Loading...
01/28/2002 - Packet POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions please contact City of Tigard Records Department. a " � � �IYY" OF TIG/�IRD PLANNING �OMI�I1SSIt�N f�l�etir�� 9lAinutes Jari�ary 28, 2�02 '!s GA�L T't3 ORI��i2 �'resident Padgett cafied the meeting to nrder at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, R�d Rock G:reek Go�ference Room, afi 3 3125 SW Hall �Ivd. 2. RO�L C/ALL Commi�sioner� Pr��ent: Pr�sident Padgett; �ommis�ioners Anderson, �ienerth, Buehner, Mores, Munro, Scolar, Sutton, Webb, and Wolch (�it�rrrate) Sta�f Present: Dick Bewe,rsdorff, Planning dVlanager; Morgan Tracy, ��sociat� Pl�nner 3. t�R�4NNING �OtVIilllliS�90N CQMlViUNiCAT'iOPdS Nane 40 �►P��OV� �i�ETIN� �/il�lE1T'�� It was moved and seconded to approve the January 7, 2002, m��;ting minutes as subrryitfied. A v�ice vote wa�tak�n and the motion passed unanirriously. . 5. DIS�i��S1�0N I�'�AA — Pi��INED ��l�EL.�PIVIEB�TS Mo�gan Tracy and Dick Bewersdorff conducted a workshop on the Ci�ty'� current Planned Development Ordinance. As a result of concesns expressed by the Planning Commi�sion relating to d�nsity, open space, and a site's suitability for development, staff has examined the oi°dinanc� in an att�mpt to address these c�nc�rns. � Foilowing discussion, i4 was decided that the Commission's main concerns relate to density banuses granted for providing open space that is otherwise �ndevelopable and for trees protected in areas where development would not otherwise be allowed. Staff will prepare some suggested code language revisions on these issues and present it 4o th� Commi�sion at the next meeting. PLANNING COM1VeISSIUi�I MEETING MINUTES — January 28,2002 — Page 1 � �_ �� � � �. OTHER �US1NE�� Far the general infiarmation af the Commission's new m�mber�, F'resident Padgett nnted 4hat th� Comprehens�ve Plan addre�ses three basic fypes o€ zoning: residential, commercial, and industrial, with other zor�es that are variations of tihese thre�e basic zone�. It vyas deterrnined by th� City thafi the Comp t'!an should create a balance be4vvPer� residential, corr�mercial, and ind�striai development, wit�i � certain ratia of each witt�in the City. Thro�agh zone chan�es over ths years, thes� ratios have chang�d from the original ratios. However, if in support of a pro�osed zone ch�ng� an �ppficant argues that the c�arrent ratio is out e�f balanc�, thafi is not a viabl� �rgumen� for approving that applicant'� requested change. The Commossion must look �t the overal! plan from its in�eptian and try ta maintain the ratias as close as possible #o the original plan. When the City considers annexing prope�fy, this do�s increase �the rafiio of residentially zor�ed land, but the City Council looks at each poter�tial annexafiion as fo whether it will b� a benefiit or d�trir�nen#4o the City financially. The nex# Planning Commis�ion meeting is scheduled for February 4, 2002. after discu�sion, it was decided that the meeting time sho�ald be changed frnm 7:3� p.m. �o �:00 �.m. It was therefors maved and second�d tf�at the bylaws of the Planning Corr�mis�ic�n be arn�nded to pravide #hat the Planning C:ommi�sion meeting� shall b� he9d at 7:00 p.m., or at other times as rnay be determi�red by the Commission. A vo6�:� vc�te was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 7, ,ADJt3EJI�fV�!{�I�T The meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M. � Jerr ayno , PI� mg Commi�sion S�crstary .� ,,�,�? �' ' P,TTEST: P sodent Mark Padgett ; ; PLANNING CUMNIISSION IVIEETING MINUTES — January 28,2002 — Page 2 � � ' i � �.� 1�' � � I' C�fiy c�f Tigard T'IG�►RD PlLl�fVNllVC� ��ft�AEIIS�i0�1 shd�A����ra�t;ry ,��an�u�►�Y as, aooa TlC�ARD CIVlC CE�lTER—TOW�I F-IALL 13125 SW HP,LL BC3ULEVARQ TIGARa, ORE�ON 97�23 1. C�;LL T� ORC�ER 2. �O�.L C/ALL 3� 64PP°R�@!