03/21/2005 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
March 21, 2005
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, Buehner,
Duling, Haack, Inman, Meads, and Munro. Also
present was David Walsh, Commission alternate.
Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Caffall
Staff Present: Barbara Shields, Planning Manager; Jerree Gaynor, Planning
Commission Secretary
3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
The next meeting is scheduled for April 4th; there will be land use training with the
City Attorney on April 18th
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
None
5. UPDATE ON THE DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Planning Manager Barbara Shields and Commissioner Munro gave an update on
the Downtown Task Force and the Downtown Improvement Plan. They had a
PowerPoint presentation for the Commissioners (Exhibit A). Shields advised that
the Plan is scheduled to be finalized by July 1St. Shields and Commissioner Munro
briefly talked about the subgroups working on the Plan: Catalyst, Brand Tigard,
Finance, and the Platform (Commuter Rail) subcommittee.
Munro detailed the seven districts envisioned in the Downtown Plan: Main Street,
Entertainment, Commercial Street, Regional Retail, Hillside Residential, Civic, and
Fanno Creek as shown in Exhibit A.
Commissioner Buehner brought up her concern about connectivity— doing
something to align Commercial Street. Commissioner Munro said this issue has
been brought up to the Task Force. Barbara Shields said one of the key
connectivity points in the Downtown is the extension of Ash Street, but it is close to
impossible because of the railroad tracks. This will be one of the challenges of the
Downtown Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 21,2005-Page 1
Commissioner Buehner also brought up the Hunziker/Scoffins non-alignment. She
suggested this might be an easier intersection to start with.
With regard to moving the Post Office, Commissioner Buehner suggested the Task
Force invite Congressman Wu to the meetings. She noted that it would take
approval from Congress to move the Post Office and, on average, it takes 7-10
years to get something through Congress.
Barbara Shields advised that the Improvement Plan will be done by the end of
June and the next step will be to start on the implementation program. A
significant portion of the implementation program will be urban renewal.
Commissioner Inman brought up the issue of pedestrian orientation on Main
Street. She mentioned that Sisters, Oregon focused on being pedestrian-friendly
and it became a "nightmare" for traffic.
Commissioner Haack suggested looking at New Markets Tax Credits. He advised
that this U.S. Treasury program can be used for new construction and commercial
development.
Commissioner Buehner asked about potential expansion across the viaduct for
development along Commercial Street. Commissioner Haack mentioned that
Gilroy, California is going through a similar process in revitalizing their downtown.
The Downtown Task Force will be holding community dialogs in March. There will
be an open house April 23 and a joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting
on June 21st to discuss the plan.
6. UPDATE ON THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
Commissioner Buehner provided an update on the Planned Development Review
Committee. She noted that there had been considerable discussion about planned
developments (PD) in relation to gives and takes (if density bonuses are given,
what would come back to the City). As a result of these discussions, the City set up
the Planned Development Review Committee to look at the Development Code.
The committee has been looking at the relevance of the PD code, which was
originally written for large undeveloped parcels. That model doesn't fit the vast
majority of Tigard planned developments, which tend to be small infill projects with
steep slopes and/or tree issues. The committee thinks there should either be two
PD codes or re-focus the entire perspective of the existing code. They developed a
draft purpose for the code which moves away from the perspective of large
undeveloped parcels to looking at difficult small sites.
Commissioner Buehner handed out a draft of possible amenities for developers to
consider when applying for PD overlays (Exhibit B). She noted that density
requirements will be part of the discussion when they look at the code.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 21,2005-Page 2
David Walsh remarked that the code cannot meet all the needs of all applications.
Small infill lots are going to be the ones that use the PD code over and over again.
Not every small development will get a park. Commissioner Buehner said the
committee talked about the possibility of requiring developers to contribute to an off-
site area if their own site is not appropriate for open space. Walsh said this has
been an area of contention with the committee.
Commissioner Inman suggested that instead of a list of guidelines or amenities,
having a set of questions that the developer would need to be prepared to answer
(a FAQ sheet). David Walsh said it was anticipated that staff would oversee the
information that would be provided to developers.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
Commissioner Meads provided an update on the Park and Recreation Board. She
advised that the Board doesn't think they need to make any further
recommendations to Council about drinking in the parks. The Board has been
discussing whether or not Park SDC money could be used for parks on Bull
Mountain or if it had to be used in the "flat land". The Board was told that SDC
money does not have to be spent in the area where it was collected.
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Jerree aynor, Planning Co mission Secretary
Al a ATTEST: Presiders ark Padgett
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 21,2005-Page 3
f
r
The Downtown
Improvement Plan
{
Tigard's
• Led by Citizen Task F4
Downtown Task Force dedicated hundreds of hours.'
