11/07/2005 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
November 7, 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 Buehner, Duling,
Inman, Meads, and Munro.
Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Anderson, Caffall, Haack and David
Walsh, Commission alternate.
Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Matt Scheidegger,
Associate Planner; Kim McMillan, Development Review
Engineer; Bethany Stewart, Planning Commission Secretary
3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
Next Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for 12/19/05.
Commissioner Duling reported that the CCI's next meeting is on 11/28. CCI will
provide input to neighborhood pilot program.
Vice President Munro gave a reminder about the open house on Nov 10th 6:30 —
8:30 PM at the Library to discuss the Urban Renewal Plan. Commissioner Buehner
elaborated that several members of CCAC will be there to answer questions about
the Urban Renewal Plan.
Commissioner Buehner reported that the PD committee meeting is in a couple of
weeks. PD plans to go to Council in January.
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
It was moved and seconded to approve the October 31st meeting minutes as
submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 against, Commissioner
Inman abstained.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Inman has recused herself for cause (works for applicant)
No ex parte contact reported
Site visits were made by Kathy Meads and Gretchen Buehner
No challenge to jurisdiction on Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -November 7,2005-Page 1
5.1 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2005-00011/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR)
2005-00004/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2005-00006/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2005-
00079 DAKOTA GLEN SUBDIVISION
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for a 24 lot Planned
Development Subdivision of 4.97 acres for detached single-family residences.
Three single-family residences exist on the site, which have been proposed to
be removed. LOCATION: 10970, 11030 and 11060 SW North Dakota Street;
WCTM 1S134DB, Tax Lots 3300, 3400, 3500 and 3700. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-
Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to
accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory
residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and
attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and
institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters, 18.350, 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.
STAFF REPORT
Matt Scheidegger of staff presented summary of staff report regarding Dakota
Glen. Distributed testimony from Sue Beilke to the commissioners (exhibit D).
Staff recommends approval and any further concerns will be addressed by
applicant.
Commissioner Meads asked what the lot range is on the alternate subdivision
plan? Scheidegger responded that lot range is the same.
Commissioner Buehner notes according to arborist report the applicant has not
indicated removal of trees #985, #986 & #987 on the report on the passive
natural area. There will be fewer trees than they are indicating.
Commissioner Duling notes that in the binder the impact statement does not
indicate area for open spaces or parks. Staff responds that there are open
spaces proposed but they will not be public open spaces.
Commissioner Meads asked ramification of private park area being taken care of
by HOA to the other residents outside of the subdivision. Staff indicated that
HOA takes care of maintenance and access rights. The park area may or may
not be opened up to adjacent neighbors as determined by HOA.
Commissioner Buehner asked if there was any discussion of dedication of tract A
to the city. Staff indicates no. Meads noted that the Park & Recreation board
has asked for the open space area shown plus some additional area to the east
to be considered for purchase by COT. Bewersdorff replied that Public Works did
not indicate interest. Meads indicates that she doesn't know if this property was
taken off the list by the PRAB because she missed the meeting where it was
discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -November 7,2005-Page 2
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
Kirsten Van Loo, Planner and Jeff Vanderdasson of Alpha Community
Development, 9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 230, Portland, OR 97223. They
walked audience through Exhibits A-C. SW Torland currently at 50' right-of-way,
propose to continue that size right-of-way. Street improvement on Torland is 32'
curb to curb with sidewalks and planter strips. Proposed meandering sidewalk in
public ROW to put planter strips in certain areas where appropriate. Also
meandering sidewalk through tract B one of the proposed private open spaces,
open to neighbors of adjacent parcels. Exhibit B is a sketch rendering of Tract B
open space as if you were looking towards the northwest into the tract. The
project has two different applications. We have proposed 22 lot Subdivision and
through talks with staff made a second application of a planned development.
The 22 lot subdivision does not save trees. The planned development proposal
is a balance between trees/open space and density needs. It creates a more
livable community in our belief. Lots are smaller but the livability of a smaller lot
is much the same, still has comfortable front and back yards. The developer
feels that keeping the trees in the proposed open spaces contributes very much
to the livability of the City of Tigard and to the people living here in the future.
Conditions of approval — requests for change by applicant — for consideration by
PC during deliberations
Condition 13 — drafted to say provide documentation to PC that existing
vegetation protected to greatest extent possible. Propose to change to not
protect ivy, black berries, and other noxious vegetation etc. Suggests that we
combine 13 & 9 that asks for re-vegetative plan. Conditions 9, 11 & 13 to revise
tree protection/mitigation plan, and landscaping plan for open space to be
reviewed by city forester and member of planning staff.
Condition 26 — water quality requires approval of CWS — in city of Tigard would
like condition to be reworded water quality as required by City of Tigard....in their
implementation of CWS standards.
