18.210,
18.230, 18.410, 18.420, 18.670, 18.710, 18.720, 18.780, 18.910, 18.920, and
18.930; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 11, 12, and 14; Metro Code
Chapter 3.09; and Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 222.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 2 OF 68
SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Planning Commission find that the proposed Annexation Site Development
Review will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the City and meets the approval
criteria as outlined in Section VI of this report. Therefore, Staff recommends that Planning
Commission recommend to City Council, APPROVAL of the proposed Annexation and Site
Development Review subject to conditions of approval.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO PERMIT
SUBMITTAL:
1. Prior to permit submittal, the applicant must submit an Autocad file of proposed street names
and assignment of addresses and pay the address fee. Contact Oscar Contreras at 503-718-2678
for the submission of the Autocad file. The address fee will be assessed in accordance with the
current Master Fee Schedule.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED
PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY SITE WORK:
The applicant must prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents
or plans that address the following requirements to the PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Agnes
Lindor (503)718-2429 or AgnesL@tigard-or.gov. The cover letter must clearly identify where in
the submittal the required information is found:
2. Prior to commencing any site work, the project arborist must perform a site inspection for tree
protection measures, document compliance/non-compliance with the Urban Forestry Plan, and
send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one
week of the site inspection.
3. The project arborist must perform semimonthly (twice monthly) site inspections for tree
protection measures during periods of active site development and construction, document
compliance/non-compliance with the Urban Forestry Plan, and send written verification with a
signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection.
4. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a fee to cover the city’s cost of
collecting and processing the inventory data for the entire urban forestry plan (Urban Forestry
Manual, Section 11, Part 3). This fee amount will be for newly planted trees and preserved trees.
The applicant must prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents
or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DIVISION, ATTN:
Jeremy Tamargo, Principal Engineer at (503) 718-2462 or JeremyT@tigard-or.gov.. The cover
letter must clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found:
5. Improvements associated with public infrastructure including street and right-of-way
dedication, utilities, grading, water quality and quantity facilities, streetlights, easements,
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 3 OF 68
easement locations, and utility connections must be designed in accordance with the following
codes and standards:
• City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards
• Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards
• Tigard Community Development Codes, Municipal Codes
• Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) Fire Codes
• Other applicable County, State, and Federal Codes and Standard Guidelines
6. Improvements associated with public infrastructure including street and right-of-way
dedication, utilities, grading, water quality and quantity facilities, streetlights, easements,
easement locations, and utility connections for future utility extensions are subject to the City
Engineer’s review, modification, and approval.
7. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a Public Facility Improvement
(PFI) Permit to cover all infrastructure work including stormwater Water Quality and Quantity
Facilities and any other work in the public right-of-way. Four (4) sets of detailed public
improvement plans must be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. An
Engineering cost estimate of improvements associated with public infrastructures including but
not limited to street, street grading, utilities, stormwater quality and water quantity facilities,
sanitary sewer, streetlights, and franchise utilities are required at the time of PFI Permit
submittal. When the water system is under the City of Tigard jurisdiction, an Engineering cost
estimate of water improvement must be listed as a separate line item from the total cost
estimate. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division
and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement
Permit plans must conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are
available at City Hall and the City’s web page (www.tigard-or.gov).
8. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit plans showing the following
required street improvements to engineering for review and approval:
SW Hall Boulevard (3 Lane Arterial, half-street improvements):
o 45’ minimum right-of-way dedication from centerline
o 30’ pavement
▪ 12’ median/turn lane
▪ 12’ travel lane
▪ 6’ bike lane
o 5’ planter strip (with curb)
o 10’ sidewalk
o Street trees
o Street lighting
o 8’ public utility easement across road frontage, outside of right-of-way
SW 92nd Avenue (Local Residential, half-street improvements):
o 27’ minimum right-of-way dedication from centerline
o 16’ pavement (on-street parking, one side)
o 0.5’ curb
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 4 OF 68
o 5’ planter strip
o 5’ sidewalk
o 0.5’ public access behind sidewalk
o Street trees
o Street lighting
o 8’ public utility easement across road frontage, outside of right-of-way
SW Montage Lane (Local Residential, full-street improvements):
o 50’ minimum right-of-way dedication
o 28’ pavement (on-street parking, one side)
o (2) 0.5’ curb
o (2) 5’ planter strip
o (2) 5’ sidewalk
o (2) 0.5’ public access behind sidewalk
o Street trees
o Street lighting
o 8’ public utility easement across road frontage, outside of right-of-way
o Cul-de-sac bulb minimum requirements for SW Montage Lane terminus (residential
zone):
▪ 47’ minimum radius right-of-way width
▪ 40’ minimum paved width
▪ 6’ minimum curb-tight sidewalk width
o 8’ multi-use bicycle and pedestrian path (MUP) connection within a public access
easement between SW Montage Lane terminus and SW Hall Boulevard
9. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain all required approvals and permits
for construction from all necessary agencies, including but not limited to, ODOT in accordance
with the ODOT Response Letter #8942 (dated April 29, 2021).
10. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit the exact legal name, address and
telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the “Permittee”,
and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. Specify if the entity is
a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. and the state within which the entity is incorporated
and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information
will delay processing of project documents.
11. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a construction vehicle access
and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and
traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle
parking must be provided onsite. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to
park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of
any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings
proposed by this application and must include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees
associated with the project.
12. Prior to commencing site improvements, the applicant must provide a photometric analysis for
the review and approval. The applicant must submit plans showing the location of streetlights
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 5 OF 68
and the type and color of pole and light fixture for review and approval. Photometric analysis
will follow the recommended values and requirements described in ANSI/IESNA. All public
streetlights must be PGE Option B.
13. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit site plans and a final storm
drainage report as part of the PFI Permit indicating how run-off generated by the development
will be collected, conveyed, treated and detained for review and approval. The storm drainage
report must be prepared and include a maintenance plan in accordance with CWS Design and
Construction Standards and the City of Tigard Standards.
14. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection
Authorization prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PFI Permit. Plans must be submitted to
the City of Tigard for review. The City will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review.
15. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit site plans as part of the PFI
Permit showing the proposed sanitary sewer system and associated facilities to be designed and
constructed in accordance with the City of Tigard and CWS Design and Construction
Standards.
16. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain approvals and permits from
Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) for all proposed and/or extensions of public water
lines, hydrants and water services prior to issuance of city permits.
17. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide written approval from TVF&R
for fire flow, hydrant placement, and emergency vehicular access and turn around.
18. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit all right-of-way dedication
documents, utility easements, public access easements and maintenance agreements for City
review and approval.
19. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit an erosion control plan as part
of the PFI Permit. The plan must conform to the "CWS Erosion Prevention and Sediment
Control Design and Planning Manual” (current edition).
20. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a final grading plan showing the
existing and proposed contours. The plan must detail the provisions for surface drainage of the
site and show that it will be graded to ensure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a
public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Division. The design engineer
must indicate, on the grading plan, which areas will have natural slopes between 10 percent and
20 percent, as well as area that will have natural slopes in excess of 20 percent. This
information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections or permits will be
necessary.
21. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a Preliminary Sight Distance
Certification for review and approval.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 6 OF 68
22. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a performance bond for all
public improvements and private stormwater treatment facilities associated with the
development.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED
PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION:
The applicant must prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents
or plans that address the following requirements to the PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Agnes
Lindor, Associate Planner at (503)718-2429 or AgnesL@tigard-or.gov. The cover letter must
clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found:
23. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant must request a final planning inspection.
The applicant must prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents
and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DIVISION,
ATTN: Jeremy Tamargo, Principal Engineer at (503) 718-2462 or JeremyT@tigard-or.gov. The
cover letter must clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found:
24. Prior to final building inspection, all improvements associated with public infrastructure
including but not limited to street improvement under the City of Tigard jurisdiction must be
constructed, completed and/or satisfied. The applicant must obtain conditional acceptance
from the City and provide a two-year maintenance assurance for said improvements.
25. Prior to final building inspection, all public utility facilities including but not limited to storm
drainage, water quality and quantity, sanitary sewer, water, gas, electrical, communication, and
wireless must be completed. Private storm water quality and quantity facilities, the applicant
must provide a two-year maintenance assurance and enter into a stormwater maintenance
agreement with the City.
26. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant must submit the Final Sight Distance
Certification for review and approval.
27. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant must place all existing and proposed utilities
underground.
28. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant must record all right-of-way dedication
documents, utility easements, public access easements and maintenance agreements, and
provide recorded copies to the City.
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Proposal:
The applicant is requesting approval to annex approximately 2.53 acres into the City of Tigard. The
proposal includes a site development review to construct a 182-bed assisted living facility. Improvements
include parking, landscaping, common open space, and other associated site improvements. The
proposal shows a driveway from SW Montage Lane through the site connecting to SW Hall Boulevard.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 7 OF 68
Site History:
Staff conducted a search of City records for the subject site and found three preapplication conferences
(PRE2016-00010, PRE2019-00012, and PRE2020-00027) for annexation, zone change, and assisted
living facility. No other previous Tigard land use records were found.
Vicinity Information:
The subject site is located at 9355 and 9415 SW Hall Boulevard. The site is made up of three lots totaling
2.53 acres. The site is bordered by SW Hall Boulevard to the north; Montage Townhome development
with SW Montage Lane stubbed to the site to the west. The site is zoned Transit-Oriented Residential
District 18-24 units per acre (TO: R18-24) by Washington County and is located within the Washington
Square Regional Center Plan District. Surrounding properties to the north, south, and east are located
in Washington County and properties to the west are zoned Mixed-Use Residential-1 and 2 (MUR-1
and MUR-2). The existing structures on the site will be demolished to accommodate the development.
There is also an existing jurisdictional wetland, but not Tigard Significant, that is located along the south
portion of the site.
SECTION IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
City staff posted public hearing notices in four public places on December 16, 2021 (Tigard City Hall,
Tigard Permit Center, Tigard Public Works, and at the subject site); city staff mailed public hearing
notices to all necessary parties, and neighboring property owners within 500 feet of the subject site on
December 16, 2021; and the City published a public hearing notice in the Tigard Times for more than
two successive weeks (with publish dates on December 23, 2021, December 30, 2021, and January 6,
2022) prior to the January 10, 2022 public hearing before Planning Commission. City staff also posted
the public hearing information on the City of Tigard website, and the staff report was also posted on this
website more than 15 days prior to the public hearing before Planning Commission.
These are the public comments that staff received once the formal application was submitted, on January
13, 2021:
On January 14, 2021, staff received an email from Rachel Stoller requesting copies of the application,
asking how and when to submit comments as well as a petition with neighborhood concerns, and how
to be added to the notification list.
On January 15, 2021, staff received an email from Kathleen Noonan requesting to be added to the parties
of record list.
On January 17, 2021, staff received an email from Caroline Neunzert confirming that the application has
been submitted to the City.
On January 19, 2021, staff received an email from Diane Bowman requesting to be added to the parties
of record list.
On January 30, 2021, staff received an email from Dan Stoller asking about when to submit comments
and when the adjustments submitted with the application will be decided upon. Staff has since
determined that the adjustments that were submitted (minimum vehicle and bicycle parking and common
open space) are not required.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 8 OF 68
On February 3rd, 4th, and 17th, 2021, staff received an email and phone call from Chris Klingman about
status of the application and submission of an online petition.
On February 6, 2021, staff received an email from Rachel Stoller to add Juliane Harmes to the notification
list.
On April 4, 2021, staff received an email from Caroline Neunzert asking about the status of the
application, when to submit comments, and status of another project located at 9640 SW Greenburg
Road.
On April 5, 2021, staff received an email from Alana Alkattan, Muwafaq Alkattan, Reem Alkattan, and
Sarah Alkatan expressing opposition to the project and stating that the project will result in overflow
parking on the local streets that will result in a safety hazard on the existing narrow streets.
On April 6, 2021, staff received the following comments:
- An email from Rachel Stoller asking whether a hearing has been scheduled, how long neighbors
have to submit comments, and if they can submit multiple comments.
- An email from Juanita Garnow expressing concerns about access being only allowed from Hall
Boulevard as the existing local streets are narrow, lack sidewalks, and are poorly lit. The parking
from the project will also spill onto the local street inconveniencing the neighbors and causing
congestion.
On April 7, 2021, staff received a letter from Belinda Sautao expressing opposition to the development
and stating that annexation is for the sole benefit to the developer as they would be unable to develop
the site in the same way under Washington County Zoning and not part of a thoughtfully considered
long-term plan. The development will increase traffic and parking on local street that will create safety
hazards for pedestrians.
On April 18, 2021, staff received the following comments:
- A letter from Rachel Stoller expressing concerns related to allowing commercial development in
a low-density area, additional traffic added from the development, not providing a public
connection from Montage Lane to Hall Boulevard, and insufficient amount of on-site vehicle
parking provided.
- An email from Daniel Stoller expressing concerns insufficient amount about on-site vehicle
parking, not providing a public connection from Montage Lane to Hall Boulevard, location and
access to truck delivery and loading zone. A letter was also submitted as a formal complaint
about the applicant and their team. The letter stated that the applicant and team acted in bad
faith using fear mongering and confusion tactics in an effort to reduce resistance and participation
from the neighborhood (examples provided in letter).
On April 20, 2021, staff received the following comments:
- A letter from Tracy Brophy expressing concerns that the development will take away from the
existing neighborhood by reducing quality of life and safety.
- A letter from Cindy Marjama expressing concerns about allowing commercial development in
the neighborhood when affordable housing is needed, not providing a public connection from
Montage Lane to Hall Boulevard, increased traffic, noise on local street, and insufficient amount
of on-site vehicle parking.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 9 OF 68
On April 21, 2021, staff received an email from Caroline Neunzert asking if the hearing has been
scheduled and if the comment period had started.
On April 22, 2021, staff received an email from Nate Blaszak expressing concerns about allowing
commercial development in residential neighborhood, access onto local street, insufficient amount about
on-site vehicle parking and overflow into local streets, and lack of parks and green spaces in Metzger
neighborhood.
On April 28, 2021 and May 6, 2021, staff received an email from Adrienne Ceccacci expressing opposition
to the development and stating that the development will change the dynamics of the neighborhood and
increase traffic. The email also stated that access should only be allowed from Hall Boulevard.
On April 29, 2021, staff received an email from Chris Klingman asking if the application had been
approved and if a copy could be requested.
On May 2, 2021, staff received a letter (dated May 3,2021) from Michael and Caroline Neunzert
expressing strong opposition to the development. The letter expressed concerns about access to the
facility from local streets, additional traffic, and that the proposed development is not compatible with
the residential neighborhood.
On June 2, 2021, staff received an email from Kathleen Noonan expressing concerns about the
development disrupting the quiet neighborhood, increased traffic, noise from the development, and
overflow of vehicles parking on local streets.
On June 28, 2021, staff received an email from Christine and Richard Klingman expressing concerns that
the development will create traffic and safety hazards, increase noise, reduce walkability, shift
neighborhood character to a more commercial one, destroy wetland, and impact property values. The
email also expressed concerns about the increased amount of commercial traffic on local streets, overflow
parking from development onto local streets, location of loading and trash areas that will result in more
noise to adjacent residents, and displacement of wildlife.
On July 1, 2021, staff received a petition signed by: Jennifer Rios, Holly Horton, Shawn Lewis, Troy Ross,
Nick Miltmore, Dustin Rios, Nathan Blaszak, Tris Masterson-Miller, Christine Klingman, and Richard
Klingman. The petition stated that this group of residents oppose the annexation and development. The
annexation is against the interest of the neighborhood. The petition also opposes the private street
connection and stated that all access should be on Hall Boulevard; the reduction to vehicle and bicycle
parking spaces, tree canopy standards, and common open space standards; and the disregard of the
jurisdictional wetland. Lastly, the petition stated that the residents are against piecemeal annexation that
doesn’t engage stakeholders in the future of their community.
On July 13, 2021, staff was copied on an email from Washington County replying to concerned citizens,
Christine and Richard Klingman, regarding the proposed annexation. Michelle Miller, County staff, stated
that the County will not oppose the annexation provided it meets state law since the site is within Tigard’s
urban planning area boundary. Ms. Miller also stated that other concerns related to development code
standards will be considered during land use review for the development.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 10 OF 68
On July 20, 2021, staff received an email from Vanda Makris expressing the following concerns: lack of
public street connection from Montage Lane to Hall Boulevard, additional traffic on local, narrow streets
that lack sidewalks, insufficient on-site vehicle parking and overflow onto local streets, size and scope of
the development, safety for pedestrians, and noise pollution.
On July 23, 2021, staff received an email from Christine Klingman asking about the status of the
application.
On December 2, 2021, staff received an email from Rachel Stoller about status of the application, if any
adjustments to the application were made, and a request to see the applicant materials.
On December 3, 2021, staff received an email from Juanita Garnow asking what time the hearing is on
December 10th. Staff replied stating the hearing is on January 10th at 7pm.
On December 22, 2021 staff received and email from Rachel Stoller asking whether she needs to resubmit
the comments that she previously submitted.
On December 23, 2021, staff received the following comments:
- An email from Robert Ruedy that his previous testimony still stands in the record. Staff
responded stating that staff had not received any comments from Mr. Ruedy on this project. Mr.
Ruedy stated that he provided his comments directly to the developer during the neighborhood
meeting.
- An email from Sharon Ream asking where access will be taken from to serve this development.
On December 25, 2021, staff received an email from Juanita Garnow expressing opposition to the
project. The email also expressed concerns about the access onto a residential street, increased amount
of traffic on local streets, and inadequate parking.
On December 25, 2021, staff received an email from Sharon Ream asking about access, deliveries, and
any changes to SW Borders Street at SW 92nd Avenue.
On December 29, 2021, staff received an email from Juanita Garnow asking if there is anything else
needed to access the hearing, other than the City’s public hearing page.
On December 31, 2021, staff received the following comments:
- An email from Mike Dalton asking for a copy of the traffic analysis, access, and parking.
- A letter from Michael and Caroline Neunzert expressing safety concerns about commercial
truck traffic onto inadequate residential street that lack sufficient road base and sidewalks.
-
On January 1, 2022, staff received an email from Laura Christensen expressing opposition to the project
due to the following concerns: increased traffic and traffic accidents, vandalism, lack of sidewalks,
increased noise and pollution, and negative impacts on natural environment.
On January 3, 2022, staff received the following comments:
- An email from Eileen Argentina expressing concerns about the applicable apartment standards
including parking and open space; building height; service level of SW Hall Boulevard; access
onto a residential street; adequate urban services to serve the development; and mitigation for
the wetland
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 11 OF 68
- An email from Bo Brennan expressing concerns about increased traffic on residential streets
with no sidewalks, access, overflow parking, and quality of life for the neighborhood.
- An email from Gordon and Audrey Garmire expressing concerns about water and sewer
capacity, stormwater, and environmental impacts.
On January 4, 2022, an email from Kathleen Noonan asking about how to testify at the public hearing.
On January 5, 2022, staff received a phone call from Clint Wilkins expressing concerns about increased
traffic and access onto residential streets.
On January 6, 2022, staff received the following comments:
- Two emails from Eileen Argentina asking about whether public comments will be taken at the
January 10th public hearing and whether there will be a new application and staff report for the
future hearing.
- An email from Bo Brennan asking if there will be public testimony at the February hearing.
- An email from Mike Dalton asking the reason for postponing the hearing.
- An email and phone call from Jan Erickson asking for clarification on public testimony at the
public hearing and expressing concerns about access.
