Loading...
04/16/2007 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes April 16, 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, Fishel, Hasman,Muldoon, and Walsh Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Vermilyea Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Long Range Planning Manager; Darren Wyss,Associate Planner; Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner; Kim McMillan, Development Review Engineer;Jerree Lewis, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Ron Bunch talked about the Tree Board (Exhibit A) and reorganization of the work program duties in Long Range Planning. Darren Wyss discussed the upcoming Comprehensive Plan Update open houses (Exhibit B). 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES It was moved and seconded to approve the April 2, 2007 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. Commissioners Inman and Hasman abstained. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2006-00010/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2006-00003/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2007-00001 WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION— Continuation of April 2, 2007 hearing REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a 27-lot subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site. The lots are proposed to be developed with attached (duet) single-family homes. The average size of the proposed lots is approximately 1,926 square feet. Two pocket parks and a pedestrian tract/open space are proposed totaling approximately 54,681 square feet. LOCATION: The project is located north of Pacific Hwy. at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue involving three (3) parcels at 11625 and 11645 SW Pacific Hwy. and 11030 SW 74th Avenue; WCTM 1S136DB, Tax Lots 01000 and 02300 and 1S136CA,Tax Lot 01700. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 16,2007—Page 1 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. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. President Inman recused herself for conflict of interest. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Steven Dalton and Len Dalton, 7955 SW Hall Blvd., Beaverton, OR 97008, presented a revised site plan of the development (Exhibit C). They discussed the memo submitted to the Planning Commission (Exhibit D) regarding density, the public street and parking, architectural density bonus, and street side yard setbacks. Gary Pagenstecher advised that, with the exception of a few minor issues, staff recommends the density as proposed by the applicant. He briefly responded to points brought up in the applicant's memo and advised that staff now supports a higher number of units. Staff explained how density calculations are computed. Pagenstecher advised that, since 2000, there have only been 2 cases where applicants have asked for a density bonus. In one instance, the bonus was denied; the other was granted a 7% bonus (1% was for building clustering/siting). In this application, staff agrees with a 6% density bonus (3% for focal point and 3% for open space). Concerns were expressed about safety and vagrancy in the park because of the seclusion of Tract C. It is not seen as an easily-accessible open space behind units #26 and #27. The Commissioners discussed leaving unit #26 where it is as a solo unit and moving unit #27 over to Tract B. The applicant advised that this would eliminate some of the extra parking, but they already exceed the required number of parking spaces for the development. It was suggested that the applicant provide a pathway of some type leading into the park. Sideyard setbacks were discussed. Staff noted that with the Annand Hill Planned Development, the Commission decided to include street side yard setbacks within the simple side yard setback standard. For this application, staff said the Planning Commission has the discretion to grant a variance to reduce the street side yard setbacks from 10' to 8' for lots #15, #16, #23, and #8. For fire safety, staff noted that TVF&R needs to be able to get their equipment within 150' of a building and there are building code standards for fire-rating of walls. The applicant advised that if a building is closer than 3' to a property line, there must be 1-hour wall construction. They are proposing to be 8' away from the property line. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 16,2007—Page 2 The Commission reviewed Section 18.350.070 of the Development Code and concluded that it was within their authority to grant a variance for reduction of the street side yard setbacks. PUBLIC TESTIMONY None PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Commission discussed the street side yard setback issue. Vice-President Walsh said he was not sold on allowing the reduction and was concerned about setting a precedent. The Commission also discussed the issue of the park (Tract C). It was decided to move unit #27 to Tract D, which would make the park larger and more accessible. Commissioner Muldoon moved for approval of Subdivision (SUB) 2006-00010/Planned Development Review (PDR) 2006-00003/Zone Change (ZON) 2007-00001 White Oak Village Subdivision, 1. granting 27 units with the provision that unit #27 be moved to the east-side duplexes by Tract D, thus increasing access to Tract C; 2. allowing for 8' street side yard setbacks; 3. agreeing that it is within the Commission's authority to decide street side yard setbacks on a case-by-case basis where safety is not an issue. Commissioner Caffall seconded the motion. Vice-President Walsh said he could support every aspect of the motion except for the 8' side yard setback. The motion passed with a vote of 5-1. Commissioners Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, and Muldoon voted for the motion. Commissioner Walsh voted against the motion and Commissioner Hasman abstained. 