Update ■ Our Community's Plan;
over 40 outreach events
March 21, 2005 • For the"Heart"of Tigard
• Implementation —
Make it Happen!
Plan Status Design Process
• Community-Driven: Survey, fall
• Completion by July 1, 2005 Dialogs (26), Dec. Workshop, Task Force
• Refining Design Right Now i■ Comments = 6"Great Ideas"
•20 Community Dialogs in March • Consultants translate"Great
• Working Groups: Implementation Ideas"into map, projects, 7 Districts
• Finance,Catalyst,Brand Tigard l• Check back with Community
• How Do We Make the Plan Happen? (March dialogs); Open House April 23
• Recommendations March 31
1
Design: "Great Ideas" Districts: 1. Main Street
Summary • Preserve, enhance historical
• Vibrant Village; retain Main Street character
historical feel
• The"Green Heart"of Tigard; Projects:
Environment, Fanno Creek,Trees 4 Focus on pedestrian environment,
Fanno Creek,gateways,beautification,
• Welcoming, Safe for Walking; Burnham
Accessible for Cars, Bikes,Transit Options
• Live,work, play and shop here
2. Entertainment 3. Commercial Street
■ Geographic Center ■ Mixed uses, including affordable
• Focus on arts, gathering space housing and commercial
Projects:
Projects: 4 Focus on pedestrian environment,
4 Focus on pedestrian environment, Transit Center,linear park along rail,
Fanno Creek,Rail platform,Burnham, residential
park and ride,linear park along rail.
2
4. Regional Retail 5. Hillside Residential
■ Visibility, entry point from 99W • Boulevard with Mid-Size Housing:
with supporting retail to draw Take Advantage of Valley Views
people Downtown Projects:
Projects: 4 Focus on residential projects,transportation
4 Focus on medium-size retail,public plaza, connections,'pedestrian improvements,pocket parks
water features,Transit Center residential, and plazas.
street improvements
6. Civic 7. Fanno Creek
• Concentrate all Civic Uses • Condo community adjacent and
Around Existing Complex sensitive to Fanno Creek natural
Projects: area
4 Focus on possibly moving Post Office Projects:
here,Burnham,Fanno Creek,water features, 3 Focus on pedestrian connections, •
pedestrian improvements,other street • Burnham,Fanno Creek enhancement and
improvements. access,street connections and improvements
3
Working Groups Upcoming Events
• Identify Key Projects, Funding Tools,
Begin FY2005-06 • March — 20 Community Dialogs
4 Finance • March 31 —Task Force meeting
-Examine LID,CIP,Grants, Urban (Working Group Recommendations)
Renewal • April 23 —Open House and o�
4 Brand Tigard I Funding Discussion
-Small Projects Create Momentum
• June 21 —Joint PC-CC mtg
4 Catalyst to discuss plan ••1 r�H_;�,:
-Major Key Projects to Jump-Start Plan
Downtown Imam/went plan Phases
Phis?I Phase It Phase III:
PLANS TOOLS BUILD
Rodeeell..nl: 9nNifMloumlxbn e�lrelMWMk
iM.It1VN/N.y.Ven]
L2005
air
o.�Yr,W wow. smwleesav r�qa
tlganl aownlnwn lnlworeniNiil way \ nnh
OWnlornl Imnlvmvnlollen .oe�Yreb loot
.01I&PROM S RaWYfga aMrin(nn lxgnraalMal Rv)ec
I oellna,nnwnue
�wmly,0uniu.ai
1005-00 pVWlesniPomle
Urban Romani Plan
10X080.0005 stale loxtl n.n�anm.WV vecene I
WYlc Lrcvlranenl
m�ir�el��aw.
nwwlWAnebsh: PuWir]ennaa
IenieaelWv)
.UVSIOWUenInOYUnYW
Idh
4
A
(--- 777-----
,,,. ,
C ,,.
,.... ..„,J
_ „ ,
The tlanxiig Cs issisners' Toolbox
The following list and illustrations are intended to provide guidance to both the planning
commission and the applicant in developing and reviewing applications for Planned
Developments. As you know, a planned development approval should be reserved for
situations where either the peculiarities of the developing parcel or the specific design
deserve special judgmental consideration outside the strict constraints of the subdivision
ordinances. In evaluating a proposal, the commission should see evidence that the
applicant has conducted a site analysis.