Condition 21 — meandering sidewalks — all sidewalks in public ROW — exhibit A—
balance of curb tight, & use of open spaces. What part of condition does staff
want?
President Padgett - Does public sidewalk include sidewalks on private land
outside the public right-of-way? McMillan answers that in this case it needs to be
a public easement in their private tract. We need continuous public sidewalk
along Torland and 110th up to North Dakota. Would need a public easement &
approval of arborist. Applicant asks condition to have some verbiage added to
clarify. McMillan indicates staff can come back with that language.
Applicant has just received a letter from neighbor, will address concerns of letter
during the rebuttal section (exhibit D).
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -November 7,2005-Page 3
Applicant has just received a letter from neighbor, will address concerns of letter
during the rebuttal section (exhibit D).
Questions of applicant by Commission.
Commissioner Meads notes that between the two plans there is difference of two
houses. Why didn't you stick to 22? Applicant answers that the Planned
Development process is a balance of amenities for community and also be
economically feasible to the developer.
Wendy Hemmen developer's representative from Venture Properties, 4230 SW
Galewood Street, Suite 100 Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Discussion of lots size versus house size and value.
Commissioner Buehner brings up issue of code and putting buffer between PD
and existing development. Also notes that Lots 7-11 are smallest in PD.
Extreme difference in lot size between lots 7-11 and development to south.
Disagrees with analysis of lot values vs. size of lots. Why are minimum sized lots
along south border and lot 1 is abutting adjacent property? Feels small lots
should be to the interior of subdivision.
Hemmen indicates that the houses to the south are valued less than our houses
and we will putting in increasing values all around. Area abutted by three parcels
is left as open space. Tried to be strategic in layout vs. shape of property.
Where the open space is placed took into consideration location of trees.
Believes open space makes up for trade off of having smaller lot size. Property
layout took into consideration street layout needed to connect Torland and 1101
Avenue.
Commissioner Buehner answers that she still has an issue with small lots and
suggests one of the lots in 7-11 be eliminated, creating 3 larger lots if approved.
Not convinced that just because you are putting in open space that you should
be allowed to create smaller lots.
Commissioner Munro question to staff. What are the conditions to approval to
that process for the 22 lot subdivision. Is it likely it would be built if we don't
approve the PD? Scheidegger — yes. Padgett — Fairer question to staff.
Because its zoned that way, is there anything unusual to prevent them from
continuing with that plan. Scheidegger— No as long as conditions of approval are
met.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN FAVOR
John Caufield — 11133 SW Torland Street, Tigard, OR 97223
Back in April the developer presented both plans to the neighbors. The
neighborhood got together and discussed the plans. In general we agreed that
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -November 7,2005-Page 4
the 24 home development was preferred to the 22 lot development. We deemed
the 22 lot development plan A and the 24 lot development plan B. We wrote
letters {previously submitted} that we would like to read. [Letters were included
in packet for Commissioners]
Mr. Caufield's son Chris says go for plan B, build playground in tract B.
Hemmen responds that the developer would put playground in tract B.
Mr. Caufield's son JJ (John Joseph) - I want plan B because it includes a park
and my friend's tree will not die.
Mr. Caufield's son Ryan — Please don't cut down trees behind my friend's back
yard. I like plan B because I like to play.
Mr. Caufield continues that it appears most of issues were addressed in staff
report. But would tract A be deeded to city? Staff —responds no its not policy.
Would adjacent neighbors have access to open area? Padgett answers that we
could make it a condition of development that in 1 year it would go to the city but
that would be rare instance. The City would have to take over maintenance and
costs of the area. How would the open space be left? Hemmen indicates that
they will clean out brush and black berries and construct the path then the open
space would be maintained by HOA. There is a concern of safety in tract A, note
that the plan shows a path straight back at top to allow for street lights to cast
some light. Path would be bark or gravel. Requirement of CC&Rs to maintain.
Commissioner Meads asks about 54' vs. 50' right-of-way. Jeff Vanderdasson
(Applicant representative) responds there is an existing 50' foot ROW on Torland
all we are proposing is to extend the width around the corner all the way out to
South Dakota.
Commissioner Meads asks what is the average size of the homes? Applicant
answers approximately 3200 sq ft. Meads expresses concern that development
is up to code on access on little street for emergency vehicle size and access.
Staff report requires TVF&R turn around. The fire dept will sign off on both
private streets Mr. Caufield agrees with lot size comments by Commissioners
Meads and Buehner regarding lots 7 thru 11. In summary, we prefer 24 lot
development and applaud developers for trying to maintain common open areas
compared to other plan, see Exhibit C — outline of plan for straight subdivision.