6. OTHER BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. )2/171/}9(7_ Jerree-wis, Planning Commission Secretary ri"") P / A T: 'Vice-President David Walsh PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 16,2007—Page 3 TO: Mayor Craig Dirksen and Members of the City Council FROM: Janet Gillis, Tree Board Chair DATE: April 10, 2007 RE: Tree Board Charge Statement - Tree Stewardship and Urban Forest Enhancement Project The following conveys the Tree Board's recommendations regarding a proposed charge statement to allow it to engage in the Comprehensive Plan effort to develop ways to better a steward Tigard's tree resources. Staff told the Board that due to Council packet deadlines a draft charge statement was previously sent to Council. Since then the Board has had an opportunity to refine its proposal. Please note that the charge statement uses the words "steward and stewardship" when referring to trees instead of the words "protect/preserve". This is intentional on part of the Tree Board. The reason is that the Board is very aware of the controversy that tree regulations can cause, especially when individual property owners may be affected. To address this concern, the Board feels it is important to emphasize that there are ways to better "manage" the City's tree resources for the benefit of the whole community, including individual property owners. We wish to dispel any concerns that the Board's intent is to forego good management in favor of a wholly protectionist viewpoint. Preserving trees, especially the very large ones is important, but preservation is one of many tools in the tree management tool box that includes policy, regulations, community education, incentives, tree planting and good arboriculture practices. The Tree Board believes that "balance" is important. The Board realizes that it is necessary to efficiently utilize land inside the Urban Growth Boundary for urban purposes, but at the same time there are ways to be a good steward to the urban forest enhance the City's quality of life. A good tree stewardship program should also consider the needs of the private property owner. Most of the city's signature trees and other tree resources are on private property. In this context a balanced stewardship approach is also important. Again,preservation is an important tool but is also one of many that can be used to manage the urban forest resource on private property. Public and stakeholder involvement will be essential to this effort. On page 3 of the proposed charge, Section g states, The Tree Board in consultation with the Planning Commission shall develop and implement a public information and involvement program to hear public concerns and suggestions regarding tree stewardship and urban forest enhancement in Tigard." Please note that the proposed charge statement has within it other elements discussed at a previous work session. Most importantly the Tree Board will work directly with the Planning Commission to ensure there is consistent communication between the bodies. Also, the Board wishes to emphasize the need for interim protection measures (regulations). It is intended that these measures will be in effect until the new regulatory portion of the tree stewardship program is adopted. Finally,I wish to draw Council's attention to Section j of the proposed Charge Statement. The Tree Board believes that if given a greater role, it can better advise Council and serve the broader community. Therefore, the charge statement proposes that, "upon adoption of the Tree Stewardship and Urban Forest Enhancement Program, the Tree Board's charge statement shall be reevaluated to address public issues associated with the urban forest and other natural resources as seen fit by the City Council." Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Janet Gillis, Chair Attachment A: Proposed Tree Board Charge Statement: Tree Stewardship and Urban Forest Enhancement Project Copy: Chair Jodie Inman and Members of the Planning Commission Members of the Tigard Tree Board ToCouncilfromjanetgillis2.doc PROPOSE D Tree Board Charge Statement TREE STEWARDSHIP AND URBAN FOREST ENHANCEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS,the current charge of the Tree Board (Council resolution 01-02) requires it to, "develop and administer a comprehensive tree management program for the maintenance, removal, replacement and protection of trees on public property, and; WHEREAS, the Board's current charge does not provide the latitude for it to undertake other important community tasks related to stewardship of Tigard's tree resources and enhancement of the City's Tree Resources, and; WHEREAS,the City is engaged in update of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the Tree Board's services are needed to address the important matters of tree stewardship and enhancement of the City's urban forest, and; WHEREAS, it is necessary to address issues of tree stewardship and urban forest enhancement now because: a. Urban development has resulted in loss of trees. b. Trees and other natural resources contribute to Tigard's quality of life and environmental quality. c. Trees enhance quality of built environment; however, it is recognized that urban density,unless well designed, causes loss of trees and private open space. d. An attractive community is a component of an economically prosperous community. e. Balance - The program needs to balance the unreasonable and unnecessary removal of trees,with the need for efficient use of valuable urban lands. f. Solid technical base is important for workable codes and standards. g. Tree protection and urban forestry provides civic engagement opportunities for citizens. h. A healthy urban forest and its associated benefits require active management. Proposed Interim Mission Statement Principles to be incorporated into an interim mission statement to address the above may include the following: For the purposes of developing