02/25/2019 - PacketPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – FEBRUARY 25, 2019
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1
City of Tigard
Planning Commission Agenda
MEETING DATE: February 25, 2019 - 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard – Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m.
3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m.
4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:04 p.m.
5. PUBLIC HEARING 7:05 p.m.
- 95th Avenue Zone Change -
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2018-00003;
Zoning Map Amendment (ZON) 2018-00004
The applicant requests a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium
Density Residential and a Zoning Map Amendment from R-4.5 to R-12. The subject property is comprised
of three existing lots totaling 1.64 acres (71,438 sf), which are predominantly flat and open. The site is
accessed on the west by 95th Avenue and on the east by 92nd Avenue. The R-4.5 zone abuts the property
to the north and west and the R-7 zone abuts to the south and east. The purpose of the zone change is to
increase density for the development of single-family housing units.
LOCATION: 11700 & 11730 SW 95th Avenue; TAX MAP 1S135DC 03600, 03700, and 03800.
6. OTHER BUSINESS – ELECTIONS 8:35 p.m.
7. ADJOURNMENT 9:00: p.m.
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Tigard Planning Commission
From: Gary Pagenstecher, Project Planner
Re: City Council Remand to the Planning Commission for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA) 2018-00003/Zone Change (ZON) 2018-00004 based on
changed circumstance of the subject property.
Date: February 19, 2019
On January 28, 2019, the day before the City Council hearing on this matter, the city was made aware by
a neighboring property owner that most of the trees had been cut on the property subject to the
proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Because the presence of notable trees
on the site was a significant part of the factual basis for Staff’s recommendation to the Planning
Commission (Commission) and the Commission’s recommendations to City Council (Council), the
Council remanded the Commission’s recommendation for reconsideration. At a hearing on January
29th, 2019, Council determined that their review of the application would be premature, given the
change in the most pertinent facts of the case.
As identified in the original findings of the Commission’s Recommendation (attached), trees on site,
especially mature Oregon white oaks, had been identified as a natural resource worth protecting.
Although no inventory had been done to identify the number, size, or condition of the trees, an aerial
photo of the site, below, suggested a closer look. The applicant was advised to take an inventory of the
trees to better understand the resource and how development might accommodate retention of some of
them, if warranted. Staff asked that this information be available at the Council hearing for the Council’s
deliberation. Instead of providing an inventory at the time of the hearing, the applicant acted to remove
the majority of the trees during the week before the hearing. And, in an email dated January 28th the
applicant stated “Unless there is another significant reason to apply a PD designation, the Owner
doesn’t feel it necessary to incumber the property with additional designations.”
The Commission recommended the planned development review procedure be required by condition of
the zone change to best balance interests of the developer to maximize density with the community
interest in tree canopy retention. However, with the majority of trees now removed, the facts of the case
have changed and the Commission must revise their recommendation to Council accordingly . Some
inclusion of open space to facilitate the proposed development’s compatibility with existing
development may be considered to warrant keeping the planned development overlay recommendation.
The Topping Comprehensive Plan and Zone change (CPA2016-00002) is a recent case where the
planned development process was used to provide a forum for interested neighbors to be involved with
incorporation of both open space and tree retention.
Staff Recommendation
Based on changed circumstances on the subject site, documented in this memorandum and in the
attached comments from the applicant and neighbors, staff recommends the Commission review this
testimony and any additional testimony provided during the Hearing on Remand and provide direction
to staff to revise the Planning Commission Recommendation to Council.
Attachments:
Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council (for reference)
Applicant Communications: Brian Cobb, Letters and emails, dated January 28 and February 15, 2019
Neighbors of 95th Combined:
Neighbors’ Letters, dated February 19, 2019
Molly Jones Letter, dated February 18, 2019
Wayne Chapman Letter, dated February 18, 2019
Stacey McCormack Letter, dated February 6, 2019
Justin Lawrence, Letter, dated February 2, 2019
Figure 1 Aerial View of Subject Property with red lines indicating the future extension of SW
Tangela Street right of way; Approximately ten Oregon white oaks identified with dark green
canopy.
Figure 2 Looking west from Tangela Street at clear cut.
Figure 3 Two oaks at southern property boundary.
Figure 4 Three oaks in the SE corner; oak in foreground within future Tangela Street right of way.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 1 OF 14
EXHIBIT B
Hearing Date: January 29, 2019 Time: 7:30 PM
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
TO CITY COUNCIL
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
120 DAYS = N/A
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NO.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2018-00003
Zone Change (ZON) 2018-00004
FILE TITLE: 95th AVENUE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING MAP
AMENDMENTS
APPLICANT: Brian Cobb
Infinite Architecture
PO Box 664
Donald, OR 97020
OWNERS: Winters Salvage Yard, LLC
747 Micheltorena Street, Unit B
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Hyperfight Holding, LLC
7420 SW Bridgeport Rd #101
Portland, OR 97224
REQUEST: The applicant requests a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Zoning Map Amendment from R-
4.5 to R-12, preferably, or R-7. The subject property is comprised of three existing
lots totaling 1.64 acres (71,438 sf), which are predominantly flat and open. The site is
accessed on the west by 95th Avenue and on the east by 92nd Avenue. The R-4.5
zone abuts the property to the north and west and the R-7 zone abuts to the south
and east. The purpose of the zone change is to increase density for the development
of single-family housing units.
LOCATION: 11700 & 11730 SW 95th Avenue; TAX MAP 1S135DC 03600, 03700, and 03800.
COMP PLAN
DESIGNATION/
ZONING
DISTRICT: Existing: R-4.5: low-density residential zone. The R-4.5 zone is designed to
accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory dwelling units
at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes are permitted conditionally.
Some civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 2 OF 14
Proposed: R-12: medium-density residential zone. The R-12 zone is designed to
accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square
feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally.
Proposed (Alternate): R-7: medium-density residential zone. The R-7 zone is
designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family
homes with or without accessory dwelling units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000
square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home
parks are permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are permitted
conditionally.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA:
Community Development Code Chapter 18.795; Comprehensive Plan Goals
1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10; and Metro’s Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan Title 1, Housing Capacity.
SECTION II PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends to the Tigard City Council APPROVAL of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Designation change from low to medium density residential. The Planning
Commission further recommends changing the zoning classification from R4.5 to the R-7 zone with
future development reviewed through a planned development process, as conditioned below.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL
1. To ensure compatibility with adjacent development and protection of mature white oak trees on the
subject site, approval of the R-7 zone shall require future development to be reviewed through the
planned development process.
SECTION III BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Site Description
The project site is located south of SW Greenburg Road in the north-central area of the city bounded by
Hwy 217 to the northeast, the Washington Square Regional Center District to the northwest, the Pacific and
Western railroad to the southwest, and Pacific Hwy to the southeast. The Comp Plan designations and
zoning classifications of property within this area have remained stable since the early 1980s when the
Comp Plan was initially adopted. However, zone changes occurred at the periphery of this area northwest of
Greenburg Road with implementation of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan in 2001 and along
Pacific Hwy with the expansion of the MU-CBD zone in 2009.
The area can be generally described as having a core of low-density single-family dwellings ringed by denser
residential areas and mixed use and commercial zones. The subject property is centrally located within this
neighborhood, gently sloped north to south, and contains a few structures associated with the prior salvage
use. A grove of mature trees, including Oregon white oaks, are present on site.
Proposal Description
The applicant’s narrative includes the following proposal description (edited for clarity):
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 3 OF 14
The proposed scope of this application includes re-zoning three separate but contiguous lots
totaling 1.64 acres, from low-density R-4.5 to a medium-density residential zoning
designation. Within a quarter mile of these properties there are six different planning zones
ranging from R-4.5 to R-25 and I-L, C-P to CBD (see figure below).
We are proposing a change in zoning for the subject parcels to R-12. While this would be a
locally isolated section of R-12 zoning, for the time being, the subject parcels will be
contiguous with the adjacent R-7 zone. The Comprehensive Plan considers R-7 & R-12 to
both be medium density. So, in this respect, either R-12 or R-7 is consistent with the Comp
Plan’s Medium Density designation that the properties are adjacent to. Furthermore, there
is a large area of existing R-12 zone within approximately 500 ft. of the northwest corner of
the subject property (see figure below).