SITE ANALYSIS
- Survey Data (scale,north arrow, date,boundary, easements, abutting rights of
way, existing buildings and paved areas,utilities,location of water features,tree
data, contour intervals)
- Constraint Analysis (steep slopes, flood zones, surface water channels, road
access, geologic soil constraints, adjacent land uses,major noise sources)
- Opportunities (sun angles,pedestrian linkages, exceptional views, wildlife habitat
areas,tree groves)
CONVENTIONAL YIELD PLAN
- This plan should show a conforming subdivision that has no special attributes.
The basic premise is to just show how density can be achieved by meeting the
standards.
PROPOSED PLAN
- This plan reflects the maximization of opportunities and avoidance of the
constrained portions of the site. There should be no regard to what the
development standards require. The objective here is design excellence.
CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Conceptual Plan Requirements:
If applying for conceptual and detailed plan approval at the same time, the concept plan
must be presented at the neighborhood meeting. It is the express intention that the
concept is entirely open for discussion. The applicant is responsible for soliciting input
and documenting the ideas that are put forward during the meeting. There is no
obligation to revise the plan based on this meeting,but the planning commission can
examine and request defensive argument from the applicant on why a particular concept
raised at the meeting was not further explored or if explored, why it was not chosen.
If applying for concept plan approval prier to,detail plan,the same method shall be used,
except that after the PC approves the concept;the detail plan that implements the concept
is not open for discussion as far as changing the concept elements. For example if the PC
approved a 3 and 4 unit attached product for 15 units, $0%max coverage,reduced front
and rear setbacks,22%open space,with an alpine flair,while certain aspects of the detail
are alterable like building orientation and placement, street layout etc.,the PC could not
come back and require additional open space,limit the buildings to 5 units only,reduce
lot coverage and require a cosmopolitan style design.
Concept Plan should identify the following:
o Housing type(duplex, attached, detached, zero lot line, efficiency units, flats,
apartments)
o Use Type (Services and Commercial Uses for PD residents Community Building
Indoor Rec Facility Outdoor Rec Facility RV Storage,Residential Living)
o Should other uses be considered, such as neighborhood retail<5,000g.s.f.? Would
require amending the list of allowable uses.
o Number of units (or range, within the allowable densities of 18.715 and 18.350)
o Lot coverage specs.
o Setbacks (front, garage,rear, side, street side, any specific projections such as
porches or decks)
o Parking (where any additional is provided off street, except for in garages)
o Percent of open space -
o Other unique site design aspects that would be assisted by the PD process (such as
rear loaded alley units, front yards out to open space, common courtyards between
homes, etc.)
o Development theme-(e.g. English Park-tudor style architecture with old english
park benches OR Northwest Forest—Craftsman with natural materials-highlighted
throughout,boulders in landscaping)
o Schedule for construction/completion
Detail Plan Requirements.
There is a provision allowing an applicant to receive concept plan approval-at.PC and '
then through an SDR get detail plan approval at a staff level. This should not be
permitted. There is too far a leap between the concept and detail to infer the PC's intent.
In other words, the concept should be just that, a concept. Leave it loose, for public and
PC discussion. The detail plan (which in all likelihood would be submitted
simultaneously) needs to show how the concept is being implemented.
The Detail Plan should include the following:
o Site plan
o Building Envelope Plan(setbacks, lot coverage, other site development specs.)
o Lot plan(i.e. preliminary plat)
o Landscape plan
o General Utility Plan(s) (sewer, water, streets, drainage, etc)
o Architectural details or design controls (CC&R's)both for the structures and for.
other site amenities (benches, street lights,ped path lights,walkways, bike racks
etc)
FOR COMMISSIONER CONSIDERATION:
-Open Space/Natural Area
The degree of open space required should be commensurate with the intensity of the
density within the development. In other words, if the homes are packed tight together
with small lot sizes, more open space should be required. Mathematically, this could be
expressed in percentages: if the average lot size of PD lots in the R-7 zone are 3,000
square feet, they are 40% smaller than required in the zone. Therefore, 40% open space
or natural area should be provided. If there is unsuitable area for open space or natural
areas on site,then the applicant may propose to pay a fee in lieu or an off site location,
which the commission may accept or reject.
There should be a baseline requirement for"Natural Areas or Open Space" with any PD.
A minimum of 20% of the net buildable area is required. This may be a combination of:
Natural Area. An area of land and/or water that has a predominantly undeveloped character.
Natural areas may be pristine or may have been previously affected by human activity such as
vegetation removal, agriculture,grading or drainage if such areas retain significant natural
characteristics, or have recovered or been restored to the extent that they contribute to the City's
natural systems including hydrology,vegetation, or wildlife habitat.Natural areas shall be
permanently reserved by common ownership among the owners of a development,dedicated to
the public, or by other appropriate means committed to use for the general public.