a comprehensive city tree protection and urban forest enhancement program,the Tree Board shall have the following responsibilities in addition to those spelled out in its existing mission statement: a. Work with the Planning Commission to update the City's Comprehensive Plan by developing Comprehensive Plan background information (findings) and goals, policies and action measures pertaining to protection of trees and vegetation and their associated contribution to the Community's quality of life environmental quality. b. The Tree Board shall recommend updated goals, policies, action measures, and background information to the Planning Commission. The Board shall participate in the Commission's joint work sessions to review/discuss the same. These amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are subject to Planning Commission public hearings and recommendation to the City Council c. Propose a tree protection program which may consist of municipal code and land use regulations to implement the above "Trees and Vegetation" Comprehensive Plan goals policies and action measures. d. All proposed municipal and Municipal Development Code amendments shall be subject to review by the City Attorney. Proposed land-use code changes shall be subject to public hearings and recommendation to Council by the Planning Commission. The Tree Board shall participate with the Commission in work sessions to review/discuss the same. e. The Tree Board shall review recommendations from staff to develop specific interim tree code standards intended to prevent egregious tree removal during the period it takes to develop the City's tree protection standards. f. The Tree Board shall participate in work sessions with the Planning Commission prior to the Commission's holding public hearings to recommend the interim standards to Council. g. The Tree Board, in consultation with the Planning Commission, shall develop and implement a public information and involvement program to hear public concerns and suggestions regarding tree protection and urban forestry enhancement in Tigard. h. In addition to the primary task, the Tree Board shall prepare a citizen involvement report as part of the record of its proceedings. i. The Tree Board shall keep minutes and audio recording of all meetings. j. Upon adoption of the Tree Protection Program the interim standards shall be shall be-repealed Tree Board's charge statement shall be reevaluated to address public issues associated with the urban forest and other natural resources as seen fit by the City Council k This charge shall be in effect for one year from approval by Council. Thereafter it will sunset,unless extended. 1. Every three months the Tree Board shall forward a report of its progress to the City Council and Planning Commission. Initially, the Tree Board shall prepare a schedule and scope of work as the first step to implement this mission. Staff Commentary: Following adoption of a new tree protection program, it may be appropriate for the Tree Board and Council to discuss whether the Tree Board should have an expanded role in helping the City manage trees and other natural resources. pJ MEMORANDUM To: Comp Plan Update Steering Committee TL From: Darren Wyss RE: Open House Overview Date: April 16, 2007 Open House Dates/Times Wed April 18th from 6-8pm Set-up at 4:30pm Sat April 21st from 1-4pm Set-up at 11:30am Open House Layout Please see attached graphic Main Objectives 1. Get the community familiar with the process • Tigard 2007 completed last year and forms factual basis for the Comp Plan Update • Tigard Beyond Tomorrow and 11 community surveys over the past 5 years have identified the issues/values of the community • Draft Goals are based on statewide planning goals,key findings, and issues/values • Draft Policies/Action Measures will be formulated over the next several months with the input of Interest Teams and Department Review Teams • Planning Commission Workshops/Hearings for recommendation to City Council • City Council Hearings for adoption 2. Feedback on Topics We are here to capture their comments.... Do you agree with the issues/values and key findings? Does the goal cover community sentiment? How do you wish to see the City meet the topic goals in the future? 3. Casting Call • Get participants to sign-up for the Comp Plan Newslist (monthly updates) • Get participants to sign-up for an Interest Team on the appropriate topic • Interest Teams will meet to review/refine Draft Policies/Action Measures • If unable to attend Interest Team meetings, the opportunity to comment will be available thru the Newslist and website • Can also participate at Planning Commission and City Council Key Messages • The City is looking for citizens to get involved in formulating policies/action measures • Trying to build upon work done by Tigard Beyond Tomorrow • Comp Plan is a citizen-driven blueprint that guides City decisions on community livability and land use and sets the policy framework for future land use decisions and implementing documents, such as the Community Development Code • The Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with the 19 statewide planning goals that are the foundation of the land use planning system Materials • Participants will sign-in and receive a welcome packet from Doreen and volunteers when they arrive at the Open House. Contained in the packet: • Layout of the Open House • Draft Goals for every topic • Overview of why we are having the Open House • Comment Cards • Topic Stations will contain: • Topic display • Comment Cards • Interest Team sign-up sheets • Comp Plan Info pamphlet • Handouts of the Topic displays Volunteers • Will assist Doreen at the Welcome Station and roam around conversing with participants ,-- City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update Open Houses TIGARD 2021 April 18 & 21, 2007 Environmental Quality.d__ . ,,,, f: v- �'Qp� ae�ir ���� j . -i ri keR2f .0 h +. 