The large section of R-12 zoned property to the northwest is second in size only to the
R-4.5 low-density property that comprise the subject properties. The adjacent R-7 zone is
smaller in size and more disconnected than the higher R-12 zone we are proposing to
eventually connect with. We believe it is reasonable to see the R-4.5 zone in the surrounding
area being changed to R-12 or split into R-7/R-12. These changes would provide more
consistency to the zoning in the area by producing larger blocks of similar zones.
We strongly feel that a R-12 zone change would be most beneficial to this area and aid in the
future retention of the large blocks of lower density housing areas in other parts of the city,
as addressed in R-12 compliance narrative in this application. Higher density housing in this
area, as a buffer to commercial & industrial zones, works best as it allows for larger swashes
of lower density homes away from less family-oriented zones. We feel that this zone change
can be a catalyst to quality development which can provide additional living units, enhance
the higher density zone buffers, and protect the large blocks of low density from the
pressures of population needs.
While we feel changing these properties to R-12 and their eventual connection to the
northwest R-12 zone, we have provided an alternate request for a zone change to R-7, as
addressed in the R-7 compliance narrative in this application. This request would provide
additional living units, would be contiguous with an existing R-7 zone, and compatible with
Comprehensive Plan for medium density housing.
There is a high demand for housing of all types within the city limits that is close to essential
services. Increasing density within the city reduces sprawl, costly service extensions, and
automobile traffic. This zone change will bring much needed residential units within the city
limits, aesthetically improve and contribute to the neighborhood, and dramatically increase
the property tax revenue for these three lots. These three lots, and included street right-of-
way, represents a large block of contiguous land adjacent to a R-7 zone and compatible in
the larger & more long term “medium density” zone of the Comprehensive Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 4 OF 14
SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
This section contains all of the applicable city, state and metro policies, provisions, and criteria that apply to
the proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments.
18.795 MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS
18.795.030 Quasi-Judicial Amendments
A. Approval process.
3. Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments that require a comprehensive map plan amendment
shall be processed through a Type III-Modified procedure, as provided in Section 18.710.080,
which shall be decided by the city council with a recommendation by planning commission.
The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment is from low-density residential R-4.5 to
Medium-Density Residential R-12 or R-7. Therefore, a Type III-Modified procedure is applicable.
B. Approval criteria. A recommendation or decision for a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment or
quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment shall be based on the following:
1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map
designations;
Chapter 1: Citizen Involvement
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 5 OF 14
Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to
participate in all phases of the planning process.
Policy 2 The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of
the land use planning process.
Policy 5 The opportunities for citizen involvement provided by the City shall be appropriate
to the scale of the planning effort and shall involve a broad cross-section of the community.
Citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions were given the opportunity to participate in all phases of
the planning process. Several opportunities for participation are built into the Comprehensive Plan
amendment process, including public hearing notification requirements pursuant to Chapter 18.710 of the
Tigard Community Development Code.
On September 27, 2018, public hearing notice of the Planning Commission and City Council public
hearings was sent to the interested parties list and all property owners within 500 feet of the subject
parcels.
On October 3, 2018, the proposal was posted on the City’s web site.
On November 1, 2018, the site was posted with a notice board.
On November 12, 2018 the staff report was made available on the city’s website and at the permit
center for public review.
FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.1 Policies 2 and 5
are met.
Chapter 2: Land Use Planning
Goal 2.1 Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans
as the legislative basis of Tigard’s land use planning program.
Policy 2 The City’s land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be
consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan.
The City’s development code, Title 18, and its Comprehensive Plan amendment process have been found to
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This policy is met.
Policy 3 The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of its land
use program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies.
Potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies were given an opportunity to comment. Any comments that
were received are addressed in Section VII: Outside Agency Comments, below. This policy is met.
Policy 5 The City shall promote intense urban level development in Metro-designated Centers
and Corridors, and employment and industrial areas.
The Metro 2040 Growth Concept Map shows that Pacific Hwy, through Tigard, is designated as a
“Corridor.” The subject site is located within one quarter mile, within walking distance, of Pacific Hwy. The
proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments from low-density residential, R-4.5, to
medium-density residential, R-12 or R-7, would promote more intense urban level development than the
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 6 OF 14
existing zone. The R-12 zone allows more dense development with a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet
per lot, versus 7,500 square feet per lot in the R-4.5 zone or 5,000 square feet per lot in the R-7 zone. This
policy is met.
Policy 14 Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use applications
are consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code, the
Comprehensive Plan, and when necessary, those of the state and other agencies.
In the applicant’s narrative, they acknowledge that they bear the burden of proof to demonstrate this
application is consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code. City staff have
provided findings for each of the relevant approval criteria in this staff report with analysis based on the
information and narrative provided by the applicant. This criterion is met.
Policy 15 In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable,
amendments to Tigard’s Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map shall be subject to the following specific
criteria:
A. Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available, or committed to be
made available, and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map
designation;
Transportation and other public facilities and services are available and of sufficient capacity to serve the
land uses allowed by the proposed map designation because the site is already served by all necessary public
facilities and services, which can accommodate the proposed development with some facility upgrades (as
detailed in the city’s Development Review Engineer’s Pre-Application Memorandum dated March 23,
2018). The site has street frontage on SW 95th and access to a stubbed Tangela Street off of SW 92nd.
Additionally, there is available transit service with two major bus lines (76 and 78) and four bus stops within
500 feet to provide sufficient capacity for increased density and to serve the land uses allowed by the
proposed map designation. This criterion is met.
B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not negatively affect existing or
planned transportation or other public facilities and services;
Pre-Application Notes from Tigard’s Development Review Engineer, included as Exhibit 5 in the
application, demonstrate that public facilities and services can be available to serve the subject site without
negatively affecting existing or planned transportation or other public facilities and services. This criterion is
met.
C. The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as provision of needed
commercial goods and services, employment, housing, public and community services, etc. in the
particular location, versus other appropriately designated and developable properties;
The new land use designation fulfills a proven community need with the provision of needed housing in this
particular location, versus other appropriately designated and developable properties because this area
currently consists of low density housing but it is located close to city services that would support higher
density housing. According to the findings in the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Planning Chapter:
• "One of the biggest growth management challenges that Tigard will face, as well as the rest of the
Portland region, is the need to accommodate up to a million new residents..."
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 7 OF 14
• "Another growth management challenge that Tigard faces is the lack of large vacant parcels available
for urban development. This type of development is a thing of the past and most household and
employment growth in Tigard will be the result of redevelopment and infill."
• "Future commercial, employment, and multi-family growth will likely occur through
redevelopment."
The proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change Amendments from Low-Density Residential, R-4.5,
to Medium-Density Residential, R-12 or R-7, will allow more housing options with close proximity to
Highway 99W and transit service including two major bus routes and four bus stops within 500 feet
(Housing Strategies Report, May 28, 2013). This criterion is met.
D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable, appropriately designated,
land for the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation;
The findings in the Comprehensive Plan state there is a lack of undeveloped parcels to accommodate
affordable housing (Housing Strategies Report, May 28, 2013). The subject site is a small infill project
surrounded by low and medium density residential development, including single-family and multi-family
units. Increased density allowed by either the R-12 or R-7 zone, would contribute marginally to more
affordable housing by spreading the cost of public facilities improvements over more units. Additionally,
proximity to Highway 99W and public transportation warrants increased density at this location. This
criterion is met.
E. Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could be developed in
compliance with all applicable regulations and the purposes of any overlay district would be
fulfilled;
No overlay district applies to the subject property. Land uses allowed in the proposed R-12 or R-7 zone
could be developed in compliance with applicable regulations. This criterion is met.
F. Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible, or capable of being
made compatible, with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses; and
The proposed R-12 zone would permit multi-family residential, which is not allowed in the surrounding R-
4.5 or R-7 zones. Additionally, the R-7 zone would allow an increase in building height limits from 30 to 35
feet over the existing R-4.5 zone. However, existing land uses on adjacent properties include both single and
two-story single detached houses and non-conforming single and two-story apartments. The environmental
conditions of the site consist of relatively flat land with no wetlands or streams and no natural features other
than mature oak trees. Because of the mix of existing land uses in the area, either the proposed R -12 or R-7
would allow development that is compatible with surrounding land uses. However, because the R -12 allows
so much more density it may not be compatible with the existing environmental conditions. The proposed
R-7 would be more compatible with environment conditions. This criterion is met.
G. Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City’s natural
systems.
