03/02/2015 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
March 2,2015
CALL TO ORDER
President Rogers 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.
ROLL CALL
Present: President Rogers
Vice President Fitzgerald
Alt. Commissioner Enloe
Commissioner Middaugh
Alt. Commissioner Mooney
Commissioner Muldoon
Commissioner Ouellette
Commissioner Schmidt
Commissioner Smith
Absent: Commissioner Feeney; Commissioner Lieuallen
Staff Present: Tom McGuire,Assistant Community Development Director; Gary
Pagenstecher, Associate Planner;Lloyd Purdy, Economic Development
Manager; Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager; Doreen Laughlin,
Executive Assistant
COMMUNICATIONS — None
CONSIDER MINUTES
February 9 Meeting Minutes: President Rogers asked if there were any additions, deletions, or
corrections to the February 9 minutes. Commissioner Fitzgerald amended the Communications
portion of the minutes to read that she, along with Commissioners Muldoon, Schmidt&
Lieuallen had attended the traffic highway safety meeting—not just two commissioners, as had
been noted in the minutes. President Rogers declared the minutes approved as amended.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
President Rogers opened the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING
ASH AVENUE DOG PARK ZONE CHANGE—(ZON) 2015-00003
REQUEST:The applicant is requesting approval of a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment for two
parcels approximately 0.35 acres in size located on the southwest corner of SW Ash Avenue and SW
Burnham Street.The zoning designation would be changed from"PR:Park and Recreation"to "MU-
CBD: Mixed Use Central Business District," while the existing comprehensive plan designation of
"MU-CBD: Mixed Use Central Business District" would remain unchanged. APPLICANT: City of
Tigard PROPOSED ZONE: MU-CBD: Mixed Use-Central Business District. The MU-CBD
TPC Minutes 03/02/15 Page 1 of 6
zoning district is designed to provide a pedestrian friendly urban village in downtown Tigard. A wide
variety of commercial, civic, employment, mixed-use, multifamily and attached single-family
residences are permitted. New development and redevelopment is required to conform to the
standards of Chapter 18.610. LOCATION: 12780 SW Ash Avenue, WCTM 2S102AD, Tax Lots
02800 and 02900 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code
Chapters 18.380, 18.390, 18.520, and 18.540; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.2, 2.12, 2.1.3, 2.1.7,
2.1.15, 9.1.3, 9.1.5, 10.1.5 and 15.2.6;Transportation Planning Rule.
QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS
President Rogers read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial
hearing guide. There were no abstentions; there were no challenges of the commissioners for bias
or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site Visits: Commissioners Smith, Rogers &
Schmidt had visited the site. No one wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission.
APPLICANT
The applicant in this case is the City of Tigard. Associate Planner Gary Pagenstecher said this is a
Type III Quasi-Judicial land use action—one where the decision is made by the Planning
Commission. He stated that staff's recommendation is to approve this zone change. He noted
that the site is a popular dog park at the location of Ash &Burnham. It was zoned public
recreation January, 2014— and now the request is to zone it to mixed-use CBD —the zone it had
prior to January, 2014. The rezone is being requested by the City of Tigard to facilitate a
development action that Sean Farrelly (Redevelopment Project Manager) will describe in more
detail if there are questions. Otherwise, the staff report shows that the applicable criteria are met
and it is approvable.
Sean Farrelly gave a brief rundown as to what's gone on with the Dog Park to this point. He
noted that a lot of the development is in flux right now. The concept is about 150 units of
market rate housing and 2000 sq. ft. of commercial on the corner of Burnham and Ash. Mixed
use—and getting more people living downtown is one of the primary goals of the Urban
Renewal Plan,which was approved by the voters in 2006. The site is well located—fronting
Fanno Creek Park, close to Main Street, close to some services, restaurants, etc. Having more
people living downtown will help Main Street businesses by providing local customers and it's
getting more people who are able to make use of WES and the Bus Transit Center which is very
close by this site. You can walk to the Transit Center in 5 minutes from the site. We're working
on a development agreement but the site as a whole—we'd like to see this zoning returned to
what it was.Just a scant year ago it was an MU-CBD.
President Rogers asked Sean where the park would move. Sean answered that the dog park
would move kitty corner - across the street to another city owned property; presently there's a
house on it. The long term plan is to demo that house so that's where the dog park would move
to. We will be recycling all the equipment that's in the present dog park—including the fencing.
