Loading...
04/02/2007 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes April 2, 2007 The Planning Commission met at 6:00 p.m. in Red Rock Creek Conference Room to greet new Planning Commissioners and to discuss meeting protocol. 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:03 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, Muldoon,Vermilyea, and Walsh Commissioners Absent Commissioner Hasman Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff,Planning Manager; Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner; Ron Bunch,Long Range Planning Manager;Kim McMillan,Development Review Engineer; Jerree Lewis, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Ron Bunch invited the Commissioners and the public to open houses on the Comprehensive Plan on April 18th and April 21st. The open houses will provide the public an opportunity to become familiar with the Comp Plan Update process, provide input on the Tigard 2007 Resource Report, confirm community values, review draft goals, and sign up to participate further. 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES It was moved and seconded to approve the March 19, 2007 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Commissioners Fishel, Muldoon, and Vermilyea 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 1 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 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. Commissioner Vermilyea and President Inman declared conflicts of interest and recused themselves. Vice-President Walsh took over as Chair for the public hearing. Commissioners Muldoon and Walsh reported site visits. STAFF REPORT Gary Pagenstecher provided a general overview of the structure of a staff report, followed by specifics for this application. He noted that a new Planned Development Code was adopted last November. This application would be processed under the old code. He advised that this applicant has asked for a private street to serve more than 6 units and lots that average significantly less than the minimum allowed in the R-12 zone. To get both of those things, they have proposed to save a significant tree and provide several open space tracts. They also propose a pedestrian pathway from the development out to Hwy. 99W. Issues that arose during the review included density computation, landscaping and screening, and street improvements. The density computation question for the Commission is if the applicant should be allowed 27 units as proposed or 23 as staff found to be allowed in the standards. For landscaping and screening, the Commission has the discretion to require greater screening than would otherwise be allowed under the standards. For street improvements, the public street was proposed as a "skinny street" and our standards require a full section— a difference from 44' to 52'wide. The density calculations revolve around the definition of flag pole and whether or not the flag pole that extends from Hwy. 99W to the development can be included or should be excluded from the net developable area. Also, our standards require that the pedestrian access in the flag pole be public right-of-way. We also require a utility easement to the water quality swale. These requirements have caused disagreement between staff and the applicant with regard to the density allowed. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 2 Pagenstecher referred to a memo from Dorothy Cofield dated March 30th and a memo from Clean Water Services dated March 22nd (Exhibits A and B). The Cofield memo includes a revised density calculation which has increased from what was in the staff report. Pagenstecher has not had a chance to review the new calculations; however, he agrees with the basis of the calculations. Staff is in agreement with the second scenario (without the flagpole in net area); so 25 lots would be appropriate with the revised numbers. Pagenstecher noted that parking on the 20'wide private street would not be allowed. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Dorothy Cofleld, 12725 SW Millikan Way, S-300, Beaverton, OR 97005 and Karsten Van Loo,Alpha Planning, 9200 SW Nimbus, Beaverton, OR 97008 spoke for the applicant. Cofleld advised that the applicant is in agreement with the staff report except for the density issue. She presented a new density analysis (Exhibit C). She referred to the 1994 Dolan case about whether or not the company could be made to constitutionally give a bike path to allow the public to go on their property and not use that property for development. The U.S. Supreme Court said there must be rough proportionality. In this case, the developer is being asked to dedicate open space, easements, and right-of-way. About 50% of the land that the developer owns is being given to the public. The developer agrees to do all of this, but in exchange, he would like to develop it with 27 lots. The development will be innovative and should be allowed to develop at maximum density (27 lots). Kirsten Van Loo provided details of the proposed development (Exhibit D). She noted that the long pathway to Hwy. 99W was the original access point to the property. She advised that the applicant has been granted an easement from an adjacent property owner for an access point to SW 74th Ave. The proposed public street would also connect to the property to the west. It could provide access to that property if it ever redevelops. The units will