� 611l9�ei@.!"1'�� 4e �C)l�IIViUNf���Il7NS 5. D9��@JS�9(7N I°T��ll — PLAN�lED �Ei/EL�PNIEidT� 6. �TH�F� �IJ�II���� 7. /���lt�UR�lNIEN�' �GENDA ITEM #5 � cirv o��remne� Community Development Shaping A Better Community �NENiORA QU CITY OF TIGAR �, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TC): Planning Commission Members �R011lI: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner De4T�: Januar�28, 2002 SIJ�J��T: Analysis of the Planned Development Ordinance The Planning CommiSSion requested that staff examine the City's current Pl�nned Development Ordinance, follnwing several cas�s (�lu� Her�n Park, On Fanner Pond) where the final approval did nr�t achieve the desires of a num�er of the m�mbers on the commission. l"he issues that seemed mast prevalent were the types of housing (attached homes) in predomin�ntiy single family neighborhoods, and the level of density. The commission also expressed some concern with the quality of the si�es that were being d�veloped, that these properties were unsuitabl�to the level of development being proposed. The product af a planned d�:velopment is usually a negatiated praject. That me,�ns the City will benefit by some measures (unique or high quality development, increased project amenities, open space, or better relatian of built environment to natural constraints) and the develaper will benefit by some measure� (flexibility in development star�dards, in density, housing type, and land uses, or reduced casts associafied with reduced irrfrastructure requirements). At their most basic level, 4�I�nn�d Developments are ch�racterized by the granting of flexibility to underlying subdivisi�n code standards in ordee-to achieve a desired public purpose. The stafed purpose of the Planned Development ardinance in the Tigard Development �ode is: 1. To provide a rrieans for creating plann�d environments through the applicafion of flexible standards, i.e., zero-lot lines, narrower streets, and other innavative planning practices which will result in a superior living arrangement; 2. To facilifate the e�fficient us� af land; 3. To prornote an economic arrangement of land use, buildings, circulation systems, open s.pace;and utilities, 4. �"o preserve to t�e greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities � � thr�ugh the use of a planning procedure that can relate the type and design of a development to a parficular site; and 5. 7a encourage development that recognizes the relationship between buildings, their use, open space, and accessways and thereby maximizes fhe opportunities for inn�vative and diversified living environments. These purpc�ses are accomplished through various allowances: 1. Flexibl� ��ahc�arc#§ta /�chieve a 5�perior Livinc�Arrang�►ner�t Narrow streefis, S�veral years ago, the City adopted reduced street width star�dards for streets. Public and private streets share the same requirement for pavement width, regardless of vuhether in a PD or r�ot. However, the difference for private streets is that the required ri�ht of way width can be reduced by placing utilities and ath�r street amenitie� in easements. 'This provides c�reater design flexibility and helns maintain larger lot siz�s as less site area is utilized by right of way. Privat� streets are allowed in subdivisions to serve a maximum of 6 lots. The Planned Development overlay does not limit the number of units served by a private street. Lot dimensional requirements. In a subdivisian, the lot siz�s may be reduced up to 20% as long as the av�rage size of ail lots meets the minimum size far the zone. PD's have no minie-num. A more detailed cc�mparisor� between the zoning district standards, fhe adjustments availabie to those standards, and the PD requirements is shown in Table 1.1. Setback�. Setbacks for individu�l lots within subdivisic�n� may be reduced through adjustments up to 20°/n for side and rear, and up to 25% far front: yard r�quir�ments. No reducti�n to the garage setback is allowed. pD's have no sefiback si:andards except for lots on the perimeter that must meet the underlying zane standard, and garages which require 20 feet (or 8 feet for att�ched hausing, �vith separate off street parking provid�d). UsPS. Certain types of uses may �e allc,wed in zones where they are typically not permitted through �stablishing a planned development. The following list identifies the range of