08/03/2015 - MinutesAugust 3, 2015 Page 1 of 8
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
August 3, 2015
CALL TO ORDER
Vice President Fitzgerald 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.
ROLL CALL
Present: Vice President Fitzgerald
Alt. Commissioner Enloe
Commissioner Lieuallen
Commissioner Middaugh
Alt. Commissioner Mooney
Commissioner Muldoon
Commissioner Schmidt
Absent: Commissioner Feeney; President Rogers; Commissioner Smith
Staff Present: Kenny Asher, Community Development Director; Tom McGuire, Assistant
Community Development Director; John Floyd, Associate Planner; Greg
Berry, Engineering; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant
COMMUNICATIONS – With regard to quasi-judicial cases, Vice President Fitzgerald
reminded the commissioners to be careful to not discuss cases with each other outside of
meetings that are in session and on the record. And also to be aware of how they present
themselves to the public and each other with regard to facial expressions and body language, etc.
while they are up at the dais.
CONSIDER MINUTES
July 20th Meeting Minutes: Vice President Fitzgerald asked if there were any additions, deletions,
or corrections to the July 20th minutes; there being none, Fitzgerald declared the minutes
approved as submitted.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
Vice President Fitzgerald opened the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING
Ash Creek Village Subdivision PDR2015-00001 / SUB2015-00003
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting concurrent Planned Development Review and Subdivision
Approval for the division of 1.43 acres of land into 13 single-family lots, with an associated private
street, community garden, open space buffers, and a water quality tract. The proposed lots would vary
in size from 2,158 square-feet to 3,677 square-feet in size, and the community garden and open space
buffers would total approximately 12,599 square feet in size. APPLICANT: CTH Investments, LLC
ZONES: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District (PD) LOCATION: 10895 SW 95th Avenue
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.430,
18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810
August 3, 2015 Page 2 of 8
QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS
Vice President Fitzgerald read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-
judicial hearing guide. There were no abstentions; no challenges of the commissioners for bias or
conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: Commissioners Middaugh and Smith
had made site visits. No one wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission.
STAFF REPORT
Associate Planner, John Floyd went over the staff report. Staff reports are available on-line one
week in advance of the meeting. He gave a summary of the Planned Development & Subdivision.
He distributed to the commissioners a memo dated 8/3/15 that he’d written regarding revised
conditions as well as the two items that had come in since the mailing a memo from CWS and a
letter from TVF&R (Exhibit A). He noted that no other correspondence had been submitted.
He mentioned that the community garden is a private community garden – about 1/3 of an acre,
and not a public one. John went over a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit B) and talked about
the 8/3 memo that had just been distributed to the commissioners. He went over the comment
letters and talked about the revised conditions that were noted in the memo.. He brought to the
commissioner’s attention some errors (errata) on the staff report that were detailed in the memo.
The corrections would remove Footnote 5 on pages 9 and 20, and remove the 20 ft. side yard
setback for Lot 12. The setback would be more like 10 feet - the presence of a utility easement
will dictate the setback for this lot. The second correction would remove the fourth paragraph on
page 25, in that it was erroneously copied from another staff report during report preparation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The recommendation is for two separate decisions: 1) Approve the Concept Plan; and 2)
Approve the Detailed Development Plan and Subdivision, subject to conditions of approval
recommended in Staff Report and Staff Memo
QUESTIONS
One of the commissioners asked about the conservation easement on page 19 (14b) of the staff
report. John Floyd said that would best be addressed by the applicant.
APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION
Matt Sprague with Pioneer Design Group, a land use planner and representative of the
applicant introduced himself and Matt Wellner with CTH Investments who works for the
applicant – developer of the project.
Matt Sprague thanked the commission for the time they’d given in reviewing the information. He
said the site is a difficult one; a planned development. The site is difficult because it has an
easement for sanitary sewer through the middle of it; and it has an R-12 and R-4.5 zoning as well
as a Planned Development Overlay.