- Three emails from Juanita Garnow asking how many times the applicant can postpone the
hearing and when public testimony will be allowed at the hearing. The email also expressed
frustration with the hearing date being moved as many neighbors have made signs and printed
materials for the hearing.
On January 7, 2022, staff received the following comments:
- A phone call from Jim Long asking about the hearing and requesting a copy of the application
materials.
- An email from Lindsey Eick expressing concerns about access and traffic onto local streets that
lack sidewalks.
- An email from Richard and Jolin Gard expressed concerns about increased traffic, lack of
parking and sidewalks on residential streets, extension of SW Montage Lane to SW Hall
Boulevard, and negative impact on residential community.
- An email from Sam Hardy expressed concerns about increased traffic, blocked sunlight,
parking, noise, location of service areas, and degraded quality of life.
- An email from Tim and Alison Ross expressing concerns about increased traffic, access, and
overflow parking.
- An email from Clint and Kathy Wilkins expressing concerns about increased traffic and access.
On January 8, 2022, an email from John Malosh expressing concerns about building height and
compatibility with existing neighborhood, access to residential street posing a safety concern, location of
service areas, and number of on-site parking spaces.
On January 9, 2022, staff received the following comments:
- An email from Don and Kathy Falconer expressing opposition to the project. The email stated
concerns about access, adequate on-site parking, emergency vehicle access and patient loading
areas, location of service areas, and quality of life.
- An email from Sue Wirick expressing concerns about insufficient on-site parking, location of
service areas, and access on residential street.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 12 OF 68
On January 10, 2022, staff received the following comments:
- An email from Robin Briggs expressing concerns about the lack of a safe crossing across SW
Hall Boulevard to access transit and lack of sidewalk on neighborhood streets.
- An email from Tom Briggs expressing concerns about the lack of a safe crossing across SW
Hall Boulevard to access transit and lack of sidewalk on neighborhood streets.
- An email from Alasdair Crawford in support of the development. The email stated support for
additional housing and fewer parking spaces.
- A phone call from Michael Bednarek inquiring about posting requirements, density, and access.
- An email from Victoria Garcia stating no objection to the development and also expressing
concerns about access to the residential streets with no sidewalks.
- An email from Jennifer Rios expressing concern about increased traffic and unsafe walking
conditions.
- An email from Cindy Marjama expressing concerns about location of the loading docks, safety,
and livability of the neighborhood.
On January 11, 2022, staff received the following comments:
- An email from Juanita Garnow asking staff to update the posted sign with new hearing dates.
- An email from Terry Tice expressing concerns about how increased traffic will create public
safety concerns due to lack of sidewalks, increased noise, and access from residential streets.
On January 17, 2022, an email from Mike Dalton asking when a new signed with updated hearing date
will be posted.
On January 25, 2022, an email from Bev Krause expressing opposition to the project and concerns for
the local streets due to the project.
On January 28, 2022, an email from Rachel Stoller asking if the applicant has submitted a new application
or proposal and requesting to review it.
On February 2, 2022, an email from Dan Stoller asking about the proposed cul-de-sac and the code
standards.
On February 2, 2022, an email from Mel Phillippi requesting to view the staff report.
On February 2, 2022, an email from Rachel Stoller asking which plans are the most current and what the
changes are.
On February 3, 2022, several emails from Dan Stoller asking questions related to the proposed access,
cul-de-sac standards, and the traffic impact analysis.
On February 3, 2022, an email from Rachel Stoller asking how the city applies the cul-de-sac standards
to this project.
On February 3, 2022, a phone call from Dan Stoller inquiring about when the staff report will be available
and how to access it and the process of the hearing. Mr. Stoller also expressed concerns about the location
of the service areas, the proposed access off the cul-de-sac, and engineering standards.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 13 OF 68
On February 4, 2022, an email from Juanita Garnow asking about construction activity on the property
and if the public hearing is still happening.
On February 6, 2022, an email from Rachel Stoller asking when notification of the meeting will be
provided.
On February 7, 2022, staff received the following comments:
- An email from Tracey Brophy expressing concerns about state law noticing requirements when
a hearing is continued to a date and time certain.
- An email from Jan Erickson requesting a copy of the current applicant materials and asking
whether comments that were previously submitted are still valid.
- A phone call and email from Mary Litson asking whether the hearing on February 28th is
confirmed.
On February 10, 2022, an email from Bo Brennan asking for the date of the hearing.
On February 14, 2022, staff received the following comments:
- An email from Michael Dalton requesting to view the plans.
- An email from Rachel Stoller inquiring about the construction occurring on the site and
construction hours.
SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA
The following summarizes the review criteria applicable to this decision, in the order in which they are
addressed:
City’s Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.1; Goal 11.1 (Policy 4), and Goal 11.3 (Policy 6), Goal 12, Goal 14.2 (Policies
1-4).
Metro Code
Chapter 3.09 Local Government Boundary Changes
Oregon Revised Statues
Chapter 222 City Boundary Changes; Mergers; Consolidations; Withdrawals
Applicable Development Code Review Criteria
18.720 Annexations
18.780 Site Development Review
18.120 Commercial Zones
18.210 Residential General Provisions
18.230 Apartments
18.410 Off-Street Parking and Loading
18.420 Landscaping and Screening
18.910 Improvement Standards
18.920 Access, Egress and Circulation
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 14 OF 68
18.930 Vision Clearance Areas
SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
The following subsections address only the approval criteria applicable to this decision.
Chapter 18.720 Annexations
18.720.020 Approval Process
A. Quasi-judicial annexation applications are processed through a Type III-Modified
procedure, as provided in Section 18.710.080. Quasi-judicial annexations are decided by the
City Council with a recommendation by Planning Commission.
This application is for a quasi-judicial annexation and is being processed through a Type III-Modified
Procedure, as governed by CDC 18.710, using the approval criteria contained in CDC 18.720.030. City
Council will make a decision on this application, with a recommendation from Planning Commission.
18.720.030 Approval Criteria
A. Approval criteria. The approval authority will approve or approve with modification an
annexation application when all of the following are met:
1. The annexation complies with Metro Code 3.09; and
As demonstrated through the findings in this staff report, this proposed quasi-judicial annexation is in
compliance with Metro Code Chapter 3.09. The specific sections of Metro Code Chapter 3.09 that apply
to this application are addressed individually below.
METRO CODE CHAPTER 3.09 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY CHANGES
3.09.030 Notice Requirements
A. The notice requirements in this section apply to all boundary change decisions by a
reviewing entity except expedited decisions made pursuant to section 3.09.045. These
requirements apply in addition to, and do not supersede, applicable requirements of ORS
Chapters 197,198, 221 and 222 and any city or county charter provision on boundary changes.
B. Within 45 days after a reviewing entity determines that a petition is complete, the entity shall
set a time for deliberations on a boundary change. The reviewing entity shall give notice of
its proposed deliberations by mailing notice to all necessary parties, by weatherproof posting
of the notice in the general vicinity of the affected territory, and by publishing notice in a
newspaper of general circulation in the affected territory. Notice shall be mailed and posted
at least 20 days prior to the date of deliberations. Notice shall be published as required by
state law.
C. The notice required by subsection (B) shall:
1. Describe the affected territory in a manner that allows certainty;
2. State the date, time and place where the reviewing entity will consider the boundary
change; and
3. State the means by which any person may obtain a copy of the reviewing entity's
report on the proposal.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 15 OF 68
This proposed annexation is considered a boundary change decision by a reviewing entity, and will not
be processed as an expedited decision; therefore, these notice requirements apply. City staff determined
this application was complete on March 15, 2021 and notified the applicant on April 29, 2021 that
deliberations on this proposed boundary change were tentatively scheduled before Planning Commission
(scheduled for June 21, 2021) and before City Council (scheduled for August 10, 2021).
Due to approvability issues with the Site Development Review portion of the application, and at the
request of the applicant, the hearing dates were rescheduled to January 10, 2022 before the Planning
Commission and February 22, 2022 before the City Council. City staff posted public hearing notices in
four public places on December 16, 2021 (Tigard City Hall, Tigard Permit Center, Tigard Public Works,
and at the subject site); city staff mailed public hearing notices to all necessary parties, and neighboring
property owners within 500 feet of the subject site on December 16, 2021; and the City published a
public hearing notice in the Tigard Times for more than two successive weeks (with publish dates on
December 23, 2021, December 30, 2021, and January 5, 2022) prior to the January 10, 2022 public hearing
before Planning Commission. City staff also posted the public hearing information on the City of Tigard
website, and the staff report was also posted on this website 15 days prior to the public hearing before
Planning Commission.
3.09.045 Expedited Decisions
This proposed annexation is not being processed as an expedited decision, but Metro Code 3.09.050.D
requires that the standards in Sections 3.09.045.D and 3.09.045.E be addressed.
D. To approve a boundary change through an expedited process, the city shall:
1. Find that the change is consistent with expressly applicable provisions in:
a. Any applicable urban service agreement adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065;
The Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TUSA) is between the City of Tigard, Washington County, Metro,
and the service districts for water, sewer, public safety, parks, and transportation. The agreement outlines
the role, provision, area, and planning/coordination responsibilities for service providers operating in the
Tigard Urban Services Area. As addressed under Comprehensive Plan, Goal 11: Public Facilities and
Services of this report, staff finds that all urban services are available to the proposed annexation area,
and have sufficient capacity to provide service.
The Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) between the City of Tigard and Washington County
provides coordination of comprehensive planning and development, defines the area of interest, and
includes policies with respect to the active planning area and annexation. The applicable annexation
policies include the assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations addressed later in this
report, and acknowledgements that the City is the ultimate service provider of urban services within the
Tigard Urban Service Area. The proposed boundary change is consistent with both the Tigard TUSA
and the UPAA.
b. Any applicable annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.205;
There is no adopted annexation plan associated with this proposal. Therefore, this provision does not
apply.
c. Any applicable cooperative planning agreement adopted pursuant to ORS
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 16 OF 68
195.020(2) between the affected entity and a necessary party;
ORS 195.020(2) speaks to cooperative agreements between counties or Metro with each special district
that provides an urban service within the boundaries of the county or the metropolitan district. Examples
of special districts include those for utilities, police, fire, and schools. Upon approval of this proposed
annexation, the City of Tigard will provide sewer and stormwater services to the site, instead of Clean
Water Services (CWS). The portion of SW Hall Boulevard that abuts the subject site will be annexed into
the boundary of the City of Tigard to the centerline of the right-of-way. However, SW Hall Blvd. in this
location will remain under the regulatory authority of the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT). The City of Tigard Police Department will provide public safety services, instead of the
Washington County Sheriff’s Office. Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) will continue to provide
water services to the site, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) will continue to provide fire
protection and emergency medical services to the site, and Tigard-Tualatin School District (TTSD) will
continue to be the assigned school district for the site.
d. Any applicable public facility plan adopted pursuant to a statewide planning
goal on public facilities and services;
The City of Tigard Public Facility Plan was originally adopted in 1991, and updated in 2019, in compliance
with Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division
11. As addressed under Comprehensive Plan, Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services of this report, staff
finds the proposed annexation is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City of Tigard Public
Facility Plan.
e. Any applicable comprehensive plan;
This proposed quasi-judicial annexation is in compliance with the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan.
The specific sections of the Comprehensive Plan that apply to this application will be addressed later in
this report.
f. Any applicable concept plan; and
There is no applicable concept plan associated with this proposal. Therefore, this provision does not
apply.
2. Consider whether the boundary change would:
a. Promote the timely, orderly and economic provision of public facilities and
services;
b. Affect the quality and quantity of urban services; and
c. Eliminate or avoid unnecessary duplication of facilities or services.
As addressed under Comprehensive Plan, Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services of this report, staff finds
that all public facilities and services are available to the proposed annexation site, and have sufficient
capacity to provide service. Upon approval of this proposed annexation, the City of Tigard will provide
sewer and stormwater services to the site, instead of CWS. The portion of SW Hall Boulevard that abuts
the subject site will be annexed into the City of Tigard to the centerline of the right-of-way. However,
SW Hall Blvd. in this location will remain under the regulatory authority of ODOT. The City of Tigard
Police Department will provide public safety services, instead of the Washington County Sheriff’s Office.
Tualatin Valley Water District will continue to provide water services to the site, TVF&R will continue
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 17 OF 68
to provide fire protection and emergency medical services to the site, and TTSD will continue to be the
assigned school district for the site.
E. A city may not annex territory that lies outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), except
it may annex a lot or parcel that lies partially within and outside the UGB.
The subject site is not located outside the UGB. Therefore, this provision does not apply.
3.09.050 Hearing and Decision Requirements for Decisions Other Than Expedited Decisions
A. The following requirements for hearings on petitions operate in addition to requirements for
boundary changes in ORS Chapters 198, 221 and 222 and the reviewing entity's charter,
ordinances or resolutions.
B. Not later than 15 days prior to the date set for a hearing the reviewing entity shall make
available to the public a report that addresses the criteria identified in subsection (D) and
includes the following information:
This staff report was posted on the City of Tigard website and made available to the public more than 15
days prior to the public hearing before Planning Commission.
1. The extent to which urban services are available to serve the affected territory,
including any extra territorial extensions of service;
As addressed under Comprehensive Plan, Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services of this report, staff finds
that all public facilities and services are available to the proposed annexation site, and have sufficient
capacity to provide service.
2. Whether the proposed boundary change will result in the withdrawal of the affected
territory from the legal boundary of any necessary party; and
The proposed annexation area will remain within Washington County, but will be withdrawn from
Washington County’s Enhanced Sheriff’s Patrol District and Urban Road Maintenance District upon
completion of this annexation request. The subject site will also be withdrawn from the Tigard Water
District upon completion of this annexation request.
3. The proposed effective date of the boundary change.
A public hearing regarding this annexation request will take place before Tigard City Council on February
22, 2022. Council will make a decision on this application, with a recommendation from Planning
Commission. If Council adopts findings to approve Case No. ZCA2021-00001, the effective date of this
annexation will be upon the effective date of the approving ordinance, and filing with the Oregon
Secretary of State, as outlined in ORS 222.180.
C. The person or entity proposing the boundary change has the burden to demonstrate that the
proposed boundary change meets the applicable criteria.
The applicant has provided sufficient evidence and findings in their application to demonstrate that the
proposed boundary change meets the applicable criteria, as demonstrated through the findings in this
staff report.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 18 OF 68
D. To approve a boundary change, the reviewing entity shall apply the criteria and consider the
factors set forth in subsections (D) and (E) of section 3.09.045.
The factors set forth in Metro Code Sections 3.09.045.D and 3.09.045.E have been met, as previously
addressed in this report.
(CDC 18.720.030 Continued)
A.2. The annexation is in the city’s best interest.
As addressed under Metro Code Section 3.09.045.D.2 of this staff report, this proposed annexation will
help promote the timely, orderly, and economic provision of City of Tigard public facilities and services,
and eliminate or avoid unnecessary duplication of facilities or services. Accordingly, staff finds this
proposed annexation is in the City’s best interest.
B. Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The comprehensive plan
designation and the zoning designation placed on the property is the city’s base zone that
most closely implements the city’s or county’s comprehensive plan map designation. The
assignment of these designations occurs automatically and concurrently with the
annexation. In the case of land that carries county designations, the city will convert the
county’s comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the city designations that are
the most similar. A zone change is required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan
map or zoning map designation other than the existing designations. A request for a zone
change may be processed concurrently with an annexation application or after the
annexation has been approved. Within the Washington Square Regional Center, the
assignment of city comprehensive plan and zoning designations will be as provided in the
Washington Square Regional Center Phase II Implementation Plan, dated June 29, 2001,
Figure 4 Adopted Zoning Designations.
The subject properties are located within the Washington Square Regional Center, and Figure 4 Adopted
Zoning Designations of the Washington Square Regional Center Phase II Implementation Plan shows
the properties as Mixed-Use Residential (MUR-1). Accordingly, upon approval of the proposed
annexation, the properties will be designated as MUR-1 on the Tigard Zoning Map and the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Map, and as detailed in the section above, the assignment of city designations will
occur automatically and concurrently with the proposed annexation.
CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Goal 1.1: Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to
participate in all phases of the planning process.
City staff posted public hearing notices in four public places on December 16, 2021 (Tigard City Hall,
Tigard Permit Center, Tigard Public Works, and at the subject site); city staff mailed public hearing
notices to all necessary parties, and neighboring property owners within 500 feet of the subject site on
December 16, 2021; and the City published a public hearing notice in the Tigard Times for more than
two successive weeks (with publish dates on December 23, 2021, December 30, 2021, and January 5,
2022) prior to the January 10, 2022 public hearing before Planning Commission. City staff also posted
the public hearing information on the City of Tigard website, and the staff report was also posted on this
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 19 OF 68
website 15 days prior to the public hearing before Planning Commission.
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
As detailed in the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Public Facilities and Services refer to Stormwater
Management, Water Supply and Distribution, Wastewater Management, Community Facilities, and
Private Utilities. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan’s Glossary includes public safety, parks, and
transportation under Public Facilities and Services. As detailed in the findings below, staff finds that all
public facilities and services are available to the proposed annexation area and have adequate capacity to
serve the subject site.
Stormwater – City of Tigard Public Works Department. City storm sewer infrastructure either
currently exists adjacent to the proposed annexation area or can be made available to the subject site.
There is an existing storm sewer main along the property frontage within SW Hall Boulevard and a storm
sewer main located at the SW Montage Lane public street stub. The City of Tigard Engineering
Division reviewed the applicant’s annexation proposal and had no objections. Upon development of the
site, stormwater systems shall be designed and constructed meeting CWS Design and Construction
Standards for surface water management systems, including runoff treatment and control. City storm
sewer facilities have adequate capacity to serve the subject site.
Water – Tualatin Valley Water District. The subject properties are located within the water service
area for TVWD, which will not change with this annexation request. Tualatin Valley Water District
reviewed the applicant’s materials, and responded with no objections to the proposal on April 2, 2021.
Sewer – City of Tigard Public Works Department. City sanitary sewer infrastructure either currently
exists adjacent to the proposed annexation area or can be made available to the subject site. There is an
existing eight-inch sanitary sewer main along the property frontage within SW Hall Boulevard. The City
of Tigard Engineering Division reviewed the applicant’s annexation proposal and had no objections.
Upon development of the site, sanitary sewer systems shall be designed and constructed meeting CWS
Design and Construction Standards. City sanitary sewer facilities have adequate capacity to serve the
subject site.
Police – City of Tigard Police Department. The Washington County Sheriff’s Office currently
provides police services to the subject properties. If this annexation request is approved, the site will be
withdrawn from the Enhanced Sheriff’s Patrol District, and the City of Tigard Police Department will
provide public safety services to the site.
Fire – Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. The subject properties are located within the service area for
TVF&R. Accordingly, TVF&R currently provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the
site, which will not change with this annexation request.
Parks – City of Tigard Public Works Department. The applicant proposes to annex three properties,
totaling approximately 2.56 acres in size, into the City of Tigard. Staff has reviewed the applicant’s
proposal and determined that this request will not adversely impact the City’s ability or capacity to provide
for parks and recreational needs.
Streets – City of Tigard Engineering Division. The subject property has frontage on SW Hall
Boulevard, SW 92nd Avenue and an existing public street stub from SW Montage Lane. SW Hall
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 20 OF 68
Boulevard is classified as an arterial and is under the jurisdiction of ODOT. Southwest 92nd Avenue and
SW Montage Lane are classified as local streets and are under the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard. Upon
development of the property, street improvements are required along the property frontage in accordance
with Tigard Municipal Code 18.910, the City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards and the
ODOT Highway Design Manual standards, and the City of Tigard Public Improvement Design
Standards.