Lori Ries, 1124 SW Torland Street, Tigard, OR 97223
We have lived there going on 8 years and live north of tract A. We are for the
Planned Development. There are a lot of children in neighborhood at the end of
Torland Street that currently play where the barricade is. It is a safe place. North
Dakota is not safe and has lots of traffic, no bike lanes etc. Discussion of her
concerns with subdivision plan. Currently has very large lot with trees and if
adjacent trees come out it would affect her. Road would cut roots of her trees
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -November 7,2005-Page 5
causing them to die. She is a childrens' author and her yard is a very serene
place to write. Concern of plan A for neighbor on corner (see Exhibit B) who
lives adjacent to tract A. She would have roads on three sides of her house with
this plan. Close knit neighborhood with lots of kids. Would hate to lose that
quality of life.
Ms. Flies' daughter, Jennifer. Choose plan B so we have a playground and our
trees will not die.
Ms. Ries' son, Dan Ries, likes plan B a lot and the nice playground. All the kids
now play behind barrier and go on wacky adventures. Note about street lights in
tract A, has concern about party people looking for areas with low light. Could
they put in another street light in that area?
PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN OPPOSITION
Ronald Brower 10940 SW North Dakota Street, Tigard, OR 97223
My property is on the east side of plan. Would like houses smaller and farther
from property line to keep more air/light coming into his property area. Would
prefer single story houses to keep his light. Current plan may depreciate
property with too many houses too close. Worry about additional traffic even with
two more houses adjacent to his property.
President Padgett asks staff what is the trip generation of two lots? McMillan
responds 10 trips per house per day. President Padgett asks if there is anything
in code that prohibits development based on sight or air shaft rights of adjacent
property. Scheidegger responds that these are addressed by the environmental
quality standards. Also perimeter of properties must meet minimum setback of 5'
from adjacent properties.
Sean Sullivan, 11295 SW 108th Ave, Tigard, OR 97223.
Ron's concern is with having enough light to grow his tomatoes. Sean has two
issues. One is tree removal, he support conditions 1-13 also supports to
changes to #13 by applicant. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Section 3.4 of code
addresses natural areas and has to do with significant plant communities...and in
the policy that goes along with 3.4.2b minimizes number of trees removed. Does
this property fall into one of the treed or timbered designations? How has policy
been met? This was brought up in the neighborhood meeting. PD takes less
trees but how many trees are in project and how many are planned to be
removed? President Padgett discussion with Scheidegger about the designation
of treed or timbered. Would be timber deferred or forest deferred by federal
regulations. Discussion of timber area vs. open space with trees. This property
has not been designated a timber area. Mr. Sullivan discusses city policy that
encourages large inventories of plants and animals on private and public lands
be retained. Not clear if this is applicable but it is his opinion that this is a large
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -November 7,2005-Page 6
stand of conifer. Comments apply to both plan A or B. Seems like an awful lot of
trees being removed, understand trees have a merchantable value as timber.
Believes that would contribute to capital. Second issue related to condition 19
and the half street improvement requirements. Notes that this is city policy but
that it is not doing community any service placing sidewalk on south side of
South Dakota. Indicates improvements on the north side would be much safer
and help to extend the existing sidewalk. President Padgett asks staff about
guidelines of improvements offsite. Do we have a legal problem with this
suggestion? McMillan answers that typically we don't have right-of-way.
Discusses when developer might be required to incur costs of off site
development. President Padgett starts discussion of when this might be required
because of safety issues caused by development itself. Mr. Sullivan indicates
that this is a common sense thing and that he feels construction on the other side
is a foolish use of resources.
Mr. Sullivan continues regarding condition 26. He would encourage keeping
language as is to comply with CWS. Believes CWS is slightly more stringent and
better environmentally. McMillan responds that the City of Tigard standards are
the same as CWS standards.
Mr. Sullivan asks about an opportunity to review and comment on changes.
Scheidegger indicates all plans will be available at permit center for review.
Jeanette Dodge,10900 NW Dakota, Tigard, OR 97223.
East side of Ron's property. Wants to save trees. Agrees with commissioners
regarding size of lots and number of lots. Traffic is a huge concern. Can we
have speed bumps on North Dakota? President Padgett explains difference
between bumps and humps. McMillan indicates that this is a neighborhood route
and believes there are no scheduled traffic calming measures. Ms. Dodge asks
about Tiedeman bridge area, is there anything to be done about traffic there?
Agrees with commissioners about having 2 less lots on the property and saving
trees. She is an Acupuncturist with a home occupation permit. Commissioner
Buehner comments that there is discussion in long term, in CIP program to
rebuild N Dakota/bridge/intersection.
Larry Etter, 11445 SW Twin Park Place, Tigard, OR 97223
Property is south of tract A. His property is adjacent to proposed green spaces.