allowed uses, anc� whether a planned devel�pmer�t wduld be required to establish �hat use in the listed zone. Residentiai �one Us�s �ingle �amily detached; Na P� required, for all zones Single family attached; R1 ,R2, R3.5, R4.5—Requires PD 1 R7—Qver 5 aitached requires PD ' R12, R25, 1�40—N� PD required Duplexes; R1 and R2—Requires PD R3.5 and R4.5—RequirE:s PD or CUP R7, R12, R 25, R40— No PD required Multi Family Units; R1, R2, R3.5, R4.5, R7— Requires PD. R12, R25, R40—No PD required Zero Lat Lin�; fVa PD required, for all zc�nes Manufactiared Units; No P[7 required, for all zones Services and Comrriercial Uses for PD residents; Requires F�D, all zones Community Building; Requires PD, in all zones Indpor ReG Facility; Requires PD, in all zones �utdoor Rec Facility; Requires PD, in all zones FtV Storage; Requires R'D, in all zones �ommerci�l Zone Uses Up to 25% of the gross filoor area may be used for Mufti �amily units wi�h the establishment of a PD (only affects CN, CG, and portions of CBU) Industri�l Zone: Uses No additional fiexibility granted for uses in the industrial zon�s. 2. Efficient Use mf Lancd � The facilitation of�fficienC use of land, while still a purpose to be served by planned developments, is not as relevant since M�tro imposed minimum density requirements on the City. Developers ar� now mandated to efficiently use the land to accommodate the requisite number of units. The benefit of Planned Developments is th�t clustering of dwelling types n�t otherwiss allaw�d in �he zone will potenti�liy enable the development to provide more useable common open space. 3. �cor�orv�i�e�rrange��rt�t a�f Land lJses This sfiatement seems to reiter�te the previous purpose statemenY, allowing for greater flexibility in fihe location of particular types of uses, uiirestrained by rigid zoning boundaries. With a limited arrrount of large vacanfi or un�lerdeveiaped parcels, it is less likel�thaf w�will see fhe inclusi�n of commercial type uses (that primarily serve fihe residents of the PC�) in future infil! projects. Expansion of the urban growfih baundary into the urban reserve cauld p�ssibly present more opportunities, but this remains to be seen. 4. Preservateo�n �f existia�g�featur�s �nd �s�nenities th�t rei�te the develmprner�t to a p�r@icular sB�ee Often, to accommadate minimum densities, �xisting featurES s«ch as topography and #rees are signi�ic�ntly impacted by grading and necess�ry impravements. Other�m�nities iike water f�;aturPS are prot�cted fihrough wetland and strearn r�ipa�°ian corridor pratections. Future development ma� b�riefit through filexible I�t dev�lopment requirements and private streets to minimize th� extent o�f land disturbance to pre��rve areas af open >pace. 5. Re9ationshi�a k�etween buildBngs, th�ir use, open spa�e, and �ccess��ys to maxirn°sz� insaavatav� �nd cli�er�ifiied iivirag �nvironme�fs. This purpase statement envisions a campus lik� setting with areas of open space and pedestrian pa#hway connections and conscientiously 5ited buildings. With a few exceptions, the inventory of build�bie I�nds within Tigard is ins�fficient in si��e to permit a large scale �f m��ster planned community. There are density br�nus incentives in the PD ordinance to encourage these "inn�vative and diversified living envirc�nments". The density bonuses allow a maximum of 10% increase by granting up to 3% for providing open s�ace, 3%for plazas, pathways, and related amenities, 3% for creation of f��cal points, and another 3% for architectural excellence and building �rouping. �-lowever, on �mall sites, th�:se bonuses do not add a si�nific�nt number of units, but could add to the neighborhood perce:ption that there has been a significant density � increase. � � "Pable 1 -Developrr�ent Standard� The following table compares the standard residential zone development standards (stnd), available adjustments (adj), �rrd PD standards (pd). Standards marked as "N/A" are not affected by adjustrnents or the F�D ordinanc�. R-1 di-2 R-3.5 stnd aclj d stnd Ad' d stnd ad' d Minimum Lot Size -Detached unit 30,OOOm 24,OOOm No min 20,OOOm 