Goal 11.1, Policy 4: The City shall require a property to be located within the City limits prior to
receiving stormwater services.
City storm sewer infrastructure either currently exists adjacent to the proposed annexation area or can be
made available to the subject site. There is an existing storm sewer main along the property frontage
within SW Hall Boulevard and a storm sewer main located at the SW Montage Lane public street stub.
The City of Tigard Engineering Division reviewed the applicant’s annexation proposal and had no
objections. Upon development of the site, stormwater systems shall be designed and constructed meeting
CWS Design and Construction Standards for surface water management systems, including runoff
treatment and control. City storm sewer facilities have adequate capacity to serve the subject site.
Goal 11.3, Policy 6: The City shall require a property to be located within the City limits prior to
receiving wastewater services.
City sanitary sewer infrastructure either currently exists adjacent to the proposed annexation area or can
be made available to the subject site. There is an existing eight-inch sanitary sewer main along the property
frontage within SW Hall Boulevard. The City of Tigard Engineering Division reviewed the applicant’s
annexation proposal and had no objections. Upon development of the site, sanitary sewer systems shall
be designed and constructed meeting CWS Design and Construction Standards. City sanitary sewer
facilities have adequate capacity to serve the subject site.
Goal 12: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient, and economic transportation system.
The subject property has frontage on SW Hall Boulevard, SW 92nd Avenue and an existing public street
stub from SW Montage Lane. SW Hall Boulevard is classified as an arterial and is under the jurisdiction
of ODOT. Southwest 92nd Avenue and SW Montage Lane are classified as local streets and are under the
jurisdiction of the City of Tigard. Upon development of the property, street improvements are required
along the property frontage in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code 18.910, the City of Tigard Public
Improvement Design Standards and the ODOT Highway Design Manual standards, and the City of
Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards.
Goal 14.2, Policy 1: The City shall assign a Tigard zoning district designation to annexed
property that most closely conforms to the existing Washington County zoning designation for
that property.
The applicable Tigard zoning district designation for the subject property is addressed under CDC Section
18.720.030.B of this report.
Goal 14.2, Policy 2: The City shall ensure capacity exists, or can be developed, to provide needed
urban level services to an area when approving annexation.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 21 OF 68
As addressed under Comprehensive Plan, Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services of this report, staff finds
that all urban level services are available to the proposed annexation area, and have sufficient capacity to
provide service.
Goal 14.2, Policy 3: The City shall approve proposed annexations based on findings that the
request:
A. Can be accommodated by the City’s public facilities and services; and
As addressed under Comprehensive Plan, Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services of this report, staff finds
that all City of Tigard public facilities and services are available to the proposed annexation area, and have
sufficient capacity to provide service.
B. Is consistent with applicable state statute.
As addressed later in this report, staff finds the applicable provisions of ORS 222 have been met,
consistent with this policy.
Goal 14.2, Policy 4: The City shall evaluate and may require that parcels adjacent to proposed
annexations be included to:
A. Avoid creating unincorporated islands within the City;
B. Enable public services to be efficiently and effectively extended to the entire area; or
C. Implement a concept plan or sub-area master plan that has been approved by the Planning
Commission or City Council.
The subject properties are located directly east of the City of Tigard’s border with unincorporated
Washington County. Because the subject site is only bordered on one side by the City of Tigard boundary,
this annexation will not create an “island” of unincorporated land, and it is not necessary to include the
adjacent properties in this annexation request. This annexation will enable public services to be efficiently
and effectively extended to the subject properties. The site is within the boundary of the Washington
Square Regional Center Plan (WSRCP), which is a sub-area master plan that has been approved by the
Planning Commission and City Council. However, there are no aspects of the WSRCP that are applicable
to this property that would require adjacent parcels to be annexed.
OREGON REVISED STATUTES
ORS Chapter 222 — City Boundary Changes; Mergers; Consolidations; Withdrawals
222.111 Authority and procedure for annexation.
(2) A proposal for annexation of territory to a city may be initiated by the legislative body of
the city, on its own motion, or by a petition to the legislative body of the city by owners
of real property in the territory to be annexed.
(5) The legislative body of the city shall submit, except when not required under ORS
222.120, 222.170 and 222.840 to 222.915 to do so, the proposal for annexation to the electors
of the territory proposed for annexation and, except when permitted under ORS 222.120
or 222.840 to 222.915 to dispense with submitting the proposal for annexation to the
electors of the city, the legislative body of the city shall submit such proposal to the
electors of the city. The proposal for annexation may be voted upon at a general election
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 22 OF 68
or at a special election to be held for that purpose.
222.120 Procedure for annexation without election; hearing; ordinance subject to referendum.
(1) Except when expressly required to do so by the city charter, the legislative body of a city
is not required to submit a proposal for annexation of territory to the electors of the city
for their approval or rejection.
(2) When the legislative body of the city elects to dispense with submitting the question of
the proposed annexation to the electors of the city, the legislative body of the city shall
fix a day for a public hearing before the legislative body at which time the electors of the
city may appear and be heard on the question of annexation.
(3) The city legislative body shall cause notice of the hearing to be published once each week
for two successive weeks prior to the day of hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation
in the city, and shall cause notices of the hearing to be posted in four public places in the
city for a like period.
The owner of the subject properties submitted an annexation petition to the City on January 13, 2021.
Additionally, the City of Tigard Charter does not expressly require the City to submit a proposal for
annexation of territory to the electors of the City for their approval or rejection. Therefore, an election is
not required for this annexation application. However, the City is required to follow the public hearing
and public noticing requirements outlined in ORS 222.120.
The deliberations on this proposed boundary change were tentatively scheduled before Planning
Commission (scheduled for June 21, 2021) and before City Council (scheduled for August 10, 2021). Due
to approvability issues with the Site Development Review portion of the application, and at the request
of the applicant, the hearing dates were rescheduled to January 10, 2022 before the Planning Commission
and February 22, 2022 before the City Council. City staff posted public hearing notices in four public
places on December 16, 2021 (Tigard City Hall, Tigard Permit Center, Tigard Public Works, and at the
subject site); city staff mailed public hearing notices to all necessary parties, and neighboring property
owners within 500 feet of the subject site on December 16, 2021; and the City published a public hearing
notice in the Tigard Times for more than two successive weeks (with publish dates on December 23,
2021, December 30, 2021, and January 5, 2022) prior to the January 10, 2022 public hearing before
Planning Commission. City staff also posted the public hearing information on the City of Tigard website,
and the staff report was also posted on this website 15 days prior to the public hearing before Planning
Commission.
FINDING: Based on the above analysis, all of the annexation criteria have been fully met.
18.780 Site Development Review
18.780.020 Applicability
A. This chapter applies to the following types of development, except as provided in
Subsections 18.780.020.B and C below:
1. Apartments,
2. Cottage clusters,
3. Courtyard units,
4. Mobile home parks,
5. Quads,
6. Rowhouses,
7. Wireless communication facilities, and
8. Nonresidential developments, including mixed-use developments.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 23 OF 68
The proposed application is for a new assisted living facility which is considered apartment
development for the purposes of applying development standards, therefore this chapter applies.
18.780.050 Approval Criteria
The approval authority will approve or approve with conditions a site development review
application when all of the criteria listed below are met. These criteria broadly reference all
chapters in this title that contain standards that may apply to the development. The city will
identify which standards are applicable through the land use review process and evaluate the
proposed development accordingly.
A. The proposed development complies with all applicable base zone standards;
The development is proposed to be located within a Mixed-Use Residential-1 (MUR-1) base zone. As
proposed, the development does comply with all applicable base zone standards as discussed later in this
report. The proposed use is a Residential Use and the Housing Type is Apartment, which is an allowed
use in the MUR-1 zone. This criterion is met.
B. The proposed development complies with all applicable residential and nonresidential
development standards;
As proposed, the development does not comply with all applicable residential development standards.
The applicable standards are discussed below: This criterion is not met.
18.210 Residential General Provisions
18.210.020 Fence and Wall Standards
Fences and walls may be located within required setbacks. Fences and walls located within
required setbacks are subject to the standards in this section. Fences and walls located
outside required setbacks are subject to the standards in the applicable housing type chapter
in 18.200 Residential Development Standards.
A. Fences and walls in a required front setback may be a maximum of 3 feet in height
where abutting a local or neighborhood street and a maximum of 6 feet in height where
abutting a collector or arterial street.
B. Fences and walls in a required side, street side, or rear setback may be a maximum of
8 feet in height. Fences and walls 7 feet or more in height require a building permit.
C. Fences and walls with barbed or razor wire are prohibited.
D. Fences and walls must meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.930,
Vision Clearance Areas.
A six-foot fence is proposed along the west, east, and south property lines. The site is located along a
collector street, therefore fences within the front setback may not exceed six feet. Barbed or razor wire
is not proposed and all fences will meet clear vision areas. This standard is met.
FINDING: Based on the above analysis, all of the applicable residential general provisions have
been fully met.
18.230 Apartments
18.320.020 Applicability
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 24 OF 68
A. The standards of this chapter apply to nonresidential development in the C-N, C-C,
C-G, C-P, MUC, MUE, MUE-1, MUE-2, MUR-1, and MUR-2 zones. Additional
standards apply to nonresidential development in the River Terrace Plan District and
Washington Square Regional Center Plan District as provided in Chapter 18.640, River
Terrace Plan District, and Chapter 18.670, Washington Square Regional Center Plan
District.
The proposed development will be located within the MUR-1 zone upon annexation therefore, this
chapter applies. The site is also located within the Washington Square Regional Center Plan District,
however, standards in the plan district chapter only apply to nonresidential and mixed-use developments.
18.230.040 Development Standards
A. Base zone development standards are provided in Table 18.230.1.
Table 18.230.1
Apartment Development Standards
Standard MUR-1 Proposed
Minimum Lot Size 0 ft 93,368 sq ft
Minimum Setbacks
- Front 0 ft 1.3 ft
- Street side 5 ft N/A
- Side 0 ft [2] 49.75 ft (west) / 45.5 ft (east) /
12.75 ft (south)
- Rear 20 ft [2] 53 ft
Maximum Setbacks
- Front 20 ft 1.3 ft
- Street side 20 ft 5 ft / 8 ft
Minimum Height 2 stories 4 stories
Maximum Height 75 ft 46 ft
Maximum Lot Coverage 80% 79.3%
Minimum Landscape Area 20% 21.1 %
Minimum Density 50 units per acre N/A
Maximum Density None N/A.
[2] Minimum side and rear setbacks are 0 feet, except the minimum side and rear setbacks are 20 feet
where the site abuts an R-1 through R-12 zone.
The proposed front setback is 1.3 feet from the north property line adjacent to SW Hall Boulevard.
The site abuts a residential zone to the south and a 20 -foot rear setback is required. The rear
setback is 53 feet. The site is not rectangular in shape and contains three sides and two street sides.
The street side setback is a minimum of five feet and a maximum of 20 feet. The proposed street
side setback adjacent to SW 92nd Avenue is 5 feet. The proposed street side setback adjacent to
SW Montage Lane is eight feet. The other three sides that require a minimum setback of five feet
meet this minimum standard. The proposed building will be four stories and approximately 47
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 25 OF 68
feet in height. The maximum lot coverage standard for the site is 80 percent or 74,694 square feet
based on a property area of 93,368 square feet. Based on Sheet A1.2, the applicant is proposing
74,055 square feet of impervious surface, approximately 79.3 percent. The maximum lot coverage
standard for the site is 20 percent or 18,674 square feet based on a property area of 93,368 square
feet. Based on Sheet A1.2, the applicant is proposing 19,776 square feet of landscape area,
approximately 21.1 percent. Up to 25 percent of hardscape area may be used to meet the landscape
standard, the applicant is proposing to use 4,475 square feet of hardscape area toward the
landscape standard, which is approximately 22.6 percent. These standards are met.
B. Landscaping and screening. All required landscaping, including landscaping used to
meet screening or tree canopy standards, is subject to the general provisions of
Chapter 18.420, Landscaping and Screening.
1. The minimum landscape area standard is provided in Table 18.230.1. Landscaping
standards are provided in Section 18.420.040. Any landscape area that meets the L-
2 standard and any required common open space area may count toward meeting
the minimum landscape area standard.
As provided in Table 18.230.1, the minimum landscape area standard is 20 percent, or 18,674
square feet based on a property area of 93,368 square feet. Based on Sheet A1.2, the applicant is
proposing 19,776 square feet of landscape area, approximately 21.1 percent. Up to 25 percent of
hardscape area may be used to meet the landscape standard, the applicant is proposing to use
4,475 square feet of hardscape area toward the landscape standard, which is approximately 22.6
percent. This standard is met.
2. Screening standards are provided in Section 18.420.050. Screening is required as
follows:
a. Service areas and wall- and roof-mounted utilities must be screened to the S-1
standard. Service areas and utilities are also subject to the standards in
Subsection 18.230.040.G.
The narrative states that any wall or roof-mounted utilities will be screened to meet the S-1 standard.
The trash areas will be located in the parking garage. The applicant did not provide a plan showing
how service areas or utilities will be screened. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must
submit a plan showing screening of service areas and wall- and roof-mounted utilities. This standard
is not met, but can be through a condition of approval.
b. Apartments that abut an R-1 through R-12 zone must be screened to the S-3
standard along all property lines, except street property lines.
The site abuts a Washington County R-5 zone to the south, therefore, an S-3 screen is required along
the south property line. The site plan shows an S-3 screen along the south property line. This standard
is met.
c. Surface vehicle parking areas, loading areas, and drive aisles within 20 feet of a
street property line must be screened to the S-4 standard. Screening must be
provided directly adjacent to the street property line, except where access is
taken.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 26 OF 68
The applicant proposes a drive aisle and loading area within 20 feet of a street property line. The
applicant’s proposal includes a drive aisle within 20 feet of SW Hall Boulevard near the northeast
corner of the site. An S-4 screen is required, and the applicant’s site plan shows an S-4 screen. The
applicant proposes a loading area on the SW 92nd Avenue frontage for the temporary parking of
vehicles to facilitate the loading and unloading of residents and guests, therefore, an S-4 screen is
required. The applicant is also proposing a loading area off of the cul-de-sac for deliveries. The
applicant’s site plan shows an S-4 screen is provided for both areas. This standard is met.
3. The minimum tree canopy standards for the site and any off-street vehicle parking
areas are provided in Section 18.420.060.
The proposed parking lot meets the minimum tree canopy required, as provided in Section 18.420.060.
The canopy standards are discussed later in this decision. This standard is met.
C. Common open space.
1. Common open space is required. The minimum total area of required common
open space is 10 percent of the gross site area or 750 square feet, whichever is
greater. More than one common open space area may be provided to meet this
standard, but any area used to meet this standard must be a minimum of 20 feet in
width and depth.
2. Apartment developments with less than 20 dwelling units must provide at least 2
different items from the list below within areas identified as common open space.
Apartment developments with 20 or more dwelling units must provide at least 4
different items from the list below within areas identified as common open space.
a. Playground equipment or play area for children,
b. Sport court,
c. Playing field,
d. Lawn or garden,
e. Covered seating,
f. Swimming pool or water feature,
g. Plaza or courtyard with permanent seating,
h. Gazebo,
i. Club house,
j. Workout room, or
k. Other similar item as determined by the director.
The proposed development is for an assisted living and memory care facility. None of the proposed
rooms contain permanent cooking facilities and do not meet the definition of a dwelling unit. Pursuant
to Section 18.30.020, a dwelling unit is a structure or portion thereof that is used for human habitation
including permanent provisions for sleeping, cooking, and sanitation Therefore, because the
development does not include any dwelling units, this standard does not apply.
3. At least 50 percent of the dwelling units in a development must face outdoor
common open space or a public street. This standard is met when the front door
or a window from the kitchen, living room, or dining room of a dwelling unit faces
the outdoor common open space or a public street.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 27 OF 68
The proposed development does not include any dwelling units; therefore, this standard does not
apply.
4. Building facades, including accessory structure facades, that face outdoor
common open space must meet the 15 percent window area requirement in
Subsection 18.230.050.B or be screened to the S-4 standard as provided in Table
18.420.2.
The proposed development does not include any dwelling units; therefore, common open space is not
required. This standard does not apply.
5. Common open space may not be located in the front setback or include sensitive
lands.
The proposed development does not include any dwelling units; therefore, common open space is not
required. This standard does not apply.
D. Private open space.
1. Private open space is required for each dwelling unit. Each private open space
must be a minimum of 48 square feet in area and a minimum of 5 feet in width and
depth.
2. Private open space must be directly accessible from the interior of the dwelling
unit that it serves.
3. Additional common open space above the required minimum may substitute for
some or all of the required private open space at a 1:1 ratio.
The proposed development does not include any dwelling units; therefore, private open space is not
required. This standard does not apply.
E. Pedestrian access.
1. Paths must provide pedestrian access from public sidewalks abutting the site to all
required building entrances on the site.
2. Paths must provide pedestrian access between all common open space areas,
vehicle and bicycle parking areas, building entrances, and service areas designed
for use by residents. Paths within parking areas or along drive aisles are subject to
additional standards in Subsection 18.410.040.B.
3. Paths must extend to the perimeter property line to provide pedestrian access to
existing or planned pedestrian facilities on adjacent properties, such as trails or
public access easements.
4. Paths must be constructed with a hard surface material and have a minimum
unobstructed width of 5 feet.
The narrative states and the site plan shows, that a five-foot pedestrian path is provided from public
sidewalks abutting the site to all required building entrances on the site. The paths on the site provide
circulation between vehicle and bicycle parking areas, building entrances, and along drive aisles. There
are no existing or planned pedestrian facilities on adjacent properties. The applicant is proposing an
eight-foot-wide multi-use path from SW Montage Lane to SW Hall Boulevard that will be within a
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 28 OF 68
public access easement. All paths will be constructed of hard surface materials and have an
unobstructed width of at least five feet. This standard is met.
F. Vehicle and bicycle parking.
1. The applicable provisions and standards of Sections 18.410.010 through 18.410.060
apply to apartment developments.
2. The standards in Sections 18.410.070 through 18.410.090 do not apply to apartment
developments.
3. The minimum and maximum number of off-street vehicle and bicycle parking
spaces are provided in Table 18.230.2. Any fractional space requirement is rounded
up to the next whole number.
The applicable provision and standards of Chapter 18.410 are discussed later in this decision. The
development does not include any dwelling units; therefore, there are no minimum vehicle or bicycle
parking requirements. The applicant is proposing a total of 92 vehicle spaces, that includes four
accessible spaces. This standard does not apply.
4. Apartment developments with 10 or more required vehicle parking spaces must
also provide additional vehicle parking for guests. The minimum amount of
additional parking spaces is 15 percent of the minimum vehicle parking
requirement as provided in Table 18.230.2. Guest vehicle parking must be clearly
identified with pavement markings or signs.
Parking requirements are based on dwelling units and the proposed development does not include
any dwelling units; therefore, there is no minimum parking requirement. Guest parking is not
proposed, and it is not required. This standard does not apply.
5. Apartment developments with 20 or more dwelling units must also provide
additional bicycle parking spaces for guests. The minimum amount of additional
parking spaces is 15 percent of the minimum bicycle parking requirement as
provided in Table 18.230.2. Guest bicycle parking must be located within 20 feet of
the street property line and be visible to pedestrians from the public sidewalk in
front of the site. Bicycle parking may be located in the public right-of-way with
approval of the City Engineer.
