09/20/2004 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
September 20, 2004
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Padgett called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in
the Tigard Civic Center, Red Rock Creek Conference Room, at 13125 SW Hall
Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Padgett; Commissioners Anderson, Bienerth,
Buehner, Caffall, Haack, Meads, and Sutton
Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Munro
Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Jerree Gaynor, Planning
Commission Secretary
3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
President Padgett noted the Tigard Chamber of Commerce Candidates' Forum
lunch on Tuesday, September 21st at the Greenwood Inn. He also advised of
another forum on October 14th, at 7:00 p.m. in the Tigard Water Building sponsored
by the City. The League of Oregon Cities is sponsoring a forum at the City on
September 30th
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
It was moved and seconded to approve the August 16, 2004 meeting minutes as
submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Commissioner Caffall abstained.
5. DISCUSSION — SECTION 18.350 OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE (PLANNED
DEVELOPMENTS)
President Padgett led the discussion on planned developments. He noted that
as land gets developed, we eventually get down to parcels that are the least
desirable and most challenging for development. Developers usually request a
planned development overlay for those parcels. In planned developments,
developers are asked for concessions in return for recognition that the parcel is
difficult to develop. The City is willing to give concessions, if we get something
back in return. The concessions are subjective on the Planning Commission's
part. In order to have consistency and fairness to both the public and to
developers, Padgett asked if the Commission should consider being more
quantitative —should we have specific quantitative amounts of concessions,
based on the types of concessions that the developers are asking for? If the
Commission decides to do that, in what manner will we do it? For instance, we
allow density bonuses and density transfers in certain conditions and we, in
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -September 20,2004-Page 1
general, require that open space be left. Should we make a quantitative rule that
for "x" percent in increase in density, we would require "y" number of square feet
in open space? Should we require the open space to be maintained in certain
way, developed in certain way, or have certain types of access to the open
space? Should we have a formula in our tree code for the number of trees that
should be left in an open space? Padgett would like to see a quantitative list of
guidelines for developers.
Commissioner Buehner reported that the Planned Development Review
Committee has talked about the possibility of offsite mitigation. Padgett asked, if
we allow offsite mitigation, should it be within a certain proximity of the property?
Commissioner Meads asked if a proposed open space would only be for the
benefit of the people in the planned development or would it be for the greater
good of the City. Padgett answered that it would serve the people of that area,
not necessarily just that development; it would not be restricted. Commissioner
Bienerth noted that most open spaces are small and maintained by Homeowner
Associations. They may not be keen on opening it up for others. Padgett
remarked that the City does not want open spaces donated to the City for
maintenance.
Padgett advised that he wanted to get the Commissioners thinking about what's
good for the public and what's fair for developers. One of the arguments is if we
should we even allow planned developments. Commissioner Buehner brought
up Measure 37. If the implementation of land use rules restricts development,
what kind of concessions could we make then?
President Padgett referred to language in the Development Code about the
purpose of planned developments — "... maximizes the opportunities for
innovative and diversified living environments." He thinks this is a key element of
the Code. As we go through the Comp Plan review and as we get information
from the Development Code Review Committee, Padgett said he wants the
Commission to be on track and not get lost in a case by case basis without
having some objectivity. We need to know what we want and we need to let the
developers know what we're going to be looking at hard and fast, what we're
going to be more lenient towards, and what we're going to be more receptive to.
Commissioner Haack asked if the subcommittee has looked at any alternatives.
He thinks it could be dangerous starting from scratch. Padgett said we would be
getting recommendations and ideas from the committee, but he wants the
Commission to start thinking about the broad picture with an idea of being more
quantitative rather than subjective.
Padgett suggested coming up with guidelines rather than hard and fast rules. The
guidelines could be posted and/or incorporated into the Development Code. Dick
Bewersdorff said the guidelines could be defined well enough without disrupting
the application process and without getting too detailed. Padgett suggested a list
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -September 20,2004-Page 2
of things in the Code that we would consider, e.g., open space, permeable
driveways, earth friendly houses.
Commissioner Meads asked if there is any documentation of what's been done in
the past. President Padgett suggested looking at PD cases that the Commission
has denied or sent back for more work.
Commissioner Caffall believes we need leave ourselves a lot of leeway since we
are dealing with "ugly ducklings". We need to be flexible.
Dick Bewersdorff advised that the Planned Development Review committee
recommendations will be presented to the Planning Commission probably in
November.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
President Padgett thanked the Commissioners for attending the meeting tonight
and remarked on the importance of good attendance.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Jerr-- nor, Plann''g Com "'ssion Secretary
"tit
ATTEST: Presiden Mark Padgett
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -September 20,2004-Page 3