16,OOOm No min 10,000m 8,OOOm No min -Duplexes -Attached unit Average Minimum Lot Widih -Detached unit lots 100 ft, N/� No min 100 ft. N/R No min 65 ft. N/A No Min -Duplex lots 90 ft. -Attached unit lots Maximum Lot Covera e - - - - - - - - Minimum Setbacks -Front yard 30 ft. 22.5 ft No min 30 ft. 22.5 ft. No min 20 ft. 15 ft No min -Side facing street on corner&through lots 20 ft. 16 ft No min 20 ft. 16 ft. No min 20 ft. 16 fl. No min -Side yard 5 Pt. 4 ft No min 5 ft. 4 ft. No min 5 ft. 4 ft. No min -Rear yard 25 tt. 20 ft No min 25 ft. 20 ft. No min I 5 ft. 12 ft. No min -Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district -Distance between property line and front of ara e 20 Ft. N/A 8 ft. 20 ft. N/A 8 ft. 20 ft. N/A 8 ft. Maximum Hei ht 30 ft. N/A No max 30 ft. N/A No max 30 ft. N/A No max Minimum Landsca e Re uirement - - - - - R-4.5 Yi-7 R-12,R-2S,and R-90* stnd ad' d st�ed ad' d stnd ad' d Minimum 'Lot 5ize -Detached unit 7,SQOm 6,OOOm No min S,OOOm 4,0001D No min 0-3,OSOm 0-2,440m No min -Duplexes 10,000m S,OOOm No min �O,OOOm 8,OOOm 6,100m 4,830m No min -Attached unit No min S,OOOm 4,OOOm 0-1,480m 0-1,184m Average Minimum Lot Width -Detached unit lots 50 ft. N/A No min 50 ft. N/A No min None N/A N/A -Duplex lots 90 ft. N/A No min 50 ft. N/A No min -Attached unit lots 40 ft. N/A No min Maximum Lot Covera e - - 80% 85% N/A 80% 85% N/A Minimum Setbacks ]VI�/SF MF/SF MF/SE -Front yard 20 ft. 15 ft. No min 15 ft. 11.25 ft. No min 20/15 16/12 No min -Side facing street on corner�i through lots 15 ft, 12 ft. No min 10 ft. 8 ft. No min 20/10 16/8 No min -Side yard S ft. 4 f't. No min 5 ft. 4 ft, No min 10/5 8/4 No min -Rear yard 15 ft. 12 ft. No min 15 ft. 12 ft. No min 20/15 16/12 No min -Side or reae yard abutting more restrictive::oning district 30 ft. N/A N/A 30 ft. N/A N/A -Distance Uelween property line.and front of ara e 20 ft. N/A 8 ft. 20 ft. N/A 8 ft, 20 ft. N/A 8 ft. Maximum Hei ht 30 ft. N/A No max 35 ft. N/A No max 35-60 ft. N/A No max MinimumLandsca eRe uirement - - - 20% 15% N/A 20% IS% N/A *R12,R25,and R40,these standards have been generalized,where a range is presented(e.g.0-3,050 )this is the range between the lower density zone(R-12)and the higher density zone(R-40). /�s�essrnent: The Planned DeveloK�ment ordinance is a co!lection of flexibie decision m�king toals to Lnable developrr�ent that is site sp�cific and not ma#hematically pr�scribed. As noted in the,ASPO publication on planned developments, "the PUD ordinance, which allows the greatest amount of flexibility, ideally will have �a tendenc�r to allow better design. But as prablems in actually administering PUD's...are addressed, ordinances are arriended and thus become less flexible, and thereby decrease the chance for better design."' In ather words, we should be careful, if not cautioias, about adopting stricter�tandards for PD's. Tigard adopted its �lanned devslopment ordir�ance to enable flexibiiity in design and er�courage inn�ovative development of both infill ar�d large parcels. Sam� minimum standards were adopted to avoid a pos.�ible abuse of that flexibility. The ordinance remains relatively"I�ose" on a number of other standards to enco�irage develop�rs ta use the PD pracess, and relies on the planning commission to ensure that the more subjective standards are met by the over�ll prnject. There may be areas of the ardinance th�t ne�d further refinement, but there are certain constraints p�rticularly as related to density requiremenfis, that cannot be addressed through changes to the PD ordinance. Consistency with IVletro requirements prevents the City from granting density reductians. Restrictions for certain housing types in particular zones can be madified, but there could be inst�nces where the housing type5 are better suited fo the to�ography, c�nfigiaration, or natura! constraints on a site. Ar�as that�ould be im�ro�ed include the designation or requirements for open space. There :�eems to be a lac� of a coherent open space pian, and suitable incentives to encour�ge pr�viding c�p�n space wiihin a logical framework in the