Parking requirements are based on dwelling units and the proposed development does not include
any dwelling units; therefore, there is no minimum parking requirement. The applicant is proposing
a total of ten bicycle parking spaces. Guest parking is not required. This standard does not apply.
6. Apartment developments with 20 or more dwelling units must provide all required
non-guest bicycle parking spaces inside a structure or under a roof. Required
bicycle parking is exempt from the location standard of Subsection 18.410.050.A
but may not be located inside individual dwelling units.
Parking requirements are based on dwelling units and the proposed development does not include
any dwelling units; therefore, there is no minimum parking requirement. Bicycle parking is not
required. This standard does not apply.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 29 OF 68
7. Surface parking, detached garages, and attached or detached carports may not be
located closer to a street property line than the building closest to that street
property line.
Surface parking is not located closer to a street property line than the building closest to that street
property line. Parking is also proposed on the ground floor of the building. This standard is met.
8. Parking areas may not occupy more than 50 percent of the total length of each
street frontage as measured 20 feet from the street property line. Drive aisles
without adjacent parking spaces do not count as parking areas for the purposes of
this standard.
As shown on the site plan, parking areas occupy less than 50 percent of the street frontage. This
standard is met.
9. Attached garages may be attached to any side of an apartment building. If attached
to the street-facing facade, they may not be located closer to the street property line
than the apartment building facade and the facade must include at least 1 entrance
for each proposed garage that meets the standards of Subsection 18.230.050.A.
Driveways associated with attached garages that take direct individual access from
a public or private street must meet the rowhouse location and access standards in
Paragraph 18.280.050.E.3 and Subparagraph 18.280.050.E.2.a.
Garages are not proposed. This standard does not apply.
G. Utilities and service areas.
1. Private utility facilities, such as transformers or control valves, that serve a single
development must be located below ground unless the functional properties of the
facility require above-ground placement. If located above ground, all facilities 1
cubic foot or greater in volume, or with any one dimension greater than 2 feet, must
meet the following standards where not wall- or roof-mounted or located inside a
building:
a. The facility may not be located within 20 feet of any street property line; and
b. The facility must be dark in color and painted or wrapped with a non-reflective
material
2. Service areas, such as waste and recycling containers, outdoor storage, and
mechanical equipment, may not be located within 20 feet of any street property
line, except where located inside a building.
The narrative states that all utilities will be underground and service areas will be located within the
building. This standard is met.
H. Lighting.
1. Minimum illumination levels are measured horizontally at ground level.
a. The minimum average illumination is 1.5 footcandles for paths, except those
within parking areas, which are subject to the lighting standards in Subsection
18.410.040.I. All points of measurement must be a minimum of 0.5 footcandles.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 30 OF 68
b. The minimum average illumination is 3.5 footcandles for required building
entrances and 2.0 footcandles for any non-required building entrances. All
points of measurement must be a minimum of 1.0 footcandle.
2. Maximum illumination levels are measured vertically at the property line or
sensitive lands boundary line. The maximum illumination is 0.5 footcandles at side
and rear property lines, except that the maximum illumination may be increased
to 1.0 footcandle where the development abuts a commercial or industrial zone.
The maximum illumination is 0 footcandles at any sensitive lands boundary line.
3. Lighting must be shielded, with a cutoff angle of 90 degrees or greater to ensure
that it does not shine upwards. Lighting sources, such as lamps and bulbs, may
not be directly visible from adjacent properties or sensitive lands.
The applicant has provided a photometrics analysis that meets the required elements of the lighting
standard. This standard is met.
I. Apartments are subject to all other applicable requirements of this title including but
not limited to standards related to streets, utilities, sensitive lands, and signs.
The development does comply with all other requirements of this title, as discussed elsewhere in this staff
report. This standard is met.
18.230.050 Design Standards
A. Entrances.
1. For dwelling units with internal building access, a minimum of 1 entrance per
building must be visible and accessible from a public or private street or outdoor
common open space. Additional entrances may face drive aisles, parking areas, or
service areas.
2. For dwelling units without internal building access, a minimum of 1 entrance per
dwelling unit must be visible and accessible from a public or private street, outdoor
common open space, or drive aisle that has a curb and path adjacent to the
dwelling unit.
3. A required building entrance must be at an angle that is no more than 45 degrees
from the street, common open space, or drive aisle that it faces. A required building
entrance to an individual dwelling unit may exceed this standard where it opens
onto a porch or stoop provided the angle is no more than 90 degrees from the street,
common open space, or drive aisle that it faces.
4. A required building entrance must be covered, recessed, or treated with a
permanent architectural feature that provides weather protection for pedestrians.
The required weather protection must be at least as wide as the entrance, a
maximum of 6 feet above the top of the entrance, and a minimum of 3 feet in depth.
The required weather protection may project into the minimum front setback.
The development does not include any dwelling units. The required entrance is visible from SW Hall
Boulevard, is parallel to the drive aisle it faces, and is covered by a roof. The second entrance that is
parallel to the drive aisle on SW 92nd Avenue is also covered. Both entrances meet the dimensional
standards and maximum height standards as shown on the elevation plans (Sheet A7 and A8). This
standard is met.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 31 OF 68
B. Windows.
1. All building facades that face a public or private street must include a minimum of
15 percent window area.
2. The minimum window area standard does not apply to stories with sloped roofs or
dormers.
The elevation drawing submitted shows that the north façade that faces SW Hall Boulevard will
provide 22 percent window area. The west façade that faces SW Montage Lane and SW 92nd Ave will
provide between 16 to 19 percent window area. This standard is met.
C. Facade design.
1. All building facades that face a public or private street or outdoor common open
space must include at least 2 different architectural features from the list provided
below. An additional 2 different architectural features per facade are required on
all buildings with 20 or more dwelling units. This standard may be met by
including different architectural features on different facades of the same building.
Buildings that do not include dwelling units are exempt from providing
architectural features on facades that face common open areas, but must provide
at least 2 different architectural features on all street-facing facades.
a. Facade articulation. A wall projection or recession that is a minimum of 6 feet
in width and 2 feet in depth for a minimum of half the height of the facade and
with a maximum distance of 40 feet between projections or recessions.
b. Roof eave or projecting cornice.
i. An eave that projects a minimum of 12 inches from the building facade; or
ii. A cornice that projects a minimum of 6 inches from the building facade and
is a minimum of 12 inches in height.
c. Roof offsets or dormers.
i. A roof offset that is a minimum of 2 feet from the top surface of one roof to
the top surface of another roof as measured horizontally or vertically with a
maximum distance of 40 feet between offsets. See Figure 18.230.1; or
ii. One dormer for each top-story dwelling unit that is a minimum of 4 feet in
width and integrated into the roof form.
d. Accent siding. A minimum of 2 different siding materials are used, and one
siding material covers a minimum of 40 percent of the building facade.
e. Distinct base and top. The first story is visually distinguished from the upper
stories by including a belt course and at least one of the following:
i. a change in surface or siding pattern;
ii. a change in surface or siding material; or
iii. a change in the size or orientation of windows.
f. Window area. A minimum of 50 percent window area is included.
g. Window shadowing. All windows include at least one of the following:
i. Window trim that is a minimum of 2.5 inches in width and 0.625 inches in
depth; or
ii. Windows that are recessed a minimum of 3 inches from the building facade.
h. Balconies. Balconies are included on all upper stories that meet the
dimensional requirement for private open space provided in Subsection
18.230.040.D.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 32 OF 68
i. Covered porches or recessed entrances. All first-story dwelling units with
individual entrances include at least one of the following:
i. A covered porch that is a minimum of 5 feet in width and depth; or
ii. An entrance area that is a minimum of 5 feet in width and recessed a
minimum of 2 feet from the building facade.
j. Enhanced entrances or awnings. A building that provides internal access to
dwelling units includes at least one of the following:
i. A building entrance area that is a minimum of 8 feet in width and is either:
(A) recessed a minimum of 5 feet from the building facade, or
(B) covered with a permanent architectural feature that provides weather
protection. The architectural feature must be at least as wide as the
entry, a maximum of 6 feet above the top of the entry, and a minimum
of 5 feet in depth. The architectural feature may project into the
minimum front setback; or
ii. A permanent architectural feature above all first-story windows, such as an
awning or series of awnings, that are at least as wide as each window, a
maximum of 6 feet above the top of each window, and a minimum of 3 feet
in depth. The architectural feature may project into the minimum front
setback.
The proposed development does not include any dwelling units, therefore, only two different
architectural features are required. The north façade faces SW Hall Boulevard and the west façade
faces SW 92 Avenue and SW Montage Lane. The north façade and west façade portion that faces SW
92nd Avenue provide articulation and an enhanced entrance with a permanent architectural feature.
The west façade facing the cul-de-sac on SW Montage Lane provides articulation and roof offset. This
standard is met.
2. The following building materials are prohibited on all building facades, including
accessory structure facades, that face a public or private street or outdoor common
open space. They may not be used collectively on more than 35 percent of any other
building facade.
a. Vinyl PVC siding,
b. T-111 plywood,
c. Exterior insulation finishing (EIFS),
d. Corrugated metal,
e. Plain concrete or concrete block,
f. Spandrel glass, or
g. Sheet pressboard.
The development does not include any of the prohibited materials. This standard is met.
18.230.060 Accessory Structures
Accessory structures are allowed subject to the following standards:
A. Accessory structures are prohibited in the required front or street side setback;
B. Accessory structures may be located in the required side or rear setback provided they
are a minimum of 5 feet from the side and rear property lines and a maximum of 15
feet in height; and
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 33 OF 68
C. All accessory structures, including structures required to screen utilities and service
areas, and all site improvements, such as fences, walls, signs, and light fixtures, must
use materials, colors, and architectural design features that are similar in scale and
appearance to those on primary buildings. Chain link fencing and unfinished concrete
blocks are prohibited.
Accessory structures are not proposed. These standards do not apply.
FINDING: Based on the above analysis, all applicable apartment development standards have
been fully met.
C. The proposed development complies with all applicable supplemental development
standards, including but not limited to off-street parking and landscaping standards;
As described in the following section of the report, the proposed development does not comply with all
applicable supplemental development standards (18.400’s):
18.410 Off-Street Parking and Loading
18.410.020 Applicability
The provisions of this chapter apply to all new development and all modifications to
existing development, including changes of use, unless stated otherwise.
The proposal is for an assisted living facility, which is considered apartment development, therefore, this
chapter applies.
18.410.030 General Provisions
A. Location. Required off-street parking must be located on the same lot as the use it
serves, except where an on-street credit has been granted through the provisions of
Section 18.410.090.
All proposed parking for the development is located on the same lot as the development. This standard
is met.
F. Accessible parking. All parking areas must include the required number of accessible
parking spaces as specified by the state building code and federal standards. Such
parking spaces must be sized, signed, and marked as required by these regulations
and in compliance with ORS 447.
Based on the 92 vehicle parking spaces provided, four accessible parking spaces are required. The
proposal includes four accessible parking spaces. The spaces are proposed to be sized, signed, and
marked as required. This standard is met.
18.410.040 General Design Standards
A. Vehicular access. Vehicular access to off-street parking or loading areas must meet the
requirements of Chapter 18.920, Access, Egress, and Circulation and Chapter 18.930,
Vision Clearance Areas.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 34 OF 68
The proposed access meets the requirements of Chapter 18.920, as discussed later in this decision.
The vision clearance areas are shown on the plans but do not comply with the requirements of Chapter
18.930 and cannot be made to comply through conditions of approval, as discussed later in this report.
This standard is not met.
B. Pedestrian access. Paths that cross access driveways or parking areas are subject to
the following:
1. Paths must be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either
a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal
separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are allowed for
distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings,
or contrasting pavement materials are used;
2. Paths must be a minimum of 4 feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and
obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts; and
3. Paths must be in compliance with applicable federal and state accessibility
standards.
The proposed paths are separated from vehicular traffic by a curb and do not cross drive aisles by
more than 36 feet. The paths are five feet wide. All paths meet the minimum unobstructed width of
four feet. The paths will comply with state and federal accessibility standards. This standard is met
C. Loading and unloading driveways. Passenger loading and unloading areas must be
designed such that vehicle stacking does not impact any public right-of-way.
The applicant has proposed two driveways along SW 92nd Avenue for a drop off location for loading
and unloading. As shown on Sheet A1 provided by the applicant, the proposed loading and unloading
area provides sufficient vehicle stacking length to accommodate three vehicles on private property
outside of the public right-of-way. The proposed design allows sufficient vehicle stacking length on
private property for one vehicle to exit the driveway, one vehicle to actively load or unload, and one
vehicle to queue while not impacting the public right of way. This standard is met.
E. Surfacing. Off-street parking areas must be paved with an asphalt, concrete, or
pervious paving surface, with the following exceptions:
1. Off-street parking areas associated with a temporary use application, as provided
in Chapter 18.440, Temporary Uses, provided the approval authority determines
that unpaved parking will not create adverse conditions.
2. Off-street overflow parking areas in the Parks and Recreation zone.
All off-street parking areas will be paved. This standard is met.
F. Striping.
1. Except for parking required for single detached houses and accessory dwelling
units, and individual spaces for rowhouses, all off-street parking spaces must be
clearly and separately identified with pavement markings or contrasting paving
materials; and
2. All interior drives and access aisles must be clearly marked and signed to show
direction of flow.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 35 OF 68
All off-street parking spaces are clearly and separately identified with pavement mar kings. Interior
drives and access aisles that provide access through the site from SW Montage Lane and SW Hall
boulevard, entrance to the parking garage on the east side, and circulation within the parking garage
are clearly marked and signed on the Sheet A1. This standard is met.
G. Wheel stops. Parking bumpers or wheel stops a minimum of 4 inches in height must
be provided a minimum of 3 feet from the front of parking spaces wherever vehicles
can encroach on a right-of-way or pedestrian path. Curbing may substitute for wheel
stops if vehicles will not encroach into the minimum required width for landscape or
pedestrian paths.
Wheel stops are shown on the site plan in places where the overhang encroaches into landscape areas.
This standard is met.
H. Lighting. Lighting in parking areas must meet the following standards:
1. Parking areas must include lighting sufficient to illuminate all pedestrian paths
and bicycle parking areas to a minimum level of 0.5 footcandles at all points,
measured horizontally at the ground level.
2. Lighting luminaires must have a cutoff angle of 90 degrees or greater to ensure that
lighting is directed toward the parking surface.
3. Parking area lighting may not cause a light trespass of more than 0.5 footcandles
measured vertically at the boundaries of the site.
A photometrics analysis was submitted that meets the elements of this standard. This standard is met.
I. Space and aisle dimensions. The minimum dimensional standards for surface parking
spaces and drive aisles are provided in Figure 18.410.1 and Table 18.410.2.
As shown on the site plan, all parking stalls meet the dimensional standards. This standard is met.
18.430.050 Bicycle Parking Design Standards
A. Location.
1. Required bicycle parking must be located within 50 feet of a required or main
entrance of a primary building; and
2. Required bicycle parking for nonresidential development must be covered and
located within 100 feet of a required or main entrance of a primary building on the
site if any required vehicle parking spaces are provided in a structure.
Bicycle parking is not required for this development; however it is provided within 50 feet of the north
building entrance. This standard is met.
B. Design.
1. Bicycle racks must be designed to allow a bicycle frame to lock to it at 2 points of
contact, except that spiral racks and wave racks with more than one loop are
prohibited;
2. Bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the ground, wall, or other structure;
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 36 OF 68
3. Bicycle parking spaces must be at least 2.5 feet in width and 6 feet in length and
have an access aisle between each row of spaces that is at least 5 feet in width.
Covered bicycle parking must provide a vertical clearance of 7 feet; and
4. Bicycle parking spaces must be paved with a dust-free hard surface material.
The narrative states that the proposed racks will allow a bicycle frame to lock to it at two points of
contact and will be a U-shaped style. The racks will be securely anchored to the ground on a paved
surface. The development proposes ten bicycle parking spaces. The applicant’s site plan (Sheet A1)
shows that the bicycle spaces meet the dimensional standards. This standard is met.
C. Quantity. The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is provided
in Table 18.410.3. If the minimum bicycle parking requirement as calculated in Table
18.410.3 is less than two spaces, then the minimum number of spaces is two. Single
detached houses, accessory dwelling units, cottage clusters, courtyard units, quads,
and rowhouses are exempt from minimum bicycle parking standards.
The bicycle parking quantity requirements are discussed under Chapter 18.230 in this decision. This
standard is met.
18.410.070 Vehicle Parking Quantity Standards
A. Off-street parking requirements. The ratios for providing minimum and maximum
vehicle parking spaces are provided in Table 18.410.3. If application of the maximum
parking standard results in less than 6 parking spaces for a development with less than
1,000 square feet of floor area, the development is allowed up to 6 parking spaces. If
application of the maximum parking standard results in less than 10 vehicle parking
spaces for a development between 1,000 and 2,000 square feet, the development is allowed
up to 10 vehicle parking spaces.
The parking quantity requirements are discussed under Chapter 18.230 in this decision. This standard is
met.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, all applicable off-street parking and loading standards
are met.
18.420 Landscaping and Screening
18.420.020 Applicability
A. Landscaping standards. Landscaping standards apply to new and existing
development that must provide a minimum amount of landscape area as required by
the applicable development standards chapter.
The proposal is for a new development, this section applies.
B. Screening standards. Screening standards apply to new and existing development with
uses or site improvements that must be screened from other uses or the street as
required by the applicable development standards chapter.
The proposal is for a new development, this section applies.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 37 OF 68
C. Tree canopy standards. Site and parking lot tree canopy standards apply to the
following types of new and existing development, except that parking lot tree canopy
standards do not apply to subdivisions or partitions:
1. Subdivisions and partitions;
2. Apartments;
3. Nonresidential development, including mixed-use developments;
4. Wireless communication facilities; and
5. Mobile home parks.
The proposal is for a new development, this section applies.
18.420.060 Tree Canopy Standards
A. Site tree canopy standards, which are stated as a percentage of effective tree canopy cover
for an entire site, are provided in UFM Section 10, Part 3, Subparts N and O. Parking lot
tree canopy standards are provided below.
The required tree canopy for the proposed development is 33 percent. The applicant submitted an urban
forestry plan. Compliance with the site tree canopy standards is discussed in Subsection 18.420.060.B
below.
B. An urban forestry plan is required to demonstrate compliance with site and parking lot
tree canopy standards and must meet the requirements of UFM Sections 10 through 13.
An urban forestry plan must:
1. Be coordinated and approved by a project landscape architect or project arborist, i.e.
a person that is both a certified arborist and tree risk assessor, except that land
partitions may demonstrate compliance with effective tree canopy cover and soil
volume requirements by planting street trees in open soil volumes only;
An Urban Forestry Plan that was coordinated and approved by Brian Lind of Lenity Architecture, Inc, a
certified landscape architect, and Todd Prager of Teragan and Associates, Inc, a certified arborist and tree
risk assessor has been submitted. This standard is met.
2. Demonstrate compliance with UFM tree preservation and removal site plan
standards;
A tree preservation and removal site plan that meets the standards set forth in the Urban Forestry Manual
has been submitted. All open grown trees and five stands of trees are proposed for removal in order to
accommodate the proposed site and street improvements. This standard is met.
3. Demonstrate compliance with UFM tree canopy and supplemental report standards
and provide the minimum effective tree canopy cover;
A tree canopy site plan that meets the standards set forth in the Urban Forestry Manual has been
submitted.