Staff finds that the natural systems on the property primarily consist of mature Oregon white oaks and other
trees. The site has a gentle slope north to south and does not contain any natural systems that are regulated
under the Sensitive Lands Chapter (18.510). To the extent the zone change allows more dense development
the less likely it will be to retain existing tree canopy. The proposed zone change to R-12 would allow more
density, that under certain development scenarios, could result in a greater loss of the mature oak trees.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 8 OF 14
However, R-12 also allows a range and flexibility of housing type that through clustering might allow for
more trees to remain than under conventional development.
There is no guarantee that any future development proposal at the densities allowed under the proposed R-
12 zone would be designed to “not detract from the viability of the City’s natural systems” through
preservation of the mature oaks on the site. In order to meet this criterion, the proposed R-7 zone seems
more appropriate for the site and limits density to a level that would allow for some of the oaks to be
preserved within lots. With the R-7 zone this criterion is met.
Policy 16. The City may condition the approval of a Plan/Zoning map amendment to assure
the development of a definite land use(s) and per specific design /development requirements.
The applicant/owners intend to develop the site with single family detached residential units and, as
recorded in the minutes of the neighborhood meeting, would accept as a condition of the zone change,
precluding multifamily development permitted in the R-12 zone. If so conditioned, the significant difference
between R-7 and R-12 zones is the additional height and density R-12 would permit. As determined through
the public hearing process, the city may exercise its discretion to assure the development of a definite land
use(s) and per specific design /development requirements.
Policy 17. The City may allow concurrent applications to amend the Comprehensive
Plan/Zoning Map(s) and for development plan approval of a specific land use.
The applicant has applied for a zone change at this time and plans to follow the zone change decision with a
subdivision application at a later time.
Policy 21 The City shall require all development to conform to site design/development
regulations.
The proposal is for a zone change of the subject property and not for development, at this time. At the time
a development application is submitted the city will require conformance with the applicable site
design/development regulations.
Policy 23. The City shall require new development, including public infrastructure, to minimize
conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility between it and adjacent existing and future land
uses.
The proposed zone change would permit up to 16 lots that could be arranged on both sides of an extended
Tangela St. from 92nd Avenue to 95th Avenue. On the south and east, the lots would back up to five single
and two-story existing single family detached dwellings in an R -7 zone. On the north, the lots would back
up to one existing two-story detached dwelling and two non-conforming apartment buildings in an R-4.5
zone. Existing abutting development would potentially experience an additional abutting lot each under the
proposed R-12 zone than under the R4.5 zone with an additional five feet in height permitted from 30 to 35
feet. This could result in greater massing due to three-story construction and increased density. The
extension of the existing public street would be the same regardless of the zone.
Currently, the neighborhood is a mix of conforming and non-conforming building types and heights. New
development under the proposed zoning would continue this quality of dynamic infill. The proposed R-12
or R-7 zone could result in development compatible with the adjacent existing development that surrounds
the subject site depending on the product type and size. As stipulated in Policy 16, above, the city may
condition the approval of a Plan/Zoning map amendment to assure the development of a definite land
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 9 OF 14
use(s) and per specific design /development requirements. The R-7 zone would limit the maximum number
of units to 10 and the height to two stories to ensure proposed development would be consistent with
adjacent development.
FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed zone change from R-4.5 to R-7 can be made
consistent with the applicable Land Use policies as ensured by the city’s discretion to add
conditions of approval to assure the development of a definite land use(s) and specific
design /development requirements, as determined through the public hearing process.
CONDITION
To ensure compatibility with adjacent development and protection of mature white oak trees
on the subject site, staff recommends approval of the R-7 zone with future development
reviewed through a planned development process.
Chapter 10: Housing
Goal 10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types at a range of price levels to meet
the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents.
Policy 5. The City shall provide for high and medium density housing in the areas such as
town centers (Downtown), regional centers (Washington Square), and along transit corridors where
employment opportunities, commercial services, transit, and other public services necessary to
support higher population densities are either present or planned for in the future.
The site is within a half mile of Highway 99W, a transit corridor, and within 500 feet of four bus stops on
SW Greenburg Road. The site can support R-12 densities with existing and planned public facilities. There
is a demonstrated need for more affordable housing in the city. These factors combined make this location
appropriate for increased density from low-density to medium density residential, zoned either R-12 of R-7.
This policy is met.
GOAL: 10.2 Maintain a high level of residential livability
Policy 5. The City shall encourage housing that supports sustainable development patterns by
promoting the efficient use of land, conservation of natural resources, easy access to public transit
and other efficient modes of transportation, easy access to services and parks, resource efficient
design and construction, and the use of renewable energy resources.
The proposed amendments would allow denser residential development on the subject site, from six units
under R-4.5 to a maximum of 16 units under R-12. Higher densities generally are a more efficient use of
land and the site has easy access to services and parks.
Staff has determined that the mature oak trees on the property are the only natural resources on the site.
The highest densities requested (R-12) may not support the conservation of these natural resources on the
site. As discussed elsewhere in this staff report, with development of a definite land use and specific design
/development requirements, established through conditions of approval, the natural resources in the form
of the mature oak trees can be conserved and resource efficient design and construction with the use of
renewable energy resources can be ensured.
The subject site is located within 500 feet of four bus stops on SW Greenburg Road and within a half mile
of Pacific Hwy. The proposal supports a sustainable infill development pattern that promotes the efficient
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 10 OF 14
use of land and easy access to public transit and other efficient modes of transportation. As conditioned,
this policy is met.
Policy 6. The City shall promote innovative and well-designed housing development through
application of planned developments and community design standards for multi-family housing.
The developable configuration of the subject site is determined in large part by the required extension of
SW Tangela Street through the center of the site and the preservation of the mature oak trees. The
application of planned development standards or the community design standards for multifamily housing
would need to be required through conditions of approval. Multi-family housing would only be permitted
by the R-12 zone. If Planning Commission decides to allow the proposed R-12 zone change, then the
Commission should consider a condition of approval requiring a planned development process to develop
the site with multi-family housing. With such a condition this policy is met. If R-7 is approved, this policy
does not apply.
Policy 7. The City shall ensure that residential densities are appropriately related to locational
characteristics and site conditions such as the presence of natural hazards and natural resources,
availability of public facilities and services, and existing land use patterns.
Staff has determined that the natural resources on the site consist of mature Oregon white oak trees. The
residential densities allowed by the R12 zone may not be appropriate for this location due to site conditions
and the presence of the mature oak trees. The higher density makes it more difficult to develop the site
while preserving these natural resources. The density resulting from the R-7 request is more appropriately
related to locational characteristics and site conditions in regard to the natural resources on the site. There
does not appear to be any evidence of natural hazards on the site.
The site is an infill parcel with a zone change request to allow a more dense single-family residential use.
Public facilities are available, or can be improved, to serve additional development on the subject site. The
proposed amendments allow for additional density where services exist, including public transit. The
proposed R-7 zone best matches the existing land use pattern and site conditions. This policy is met.
Policy 8. The City shall require measures to mitigate the adverse impacts from differing, or
more intense, land uses on residential living environments, such as: A. orderly transitions from one
residential density to another; B. protection of existing vegetation, natural resources and provision
of open space areas; and C. installation of landscaping and effective buffering and screening.
The applicant proposes a zone change for the subject property to increase density to better distribute the
cost of improvements over more units. The proposed R-12 zone would allow up to 16 units, the proposed
alternate R-7 zone would allow up to 10 units over the currently allowed six units. The applicant proposes
single-family detached development and has expressed a willingness to accept a condition to assure that
outcome. Given the site configuration would most likely not support multi-family housing type
construction, the adverse impacts are most likely to be due to single-family development due to the impact
on lot and street configurations and overall site development resulting from the increased density. The
density allowed by R-12 will likely create adverse impacts to existing vegetation, natural resources, and
provision of open areas due to the more intense land use. In addition, the increase density would impact the
back yards of the 14 units abutting the subject site more or less depending on whether the zone is changed
to R-12 or R-7.
An R-7 zone would provide a more orderly transition between zones and proved greater potential to
preserve trees. The applicant states, “While a change to R12 would provide more financial security an d
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 11 OF 14
opportunities for the development as a whole, a R7 zone change would provide a suitable increase to meet
the project goals as well as City of Tigard development codes.” Accordingly, staff recommends approval of
the R-7 zone change request with previously stated conditions of approval in order to mitigate the potential
adverse impacts of the request. With such conditions, this policy is met.
Policy 9. The City shall require infill development to be designed to address compatibility
with existing neighborhoods.