be duet homes —there's a shared property line that runs through each pair of homes. Each home is on a separate, individually owned lot. It's similar to a townhouse, but they are all "end units". The plan shows extra head-in parking spaces along the public street; however code standards do not allow them so they will have to be removed. Van Loo said that once they build the public right-of-way, the project is no longer a flag lot. Approximately 25% of the property will be in open space tracts. The circulation system adds up to another 25% of the site. A planned development allows flexibility in exchange for benefits for the City. The applicant believes the duet units provide an affordable ownership opportunity. Protecting the existing oak tree is a mandate and the park space in tract C is a good size piece of land for this zoning district. It's designed so that when the adjoining property develops, the park can continue. Van Loo reviewed the newest density analysis (Exhibit C) and advised that staff believes the flag pole cannot be counted for density. Their attorney does not agree, saying that all the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 3 land within the legal description is included in the parcel. Taking the flag pole out of the computation gives them 24 units for a base density. With all the amenities included in the project, the applicant believes they should qualify for density bonuses. Possible density bonuses include 3% for undeveloped open space, 3% for developed open space, 3% for focal points or creating vistas, and 3% for architectural style, housing types, unique character of the development. The maximum allowed for density bonuses is 10%. With the maximum density bonus, this development should be allowed 26.88 units. Van Loo said that most jurisdictions round up with the units. Tigard rounds down. She encouraged the Planning Commission to round up and give the development 27 units. The Planning Commission discussed the density bonus issue. Commissioner Doherty does not believe that duet homes qualify as being unique. She sees this type of development in other parts of Tigard. Van Loo said that the uniqueness lies in the fact that the duet homes are close to an arterial, shopping, employment, etc. Homeowners can walk to shopping or church, plus they have access to public transportation. Commissioner Muldoon referred to the memo from the applicant's attorney saying that people could access 99W through a neighboring commercial parking lot. He does not believe this is a viable option. He asked if the applicant believes the pathway to 99W makes the development unique and, without that designation as a right-of-way (ROW), it would not be unique. Van Loo agreed. Gary Pagenstecher noted that the matrix provided by the applicant is helpful. There is still disagreement about the new public ROW calculation. A marginal difference in the calculation might make a difference with the unit number. The applicant is asking for a 9% density bonus, but staff is only in agreement with the open space and focal point density bonuses (6%). It's up to the Commissioners to decide if an architectural style has been met to award another 3% bonus. Nothing has been submitted to make that determination; however the Commission could consider the option of"innovative building orientation or building grouping" for the additional 3%. Pagenstecher advised that the public pedestrian access is required by the code under Section 18.810.040.B.2. In addition,water quality access is also required by code. Dick Bewersdorff said that the Commission could dispense with the argument of the parcel being a flag lot or not. It's not relevant in this case. What's relevant is the issue of public easement that's required by the code. Dorothy Cofield agrees that there is a code requirement for the public pedestrian path for connectivity; however, that does not mean it's constitutional. The property owner does not have to dedicate to the public's use land that isn't related to the impact of what he is creating. The impact of what this applicant is creating is about 270 vehicle trips. The whole impact area is about 12,000 trips. The amount of land he is being asked to dedicate compared to what he has is over the allowable ratio. The applicant may have to dedicate the public pedestrian path,but he doesn't have to do it for free—he has to be compensated. Staff responded that the issue is if they meet the standards; this applicant has not met the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MIND 1'ES—April 2,2007—Page 4 standards. If they argue proportionality on that basis, the only option the Commission has is to deny the application because they have not met the standards. Cofield disagreed, saying that the developer can say he believes it's unconstitutional, but go ahead and make a dedication and then make a claim for just compensation. This applicant agrees with the dedication and is asking for 27 lots as compensation. Van Loo referred to a memo from their traffic engineer (Exhibit E) that substantiates a 46' ROW. The ROW dedication is based on the vehicle trips that will be carried on a portion of a public street. They believe that this project plus the potential development of the adjacent property will generate less than 500 vehicle trips per day. Having less ROW will give the applicant a little more land for their density calculations. Kim McMillan disagreed with the 