5 2 . 1 +iC i t �� ` ii j , <D' Q s Cs m '7," 4 r" o Library Community Room Entrance i y, •L Water QuaAty Swale 6'Masonry '...1''''. .. '•.v �l M,,,.�_ r�•a .. . •• _- W Wall Wood 6Fence \ • ,•� •.. i ..e=.F,..�; ry —•h•a"'+ �trie n P♦'.. `' �.k�' coo��. s:-.r:'.c-.vo.:-re.::e:: . ..., ..,..-�d�:n w. ..• ,,. . . .... .. .Wider �a'h ,�sY�tr. ,'@ dqr ��,1.i' •1 Path ti "ark - w� q _. g ii 26- --s fie'• I _ , - .., Pars ,,, .., . �1 . z5 _. • . . , ' 1 .„ ExslIng Oak wri" • . . . _______:,..._____._ ., ,,, 6'Masonry Wall -, .(----1- r -_ - I I - /� 'I) J 9 12 la 15 ii=‘ I IAA II ,:lL 11 • . 9 ,_ • • 411 -- rr�. 7 6 5 1 r rr -I Bark • 6'Sold Wood Fence • . SW 74th Avenue lig( - /A' TO: City of Tigard Planning Commission FROM: Len and Steven Dalton White Oak Village, LLC RE: Proposed White Oak Village Subdivision SUB 2006-00010 DATE: April 13, 2007 The purpose of this memo is to clarify and respond to some of the issues raised at the Planning Commission hearing held on Monday, April 2, 2007. We are concerned if our application has been understood to be requesting special treatment or seeking permission for things not allowed by the Tigard City Code. We do not feel that this is the case, and would like to add further clarification to the issues brought up at the hearing. L DENSITY A. Deduction of the Flagpole Portion of a Flag Lot in Calculating Density In the original staff report, our density calculations numbers were changed and reduced by staff by subtracting that portion of our site that formerly served as access to the former house on one of the parcels. Staff originally concluded that the access portion of that parcel met the definition of the flagpole portion of a flag lot, and that the "flagpole"portion of the lot should be deducted from the gross acreage when computing density. While we understand the reasons staff concludes that one of our lots is a flag lot, we feel that we have shown previously that to deduct the flagpole portion in calculating density is an erroneous interpretation of the code. However,we further believe that deducting the flagpole portion of our lot would be an inconsistent application of the code as well. We have taken the time to review staff reports and planning commission decisions on other recent projects in the city. This has led us to conclude that with respect to flagpole lots and density calculations, staff has not been consistent in applying the code to evaluate our project. Thus far, we have discovered at least two projects wherein the flagpole portion of flag lots were not deducted for the purpose of density calculation. For example, in both Kramer's Meadow and Arlington Heights (see Exhibits #1 and #2), both approved within the past twelve months), the application included flag lots as part of their proposed development. In those applications, the flag lots were combined with the other adjoining lots, exactly as we have proposed for our project. Further,just as in our application, upon development the flagpole was no longer going to serve as the primary access when development occurred. As part of the subdivision approval in those projects, the lots were combined and the property was no longer defined as a flag lot. Staff did not subtract the flagpole from the density calculations in either of those instances. Our proposal is similar to the projects cited. The flagpole portion of our parcel should not be deducted when calculating density in our application. B. Deduction of Areas Dedicated as Water Quality Facilities The White Oak Village application proposes to utilize the former access strip, (referred to above as the"flagpole") as an open space area with a water quality facility combined with a pedestrian path. At the public hearing, staff took the position that even if the flagpole wouldn't be deducted because it met the definition of a flagpole, it would still have to be deducted from the density calculations because Clean Water Services (CWS) would require a public easement over the area. CWS usually requires projects to have a water quality facility, and these water quality facilities are treated as any other public utility. In other words, they must have a public easement over them similar to all sewer and storm easements. Historically,public utility easements have not been subtracted for density calculations in the city of Tigard. In reviewing past projects approved by the city of Tigard, we could not find any occasions where a water quality facility was subtracted out of the density calculations. In fact, we found one project approved just last year on April 17, 2006 (Kramers Meadow, see Exhibit#3) where the applicant proposed to subtract the water quality facility out of the density calculations. Staff noticed the error in their application and actually corrected the numbers in the application by adding the water quality facility itself back into the calculations. In Kramers Meadow, the developer had proposed placing the water quality facility within the same tract as a private drive, and then subtracting out the entire tract. In the staff report, staff said, "water quality facilities are not subtracted per 18.705". Section 18.705 governs "Access, Egress, and Circulation", and from this decision, it appears that even when there is access on a water quality tract, the tract should not be subtracted from density calculations. C. Deduction of Areas Serving as Pedestrian Access At the public hearing for White Oak Village, staff took the position that since the applicant proposed to place a pedestrian path on the water quality facility easement that therefore, the flagpole area should be deducted from density calculations. However, as already stated by staff above, water quality facilities are not deducted simply because there is public access across them. Additionally, we have reviewed other past decisions to see how this situation has been addressed in other