The application is for a zone change and not development, at this time. However, the city may still exercise
its discretion to condition the subsequent development permit to be compatible with the existing
neighborhood on approval of the zone change. With previously discussed conditions of approval, this policy
can be met.
FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment from low-
density to medium-density residential complies with the applicable comprehensive plan
Housing policies. On balance, the proposed R-7 zone better meets the applicable comp plan
policies than the R-12 zone with respect to compatibility with existing adjacent development
and protection of existing vegetation and natural resources. Proposed conditions of approval
would ensure future development of the site would be designed to preserve the mature oaks
on the site.
METRO Urban Growth Management Functional Plan
Title 1: Housing Capacity
The Regional Framework Plan calls for a compact urban form and a “fair-share” approach to
meeting regional housing needs. It is the purpose of Title 1 to accomplish these policies by
requiring each city and county to maintain or increase its housing capacity.
FINDING: The City’s Housing Strategies Report indicates “in general, there is a need for some less
expensive ownership units and rental units.” This type of housing is possible in the R-12
zone, which allows attached housing on 3,050 square-foot lots and multi-family unit
housing. With this quasi-judicial action, the zone change to R-12 on the subject site will
result in a marginal increase of R-12 zoned land in the City of Tigard resulting in an
increasingly compact urban form and a contributing towards its “fair-share” of regional
housing needs. The proposal increases Tigard’s housing capacity, consistent with the
purpose of Title 1.
18.795.030.B.2 Demonstration that adequate public services exist to serve the property at the
intensity of proposed zoning. Factors to consider include the projected service demands of the
property, the ability of the existing and proposed public services to accommodate the future use,
and the characteristics of the property and development proposal, if any.
The proposed change in zoning from R-4.5 to R-12 more than doubles the allowed density from six units to
16 units maximum. The applicant provided the following findings with respect to the adequacy of public
services to serve the increased density:
“As part of the preapplication process, City of Tigard Engineering review ed our potential preliminary
subdivision plans (Pre-Application Notes, Exhibit 5 of the application). It was noted that there would be
adequate public utilities available to the site, based on R4.5 density, with some potential upgrades and
adjustments. Public utilities will continue to be adequately available to the site to serve higher density
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 12 OF 14
development such as R-12. The water line may require upsizing and the storm system may require repairs in
the area for known maintenance issues. Both of these issues, as well as others, are correct-able as part of
and over the course of this development.”
FINDING: As shown in the findings above, the applicant demonstrates that adequate public services
exist to serve the property at the intensity of the proposed R-12 zoning.
SECTION V. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF COMMENTS
The City of Tigard’s Development Services Division (Engineering) reviewed the proposal for a Pre-
Application Conference on April 3, 2018 and provided comment in a Memorandum dated March 23, 2018.
The findings of the Memorandum are contained within this Staff Report.
SECTION VI. OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS
The following agencies/jurisdictions had an opportunity to review this proposal and did not
respond: Metro Land Use and Planning and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development.
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue reviewed the proposal and provided a comment letter dated April 3,
2018 addressing basic approval standards for potential subdivision development, as proposed at the
applicant’s pre-application conference.
SECTION VII. INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENTS
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on May 11, 2018. Documentation is provided in Exhibit 4 of
the application. Fourteen attendees discussed the proposed comprehensive plan and zone change
amendments. Issues discussed focused on consistency with the Comp Plan, spot zoning, multifamily
development, quality of product, traffic, parking, ownership vs rental units, and schedule of development.
On September 27, 2018, the city mailed notice of Notice of Public Hearing to property owners within 500
feet of the subject site and to interested parties. The city received two written comments:
Robert Ruedy, an interested party at 14185 SW 100th Avenue, submitted a comment letter, undated but
received on October 11, 2018, opposing the application. Mr. Ruedy raises the issue of spot zoning arguing
the three stories allowed under R-12 represents a “neighborhood livability” issue with the surrounding two-
story R-4.5 zone. Mr. Ruedy also worries that “Frequent Public Transit” is too far to be useful to future
residents of the subject property.
RESPONSE: The following is a working definition of “spot zoning” in the opinion of land use attorney
Daniel Shapiro, on the Planners Web site:
“When considering spot zoning, courts will generally determine whether the zoning relates to the
compatibility of the zoning of surrounding uses. Other factors may include; the characteristics of the land,
the size of the parcel, and the degree of the “public benefit.” Perhaps the most important criteria in
determining spot zoning is the extent to which the disputed zoning is consistent with the municipality’s
comprehensive plan.”
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 13 OF 14
The city’s goal of increasing affordable housing is a public benefit identified in the city’s comprehensive plan
policies. The protection of existing uses by ensuring new development is compatible is also a public benefit
identified in the city’s comprehensive plan policies. The Commission’s recommendation and Council’s
action on the proposed amendments can address these potentially competing “goods” through exercise of
their discretion to condition the zone change to reduce the impacts while supporting density. For example,
approving the R-12 zone, while limiting the use allowed to single-family detached units not to exceed two
stories.
Bus lines # 76 and #78 run on Greenburg within approximately 500 feet of the subject property on both
SW 92nd and 95th, which have 30-minute headways where 15-minute headways are generally considered
frequent service. More frequent service is provided within a half mile on Pacific Hwy.
Wayne Chapman, property owner at 11850/11900 SW 95th Ave., submitted a comment letter undated
but received on October 11, 2018 (attached), raising questions of procedure and substance and opposing the
zone change. Mr. Chapman worries that “ordinary procedure for public input seems to have been short-
circuited” with inclusion in the application of an alternate R-7 proposal to the R-12 primary request. Mr.
Chapman is similarly concerned with spot zoning where the proposed R-12 zone may not be compatible
with existing adjacent R-4.5-zoned property. The prospect of apartments, allowed under the R-12 zone, and
the need for a clearer comparison of types of construction permitted under the two proposed zones are also
at issue.
RESPONSE: The hearing process provides interested parties notice of hearing which provides
information to timely access the application to become fully aware of the proposal. In addition, the staff
report to the Planning Commission and, in turn, the City Council, is made available to the public one week
prior to the hearings. In this manner, the city provides the public access to the substantive content of the
application, as demonstrated in Mr. Chapman’s case. The issue of spot zoning is addressed above under the
response to Mr. Ruedy. The issue of multi-family use and the comparison of types of construction permitted
under the R-7 and R-12 zones is addressed in the findings in the staff report, above.
SECTION VIII. CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment from
R-4.5 to R-7 complies with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals, applicable regional, state and federal
regulations, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and applicable provisions of the City’s implementing
ordinances, as conditioned.
By a vote of 7 – 0, The Planning Commission recommends the Tigard City Council APPROVE the
proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation change from low to medium density residential. By a vote of 6 –
1, The Planning Commission further recommends amending the zoning classification from R4.5 to R-7
(PD) consistent with the Comp Plan policies to mitigate adverse impacts to adjacent properties and to
identified on-site natural resources.