46'.ROW. The City also takes the existing neighborhood into account. The adjacent parcels have 32 dwelling units and this development is proposing 27. Added together,it is already over 500 trips. Having 54' for the public street will absorb the head-in parking, but will allow for some parallel parking. Commissioner Muldoon asked about the net gain and loss for parking and if there was a gain in green space. Van Loo said there is a potential total loss of 9 spaces and a potential gain of maybe 5. She advised that the Development Code requires 1 parking space per unit. The applicant is proposing 2 spaces per unit. Over the long term, the public street will build out to full development which will allow for more parking. Commissioner Walsh said that the parking spaces are not realistic for this development. It was also noted that there will be no parking allowed on the private street. Van Loo said that reciprocal parking arrangements with neighboring properties have not been considered. Also, eliminating some of the units to put in more parking is not feasible. The Commissioners expressed major concern about the lack of parking. Van Loo suggested that people could park in neighboring businesses. Going back to the number of units recommended by staff, it was advised that staff is agreeable to 25 units. With regard to the access on 74th Street,Van Loo said that it will be repaved to 24'wide to a section that meets City standards —approximately 500 lineal feet to Spruce Street. Len Dalton, White Oak Village, LLC, 7955 SW Hall Blvd., Beaverton, OR 97008, owner of the property, reported that he is following the recommendations in the arborist's report to care for the Oak tee. Screening and buffering were discussed. It was advised that there will be a 6' wall between the development and the bus storage lot. Commissioner Muldoon doesn't think this will be enough screening. He asked if the developer would consider planting higher vegetation. Van Loo said that a final landscaping plan would be submitted as part of the final development plan. If the Commission wants, the developer will put in higher vegetation. It was advised that the tree is probably over 200 years old and in very healthy condition. The homeowner's association will maintain the park and protect the tree. Also, the developer will comply with the Police Department's request for lighting along the pathway. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 5 Marty Weil, Remax, 9790 SW Nimbus Ave., Beaverton, OR spoke about the affordability of the proposed homes. He noted that end units are very desirable and add a lot of value to the property. Regarding style of the units,Len Dalton advised that every unit will have some sort of stone veneer on the front elevation as a unifying theme. Vice-President Walsh asked about the 3% bonus for architectural quality and style concept. He asked if there were any examples of how that has been applied in the past. Staff answered that, typically, drawings showing unique architectural details would be submitted. The Planning Commission would approve the drawings agreeing that they were unique. With this application, no drawings were submitted. Walsh noted that with the new PD code (which does not apply with this application), that aspect of the bonus could include such features as environmentally friendly materials,impervious pavements, etc.,which would be over and above the standard. PUBLIC TESTIMONY—IN FAVOR Susan Frohnmeyer, 10900 SW 76th Place #24,Tigard 97223 testified that she lives on the other side of fence adjacent to the proposed development. She is supportive of the project but expressed some concerns about density, traffic, and protection of the tree. The developer has assured her that they will keep the tree. She hopes that all the other issues can be resolved so that a quality project can be constructed. There will be more noise; however, there is already noise night and day from the Raz buses. Mitch Gensman, PO Box 1626, Sherwood, OR 97140, testified that he owns property to the south of the proposed development. He is pleased about the development and asked the Commission to consider allowing development to fullest extent possible. He had questions about the setback for the one way street next to his property. Van Loo advised that the setback is 4' from the curb to the property line; the Uniform Building Code requires that they stay at least 2'back from the property line during grading and construction. Also, there will be a masonry wall and buffer to separate a portion of the site from the adjacent property. Staff provided details on the drainage and detention system that will be on the site. The water quality facility will be maintained by the City. Mr. Gensman asked that after the subdivision is recorded,if it would be possible to release a current access easement that runs along his property to the proposed development site. The applicant agreed. The Planning Commission advised that this is a matter that needs to be resolved between the two parties outside of the public hearing; the City does not have authority over this. Mr. Gensman is concerned about public access through the area next to the Union Gospel Mission. He noted that there are homeless people living in the back of the building. He asked if two fences could be tied together to prevent pedestrian egress in that area. Van Loo PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 6 believes