A supplemental report was prepared and submitted by Brian Lind of Lenity Architecture, Inc, a certified
landscape architect and Todd Prager of Teragan and Associates, Inc, a certified arborist and tree risk
assessor. This report includes all required items, as outlined in Section 10, Part 3, Subsection D of the
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 38 OF 68
Urban Forestry Manual. The minimum required effective tree canopy for the entire site is 33 percent.
The supplemental report states that the effective tree canopy for the entire site is 34.7 percent (32,473
square feet). This standard is met.
4. Demonstrate compliance with parking lot tree canopy standards, where applicable,
by providing the minimum effective tree canopy cover of 30 percent for all parking
areas, including parking spaces and drive aisles. Only the percentage of tree canopy
directly above parking areas may count toward meeting this standard; and
The proposed parking lot canopy plan shows parking lot trees distributed throughout the parking lot that
provide 5,659 square feet of canopy coverage. The parking lot area is approximately 13,451 square feet
and the trees provide approximately 42 percent canopy. This standard is met.
5. Include street trees where right-of-way improvements are required by Chapter 18.910,
Improvement Standards.
a. The minimum number of required street trees is determined by dividing the
length in feet of the site’s street frontage by 40 feet. When the result is a fraction,
the minimum number of street trees is the nearest whole number. More than the
minimum number of street trees may be required along the site’s frontage
depending upon the stature of trees chosen and the specific spacing standards for
the chosen trees.
b. Street trees must be planted within the right-of-way wherever practicable. Street
trees may be planted a maximum of 6 feet from the right-of-way when planting
within the right-of-way is not practicable as determined by the City Engineer.
c. An existing tree may be used to meet the street tree standards provided that:
i. The largest percentage of the tree trunk immediately above the trunk flare or
root buttresses is either within the subject site or within the right-of-way
immediately adjacent to the subject site; and
ii. The tree would be permitted as a street tree in compliance with UFM street
tree planting and soil volume standards if it were newly planted.
The linear amount of adjacent street frontage on the site is approximately 1,011 feet; therefore, the site is
required to have a minimum of 25 street trees (1,011 feet divided by 40 feet, rounded to the nearest whole
number). The applicant provided a tree canopy site plan that shows 25 new street trees will be planted at
this site. Furthermore, the project landscape architect submitted an Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental
Report, which describes how the street trees will be maintained according to the Street Tree Soil Volume
Standards that are outlined in the Urban Forestry Manual. These standards are met.
E. Urban forestry plan implementation.
1. Implementation of the urban forestry plan must be inspected, documented, and
reported by the project arborist or landscape architect in compliance with the
inspection requirements in UFM Section 11, Part 1, wherever an urban forestry plan
is in effect. In addition, no person may refuse entry or access to the Director for the
purpose.
The urban forestry plan will be inspected, documented, and reported by the project landscape architect
and project arborist in compliance with the inspection requirements in UFM Section 11, Part 1. This
standard is met through the following conditions of approval.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 39 OF 68
Prior to commencing any site work, the project landscape architect must perform a site inspection for
tree protection measures, document compliance/non-compliance with the Urban Forestry Plan, and send
written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site
inspection.
The project landscape architect must perform semimonthly (twice monthly) site inspections for tree
protection measures during periods of active site development and construction, document
compliance/non-compliance with the Urban Forestry Plan, and send written verification with a signature
of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection.
2. The establishment of all trees shown to be planted in the tree canopy site plan and
supplemental report of a previously approved urban forestry plan must be guaranteed
and required in compliance with the tree establishment requirements in UFM Section
11, Part 2.
Section 11, Part 2, Subsection A of the Urban Forestry Manual states that prior to any site work, the
applicant must provide a tree establishment bond for all on-site trees to be planted per the approved
urban forestry plan. Therefore, a condition of approval is added to address this requirement. This
standard will be met through conditions.
Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a tree establishment bond that meets the
requirements of the Urban Forestry Manual, Section 11, Part 2. This bond amount will be for newly
planted trees.
3. Spatial and species-specific data must be collected in compliance with the urban
forestry inventory requirements in UFM Section 11, Part 3 for each open grown tree
and area of stand grown trees in the tree canopy site plan and supplemental report of
a previously approved urban forestry plan.
Section 11, Part 3, Subsection B of the Urban Forestry Manual states that prior to any site work, the
applicant must provide a fee to cover the city’s cost of collecting and processing the inventory data for
the entire Urban Forestry Plan. Therefore, a condition of approval is added to address this requirement.
This standard will be met through conditions.
Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a fee to cover the city’s cost of collecting
and processing the inventory data for the entire urban forestry plan (Urban Forestry Manual, Section 11,
Part 3).
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, all applicable landscaping and screening standards are
met or can be through conditions of approval.
D. The proposed development complies with all applicable special designation standards,
including but not limited to sensitive lands protection;
The development does not contain any special designations and no identified Sensitive Lands. The
wetland on the site is not a Significant Wetland identified within the Tigard Local Wetland Inventory and
so is not regulated by the City of Tigard. This criterion does not apply.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 40 OF 68
E. The proposed development complies with all applicable plan district standards and
requirements; and;
The development is located within the Washington Square Regional Center Plan District, however, the
standards of that chapter only apply to nonresidential and mixed-use development. This criterion does
not apply.
F. The proposed development complies with all applicable street and utility standards and
requirements.
As described below, the proposed development does comply with all applicable street and utility
standards or can be made to comply through conditions of approval. This criterion is met.
18.910 Improvement Standards
18.910.020 General Provisions
A. Applicability. Unless otherwise provided, construction, reconstruction or repair of
streets, sidewalks, curbs, and other public improvements shall occur in compliance
with the standards of this title. No development may occur and no land use application
may be approved unless the public facilities related to development comply with the
public facility requirements established in this chapter and adequate public facilities
are available. Applicants may be required to dedicate land and build required public
improvements only when the required exaction is directly related to and roughly
proportional to the impact of the development.
The proposal includes the construction of new structures, this chapter applies.
18.910.030 Streets
A. Improvements.
1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access
to a public street.
2. No development shall occur unless streets within the development meet the
standards of this chapter.
3. No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the
standards of this chapter, provided, however, that a development may be approved if
the adjacent street does not meet the standards but half-street improvements meeting
the standards of this chapter are constructed adjacent to the development.
4. Any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street
shall meet the standards of this chapter.
5. If the city could and would otherwise require the applicant to provide street
improvements, the City Engineer may accept a future improvements guarantee in
lieu of street improvements if one or more of the following conditions exist
a. A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve proper
design standards;
b. A partial improvement may create a potential safety hazard to motorists or
pedestrians;
c. Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties it is unlikely
that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 41 OF 68
improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself,
provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity;
d. The improvement would be in conflict with an adopted capital improvement
plan;
e. The improvement is associated with an approved land partition on property
zoned residential and the proposed land partition does not create any new
streets; or
f. Additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design
standards for the street and the application is for a project which would
contribute only a minor portion of the anticipated future traffic on the street.
6. The standards of this chapter include the standard specifications adopted by the
City Engineer in compliance with Subsection 18.910.020.B.
7. The approval authority may approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter
if compliance with the standards would result in an adverse impact on natural
features such as wetlands, bodies of water, significant habitat areas, steep slopes,
or existing mature trees. The approval authority may also approve adjustments to
the standards of this chapter if compliance with the standards would have a
substantial adverse impact on existing development or would preclude
development on the property where the development is proposed. In approving an
adjustment to the standards, the approval authority shall balance the benefit of the
adjustment with the impact on the public interest represented by the standards. In
evaluating the impact on the public interest, the approval authority shall consider
the criteria listed in Subsection 18.910.030.E. An adjustment to the standards may
not be granted if the adjustment would risk public safety.
As shown in the preliminary site plan, the proposed development has frontage on SW Hall Boulevard,
SW 92nd Avenue and an existing public street stub from SW Montage Lane. SW Hall Boulevard is
classified as an arterial and is under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT). Southwest 92nd Avenue and SW Montage Lane are classified as local streets and are under
the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard.
As shown in the preliminary civil plans, street improvements, including additional street width, are
proposed along the applicant’s frontage on SW Hall Boulevard, SW Montage Lane and SW 92 nd
Avenue in preliminary accordance with the standards of this chapter, ODOT Highway Design Manual
(HDM) standards, and the City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards.
Improvements must meet the following City of Tigard minimum requirements:
SW Hall Boulevard (3 Lane Arterial, half-street improvements):
o 45’ minimum right-of-way dedication from centerline
o 30’ pavement
▪ 12’ median/turn lane
▪ 12’ travel lane
▪ 6’ bike lane
o 5’ planter strip (with curb)
o 10’ sidewalk
o Street trees
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 42 OF 68
o Street lighting
o 8’ public utility easement across road frontage, outside of right-of-way
SW 92nd Avenue (Local Residential, half-street improvements):
o 27’ minimum right-of-way dedication from centerline
o 16’ pavement (on-street parking, one side)
o 0.5’ curb
o 5’ planter strip
o 5’ sidewalk
o 0.5’ public access behind sidewalk
o Street trees
o Street lighting
o 8’ public utility easement across road frontage, outside of right-of-way
SW Montage Lane (Local Residential, full-street improvements):
o 50’ minimum right-of-way dedication
o 28’ pavement (on-street parking, one side)
o (2) 0.5’ curb
o (2) 5’ planter strip
o (2) 5’ sidewalk
o (2) 0.5’ public access behind sidewalk
o Street trees
o Street lighting
o 8’ public utility easement across road frontage, outside of right-of-way
o Cul-de-sac bulb minimum requirements for SW Montage Lane terminus (residential
zone):
▪ 47’ minimum radius right-of-way width
▪ 40’ minimum paved width
▪ 6’ minimum curb-tight sidewalk width
o 8’ multi-use bicycle and pedestrian path connection within a public access easement
between SW Montage Lane terminus and SW Hall Boulevard
The applicant has proposed street improvements, including additional street width, along the
applicant’s frontage on SW Hall Boulevard, SW Montage Lane and SW 92nd Avenue in preliminary
accordance with the standards of this chapter, ODOT Highway Design Manual (HDM) standa rds,
and the City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards. SW Hall Boulevard is under the
jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).
According to comments received from ODOT (ODOT Response Letter #8942 dated April 29, 2021),
ODOT staff have met with the applicant’s civil engineer several times to discuss the conceptual layout
for the improvements within highway right of way. The applicant’s submitted civil plan sheet #106 shows
the layout for improvements on SW Hall Blvd which is consistent with input from ODOT. The plan
sheet identifies that additional right of way is necessary to construct improvements within the highway
right of way. ODOT recommends that the City of Tigard require the applicant to donate right of way to
ODOT consistent with applicant’s civil plan sheet #106. As discussed with the applicant, the ODOT
Highway Design Manual standard left turn lane is 14-feet, so the applicant is required to obtain a Design
Exception from ODOT for the proposed 12-ft left turn lane.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 43 OF 68
Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain all required approvals and permits for
construction from all necessary agencies, including but not limited to, ODOT in accordance with the
ODOT Response Letter #8942 (dated April 29, 2021).
According to a memorandum provided by the applicant on June 10, 2021, from Wendie L. Kellington,
the applicant has stated that the extension of SW Montage Lane for a full street connection to SW
Hall Boulevard, in accordance with Tigard Community Development Code 18.910.030.H., is not
roughly proportional to the impact of the development. Based on the traffic impact analysis prepared
by the applicant, dated May 19, 2020, the development is expected to generate an average of 484 daily
trips, of which 80% of the site trips are estimated to be distributed to/from the proposed site access
to SW Hall Boulevard and 20% of the site trips are estimated to be distributed to the private driveway
connection at SW Montage Lane. The City therefore agrees that the impacts of this development are
not proportional to the costs of a full, public through-street connection in this location.
Pursuant to Tigard Community Development Code 18.910.030.L, a cul-de-sac is required when strict
adherence to other standards in the code precludes a full street connection and through circulation.
As required by City Code, all cul-de-sacs must terminate with a turnaround. The applicant has
provided the required cul-de-sac for the public terminus of SW Montage Lane with the required
minimum widths for street characteristics in accordance with Tigard Community Development Code
Table 18.910.1. Pursuant to Tigard Community Development Code 18.910.040, while the full street
connection is exempted by rough proportionality as described in the findings above, the applicant’s
preliminary site plan has provided the required eight-foot MUP connection within a public access
easement in accordance with the standards of this chapter.
Through the conditions of approval, this standard is met.
B. Creation of rights-of-way for streets and related purposes. Rights-of-way shall be
created through the approval of a final plat; however, the council may approve the
creation of a street by acceptance of a deed, provided that such street is deemed essential
by the council for the purpose of general traffic circulation.
1. The council may approve the creation of a street by deed of dedication without full
compliance with the regulations applicable to subdivisions or partitions if any one or
more of the following conditions are found by the council to be present:
a. Establishment of a street is initiated by the council and is found to be essential
for the purpose of general traffic circulation, and partitioning or subdivision of
land has an incidental effect rather than being the primary objective in
establishing the road or street for public use; or
b. The tract in which the road or street is to be dedicated is an isolated ownership of
1 acre or less and such dedication is recommended by the commission to the
council based on a finding that the proposal is not an attempt to evade the
provisions of this title governing the control of subdivisions or partitions.
c. The street is located within the mixed use central business district (MU-CBD)
zone and has been identified on Figures 5-14A through 5-14I of the City of Tigard
2035 Transportation System Plan as a required connectivity improvement.
2. With each application for approval of a road or street right-of-way not in full
compliance with the regulations applicable to the standards, the proposed
dedication shall be made a condition of subdivision and partition approval.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 44 OF 68
a. The applicant shall submit such additional information and justification as may
be necessary to enable the commission in its review to determine whether or
not a recommendation for approval by the council shall be made.
b. The recommendation, if any, shall be based upon a finding that the proposal is
not in conflict with the purpose of this title.
c. The commission in submitting the proposal with a recommendation to the
council may attach conditions which are necessary to preserve the standards of
this title
3. All deeds of dedication shall be in a form prescribed by the city and shall name
“the public” as grantee.
As shown in the preliminary civil plans submitted, the applicant has proposed dedication of right-of-way
along the SW Hall Boulevard, SW Montage Lane and SW 92nd Avenue through dedication deed in
accordance with the standards of this chapter. This standard is met.
C. Creation of access easements. The approval authority may approve an access easement
established by deed without full compliance with this title provided such an easement is
the only reasonable method by which a lot large enough to develop can be created.
1. Access easements shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the Uniform
Fire Code, Section 10.207.
2. Access shall be in accordance with 18.920.030.H and I.
The applicant has not proposed an access easement established by deed without full compliance with
this chapter as the only reasonable method by which a lot large enough to develop can be created.
This standard is not applicable.
D. Street location, width and grade. Except as noted below, the location, width and grade
of all streets shall conform to an approved street plan and shall be considered in their
relation to existing and planned streets, to topographic conditions, to public convenience
and safety, and in their appropriate relation to the proposed use of the land to be served
by such streets:
1. Street grades shall be approved by the city engineer in compliance with Subsection
18.910.030.N; and
2. Where the location of a street is not shown in an approved street plan, the
arrangement of streets in a development shall either:
a. Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in the
surrounding areas, or
b. Conform to a plan adopted by the commission, if it is impractical to conform to
existing street patterns because of particular topographical or other existing
conditions of the land. Such a plan shall be based on the type of land use to be
served, the volume of traffic, the capacity of adjoining streets and the need for
public convenience and safety.
As shown in the preliminary civil plans, street improvements, including additional street width, a re
proposed along the applicant’s frontage on SW Hall Boulevard, SW Montage Lane, and SW 92nd
Avenue in preliminary accordance with the standards of this chapter and ODOT Standards.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 45 OF 68
There is an existing street stub for SW Montage Lane located at the western property boundary for
the proposed development. As stated in Section 18.910.030.D.2, where the location of a street is not
shown in an approved street plan, the arrangement of streets in a development must provide for the
continuation of existing streets in the surrounding area. As discussed above, the City concurs with the
applicant that a full, public street connection is not proportional to the impacts of the development.
In such cases where a street extension and through circulation are precluded, Tigard Community
Development Code 18.910.030.L requires a cul-de-sac. Pursuant to City Code, all cul-de-sacs must
terminate with a turnaround. The applicant has provided the required cul-de-sac. See findings under
Tigard Community Development Code 18.910.030.L. This standard is met.
E. Minimum rights-of-way and street widths. Unless otherwise indicated on an approved
street plan, or as needed to continue an existing improved street or within the Tigard
Downtown Plan District, street right-of-way and roadway widths shall not be less than
the minimum width described below. Where a range is indicated, the width shall be
determined by the decision-making authority based upon anticipated average daily
traffic (ADT) on the new street segment. (The city council may adopt by resolution,
design standards for street construction and other public improvements. The design
standards will provide guidance for determining improvement requirements within the
specified ranges.) These are provided in Table 18.910.1.
The approval authority shall make its decision about desired right-of-way width and
pavement width of the various street types within the subdivision or development after
consideration of the following:
1. The type of road as provided in the comprehensive plan transportation chapter -
functional street classification.
2. Anticipated traffic generation.
3. On-street parking needs.
4. Sidewalk and bikeway requirements.
5. Requirements for placement of utilities.
6. Street lighting.
7. Drainage and slope impacts.
8. Street tree location.
9. Planting and landscape areas.
10. Safety and comfort for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
11. Access needs for emergency vehicles.
Right-of-way and roadway widths for SW Hall Boulevard, SW 92nd Avenue, and SW Montage Lane must
meet the minimum widths for street characteristics in accordance with Table 18.910.1. See findings in
Section 18.910.030.A. This standard is met.
F. Future street plan and extension of streets.
1. A future street plan shall:
a. Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or
partition. The plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets
from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other parcels
within 530 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. At the
applicant’s request, the city may prepare a future streets proposal. Costs of the
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 46 OF 68
city preparing a future streets proposal shall be reimbursed for the time involved.
A street proposal may be modified when subsequent subdivision proposals are
submitted.
b. Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle
routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 530 feet of the site.
2. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining
land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed, and
a. These extended streets or street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered
to be cul-de-sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such
time as the adjoining property is developed.
b. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners
which shall not be removed until authorized by the city engineer, the cost of which
shall be included in the street construction cost.
c. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be
constructed for stub street in excess of 150 feet in length.
The applicant has not proposed an application for a subdivision or partition . A future street plan is
not required with this application.
SW Montage Lane is not required to be extended to the boundary line of the tract to be developed to
permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land. This standard is not applicable.
G. Street spacing and access management. Refer to 18.920.030.H.
Street spacing and access management is discussed under Chapter 18.920, Access, Egress, and
Circulation.
H. Street alignment and connections.
1. Full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is
required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways,
pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other
restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full
street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations
would not permit construction.
2. All local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site
shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded
by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or
strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is
considered precluded when it is not possible to redesign or reconfigure the street
pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered topographically
constrained if the slope is greater than 15 percent for a distance of 250 feet or more.
In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a
constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The
applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street
connection.
3. Proposed street or street extensions shall be located to provide direct access to
existing or planned transit stops, commercial services, and other neighborhood
facilities, such as schools, shopping areas and parks.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 47 OF 68
4. All developments should provide an internal network of connecting streets that
provide short, direct travel routes and minimize travel distances within the
development.
The proposed development site abuts the stubbed street SW Montage Lane, classified as a local street,
on its western boundary. Pursuant to Tigard Community Development Code 18.910.030.H.2, the
applicant is required to extend SW Montage Lane unless such extension is precluded. Full street
connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required. The approximate
distance between connections on SW 92nd Avenue and SW 90th Avenue along Hall Boulevard is in
excess of 750 feet, which exceeds the spacing standard of no more than 530 feet between connections.