RECOMMENDED: THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 BY THE CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 14 OF 14
Brian Feeney, Planning Commission Vice President
Dated this _________ day of January 2019
INFINITE ARCHITECTURE PO BOX 664 DONALD, OREGON 97020 503.989.2992
SW 95th ZONE CHANGE
11700 & 11730 SW 95TH STREET
TIGARD, OR 97223
INFINITE ARCHITECTURE
PO BOX 664
DONALD, OREGON 97020
503.989.2992
INFINITEARCHITECTURE@WBCABLE.NET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPLICATION & NARRATIVES SECTION 1
APPLICATION
TITLE TRANSFER/DEED
NARRATIVES & COMPLIANCE SECTION 2
WRITTEN SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL 1
COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE; R12 3
COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE; R7 11
NEIGHBORHOOD NOTICE SECTION 3
NOTICE OF MEETING LETTER
SIGNED AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SECTION 4
MEETING SIGN-IN SHEETS
MEETING MINUTES
HANDOUT MATERIALS
PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES SECTION 5
DRAWINGS & EXHIBITS SECTION 6
EXHIBIT A1 – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
EXHIBIT A2 – PROJECT AREA ZONING
INFINITE ARCHITECTURE
PO BOX 664
DONALD, OREGON 97020
503.989.2992
INFINITEARCHITECTURE@WBCABLE.NET
TITLE TRANSFER/DEEDS
INFINITE ARCHITECTURE
PO BOX 664
DONALD, OREGON 97020
503.989.2992
INFINITEARCHITECTURE@WBCABLE.NET
WRITTEN SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
INFINITE ARCHITECTURE
PO BOX 664
DONALD, OREGON 97020
503.989.2992
INFINITEARCHITECTURE@WBCABLE.NET
NARRATIVE COMPLIANCE – R12
INFINITE ARCHITECTURE
PO BOX 664
DONALD, OREGON 97020
503.989.2992
INFINITEARCHITECTURE@WBCABLE.NET
NARRATIVE COMPLIANCE – R7
INFINITE ARCHITECTURE
PO BOX 664
DONALD, OREGON 97020
503.989.2992
INFINITEARCHITECTURE@WBCABLE.NET
NOTICE OF MEETING LETTER
INFINITE ARCHITECTURE
PO BOX 664
DONALD, OREGON 97020
503.989.2992
INFINITEARCHITECTURE@WBCABLE.NET
SIGNED AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
INFINITE ARCHITECTURE
PO BOX 664
DONALD, OREGON 97020
503.989.2992
INFINITEARCHITECTURE@WBCABLE.NET
MEETING SIGN-IN SHEETS
INFINITE ARCHITECTURE
PO BOX 664
DONALD, OREGON 97020
503.989.2992
INFINITEARCHITECTURE@WBCABLE.NET
MEETING MINUTES
INFINITE ARCHITECTURE
PO BOX 664
DONALD, OREGON 97020
503.989.2992
INFINITEARCHITECTURE@WBCABLE.NET
HANDOUT MATERIALS
City of Tigard • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • www.tigard-or.gov • 503-718-2421 • Page 1 of 2
City of Tigard
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Master Land Use Application
LAND USE APPLICATION TYPE
Adjustment/Variance (II)
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Legislative)
Conditional Use (III)
Development Code Amendment (Legislative)
Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review (III)
Downtown Design Review (II, III)
Historic Overlay (II or III)
Home Occupation (II)
Land Partition (II)
Planned Development (III)
Sensitive Lands Review (II or III)
Site Development Review (II)
Subdivision (II)
Transportation Mitigation (II)
Urban Forestry Plan Modification (I)
Zone Change (III or Legislative)
Zone Change Annexation (III or Legislative)
NOTE: For required submittal elements, please refer to your pre-application conference notes.
PROPOSAL SUMMARY (Brief description)
PROPERTY INFORMATION (where proposed activity will occur)
Location (address if available):
Tax maps and tax lot #s:
Total site size: Zoning classification:
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name:
Mailing address:
City/state: Zip:
Phone number:
Primary contact name:
Phone number:
Email:
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Case No.:
Related Case No.(s):
Application Fee:
Application accepted:
By: Date:
Application determined complete:
By: Date:
I:\Community Development\Land Use Applications\02_Forms and
Templates\Land Use Applications Rev. 12/14/2017
4
11700 & 11730 SW 95TH
01S135DC03600, 03700, & 03800
CURRENT R4.5 - PROPOSED R12
Zone change of approximately 1.64 acres of R4.5 to R12
1.64 acres
INFINITE ARCHITECTURE
PO BOX 664
DONALD, OR 97020
Brian Cobb
503-989-2992
infinitearchitecture@wbcable.net
503-989-2992
Project Information;
Address – 11700 & 11730 SW 95th, Tigard, OR
Assessor/Lot – 1S135DC03600, 03700, & 03800. [Fir Dale Lots 7, 8, & 9]
Property Owner 11730 SW 95th
Winters Salvage Yard, LLC
747 Micheltorena Street, Unit B
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Property Owner 11700 SW 95th
Hyperfight Holding, LLC
7420 SW Bridgeport Rd #101
Portland, OR 97224
Information is deemed reliable but not guaranteed
only benefiting intermediaries will not be permitted. Said services may be discontinued. No liability is assumed for any errors in this report.
Commissioner. The Insurance Division cautions intermediaries that this service is designed to benefit the ultimate insureds. Indiscriminate use
This title information has been furnished, without charge,in conformance with the guidelines approved by the State of Oregon Insurance
::::::
::::::
::::::
::::::
::::::
::::::
Owner(s)Date Doc #Price Deed Loan Type
TRANSFER HISTORY
Garage SF : Deck SqFt : Const Type :
GarageType : Attic SqFt : Ext Finish :
Deck : Porch SqFt : Paving Matl :
Hood Fan : UpperFlSF : InteriorMat :
Dishwasher : 1stFlrSF : Roof Matl :
Appliances : Bldg SqFt : Roof Shape :
Pool : BsmUnfinSF : Foundation :
HeatMethod : BsmFin SF : Floor Cover :
Bathrooms : Lot SqFt : EffYearBlt :
Bedrooms : Lot Acres : Year Built :
PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS
:
:
Legal :
Land Use :
Class Code :
Subdivision/Plat :
School District :
Neighborhood :
Census Tract : Block:
Map Page Grid :
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Millage Rate :
Taxes :
Levy Code :
M50 Total :
%Improved :
Mkt Total :
Mkt Structure :
Mkt Land :
ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION
Mail Address : Telephone :
Site Address : T:R: S: Q:QQ:
CoOwner(s): Ref Parcel #:
Owner(s): Parcel Number :
OWNERSHIP INFORMATION
Washington (OR)
Email: Ticor.Resource@TicorTitle.com
Phone:503.219.1000
Customer Service
R0276640Hyperfight Holdings LLC
1S135DC 03600
SWSE3501W01S11700SW95thAve Tigard 97223
9577 SW Mountain View Ln Tigard Or 97224
$286,360
$57,600
$343,960
17
$168,080
02374
$2,870.3817-18
17.0773
3309.00
WTIG
Tigard
Firdale
Single Family Res
1010 Res,Improved
FIRDALE-UNRECORDED, LOT PT 8, ACRES
.82
1947.822
194735,7191.00
WoodForced
Masonry
Gable1,080
Comp Shingle864
Drywall
Concrete
Wood Std Shtg216Attached
Wd Stud\shtg364
Warranty$347,5002537803/30/2017Hyperfight Holdings LLC
Convent$228,000Warranty$285,000693202/01/2016HoraniSohayla/M Samer
Convent$172,000Warranty$215,0007668507/02/2004ThomasDarwin
Convent$115,200Warranty$160,0006632706/11/2002KimChull W
Warranty5979008/28/1992Adams Hazel L
Information is deemed reliable but not guaranteed
only benefiting intermediaries will not be permitted. Said services may be discontinued. No liability is assumed for any errors in this report.
Commissioner. The Insurance Division cautions intermediaries that this service is designed to benefit the ultimate insureds. Indiscriminate use
This title information has been furnished, without charge,in conformance with the guidelines approved by the State of Oregon Insurance
::::::
::::::
::::::
::::::
::::::
::::::
Owner(s)Date Doc #Price Deed Loan Type
TRANSFER HISTORY
Garage SF : Deck SqFt : Const Type :
GarageType : Attic SqFt : Ext Finish :
Deck : Porch SqFt : Paving Matl :
Hood Fan : UpperFlSF : InteriorMat :
Dishwasher : 1stFlrSF : Roof Matl :
Appliances : Bldg SqFt : Roof Shape :
Pool : BsmUnfinSF : Foundation :
HeatMethod : BsmFin SF : Floor Cover :
Bathrooms : Lot SqFt : EffYearBlt :
Bedrooms : Lot Acres : Year Built :
PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS
:
:
Legal :
Land Use :
Class Code :
Subdivision/Plat :
School District :
Neighborhood :
Census Tract : Block:
Map Page Grid :
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Millage Rate :
Taxes :
Levy Code :
M50 Total :
%Improved :
Mkt Total :
Mkt Structure :
Mkt Land :
ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION
Mail Address : Telephone :
Site Address : T:R: S: Q:QQ:
CoOwner(s): Ref Parcel #:
Owner(s): Parcel Number :
OWNERSHIP INFORMATION
Washington (OR)
Email: Ticor.Resource@TicorTitle.com
Phone:503.219.1000
Customer Service
R0276659WintersSalvage Yard LLC
1S135DC 03700
SWSE3501W01S11730SW95thAve Tigard 97223
11730 SW 95th Ave Tigard Or 97223
$299,490
$8,000
$307,490
3
$93,310
02374
$1,593.4817-18
17.0773
3309.00
4TL9
Tigard
Firdale
1910 Res,Potential Development,Improved
FIRDALE-UNRECORDED, LOT PT 9, ACRES
.75
.75
32,670
Warranty9956711/20/2013WintersSalvageYardLLC
Correction$103,0009666511/07/2013WintersSalvageYardLLC
Correction$103,0002755403/28/2013WintersSalvageYardLLC
Warranty$103,0009591611/09/2012WintersSalvageYardLLC
86045273WintersJohn W
Information is deemed reliable but not guaranteed
only benefiting intermediaries will not be permitted. Said services may be discontinued. No liability is assumed for any errors in this report.