He noted, “We are doing both a concept & detailed plan concurrently because this project was
approved as a planned development back in 2006 – before the economic downturn. The plan
back then was identical in terms of the street and the location of the open space. The difference
was that that plan had all single family attached homes and it kept the one existing house on site.
They had a proposal for 14 units that were approved. So this concept has been vetted out in the
August 3, 2015 Page 3 of 8
past with the Planning Commission. We believe the single family detached product is a more
desirable product for this particular site given the existing development that is to the north, the
south, and the east – and our discussions with the neighbors at our neighborhood meeting. They
prefer the single family detached as opposed to the prior approval which had the attached units.
The next item I’d like to cover is a question you might ask - ‘Why a community garden?’ Well,
they’ve become very popular – both commercial and private community gardens fill-up very
quickly. On a site like this, we think it’s appropriate because we have that R-12 zoning – we’re
doing planned development. The yards are generally going to be large enough to accommodate
typical things that people like to do in their backyards, but they’re not going to be large enough to
accommodate those plus having a garden area. Gardens seem to be a very popular thing these
days. By creating the open space in a much larger area and a community garden where you have
better sun exposure, rain, etc. – you have a much better space to do that gardening. You also have
help because gardeners like to help each other. It becomes a very social event.
With regard to the community garden – there are eight at-grade plots – those are the somewhat
larger ones that are shown on Sheet L2 - and then there are four raised smaller plots. In total there
are 12 different plots that can be utilized by the 13 owners in the sub-division. Not everybody will
use one – some people may use more than one. The garden will have a crushed stone pathway
system coming into it for loading materials in and out. They’ll have a water supply for watering
the garden plots and will utilize bark chips.
Matt went on to state, “We’ve read TVF&R & CWS comments and have no issues with them or
meeting their requirements – no problem with that. They have no issues with the staff
memorandum with the altered conditions either.
Lastly, regarding page 19 and the conservation easement; if you feel it’s necessary to add a
condition of approval, we can place that conservation easement over the plat – however typically
what we find in most jurisdictions is that this is reviewed during the building permit stage – for
meeting those criteria. I don’t know how it’s handled in the City of Tigard but if you feel it’s
appropriate to add a condition of approval to ensure that, with the building permit, the applicant
demonstrates they meet the 48 square foot requirement - that would be an acceptable condition.”
QUESTIONS
Can you talk about the Community Garden? Please talk about any soil amendments and
where the gardeners will get their water. Matt Wellner replied, “As far as the soil, the soil will
be provided and brought in to those elevated beds. As far as water - there will be a separate water
service for the community gardening area itself.”
Am I reading this correctly – one of the private streets on Tract C is 23 feet wide and the
other one is 23 feet wide as well? Both private streets are 23 feet wide? The east/west private
street is actually 24 feet wide and has mountable curbs so essentially the driving circuits itself is 26
feet wide. The southerly only accesses the two homes in the R-4.5 which is lots 12 and 13 and the
community garden – that lane there is 20 feet wide in order to accommodate vehicle turnaround.
The tract itself is a little bit wider than the street. So there’s no on-street parking for these 13
homes except for the five spaces on 95th? That’s correct. There are spaces out on 95th Ave and
on 95th Avenue – the opposite side of the street has also been widened within the last 10 years. So
there’s a substantially larger amount of parking out there. In addition, each of the homes will have
August 3, 2015 Page 4 of 8
a two-car garage and two spaces out front so you’ll have four off-street parking spaces for each
unit.