Open Space. Land to remain in natural or landscaped condition for the purpose of providing a
scenic, aesthetic appearance and/or protecting natural processes,providing passive or active
recreational uses, and/or maintaining natural vegetation. Open space shall be permanently
reserved by common ownership among the owners of a development, dedicated to the public, or
by other appropriate means committed to use for the general public.
a. Active Use Recreational Facilities: Facilities for recreational uses that tend to be more
organized and/or that require a greater degree of site development and conversion of
natural area, including sports fields,playground equipment, group picnic shelters,hard
surfaced pathways,permanent restrooms, accessory parking lots and similar facilities.
b. Passive Use Recreational Facilities: Facilities for recreational uses related to the
functions and values of a natural area that require limited and low impact site
improvement,including soft-surface trails, signs,pedestrian bridges,seating,viewing
blinds, observation decks,handicapped facilities, drinking fountains,picnic tables,
interpretive facilities, and similar facilities.
If the amount of natural area does not meet or exceed 20%, then the applicant shall
provide additional area (either open space or created or enhanced natural area).
If the development proposed a condo or multi family project (no lots, and therefore no lot
size equation) then the minimum 20% would be required with the formula in
[18.350.100.B.3.e.] used for additional increases: usable outdoor recreation space shall be
provided in residential developments for the shared or common use of all the residents in
the following amounts: (1) Studio up to and including two-bedroom units, 200 square feet
per unit; and
(2)Three or more bedroom units, 300 square feet per unit.
Unlike the similar SDR criteria, this space could not be accommodated with balconies,
and would have to be in a consolidated form. (i.e. no semi-public/private yards behind the
units)
-Lot Size Transition. Lots that abut existing single family lots should transition to
smaller lot sizes interior to the subdivision. This should not apply to lots across a public
street, open space, or significant natural resource from existing SFD's. (when exempting
this requirement due to the presence of significant natural resources or open space,the
commission shall determine that the width of the intervening area provides a suitable
buffer.)
Since averaging lot sizes is permissible in standard subdivisions, the minimum size for
lots abutting existing SFD's should be no less than 80% of the minimum size for that
zone. An exception to this standard should be included for attached single family units (3
or more per building). In cases where attached units directly abut SFD's,the commission
may consider limiting the number of contiguous units to break up the massing of the
building, or change the orientation of the units, or require additional architectural design
features to mitigate for the height and bulk of the proposed building. It is within the
purview of the commission to stipulate building height envelopes as well as setback
envelopes if an impact nexus can be shown.
- Open Space Amenities
In addition to passive use recreational trails, the commission may require a program of
interpretive signage to be installed. The purpose of this signage is to educate users about
either how the development was responsive to the natural features and constraints, or
aspects of the environment and ecosystem present on the site. The commission may
require final review and approval of the sign design templates and proposed locations.
-Transit and Pedestrian Networks
For larger scale developments, an integrated system of off street pedestrian trails should
connect various points both within and adjacent to the development. Opportunities for
future trail extensions (similar to the future streets plan) should be explored as well.
Also, transit amenities should be incorporated where relevant(i.e. where bus service is
available or planned in the TSP). Other considerations for school bus transport (such as
rain shelters) could be provided,but should be in a highly visible location and designed to
thwart vandalism.
- Intensity of Density
The amount of density above the minimum should be directly correlated to the level of
added amenities the applicant is proposing. The commission should feel that on the
,/
whole, the project is going above and beyond the minimum level and quality of
improvements.
- Public Facility Design Features
• Retaining walls should be constructed or faced with natural or natural appearance
materials. Large mass retaining walls should be discouraged,unless forming a public
space. Generally, walls should not exceed 4 feet in height.
• Sidewalks should be allowed to Ste• off the beaten path:
•
_,
i. 1;
�. +t3
7 f
.4,•a, •,` �x K,csr ca
-.-mss "' .,T. 's„" =a
�''- °9� ,�'�� e•3 `ate K' �
r. -,',, ? ri'r ' �% ,i'3 �."'..
�r - r 1 a _11' y
�� s1
• The shortest distance may be a straitht line,,/but that is not always a good thing.
, r
Nam-t ` ' 'r�C• Ir rw
� mp ny' li� v
i
.:�r irh
1 r
ot
r'
r li .tea"'. s.�.°r,"... .. . ' LV'•r -. �a!`w<
• Fixtures should be distinctive:
• O•en S,aces should be invitin:
• Innovative and/or unique building materials should be used, such as brick or other
modular pavers, i een roofs, : een streets,
TO BE CONTINUED...