Commissioner. The Insurance Division cautions intermediaries that this service is designed to benefit the ultimate insureds. Indiscriminate use
This title information has been furnished, without charge,in conformance with the guidelines approved by the State of Oregon Insurance
::::::
::::::
::::::
::::::
::::::
::::::
Owner(s)Date Doc #Price Deed Loan Type
TRANSFER HISTORY
Garage SF : Deck SqFt : Const Type :
GarageType : Attic SqFt : Ext Finish :
Deck : Porch SqFt : Paving Matl :
Hood Fan : UpperFlSF : InteriorMat :
Dishwasher : 1stFlrSF : Roof Matl :
Appliances : Bldg SqFt : Roof Shape :
Pool : BsmUnfinSF : Foundation :
HeatMethod : BsmFin SF : Floor Cover :
Bathrooms : Lot SqFt : EffYearBlt :
Bedrooms : Lot Acres : Year Built :
PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS
:
:
Legal :
Land Use :
Class Code :
Subdivision/Plat :
School District :
Neighborhood :
Census Tract : Block:
Map Page Grid :
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Millage Rate :
Taxes :
Levy Code :
M50 Total :
%Improved :
Mkt Total :
Mkt Structure :
Mkt Land :
ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION
Mail Address : Telephone :
Site Address : T:R: S: Q:QQ:
CoOwner(s): Ref Parcel #:
Owner(s): Parcel Number :
OWNERSHIP INFORMATION
Washington (OR)
Email: Ticor.Resource@TicorTitle.com
Phone:503.219.1000
Customer Service
R0276668WintersSalvage Yard LLC
1S135DC 03800
SWSE3501W01S11730SW95thAve Tigard 97223
11730 SW 95th Ave Tigard Or 97223
$27,950
$27,950
$3,930
02374
$67.1117-18
17.0773
3309.00
4TL9
Tigard
Firdale
1900 Vacant,Res,Potential Devel
FIRDALE-UNRECORDED, LOT PT 9, ACRES
.07
.07
3,049
Warranty9956711/20/2013WintersSalvageYardLLC
Warranty$103,0009591611/09/2012WintersSalvageYardLLC
79003191WintersJohn W
INFINITE ARCHITECTURE
PO BOX 664
Donald, Oregon 97020
503.989.2992
infinitearchitecture@wbcable.net
SW 95th Zone Change; Written Summary of Proposal PAGE 1 OF 19
September 17, 2018
Project Information;
Address – 11700 & 11730 SW 95th, Tigard, OR
Assessor/Lot – 1S135DC03600, 03700, & 03800. [Fir Dale Lots 7, 8, & 9]
Property Owner 11730 SW 95th
Winters Salvage Yard, LLC
747 Micheltorena Street, Unit B
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Property Owner 11700 SW 95th
Hyperfight Holding, LLC
7420 SW Bridgeport Rd #101
Portland, OR 97224
Summary of Proposal;
This proposal encompasses three existing lots, addressed to 11700 & 11730 SW 95th, are all within City Limits.
The combined lots represent 1.64 acres (71,438 sf) with very limited existing development.
When first purchased, these properties were in a great state of disrepair. The buildings on the properties have
since been repaired and a fence added around the salvage yard to screen from the property from the
adjacent residences. With the continued demand for housing, especially homes for famili es, the Owner is
pursuing development of these parcels to provide quality single family housing units.
The proposed scope of this application includes re-zoning these three separate, but contiguous, lots from
zone R-4.5 to a higher density residential zone designation. Within a quarter mile, 1,300 ft ., of these
properties there are six different planning zones ranging from R4.5 to R25 and IL, CP to CBD, see exhibit A1.
This area of the city is, as noted, essentially pockets of different and varying usages.
While the Comprehensive Plan does not show any planned changes in this area, the immediate vicinity is
essentially a collection of spot zones of various sizes. We are proposing a change in zoning for the subject
parcels to R-12. While this would be a locally isolated section of R-12 zoning, for the time being, the subject
parcels will be contiguous with the adjacent R-7 zone. The Comprehensive Plan considers R7 & R12 to both
be medium density. So, in this respect, either R-12 or R-7 is consistent with the Medium Density designation,
in the Comp Plan, that the properties are adjacent to. Furthermore, there is a large area of existing R-12
zone within approximately 500 ft. of the northwest corner of the subject property, see exhibit A2.
The large section of R-12 zoned use to the northwest is second in size only to the R4.5 lower density that the
properties are currently in. The adjacent R-7 zone is a smaller in size and more disconnected than the
higher R-12 zone we are proposing to eventually connect with. We believe It is not unreasonable to see the
R4.5 zone in the surrounding area being changed to R12, or split into R-7/R-12. These changes would
provide more consistency to the zoning in the area by producing larger blocks of similar zones.
We strongly feel that a R-12 zone change would be most beneficial to this area and aid in the future
retention of the large blocks of lower density housing areas in other parts of the city, refer to the R12
compliance narrative as part of this application for more information. The surrounding neighborhood(s)
contains several areas of differing residential zones with the R-12 zone, to the northwest, being the largest
after the R4.5 zoned area the parcels are currently within. Higher density housing in this area, as a buffer to
commercial & industrial zones, works best as it allows for larger swashes of lower density homes away from
less family oriented zones. We feel that this zone change can be a catalyst to quality development which
SW 95th Zone Change; Application Compliance PAGE 2 OF 19
can provide additional living units, enhance the higher density zone buffers, and protect the large blocks of
low density from the pressures of population needs.
While we feel changing these properties to R12 and their eventual connection to the northwest R12 zone, we
have provided an alternate request for a zone change to R-7, refer to the R7 compliance narrative as part
of this application for more information. This request would provide additional living units, would be
contiguous with an existing R-7 zone, and compatible with Comprehensive Plan for medium density housing.
There is a high demand for housing of all types within the city limits that is close to essential services.
Increasing density within the city limits reduces sprawl, costly service extensions, and automobile traffic. This
rezone will bring much needed residential units within the city limits, aesthetically improve and contribute to
the neighborhood, and dramatically increase the property tax revenue for these three lots . These three lots,
and included street right-of-way, represents a large block of contiguous land adjacent to a R-7 zone and
compatible in the larger & more long term “medium density” zone of the Comprehensive Pla n.
End of Summary
INFINITE ARCHITECTURE
PO BOX 664
Donald, Oregon 97020
503.989.2992
infinitearchitecture@wbcable.net
SW 95th Zone Change; Application Compliance R12 PAGE 3 OF 19
September 17, 2018
Comprehensive Plan & Quasi-Judicial Compliance – R12
GOAL 1 – CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT: To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for
citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all
phases of the planning process.
1.2 Ensure all citizens have access to:
A. opportunities to communicate directly to the City; and
B. information on issues in an understandable form.
COMPLIANCE: As part of this Zoning Application process, the required neighborhood meeting was held and
the intended project goals, i.e. eventual sub-division into single family homes, was discussed. We believe
we listened to all the citizen’s concerns and that they had all their questions and conc erns discussed at this
meeting. Meeting notes are attached to this application as required.
Citizens will have further opportunities to express their concerns and/or support for this project to the City of
Tigard at future planning & city council meetings regarding this application.
GOAL 2 – LAND USE PLANNING: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for
all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions
and actions.
2.1 Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as the
legislative foundation of Tigard’s land use planning program.
2.2 To enlarge, improve, and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the economic, ecological, and
social benefits of trees.
2.3 To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-designed urban development
that minimizes the loss of existing trees to create a living legacy for future generations.
COMPLIANCE:
The Comprehensive Plan does not show this area of the city as havin g any planned changes. Within a
quarter mile, i.e. 1,300 ft., of the properties there are six different planning zones ranging from R4.5 & R25 to
IL, CP & CBD. This area of the city is, as noted, essentially pockets of different usages.