applications. Just two months ago,the planning commission heard and approved the Annand Hill subdivision. This project had issues similar to White Oak Village. Although Annand Hill had frontage on Pacific Highway, it could not be accessed by Pacific Highway. The applicant proposed an "all in one" tract to serve as "open space/water quality/pedestrian access" alongside Pacific Highway. This is how our access strip/flagpole is also being proposed for use. The pedestrian path in Annand Hill was located on the water quality tract and was to be used for pedestrian access to both Pacific Highway and an adjacent cemetery. (See Exhibit#4) Their pedestrian connection was a condition of approval for connectivity,just as has been required of us. Their path was for public access, yet no portion of the tract was subtracted out of their density calculations. As part of double checking the density calculation numbers for that project, we spoke with Ben Altman of SFA Design Group (the applicants engineer), who verified with us that their tract was not subtracted out of the density calculations. D. Summary of Arguments regarding Density During the two-week continuance, the applicant reviewed recent City of Tigard land use decisions which demonstrate how the city has routinely interpreted TDC 18.715.020 (A)(3) (right-of-way dedications) and TDC 18.730.050(E)(flag pole area) in determining the net development area for purposes of density. The applicant has researched recent subdivision applications to see how the city staff has treated flag poles, water quality facilities, and pedestrian pathways in calculating the net development area. As we have shown, there are recent applications where the city has not subtracted the flagpole, water quality tracts or pedestrian pathways from the net development area. We are not seeking special treatment, nor are we asking for anything not already allowed by the code. We simply request that our application be given fair and equitable consideration, on equal footing with other applications reviewed by the Planning Commission. We believe a fair and correct application of the code would permit 28 units (see Exhibit#5) on this site, but we are proposing 27 units as the best use of the property. II. PUBLIC STREET AND PARKING A. Street Width After considering the comments from staff and the Planning Commission at the public hearing, we have had our engineers revise the street design to reflect a full 54 foot wide right of way for the proposed public street. B. Parking We have eliminated the head-in parking on the public right of way as requested by staff. However, we are now showing some parallel parking spaces on the public street where the width allows (See Exhibit#6, revised site plan). Additionally, we were able to create some additional parking spaces in response to concerns raised by the Planning Commission. The code requires our project to have a total of 47 parking spaces. Our project now has a total of 67 parking spaces, which is 142% of the number required by code. III. ARCHITECTURAL DENSITY BONUS As discussed in the public hearing, code section 18.715 states that one of the considerations for allowing a density bonus is "innovative building orientation or building grouping". White Oak Village proposes a design style for special grouping of buildings that satisfies the standard for an additional 3% density bonus. This type of grouping is a still unique and somewhat rare product. Most townhouse projects in the metropolitan area consist of multiple units in a row, giving rise to the term"rowhouse." The style of townhouse we are proposing is still new enough in the market that it has yet to settle in on a specific name. It has been referred to as "paired townhomes", "duplex-style townhomes", and even "duettes". People in the sales and marketing industry say that the first units to sell in any townhouse project are the end units. The end units seem to be the most desirable units and usually command the highest price. This is true for the following reasons: 1. The end unit is only attached to one other home, thereby providing more privacy and less noise from neighbors. 2. The end unit feels and lives more like a single family detached home. 3. There are more windows letting in natural light because there are three exterior walls instead of only two. 4. The rear yard becomes more accessible and usable to the homeowner. Equipment can be moved around the house, rather than through the house, so the outdoors becomes more enjoyable. An article in the real estate section of The Oregonian stated the following: "Newly built paired town homes are relatively rare in the Portland market, with just 104 units receiving permits in 2006 through August 15, according to Construction Monitor. In 2005, 3,269 residential units received building permits in the city of Portland. Of those, 7.7 percent were paired units" ("Joined at the Hip", The Oregonian, August 20, 2006) In searching through the RMLS listings of townhomes built and sold in Tigard over the last four years, we found only three projects that featured this style of townhouse. Two of those three were actually large-scale projects that only offered a handful of duettes as part of the overall subdivision. There has been only one project built in Tigard in the last four years that offered exclusively duet townhomes. White Oak Village will be offering 27 units of this style product. This special grouping of the buildings at White Oak Village should qualify our project for a 3% density bonus as allowed by the code. IV. STREET TO SIDE YARD SETBACKS The code requires a 10' side yard setback to a street. Our application proposed an adjustment to that requirement on four of our lots. The application proposed that these four lots should be permitted to have a 20% reduction to the standard, resulting in an 8' side yard to a street setback. Staff told us that the 10-foot setback requirement