Loading...
08/17/2015 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes August 17, 2015 CALL TO ORDER President Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ROLL CALL Present: President Rogers Vice President Fitzgerald Commissioner Middaugh Alt. Commissioner Mooney Commissioner Muldoon Commissioner Schmidt Absent: Alt. Commissioner Enloe; Commissioner Feeney; Commissioner Lieuallen Staff Present: Tom McGuire,Assistant Community Development Director; Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Lloyd Purdy, Economic Development Manager COMMUNICATIONS —None CONSIDER MINUTES August 3 Meeting Minutes: President Rogers asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the August 3 minutes; there being none, Rogers declared the minutes approved as submitted. President Rogers explained to the audience that this is a continued hearing from July 20th and is open for Planning Commission Deliberation only. He said they will not be opening the record unless they have more questions for new information to be presented. They will consider the written testimony that had been submitted since the previous hearing. President Rogers opened the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED FIELDS TRUST PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE — CPA2015-00004, ZON2015-00005 REQUEST: The proposal is to amend the comprehensive plan map from 37.4 acres of Light Industrial (IL), 3.1 acres of Professional Commercial (CP), and 2.1 acres of Low Density Residential (L) to 18.3 acres of Light Industrial (IL) and 24.2 acres of Mixed Use Employment (MUE). The proposal would also amend the zoning map from 37.4 acres of Industrial Park J-P), 3.1 acres of Professional/Administrative Commercial (C-P), and 2.1 acres of Low-Density Residential (R-3.5) to 18.3 acres of I-P and 24.2 acres of MUE. APPLICANT: Fred W. Fields Revocable Living Trust August 17, 2015 Page 1 of 4 LOCATION: Southwest corner of SW Hunziker Road& SW Wall Street ZONES: I-P: Industrial Park; C-P: Professional Commercial; R-3.5: Low-Density Residential QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Rogers 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 Schmidt,Middaugh, Muldoon, Rogers, Fitzgerald, Mooney had made site visits. No one wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. DELIBERATION President Rogers asked each commissioner, one by one, to give their thoughts on the written testimony and the rebuttals that had been submitted and the case set before them. Following are comments from the commissioners: The main concern written about was with regard to traffic. This case isn't about a development; it's basically just a zone change at this time. In 1986 there was a Resolution to keep Varns Street closed. The city should recognize that when a development comes in. Regarding the two pieces of property not in the Rolling Hills Development— the request to be considered wouldn't be appropriate here. Again, this is just a zone change. This request isn't about extending the roads — this is a rezoning. When there is a planned development—we'll address that then. There was a concern about the commissioners not actually observing the neighborhood— we've all been there now and we've all seen it. It's a great neighborhood—I appreciate the close-knit community and kind of wish I lived there. I'm in support of the request. I hear the concerns, but believe they're being addressed well. I appreciate the testimony from the neighbors. A good turnout from a passionate neighborhood. Once a development comes up, the opportunity to speak again will be here. I'm facing the same type of thing in the Summerfield development. Everyone in my neighborhood figured the trees in our neighborhood would go on living a long, long time and now they're building garden style/cottage type apartments and my neighborhood is up in arms. I get it— the fear is that everyone's going to cut through our neighborhood and traffic flow is going to increase and they're going to bypass Scholls Ferry—and as a paramedic I don't want to see kids hurt in the neighborhood —none of that stuff. But the only thing we can do at the end of the day is participate in the public process. There are rules that are set up and I've chosen to get involved on the Planning Commission so that I can be involved on things like this. I would encourage everybody - and I know there are some open seats on this commission— so this is my plug - to get involved within the City. So there are a bunch of issues here (in the written comments). There's this whole concept of Varns Street. Again, I think this is not under consideration for the Planning Commission at this point. But if there was an agreement, the next step of this —regardless of what happens is - this process goes to the City Council. The City Council will hear this again. All of you here should attend. The piece about Varns Street you should bring up. If there was an agreement with the city you need to bring it to the Mayor and the Council—the elected August 17, 2015 Page 2 of 4 officials. We are all volunteers that were appointed by the current City Council. You need to contact the elected officials and make sure that hey—we had this agreement. Remember