TESTIMONY IN FAVOR –
Steven Bass of 10965 SW 95th Avenue – said his property is immediately to the south of the
three detached single lots. He’s in favor of the proposal so long as it’s done appropriately. He
noted that single family detached is definitely what the neighborhood is wanting in this area;
detached and not attached properties. He’s concerned about the higher speed traffic and the road
use caused by Starbucks – he wants there to be some sort of traffic control mechanism. He said,
“Additionally, in closing the ditch on the east side – so on the west side of the road and the east
side of the property - that’s an open ditch on part of the six foot or so stretch onto my property…
will that be left open for somebody to fall into or will that be closed in? And regarding fences –
what is the City’s standard no a fence that’s touching a road like that? Does it get beefed up? Is it
more than just the push over kind of a good neighbor fence – or do they put their own fence up
around what fence I have existing there. Those are concerns of mine. And the parking concerns
that were brought up as well. There’s not much space on 95th anyway – so it definitely makes it a
tough turnaround from a safety standpoint of how fast the cars come down Shady Lane and turn
onto 95th. Safety is the important part to think about when we’re looking at that in the actual plans
that come through.”
QUESTIONS –
So for the ditch – are you making a recommendation? Yes, it’s hard to visualize it from their
map but basically from the edge of my driveway which sits maybe six feet off of the actual
property line – the ditch is open all the way across – so if they only are required to close the ditch
up to the edge of the property line – there’s a six foot hole from the edge of my driveway to
where they would close that off. My concern is to make sure we close that and it doesn’t create a
hazard there.
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION – None
APPLICANT REBUTTAL
Brent Fitch, Pioneer Design Group, civil engineer on the project, responded to the question
about the culvert. “We’d be more than happy to take out that gap between his driveway and what
our improvement would be as long as the city would work with us with a flat top area drain versus
a slanted top – because that slanted top leaves it open. So if the city is willing to entertain that, we
would be more than happy to take care of that.
Matt Sprague said regarding traffic - they’d done a site distance analysis of the intersection back
towards Shady Lane. People who would be coming from the Starbucks direction and coming
around that corner would generally not be hitting high speeds. Once they come around the corner
they might speed up because it’s a long straight street – but the site distance is available and meets
the requirements of the City of Tigard for a safe intersection at that point.
Matt Wellner said that he and Mr. Bass had spoken about fences at the neighborhood meeting.
They hadn’t been through the code yet to evaluate what the buffer requirements would be and
what the open spaces requirements might be. When he and his colleague got back from the
meeting they sat down and looked at those elements and did what they could to incorporate
fencing and open space around Mr. Bass’s property. The plan (sheet L2) has fencing along the
August 3, 2015 Page 5 of 8
north and west line of Mr. Bass’s property. It also has fencing along the west line of the project
itself. Finally, it’s got a landscape buffer area on the north edge of Mr. Bass’s property as well. So
we really did make an effort after hearing his comments at that meeting to go back and address his
concerns.
PUBLIC HEARING – CLOSED
No further testimony or questions from the audience are allowed.
DELIBERATION
Commissioner Muldoon suggested that they take the overall Concept Plan into consideration and
move for that and then deliberate on the Detailed Plan.
The commissioners agreed.
MOTION – CONCEPT PLAN
Commissioner Muldoon made a motion: “I move for approval of Ash Creek Village
PDR2015-00001 Concept Plan and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval
contained in pages 10 and 11 of the Staff Report.”
Commissioner Schmidt seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and it passed 4 – 1 with Commissioner Lieuellen voting against.
CONCEPT PLAN PASSES 4 - 1
DELIBERATION ON THE DETAILED PLAN
They went back to the memorandum that referred to the revised conditions. Commissioner
Fitzgerald asked the commissioners if they had any conditions to add or to discuss.
There was some discussion about the community garden and the timeframe. He said they’re
supposed to have completed construction of the garden once 8th home is completed. Let’s say the
8th home comes on the 3rd year, is there something we want to change that says they have to build
the community garden sooner? Because there’s always the possibility that the home doesn’t always
get built in a timely manner.
There was discussion as to whether they should condition the timeframe of the community
garden and decided that the garden will be completed within 36 months of receiving permits or
upon the completion of lot 8, whichever is first.
The public hearing was reopened for a short time so the developer could weigh in on some of the
topics.