that because the adjacent parcels are not part of this application, the City cannot mandate offsite conditions. The Planning Commission advised that this is beyond the scope of this application. PUBLIC TESTIMONY— IN OPPOSITION Ken Zsoka, 10945 SW 74th Ave., Tigard 97223 spoke about the impact on 74th Ave. with overflow parking from the development. He asked if there are any provisions for the construction equipment and contractor vehicles. He does not want to see their dead end street flooded. He also asked who will be responsible for the sidewalks, curb, and gutters. Staff answered that the applicant has to provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for the project. They will come down 74th and will be expected to park on their site to do all their work for the bulk of development. There will only be street paving on 74th; no curbs and sidewalks will be put in. The homeowners won't be tagged for any improvements. Anyone can park along a public street, but they can't block driveways. Neighbors can call the Engineering inspector if there are problems with construction vehicles. Sandi Moxley, 11005 SW 74th, Tigard 97223, is concerned about lighting in the park area. She thinks that it will become a high crime rate because it will be boxed in with a fence. People could congregate there after dark and cause problems. APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL Kirsten Van Loo advised the following: • Regarding the 200 year old tree, the client is not opposed to putting the tree on the historic register in order to provide maximum protection. • There currently is poor connectivity on 74th; the continuation of 74th will provide the next link to eventually connect to 78th. • Parking and construction management concerns were answered by staff. • The 24' wide paving on 74th will be an improvement to the street. It will provide more encouragement for people to park on the street rather than on people's yards. • Issues about fencing were discussed; the client will do the best he can to restrict unauthorized passage on private property while maintaining balance with the community. The new pedestrian pathway may be longer, but will be a more pleasant experience. • Regarding lighting in park—if places are lighted at night, they become attractive nuisances and people tend to congregate there. The client will defer to the Police Department and follow their recommendations to the best of his ability. • The two lots next to the park will be fenced. Dorothy Cofield said that they would like to conclude tonight if possible, or to have some inclination as to what the decision will be. She feels they have met the burden of proof for 27 lots. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Doherty does not think that public access to Hwy. 99W warrants going against the staff recommendation for density. She is very concerned about the lack of parking and the small yards. She is leaning toward the staff recommendation of 25 lots. Commissioner Muldoon disagrees with diverting access to the north. He believes that the pedestrian access and the ROW are indisputable. He thinks that cutting through the adjoining Mexican restaurant's parking lot is not adequate. The screening by Raz still needs to be addressed;higher vegetation could help with screening. There's a huge amount of work involved to rip up the entire walkway and change the pathway to something that's wheelchair accessible. He doesn't see anything in the code that allows for granting an extra 3%in recognition of all this work. Commissioner Caffall believes that to get the extra 3%, the applicant needs to come back with additional drawings showing the type of architectural design that will be used. Commissioner Anderson agreed. He thinks it could be a great project,but the Commission just can't tell yet. He's leaning toward staff's recommendation of 25 lots, or possibly even 26. Commissioner Caffall suggested continuing the hearing to give the applicant a chance to re- present the material. Dick Bewersdorff said the hearing could be continued to a time certain (April 16th). The applicant can come back with architectural drawings and revised density calculations. Staff cannot recommend using the pathway for density calculations—the code requires that public right-of-way be excluded. They will also have to deal with the street width that the Engineering Division recommends. Commissioner Fishel agreed with Commissioner Doherty on the parking issue. Vice-President Walsh said that there are a lot of positive aspects to the development with the parks and open space. The tree is great,but it won't live forever;the Planning Commission has to look beyond that. He thinks there could have been more work done with staff before the hearing to get some of the details worked out. As far as the number of lots, staff has given guidance as to what is allowed and what is not allowed. To him,it's clear that the public ROW cannot be included. He noted that it's the Planning Commission's discretion whether to grant density bonuses or not. Given the information presented at this time,he does not see how they can go beyond 25 lots. He is also very concerned about the parking. It was noted that the Commission wants more parking,but the applicant already meets the code. Commissioner Doherty moved to recommend approval of the application as submitted,with the staff recommendation of 25 lots; everything else would stay the same. The Commission was reminded that the applicant had asked to speak again before the decision was made. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 8 Dorothy Cofield asked to either 1) continue the meeting for 2 weeks so the applicant can return with design drawings, or 2) get approval for 25 lots with the ability to get 1 additional lot with a plan showing that it is feasible to meet the design bonus. For#2,the Commission would make a finding there is enough evidence in the record,in terms of the stonework and type of design that could be done,that the density bonus could be met. Commissioner Doherty still had concerns about lack of parking and lighting in the park. Cofield noted that the parking standards have been met and that transit is also available. Len Dalton said that,with either 24 units or 27 units, the parking issue won't change. Vice-President Walsh noted that the applicant is requesting to put a lot of units on the site, using the Planned Development process. The PD process allows the Planning Commission to use their discretion about granting density bonuses. The Commission wants to have a livable neighborhood. Commissioner Muldoon asked staff if diagonal parking could be allowed on the far southeast corner lot or if the lot was too small. Staff responded that all the cars would have to back out, which doesn't work on that lot. Kim McMillan said that if the 2 homes by the oak tree were taken out,the applicant might be able to gain a couple of spaces. Dick Bewersdorff noted that it's also possible to take out the 2 units by the horseshoe and put in angled parking. The cars would still have to back out onto the private street. Cofield asked the keep the record open for 2 weeks so the applicant can come back. The Commission said that they would like to see something unique. The applicant noted that one of the standards the Commission could consider is building grouping. He feels that having duet units could qualify as a unique grouping of homes. Staff agreed that innovative building grouping is one of the standards listed in the code. If the Commission determines that duet homes satisfy that language,they could award the additional 3%. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Doherty moved again to recommend approval of the application as submitted, with the staff recommendation of 25 lots. Commissioner Fishel seconded the motion. Staff advised that the applicant has submitted sufficient information to show that the original 23 units recommended should be changed. Two additional units would be consistent with the findings;however, that number would be subject to additional information which would verify that the calculation was accurate. Dick Bewersdorff recommended giving the applicant the opportunity to re-compute the numbers and provide the evidence to the Commission along with evidence to warrant more density bonuses. The Commission could then make their decision. Commissioner Doherty withdrew her motion. Commissioner Caffall moved to continue the hearing to April 16th. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vice-President Walsh asked staff to check the records to see how density bonuses have been applied in the past. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 9 6. OTHER BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:36 p.m. Jerree Lewis, Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: Vice-President David Walsh PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 10 COFIELD LAW OFFICE Dorothy S. Cofield, Attorney at Law TO: Tigard Planning Commission Members FR: Dorothy S. Cofield,Attorney at Law RE: White Oak Village (SUB 2006-00010) DT: March 30, 2007 MEMORANDUM This memorandum will respond to the staff report dated April 2, 2007 in regards to the density calculations on page 23 of the staff report. The main difference between the allowable density as calculated by the developer and the allowable density as described in the staff report lies in the staff recommendation to remove the "flagpole"portion of the tract configuration from being considered as part of the area to be used for the density calculations. See Attached Site Plan. The flagpole portion of the parcel totals about 6,784 square feet, and its removal from consideration results in a net loss of two units from the project. We believe that staff has misinterpreted the regulations for the following reasons. The Proposed Subdivision Will Not Include a Flag Lot The staff report states that Tax Lot 1700, as it is presently configured and developed, is defined as a flag lot under TDC 18.1.20.030.89.c. Staff reasoned that because Tax Lot 1700 is a flag lot, TDC 18.730.050.E.2 applies and the flag cannot be included in the net buildable area. Under that provision a flag lot is: "Flag Lot"—A lot behind a frontage lot,plus a strip of land out to the street for an access drive. A flag lot results from the subdivision of a residential lot or parcel which is more than twice as large as the minimum allowed in the underlying zone,but without sufficient frontage to allow two dwellings to front along a street. There are two distinct parts to a flag lot: the"flag"which comprises the actual building site located at the rear portion of the original lot, and the "pole"which provides access from a street to the flag lot. The flag pole can either be part of the rear lot or granted as an easement from the front lot." Tax Lot 1700 as it will