could not be adjusted, and required us to change the size of those four buildings to meet the setback requirement. While reviewing the Annand Hill decision, (See Exhibit#7, we noted that their application also included a proposal for an 8-foot side yard setback to a street,just as ours did. In the notes from the planning commission hearing for Annand Hill just two months ago on February 5, 2007, it reads, "Staff advised that the Planning Commission...could indicate that there is flexibility in the code to allow for street side yard setbacks to be adjusted." (See Exhibit#8) Two months ago, the Planning Commission agreed that there was such flexibility in the code, and allowed Annand Hill to be approved with the 8-foot side yard setbacks without requiring a variance. We do not know why staff has not allowed such flexibility in our proposal. Consequently, we request that our proposal be granted the same opportunity for code flexibility and that the planning commission allow us to have an 8' side yard setback on four of our 27 lots as we have proposed. V. SUMMARY The Tigard City Code requires the applicant to raise all pertinent issues before the Planning Commission, or else be barred from raising them in an appeal. We hope that the Planning Commission appreciates that this requirement necessitates our referring to any legal arguments we deem relevant. In our previous memo to the Planning Commission, the Dolan case was mentioned. This apparently upset some, and was viewed as combative strong-arm tactic. Again, we apologize for that perception. We hope that the applications and decisions we have referred to herein, (applications that have been approved recently), explain why we have been concerned about consistent application of the code to all applications. We request that the Planning Commission members approve our application as shown on Exhibit#9,the final exhibit). .., I , ..._ .,.....L._ CITY of TiGARD I 1 i ( / i t' '' --i. j---- GEOGRAPHIC INFOFMATION SYSTEM I f N ....._I_ I L-____I 1 I VICIINIMr PIAIP „,.....„..t ........._ I I / /:.,,,,,. {--- 1 ,,,,,,,,, ( -,.„,, / '----, j• \ / k9 ,NN / -N, , \ i , 1 SUB2005-00020 H /, 7-4/, ,. I \ I , , VAR2006-000 0 ' ----1 ( ' y' .. A I , , i 1 VAR2006-000 I , 1 VAR2006-000 2 ____J I I 1 N,",leriv.., / N- >7'' 11 , , 1 I ON y PL J I i 1 1 .././ 11-1 , . (---,,,,N /// , I I VAR2006-000 3 ,....„--1 . N, ...„ I 1---- .......t.-- Lu VAR2006-000 4 / ....„, ...„..- I VAR2006-000 5 K 111 tr) t,...I ./NN. i , (---- ------, -,,.. , \PZ I 1 Lij 1 '--.... I VAR2006-000 6 / .---€ __------\\ \---- I I ILI / i 1<1 VAR2006-000 7 iqir \ ,<//./ Noo-__•,, _____ cc "ICI 1—* I X i c,,,, 144 Z * 0 KRAMER'S MEADOW i,u-3 r______________L______j 1---- r — 1— u.... ci tii” SUBDIVISION , I i -1— ca... ------ %;: - .----4 \ .4---„,1 CD 0 0 .... i- --- I I' ',/■ kii.tk.74'' '._ al 1,„,,,„„„, d ,•■ \ , N 04 1 co 1 I BULL MOUNTAIN RD ...,,,p.‘-7: ?)ii—gi-W N di. V r-1—--) (--- - FT ----- r_ _, i — * 1""' a'''''' '211 1______o_ft utso C`JRHAM.,„._RA„, Ka ■ i ir--1, Ar; 1 .r.;. ■ y," ,I —-1. . i , [T Area ''''1 i EL igard flop / /\ A ----,7--------/Q.1 /I---I) ILI CI s1/4) N i t i'/ /' , .., 1----- M 9.,.. . __ _ i, . 0 1— ,i-7:2L , ,, 100 200 300 400 Feat ...Z '70h I PO _..1 .( 0 )6- ,...., ... 328 Met i I ( i :im,,,,,/--Th,,,i>,. __,i IL :V: iL Z i:: i'l 1 ----i i--- 1 i I L. Z ----1 I \ i I A 1 1 i 1 i —,---J ---- T 1 .5 ,,,/N,,,_\,, I i t-------) j--- \---11--- —; — 1 0 I...I 4<‘..1 9 z . --- City of'Tigard f i I 1 K A N. Ili ---___-URG'." --ei-L-7- ---- -\ 1 I ,_ i , 1 Information on this map is for general location only -------- -i 1 1 n41/1° C' fra 1"* 4( .,,, K el should be verified with the Doveoprnent Service'.Division 1 _._. _ ILIRGIINDSIT_ , I "----,___-\--->-----F----, r 1 13125 SVV Hall Blvd I --- ---"-'-'L----,1 y7 1 I --'1'----,.— _ Tigard 6°37)-.1772231 ------, i __ i zi-i --._—_---Crri)\__ _ _ l' I li I i 1 i I , I T-- httmiliwww.ci.bgard.or.us Community Development ' Plot da:e: Feb 8,2006;CAmariOWIAGlCO3.APR 1 I ' CITY of TIGARD --—17 i 1171 ' ' ' \ \ , , ,,,-) , ' --I-01--1---,-, '11-1 1 '1 I 1 ' 1 ' fs, i , -- GEOGRAPHIC INFORMA NON SYS-EM i SW WINTE-VIEg--- ----- 1.-----1 1— -- ‘ -FT--. 1 , , L ,1 _,L(-".AT,L,\____I----,,,11:, , , 1 r___1 ‹ VICINITY wiz) L__ , - ' 1 1 - 4 .5 _ , . 1--] , 1 c 4,Tb•--., --- '',--,_OOD DR I III , --I- 1 ' d — ._,.- -- --- '' .----;--\,,, , — ------ i'---SUB2006-00001 i--- Im ----- # DR1 --I-2" Li 1 i „ › '31:. t 11 f -I -H i - I i SLR2006-00002& 3 -VAR2006-00003, 4, 5,6 R_2 I 1--Fr IVA 006-00024-48 ,...., 4 1 , i J la . 1 Hi 1 \ s zi.,___ ---,----1, \ , \ ., ,,,y,:,_ - ' , imi v ., j , 1 I I ...., I AR I INGTON HEIGHTS [NO. 3 SUBDIVISION O. "— 1, I -I I- 1 `..\ i- 1,0\ ----' -- I I 1 tli .;;-,--7.---.,,, .... z 0 , „..„1, , 1.- - 1.--- 11-- V 1. b, - : t_.._ m u., 'I 0 \ _.(- 0 z 0 _ 1_ r '1 0 ° 0 U°1 1— J 4 ---- f------i — ....... Z 1_, V-- < — , „,,,,,,,* N •■•i 'i,,44.:,..,,sh. --a;Z J--- ' tf) z— v1 0 .....1 --,,.. __ ■`"Zo, .,-,,,r, * , , ul . , \ in . .. ,,----;,----- __ ,E., - ■ : ; m la < A 4( i''''''''' ‘i Zr''c'\ ‘. .'.' m'r Th- 1 N <-. \a, Ifv ) --- -1 i j\ \,>, , /' -/-7''''' \ cc H., 4:: ' 44.__.,,----------- .. .- A N 0 x:-._,\\ /.,,, X \ / / , 1--- 1,----\:)\-- .1., ''''' A, \\Y 7-\\„--7.--------- \ -L 6(0 Feet ..A. _ < IL K 0 \ ‘1'11\-'\\ \\. ., /,#/ --Pi-ii"*IL.------)LIP ujC-T1- - -, / ) .....„ \\ - / a r-----1 — \ City of Tigard \ 7„....71- 1 j"j ; 10 1 \ \ \A\ \\:),77- <'/`\\\ 10 ___ , .....„\ .,....