August 3, 2015 Page 6 of 8
PUBLIC HEARING - REOPENED
Matt Wellner addressed the community garden timeframes. He said the 36 month timeframe is
fine. With regard to the culvert – he said they are willing to address the culvert problem. They
believe they can resolve it at very little cost.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
DELIBERATION ON DETAILED PLAN CONTINUES
There was more discussion on the details of the conditions of approval – particularly on the
enclosure of the drainage ditch. John Floyd was asked to help craft the wording of the condition
and he came up with what the commissioners referred to as “Phrase A ” which was “Prior to
issuance of public facility approval permits the app shall submit plans demonstrating the
enclosure of the drainage ditch between the project site and the d/w at 10965 SW 95th
Ave.”
After more detailed deliberation on the various aspects of the conditions of approval, a motion
was made.
MOTION – DETAILED PLAN
Commissioner Muldoon made the following motion:
“I move for approval of concurrent detailed plan and subdivision overlay simultaneously
for SUB2015-00003, Ash Creek Village, subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. Addressing the errata and amendments from the two letters and page 19 additional
corrections.
2. Where the applicant will provide initial planting soil for the common gardens space
– raised beds and will ensure adequate access to water at the garden site and that
the garden will be completed inclusive of those features within 36 months of
receiving permits or upon the completion of lot 8, whichever is first.
3. There’ll be a 48 square foot patio or similar surface – upon receipt of the permits.
4. Easement to the City for the communal garden restricting the use to that purpose.
5. Working with the neighbor at the address provided to address fencing (10965 SW
95th Ave.)
6. Working with the City as described in “Phrase A” read into the record by staff to
address the ditch: [Prior to issuance of public facility approval permits the app
shall submit plans demonstrating the enclosure of the drainage ditch between the
project site and the driveway at 10965 SW 95th Ave.]
7. One more correction to add to the other corrections – for Condition 14 – finding for
open space shall be modified as earlier read into the record but summarized by me
now – based on the analysis above. Conditioned to the development plan and then
ensuring that that condition will be met. But as read more articulately earlier. [The
finding read “Based on the analysis above and as conditioned the detailed
development plan approval will be met.”]
Commissioner Middaugh seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-1.
August 3, 2015 Page 7 of 8
In favor of the motion: Commissioners Muldoon, Schmidt, Middaugh and Fitzgerald.
Opposed: Commissioner Lieuellen
No abstentions.
MOTION PASSES 4 – 1
At this point, Associate Planner John Floyd addressed the commission. He noted a lack of
specificity in some of the conditions proposed. He said “I think the motion seems to be full of
issues discussed, but has a lack of clarity to staff in terms of what specific conditions the
commissioners want to add.” Vice President Fitzgerald said that since the motion had already
been moved and voted on, she proposed the following – “There’s a summary of the motion that I
would have to review before it goes to Council… I’ll review it and could also share it with the
other voting commissioners to make sure it reflects their vote before we go forward.” John said
there would be a certain amount of discretion staff would need to use to interpret the motion in
terms of creating conditions to satisfy all the issues listed – so if the Planning Commission is
comfortable with that, staff will work that into the final order. The voting commissioners stated
they were good with that.
UPDATE – STRATEGIC PLAN & LEGISLATIVE WORK PROGRAM
Kenny Asher, Community Development Director, spoke to the commissioners about the
Strategic Plan Implementation that most directly concerns the Planning Commission in their role.
He talked about the four goals – the first one being that the City would do everything they can to
make new walking connections and to develop an identity out of that. He noted that that’s already
starting to happen. Much of that work falls into the work of sidewalk connections, new sidewalks,
trail connections, new trails, etc. and the department those types of things falls under is mainly
Public Works.
The second goal is that development is going to move the City towards the vision. Kenny said
“That’s the one we’ll talk about tonight; it’s the one that’s squarely in Community Development’s
lap, and will soon be in the Commission’s lap as well. We have to find ways to ensure that when
the next development comes along, that it’s a project that is helping the whole city and the whole
neighborhood become more walkable whenever possible. He went on to talk about the various
ways to look for opportunities and get that goal out there because we don’t always have those
opportunities. Certain sites in Tigard are much more difficult to achieve this end than others. We
have a city that’s pretty much built out – so it’s challenging. We have a code that was written over
time that was completely ignorant about any of these issues. Our code wasn’t written to help us
get to this vision. We’ll talk about where we’re trying to go with that.