be developed does not meet any part of this definition. First,the frontage for the proposed subdivision will be on newly extended SW 74th Ave. to the north,not SW Pacific Hwy. to the south. Secondly, the resulting flag lot has sufficient frontage to the north to allow all the dwellings to front along SW 74th (via the private loop street). Third,the pole does not provide the primary access to the building site which is via SW 74th Ave. The pole is an open space tract with a secondary,pedestrian path access to SW Pacific Hwy and is not used Tigard Planning Commission Memorandum Page 2 as the main access to each building site. Therefore, the lot area exclusions in TDC 18.730.050.E.2 do not apply. It seems clear from reading all of the section regarding the definitions of"flag lots"that the definitions are meant to give direction on when and whether someone may create a flag lot. Staff should not exclude the flagpole portion because upon approval and development, the flagpole portion will no longer serve as the access to the parcel. In a similar case interpreting a local government's flag lot regulation the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), affirmed the county's interpretation that whether a flag lot exists is shown by the future use of the property as shown on a proposed plat. Central Bethany Dev. Co. L.P. v. Washington County, 33 Or LUBA 463 (1997). In that case,the central dispute was whether a lot was a flag lot as defined in the county's code. The applicant replaced the "flagpole"portion of a residential lot with a"separate tract for access purposes" and the county found the lot was no longer a flag lot. LUBA found that the county was correct in finding the separate tract attached to the lot was no longer a flag lot because there was no "pole." In looking at the proposed subdivision plat for White Oak Village, the pedestrian path is proposed to be within Tract A. As shown, Tract A could be made into two separate tracts and there would no longer be the"pole"portion of TL 1700. See Attached Site Plan. Staff's conclusion that TL 1700 is a flag pole lot is "clearly wrong"because there will not be any pole. Id. at 474. (where there is no pole, there is no flag lot). Or,the developer could go through the exercise of a Property Line Adjustment/ Consolidation(PLA), and when approved, the parcel would no longer meet the definition of a flag lot. Access to the site would then be through the northeast corner of the site, and the flagpole portion would no longer be the access point. While the developer could clearly get rid of the flag pole problem by doing a property line adjustment, the fact that the flag pole does not exist on the site plan already achieves that result. Therefore, the planning commission should find the net density of the project includes the pedestrian pathway in Tract A and the allowable density with the 6%bonus is 28.26 dwellings. See Attachment. The Density Computation Ordinance Should Not Apply to a Public Pedestrian Easement The staff report concludes it is appropriate to exclude the"pole" from the net development area because "it can only be used for access and is not functionally proximate to the buildable area." The staff report does not specifically address whether land that can only be used for access must be excluded from the net development area pursuant to TDC 18.715.020 (Density Calculation). That regulation excludes the following land from counting toward a developer's allowed density as follows: 1. All sensitive land areas: a. Land within the 100 year floodplain; b. Land or slopes exceeding 25%; The Round •12725 SW Millikan Way•Suite 300 • Beaverton, OR 97005 Tel: 503.675.4320 • Fax: 503.906.7937 • Email: cofield @hevanet.com Tigard Planning Commission Memorandum Page 3 c. Drainage ways; and d. Wetlands. 2. All land dedicated to the public for park purposes 3. All land dedicated for public rights-of-way. 4. All land proposed for private streets; and S. A lot of at least the size required by the applicable based zoning district, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site. With staff's proposed condition of approval that the pedestrian path be a public easement, it is unclear whether the Planning Commission will exclude it from the developer's net density on the basis of it being a public right-of-way rather than a flag pole. The developer urges the planning commission to find it is not proper to exclude the pedestrian path easement on Tract A from the net development area for the following reasons. By making the pedestrian pathway a public easement,the developer will lose two lots if the public pathway is considered a public "right-of-way"1 and excluded from the net development area. The loss of two lots, worth approximately $200,000, as well as constructing the pathway and related infrastructure and dedicating the land for the pathway results in a $300,000 exaction. Even considering the unmitigated impacts of$94,242, the public easement requirement is not roughly proportional? Nor is it related to the impacts of the proposed subdivision. Assuming a 27-lot subdivision creates the need for a connection to SW Pacific Hwy., it does not create an impediment to the public's access to SW Pacific Hwy. which will continue to have access through the Fred Meyer shopping center. Any impacts from the proposed 27-lot subdivision to create the need for a pedestrian connection to SW Pacific Hwy can be met by a private pedestrian pathway. A private pathway is clearly not a"public right-of- way" and would count toward the net development area, thereby increasing density to 28.26 lots (with the 6% density bonus). Requiring the public pedestrian pathway and also subtracting the public easement from the net development area results in a double impact to the developer: He has to dedicate the land for the path, construct the path and then lose two lots because the pedestrian pathway land area can no longer be included in the net density. We urge the planning commission to find a fair result when determining if the public pedestrian pathway is subtracted from the net development area. The developer is willing to provide a public access easement,but not at such a severe cost to him as losing two lots. 