Two neighbors' properties are adjacent to lots 7-11. 3000 sq. ft. lots with very
imposing houses create almost a wall. Indicates that there are traffic problems
with all of the developments now.
David Ries, 11124 SW Torland Street, Tigard, OR 97223
Live on north side of tract A and picks Planned Development although he is
sensitive to having more lots. There is the issue of road completely surrounding
on 3 sides of neighbor. What is the impact of tree removal on other trees?
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -November 7,2005-Page 7
•
Replacement of trees that might come out is not the same as having full grown
trees. Preference to preserve green in city as much of possible.
Kathleen Strom 11454 SW Twin Park Place, Tigard, OR 97223
Lives next door to Larry, would be by lots 7 & 8. Would mean two behemoths
looking into my yard, etc. Concerned developer didn't answer why they couldn't
go with less houses even with open spaces. Feels threatened by developer
saying you can have a 22 lot subdivision or a 24 lot subdivision with open
spaces. Why do they have to have 2 more houses?
Linda Etter 11445 SW Twin Park Place, Tigard, OR 97223
Wants green space. Horrified about development because we love the green
space. Values green space. Would like approval of Planned Development
rather than subdivision plan.
Edith Carnahan, 10985 SW North Dakota Street, Tigard, OR 97223
I border your whole plan on one side. Put the speed limit down. Not for speed
humps. Too many side streets coming in. Going to miss the green a lot. Lots of
children on that street and for heaven sake keep their nice space. 5000 sq ft is
too small. Four houses to the acre was the code. Trees keep the house cool. If
I develop my two back lots will you cut down my trees? Explanation by
Commissioners and Staff that code requirement to have a certain number of lots
(a minimum) as dictated by Metro. Many developers in past did not build to
density but are now required to.
APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL
To address issue with trees numbered 986, 987 & 988 in summary 985 — 987 are
all marked as dead or hazardous trees which is why they are marked to be
removed. On existing conditions & demolition plan there is clerical error
regarding tree. Questions from audience about access to plans. Answer that
plans are in the planning file and citizens are welcome to come in and review the
files in the Permit Center.
Regarding the play structure in tract B applicant would encourage a condition
requiring public access easement in CCR including insurance issue. CCR
document could talk about yearly maintenance party that would invite neighbors
to participate in addition to owners in the HOA.
ROW we are proposing for Torland & 112th is exactly the same as the existing
Torland street. Street improvements would be the same width. Information on
page 38 & 39 — see page 37 — not a condition of approval because they are
agency comments. Believe that fire dept. can perform all necessary services for
lots 16 - 18 without having to drive 150' down the street. Meets standards of
TVF & R. Concern about number of houses abutting lots.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -November 7,2005-Page 8
In PD Plan Mr. Bower has 3 lots abutting his whereas the subdivision plan would
have 5 lots abutting his property. Developer will meet all setbacks around the
perimeter of the property. In both plans there are 17 abutting lots. Trees
removed will have to be mitigated. They are proposing saving a reasonable
number of trees based on requirements for project.
Sidewalks on North Dakota need to be done now or they won't be built.
Thank you for the CWS clarification.
Yes there will be two story houses. We need to meet Metro standards. We have
a greater demand on our resources. The land development character is
significantly different than in the past. But must meet minimum density
requirements. Explanation of maximizing density on lands that are well suited for
development and what well suited means. In-fill is challenging. In-fill lots are
often the only thing left. Encourage Planning Commission that PD allows for
more involvement by city and citizens. 22 vs. 24 lots to allow maximization of
investment. For those south of project on sheet 2 you will see three large trees &
large hedge in addition to open space tract. Mitigation could be in rear yards.
Commissioner Munro asks will the City Forester provide list of approved trees for
mitigation? Staff—yes.
Commissioner Duling is concerned lots about 7-11 and about view field behind
them. Why don't they consider 1-story homes? Applicant responds that the
home builder allows purchasers to pick out home plan they want and about 20%
purchase one story and 80% purchase two story. They don't build spec homes.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Commissioner Meads — HOA fees — over$300/month for half the space.
Concerned about putting quite a burden on homeowners to maintain this large
area. There are no parks in this area. The Park & Recreation Committee currently
actively working on more open spaces for the city (not a recreation or active park).
In favor of having Tract A eventually designated as public open space. Discussion
of public park vs. private park. Torland logical at 50' but does not agree that 110th
should be narrow especially because of fire dept. access. Talked about expensive
materials 3200 sq ft house more expensive than 2000 sq ft. Bigger is not
necessarily better. Does not necessarily want higher taxes/higher value. Why are
we pushing for such large houses on such small lots?