( -....) , \ , ....Q. inform, ton on this map is for general location only and should be verifed with the Development Services Division. I- 1 \\ Y7 i''' 4 CE -ED--- AR (9 - W_ Dz CT — 1-1--1 21 13125 SW Hail Blvd I I lit , T7 , / _.,...ri,/ 'Tigard,OR 02223 (503)6394171 I , • latpitl.weaci.tigantor.us I COMM unity Development Plot date:Mar 20,2006;CArnagIMMAGIC03.AOR EXHIBIT # 3 Based on the IN THIS SU53I IVISI '' N , THE AF ' LICANT INCORRECTLY SUE3TRACTEP THE ^ATER been satisfied, QUALITY FACILITY FROM THE DENSITY CALCULATIONS . STAFF CORRECTED IT aiminarysight ,eir own speed AND ADDED THE AREA BACK INTO THE based on the NET DEVELOPABLE AREA . riled-flat- shall location of 153"{Avenue. Densit Cuiii utations and Liniitalioiis (18.71 ); Chapter 18.7 5 implements the Comprehensive Plan by establishing the criteria for determining the number of dwelling units permitted. The number of allowable dwelling units is based on the net development area. The net area is the remaining,parcel area after exclusion of sensitive lands and land dedicated for public roads or parks. The net area is then divided by the minimum lot size permitted by the zoning district to determine the number of dwelling units that may be developed on a site. Based on the formulas in Chapter 18.715 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code, the maximum and minimum number of units.permitted on the site is based on the net developable area. The net developable area is the gross site area,subtracting sensitive land areas, land dedicated for public parks and public rights-of-way,land for private streets,and if an existing dwelling unit is to remain,the area of-the lot on which that unit is situated. Of the total ross site area (2.83 acres or 123,275 square feet), the applicant subtracted 22,990 square feet is for public right-of-way dedications and 13,509 square feet is for the private street and water quality. -The applicant's calculations are incorrect. Water quality facilities are not subtracted by 18.705. Rather than 86,776 square feet of net developable area, the net developable area is 93,839 square feet (subtracting the private street and parking surface). 'There arc no public parks or sensitive areas within the project. The net area divided by the minimum lot size in the R-/ zone (5,000 s.f. for single family detached units) therefore yields the maximum number of units, in this case 18.76. The minimum number of lots is based on 80% of the maximum, or 15. The applicant has proposed 17 lots in this subdivision, within the density requirements. Therefore, this section is satisfied. FINDING: Based on the analysis above,the density standards have been satisfied. Landscaping and Screening(18.745): Chapter 18.745 contains landscaping provisions for new development Section 18.745.100 requires that street trees be planted in conjunction with all development that fronts a street or driveway more than 100 feet long. A proposed planting list must be submitted for review by the Director since certain trees can damage utilities, streets and sidewalks or cause personal injury. The applicant proposes street trees for the public streets, but has not shown any on the private street. Therefore, the applicant will be conditioned to submit a plan for the rivate street, showing street trees according to the size and spacing standards of Section 18.745.040 of-the Tigard Development Code. Section 18.745.030(C) contains landscaping installation requirements as follows: 1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures. 2. The lant material shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and gradin g standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock(ANSI Z-60 1-1986:and any other future revisions); and 3. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 16 OF 32 SUB2C05-00020-KRAMER'S MEADOW SUBDIVISION ,S44,./...,.59 .. :.1,g,:s.s1 5 :44119 *4'•17631-;S:$47:;648.,. ."6,7:17S41 6.':'.!11!I A AND HILL 1-1.. '..4-t'r.A'A"-.,.‘.,i,'„,6-1.. "..;,A%'''.4-..,*;"-c ..'t'6,„1 .,.,I." 4 l'-';'.,.14;7--..4',..m,''-"s,,44,:."4.555:4*,-c.',ss i 6 11.1 .,.'2It•'''.1"p2'7 -*7'4'711'1-:::'-1'4."';•..1.''''''''' a i II A 40—LOT SUBDIVISION OF TAX MAPS 2S1 1 OAC AND 2S1 1 DAD,TAX LO -Iler '244' tk-i APPLICANTiOWNER: /, LU i_. 0 ANNAND PROPERTIES IV-PI_CC, / ...... . . SUSAN KELLER TRUST AND MARY JANE VLNELLA 144) )-- tn l'"'"' '''''"'l Va. 8260 SW IR:KINKER ST,HATE 150 / : W:319,40, TIGARD,OR 97223 / GRAPHC SCALE , 4( z 4 PHONE(503).52098668 / 4 ." '! .;5: ______T 0...... u) CONTACT:TOILN ANNANE / , // A9. PLANNING I F,NGINEERTNG/SURVEYING: / ., / f ; Z .5 SPA DESIGN GROUP,LLC /4--- l'il IL' )- X < 9020 WASHINGTON SQUARE RD,SUITE 350 ' 6 Z / j /,; a ,- 1- I-. PORTLAND,OR 97223 4 <5 PHONE(503)641-8311/FAX(503)643-7904 • zi ACOttOO tOttO6OOI 4 -- to OAOETARY 44 tiol CONTACTS:MATTHEW SPRAGLIE / 4,4,, , - 144/ ..., —1 Tair-T Tsai;Ft E=1-7—n re 1.•2 .., 0 1S) > ).... BRENT FITCH ' 47 '''" IP i'• oPgIVAE/ I 'i .I IL LU JOHN WADE /zr ,,. --''' 14 I ss,a IDE7 FAC12121 8.,4F SF P t , 1 . I 144( re,L11 t ::-'",..,..{,11;11=11,4 3,,s4C31 St-12,9598 3,885 SF i q 43 V LI I Lu ..,;'../c, '.,, ,/ 12/ -, , 3.210 SF ..0.ir,,., .... ,0 .i ,,„.T. ' ' 7 i ,. a V.6''' '' /1 Sai , ..,,,,-1 ,> ,AN.,.. 13 `, . ' " 3.233 SF # / A ' ' ;V:§4 ,„. r °' &a, :a're- ,i),• z/N., .., 4,1"' , ■ Asoo ■ , , so...cksogur , le . , - .,..t...0 .- pi r 1.49 t, .4* _ f1/4) 1— 1)... 1/4,) LU -----".1.', ..--b-,•.' ----- -"...--4 „, 1 4•4.1_,... 3,830 SF , ',./ ...49,4A OPEN_?,4e£: V arom LL I- in 7.1 0 II-1 .,..,v y $` s / / - 11111==11111 e- . , * 20 3,258 SF r'''' '. III , '.14 2991. „ , X, 6,, ,:.-7 - 1 ___ , . , 1/ ,.... / ,.,-______ ___ k, f..., 1 li , ,I. A ,.,. 3.9111 SF 1. ,, .2 2.820 so Viy. 21 ,A 82 23 iii --- 1--- .. . , 22,.--- _........___-1934 SF 3.954 I 3,943 SFP.1 24 ''-'; 25 Z ic 4' .,(51XZert2CE 7 .. . , .2J29 VI R26908 I —,I r-1 t.-,iZ a- 0 LU ,, 7,732 SF lg #, , , •8 34,48 89 t 3.445 sr 8.1 / /11' ■' .• 1 • i 9.4 __;__4,44 J---al.11 ASK,i .4.oo• K ...0 LU 2.2 < 1— . ----------- 1 ir s ---,- , / , ., ArN. 0 INA . 1 o o SHEET INDEX BENCHMARK t— ft it n 1,,_.1 t-, .;1;14 il 1 I PRELIMINARY PT AT NUMBER: 489 , 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS DATLINI: WASHINGTON cowry M DESCRIPT.ON: 3"BRASS DISK SET IN 11-1E SOUTHWEST SIDE OF THE 4.9) ili 1996.9 11/44.) t„ 3 PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION I SECOND STEP OF THE TIGARD GLANCE HALL §ggiu GRADING/EROSION corrrRcs,PLAN NORTHWEST ENTRANCE;I MILE SOUTHWEST•3F TIGARD. 