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