Commissioner Buehner asks Scheidegger what the average lot size is in the
development abutting 7-11. Answer is 7405 to 9583 sq ft. and to the west 8700 to
18,000 sq. ft.. and to the east 7405 to 18295. Commissioner Buehner is
concerned about blending of densities between abutting properties. It is much less
intrusive to have a larger lot. Lot 24 is abutting small lot asks to swap sizes
between 23 & 24. Asks for same thing with lot 1. Says that seventy-five percent of
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -November 7,2005-Page 9
HOAs die after turned over from developer. Very concerned about trees in tract A.
There has been a change in council policy regarding acceptance of property.
Would like to see dedication of tract A to city. Concern about accessibility of lot 18
from fire dept. suggests lot 18 might be sprinklered. Concern about developer
asking for maximum number of lots in PD. Wants one lot eliminated between lots
7-11.
Commissioner Munro Thanks neighbors for taking an active role. Positives are the
two green spaces. Maintenance could be an issue however without an active
neighborhood. Negatives include the size of lots however, I am a proponent of
density where it makes good sense. Density decreases road building, asphalt,
allows for better public transportation etc. Would support reduction of one lot in
area of 7-11 to provide a better buffer. Okay on trade of lot sizes mentioned by
Commissioner Buehner. Planning Commission has no control whether developer
builds two or one story houses.
Commissioner Duling comments that she is not a proponent of density.
Concerned about traffic/road problems. Appreciate neighbors coming to speak.
Feels developer did a good job getting folks to buy into the PD because they will
save the trees. Notes they will be cutting 120 of 150 trees. Parking on small
streets an issue that was not brought up. I agree with 19-21 lots total and leaving
open space. Concerned about fire access for lot 18.
President Padgett comments that it is very refreshing to see neighbors getting
involved. What we have here is an application for a planned development. We
are to consider application for PD on its own merits. He is not against developer
making maximum profits, part of the free enterprise system. This needs to be
balanced against something that will interfere with evaluation of application under
its own merits under the code. Purpose of PD process is to take a parcel of land
and develop in a cohesive planned manner. Discussion of items that would be
cohesive vs. being built in a piecemeal manner. Is the trade off of density worth
the value of the additional amenities? Does not think this PD is meeting standard
of theory of PD. We are looking for more and more amenities for the public, the
public is giving up a lot. Realize In-full is difficult. Increase in density is not
meeting value of PD for the public. At this point the chair would entertain a motion.
Commissioner Meads : I move that Subdivision 2005-00011 Planned Development
Review 2005-00004, Zone Change 2005-00006 and Variance 2005-00079 be
approved with follow conditions;
That street SW 110th be developed to the code of fifty-four feet.
That the total number of houses be reduced from twenty-four to twenty-two either
by eliminating one house or actually on lots seven to eleven and possibly
reorienting one and two so that we could eliminate one of those and widen the
street at that point increase those lot sizes.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -November 7,2005-Page 10
and that the developer or the homeowners association deed over tract A to the
City of Tigard at such a time when the City of Tigard would be able to take over
maintenance of that piece of property.
President Padgett Well the property is going to be owned by the developer until
they turn over the property to the homeowners association, which will occur, I can't
remember when seventy-five percent or something of the lots are sold, some
percentage like that.
Bewersdorff- I would caution you that, my job is to caution you that the city if it
chooses to negotiate for that property would have to go to the homeowners
association. But for you to kind of hamstring the city as well as the developer now
by putting that in your motion to..
President Padgett— I don't think we can put a condition in that requires the city to
do something.
Commissioner Meads —Well I wanted to actually require that the homeowners
association work with the city to have this Tract A become public property.
Bewersdoff/Padgett—that would be something the city would take on itself.
Commissioner Buehner— Could we include a requirement that would require the
developer and or the homeowners association to dedicate the property to the
public if the City of Tigard chooses to accept it? Could we word it that way?
Bewersdorff- But until I don't know when that question is going to get answered.
You create a situation where we don't know if that's going to happen.
Commissioner Buehner— If we set a time certain, a limited time?
Bewersdorff— I would suggest you don't do that.
Commissioner Meads—then I temporarily withdraw my motion.
Commissioner Buehner - I move to approve SUB2OO5-00011 PDR2005-00004,
Zone Change 2005-00006 and Variance 2005-00079 with the following conditions:
Reduction in the number of housing units allowed down to twenty-two units,
removing one of the lots between lots designated as seven eleven and doing a
reallocation lots one through four. Swapping lots twenty-three and twenty-four to
put the larger lot to abut the exterior of the development. And requiring the
developer and or the homeowners association to agree to dedicate the property to.
the City of Tigard should the city to decide to take the property within twenty-four
calendar months of approval of this order. The condition would terminate upon the
expiration of twenty-four months.
President Padgett—Anything else you want to add to the motion?
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -November 7,2005-Page 11
Commissioner Buehner- And checking again with the fire department as to
whether they are satisfied specifically with respect to lot 18, whether it should be
sprinklered.