City. Commingled with the open space issue is tre� preservatian. A, nurrzb�r of dev�lopment pro�osals have been hinderPd by the apparenf contradictian between minimum density and fhe City's tree ordinance. Both subdivisions and �D"s have generalfy be�n unabl�to pravid� su�sta�tial tree profectian as the required d�nsity must still 'be accammodated. The tree issue is one ti�at deserves further study as part of any proposed amendment to the Planned Develnpment ordinance. Fin�liy, ane arena that the City has been reluctant to enter(especially related to single family residenfiial dwellings) is architectural review. Howeve�, if the cancern ofi the commission is that neighborhao�s of predaminantly single family detached homes are b�ing "invaded" by attached housing, then architectural controls could be implement�d. However, there would be no re�l assurance of a meaningful imprnvement. Additionally, a r�view process for archit�ctural design i� subjective and tends to lengthen the de�✓eiopment prc�cess which in turn attracts fewer applicants to�tfiempt an innovative de5ign. Pe�ssibAe Alt�rna46ves: D�nsity Minimurn density requirements are an edict from Metro that represent Tigard's apportioned share of growth anticipated for the regidn, By granting density reductions, the Gity would be in non- compliance. However, ane po:;sibility may be to include private open space in the deductions from the gross site area in determining the net developable area. Thi�would have the dual effect of encouraging open space dedication in constrained sites and reducing the number of � 80,F., and D. Mosena. 1973. Planned Unit Development Ordinances. F'lanning Advisory Service �� � � required iots. This would require concurr�nce fi'ram IVletro to ensure that the City remains in compliance with density targets. Qpen �pace • - O�en space standards would r�eed 4a be �raft�d. If th� city will be wiliing#o make such d�nsity cc�nc�ssiors, then a strict set af standards ne�ds to be adapfied as to v�hat quaiity of open space is adequate. A denuded hillside or strips of land that simply extend#he private yards of dvuellings should not be �cceptable. ����je�t S6z�1°hreshold Many cities sefi thresholds fior �stablishing Plann�d Developments. �ake Oswego leave�s it optiona�l for small-projects and makes it mandatory above a cert�iro project size; "Use of the °D `C3verlay i� required in any zc�ne for a rPSidential development propasal of 20 or more units or four or more acres." l�lternately, F�illsboro discourages PD's on sites smaller th�n twa acres; "A PUD shall not be established on iess than two (2) acres of contig�ous land unless th� Planning Commission finds thafi property of less fhan two (2) acres in size is sui4able as a pUD because of its special charac#eristics (such as confiiguration, access, topography) or siting �nd iandsca�ing features.° The City of Tigarc� preuiausly had a �imilar requiremenf, but found th�t applicants merely requ��ted the exce�tiar� to allaw PQ's or� �mall �ites and the Plarrning Commission routinely gr�nted it. Gresham mandates a three acre site minimum and ailows th� ov�rlay only on LDR (Low Density Resod�nfial)znnes. A►rchitect�ara{ Contro9� ' As not�d in the assessment section of this mema, perh�ps one way to alleviate the concem of non-standard housi�g types in an ar�a of prednminantly single famiiy detached dw�i�ings is throuyh design critersa. The potential problem with design review is the extra lay�r ofi uncertain subjectivity ar�d lengthened revie�v process that wouid dissuade many from even attempting a PD projec�. ��nclusia�° This memorandum responds to the Planning Cc�mmission's desirE tA exarriine the city's Planned D�v�lopment ardinance, and highlight� 5everal �reas where fihe Commission had expressed conrern. A6though several pa5sibilitie� have been presented, this nnly represents a �tarting point. The members o#the planning commission must detsrmin� whsther the current PD ordir�ance is fruly not accomplishing whafi was intended, and if it is not, then a more involved di�cussic�n of what types of changes are needed shauld occur.