Just for background – goal three says that we’re going to engage the community through dynamic
communications. We’ll be doing this with the community and we’ll be doing a better job of
keeping in dialogue with people who live and work here. The last goal says that we’re going to
maintain our core services and we’re going to fund the vision. That is to say we are going to fund
this vision – we’ll have to find money to get us to this vision. It’s not going to build itself. But
we’re not going to do that at the expense of core services - and that’s broadly defined.”
He said the greatest chance to do the most good – the most quickly is in the Tigard Triangle. “We
had just adopted a Strategic Plan that I prefer to call a Concept Plan - for the Triangle which is a
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: President Jason Rodgers and Planning Commissioners
From: John Floyd, Associate Planner
Re: Ash Creek Village - PDR2015-00001
Date: August 3, 2015
New information has come to light since publication of the staff report. This includes two
comment letters (attached), revised conditions of approval pertaining to public improvements,
and corrections of errata within the staff report.
Comment Letters
Clean Water Services submitted a letter dated July 29, 2015. The recommendations of this letter
will be implemented as part of normal Public Facility Improvement Permit review.
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue submitted a letter dated July 30, 2015. The letter endorsed the
project, predicated on 12 criteria and conditions of approval. The recommendations of this
letter will be implemented through a revised condition of approval, as detailed below.
Revised Conditions
Staff recommends the following changes to the recommended conditions of approval:
9. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant’s City of Tigard Public Facility
Improvement permit construction drawings shall indicate that full width private street
improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks on
one side, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitar y sewers, storm
drainage, street trees, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the
interior subdivision streets. The streets shall be designed and constructed to private
street standards. The private street shall have a sidewalk on one side of both the
north-south and east-west leg.
10. Prior to commencing site improvements, the applicant shall submit construction plans as
a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicates that they will construct
a half-street improvement along the frontage of SW 95th Avenue. The improvements
adjacent to the site include:
o City standard pavement section for a Neighborhood Route from curb to centerline
equal to 16 feet;
o Pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of
pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage;
o Concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed;
o Storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface
and/or subsurface runoff;
o Five-foot concrete sidewalk with a five-foot planter strip;
o Street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements;
o Street striping;
o Streetlight layout by applicant’s engineer, to be approved by City Engineer;
o Underground utilities;
o Street signs (if applicable); and
o Driveway apron (if applicable).
12. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall provide stormwater
calculations for the water quality and quantity facility, including treatment of runoff
from SW 95th Avenue.
17. Prior to commencing site improvements, any extension of public water lines shall be
shown on the proposed Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit construction and shall
be reviewed and approved by the City as a part of the Engineering Department plan
review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system cost will be assessed prior to
approval of the City of Tigard’s PFI permit.
19. Prior to commencing site improvements, the applicant will be required to meet Tualatin
Valley Fire & Rescue fire flow, hydrant placement and access requirements, as stated in a
January 15, 2015 and July 30, 2015 letters from Deputy Fire Marshall John Wolff and
contained within the project file.
20. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee in the amount of
$6850.00. (STAFF CONTACT: Karleen Aichele, Engineering, 503-718-2467).
XX Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a site plan
demonstrating a 20 foot setback between the back of the sidewalk and the face of
the garage for all lots containing a sidewalk in an easement. [To be inserted
between conditions 25 and 26).
32. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall underground the utilities
along their SW 95th Avenue frontage.
The applicant has requested the following changes to Condition 22:
22. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions (CC&R’s) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays
out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private water quality/detention
facility. The CC&R’s shall obligate the private property owners within the subdivision to
create a homeowner’s association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the facility. If
the applicant can demonstrate the runoff from 95th is treated and detained in the
same facility then it will be a public facility that requires the applicant to maintain
for 3 years before the city takes over maintenance. The applicant shall submit a copy
of the CC&R’s to the Engineering Division (Greg Berry) prior to approval of the final
plat.
