09/12/2005 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
September 12, 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, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Padgett; Commissioners Anderson, Buehner,
Caffall, Duling, Haack, Inman, Meads, and Munro. Also
present was David Walsh, Commission alternate.
Commissioners Absent:
Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Gary Pagenstecher,
Associate Planner; Matt Scheidegger, Associate Planner; Kim
McMillan, Development Review Engineer; Jerree Lewis,
Planning Commission Secretary
3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
The Commission will have a joint meeting with Council on October 1lthto talk about
the Urban Renewal Plan. The public hearing for the Urban Renewal Plan is
scheduled for October 17th.
Commissioner Meads reported that the Park and Recreation Board is meeting
tonight. They are hosting someone from Metro who will talk about the Nature in
Neighborhoods Program.
Commissioner Buehner reported that the City Center Advisory Commission has
been discussing and finalizing the Public Outreach Program which will be
presented to Council on September 13th. The Commission has been determining
its work program and has been discussing the proposed boundaries for the Urban
Renewal District. There has also been discussion about a change in election law
which may change the election date for the Urban Renewal Plan.
Commissioner Munro said she did not attend the Downtown Task Force meeting
last week.
Commissioner Duling advised that Barbara Shields discussed the Urban Renewal
Public Outreach Plan with the Committee for Citizen Involvement. The Committee
also held a discussion with a Hispanic outreach panel about ways to reach out to
the Hispanic community in Tigard.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—September 12,2005—Page 1
President Padgett reported that CPO-4B has formed a committee to study future
governance of unincorporated Bull Mountain. The committee will not make a
recommendation —they will provide information to CPO-4B. The options they are
considering include 1) annexing to Tigard; 2) annexing to King City; 3) maintaining
the status quo; 4) forming their own city; 5) having a "super service district" whereby
they would contract through Washington County for all services.
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
It was moved and seconded to approve the August 15, 2005 meeting minutes as
submitted. The motion passed unanimously.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2004-00011/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR)
2004-00001/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2005-00002/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2005-
00028/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2005-00067 LIVINGSTON LANE TOWNHOMES
REQUEST: A request for approval for a 14-lot Planned Development (PD)
Subdivision of an approximate 1.43 acre site. The project is composed of 11
new single-family attached dwelling units, two new single-family detached units,
and one existing detached single-family dwelling. The proposed project spans
two separate zoning districts (R-12 and R-4.5). A Zone Change is required to
apply the PD overlay. The applicant is also requesting a setback adjustment to
the rear yard setbacks of proposed lots #2 and #3 from 15 to 12.67 feet.
LOCATION: 10895 SW 95th Avenue; WCTM 1S135BD, Tax Lot 400. ZONES:
R-12: Medium-Density Residential District, and R-4.5: Low-Density Residential
District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code
Chapters 18.350, 18.370, 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 Meads reported a site visit.
STAFF REPORT
Associate Planner Matt Scheidegger presented the staff report on behalf of the
City. He advised that the proposal was originally scheduled for a hearing on April
4, 2005, however the application was withdrawn. The current application is for
14 lots on 1.43 acres (11 single-family attached dwellings, 2 detached dwellings,
and 1 existing detached dwelling). There are 2 zoning districts involved — R4.5
and R12. Water quality will be in a vault under Street `A'. The applicant has
requested a density bonus. The applicant does not disagree with the conditions
of approval in the staff report, therefore, staff recommends approval of the
request.
Kim McMillan, Development Review Engineer, advised that there was an
omission in Condition #5. The 24'width of pavement referred to in 5-A should be
extended beyond the property frontage until it meets a section of the road that
has 24', so there is adequate 2-way paving section. According to staff, it appears
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—September 12,2005—Page 2
this would be about 2 or 3 lots to the south. Condition #5 should be amended to
reflect this.
President Padgett asked about Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 in the staff report,
"The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet." It
appears the applicant only has 85' of spacing. Ms. McMillan advised that we
have to grant them one access point and staff felt this was the best location,
even though it doesn't meet the 125' requirement. Matt Scheidegger advised
that the code can be altered through the Planned Development process — the
applicant does not have to ask for an adjustment. Commissioner Inman pointed
out that page 19 of the staff report shows that the applicant did request an
adjustment.
Commissioner Buehner noted that some of the units don't have minimum
setbacks for the driveway. She asked if it would be possible to provide parking
spaces at the end of Street `A'. Staff said the issue is parking in the driveways.
Sometimes sidewalks are allowed in the easements on narrow streets.