We've been communicating with the dog park patrons and are working with the dog park
committee on getting the word out and designing the new space. It's comparable size—a little bit
smaller but in some ways it will be an even better site.
Vice President Fitzgerald added that last summer she had attended a design Charrette for this
piece of property. She said several members of staff were there as well as many representatives of
TPC Minutes 03/02/15 Page 2 of 6
the dog park. She said the dog park representatives were aware that they'd be getting a "trade
off" and that they were happy with that trade off. They liked the proposed location.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS —
Commissioner Smith asked if we were getting actual market value for the property and is the
developer going to pay for all the work for this park. Sean answered that this is a complicated
deal with many moving parts. The price is still being negotiated because we're asking a developer
to build something that this market wouldn't necessarily support. The rents aren't quite high
enough to support building more of an urban style building. If this was just purely a market
driven deal it would probably be a lot lower density but the Urban Renewal Plan is about getting
more people living downtown and this is a good way to get people to move downtown.
President Rogers noted that the City Council and Tigard staff are negotiating the deal of the
property purchase and that this meeting is about the zone changes. He asked if there is a
proposed zone change for the alternate dog park where the house is being torn down. Sean said
that doesn't need a zone change—the zone change is correct as is.
TESTIMONY IN FAVOR- None
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION
Neal Brown, 13853 SW Boxelder Street, Tigard passed out a disclosure document about a
YMCA because, he said, he believes in disclosing everything. He believes that since City Council
and city staff put the park zone on this property last year (2014) it makes it a permanent part of
the "parks" system. They could have exempted this dog park, but they chose to put the park
zone on it. He said the property is used as a dog park but it could also be used for kids. Or it
could change for any type of park use. He believes the city needs to prove that Tigard has too
many parks and that this is a surplus —not needed in our inventory. He said when private citizens
request a zone change they have to prove that there's no market for this use —but there's a
market for what they're requesting the zone change for. He believes it's unconstitutional for the
city to require private industry to prove their need but they don't hold themselves accountable to
do it themselves. He says Tigard is losing 2,614 sq. ft. (17%) and that it's not equitable to move
to a smaller park. He would like to know how much all this moving around of parks costs. He
believes this is subsidized. He wants full disclosure by the city. He went on to talk about trying to
get a YMCA into the City of Tigard and having it opposed by the city.
Barry Sheasgreen, 9528 SW Tigard St. Tigard, OR said his property's fence line and building
backs up to the existing dog park. He said no one from the city had come to talk to him about
this. He wants to know why he's not heard anything about this matter until now.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS —None.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COMMENTS FROM STAFF
Staff came up to explain the communication process. Sean Farrelly said he'd spoken to Mr.
Sheasgreen personally on a couple of occasions—at the neighborhood meeting held three
months ago where he had answered the questions Mr. Sheasgreen asked him. He said he's also
had at least two informal communications with him. In addition, per the Tigard Code, public
TPC Minutes 03/02/15 Page 3 of 6
noticing was done. There were also informal and formal public meetings with property owners
by way of the City Center Advisory Committee and Council members, as well as a notice in the
Tigard Times for all of the public meetings on this topic. Commissioner Smith said, if he was the
property owner, right next door to all this, that he would hope the city would go to him
personally with documents showing the plan, etc. —personal contact. He wanted to know what
kind of contact staff had with Mr. Sheasgreen.
John Floyd, Associate Planner, came up and explained that he had assisted Sean Farrelly with the
Neighborhood meeting and that he wanted to fill in a couple of gaps. In terms of notification—
he stated that they'd erected signage in front of the dog park and that he'd spoken to several dog
park users at that time—making them aware of the Neighborhood Meeting for the zone change.
He said he'd passed out his business cards to several individuals there so he can affirmatively say
that several dog park users were notified of that initial meeting. He said the intent of the meeting
was about the zone change but that the conversation did veer into the future project and
redevelopment potential of the site. There were extensive conversations about the possible
forums —issues of parking—issues of viability of the commercial space— so he believes the
intent of what was going to happen there was pretty well disclosed. In addition he said he
remembers a robust conversation [about an hour] Sean Farrelly and he had with Mr. Sheasgreen
about the future of that site and stated that some of that could be found in the neighborhood
meeting notes.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Commissioner Smith wanted to know whether the demolition of the house on that property a
done deal or is this one of those things where a park may, or may not, materialize. Sean answered
that the house will definitely be demolished soon. They'd made a commitment to the dog park
that they would replace it. Commissioner Smith went on to ask whether this would be the final
destination for the dog park or would it move again and again? Sean said he can't really speculate
on the future but he thinks there may be need for a larger dog park somewhere down the line,
more centrally located. There's nothing in the long range plans showing a dog park in some other
location, however.
PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED
President Rogers briefly opened the public hearing to see if Mr. Sheasgreen had other questions
(as he appeared to have). The questions and comments were about what he perceived to be lack
of personal notice and about the fact that he'd contacted staff about selling his property to be
used for parking and hadn't heard back from them. President Rogers noted that Economic
Development Manager, Lloyd Purdy,was at the back of the room and would be available to talk
to Mr. Sheasgreen about that if he wanted to do so.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
No further testimony or questions from the audience allowed.
DELIBERATION
There were some general questions about making a motion. There was also a question as to
whether conditions can be applied to a Planning Commission approval and whether they would
have to be applied to this particular property. Tom McGuire,Assistant Community
Development Director, came up and said "Yes, the conditions would have to apply to this
property in this request."
TPC Minutes 03/02/15 Page 4 of 6
MOTION
Commissioner Fitzgerald made the following motion: "I move for approval of
Application ZON2015-00003 and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval
contained in the staff report as received."
Commissioner Schmidt seconded the motion.
THE VOTE / MOTION PASSES
A vote was taken. The motion passed with seven in favor and one opposed. Commissioner
Smith cast the opposing vote.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
President Rogers opened the second public hearing (Legislative).
POST ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA)2015-00001
REQUEST: To amend the City of Tigard's 2011 Economic Opportunities Analysis to: 1) acknowledge
that slope was not applied as a development constraint factor in the Inventory of Suitable Sites (Land
Supply), 2) apply slope as a suitability constraint for properties currently zoned industrial (I-P, I-L, and I-
H), and 3) qualify the Assessment of Potential with respect to slope constraints. LOCATION: City-wide
ZONE/COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: I-P: industrial park district; I-L: light industrial district; I-H:
heavy industrial district.APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code
Chapters: 18.380.020 Legislative Amendments; 18.390.060 Decision Making Procedures; Comprehensive
Plan Goals 1,2, and 9; Oregon Administrative Rule 660, Division 9; statewide planning goals 1, 2, and 9.
APPLICANT
As the City of Tigard applicant, Associate Planner Gary Pagenstecher introduced himself and
said he wanted to make sure that the commissioners had received the materials that had been
sent out. They included a memo, staff report, proposed amendment—exhibit A to the staff
report, and a copy of the 2011 Economic Opportunities Analysis being put up for Planning
Commission recommendation to be amended; they had. He noted that the EOA (Economic
Opportunity Analysis) was adopted in 2011 as part of the city's Periodic Review process with
DLCD. Economic Development Manager Lloyd Purdy came up and spoke to the
commissioners about how this reconciles the city's inventory of buildable lands. He said this
would unlock the development potential of about 40 acres of property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed zone change.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
There were a couple of questions regarding the purpose of the action. Gary Pagenstecher
answered that it was mainly for clarification.
TESTIMONY IN FAVOR—None.
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION - None
PUBLIC HEARING— CLOSED
TPC Minutes 03/02/15 Page 5 of 6
No further testimony or questions from the audience allowed.
DELIBERATION
After a short deliberation, the consensus was that none of the commissioners had any issues with
this. They believe it gives the city some opportunities that weren't there earlier.
MOTION
Commissioner Muldoon made the following motion:
"I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City
Council of Application CPA2015-00001 as provided to the Commission tonight in three
parts without change."
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald:
A vote was taken, all in favor, none opposed; no one abstained.
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY
This item is scheduled to go to City Council on March 24th.
OTHER BUSINESS
Tom McGuire,Assistant CD Director came up and gave a brief rundown on some of what
would likely be coming before the commission in the near future with regard to the Code and the
Strategic Plan.
ADJOURNMENT
President Rogers adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
L......_--\)_4_5,
Doreen Laughlin,Planning Co t_ 'ssion Secretary
ATTE '� ; ident Rogers
TPC Minutes 03/02/15 Page 6 of 6