The applicant has not identified any barriers to the extension of SW Montage Lane, including
topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants, or
other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 that would preclude the street extension for the public
cul-de-sac terminus.
In the absence of any barrier identified by the applicant, the applicant must extend SW Montage Lane
in accordance with the standards of this chapter. As discussed above in the findings for CDC
18.910.030.A, the City does acknowledge that a full, public street extension would not be roughly
proportional to the development’s impacts. Where a full street connection is precluded, Tigard
Community Development Code 18.910.030.L requires a cul-de-sac. The applicant has proposed to
extend the street stub of SW Montage Lane and provide the required public cul-de-sac terminus. The
applicant has proposed internal private circulation within the private development site that provides
short, direct travel routes and minimizes travel distances within the proposed development. This
standard is met.
I. Intersection angles. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect at an angle as near to a right
angle as practicable, except where topography requires a lesser angle, but in no case shall
the angle be less than 75° unless there is special intersection design, and:
1. Streets shall have at least 25 feet of tangent adjacent to the right-of-way intersection
unless topography requires a lesser distance;
2. Intersections which are not at right angles shall have a minimum corner radius of 20
feet along the right-of-way lines of the acute angle; and
3. Right-of-way lines at intersection with arterial streets shall have a corner radius of not
less than 20 feet.
The applicant has not proposed any new intersections of public streets. This criterion does not apply.
J. Existing rights-of-way. Whenever existing rights-of-way adjacent to or within a tract are
of less than standard width, additional rights-of-way shall be provided at the time of
subdivision or development.
Right-of-way dedication for SW Hall Boulevard, SW 92nd Avenue, and SW Montage Lane must be
provided in accordance with the minimum standards of this chapter is required. See findings in Section
18.910.030.A. This standard is met.
K. Partial street improvements. Partial street improvements resulting in a pavement width
of less than 20 feet, while generally not acceptable, may be approved where essential to
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 48 OF 68
reasonable development when in conformity with the other requirements of these
regulations, and when it will be practical to require the improvement of the other half
when the adjoining property developed.
Partial street improvements are not proposed. Street improvements for SW Hall Boulevard, SW 92nd
Avenue, and SW Montage Lane in accordance with the minimum standards of this chapter are required.
This standard is not applicable.
L. Cul-de-sacs. A cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long, shall not provide access
to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental or
topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other
standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation:
1. All cul-de-sac shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations
other than circular shall be approved by the City Engineer; and
2. The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured from the centerline intersection
point of the 2 streets to the radius point of the bulb.
3. If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent
street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the city.
The applicant has not provided the extension of SW Montage Lane as a public street because such
full extension would not be roughly proportional to the impact of the development. Because full
street extension and through circulation is precluded, the applicant is required to provide a cul-de-sac
pursuant to Tigard Community Development Code 18.910.030.L. As shown in the preliminary site
plans, the applicant has proposed to extend the street stub of SW Montage Lane and provide the
required public cul-de-sac terminus. This standard is met.
M. Street names. No street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the
names of existing streets in Washington County, except for extensions of existing streets.
Street names and numbers shall conform to the established pattern in the surrounding
area and as approved by the City Engineer.
The proposed development does not propose new street names. This criterion does not apply.
N. Grades and Curves.
1. Grades shall not exceed 10 percent on arterials, 12 percent on collector streets, or 12
percent on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have
segments with grades up to 15 percent for distances of no greater than 250 feet); and
2. Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the city engineer.
The existing street grade will not be changed with development. Grades are not proposed in excess of 10
percent on arterials or 12 percent on any other street.
O. Curbs, curb cuts, ramps, and driveway approaches. Concrete curbs, curb cuts,
wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in compliance
with standards specified in this chapter and Section 15.04, Work in the Right-of-Way,
and:
1. Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except:
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 49 OF 68
2. Where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with city
engineer approval; and
3. Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to city
configuration standards.
Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in
compliance with standards specified in this chapter and Chapter 15.04, Work in the Right-of-Way. This
standard is applicable.
Q. Access to arterials and collectors. Where a development abuts or is traversed by an
existing or proposed arterial or collector street, the development design shall provide
adequate protection for residential properties and shall separate residential access and
through traffic, or if separation is not feasible, the design shall minimize the traffic
conflicts. The design shall include any of the following:
1. A parallel access street along the arterial or collector;
2. Lots of suitable depth abutting the arterial or collector to provide adequate
buffering with frontage along another street;
3. Screen planting at the rear or side property line to be contained in a nonaccess
reservation along the arterial or collector; or
4. Other treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this subsection;
5. If a lot has access to 2 streets with different classifications, primary access should
be from the lower classification street.
The proposed development has frontage on SW Hall Boulevard, an arterial street under the jurisdiction
of ODOT. The preliminary site plan has provided driveway access to SW Hall Boulevard. The driveway
has been designed to minimize traffic conflicts. The applicant has proposed street improvements,
including additional street width, along the applicant’s frontage on SW Hall Boulevard in preliminary
accordance with the standards of this chapter, ODOT Highway Design Manual (HDM) standards, and
the City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards. This standard is met.
S. Survey monuments. Upon completion of a street improvement and prior to acceptance
by the city, it shall be the responsibility of the developer’s registered professional land
surveyor to provide certification to the city that all boundary and interior monuments
shall be reestablished and protected.
The applicant’s narrative has acknowledged intent to comply with this requirement. It is feasible and
possible to meet this standard through the PFI permitting process.
V. Street signs. The city shall install all street signs, relative to traffic control and street
names, as specified by the City Engineer for any development. The cost of signs shall
be the responsibility of the developer.
The applicant’s narrative has acknowledged intent to comply with this requirement. It is feasible and
possible to meet this standard through the PFI permitting process.
W. Mailboxes. Joint mailbox facilities shall be provided in all residential developments,
with each joint mailbox serving at least 2 dwelling units.
1. Joint mailbox structures shall be placed adjacent to roadway curbs;
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 50 OF 68
2. Proposed locations of joint mailboxes shall be designated on the preliminary plat
or development plan, and shall be approved by the City Engineer/U.S. Post Office
prior to final plan approval; and
3. Plans for the joint mailbox structures to be used shall be submitted for approval by
the City Engineer/U.S. Post Office prior to final approval.
The applicant’s narrative has acknowledged intent to comply with this requirement. It is feasible and
possible to meet this standard through the PFI permitting process.
Y. Street light standards. Street lights shall be installed in compliance with regulations
adopted by the city’s direction.
Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a photometric analysis for the review and
approval. The applicant must submit plans showing the location of streetlights and the type and color of
pole and light fixture for review and approval. Photometric analysis will follow the recommended values
and requirements described in ANSI/IESNA. All public streetlights must be PGE Option B. Through
a condition of approval, this standard is met.
Z. Street name signs. Street name signs shall be installed at all street intersections. Stop
signs and other signs may be required.
The applicant’s narrative has acknowledged intent to comply with this requirement. It is feasible and
possible to meet this standard through the PFI permitting process.
AA. Street cross-sections. The final lift of asphalt concrete pavement shall be placed on all
new constructed public roadways prior to final city acceptance of the roadway and
within 1 year of the conditional acceptance of the roadway unless otherwise approved
by the City Engineer. The final lift shall also be placed no later than when 90 percent
of the structures in the new development are completed or 3 years from the
commencement of initial construction of the development, whichever is less.
1. Sub-base and leveling course shall be of select crushed rock;
2. Surface material shall be of Class C or B asphaltic concrete;
3. The final lift shall be placed on all new construction roadways prior to city final
acceptance of the roadway; however, not before 90 percent of the structures in the
new development are completed unless 3 years have elapsed since initiation of
construction in the development;
4. The final lift shall be Class C asphaltic concrete as defined by A.P.W.A. standard
specifications; and
5. No lift shall be less than 1.5 inches in thickness.
The development will require frontage improvements along SW Hall Boulevard, SW 92nd Avenue, and
SW Montage Lane; therefore, this section is applicable. Street improvements along SW Hall Boulevard
must be completed by the applicant and accepted by ODOT, who has jurisdiction of SW Hall Boulevard
along the proposed development frontage. Street improvements along SW 92nd Avenue and SW Montage
Lane must be completed by the applicant and accepted by the City. It is feasible and possible to meet this
standard through the PFI permitting process.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 51 OF 68
BB. Traffic calming. When, in the opinion of the City Engineer, the proposed
development will create a negative traffic condition on existing neighborhood streets,
such as excessive speeding, the developer may be required to provide traffic calming
measures. These measures may be required within the development or offsite as
deemed appropriate. As an alternative, the developer may be required to deposit funds
with the city to help pay for traffic calming measures that become necessary once the
development is occupied and the City Engineer determines that the additional traffic
from the development has triggered the need for traffic calming measures. The City
Engineer will determine the amount of funds required and will collect said funds from
the developer prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or in the case of
subdivision, prior to the approval of the final plat. The funds will be held by the city
for a period of 5 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy, or in the
case of a subdivision, the date of final plat approval. Any funds not used by the city
within the 5-year time period will be refunded to the developer.
A Transportation Impact Study (prepared by Kittleson & Associates, dated January 4, 2021) was
submitted by the applicant (Exhibit K). Based on the traffic analysis study submitted by the applicant’s
traffic engineer, traffic calming is not proposed or deemed necessary for the proposed development. This
standard is not applicable.
CC. Traffic study.
1. A traffic study shall be required for all new or expanded uses or developments
under any of the following circumstances:
a. When they generate a 10 percent or greater increase in existing traffic to high
collision intersections identified by Washington County.
b. Trip generations from development onto the city street at the point of access
and the existing ADT fall within the following ranges:
Existing ADT ADT to be added by development
0-3000 vpd 2,000 vpd
3,001-6,000 vpd 1,000 vpd
>6,000 vpd 500 vpd or more
A Transportation Impact Study (prepared by Kittleson & Associates, dated January 4, 2021) was
submitted by the applicant (Exhibit K). The traffic impact analysis concluded the proposed assisted living
and memory care facility is estimated to generate 512 average daily trips, 37 weekday AM peak hour trips,
and 51 weekday PM peak hour trips. In addition to the required half-street improvements on SW Hall
Boulevard, the applicant’s traffic report recommendations included the widening of SW Hall Boulevard
to provide a center left turn lane that extends along the entire frontage, plus for a distance of
approximately 150 feet west and 200 feet east. This standard is met.
18.910.040 Blocks
A. Block design. The length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard
to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs
for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition
of limitations and opportunities of topography.
B. Sizes.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 52 OF 68
1. The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2,000 feet measured
along the centerline of the streets except:
a. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands, significant
habitat areas or bodies of water, or pre-existing development; or
b. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, collectors or
railroads.
c. For nonresidential blocks in which internal public circulation provides
equivalent access.
2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or rights-of-way shall be
provided when full street connection is exempted by Paragraph 18.910.040.B.1.
Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where
precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development
patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code.
The existing block perimeter bounded by SW Hall Boulevard, SW 92nd Avenue, SW Borders Street
and SW 95th Avenue is approximately 2,700 feet, which exceeds the maximum perimeter length of
2,000 feet. The block length standard for maximum of 2,000 feet is not applicable for blocks adjacent
to an arterial street, which is the classification of SW Hall Boulevard. However, when an applicant is
exempted from the 2,000-foot block length because of its adjacency to an arterial street, the applicant
must provide a bicycle and pedestrian connection in accordance with the standards of this chapter.
While the full street connection is exempted by rough proportionality as described in the findings for
Section 18.910.030.A, the applicant’s preliminary site plan has provided the required eight-foot MUP
connection within a public access easement in accordance with the standards of this chapter. This
standard is met.
18.910.050 Easements
A. Easements. Easements for sewers, drainage, water mains, electric lines or other public
utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and where a
development is traversed by a watercourse or drainageway, there shall be provided a
stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines
of the watercourse.
B. Utility easements. A property owner proposing a development shall make
arrangements with the city, the applicable district, and each utility franchise for the
provision and dedication of utility easements necessary to provide full services to the
development. The city’s standard width for public main line utility easements shall be
15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company, applicable district, or City
Engineer.
The proposed development is not traversed by a watercourse or drainage way. The development will
require an eight-foot public utility easement along all road frontages, outside of the right-of-way.
Prior to final building inspection, the applicant must record all utility easements including for storm
drainage, sanitary sewer, and franchise utilities and provide recorded copies to the City.
The applicant submitted preliminary plans for storm drainage and a preliminary drainage report. The
applicant has provided the minimum 15-foot-wide public utility easement as required by CWS
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 53 OF 68
standards for conveyance of public stormwater through the site from the existing stormwater facility
located immediately west of the proposed development.
Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit all right-of-way dedication documents,
utility easements, public access easements and maintenance agreements for City review and approval.
Prior to final building inspection, the applicant must record all right-of-way dedication documents, utility
easements, public access easements and maintenance agreements and provide recorded copies to the City.
Through the conditions of approval, this standard is met.
18.910.070 Sidewalks
A. Sidewalks. All public and private streets adjacent to industrially zoned properties shall
have sidewalks meeting city standards along at least 1 side of the street. All other public
and private streets shall have sidewalks meeting city standards along both sides of the
street. A development may be approved if an adjoining street has sidewalks on the side
adjoining the development, even if no sidewalk exists on the other side of the street.
Sidewalk improvements are required along the development frontage on SW Hall Boulevard, SW 92nd
Avenue, and SW Montage Lane. See findings in Section 18.910.030.A.
As shown in the preliminary civil plans, sidewalks are proposed along the applicant’s frontage on SW
Hall Boulevard, SW Montage Lane and SW 92nd Avenue in preliminary accordance with the standards
of this in accordance with the standards of this chapter, ODOT Highway Design Manual (HDM)
standards, and the City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards. Through conditions of
approval, this standard is met.
B. Requirement of developers.
1. As part of any development proposal or change in use resulting in an additional
1,000 vehicle trips or more per day, an applicant shall be required to identify direct,
safe (1.25 x the straight line distance) pedestrian routes within 0.50 miles of their
site to all transit facilities and neighborhood activity centers (schools, parks,
libraries, etc.). In addition, the developer may be required to participate in the
removal of any gaps in the pedestrian system off-site if justified by the
development.
2. If there is an existing sidewalk on the same side of the street as the development
within 300 feet of a development site in either direction, the sidewalk shall be
extended from the site to meet the existing sidewalk, subject to rough
proportionality (even if the sidewalk does not serve a neighborhood activity
center).
The proposed development does not generate an additional 1,000 vehicle trips or more per day.
As shown in the preliminary civil plans, the applicant’s proposed sidewalk will connect to the existing
sidewalk located to the west along SW Hall Boulevard. This standard is met.
C. Planter strip requirements. A planter strip separation of at least 5 feet between the curb
and the sidewalk shall be required in the design of streets, except where the following
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 54 OF 68
conditions exist: there is inadequate right-of-way; the curbside sidewalks already exist
on predominant portions of the street; it would conflict with the utilities; there are
significant natural features (large trees, water features, significant habitat areas, etc.)
that would be destroyed if the sidewalk were located as required; or where there are
existing structures in close proximity to the street (15 feet or less) or where the
standards in Table 18.910.1 specify otherwise. Additional consideration for exempting
the planter strip requirement may be given on a case-by-case basis if a property abuts
more than one street frontage.
A planter strip separation of a least five feet between the curb and sidewalk is required in the design of
the frontage improvements along SW Hall Boulevard, SW 92nd Avenue, and SW Montage Lane. See
findings in Section 18.910.030.A.
D. Maintenance. Maintenance of sidewalks, curbs, and planter strips is the continuing
obligation of the adjacent property owner.
The property owner will take full responsibility for the maintenance of sidewalks, curbs, and planter strips.
This standard is applicable.
E. Application for permit and inspection. Separate street opening permits are required
for sidewalk segments that are not part of a current subdivision approval:
1. An occupancy permit shall not be issued for a development until the provisions of
this section are satisfied.
2. The City Engineer may issue a permit and certificate allowing temporary
noncompliance with the provisions of this section to the owner, builder or
contractor when, in his or her opinion, the construction of the sidewalk is
impractical for one or more of the following reasons:
a. Sidewalk grades have not and cannot be established for the property in question
within a reasonable length of time;
b. Forthcoming installation of public utilities or street paving would be likely to
cause severe damage to the new sidewalk;
c. Street right-of-way is insufficient to accommodate a sidewalk on 1 or both sides
of the street; or
d. Topography or elevation of the sidewalk base area makes construction of a
sidewalk impractical or economically infeasible.
3. The City Engineer shall inspect the construction of sidewalks for compliance with
the provision set forth in the standard specifications manual.
Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a Public Facility Improvement (PFI)
Permit to cover all infrastructure work including stormwater Water Quality and Quantity Facilities
and any other work in the public right-of-way. Four (4) sets of detailed public improvement plans
must be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. An Engineering cost estimate of
improvements associated with public infrastructures including but not limited to street, street grading,
utilities, stormwater quality and water quantity facilities, sanitary sewer, streetlights, and franchise
utilities are required at the time of PFI Permit submittal. When the water system is under the City of
Tigard jurisdiction, an Engineering cost estimate of water improvement must be listed as a separate
line item from the total cost estimate. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 55 OF 68
the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility
Improvement Permit plans must conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards,
which are available at City Hall and the City’s web page (www.tigard-or.gov).
Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain all required approvals and permits for
construction from all necessary agencies, including but not limited to, ODOT in accordance with the
ODOT Response Letter #8942 (dated April 29, 2021).
Through the conditions of approval, this standard is met.
18.910.090 Sanitary Sewers
A. Sewers required. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to
connect developments to existing mains in compliance with Clean Water Services
requirements and the comprehensive plan.
B. Sewer plan approval. The city engineer shall approve all sanitary sewer plans and
proposed systems prior to issuance of development permits involving sewer service.
C. Over sizing. Proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional
development within the area as projected by the comprehensive plan.
D. Permits denied. Development permits may be restricted by the approval authority where
a deficiency exists in the existing sewer system or portion thereof which cannot be
rectified within the development and which if not rectified will result in a threat to public
health or safety, surcharging of existing mains, or violations of state or federal standards
pertaining to operation of the sewage treatment system.
The preliminary utility plan provided by the applicant shows connection to an existing eight-inch sanitary
sewer main located within SW Hall Boulevard.
Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit site plans as part of the PFI Permit
showing the proposed sanitary sewer system and associated facilities to be designed and constructed in
accordance with the City of Tigard and CWS Design and Construction Standards.
Prior to final building inspection, the proposed sanitary sewer system and associated facilities must be
constructed, completed, and/or satisfied. The applicant must obtain conditional acceptance from the City
and provide a two-year maintenance assurance for said improvements.
No oversizing of sanitary sewer is proposed deemed necessary.
Through conditions of approval, this standard is met.
18.910.100 Storm Drainage
A. General provisions. The Director and City Engineer shall issue a development permit
only where adequate provisions for stormwater and floodwater runoff have been made,
and:
1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary
sewerage system;
2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any
intersection or allowed to flood any street; and
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 56 OF 68
3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal
plan.
The applicant has proposed a storm water drainage system separate and independent of any sanitary
sewerage system. Inlets are provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection. Surface
water drainage patterns are shown on the development proposal plan. These criteria are met.
B. Easements. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel
or stream, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way
conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as
will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance.
The development is not traversed by a watercourse or drainageway. This standard is not applicable.