Unfortunately, that doesn't work for driveways because cars tend to park over the
sidewalks. Having tandem garages should help alleviate the problem in this
development.
Commissioner Inman noted that the applicant has asked for a variance for
backyard setback reductions for lots 2 and 3, however, the plans do not show
any reductions. Staff said that the original application had backyard setback
reductions for lots 2 and 3. There are no reductions with the new submittal,
however the staff report was not changed.
President Padgett noted that he has not made a formal site visit to the property,
however he lived close-by for about 20 years.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
Mark Person, 4230 NE Fremont, Portland, OR 97213 testified that the applicant
asked for a site distance reduction. They are going through the Planned
Development process to allow for more flexibility and to have narrower streets.
Storm water will be collected and treated on-site.
Sandie Russo, 9400 SW Stone Creek Drive, Beaverton, OR 97007 stated that
this will be a structured and attractive community.
Person went over the tree protection plan and said an arborist will be on site.
Russo said they bought additional land so they could save 3 birches and a red
maple. Commissioner Inman pointed out that the 3 birches were marked for
removal on the plans. The applicant reported that they plan to replace the apple
trees with something younger and more street worthy. They are not sure if an
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—September 12,2005—Page 3
arsenic study has been done on the property. Russo stated they do not have
any plans for the open space at this time.
Staff advised that if this request was not a PD overlay, they could have 13 lots
instead of 14.
With regard to extra parking at the end of Street "A", the applicant advised they
have to meet the turn around standards for TVF&R.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY— IN FAVOR
Barbara Davis, 9405 SW North Dakota, Tigard, OR 97223 said she's not for or
against the project — she just has questions. She said the neighborhood meeting
planned for last April was cancelled and they have not had another one since.
She has concerns about the impact of more traffic, especially with the larger
development going in across 95th (Longstaff). Staff advised that the City has not
seen an application for the other subdivision yet. If that project generates
enough traffic in conjunction with existing traffic on the adjacent streets, there will
be a report. They may also be required to improve 95th Street. Davis asked for
clarification about the distance between streets and asked about the difference
between a planned development and a regular development.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY— IN OPPOSITION
Phil Decker, 14540 SW 148th Place, Tigard, OR 97223 questioned if the
applicant held a valid neighborhood meeting and asked if staff had
documentation showing that a meeting had been held. He remarked that all too
often neighborhood meetings are more of a "shell game" than they are anything
of substance — there is a failure to take minutes, failure to provide adequate
notice, failure to submit notes of the meeting. He did not list specific meetings
where this happened. Staff advised that there is a notarized affidavit of mailing
for the January 2, 2004 neighborhood meeting in the file. The file also contains
the meeting questions, the sign-in sheet, and minutes of the meeting. Only one
neighborhood meeting is required.
The Commission discussed John Frewing's comments (Exhibit A). Staff advised
that these same questions were submitted at the earlier application last spring
and that the questions were addressed in the staff report. Regarding drainage,
Matt Scheidegger advised that a review of the wetland map, the GIS system, and
the FEMA floodplain map doesn't show that this development is in the wetlands
or floodplain. Scheidegger also stated that he did not find any evidence that any
of the proposed development lies within the Meadowview subdivision. He said
he did not see any issues noted in Frewing's letter that would preclude the
Planning Commission from making a decision tonight.
APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL
None
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—September 12,2005—Page 4
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Commissioner Caffall said he had no questions and was OK with what he heard.
Commissioner Haack said he was inclined to support the application, although he
had design issues with the 2 southern lots.
Commissioner Anderson believes that with the 53 conditions to be met, he would
support the application.
Commissioner Duling said she had no comment; it's a small subdivision without a
lot of impact.
Commissioner Inman listed her objections to the proposal:
• sun-orientation should not be an applicable criteria for requesting a density
bonus
• the building architecture does not look extraordinary and does not justify a
density bonus
• there is no landscaping plan for the open space and there is no way to
know how the space will be utilized or what it will look like
• the plan does not look like it has a lot of thought involved
• there is no street tree or landscaping plan
• doesn't see where there has been any great effort to keep trees
• she does not feel that the application justifies a PD overlay and doesn't
agree with any density bonuses
Commissioner Munro said she was disappointed with the quality of plans, but
supports the overall proposal. She believes the application meets the criteria.
Commissioner Buehner doesn't see any justification for density bonuses. She
suggested the developer use meandering sidewalks to help save trees.