Errata
Two corrections are recommended to the staff report.
The first correction would remove Footnote 5 on pages 9 and 20, and remove the 20 ft. sideyard
setback for Lot 12. The presence of a utility easement will dictate the setback for this lot.
The second correction would remove the fourth paragraph on page 25, in that it was
erroneously copied from another staff report during report preparation.
www.tvfr.com
Training Center
12400 SW Tonquin Road
Sherwood, Oregon
97140-9734
503-259-1600
South Operating Center
8445 SW Elligsen Road
Wilsonville, Oregon
97070-9641
503-649-8577
North Operating Center
20665 SW Blanton Street
Aloha, Oregon 97078
503-649-8577
Command & Business Operations Center
and Central Operating Center
11945 SW 70th Avenue
Tigard, Oregon 97223-9196
503-649-8577
July 30, 2015
John Floyd
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon
97223
Re: Ash Creek Village
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed site plan surrounding the above named development
project. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue endorses this proposal predicated on the following criteria and
conditions of approval:
FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS:
1. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD EXCEPTION FOR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER PROTECTION: When
buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the requirements for
fire apparatus access may be modified as approved by the fire code official. (OFC 503.1.1) Note: If
residential fire sprinklers are elected as an alternate means of protection and the system will be
supported by a municipal water supply, please contact the local water purveyor for information
surrounding water meter sizing.
2. AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ROADS: Buildings with a vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest
roof surface that exceeds 30 feet in height shall be provided with a fire apparatus access road constructed for use by
aerial apparatus with an unobstructed driving surface width of not less than 26 feet. For the purposes of this section,
the highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof
to the exterior wall, or the top of the parapet walls, whichever is greater. Any portion of the building may be used for
this measurement, provided that it is accessible to firefighters and is capable of supporting ground ladder placement.
(OFC D105.1, D105.2) Road widths shown on plans do not allow for buildings over 30 feet.
3. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access roads shall
have an unobstructed driving surface width of not less than 20 feet (26 feet adjacent to fire hydrants (OFC D103.1))
and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. The fire district will approve access roads of
12 feet for up to three dwelling units and accessory buildings. (OFC 503.2.1 & D103.1) The fire district does not
endorse the design concept wherein twenty feet of unobstructed roadway width is not provided.
2
4. NO PARKING SIGNS: Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles
and 20 feet of unobstructed driving surface, “No Parking” signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway
and in turnarounds as needed. Signs shall read “NO PARKING - FIRE LANE” and shall be installed with a clear space
above grade level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and shall have red letters on a white
reflective background. (OFC D103.6)
5. NO PARKING: Parking on emergency access roads shall be as follows (OFC D103.6.1-2):
1. 20-26 feet road width – no parking on either side of roadway
2. 26-32 feet road width – parking is allowed on one side
3. Greater than 32 feet road width – parking is not restricted
6. PAINTED CURBS: Where required, fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted red (or as approved) and
marked “NO PARKING FIRE LANE” at 25 foot intervals. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide
by six inches high. Lettering shall be white on red background (or as approved). (OFC 503.3)
7. SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather surface that is easily
distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load (wheel
load) and 75,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle weight). Documentation from a registered engineer that the final
construction is in accordance with approved plans or the requirements of the Fire Code may be requested. (OFC
503.2.3)
8. TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall not be less than 28 feet and 48 feet
respectively, measured from the same center point. (OFC 503.2.4 & D103.3)
9. ACCESS DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways shall be installed and operational
prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. Temporary address signage
shall also be provided during construction. (OFC 3309 and 3310.1)
FIREFIGHTING WATER SUPPLIES:
10. MUNICIPAL FIREFIGHTING WATER SUPPLY EXCEPTIONS: The requirements for firefighting water supplies may
be modified as approved by the fire code official where any of the following apply: (OFC 507.5.1 Exceptions)
1. Buildings are equipped throughout with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system (the approval of this alternate
method of construction shall be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of ORS 455.610(5)).