'TDC 18.120.12.122 defines right-of-way as a strip of land occupied by a pedestrian path which must be shown as separate and distinct from the adjoining lots and not included within the dimensions of such lots. 2 By using the staff's"Rough Proportionality"analysis,the applicant reserves the right to challenge it during these proceedings as to certain errors that were made. The Round •12725 SW Millikan Way• Suite 300 • Beaverton, OR 97005 Tel: 503.675.4320 • Fax: 503.906.7937 • Email: cofield @hevanet.com These numbers came from L. resigns changes to ROW With the flagpole in Net Area 1O71.12 Gross area of site (10,510.00) New Public R.O.W. (12,161.00) New Private R.O.W. 81,300.12 Net Developable Area 26.66 Number of allowable lots 28.26 Number of Lots w/ 6% density bonus 2c1.06 Number of Lots w/ q% density bonus without the P/agpo% in Net Area 103,811.12 Gross area of site (10,510.00) New Public R.O.W. (12,161.00) New Private R.O.W. (6,716.00) Flagpole 74,524.72 Net evelopable Area 24.43 Number of allowable lots 25. 0 Number of Lots w/ 6% density bonus 26.63 Number of Lots w/ c1% density bonus MEMORANDUM DATE: March 22, 2007 FROM: Bill Baechler, Clean Water Services TO: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner City of Tigard Planning Division SUBJECT: Review Comments — White Oak Village Subdivision, 2006-00010 SUB, PDR 2006-00003,ZON 2007-00001 GENERAL COMMENTS • This Land Use Review.by Clean Water Services (CWS) does not constitute approval of storm or sanitary sewer compliance with the NPDES permit held by CWS. CWS must review and approve final construction plans prior to issuance of any construction and/or connection permits. • All provisions of the development submittal shall be in accordance with current CWS Design and Construction Standards, (presently R&O 04-09),the Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Manual, December 2000 edition, and all current Intergovernmental Agreements between the City and CWS. • Final construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by CWS for conformance with current CWS Design and Construction Standards prior to issuance of any construction permits. • A Stormwater Connection Permit shall be required, as approved by CWS,prior to construction of sanitary sewer, storm and surface water systems, and any work within sensitive area buffers and vegetated corridors. • Public sanitary and storm sewer easements shall be required in accordance with current CWS Design and Construction Standards. Public easements shall extend over the entirety of the private street"Tracts B, G&E" and"Tract A", Water Quality/Access/Park. SANITARY SEWER • Each lot in the development shall be provided with a direct gravity side sewer(service lateral) connection to a public sanitary sewer mainline in accordance with current CWS Design and Construction Standards. Each sanitary lateral shall provide service to only one lot and shall be contiguous with pubic right-of-way or public sewer easement. • The engineer shall verify public sanitary sewer availability to adjacent properties and extend public sanitary sewer to provide service to adjacent properties in accordance with current CWS Design and Construction Standards, (presently R&O No. 04-09). STORM DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY • Each lot in the development shall be provided with a gravity service lateral and individual connection to a public storm conveyance. Privately owned and maintained storm sewers, including water quality facilities, serving multiple lots shall not be approved. • A hydraulic and hydrological analysis of the existing drainage and downstream storm conveyance system, in accordance with current CWS Design and Construction Standards (presently R&O 04-09), is required. The applicant is responsible for mitigating downstream storm conveyance if the existing system does not have the capacity to convey the runoff volume from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. • The Developer shall provide a public water quality facility, in accordance with current CWS Design and construction Standards,to treat all impervious surfaces being constructed or preserved as part of this development. The facility shall be placed in a separate `Tract' with public easements and not part of any buildable lot. Stormwater filter vaults (stormwater management manhole), shall not be approved as a public water quality facility. • Maintenance access shall be provided for water quality and/or detention facilities in accordance with current CWS Design and Construction Standards (presently R&O 04-09). • Final construction plans shall show all existing and proposed