Commissioner Meads agreed with Commissioner Inman.
Commissioner Padgett said he doesn't like giving density bonuses if they haven't
been earned or justified. He doesn't believe there is anything unique about this
subdivision. He is opposed to the application as it stands.
Commissioner Buehner moved for approval of Subdivision (SUB) 2004-
00011/Planned Development Review (PDR) 2004-00001/Zone Change (ZON)
2005-00002/Adjustment (VAR) 2005-00028/Adjustment (VAR) 2005-00067, based
on the staff report, testimony heard, making the adjustment suggested by staff in
Condition #5 [the 24'width of pavement referred to in 5-A should be extended
beyond their property frontage until it meets a section of the road that has 24', so
there is adequate 2-way paving section], addressing the backyard setback so that
the minimum be required (not allow a reduction), and eliminating the density
bonus, which would reduce the number of lots by 1 unit. Commissioner Meads
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES--September 12,2005—Page 5
seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 to 3. Commissioners
Buehner, Duling, Haack, Meads, Munro, and Padgett voted in favor;
Commissioners Inman, Anderson, and Caffall voted in opposition.
5.2 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2005-00007/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR)
2005-00003/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2005-00005/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW
(SLR) 2005-00008/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2005-
00009/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2005-00031 ARLINGTON HEIGHTS NO. 3
SUBDIVISION "URBAN SERVICES AREA"
REQUEST: A request for approval of a 64-lot Subdivision and Planned
Development on 16.82 acres in two phases. The lots, between 5,032 and 8,069
square feet in size, are proposed to be developed with detached single-family
homes. Phase I consists of 53 lots on approximately 14.13 acres and Phase II
consists of 11 lots on approximately 2.69 acres. Sensitive Lands Review is
required because the proposed site contains slopes greater than 25% and two
drainageways. The applicant is also seeking an Adjustment to exceed the
grade standard for the extension of SW Summerview Drive from 15% to
approximately 20%. LOCATION: The project is located on the north side of
SW Beef Bend Road, south of SW Summerview Drive in Tigard's Urban
Services Area; WCTM 2S109DA, Tax Lot 2100, and 2S110CB, Tax Lots 600
and 700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium-Density
Residential District. ZONE: R-7: The R-7 zoning district is designed to
accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with
or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square
feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home
parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional
uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA:
Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.370, 18.380, 18.390,
18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790,
18.795 and 18.810, and the Bull Mountain Community Plan.
Commissioners Haack, Duling, Buehner, and Meads reported site visits.
Commissioner Buehner also attended the neighborhood meeting.
STAFF REPORT
Associate Planner Gary Pagenstecher advised that the City has received a letter
from the applicant asking for a 30 day postponement (Exhibit B). He noted that
the applicant needs to waive the 120 day rule.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
Tom Weber, 12755 SW 69th Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97223 testified that
he is requesting a postponement to the next available Planning Commission
meeting. He advised that there are some design issues that need to be
addressed before proceeding. He does not anticipate changes in the site plan
After brief discussion, Weber requested the meeting be continued to October 3rd
He agreed to waive the 120 day rule.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—September 12,2005--Page 6
Commissioner Buehner asked Mr. Weber about dedicating Tracts A & B to the
City or if it would stay with the Homeowner's Association. At the next meeting,
she would like to know 1) what are the options in terms of dedicating the tracts to
the public — are talks continuing; and 2) if it won't be dedicated to the public, will
there will be a path through the development?
Commissioner Buehner moved to continue the public hearing for the Arlington
Heights 3 Subdivision to October 3rd, conditioned upon staff having time to
review any changes that are made. Commissioner Caffall seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
ileVAZ-X je-4/212-C
Jerree Lewis, ang Commissio :Secretary
fr
ATT '� : Pr ident Mark Padgett
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—September 12,2005—Page 7
14 -pit Scheideg•er Livin•ston Lane Townhomes Page 1
From: "John Frewing" <jfrewing @teleport.com>
To: "Matt Scheidegger" <MATTS @ci.tigard.or.us>
Date: 9/12/2005 1:18:49 PM
Subject: Livingston Lane Townhomes
Matt:
Just returned from being out of town. Please provide the comments below as my input before the
planning commission on the matter of Livingston Lane Townhomes tonight. I believe I forwarded these or
similar comments in April, 2005 to you, but don't see any evaluation of them in the record (either by Tigard
staff or developer)which I reviewed at City Hall today. I would appreciate such review and response by
both developer and staff.