2. There are not more than three Group R-3 or Group U occupancies.
11. FIRE FLOW WATER AVAILABILITY: Applicants shall provide documentation of a fire hydrant flow test or flow test
modeling of water availability from the local water purveyor if the project includes a new structure or increase in the
floor area of an existing structure. Tests shall be conducted from a fire hydrant within 400 feet for commercial projects,
or 600 feet for residential development. Flow tests will be accepted if they were performed within 5 years as long as
no adverse modifications have been made to the supply system. Water availability information may not be required to
be submitted for every project. (OFC Appendix B)
12. WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved firefighting water supplies shall be installed and operational
prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. (OFC 3312.1)
3
BUILDING ACCESS AND FIRE SERVICE FEATURES
If you have questions or need further clarification, please feel free to contact me at (503) 649-8577.
Sincerely,
John Wolff
Employee Name
Deputy Fire Marshal II
Cc: TVFR File
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
R e s p e c t a n d C a r e | D o t h e R i g h t T h i n g | G e t i t D o n e
ASH CREEK VILLAGE
PDR2015-00001
SUB2015-00003
August 3, 2015Planning Commission
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
Project Summary
Planned Development + Subdivision
13 Single-Family Detached
Private Street
Private Community Garden
Landscape Buffers
1.43 Acres
Split Zoned (R-4.5 / R-12)
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
Staff Memorandum (August 3, 2015)
CWS & TVF&R Comment Letters
Revised Conditions of Approval
Errata
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
Staff Recommendation
Separate Decisions:
Approve the Concept Plan;
Approve the Detailed Development Plan and
Subdivision, subject to conditions of approval
recommended in Staff Report and Staff Memo
1
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Kenny Asher, Community Development Director
From: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director
Re: Strategic Plan Goal 2 - Planning Work Program
Date: May 4, 2015
This memorandum describes the elements of the proposed Strategic Plan Goal 2 Work Program
for 2015 and beyond. This memorandum provides a narrative description for the organization
and staffing of the many elements that make up the effort to implement Strategic Plan Goal 2. A
multi-year timeline is attached that describes the timelines for each of the specific legislative
(long-range) planning projects. The timeline also includes the staff assigned to the project.
Additionally, the recommendations from the recently completed consultant-led Development
Code Audit are also included. The code audit identified several follow-up projects to implement
the consultant recommendations. These consultant identified projects are referred to in this
memo as Audit Projects.
Near-Term (first 18 months) Legislative and Code Projects
Tigard Triangle Implementation – Staff Lead: Cheryl Caines
The city's planning effort in the Triangle seeks to diversify the existing mix of uses to
include housing and businesses that support those who live and work in the Triangle.
The current phase, which is just getting started, will establish implementing tools and
regulations to create an enjoyable and safe walking environment and improve
connectivity for cars, bikes, and pedestrians within the district and to neighboring areas.
This is a prime opportunity as an initial effort to meet the City Strategic Plan goals. Any
Triangle specific changes recommended in the Code Audit will also be included.
