Loading...
02/05/2007 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes February 5, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commissioners Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, and Walsh. Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Vermilyea Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner; Cheryl Caines,Assistant Planner; Kim McMillan, Development Review Engineer;Jerree Lewis, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS None 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES None 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2006-00007 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS USE REGULATIONS AMENDMENT REQUEST: A Zone Ordinance Amendment to amend the Residential Zoning Districts Chapter (18.510) of the Tigard Development Code. The proposed amendment would allow school bus parking as a restricted use on school sites within all residential zones. This use is restricted to high school sites only and cannot be within 200 feet of a property line abutting a residential use. LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: All Residential Zones. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390, 18.510, and 18.745; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 12; The Metro PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 5,2007—Page I Urban Growth Management Plan Titles 1, 8, and 12; Metro Regional Framework Plan Policies 1.14 and 8.3; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 12. STAFF REPORT Cheryl Caines summarized the staff report. She advised that the applicant is requesting to amend the use regulations within residential zoning districts to allow bus parking as a restricted use on high school sites. The Development Code does not address this issue and therefore the use is not permitted in the zone. The proposed code language describes the circumstances under which bus parking is allowed - high school sites, not within 200 feet of a property with residential use. Staff is proposing one slight modification to call out bus parking as an accessory use and not a restricted use. Bus parking is not being proposed as a separate use classification. The placement of an "R" within the use table by the school use makes it seem that schools are a restricted use. That is not the purpose of this amendment. The only site currently affected by this change is Tigard High School. Any future proposed high school would be allowed to include this as an accessory use if the code is revised. The current bus storage facility on Pacific Hwy. has been sold. The District must find a new location for their buses. This application is only to amend the code. The buses will be parked in the NE corner, adjacent to sites zoned Industrial Park and developed with commercial buildings. Buses were previously parked in this location, but it was not a permitted use. Residential uses to the north and west are separated by streets. Homes within the Waverly Estates subdivision are adjacent to the site's southern boundary, but are approximately 800 feet from the proposed parking location. During the review process, concerns over diesel fumes and noise were raised by a property owner to the south of the school site. No strong evidence was provided to prove or disprove that the buses will have effects on air quality. Staff searched the internet and found an Oregon Department of Education memo addressing the issue of diesel exhaust and presents guidelines to school districts to reduce student exposure. At this time, it's unknown what regulations, if any, the Tigard-Tualatin School District has adopted. Staff has recommended that the applicant further address this issue during the hearing. Staff advised that there is no limit on the number of school buses that can be parked at the High School. The Planning Commission can choose to include this in the code language. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 5,2007—Page 2 Roy Burling, CFO, Tigard-Tualatin School District;Judy Frieze, Director of Transportation; Ed Murphy from Parati, 20085 NW Tanasbourne Dr., Hillsboro, OR 97124; and Randy Harvey, Director of Operations for TTSD, provided details of the request. Currently, buses are parked at the old administration site on Hwy. 99W. Previous to that, they were parked at Tigard High School. The School District is in the process of selling the old administration site and First Student, the contract provider, has been asked to find a parcel of land to accommodate their large buses. The District will park 17 buses at the High School. If First Student can find a parcel large enough to accommodate all the buses, the District would be open to that arrangement. The District considered improving the bus yard on Hall Blvd., but found that there were issues with wetlands and the site was constrained. It was too expensive to develop the site to add the number of spaces they needed. The District plans to park only the short buses behind the Swim Center. Regarding noise and traffic, the buses are dispatched in a staggered manner— they don't all leave at the same time. They expect a minimal impact on Durham Road. In terms of air quality issues, the District has informally adopted the guidelines as written by the Department of Education. They made a commitment to take the guidelines to the Board to be formally adopted. In terms of mitigating pollution and diesel effects, the buses are regularly maintained and tuned up. In addition, the fleet is kept current so they meet the most current clean air standards. The Planning Commission expressed concern about creating noise in neighborhood. Another concern is about runoff of grease, oil, and fuel into the groundwater and storm water. The applicant said they would try to comply with Clean Water regulations. With the current remodel of Tigard High School, one of the conditions was to provide monitoring of the storm water system. The District has entered into a contract for that service. They are sensitive to environmental concerns. Regarding traffic, the Commission asked if it would be difficult to get out onto Durham Road and asked if any traffic counts or analysis had been done. The applicant advised that this application