us! When we eventually see a plan—that's the point where we will get involved in the design, screening, conditions, etc. Right now we're talking about general zone changes. So that's a different process. We're just a little early on this one. Traffic Impact analysis —Undoubtedly, as I look at the 10,000 foot view,if we were to punch Varns through at that point it makes a direct shot into Hwy217; there's no question in my mind what would happen to this neighborhood. Again, that conversation's a little early—this is a different conversation here. What we should be encouraged with is that at the point the property is developed... there will be a traffic impact study done by the developer at that point. It's a requirement— as well as a mitigation plan. For example, Walmart had to do a traffic study and they had to do traffic mitigation as well. That has to occur. REVIEW OF CONDITIONS At this point the commissioners looked at the language of the conditions and deliberated on what they wanted the motion to look like. After a short deliberation, there was a motion. MOTION Commissioner Fitzgerald made the following motion: "I move for approval of application CPA2015-00004, ZON2015-00005 and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report based on the testimony received. Condition 1 - regarding Planned Development Overlay Zone as stated in the staffs recommendation. Condition 2—Protect Employment Capacity as stated in the staff recommendation. Condition 3 — as modified by ODOT with the time city required trip cap of 6:30 am and 6:30 pm peak hour trips be applied to the 24.56 acres subject to the zone change. Condition 4—regarding the 50 foot historical forested buffer between the zones." Commissioner Muldoon seconded the motion. A vote was taken; all were in favor, none opposed. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY City Council will hear this case on October 13th. PUBLIC HEARING - CLOSED FIVE MINUTE RECESS ATTORNEY RIHALA'S BRIEFING City Attorney Shelby Rihala gave the commissioners a briefing regarding the differences between hearing Quasi-judicial and Legislative cases. They had a roundtable type discussion with the commissioners and staff asking questions that Attorney Rihala answered. The attorney distributed August 17, 2015 Page 3 of 4 a flowchart regarding receiving evidence at a public hearing (Exhibit A). She went over the flowchart and answered various questions that the chart brought to mind. There was clarification about the 120-day rule, ex parte contacts, the jurisdiction of the commission, oral and written communications about the hearing with persons other than City staff or the City attorney, conflict of interest, etc. Tom McGuire, staff liaison to the commission, mentioned that a more detailed learning session is being planned for the beginning of next year. There will.be a chance for all the commissioners (new and seasoned) to learn or be reminded about the nuances of serving on a Planning Commission. OTHER BUSINESS President Rogers let the commissioners know that Commissioner Smith had submitted his resignation from the commission. Commissioner Smith had missed seven out of the twelve meetings that had taken place so far this year. President Rogers reminded the commissioners that the bylaws state [under Section VIII Attendance]: "If any member is absent from six meetings within one year (or three consecutive meetings without reasonable cause), the issue shall be placed on the upcoming agenda, and upon majority vote of the commission, the commission may recommend that the position be declared vacant. The commission shall forward their action to the mayor and council, who shall vote whether to accept the commission's recommendation." President Rogers told the commissioners that he had spoken to Commissioner Smith personally and had reminded him of those bylaws. Commissioner Smith decided to resign and sent a resignation letter to President Rogers (copying staff) stating that he'd enjoyed serving on the Commission but that his life had taken a turn and at this time he was unable to commit to serving. He hoped that at some point in the future he would again re-engage and become a more involved Tigard citizen. ADJOURNMENT President Rogers adjourned the meeting at 8:36 p.m. Doreen Laughlin,Planning Commis n Secretary A esident gers August 17, 2015 Page 4 of 4 Evidence received at public hearing Request by party to present additional evidence Grant continuance of Leave written record public hearing open Continue to time, date,and Record open at least 7 place certain at least 7 days days* from initial hearing* New evidence No new evidence Written request for No request to received received application to respond to respond new evidence submitted Request prior to No request for Reopen the record conclusion of hearing additional evidence that record be left open Any person may raise Fat rd must be left open new issues which relate st 7 days to submit to new evidence additional written evidence* Conclusion of testimony Request for final Applicant waives final written argument written argument Allow at least 7 days no Final Subject to 120-day rule. new evidence allowed not Decision subject to 120 day rule