McMillan — I'm not sure you need to include that in your motion because it is a
requirement.
Bewersdorff— I guess additional question you made a motion with three conditions
there are a number of other conditions that have been recommended. What are
you going to do with those?
Commissioner Buehner— That's right there was a suggestion to change combine
nine, eleven and thirteen. I would take staff's recommendation on how they feel.
Whatever staff thinks we should do about combining those.
Bewersdorff—The conditions work better separately, they are easier to track. You
certainly can make a motion to add noxious vegetation to thirteen:
Commissioner Buehner— I would amend; add the language to exclude noxious
vegetation from number thirteen. That number twenty-one be amended to
McMillan — May I make a suggestion?
Commissioner Buehner—Yes you have the language and I don't.
McMillan —That the applicant's plans shall be revised to show all public sidewalks
located within the public right of way or placed in a public pedestrian easement
that is approved by the City Engineer and Arborist.
Commissioner Buehner—Thank you.
President Padgett— I think Dick's point was the way you phrased the motion you
were including only the conditions that you were mentioning and you weren't
including all...
Commissioner Buehner— Oh and I'm sorry— based on the staff report and, excuse
me, I had forgotten to address the items that had been.
President Padgett— So based on the findings in the staff report and the testimony
heard tonight.
Commissioner Buehner— I said that.
Commissioner Meads/President Padgett— and the conditions
Commissioner Buehner—and there was one other, I'm sorry I'm trying to find it.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -November 7,2005-Page 12
Commissioner Meads — Clean Water Services?
Commissioner Buehner— No. Staff said they didn't need that. There was one
other. I'm trying to find it, I wrote a note to myself. If you would give me just a
minute.
Commissioner Duling — If Tract A becomes a public park how are people going to
get there? Down that private street?
Bewersdorff— They won't have access.
Commissioner Buehner— It would require a public access easement for the public
a pedestrian easement.
Bewersdorff— Better put that in the motion
Commissioner Buehner— I guess I'm...
Bewersdorff—Would you like to repeat your motion?
Commissioner Buehner— Okay, you want me to repeat it?
President Padgett— No I don't think you need to repeat it unless there is
something that one of the planning commissioners don't understand.
Commissioner Buehner— That we would also have to include a public easement if
the City of Tigard were to take dedication. It would...
McMillan - include a public access easement from the public street system to open
tract A.
President Padgett— Okay is there a second?
Commissioner Meads — I'll second
President Padgett—We have a motion and a second any discussion before we
vote? — no response
Duling — no
Munro — no
Padgett— no
Meads — yes
Buehner—yes
President Padgett - Motion is defeated. The approval of the application fails on a
no vote. We don't need a motion to deny because the motion has failed and that
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -November 7,2005-Page 13
was information I received a couple of months ago from the city attorney. Anything
else before we adjourn? Thank you we are adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:12 PM
l? r�ccc
Bethany Stewart, Pla ng Commission Sic etary
----U U
/ / ) I,e-;---g Lii i
w_ _v_.,, .../
ATTEST: President Mark Padgett
7/24/2„;/61g4LIT nik.c_44/ 71"3 ,z.
if,,,, e,(9.„-,-H-
c....
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -November 7,2005-Page 14
SW NORTH DAKOTA ST.
1 a. .. •'.. • ' st - 4 , � 7( � I "= S
t>: ,fl 4 .4.y" CALF/SI iIa+�i'! 15' ,I 1 l+�f LEGEND
0 43, 2 - �.,
�, 51 66' ' 0' 1
2, N ROADWAY
4411 I I -1 }., /---- --� r -1 r 1 1
/ I I I II,I SIDEWALK
1. 1 '1 III 2 I , . I 22 I I 23 I I 24 I OPEN SPACE
5,111 sq.ft.11 15,699 sq.ft. I I 6,576 sq.ft. i 1 6,188 sq.ft. 115,165 sq.ft. 1 Lo s
�� I� 1 1 1 1 I w .
I I I i ) I i1! I 1 1 1
1 it 1 6! II II II
L------J L _I rP� f 1 11
iiL ` J L JI
51'_- - 57' OI Oil ;dl , 60' 50'
}-- 1 cv li,1 64' -- 50' - - 60' ,°
1 3 1 •. r - r , r -1 1 ,,t
I W !'� 5,963 sq.ft. I �n �f� , t2 1 I I 1
Y 1 �i1.91 ire,- 19 I I 20 III 21 1 ' �
Z I I_ 1 i. - " mil* 6,682 sq.ft. 1 15,178 sq.ft.I I^1 6,869 sq.ft. 1
I i 1{.