is only a legislative change/text amendment to allow buses to park on the High School site. The main condition is to keep it back 200' from any residentially zoned property. If paving for additional parking becomes necessary, it would automatically kick in a site development review which would then require a traffic study. Buses leaving the site are staggered over an hour and a half. The applicant advised that only TTSD school buses would be stored at this limited space. The applicant was asked if they have drawn up any plans to comply with air and water quality standards. They said they would ask the School Board to formally adopt the Oregon Department of Education guidelines. They are willing to comply with any other necessary PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 5,2007—Page 3 guidelines. Over time, as older buses are replaced, they will all meet 2007 air quality standards. Staff advised that this legislative amendment applies to the entire parcel, but buses could not be parked within 200' of residential use. There will be another review when the District modifies the access and moves the parking on site. At that point, water quality measures, parking, and maneuvering on site will be reviewed. The applicant advised that bus drivers will park their personal cars at the pool and High School parking areas. There will be fencing around the buses. They have not yet decided what to do with existing portables on the site. PUBLIC TESTIMONY— IN FAVOR None PUBLIC TESTIMONY— IN OPPOSITION Malcolm Pennington, 16653 SW 88th Place, Tigard, OR 97224 expressed his opposition to the proposed amendment. He is concerned about health effects from diesel exhaust on students, the fact that there is no restriction on the number of buses, and noise. He believes the contractor should find their own parking location, possibly in an industrial area. He submitted written testimony (Exhibit A). The Commission asked staff what would happen if the Commission decided not to move forward with the request. Staff answered that the Commission has 3 options: recommend the amendment as written; put further restrictions on the footnote; or recommend denial. All recommendations would go to City Council for a second public hearing. APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL The applicant reiterated that this is just a legislative change for school bus parking, not within 200' of residential properties. The text amendment will provide greater flexibility in the future. It's meant as a temporary stop-gap approach, but may become long term. Other buses won't be parking there. The District wouldn't be able to add more buses;pre-trips are done in 15 minutes (they don't idle the whole time); and there's already a catch basin with a fuel separator on site. The applicant advised that the buses will be parked adjacent to the soccer field. The field is not used in the early morning and in the afternoon, buses come in are shut down immediately. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 5,2007—Page 4 The Commission discussed the application. Some of the Commissioners were concerned about this becoming a permanent location for the school buses. They would rather see this as a temporary use, maybe for 2 years. After that time,it could be reevaluated. They do not want it to be open-ended. Staff advised that there is a temporary use section in the Development Code. Staff could go back and redraft language for that section to allow bus barn parking on school property as a temporary use. If it were allowed as a temporary use, the district could come back multiple times to request a temporary use permit. If the Commissioners would like the amendment redrafted as temporary use, they would have to recommend denial to City Council. In the recommendation, the Commission could propose that it be redrafted as a temporary use. Commissioner Walsh moved to recommend approval as presented. President Inman seconded the motion. The motion failed by a vote of 2-3. Commissioner Walsh and President Inman voted in favor; Commissioners Caffall, Doherty, and Anderson voted against. After discussion about other possible options, the Planning Commission decided to re-open the public hearing to hear more testimony. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED Kelly Hossaini, from Miller-Nash, advised that there is limited area for bus parking; if the District wants to do anything more, they would have to apply to the City. They have a storm water system already in place, they're not near any residences, and the buses comply with air standards. This legislative amendment gives them flexibility to park their buses, but it's not optimum for long term use. If the Commission wants the District to meet other standards, they will have to be very specific what those standards are. Randy Harvey,TTSD Director of Operations, testified that this particular site was previously used for parking short buses and they had no problems. They won't take away any more space than they absolutely have to. The solution may not be temporary; it may be long term. They believe the request is reasonable and they meet all the requirements that have been raised in terms of health and safety. Malcolm Pennington said short term parking probably won't have long term effects, but over the long term,it could be a concern. He believes that, from an air standard quality,it's an issue for kids. He urged the Commission to consider allowing it only on a short term basis. Commissioner Walsh moved for approval as presented. President Inman seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 4-0; Commissioner Caffall abstained. 5.2 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2006-00008/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2006-00001/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2006-00001/SENSITIVE LANDS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 5,2007—Page 5 REVIEW (SLR) 2006-00010/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2006-00080 ANNAND HILL SUBDIVISION REQUEST: Approval of a 40-lot Subdivision and Planned Development on 4.53 acres. The lots are proposed to be developed with detached single-family homes. Lot sizes within the development are proposed to be between 2,788 and 5,377 square feet. A Zone Change is required to apply the PD Overlay over a portion of the site (Tax Map 2S110AD, 8800), and Sensitive Lands Review is required for slopes greater than 25%. The applicant is also seeking a street improvement Adjustment for the proposed cul-de-sac from the maximum of 20 lots served to 34 lots, and to the 200 foot length. LOCATION: The project is located at 14600 SW Pacific Highway; WCTM 2S110AC, Tax Lot 00200 and 2S110AD, Tax Lot 08800. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium-Density Residential District. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally AND R-12 (PD): PD: Planned Development. The purposes of the PD Overlay zone are to provide a means for creating planned environments through the application of flexible standards which allow for the application of new techniques and new technology in community development which will result in a superior living arrangement; to facilitate the efficient use of land; and to preserve to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape features and amenities through the use of a planning procedure that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site, among other purposes. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Commissioners Anderson and Walsh reported site visits. STAFF REPORT Gary Pagenstecher presented the staff report. He advised that this application would be reviewed under the old Planned Development standards. The application is for a 40-lot residential subdivision and planned development on 4.53 acres. The zone change is requested to apply the PD overlay on Tax Lot 8800 and a sensitive lands review is required for slopes greater than 25%. There is also a street improvement adjustment for the proposed cul-de-sac from the maximum 20 homes served to 34, and an adjustment to the minimum residential density requirement from 43 units to 40. Most base zone development standards are met with some exceptions: Front yard perimeter setbacks (from 15' to 6') Street side yard for lots 1, 29, and 40 (from 10' to 8') Staff recommends approval of the proposal with the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 5,2007—Page 6 APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Matt Sprague and Ben Altman, SFA Design Group, 9020 SW Washington Square Dr., Suite 350, Portland, OR 97223, described their project to the Planning Commission. They testified that this is a hilltop site with trees, sandwiched between apartments, and next to an old cemetery. They plan to build single-family detached homes. The development comes in at minimum density, rather than the maximum. Having narrow streets allows them to protect trees. They will be preserving 56 trees on site and will mitigate for those trees being removed. The only public access will be from 109th. They will be extending a public cul-de- sac. There will be open space tracts to preserve trees and a variety of lot sizes that adapt to the topography. The applicant is requesting 3 adjustments: 1. The cul-de-sac will accommodate 34 homes. 2. There is a minor adjustment to the minimum density (40 instead of 43 homes). 3. Front yard setbacks will be reduced from 15' to 10'; street side setbacks will be reduced from 10' to 8'; and side yard setbacks will be reduced from 5' to 4'. Rear yard setbacks will be 15'. They agree with the conditions of approval as shown in the staff report. The Planning Commission discussed details of the planned development with the applicant. They asked about concerns raised by TVF&R. The applicant advised the hammerhead at end of long drive has a turn around that exceeds TVF&R's requirements. Staff also advised that TVF&R requires all the units to be sprinkled because there is only one access to the development. The applicant noted that the streets will be wider than most private streets to allow for parking on one side of the street. The applicant advised that people attending the neighborhood meeting liked the single- family development rather than multi-family. They had some initial concerns about street circulation and trees, but the applicant answered their questions. The Commissioners asked specifically how the trees would be protected during development. The applicant advised they would be fenced. Staff noted that it's typical for developers to use orange mesh for fencing which can easily be moved. Chain link fencing could also be used. The Commission noted that there is only one option for access and it's not really set up for a public street circulation system. The applicant was asked if they had looked at other alternatives. The applicant said they thought about public streets, but that required some of the lots to face in other directions. In addition, the other options would eliminate more trees. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 5,2007—Page 7 The Commission noted that there are extra deep walkways and wondered why there aren't planter strips. The applicant said it's not a requirement of a planned development under the old code. They want to leave something for the architects and builders to decide what they want to place on the lots. It was advised that street trees are required. President Inman asked about the lack of landscape strips in lots 7-11 and 21-25. The plan shows street trees behind the sidewalk, but with only 6' to the front porch setback, it's unlikely that someone will plant a substantial tree there. The applicant said they would not be averse to including planter strips from lots 8-11 and 21-23. John Annand, one of the property owners involved, testified that he's not sure what the prices will be for the homes, but envisions 2-story homes about 2400 square feet in size. The applicant noted that some lots will be larger to allow for play and some lots will have limited yard area. The open space tracts will primarily be planted with native vegetation. President Inman would like to see a soft pathway and benches in the open space tracts. PUBLIC TESTIMONY None PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED With regard to the request for reduced side yard setbacks, staff advised that the Planned Development Code doesn't address street side yard