While the proposed change to R-12 would be a locally isolated zone, the Comprehensive Plan considers R7
& R12 to both be medium density. The subject parcels will be contiguous with the adjacent R -7 zone. In
effect, either R-12 or R-7 is consistent with the Medium Density designation, in the Comp Plan, that the
properties are adjacent to. Furthermore, there is a large area of existing R-12 zone within approximately
500 ft of the northwest corner of the subject property .
We believe It is not unreasonable to see the R4.5 zoned area surrounding the properties being changed to
R12 and connecting to the R-12 to the northwest, see exhibit A1 & A2. These changes would, over time,
provide more consistency to the zoning in this area. Furthermore, higher density housing in this area will
provide a buffer from the commercial & industrial zones to the north and east to the lower density residential
zones to the south and west. In addition, increasing the density in this area also allows the larger swashes of
lower density residential to remain while increasing available housing within the city limits.
SW 95th Zone Change; Application Compliance R12 PAGE 4 OF 19
2.1 Policy 14:
Requires; Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use applications are consistent
with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan, and when
necessary, those of the state and other agencies.
Compliance: Applicant & Owner acknowledge that we bear the burden of proof to demonstrate this
application is consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code. We have
reviewed Tigard’s Title 18 as well as Tigard’s current Comprehensive Plan and to the best of our knowledge
and understanding this applicant meets these requirements, as demonstrated by this document.
2.1 Policy 15:
Requires;
A: Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available, or committed to be made
available, and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation;
B: Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not negatively affect existing or planned
transportation or other public facilities and services;
C: The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as provision of needed
commercial goods and services, employment, housing, public and community services, etc. in the
particular location, versus other appropriately designated and developable
properties;
D: Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable, appropriately designated , land for
the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation;
E: Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could be developed in compliance
with all applicable regulations and the purposes of any overlay district would be f ulfilled;
F: Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible, or capable of being made
compatible, with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses; and
G: Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City’s natural systems.
Compliance:
The property is contiguous with residential uses and activities with similar densities to the west and southeast.
The current and proposed designations of the adjacent and the proposed properties are R4.5, R7 & R12 all
of which are compatible adjacencies as shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed project areas will not adversely affect any natural open areas as there are none at the
proposed site or adjacent to these properties. The existing properties are currently developed, albeit very
low density, and therefore development of the properties will be less impactful compared to raw
undeveloped land.
There is still a very strong and continuing need for housing in the Portland metro especially affordable
housing and outdoor space for families within city limits. The proposed zone change will add much needed
family housing within the city limits with access to a multitude of public transit and service options.
The proposed zone change is part one of an overall goal of buildable single-family homes. The proposed
R12 designation would be developed, and can be, to comply with all applicable zone code requirements.
As part of the preapplication process, City of Tigard Engineering reviewed our p otential preliminary
subdivision plans, see preapplication notes attached. It was noted that there would be adequate public
SW 95th Zone Change; Application Compliance R12 PAGE 5 OF 19
utilities available to the site, based on R1 density, with some potential upgrades and adjustments. The water
line may require upsizing and the storm system may require repairs in the area for known maintenance
issues. Both of these issues, as well as others, are correct-able as part of and over the course of this
development.
GOAL 3 – AGRICULTURAL LAND: Only land that lies outside Urban Growth Boundaries can be classified as
agricultural.
COMPLIANCE: The proposed lots are within the City of Tigard and currently zoned R4.5, residential. Increase d
density within the city limits will slow expansion outside of the urban growth boundary thus reducing the
conversion and/or loss rural agricultural land.
GOAL 4 – FOREST LAND:
To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base, and to protect the state’s forest economy by
making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of
forest tree species as the leading use of forest land and, consistent with sound management of soil, air,
water, and fish and wildlife resources, and to provide for re creational opportunities and agriculture.
COMPLIANCE: Not applicable, the properties were not designated forest land at the time of adoption of this
goal.
GOAL 5 – NATURAL RESOURCES, AREAS, AND OPEN SPACES: To protect natural resources and conserve
scenic and historic areas and open spaces.
5.1 Protect natural resources and the environmental and ecological functions they provide and, to the
extent feasible, restore natural resources to create naturally functioning systems and high levels of
biodiversity.
5.2 Promote the preservation and protection of historically and culturally significant resources.
COMPLIANCE: The proposed area of zone change has no known natural resources within their boundaries.
Increased density on existing developed land reduces the pressure on development in or around natural
resources.
GOAL 6 – ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water, and land
resources of the state.
6.1 Reduce air pollution and improve air quality in the community and region.
6.2 Ensure land use activities protect and enhance the community’s water quality.
6.3 Reduce the amount of solid waste entering landfills.
COMPLIANCE: Increasing density of existing under developed land in areas with plentiful services, such as
mass transit, and connectivity like bike paths & sidewalk promotes the use of such services thus reducing air
pollution.
Storm water issues were noted, as part of our preapplication conference, at both ends of the properties.
The adjacent properties on the easterly side have consistent flooding at the termination of SW Tangela Street
due to grading and clogged piping. The westerly side of the property has a series of underground and over
land channels for storm water management.
As part of the future development of these properties, SW Tangela Street will be extended to SW 95th. The
street termination, prone to flooding, will be graded t o transition to this extension. This will improve the storm
water management of the street system in this area thus improving downstream quality.
SW 95th Zone Change; Application Compliance R12 PAGE 6 OF 19
As part of the future development, the subject properties will be required to hold and improve the quality of
the storm water before being release to the system. This will also improve the quality of the downstream
environment.
GOAL 7 – HAZARDS: To protect people and property from natural hazards.
7.1 Protect people and property from food, landslide, earthquake, wildfire, and severe weather hazards.
7.2 Protect people and property from non-natural hazardous occurrences.
COMPLIANCE: The subject properties are not heavy sloped, i.e. >25%, and thus not prone to landslides.
Residential units, as part of the future development, will be wood framed and meet all current seismic
codes.
GOAL 8 – RECREATIONAL NEEDS: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and,
where appropriate, to provide for the siting of recreational facilities, including destination resorts.
8.1 Provide a wide variety of high quality park and open spaces for all residents, including both:
A. developed areas with facilities for active recreation; and
B. undeveloped areas for nature-oriented recreation and the protection and enhancement of
valuable natural resources within the parks and open space system.
8.2 Create a Citywide network of interconnected on- and off-road pedestrian and bicycle trails.
8.3 Provide Tigard residents with access to a broad range of recreational, cultural, and educational
activities.
COMPLIANCE: The subject properties are near higher density commercial areas and street systems. The
proposed increase in density in this area will enhance the existing medium density buffer zone between
these higher density areas / street systems (north and east) and the lower density residential & recreational
areas (south and west).
Increasing density in existing developed areas as well as providing density buffers improves the quality of the
recreational areas as well as providing an increased tax base for further improvements to existing facilities as
well as creation of new areas.
GOAL 9 – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety
of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s citizens.
9.1 Develop and maintain a strong, diversified, and sustainable local economy.
9.2 Make Tigard a center and incubator for innovative businesses, including those that focus on
environmental sustainability.
9.3 Make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live and do business.
COMPLIANCE: While this zone change will not include commercial uses, the future development of these
properties will provide improved connectivity, enhance the medium density buffer between
commercial/dense areas and the lower density sections of the city.
Increasing the density in this existing developed area will provide additional housing units while relieving the
pressure of developing lower density residential and recreational areas of the city to meet future needs.
GOAL 10 – HOUSING: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types at a range of price levels to meet the diverse
housing needs of current and future City residents.
10.2 Maintain a high level of residential livability.
SW 95th Zone Change; Application Compliance R12 PAGE 7 OF 19
COMPLIANCE: The proposed increase in housing density will provide more affordable housing through
economies of scale. Providing more units on the same amount of land reduces the economic burden of
the fixed development costs which can be used to lower the overall cost of the homes. The R12’s 3,050 sf
lot size provides for some outdoor area for each home while providing a more affordable starter level home.
GOAL 11 – PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: To plan and develop a timely, orderly, and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.
11.1 Develop and maintain a storm water system that protects development, water resourc es, and
wildlife habitat.
11.2 Secure a reliable, high quality, water supply to meet the existing and
future needs of the community.
11.3 Develop and maintain a wastewater collection system that meets the
existing and future needs of the community.
11.4 Maintain adequate public facilities and services to meet the health, safety,
education, and leisure needs of all Tigard residents.
11.5 Private utilities provide the needed energy and communication services
for the community.