1 r 1499' 1 •I . 1 1 1 I II
I II II1
Q ,I 4 i I 1 I
I�1'i 6,288 sq.ft. I i7, - �- ' 1
IN I / + )
r 1 4 ti►iivimar. + ;y 7`-----1 1
m11 1
J �'11# �. 6.648 sq.ft. `°I I I
1 ��Qi. J � 17,366�sq.ft. 1.16,8 8 sq.ft. 9,7571ssqq.ft.
- , 1 14 I
- — — — — I `sr / 5,964 sq.ft. 0 1
SW TORLAND I ,iiiiit I
7� I) '`0. ---- I 1 1
`L1ym.:,..- c 26 - - - - 1 I I
r • —`) 1 I 1a , L J L J L -1 1
I .5 1 7 ,. h 5,7563q.ft. o 50' I_ 64' _
1 5,962 sq.ft. 1 ,I1 +1) n Si?
_-__-��1' - - I
L Al- ` - -- _�
•
r, 1 I r 1-15' ,
I. 6 I,: +1-, 12 �,
1 0 7,587 sq.ft. 'l J) 7,922 sq.ft. o
J �
I
iitii*--■
,,,,'Iff?,..;,41,, '.,..i.,,,,,-,-,•,; ;,-.,42,-',4.6,',A t<, ,,••/._•,,,,,..,`;+•■17,0' '''-4,.z•,,,,:ltf�" '',..; '°' ��53' sqrft + � -- y c N I I alpha
� l
+ I COMMUNITY
i I i I i I i I I DEVELOPMENT
, �; 1 7 11 8 11 9 11 10 I I 11 I
, ,021 sq.ft. 5,010 sq.ft:� 5,008 sq.ft:� 5,008 sq.ft:� 6,622 sq.ft.+
r,i-,. i_ 1-I i- t
1 1 1 1 e
f' II 11 II I1 1
;F II II II II
G: I I I I SCALE
a
'f J L J L J L J I L J ao o 15 30 so IM 1111. 1
„ ,..,;50' _50' -- 50' - I 58' ■ ■M III MI
1 IN=30 FT
DAKOTA GLEN
I_ i
06Vb
'' :-.,7'-',.':',..?'-‘-'--;:#.,.-'''''4, / ...
■t tr 1 i
t k
s
VIEWPOINT KEY MAP
.4e
dA k ~ ;
f§ 1, b y� iw `,iy ',- 1`3'4 1.7 �'�> iFRTM C''�4
'�..g 4 £..,,,_51.1.„, ���� i!! -ate � _ �� n :....s o
.:;..
alpha
DAKOTA GLEN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT COMMUIVtTY
DEVELOPMENT
OPEN SPACE B PERSPECTIVE
- I- -- - - - - - - _I_ -- - _. .......
1+00 SW 110TH PLACE = SW NORTH DAKOTA ST.
• 4+14.62 SW NORTH DAKOTA STREET
1+00 2+00 3+00 4-FO 5+00 6+00
30 VISION CLEARANCE 9' RIGHT OF WAY
c°r TRIANGLE (VCT) -- : 7iTi-
rr DEDICATION
330.85'
�' i J" 30' (VCT) I 11
I 1 I 2 ( 22 nl T
I I -- 50' I 1 • t M
1 I ( : 7,039 sq.ft. 0 7,350sq.ft. r�r 25' lb 6,847 sq.ft. OI { VV
J
° I I 30' (VCT) O) a L.____. 112.00' _ I I L./
I I I of
Ii II +--
I I I
L _3.0-00'J L_._____a6.61'_..__I N I I
1-..-53A-12_. _-- _-- -- r ro I_ 0 , 21 o I 0.I 4 6,160 sq.ft. E 1°I Lot
f ,83.50---- —— -- I I
3' - --86 61`---;,` I I -- - 112.00'_ --'
{
_ •--
r� I 30' (VCT) I '
of I 4 I 0I
O
41 ; 9.347 sq.ft. m 8,363sq.ft. o I 20 0
to 0
o .
-I I 'rn rn1 r�� I o 6,832 sq.ft.-- �I
I I I o C
K1 L 112,00 _�
1 -- - -
L____._._____.___ r Q.
1 r
I I 84.61' 86.61'I— �� = 8
I i MI
d'I
= 7,094 sq.ft.
1 I q ( 0
�m I wi. , 39.70' 36.25'
r- D. f30' (VCT) b
,n of ai - - ---' o I -I-
5 I 6 73 r 15 leo: 1 12.00' N N 8,700 sq.ft. I col 8,768 sq.ft.+ � io N - - ' I OI
• ' TRACT B I NI
• 01 - i I 5,430 sq.ff
I
I I I 1- , I ++ I _ 66.64' -- 60.00' 25.00'
a
L_____.._..__._-.____, I L_ 30' (VCT) y,' F -- _, cc;
i�• I __ 8' PUE 'r
1 , 7 [8' PUE -----
-_ 1 85.79' - } ROW 70.56 , '� PC =\^4i 07.53
I
- - - - - - / ' 30' (VCT) ■ t 17 I 18
P 16 I 110 6,318 sq.ft. b 8,371 sq.ft.