16( 1— cf) ....1 4 PRELIMINARY STREET I UTILITY PLAN ELEVATION: 269.31 9, - t . 1 5 TREE PRESERVAT:ON PLAN ri 4. ..., 8 6 AERIAL PHOTO/CIRCULATION PLAN 1•VERITCAL INFORMATION GATHERED IS A COMBINATION OF DATA COLLEC 11116,1 M..1.11, BY G&L LAND SURVEYING AND KLESAHASHI AND ASSOCIATES,INC. .. *9.. ....._,,,..... .....,.._ ...,.....„....,......„,....., I-- kr) 0 ...._.4- L I- ,, _ Pemsrry CALCAM-ATION5 The following Square Pootagez were provided Ly r,L Design, the civil engineer for "hite Oak Village. They were calculated by ALAtoCad as shown in exhibit # 103,171:72 Gross area of site (11,313.00) New Public - Extension of SIN /4th Ave. (12,161.00) New Private Drive 50,4c11.12 Net Developable Area 26.3#1 Number of allowable lob at 3,050 sf 21.1a Number of Lots w/ 6 % density bonus 2e,.11 Number of Lots w/ % density bonus , \ 1 DL DESIGN GROUP INC. A ''. 4o5 r S a Wo b°r M Silr101% Ptnd,OR 97219 4 _ 1.4.j. (503)22-5-1679 SITE PLAN ,.'''-':',1';1;:'.5. 1-=20' - - ___--- ACT I , 1 LOT 26 TR ''tt• ‘,:t.'' I t ttto tt- 1 1' RATER OtIAIJTY/ t .t ACCESS/RARK / I - i 1 t i t—H I tr 1 It LOT 24 I I ' i r Lli LOT 2,3 I LOT 22 LOT,2, LOT 90 10,T 19 LOT 11 LOT 11 LOT 16 \,/'1 t.9 • _ 1 1_ 5 LOT 25 + il ' , I\ IA ,_ ■ 1__ Li TR_A CT C ___ 1 }m_ c15. 11 - _ a, 1 I i iii (T) I C , 1 CO? _1 I ' LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 10' LOT 11 LOT 12 LOT 13' LOT 14 LOT 15 1 _ i ( 1 1 I Z * "m•im?'""m1 _ 1 I TRACT 8 i 1 - 1 s Ey LIK2 eV 1 I I I 1 MI LOT 7 L7T 6 , LOT 5 LOT 4 „ LOT 3 _ LOT 2 , LOT 1 , TRACT D i Z , , I I , / ' I i ,,, ,, _____(_(_1___ k :i. F...a. -1 17CUIMISIECTE12 DALGOT 2 L , 1, , non 441112037 - ill S W 74TH AVE 1 , , row DY. LW g . I _ - I ' ....,. , -_ t omar ay .tct 2 I g W rl 2 _ SITE PLAN 1 /2 120 DAYS =4/3/2007 77:4 DATE OF FILING: 2/12/2007 EXHIBIT # “, DATE MAILED: 2/13/2007 CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION NO. 2007-01 PC Case Numbers: SUBDIVISION(SUB)2006-00008 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(PDR)._2006-00001 ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2006-00001 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW(SLR) 2006-00010 ADJUSTMENT(VAR 2006-0 080 ADJUSTMENT VAR 2007-00001 Case Name: ANNAND HILL SUBDIVISION Applicant's Name/Address: Annand Properties IV.PLLC„et al 8260 SW Hunziker Street,Suite 150 Tigard OR 97223 Owner's Names/Addresses: Armand Properties 1V-PLLC et al 8260 SW Hunziker Street,Suite 150 Tigard,OR 97223 Address of Property: 14600 SW Pacific Highway Tigard,OR 97223 Tax Mato/Lot Nos.: Washm:on Co.*lax Assessor's Map No.2S110AC,*lax Lot 200 and 2S110AD, fax Lot 8800. A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, ZONE CHANGE, SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW, AND TWO ADJUSTMENTS. THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICANT'S PLANS, NARRATIVE, MATERIALS, ANT) COMMENTS OF REVIEWING AGENCIES, THE PLANNING DIVISIONS STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 5, 2007 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPLICATION. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITI UN Ti IIS FINAL ORDER. Request: Approval of a 40-lot Subdivision and Planned Development(PD)on 4.53 acres. The lots are going to be developed with detached singe-family homes. Lot sizes within the development are between 2,788 and 5,377 square feet. A Zone Change is required to apply the PID overlay on Tax Lot 8800 and Sensitive Lands Review is required for slopes greater than 25%. The applicant also received approval for a street improvement Adjustment for the proposed cul-de-sac from the maximum 20 homes served to 34 and for an Adjustment to the minimum residential density requirement of 43 units to 40. During the Planning Commission Hearing, the Commission interpreted the "street side yard" to he inchided in the "side yard" setback provisions under the Applicability of The Base Zone Development Standards in the Planned Development Chapter, 18.350.070.A.4.b, The discussion resulted in the Commission allowing the proposed 8-foot side yards setbacks. However,the discussion did not resolve in a motion. Zones: R-12, Medium Density Residential; and R-12 (PD), Medium Density Residential with Planned Development Overlay. Applicable Review Criteria: CormuunityDevelopnaent 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. Action: > 0 Approval as Requested 13 Approval with Conditions 0 Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper and mailed to: E1 Owners of Record within the Required Distance LI Affected Government Agencies El Interested Parties 12 The Applicants and Owners Final Decision: F 'IBIS DECISION IS FINAL ON FEBRUARY 13, 2007 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON FEBRUARY 29,2007 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: The decision of the Review Authority is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten(10) business days of the date the notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard,Oregon 97223. - — THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON FEBRUARY 28, 2007. Questions: If you have any questions,please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at(503) 639-4171. EXHIBIT # 8 ren't ler the t they FL AN N IN T1 ISS 10 N MINUTES plan FOR ANNANr, HILL PUBLIC, f4EARINUO ON FEBRUARY 5 2001 lohn Armand, 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. Proqidenr Inman would like to see 'A soft pcithwav and bend ies 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 Nctb a cks, 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 proceaa, an 8' atreet aide yard setbach. 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 (K313) 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 - o. l.w, __r__ -- _SsT: = ..,_ -' F ) r C)Is `✓ `{) - 11 l I I C _ — � -garc CF White Oak Village so