In addition to the comments below, today, in looking at the drainage plans, it shows a drainage retention
pond outside the boundary of the property included in the plat. My initial opinion is that the drainage
retention pond should be on the site of the development. I don't see any evidence that the developer has
ownership or control of the proposed drainage pond site.
Thank you.
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane,Tigard, OR 97223 jfrewing @teleport.com
LIVINGSTON LANE QUESTIONS
A GENERAL
•
I don't see any notice that this application involves an overlay zone change for PD. In this same concern,
the'Landuse Proposed Description' in the planning file indicates that this matter is a Type 2 decision
before the planning commission. TCDC 18.390 doesn't appear to have Type 2 decisions heard initially by
the Planning Commission. I thought PD applications called for a Type 3 decision process. Which is right?
Planned Developments'predominantly contain discretionary approval criteria' as opposed to other
approvals, which involve ministerial permits and 'clear and objective'approval criteria. See TCDC
18.390. In order for the public to reasonably review applications and effectively participate in the decision,
the staff should display how it has evaluated the discretionary criteria of TCDC 18.350, showing the
considerations which lead to its recommendation to the Planning Commission and allowing the Planning
Commission, as the approving body, to perform its own evaluation of alternatives in making findings or
directing staff to develop findings regarding the discretionary approval criteria. I don't find any alternatives
analysis in the staff report. Should there not be such an analysis,with alternative findings available to the
Planning Commission?
The requirement of TCDC 18.350.090 A 1 doesn't appear to be met. It requires a statement of planning
objectives to be achieved through the particular approach proposed by applicant, including a description of
the character of the proposed development and the rationale behind the assumptions and choices made
by applicant. I read this in light of the purposes of a PD, which are found at 18.350.010. The only
objective I find in the application is for the developer to"have increased flexibility and increased options of
development style".
raft Scheide••er Livinston Lane Townhomes _ � " w m Page 2..
There is no evidence of a narrative statement presenting information, for which "a detailed description" is
"available from the Director". Similarly, there is no additional information "the content of which can be
obtained from the Director". See 18.350.090.
The public hearing notice does not indicate that TCDC 18.720 is an applicable code section with approval
criteria, even though the applicant DID provide some information in this regard. The notes from neighbors
indicate concern regarding design compatibility, and it seems this should be addressed by staff and given
public notice. Why was this code section not advertised?
B PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
The approval criterion of TCDC 18.350.100 B.3.a.1 does not appear to be addressed. It calls for
preservation of trees, topography and natural drainage'to the greatest degree possible'. The application
merely says that it is met'as described in this narrative and shown on development plans' Where in the
narrative and development plans is this criterion addressed? As one example of what might be
considered to meet this criterion, the applicant might provide pervious pavement for driveways-such
would allow infiltration of rain to the ground rather than rapidly running off and creating peak flow problems
in our streams.
The requirement of TCDC 18.350.1 10 that the shared open space shown on the site drawings must be •
conveyed in a way that ensures continued use for purpose shown, continuity of property maintenance,
availability of funds for maintenance, adequate insurance and recovery for loss is not addressed in the
application nor staff review. This code section says that such arrangements must be approved by City
Attorney. This is not a'clear and objective'standard,which can be deferred to a later date; why should it
not be shown here and given opportunity for public review?
This application appears to be for BOTH a conceptual and detailed development plan, but the information
is presented in a mixed way, so that a reviewer cannon determine what is the approved concept plan.
This makes it not possible to determine whether the detailed plan is substantially different from the
conceptual plan. Can you point to the exact description of the conceptual development plan which is
being approved by the Planning Commission?
The minimum landscape requirements of 18.745 (20 percent) are not specified on plans which I have
reviewed. How are these requirements met?
The required impact study does not evaluate how this development will impact all public facilities, ie
schools and does not quantify impacts on those facilities which are addressed.
Matt Scheidegger LiVin+stop Lane Townhomes Page 3
•
B DENSITY
The record has in it two memos of interest. One states that developer is seeking lot line adjustment to
gain 2800 sq ft from the lot to the west, in order to 'put project into compliance with city density
requirements.' There is no evidence this has happened. What density requirement is failed without this
addition of site area? The other memo asks city if 95th Ave sidewalk can be on an easement, rather than
dedicated public rlw so as to eliminate some area subtractions in determining net developable area. It is
not stated anywhere what the answer to this question was or should be.