•
_ 6+00 5+00 Q I n o
a �I SW TORELAND STREET 'r' 6'284 sq.ft. ._ 0
I _ — N —— —— 'O O
29,625 sq.ft. ,`� I I= I
35 00' 4 ' 70.59' ROW ��-'' \ j I I I 1
I i 8' PUE ------ r ' J L -J
I ''L 3C (VCT)-1 r - :\ 42.82' 60.00' 62.10_ I
Nr 04 l
I I
oI I 1
n I ! 7 0 8 co l 1d, 9 II
o I i; 2 7,789 sq.ft. .401 .
17,761 sq.ft. I 7,351 sq.ft. a); d
I
�, 't J
I N''_', 11 ..-•- 3 7.09' 65.65' I 1 I -
1 l Ag12 /— o V?
\r" 68.50_
78.38'I 116.98' _ _ ��i - °o .
I - T-- TRACT A , 1---44.48' 70_53'
��3 1D'_ ; alpha
1 {� 13,662 sq.ft. k1�� __ P�1E._ 1 1 1 I I - -80.00' -- --80.00' -- / r- r- 1
I . ' 16 9' � I I COMMUNITY
-----.._.__..__1 ;.._..._ I I iii �I DEVELOPMENT
■ i I 1 III d 0--.1
�I ! III 1 II I NI
`I 76 I ° 11 ! ; 12 9 s 47 r 7 15 I
I
9,376 sq.ft. 4 7,213 sq.ft. e� ; 7,228 sq.ft. 0 6,949 sq.ft. 7,147:sq.ft. j i 8,433 sq.ft.
I w F 1 rn II III II
I i i 311 11 I I I it
I I l i I I I I , I. I
L Y ; L J I SCALE
30 0 15 30 —o
77.88' 80.00' 80.00' 0.00' _ 65.00' 68.93'
SIN=30 FT
DAKOTA GLEN , o\ ,, 710
Matt Scheidegger Dakota Glen Sub PD.doc age
November 7,2005 1ubt
City of Tigard
Planning Department' Attn: Mathew Scheidegger
RE: DAKOTA GLEN SUBDIVISION 2005-00011-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
Please accept the below comments for the above mentioned subdivision for the record.
• The applicant has two different proposals for the above mentioned properties, and we would like
to start by saying we recommend and support the PD,since it gives more flexibility to the areas
under proposal and gives more back to the community in the form of open space, etc.
• 18350. -One of the purposes of the PD is preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing
landscape features and amenities. In this case this would be the large grove of Douglas-fir trees
at the SW corner of the area and the scattered large trees on the 3 properties. We prefer the PD
proposal since it would provide two open space tracts for the neighborhood as well as saving
large trees scattered on the site. We here recommend that the open space tracts be deeded to the
City of Tigard so that they are available to be used by all citizens,not just a select few. Tigard is
seriously short of public open space lands for the size of the city,and these tracts would help to
alleviate the shortage problem.
We also would like to see the open space tract on the SW corner be larger,including the lots 7-
11 as currently proposed on the site plan. The city currently has funds to purchase open space
and we would like to see consideration of some of these funds be used to enlarge the open
spaces on the site.
• 18350 and 18.715- This area is currently zoned as R-4.5(7,500sq.ft.minimum lot size). We
do not support any zone changes for this area and neighborhood, as it has already met its density
requirements under the Metro guidelines. If the developer wants a zoning change,we hereby
request the city prove to residents how the city of Tigard has NOTalready met its density
requirements. Traffic is already heavy on SW N.Dakota street as well as on Tiedemann street
which most residents use to get to Hwy.217. This PD would add more cars to our traffic
problems and we do not want to see houses squeezed onto smaller lots than the current zoning
allows.
• 18.705 - We also do not support allowing variance that would allow narrower streets than is
currently allowed for this area. Streets that have"No Parking"on one site cannot be enforced,
and as such are a safety hazard to the neighborhood. Fire trucks cannot enter the site when cars
are parked on both sides of a street with"no parking"on one side.
Overall,we support a PD for the proposal but with no zone change or variances. We would prefer
the city purchase the entire 3 properties as a park for the neighborhood so that we have a place for
kids to play and families to go, and a place for people to enjoy nature without having to get in their
cars and drive miles to get there.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Matt Schelde.•er Dakota Glen Sub-PD.doc
Page 2
•
•
•
Sue Beilke, Director,The Biodiversity Project of Tigard
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
I •
•
•
•
•
• 1
77
1