public and private storm conveyance and easements. SENSITIVE AREA • CWS has reviewed this proposal for Tax/Lot Map 1S136DB-01000, 02300, and 1S136CA- 01700 and issued a Service Provider Letter(SPL), CWS File Number 06-001852, for the proposed development dated August 1, 2006. EROSION CONTROL • A NPDES 1200 C Erosion Control Permit is required in addition to meeting all CWS erosion control requirements in accordance with current CWS Design and Construction Standards. C-I White Oak Planned Development Density Analysis Original Site Design Revised Site Design Revised Site Design (Staff Report) Private Sidewalks in Private Sidewalks in Easements Easements Incl. Ped. Link Gross Area of Site 103,977.72 103,977.72 103,977.72 New Public ROW 28,585.00 10,510.00 10,510.00 New Private ROW (combined above) 12,167.00 12,167.00 Area in Ped. Link 6,776.00 6,776.00 Net Developable Area 68,608.00 81,300.72 74,524.72 Net Developable Area 68,608.00 81,300.72 74,524.72 Divide by 3050 for 22.49 26.65 24.43 base density units units units With 3% Density 23.16 27.45 25.16 Bonus units units units With 6% Density 23.83 28.25 25.89 Bonus units units units With 9% Density 24.51 29.05 26.62 Bonus units units units With Max. 10% 24.73 29.31 26.88 Density Bonus units units units ep _ wale_(iuo1N� x,:.. r^ ' i a,c, u<; v , ,, Yt +% n = . ,.. „ ' ev m r �'iiM _ ... �°� ■ _��)� rr. Fee�_v lM, I,h• .a;{` -...: .-.`'. 3 -•' ',�y4�;},.., �. ;:v,.x•:y.N.a%�.w<,;.:?;.:,,n 5.''.. :ri'�<,,-'`:„t'''�...,+ .'.JT1'+: �",+� ¢. '� ' .. .. � •. f ;six.r;,r.1 e.., `i,:y F 3_..-:'• pu "�1 • , r �'.v•,] ;APB` rs 3 �° i 3� P f ark-,--- p , . . � , ..11,---,,,,,,,:v6=, �i "kl i ,1\";5:",;:'•J,ti ,t ;"-P - `) ", , .p F r ` 9 .,Y 1t ', r,(,.',a wr' r' = .>±^ . ., x 7.`'<--,-',%=,-,i,a�r. .e< lit*!•p : '; . }, ' 16, {f =t r.'�•k�`�:;i-- .•x ;g ` tc c 7, 1 3 „y ,,-„,5: .� .,* s . y; a,S'-•' at 0 �� f 3 =i,'3 S;c 4y::;*5 � ,,� i1 s- - ` 1.4o- 1.t ���a : / ) '•.F;.k10 C��,„ . � 1 4' , ; _t 7, 'c:. :. Vi ” aH3�:' L + .fv ti.>t', ` -..;-,a,_'.` �d".,.!:. `'�`s'y•i.s9'S', t.,•,, .t` : . 4 'z 0,1%. :1;,-..,...r>,%::*- a ; �'" ; ^ ,'sr ` 1 „ ; ,.•,rl�i.,,;,` '�.y�x a 'lift� � (Nv.'a,"9 ,y sa uY .. y; . < ' bt'S,- . ,, w:.j-Yy i : 4C y''i T ' `4.. . , i- :r v- n% :b'.�fi ' .a M `3".,,x, $^.. ,Sa �;��: \. . �' ,. , ..1 \ t6a:-':.. ,.,e,., .yY,:ar^„"=,l .-� ,.l Yq:.�#.. ; ' -. "i i ." ;: ) ..,., e4�' ` '1 ' 1: ' -f`, �.�C:h3-; F Y 'Fj9y '. �. { . - •+,l .f r ,: ' E . ^ Q 4,,. „ .� Y ' 9 1 ' `tii1" 1' •` - �� ,,..-" ' +•'Fi y i <?d ,-:::- !n`.:4 niv, .�k:-. �,� !1 : T . i••Si & ' • ,T: '•hm; '� 4 5 ak �,: �„ i •':,,''•,Z'' x s 1t,� ! .,i,, x'' - J ..---t--' S7{' i1 .,, :p TL`` wa,- s" ,rr r Jr x•:. . t- fi I - , .. i,f'k{* r3;: an �r " ' rk 1 o- : 5 «;�'N~ fr'4a ,i+ ° • `4 Y' �•• `- -� '3 - . :1 6 . ; . ° i... , 1 "r, . . C .� " • } .! �- a y' o " .�j�,r ', yE '.\.4*.=-; �a"cr - 1 �.'' > -a 1 "- •;„q F-.*,. .ts t vr„--='-'""9i. r"�KNir<c-' ,c,`'-).:..! µ ",..it'''• .. 4' ., s W::..t_ t '' ^'CA"P„ �; :^5: - ;_ }. ,,1. k-,,,,,0,, -Y wq•1w ;� �i �:•' ./; * ,l �. y•�` 8- .s . -h:. � d"� IC.' -r i• .' .} A F ^t- am` � ' �R: x1,:• S+Y, , ".X . l >'i;: �' !1e ++ • T 4 r,: :a: nr �', V„t ,. l^ q ,_, . ; -,: .7-a . II' :,:•d 'y:; • ' " .: ,. ..,:'''`I.4-1,-. t' ,: D:S.u4±• ���►\j, MEMORANDUM LANCASTER engineering ' 4853. To: Len Dalton, The Dalton Company v OREGON Ci4Y912° l From: Todd Mobley, PE, PTOE 610 E. 0O' Q/z/o,j Date: April 2, 2007 I EXPIRES: I2 i3►l 6 Subject: White Oaks Village Daily Trip Generation—Skinny Streets Len, This memo is written to discuss the expected trip generation of the 27 townhomes proposed to be constructed as part of the White Oaks Village development in Tigard, Oregon. The memo will also address the development of the property to the west and the additional traffic generated by this future development. City of Tigard Development Code allows the proposed 24-foot street width (measured curb to curb) inside of a 46-foot right of way in instances where the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) does not exceed 500 vehicles per day. To estimate the trips generated by the subject development as well the future development of the property to the west, trip rates were used from the manual Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE). Specifically,trip rates from land- use codes 210, Single-Family Detached Housing, and 230,Residential Condominium/Townhouse were used. Based upon the size and zoning of the property to the west, it is expected that a maximum of 40 dwelling units could be constructed. To attain this density, some form of com- mon-wall housing would have to be used. If the parcel were to be developed with detached homes, the density would decrease, although the minimum allowed density would be 32 dwell- ing units. The table on the following summarizes the results of the calculations and the expected ADT vol- umes with development of the property to the west as either 40 townhomes or 32 detached sin- gle-family homes. Len Dalton April 2, 2007 Page 2 of 2 SCENARIO 1 Type # Units Trip Rate Weekday Trips White Oaks Village Townhomes 27 5.86 158 Property to West Townhomes 40 5.86 234 TOTAL: 392 SCENARIO 2 White Oaks Village Townhomes 27 5.86 158 Property to West Sngl-Fam Detached 32 9.57 306 TOTAL: 464 As shown in the table above, the ADT volume from development utilizing the subject portion of street that is being proposed as a skinny street will not exceed 500 vehicles per day.