C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large
enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether
inside or outside the development, and the City Engineer.
D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the
additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage
facility, the director and engineer shall withhold approval of the development until
provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until
provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development
in compliance with Clean Water Services requirements.
A preliminary storm drainage report was submitted as part of the land use submittal. The applicant has
proposed to meet CWS standards for water quality and water quantity through a combination of an onsite
storm filter cartridges and underground detention. As shown on the preliminary civil set, the stormwater
system will outfall at the southeast corner of the proposed development. The applicant submitted
preliminary plans for storm drainage and a preliminary drainage report. The applicant has provided the
minimum 15-foot-wide public utility easement as required by CWS standards for conveyance of public
stormwater through the site. See findings in Section 18.910.050.
The applicant’s preliminary drainage report also provides calculations and a conceptual plan for meeting
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers SLOPES V standards for stormwater requirements for site impacts
to the wetlands. Final approval of stormwater design details are subject to the City Engineer’s review,
modification and approval.
Improvements associated with public infrastructure including street and right-of-way dedication, utilities,
grading, water quality and quantity facilities, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility
connections for future utility extensions are subject to the City Engineer’s review, modification, and
approval.
Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit site plans and a final storm drainage
report as part of the PFI Permit indicating how run-off generated by the development will be collected,
conveyed, treated and detained for review and approval. The storm drainage report must be prepared
and include a maintenance plan in accordance with CWS Design and Construction Standards and the
City of Tigard Standards.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 57 OF 68
Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection
Authorization prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PFI Permit. Plans must be submitted to the City
of Tigard for review. The City will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review.
Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a performance bond for all stormwater
treatment facilities associated with the development.
Prior to final building inspection all public utility facilities including but not limited to storm drainage,
water quality and quantity, sanitary sewer, water, gas, electrical, communication, and wireless must be
completed. Private storm water quality and quantity facilities must be provided with two years of
maintenance and entered into a stormwater maintenance agreement with the City.
Through the conditions of approval, this standard is met.
18.910.110 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways
A. Bikeway extension.
1. As a standard, bike lanes shall be required along all arterial and collector routes
and where identified on the city’s adopted bicycle plan in the transportation system
plan (TSP). Bike lane requirements along collectors within the downtown urban
renewal district shall be determined by the City Engineer unless specified in Table
18.910.1.
2. Developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the city’s adopted
pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such
bikeways through the dedication of easements or rights-of-way, provided such
dedication is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the
development.
3. Any new street improvement project shall include bicycle lanes as required in this
chapter and on the adopted bicycle plan.
The City’s Transportation System Plan identifies bike lanes along SW Hall Boulevard, consistent with the
arterial street section. The required half street frontage improvements will include widening the pavement
cross section to provide a future bike lane. This standard is met.
18.910.120 Utilities
A. Underground utilities. All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for
electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities
shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface
mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground,
temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines
operating at 50,000 volts or above, and:
1. The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to
provide the underground services;
2. The city reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities;
3. All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in
streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets;
and
4. Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street
improvements when service connections are made.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 58 OF 68
B. Information on development plans. The applicant for a development shall show on the
development plan or in the explanatory information, easements for all underground
utility facilities, and:
1. Plans showing the location of all underground facilities as described herein shall
be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval; and
2. Care shall be taken in all cases to ensure that above ground equipment does not
obstruct vision clearance areas for vehicular traffic.
C. Exception to undergrounding requirement.
1. The developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding costs when the
development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are
not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines
that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the
benefit of undergrounding in conjunction with the development. The
determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the
only, such situation is a short frontage development for which undergrounding
would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-
ground utilities facilities.
2. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not
underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the
applicant’s property shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding.
3. Properties within the MU-CBD zone shall be exempt from the requirements for
undergrounding of utility lines and from the fee in-lieu of undergrounding.
4. The exceptions in Paragraphs 18.910.120.C.1 through 3 shall apply only to existing
utility lines. All new utility lines shall be placed underground.
D. Fee in-lieu of undergrounding.
1. The City Engineer shall establish utility service areas in the city. All development
which occurs within a utility service area shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding
for utilities if the development does not provide underground utilities, unless
exempted by this chapter.
2. The City Engineer shall establish the fee by utility service area which shall be
determined based upon the estimated cost to underground utilities within each
service area. The total estimated cost for undergrounding in a service area shall be
allocated on a front-foot basis to each party within the service area. The fee due
from any developer shall be calculated based on a front-foot basis.
3. A developer shall receive a credit against the fee for costs incurred in the
undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. The City Engineer shall determine
the amount of the credit, after review of cost information submitted by the
applicant with the request for credit.
4. The funds collected in each service area shall be used for undergrounding utilities
within the city at large. The City Engineer shall prepare and maintain a list of
proposed undergrounding projects which may be funded with the fees collected by
the city. The list shall indicate the estimated timing and cost of each project. The
list shall be submitted to the city council for their review and approval annually.
The applicant’s narrative has indicated intent to comply with the requirement for all existing overhead
utilities along the project frontage and proposed new utilities to be placed underground. A fee-in-lieu of
undergrounding is not proposed by the applicant.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 59 OF 68
Prior to final building inspection, the applicant must place all existing and proposed utilities
underground.
Through the conditions of approval, this standard is met.
18.910.130 Cash or Bond Required
A. Guarantee. All improvements installed by the developer shall be guaranteed as to
workmanship and material for a period of 1 year following acceptance by the city
council.
B. Cash deposit or bond. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the
amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer.
C. Compliance requirements. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and
conditions of Section 18.830.070.
Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a performance bond for all public
improvements and private stormwater treatment facilities associated with the development.
Prior to building inspection, all improvements associated with public infrastructure including but not
limited to street improvement under the City of Tigard jurisdiction must be constructed, completed
and/or satisfied. The applicant must obtain conditional acceptance from the City and provide a two-year
maintenance assurance for said improvements.
Prior to final building inspection, all public utility facilities including but not limited to storm drainage,
water quality and quantity, sanitary sewer, water, gas, electrical, communication, and wireless must be
completed. Private storm water quality and quantity facilities, the applicant must provide a two-year
maintenance assurance and enter into a stormwater maintenance agreement with the City.
Through the conditions of approval, this standard is met.
18.910.140 Monuments—Replacement Required
Any monuments that are disturbed before all improvements are completed by the subdivider
shall be replaced prior to final acceptance of the improvements.
The applicant’s narrative has acknowledged intent to comply with this requirement. It is feasible and
possible to meet this standard through the PFI permitting process.
18.910.150 Installation Prerequisite
A. Approval required. No public improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers,
streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except
after the plans have been approved by the city, permit fee paid, and permit issued.
B. Permit fee. The permit fee is required to defray the cost and expenses incurred by the
city for construction and other services in connection with the improvement. The
permit fee shall be set by council resolution.
The applicant’s narrative has acknowledged intent to comply with this requirement. It is feasible and
possible to meet this standard through the PFI permitting process.
18.910.170 Plan Check
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 60 OF 68
A. Submittal requirements. Work shall not begin until construction plans and
construction estimates have been submitted and checked for adequacy and approved
by the City Engineer in writing. The developer can obtain detailed information about
submittal requirements from the City Engineer.
B. Compliance. All such plans shall be prepared in compliance with requirements of the
city.
Improvements associated with public infrastructure including street and right-of-way dedication, utilities,
grading, water quality and quantity facilities, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility
connections must be designed in accordance with the following codes and standards:
• City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards
• Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards
• Tigard Community Development Codes, Municipal Codes
• Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) Fire Codes
• Other applicable County, State, and Federal Codes and Standard Guidelines
Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit the exact legal name, address and
telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the “Permittee”, and
who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. Specify if the entity is a corporation,
limited partnership, LLC, etc. and the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name
of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information will delay processing of project
documents.
Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a construction vehicle access and parking
plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during
the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking must be provided onsite.
No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public
streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the
construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application and must include the vehicles
of all suppliers and employees associated with the project.
The applicant’s narrative has acknowledged intent to comply with this requirement. It is feasible and
possible to meet this standard through the Conditions of Approval and the PFI permitting process.
18.910.180 Notice to City
A. Commencement. Work shall not begin until the city has been notified in advance.
B. Resumption. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the
city is notified.
The applicant’s narrative has acknowledged intent to comply with this requirement. It is feasible and
possible to meet this standard through the PFI permitting process.
18.910.190 City Inspection of Improvements
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 61 OF 68
Improvements shall be constructed under the inspection and to the satisfaction of the city.
The city may require changes in typical sections and details if unusual conditions arising
during construction warrant such changes in the public interest.
The applicant’s narrative has acknowledged intent to comply with this requirement. It is feasible and
possible to meet this standard through the PFI permitting process.
18.910.200 Engineer’s Written Certification Required
The developer’s engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the city
that all improvements, workmanship, and materials are in accord with current and standard
engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to city acceptance of the
subdivision’s improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance.
The applicant’s narrative has acknowledged intent to comply with this requirement. It is feasible and
possible to meet this standard through the PFI permitting process.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the applicable improvement standards have not been fully
met, but can be through conditions of approval.
18.920 Access, Egress and Circulation
18.920.020 Applicability
A. Applicability. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the
construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures and to a change of
use that increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or changes the access
requirements.
This application is for residential development, which is considered development. Accordingly, the
provisions of Chapter 18.920 Access, Egress and Circulation apply.
18.920.030 General Provisions
B. Access plan requirements. No land use approval or development permit shall be
approved or issued until plans are approved, as provided by this chapter that demonstrate
how access, egress, and circulation requirements are to be met.
The applicant has submitted a preliminary civil plan containing proposed access, egress and circulation
routes through the site. See findings in Section 18.920.030.I.
D. Public street access. All vehicular access and egress as required in Subsections
18.920.030.H, I and J shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the
city for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous.
As shown in the preliminary site plan, all vehicular access will be via public street. This standard is
met.
E. Surfacing. Driveways and drive aisles must be paved with a dust-free, hard-surfaced
material, or utilize a turf grid or open joint pavers.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 62 OF 68
As shown on the preliminary civil plan, the proposed driveways and drive aisles are paved. This standard
is met.
G. Pedestrian access. Paths for pedestrian access and circulation are required to, through,
and sometimes between development sites. Path standards are provided in 18.200
Residential Development Standards, 18.300 Nonresidential Development Standards, and
Chapter 18.410, Off-Street Parking and Loading. Additional standards may also apply if
the site is located in a plan district.
The development meets the requirements of Chapter 18.230, Apartments, and Chapter 18.410, Off-Street
Parking and Loading, as discussed in this decision. This standard is met.
H. Inadequate or hazardous access.
1. Applications for development permits will be referred to the Director for review
when, in the opinion of the Director, the access proposed:
a. Would cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or
b. Would provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or
c. Would in any other way cause hazardous conditions to exist that would
constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety, and general
welfare.
2. Direct individual access to arterial or collector streets from single detached house
lots is discouraged. Direct access to collector or arterial streets will be considered
only if there is no practical alternative way to access the site. If direct access is
allowed by the city, the applicant will be required to mitigate for any safety or
neighborhood traffic management (NTM) impacts deemed applicable by the
City Engineer. This may include, but will not be limited to, the construction of a
vehicle turnaround on the site to eliminate the need for a vehicle to back out onto
the roadway.
3. The design of the service drive or drives must not require or facilitate the
backward movement or other maneuvering of a vehicle within a street, other than
an alley. Single detached houses are exempt from this requirement.
As shown on the applicant’s preliminary civil drawings, the applicant has provided the required cul-de-
sac terminus per Section 18.910.030.L within the public right-of-way for the extension of SW Montage
Lane. The proposed development does not propose inadequate or hazardous access. The applicant has
not proposed direct individual access to the arterial for a single detached house lot. The design of the
service does not require or facilitate the backward movement or other maneuvering of a vehicle within a
street. This standard is met.
I. Access management.
1. An access report must be submitted with all new development that verifies design of
driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance,
and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the city, and
AASHTO (depending on jurisdiction of facility).
2. Driveways must not be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street
intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic
commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 63 OF 68
from a collector or arterial street intersection is 150 feet, measured from the right-of-
way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback
may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer
review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant’s traffic engineer. In a
case where a development has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must
explore any option for shared access with the adjacent lot. If shared access is not
possible or practicable, the driveway must be placed as far from the intersection as
possible.
3. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector is 200 feet. The
minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial is 600 feet.
4. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street is 125 feet.
The applicant has submitted a preliminary civil plan and traffic study (Exhibit K) containing proposed
access, egress, and circulation routes through the site. Preliminary civil plans have been submitted by
the applicant to demonstrate preliminary compliance with the access, egress, a nd circulation
requirements of this chapter. The proposed driveways are not located in the influence area of a
collector or arterial street. The applicant has proposed one driveway off of SW Hall Boulevard, two
driveways off of SW Montage Lane and two driveways off of SW 92nd Avenue. The proposed
driveways meet the minimum spacing requirements based on the respective functional classifications.
This standard is met. This standard is met.
J. Minimum access requirements for residential uses.
1. Vehicle access and egress for residential uses must comply with the standards
provided in Table 18.920.1.
2. Vehicular access to apartment structures must be within 50 feet of the first-story
entrance or the first-story landing of a stairway, ramp, or elevator leading to the
dwelling units;
3. Private residential access drives must be provided and maintained in compliance
with the Oregon Fire Code.
4. Access drives in excess of 150 feet in length must be provided with approved
provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus by one of the following:
a. A circular, paved surface having a minimum turn radius measured from center
point to outside edge of 35 feet;
b. A hammerhead-configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead
having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet;
c. The maximum cross slope of a required turnaround is 5 percent.
5. Vehicle turnouts, (providing a minimum total driveway width of 24 feet for a
distance of at least 30 feet), may be required so as to reduce the need for excessive
vehicular backing motions in situations where two vehicles traveling in opposite
directions meet on driveways in excess of 200 feet in length.
6. Where allowed, minimum width for driveway approaches to arterials or collector
streets must be at least 20 feet so as to avoid traffic turning from the street having
to wait for traffic exiting the site.
The proposed development requires one driveway that must comply with the standards provided in Table
18.920.1. Vehicular access to apartment structures must be within 50 feet of the first-story entrance or
the first-story landing of a stairway, ramp, or elevator leading to the dwelling units. Private residential
access drives must be provided and maintained in compliance with the Oregon Fire Code. Access drives
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 64 OF 68
in excess of 150 feet in length must be provided with approved provisions for turning around of fire
apparatus.
Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide written approval from TVF&R for fire
flow, hydrant placement, and emergency vehicular access and turn around.
The proposed driveway to SW Hall Boulevard is at least 20 feet in width.
This standard can be met through conditions of approval and the PFI permitting process.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the applicable access, egress, and circulation standards
have not been met, but can be through conditions of approval.
18.930 Vision Clearance Areas
18.930.020 Applicability
A. Applicability. The provisions of this chapter apply to all development, including the
construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures, and to a change of
use that increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or changes the access
requirements.
The proposed development includes construction of new structures. This chapter applies.
18.930.030 Vision Clearance Requirements
A. At corners. Except within the MU-CBD zone, a vision clearance area must be maintained
on the corners of all property adjacent to the intersection of two streets, a street and a
railroad, or a driveway providing access to a public or private street.
B. Obstructions prohibited. A clear vision area must be maintained free of vehicles, hedges,
plantings, fences, wall structures, and temporary or permanent obstructions (except for
an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding 3 feet in height, measured from the top of
the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade. Trees exceeding 3
feet in height may be located in this area, provided all branches below 8 feet are removed.
C. Additional topographical constraints. Where the crest of a hill or vertical curve conditions
contribute to the obstruction of clear vision areas at a street or driveway intersection,
hedges, plantings, fences, walls, wall structures, and temporary or permanent
obstructions must be further reduced in height or eliminated to comply with the intent
of the required clear vision area.
The vision clearance requirements of this chapter are applicable. The applicant has proposed private
driveways on SW Hall Boulevard, SW Montage Lane and SW 92nd Avenue. See findings in 18.930.040.
18.930.040 Computations
A. Arterial streets. The vision clearance area is not less than 35 feet on each side of the
intersection.
B. Non-arterial streets.
1. Non-arterial streets 24 feet or more in width. At all intersections of 2 non-arterial
streets, a non-arterial street and a driveway, and a non-arterial street or driveway and
railroad where at least 1 of the streets or driveways is 24 feet or more in width, the
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 65 OF 68
vision clearance area is a triangle formed by the right-of-way or property lines along
such lots and a straight line joining the right-of-way or property line at points that are
30 feet distance from the intersection of the right-of-way line and measured along
such lines. See Figure 18.930.1.
2. Non-arterial streets less than 24 feet in width. At all intersections of two non-arterial
streets, a non-arterial street and a driveway, and a non-arterial street or driveway and
railroad where both streets or driveways are less than 24 feet in width, the vision
clearance area is a triangle whose base extends 30 feet along the street right-of-way
line in both directions from the centerline of the accessway at the front setback line
of single detached houses, and 30 feet back from the property line on all other types
of uses.
The proposed development has frontage on a both an arterial and a non-arterial street. This standard is
applicable. As shown on the applicant’s preliminary site plan, vision clearance triangles have been
established at the intersections of the new proposed driveways in preliminary accordance with the
standards of this chapter.
Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a Preliminary Sight Distance Certification
for review and approval.
Prior to final building inspection, the applicant must submit a Final Sight Distance Certification for review
and approval.
Through the Conditions of Approval, this standard is met.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the a applicable vision clearance areas standards have
not been fully met, but can be met through conditions of approval.
FINDING: Based on the analysis in this report, the all applicable site development review criteria
have not been fully met, but can be met through conditions of approval.
ADDITIONAL CITY AND AGENCY REQUIREMENTS:
Easements:
Prior to final building inspection, the applicant must record all public access and utility easements
including for storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and franchise utilities and provide recorded copies to the
City.
Fire and Life Safety:
Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide written approval from TVF&R for fire
flow, hydrant placement, and emergency vehicular access and turn around.
Public Water System:
The existing public water mains are under the jurisdiction of Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD).
The site plans indicate that services will be provided to serve the proposed development via the existing
public water main located on SW Hall Boulevard.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 66 OF 68
Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain approvals and permits from Tualatin Valley
Water District (TVWD) for all proposed and/or extensions of public water lines, hydrants and water
services prior to issuance of city permits.
Storm Water Quality:
The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management regulations established by CWS Design and
Construction which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. In addition, a maintenance
plan must be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained
through the year.
Prior to commencing site improvements, the applicant must obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection
Authorization prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PFI permit. Plans must be submitted to the city for
review. The city will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review.
Grading and Erosion Control:
Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the
amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting
from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates
erosion. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit an erosion control plan for review
and approval. The plan must comply to the "CWS Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and
Planning Manual” (current edition).
The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb one or more acre of land. The site
is greater than one acre.
Prior to commencing any site improvements, the applicant must submit a final grading plan the existing
and proposed contours. The plan must detail the provisions for surface drainage of the site and show
that it will be graded to ensure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage
system approved by the Engineering Department.
The design engineer must also indicate, on the grading plan, areas that will have natural slopes between
10 percent and 20 percent, as well as areas that will have natural slopes in excess of 20 percent. This
information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and permits will be
necessary upon development.
Address Assignments:
The City of Tigard is responsible for the approval of new street names and assigning addresses for parcels
within the City of Tigard. Contact Oscar Contreras with Engineering Division at 503-718-2678 to ensure
new addresses are assigned. Prior to permit submittal, the applicant must pay the addressing fee. The
address fee will be assessed in accordance with the current Master Fee Schedule.
SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
The City of Tigard Police Department was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal and stated they had
no objections to this proposal.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 67 OF 68
SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS
Staff sent request for comments on this project on March 30, 2021 and October 26, 2021. The following
agency comments were received:
Clean Water Services issued a Service Provider Letter (CWS file 20-003178) stating the development
site contains a wetland and vegetated corridor in degraded condition. The agency also submitted written
comments, dated April 22, 2021, stating that a storm water connection permit is required. The decision
has been conditioned to comply with CWS requirements.
Comcast was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal and stated that any relocations needed will be
responsibility of developer.
Oregon Department of State Lands was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal and stated that
jurisdiction wetlands existing on the property (WD2018-00493). Based on the site plan it appears that the
wetlands will be impacted by the development and a state permit is required. In addition, approval from
the Army Corps of Engineers may also be required. A condition of approval has been added that requires
the applicant to comply to obtain all required agency approvals.
ODOT was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal and stated that donation of right-of-way on SW Hall
Boulevard will be required and improvements on SW Hall Boulevard will require approval by ODOT. A
condition of approval has been added that requires the applicant to comply to obtain all required agency
approvals.
Pride Disposal was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal and stated that Waste Management is the
provider.
Tualatin Valley Water District was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal and stated they had no
objections to this proposal.
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal and responded on April
15, 2021. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue provided comments regarding Fire Apparatus Access,
Firefighting Water Supplies, Fire Hydrants, and Building Access and Fire Service Features. A condition
of approval has been added that requires the applicant to comply with all TVF&R standards.
Washington County was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal and provided a copy of the pre-
application notes that the applicant previously had with the County. The County stated that these would
no longer apply if the property is annexed into the City.
ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 68 OF 68
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Plan Set
Attachment 2: Zoning Map
Attachment 3: Agency Comments
Attachment 4: Public Comments
February 15, 2022
PREPARED BY: Agnes Lindor
Associate Planner
February 15, 2022
APPROVED BY: Tom McGuire
Assistant Community Development Director
DRAWING INDEXSHEET IDSHEET TITLEA0COVER SHEETA1SITE PLAN / UNDERGROUND PARKINGA2SECOND FLOOR PLANA3THIRD FLOOR PLANA4FOURTH FLOOR PLANA5ROOF PLANA7ELEVATIONSA8ELEVATIONSA9BUILDING SECTIONSA13PERSPECTIVE RENDERINGSA14PERSPECTIVE RENDERINGSA15PERSPECTIVE RENDERINGSC101EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANC102AERIAL CIRCULATION PLANC103TVF&R FIRE TRUCK TURNING MOVEMENTC104PROPOSED GRADING PLANC105C106SW HALL BLVD - STREET AND UTILITY PLANC107PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER AND WATER PLANC 1 OF 1TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYL1TREE PRESERVATION & REMOVAL PLANL2LANDSCAPE PLANL3TREE CANOPY SITE PLANL4PARKING LOT TREE CANOPY PLANL5LANDSCAPE DETAILS AND NOTESDEVELOPER:TIM TAYLORADAMSON HOLDINGS, LLC6312 SW CAPITAL HWY, #133PORTLAND, OR 97239(503) 330-2615OPERATOR:DOUG SPROUL, PRESIDENTMOSAIC MANAGEMENT, INC.1900 HINES ST SE #150SALEM, OR 97302(503) 391-9999ARCHITECT:AARON CLARKLENITY ARCHITECTURE, INC.3150 KETTLE COURT SESALEM, OR 97301(503) 399-1090LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:BRIAN LINDLENITY ARCHITECTURE, INC.3150 KETTLE COURT SESALEM, OR 97301(503) 399-1090CIVIL ENGINEER:CHRIS KITTRIDGE, P.E.KITTREDGE ENGINEERS, LLC6565 SW 207TH AVENUEALOHA, OR 97078(503) 708-3942GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER:SCOTT L, HARDMAN, P.E., G.E.HARDMAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC.10110 SW NIMBUS AVETIGARD, OR 97223(503) 530-8076TRAFFIC CONSULTANT:BRIAN DUNN, P.E.KITTLESON AND ASSOCIATES851 SW 6TH AVE, SUITE 600PORTLAND, OR 97204(503) 228-5230WETLAND CONSULTANT:DAVID MONNIN, PWSTERRA SCIENCE, INC.4710 SW KELLY AVE, SUITE 100PORTLAND, OR 97239(503) 274-2100DESIGN TEAM CONTACT INFORMATIONarchitecture, inc.MOSAICMANAGEMENTHDOO BOYG., TLJDUG, ORASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CAREA0A1.2SITE EXHIBITSASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CAREDATE: 12/27/2020TIGARD, ORRESUBMITTAL DATE: 04/21/2021RESUBMITTAL DATE: 10/01/2021RESUBMITTAL DATE: 02/01/2022CEDARBROOKPROPOSED STORM DRAINAGE PLANE1.0SITE LIGHTING PLANAttachment 1
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
1 6 14
14
D
KK
AA
DD
CC
31
31
32
32
2
GG
13
13
109
36
34
A
39
3 5
33
33
A
A9
B
A9
C
A9
D
A9
STAIR
SHARED
PRIV.
PRIV.
PRIV.
PRIV.
PRIV.
SHARED
SHARED
SHARED
SHAREDSHAREDPRIV.PRIV.PRIV.PRIV.SHARED
OFFICES
SHARED MC DINING
SHARED
SHARED
PRIV.
OFFICES
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
KITCHEN/BACK
OF HOUSE/
LAUNDRY/STAFF
LOBBY
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B B
STAIR
ELEV.
BBB
ELEV.
ASSISTED LIVING
COURTYARD
ASSISTED LIVING
DECK 02
MC COURTYARD
C
B
COMMON
MC LIVING /
ACTIVITY AREA
STAIR
SHARED
B B BB
COMMON
COMMON
4
A
B
HH
JJ
BB
35
7 8 11 12
FF
37 38
EE
PRIV.
COM.
architecture ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE
A2HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OR
SCALE:1" = 20'-0"1 SECOND FLOOR REFERENCE PLAN
UNIT COUNT
FLOOR UNIT TYPE QUANTITY
Second Floor A 8
Second Floor B 17
Second Floor PRIV. 11
Second Floor SHARED 11
Third Floor A 28
Third Floor B 38
Third Floor C 1
Fourth Floor A 29
Fourth Floor B 37
Fourth Floor C 1
Grand total: 181
Attachment 1
1 6 14
14
D
KK
AA
DD
CC
31
31
32
32
2
GG
13
13
109
36
34
A
39
3 5
33
33
A
A9
B
A9
C
A9
D
A9
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
COMMON
ABC
A
SITTING
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
A
A
B A A B B B A COMMON
SERVICE
ELEV.
LOBBY
A
A
B B B B B B
BB
ELEV.
A
B
A
COM.
B
B
A
B
A
COMMON
B
A
A
C
B
A
B
B
STAIR
COMMON
COMMON
COM.
B
OPEN TO
COURTYARD
BELOW
STAIR
OPEN TO
COURTYARD
BELOW
STAIR
4
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
HH
JJ
BB
35
7 8 11 12
FF
37 38
EE
COMMON
COM.
COM.
COM.
architecture ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE
A3HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OR
SCALE:1" = 20'-0"1 THIRD FLOOR REFERENCE PLAN
UNIT COUNT
FLOOR UNIT TYPE QUANTITY
Second Floor A 8
Second Floor B 17
Second Floor PRIV. 11
Second Floor SHARED 11
Third Floor A 28
Third Floor B 38
Third Floor C 1
Fourth Floor A 29
Fourth Floor B 37
Fourth Floor C 1
Grand total: 181
Attachment 1
1 6 14
14
D
KK
AA
DD
CC
31
31
32
32
2
GG
13
13
109
36
34
A
39
3 5
33
33
A
A9
B
A9
C
A9
D
A9
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
BA
A
A
A
ELEV.
B B
B
BBB
BBB
A
A
LOBBY
ELEV.
SERVICE
AB
COMMON
A
B
B
A
A
COM.
B
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
BBBAAB
SITTING
B
B
B
B
COMMON
BC COMMON
C
B
STAIR
COM.
STAIR
STAIR
COMMON
OPEN TO
COURTYARD
BELOW
COMMON
COM.
COM.
OPEN TO
COURTYARD
BELOW
4
A
B
A
A
A
HH
JJ
BB
35
7 8 11 12
FF
37 38
EE
COMMON
A
A
COM.
A
COM.
architecture ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE
A4HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OR
SCALE:1" = 20'-0"1 FOURTH FLOOR PLAN
UNIT COUNT
FLOOR UNIT TYPE QUANTITY
Second Floor A 8
Second Floor B 17
Second Floor PRIV. 11
Second Floor SHARED 11
Third Floor A 28
Third Floor B 38
Third Floor C 1
Fourth Floor A 29
Fourth Floor B 37
Fourth Floor C 1
Grand total: 181
Attachment 1
1 6 14
14
D
KK
AA
DD
CC
31
31
32
32
2
GG
13
13
109
36
34
A
39
3 5
33
33
A
A9
A
A9
B
A9
B
A9
C
A9
C
A9
D
A9
D
A9
C
B
4
HH
JJ
BB
35
7 8 11 12
FF
37 38
EE
architecture ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE
A5HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OR
SCALE:1" = 20'-0"1 ROOF PLAN
Attachment 1
U.G. Parking
0' - 0"
Second Floor
11' - 0"
Third Floor
21' - 0"
Fourth Floor
31' - 0"
Roof
41' - 0"
3132363439
T.O. Roof
46' - 0"
33
MAX BLD HT
49' - 5"
A8
1
Sim
353738
56
56
7240
40 56
15 15
1515
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
72
56
56
72
56
56
72
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
26
26
26
41
41
41
722'-0"2'-0"2'-0"2'-0"2'-0"23'-111
2"31'-111
2"17'-41
2"10'-111
2"22'-101
2"23'-51
2"11'-51
2"23'-51
2"11'-51
2"23'-51
2" 30'-01
2"14'-31
2"31'-5"21'-71
2" 9'-2"22'-21
2"11'-51
2"22'-21
2"11'-51
2"
U.G. Parking
0' - 0"
Second Floor
11' - 0"
Third Floor
21' - 0"
Fourth Floor
31' - 0"
Roof
41' - 0"
1 6 1421310935
T.O. Roof
46' - 0"
A
A9
B
A9
C
A9
D
A9
MAX BLD HT
49' - 5"
4 7 8 11 12
1572
56
5656
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
7219
19
19
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15 15
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
52
52
52
52
70
52
52
70
52
52
15
15
15
15
15
15 56
7215
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
72
9'-8"30'-71
2"26'-6"10'-111
2"23'-1"10'-111
2" 22'-101
2"24'-11"14'-3"20'-5"26'-71
2"22'-101
2"23'-51
2"22'-101
2"11'-01
2"23'-2"23'-41
2"14'-0"2'-0"2'-0"2'-0"15 56 15
15
U.G. Parking
0' - 0"
Second Floor
11' - 0"
Third Floor
21' - 0"
Fourth Floor
31' - 0"
Roof
41' - 0"
K G
T.O. Roof
46' - 0"
MAX BLD HT
49' - 5"
HJ F E
52
52
52
52
68
68
68
6
15
15
15
15
19'-8"20'-2"19'-8"
15
U.G. Parking
0' - 0"
Second Floor
11' - 0"
Third Floor
21' - 0"
Fourth Floor
31' - 0"
Roof
41' - 0"
T.O. Roof
46' - 0"
MAX BLD HT
49' - 5"
15
15
15
41
41
41
17'-9"
U.G. Parking
0' - 0"
Second Floor
11' - 0"
Third Floor
21' - 0"
Fourth Floor
31' - 0"
Roof
41' - 0"
14 13
T.O. Roof
46' - 0"
MAX BLD HT
49' - 5"
15
15
1556
56
72 15
15
15
52
52
52
23'-41
2"13'-2"14'-0"2'-0"ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE
A7HALL BLVD, TIGARD, OR
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"A NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"B SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"E EAST ELEVATION KEY PLAN
A
F
B
G
L
ROOF PROJECTIONS
EXTEND A MIN. OF
12" FROM BUILDING
FACADE, TYPICAL.
ROOF OFFSETS ARE
A MIN. OF 2' FROM
THE TOP OF ONE
ROOF SURFACE TO
ANOTHER, TYPICAL.
FACADE ARTICULATION
MIN. OF 2' IN DEPTH AND
40' WIDE MAX, TYPICAL.
ROOF PROJECTIONS
EXTEND A MIN. OF
12" FROM BUILDING
FACADE, TYPICAL.
ROOF OFFSETS ARE
A MIN. OF 2' FROM
THE TOP OF ONE
ROOF SURFACE TO
ANOTHER, TYPICAL.
ROOF PROJECTIONS
EXTEND A MIN. OF
12" FROM BUILDING
FACADE, TYPICAL.
ROOF PROJECTIONS
EXTEND A MIN. OF
12" FROM BUILDING
FACADE, TYPICAL.
ROOF OFFSETS ARE
A MIN. OF 2' FROM
THE TOP OF ONE
ROOF SURFACE TO
ANOTHER, TYPICAL.
FACADE
ARTICULATION MIN. OF
2' IN DEPTH AND 40'
WIDE MAX, TYPICAL.
ROOF OFFSETS ARE
A MIN. OF 2' FROM
THE TOP OF ONE
ROOF SURFACE TO
ANOTHER, TYPICAL.
ROOF OFFSETS ARE
A MIN. OF 2' FROM
THE TOP OF ONE
ROOF SURFACE TO
ANOTHER, TYPICAL.
GLAZING AREA: 3,257 SF
FACADE AREA: 14,852 SF
RATIO: 22%
C
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"C NORTHEAST PARTIAL ELEVATION
H
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"D NORTH PARTIAL ELEVATION
D
J
K
E
GLAZING AREA: 3,335 SF
FACADE AREA: 15,206 SF
RATIO: 22%
GLAZING AREA: 201 SF
FACADE AREA: 777 SF
RATIO: 26%
GLAZING AREA: 430 SF
FACADE AREA: 1,854 SF
RATIO: 23%
GLAZING AREA: 493 SF
FACADE AREA: 2,589 SF
RATIO: 19%
Attachment 1
U.G. Parking
0' - 0"
Second Floor
11' - 0"
Third Floor
21' - 0"
Fourth Floor
31' - 0"
Roof
41' - 0"
D KGA
T.O. Roof
46' - 0"
CB
MAX BLD HT
49' - 5"
H JFE
56 2'-0"56
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
56
56
56
56
56
56
48
37
37
52
52
52
67
52
85
64
64
40'-0"13'-01
2" 20'-71
2"9'-7"18'-81
2"24'-11
2"15'-01
2"16'-11"22'-5"
Second Floor
11' - 0"
Third Floor
21' - 0"
Fourth Floor
31' - 0"
Roof
41' - 0"
AA DDCC
T.O. Roof
46' - 0"
MAX BLD HT
49' - 5"
BB
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
52
52
52 35
35
45
11'-8"11'-3"8'-51
2"25'-11"
U.G. Parking
0' - 0"
Second Floor
11' - 0"
Third Floor
21' - 0"
Fourth Floor
31' - 0"
Roof
41' - 0"
T.O. Roof
46' - 0"
MAX BLD HT
49' - 5"
11'-9"27'-9"12'-21
2"
56 15
15
1515
15
15
56
5615
15
15
15
15
152'-0"2'-0"Second Floor
11' - 0"
Third Floor
21' - 0"
Fourth Floor
31' - 0"
Roof
41' - 0"
T.O. Roof
46' - 0"
MAX BLD HT
49' - 5"
38'-11
2"
56
56
56
15
15
15
65
84
65
U.G. Parking
0' - 0"
Second Floor
11' - 0"
Third Floor
21' - 0"
Fourth Floor
31' - 0"
Roof
41' - 0"
T.O. Roof
46' - 0"
MAX BLD HT
49' - 5"
F E
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
7215
15
15
15
28'-81
2"22'-1" 11'-01
2"2'-0"Second Floor
11' - 0"
Third Floor
21' - 0"
Fourth Floor
31' - 0"
Roof
41' - 0"
31 32
T.O. Roof
46' - 0"
33
MAX BLD HT
49' - 5"
92
65
65 56
56
56
29'-11
2"
MOSAIC
MANAGEMENTASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE
A8HALL BLVD, TIGARD, OR
KEY PLAN
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"G WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"L NORTHWEST ELEVATION
ROOF PROJECTIONS
EXTEND A MIN. OF
12" FROM BUILDING
FACADE, TYPICAL.
ROOF OFFSETS ARE
A MIN. OF 2' FROM
THE TOP OF ONE
ROOF SURFACE TO
ANOTHER, TYPICAL.
ROOF PROJECTIONS
EXTEND A MIN. OF
12" FROM BUILDING
FACADE, TYPICAL.
ROOF PROJECTIONS
EXTEND A MIN. OF
12" FROM BUILDING
FACADE, TYPICAL.
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION - ENLARGED ROOF
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"H SOUTHWEST PARTIAL ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"J NORTHWEST PARTIAL ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"F EAST PARTIAL ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"K SOUTHWEST PARTIAL ELEVATION
A
F
B
G
L
C
H
D
J
K
E
GLAZING AREA: 524 SF
FACADE AREA: 2,019 SF
RATIO: 26%
GLAZING AREA: 390 SF
FACADE AREA: 1,571 SF
RATIO: 25%
GLAZING AREA: 427 SF
FACADE AREA: 1,420 SF
RATIO: 30%
GLAZING AREA: 348 SF
FACADE AREA: 2,101 SF
RATIO: 16%
GLAZING AREA: 376 SF
FACADE AREA: 2,005 SF
RATIO: 19%
GLAZING AREA: 12,83 SF
FACADE AREA: 7,484 SF
RATIO: 17%
Attachment 1
U.G. Parking
0' -0"
Second Floor
11' -0"
Third Floor
21' -0"
Fourth Floor
31' -0"
Roof
41' -0"
K G
T.O. Roof
46' -0"
MAX BLD HT
49' -5"
HJ F E
U.G. Parking
0' -0"
Second Floor
11' -0"
Third Floor
21' -0"
Fourth Floor
31' -0"
Roof
41' -0"
DKG
T.O. Roof
46' -0"
MAX BLD HT
49' -5"
HJ F E
U.G. Parking
0' -0"
Second Floor
11' -0"
Third Floor
21' -0"
Fourth Floor
31' -0"
Roof
41' -0"
D A
T.O. Roof
46' -0"
C B
MAX BLD HT
49' -5"
Second Floor
11' -0"
Third Floor
21' -0"
Fourth Floor
31' -0"
Roof
41' -0"
D A
T.O. Roof
46' -0"
C B
MAX BLD HT
49' -5"
A
A9
A
A9
B
A9
B
A9
C
A9
C
A9
D
A9
D
A9
architecture ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE
A9HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OR
SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"A Section 1
SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"B Section 2
SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"C Section 3
SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"D Section 4
SCALE:1" = 100'-0"1 KEY PLAN
Attachment 1
architecture, inc.MOSAICMANAGEMENTHall Blvd., Tigard, ORASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CAREAAttachment 1
architecture, inc.MOSAICMANAGEMENTHall Blvd., Tigard, ORASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CAREAAttachment 1
architecture, inc.MOSAICMANAGEMENTHall Blvd., Tigard, ORASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CAREA15Attachment 1