Code Amendments Housing Implementation Strategies – Staff Lead: Marissa Grass
In May 2013, Tigard City Council adopted the Tigard Goal 10 Population and Housing
Review. As part of that review, a Housing Strategies Report was developed by
consultants and reviewed by city staff, and members of a technical and citizen’s advisory
committee. The Housing Strategies Report recommends several Development Code
amendments to further the city’s vision for future housing. The housing implementation
strategies project looks to implement the Report’s recommendations related to these
2
amendments. Additional elements identified in the code audit should also be added to
the project. Included in the project are:
• Cottage Clusters: Update the Title 18 to add a new section specific to cottage clusters
• Live/Work Units: update the Development Code to add code provisions specific to
live/work apartments or townhouses in the C-C, C-G, and C-P zones
• Duplexes: Reduce the minimum lot size for duplexes in the R-7 zone from 10,000 sf
to 7,500 sf
• Attached Housing: Adopt single family attached housing standards as special
development standards for use citywide
• Cottage Housing: Retain existing PD standards and consider adopting separate
cottage housing provisions to address small scale projects
• Accessory Dwelling Units: Amend TCDC 18.710.020 to allow more opportu nities for
ADUs as well as additional standards to address neighborhood compatibility. In
addition, consider waiving or reducing System Development Charges (SDCs) for
ADUs
Code Amendments for Title 18 Administration and Procedures – Staff Lead: John Floyd
This project will update and improve those parts of the Development Code pertaining to
decision-making processes. These changes are necessary to correct known problems in
the code that make clear and consistent administration difficult, and prevent the efficient
delivery of planning services to the community. Approximately 20 chapters of the code
are expected to be amended. Several items identified in the code audit are either already
identified within the scope of work for this project or are a natural fit to be implemented
through this project. Specifically, the Audit Project One elements should be added into
the Administration and Procedures project.
Also two additional amendment packages had been identified to be implemented
through this project. These include new standards to allow urban-appropriate agricultural
activities within the city, and the removal of public improvement standards from the
Tigard Development Code. It now probably makes more sense to separate these into
two standalone projects and add additional items from the code audit to each project as
appropriate. See the next section for a description.
Mid-Term (year 2 and beyond) Legislative and Code Projects
Planned Development Chapter Update – Staff Lead (tent): Susan Shanks
The Planned Development Chapter is in need of a big enough overhaul to warrant a
standalone code update project. In addition, Audit Projects Two and Three identify
multiple subdivision and partition chapter changes that can be included in this project.
Audit Project Two also includes many trail-related code changes that should be included.
Public Improvement Standards Update – Staff Lead (tent): John Floyd
3
This project would provide a long needed update of the public improvement standards in
the Tigard Development Code (Title 18.810). This would need to be done in close
partnership with Public Works and probably should be done as a joint project. Part of
this project would explore the feasibility of removing the public improvement standards
from Title 18 altogether and adding them to another title as technical engineering
standards.
Washington Square Plan District Standards Update – Staff Lead (tent): Cheryl Caines
If we are successful with the new code standards for the Triangle Plan District, the
Washington Square area is a logical next step for applying similar walk friendly
development standards. Similar code could be applied to the area to implement tools and
regulations to create an enjoyable and safe walking environment and improve
connectivity for cars, bikes, and pedestrians within the district and to neighboring areas.
Code Update to Accommodate Urban-Appropriate Agricultural Activities – Staff Lead
(tent): Susan Shanks
This project would explore opportunities to allow urban-appropriate agricultural
activities within the city. This would include the long-awaited chicken regulation updates
and as well as some of the elements of the code audit related to local food production
and sales.
Ongoing Public Involvement/Community Engagement Process
Concurrently with these code update projects, the Community Development
Department needs to conduct an extensive community engagement process that works
to better integrate the department into the community and generate interest in the
community with what the department is doing. This would be a multi-year project that
would involve all staff in the department.
DRAFT 8/3/2015
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan '16 Feb Mar Apr May June July-Sept Oct-Dec Jan-Mar '17 Apr-June
Tigard Triangle Implementation Plan
Goal 10 Plan Implementation
Code Admin and Procedures Update
Planned Development Chapter Update
Public Improvement Standards Update
Washington Square Plan District Standards Update
Code Update to Accommodate Urban-Appropriate
Agricultural Activities
CC (.4); SS (.2); LS (.2); GP (.1); MG (.05)
JF (.4); SS (.2); LS (.2); GP (.1); MG (.1)
SS (.2); LS (.2); GP (.1); AS (.1); MG (.05)
SS (.4); LS (.1); MG (.05);
TM (.2); PW (.2); LS (.1); SS (.1); MG (.05);
MG (.4); LS (.2); SS (.1)
FY 17
Project Name
FY 16
CC (.4); MG (.05)
JF (.2); SS (.1); LS (.2); GP (.1); MG (.1)