In calculating the net developable area, there seem to be at least two items which are not subtracted from
gross site area. First is the wetland associated with the stormwater drainage facility on Tract B (TCDC
18.715.020 A 1.d). Potentially, all of Tract B should be subtracted from 'net development area because,
as I understand, it will become the property of and maintained by Tigard as a drainage facility, after some
period of trial use. Second, I don't see that TCDC 18.715.020 A.5, 'a lot of at least the size required by the
applicable base zoning district, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site', has been subtracted from
gross site area in determining net development area.
•
Applicant has proposed a bonus award of 10 percent increase in density, but the necessary
benefits/improvements of open space, architectural character and/or site variation which 'make a
substantial contribution to objectives of the planned development'are not apparent to me and the
necessary findings do not appear anywhere in the staff decision.
In the portion of the development zoned R-4.5, single family attached housing is proposed (a quadplex). I
read the TCDC to say that in such zone, single family attached housing is only allowed as a conditional
use. See TCDC 18.510. Should there not be an application for conditional use, meeting the criteria of
18.330 considered as part of this application?
The lots at south end of the proposed development, Lots 11-14 and Tract A, appear to lie within the
approved"Meadowview"subdivision. I don't know the restrictions on the Meadowview subdivision and
'ask what impact such restrictions might have on the proposed Livingston Lane Townhomes development.
Can you explain such interaction to me?
C ACCESS, SIDEWALKS AND STREET DESIGN
I am concerned that the street designs of Livingston Lane Townhomes do not meet the requirements of
TCDC 18.810, that the parking requirements do not meet 18.765, that the access provisions do not meet
18.705. Can you tell me how these requirements are,met? No adjustments are requested. The following
issues are of particular concern:
•
Matt Schelde er- Livin stop Lane Townhomes Page 4,.
Private streets don't meet the cross section of Figure 18.810.6. Sidewalk and planter strips are not
provided.
- Sidewalks are not provided from each tri and quadplex to the common open space/recreational
facility of Tract A(18.705.030 F.2)
No ped/bicycle access is provided between this development and the apartment complex to the
west(18.705.030 L.3). The alternative access is to travel on undeveloped sides of SW 95th and SW
North Dakota Street- much longer on narrow roadways.
Parking restrictions are not shown on private streets; required parking off street does not meet
standards of 18.765 when partial parking spaces are interpreted to mean at least one more parking space.
- An access plan for pedestrians to reach the closest transit facilities(on Greenburg) is not provided
(18.810.070) -one condition of approval, which would benefit Tigard would be to require developer
participation in construction of a sidewalk from this site along 95th and Shady Lane (around a sharp
corner with limited visibility)to existing sidewalks to the north. This is important because this site is in or
so close to the Washington Square Regional Center.
DRAINAGE
Neighbors have expressed concern about drainage. I have the following concerns:
• - Uphill drainage will flow on to the open space and recreation Tract A and make it not usable to
Livingston Lane Townhomes,.let alone people from neighboring areas.
- The floodplain rules state that the 1996 flood inundation line governs where it exceeds the FEMA
map floodplain line. I have heard from neighbors that Ash Creek flooding reached.this site in 1996 and so
portions of this site should be considered flood plain. The bottom elevation of the stormwater drainage
facility appears to lie within the floodplain elevation.
The northwest portion of the site is depressed and constitutes a natural drainageway which should
be evaluated as'sensitive' land. Reed canarygrass grows there because water accumulates there during
much of the growing season. Water accumulates here.because the adjacent berm of the abandoned
railroad restricts flow directly to Ash Creek.
The proposed drainage outlet to the ditch along SW 95th Ave will aggravate flooding on Tax Lot 600
(which is at the corner of SW 95th and Shady Lane), on to which this ditch drains. There is no improved
drainage from this ditch to Ash Creek; it should be required as part of this development.
TERRA-WEBER, LLC
Property Development
September 9, 2005
By Facsimile
(503) 684-7297
Gary Pagenstecher
Associate Planner
City of Tigard
13500 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: Arlington Heights III(Case File No. SUB 2005-00007)
Dear Gary,
We are hereby requesting a thirty day postponement of the scheduled September 12, 2005
Subdivision and Planned Development hearing before the Tigard Planning Commission
for the above referenced application.
Thank you for your assistance in this regard and we apologize for any inconvenience the
postponement may cause.
Sincerely,
m Weber
Terra-Weber, LLC
12755 SW 69th Ave., Suite 1.00, Portland, OR 97223 • Office: 503.517.8284• Fax: 503.601.3524