setbacks specifically. The applicant is requesting 8' setbacks, which is 2' less than what is required. The Variance chapter of the Development Code allows up to a 20% reduction on certain setbacks, but not for street side yard setbacks. The applicant could have requested a variance, but they didn't. The Commission could add a condition that would require that, prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant provide a site plan that shows the street side yard as met at 10'. The applicant disagreed, saying that the intent of the code isn't to limit the side yard to an interior yard between 2 walls. The intent is to allow flexibility to the setbacks for the base zoning district for which they are applying the planned unit development. The intent is to allow the flexibility to permit, through the PD process, an 8' street side yard setback. A street side yard setback is still a side yard setback. They believe the Planning Commission has the authority to approve it without a variance. Commissioner Walsh noted that under the new code, the intent is to provide flexibility for the Planning Commission. Staff advised that the Planning Commission could require the applicant to come back for street side yard variances or they could indicate that there is flexibility in the code to allow for street side yard setbacks to be adjusted. President Inman moved to approve Subdivision (SUB) 2006-00008/Planned Development Review (PDR) 2006-00001/Zone Change (ZON) 2006-00001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 5,2007—Page 8 2006-00010/Adjustment (VAR) 2006-00080 / Adjustment (VAR) 2007-00001 Annand Hill with the staff report as presented, the conditions, and some additional conditions, 1. add a minimum 4' planter strip in front of lots 8 through 11 and 21 through 23; 2. provide a landscape plan demonstrating a soft pathway connecting Tract A through Tract E with passive recreation and seating; 3. use a 6' chain link fence for tree protection, including and taking into account all testimony and deliberations heard tonight. Commissioner Walsh seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. OTHER BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:17 p.m. J err ee Lewis, Planning Cohimission Secretary t/f GeV .) ) C c -7(-r16 7 ATTEST: President Jodie Inman 347 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 5,2007—Page 9 File No: Development Code Amendment (DCA) 2006-00007 File Title: Residential Zoning Districts Use Regulations Amendment To whom it may concern: I am a resident of the City of Tigard and live in close proximity to the Tigard High School site proposed for bus parking. My first concern is that this ordinance (if I understand it correctly) would create industrial use of what is now zoned for residential use by making it a parking and dispatch location for up to 30 class 6 diesel vehicles. I have received conflicting information from the City and the School District as to what is being requested by the School District. The City states that the District's request would place up to 30 diesel buses (both large and small, both district owned and contractor owned) at Tigard High School, amongst almost 2,000 children (1930 students per the district's web site) and the residences surrounding the High School, potentially on a permanent basis. The District states that there would only be 13 small district owned buses placed at the High School on a temporary basis. I believe there are important distinctions between these two positions. My second concern has to do with the long term health risks of diesel exhaust and it's affect on children. Diesel exhaust contains particulate matter, black carbon, sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides and more than 40 chemicals that are classified as "hazardous air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act. Diesel vehicles make up only 2 percent of vehicles in the United States, but they are responsible for more than 60 percent of all particulates and nearly half of all nitrogen oxides. Diesel engines emit significant quantities of particulate matter (PM2.5). These fine particles penetrate deep into the lungs contributing to persistent human health problems such as asthma attacks, reduced lung function, lung disease and even premature death. Fourteen of the 40 toxins in diesel exhaust are known to cause cancer and contribute to cardiopulmonary disease. Other health effects are also troubling, though harder to quantify. The particles in diesel exhaust impair the lungs and aggravate diseases like emphysema and bronchitis; they can also worsen -- or trigger -- asthma attacks. What's more, children are more susceptible than adults to these effects -- they breathe faster and their lungs are less able to defend themselves from pollutants. In addition, exposures early in life can return to haunt them as they age, in the form of chronic health problems. Government regulators estimate, based on lifetime risks, that diesel exhaust is responsible to date, for 125,000 cancers nationwide. Since children often are exposed to diesel exhaust when they ride buses to school every day for many years, their exposure adds up -- which translates into an unacceptably high risk of getting cancer later in life. Out of every million children that ride a school bus an hour or two each day during the school year, 23 to 46 of them may eventually develop cancer from the excess diesel exhaust they inhale on their way to and from school. A school bus will run it's engine at least 30 minutes before each route during its pre-trip inspection and warm up period (typically 3 times or more a day), or at least one and a half hours a day exposing students to these harmful particulates and gases. Do we really want to risk our citizen's health, and especially the health of our most vulnerable citizens, our children by making the High School a bus parking/dispatch yard? I think not. Therefore I would recommend we only allow our 13 small school buses to park on a specified temporary basis at Tigard High School. The district's contractor can and should find its own facility in a properly zoned area. Sincerely, Malcolm B. Pennington 16653 SW 88th Place Tigard, OR 97224-5443 (503) 624-1106