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