COMPLIANCE: As noted in Goal 6, Environmental Quality, the development of these properties will include
improvements to the storm management system in the area. Extension of SW Tangela Street to SW 95 th will
also allow a potential looping, as coordinated with Public Works, of underground utilities providing
redundancy within the system during maintenance and localized failures.
GOAL 12 – TRANSPORTATION: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient, and economic transportation
system.
12.1 Develop mutually supportive land use and transportation plans to enhance the livability of the
community.
12.2 Develop and maintain a transportation system for the efficient movement of people and goods.
12.3 Provide an accessible, multi-modal transportation system that meets the
mobility needs of the community.
12.4 Maintain and improve transportation system safety.
12.5 Coordinate planning, development, operation, and maintenance of the
transportation system with appropriate agencies.
12.6 Fund an equitable, balanced, and sustainable transportation system that
promotes the well-being of the community.
COMPLIANCE: The properties are within a short distance , nine tenths of a mile, of several transit lines
including Tigard Transit Center, which boasts numerous bus lines including a connection to the WES
Commuter rail. The proposed project will include a dedicated right-of-way for extending SW Tangela Street
to SW 95th, including sidewalks, which will also improve the local transportation network.
GOAL 13 – ENERGY CONSERVATION: Land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and
controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based on sound economic principles.
13.1 Reduce energy consumption.
COMPLIANCE: The proposed zone change will eventually be developed into medium density housing. The
housing will be newly constructed and meet all current energy codes at the time of construction.
As noted in Goal 12, the properties are within a mile of numerous mass transit connections. Once
developed the area will have improved streets and sidewalks which will help promote use of mass transit, as
well as other lower energy consumption modes of travel.
SW 95th Zone Change; Application Compliance R12 PAGE 8 OF 19
GOAL 14 – URBANIZATION: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to ur ban land use, to
accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure
efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities.
14.1. Provide and/or coordinate the full range of urban level services to lands and citizens within the Tigard
City limits.
14.2. Implement the Tigard Urban Services Agreement through all reasonable and necessary steps,
including the appropriate annexation of unincorporated properties.
14.3. Promote Tigard citizens’ interests in urban growth boundary expansion and other regional and state
growth management decision.
COMPLIANCE: The proposed Increase in density, i.e. R4.5 to R12, of these existing properties with the City of
Tigard provides an efficient, as well as orderly, way to accommodate increased populations while reducing
the need to annex properties to the City’s inventory or transition rural lands.
This also has the added benefit of keeping urban services concentrated in higher use corridors, i.e. 99W,
increasing usage of existing services. Increasing capacity of existing urban services is generally less
expensive and timelier than creation and/or expansion of services in lower density rural or remote areas.
GOAL 15 – SPECIAL DISTRICT: Areas identified as needing additional planning attention due to their unique
circumstances and value to the community.
15.1 The City will promote the creation of a vibrant and active urb an village at the heart of the
community that is pedestrian oriented, accessible by many modes of transportation, recognizes
natural resources as an asset, and features a combination of uses that enable people to live, work,
play, and shop in an environment that is uniquely Tigard.
15.2 Facilitate the development of an urban village.
15.3 Develop and Improve the Open Space System and Integrate Natural Features into downtown.
15.4 Develop comprehensive street and circulation improvements for pedestrians , automobiles, bicycles,
and transit.
COMPLIANCE: The proposed area is not within any specific special districts. However, the proposed
development will enhance the existing street linkages through the extension of SW Tangela Street to SW 95th.
In addition, pedestrian linkages will be improved through sidewalks and rights-of-way on the same street
extension as well as along the properties SW 95th frontage.
QUASI-JUDICIAL AMENDMENTS: A recommendation or decision for a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment
or quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment shall be based on the following:
a. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map
designations; and
b. Demonstration that adequate public services exist to serve the property at the intensity of
proposed zoning. Factors to consider include the projected service demands of the property,
the ability of the existing and proposed public services to accommoda te the future use, and
the characteristics of the property and development proposal, if any.
COMPLIANCE: As described in above text, we have demonstrated that the proposed can and does comply
with all comprehensive plan policies. As described in Goal 2 .1 Policy 15, based on the preliminary
engineering review there are some modifications needed for the proposed density but the modifications are
possible as part of the eventual development of the properties.
SW 95th Zone Change; Application Compliance R12 PAGE 9 OF 19
18.110 – Residential Zones
REQUIRES: 18.110.020; The R-12 zone is designed to accommodate a full range of
housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses
are also permitted conditionally.
Table 18.110.3; Residential Zone Development Standards
Standard R-4.5 (existing) R-12 (proposed)
Minimum Lot Size;
Detached Unit
Duplexes
7,000 sf
10,000 sf
3,050 sf
Minimum Lot Width;
Detached Unit
Duplexes
50 ft
90 ft
None
Minimum Setbacks;
Front Yard
Side Facing Street on Corner
Side Yard
Rear Yard
20 ft
15 ft
5 ft
15 ft
Multi-Family / Single
20 ft / 15 ft
20 ft / 10 ft
10 ft / 5 ft
15 ft
Maximum Height 30 ft 35 ft
Maximum Lot Coverage None 80%
Minimum Landscape Requirement None 20%
Minimum Residential Density Requirement 80% of max density 80% of max density
Maximum Residential Density 4.5 unit/acre 12 unit/acre
COMPLIANCE: As part of a future subdivision land use process, the proposed lots would need to meet the
following requirements.
Proposed site area, after street ROW, is approximately 51,582 sf.
Maximum number of lots 16; [51,582 / 3,050 sf = 16.91]
Minimum number of lots 13; [16 x 0.8]
SW 95th Zone Change; Application Compliance R12 PAGE 10 OF 19
18.310 – Off-street Parking and Loading
REQUIRES:
18.310.01 A; Ensure adequate vehicle parking. These parking requirements are intended to provide
sufficient vehicle parking in close proximity to the various uses for residents, customers and employees, and
to establish standards that will maintain the traffic carrying-capacity of nearby streets.
18.310.030 - General Provisions
A. New construction. At the time of the erection of a new structure wi thin any base zone, off-street vehicle
parking will be provided in compliance with Section 18.310.070.
B. Location of vehicle parking. The location of off -street parking will be as follows:
1. Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and single-family attached dwellings shall
be located on the same lot as the dwelling(s) it serves.
18.310.040 – General Design Standards
B. Access drives. With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking:
5. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt, concrete, or pervious paving surface. Any pervious
paving surface shall be designed and maintained to remain well-drained; and
COMPLIANCE: As part of a future subdivision land use process, the proposed lots would need to meet the
following requirements for the intended single family detached homes.
One (1) Off-street parking space per dwelling unit.
On-street parking will be assumed to be required and provided to the greatest extent possible based on the
50 feet dedicated right-of-way.
END OF R12 COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE
INFINITE ARCHITECTURE
PO BOX 664
Donald, Oregon 97020
503.989.2992
infinitearchitecture@wbcable.net
SW 95th Zone Change; Application Compliance R7 PAGE 11 OF 19
September 17, 2018
Comprehensive Plan & Quasi-Judicial Compliance – R7
GOAL 1 – CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT: To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for
citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all
phases of the planning process.
1.2 Ensure all citizens have access to:
A. opportunities to communicate directly to the City; and
B. information on issues in an understandable form.
COMPLIANCE: As part of this Zoning Application process, the required neighborhood meeting was held and
the intended project goals, i.e. eventual sub-division into single family homes, was discussed. We believe
we listened to all the citizen’s concerns and that they had all their questions and conc erns discussed at this
meeting. Meeting notes are attached to this application as required.
Citizens will have further opportunities to express their concerns and/or support for this project to the City of
Tigard at future planning & city council meetings regarding this application.
GOAL 2 – LAND USE PLANNING: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for
all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions
and actions.
2.1 Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as the
legislative foundation of Tigard’s land use planning program.
2.2 To enlarge, improve, and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the economic, ecological, and
social benefits of trees.
2.3 To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-designed urban development
that minimizes the loss of existing trees to create a living legacy for future generations.
COMPLIANCE:
The Comprehensive Plan does not show this area of the city as havin g any planned changes. Within a
quarter mile, i.e. 1,300 ft., of the properties there are six different planning zones ranging from R4.5 & R25 to
IL, CP & CBD, see exhibit A1. This area of the city is, as noted, essentially pockets of different usages.
The subject parcels are adjacent to an existing R-7 zone, therefore, the proposed change would merely
enlarge the existing R-7 zone. R-12 & R-7 are both medium density residential, per the Comp Plan, the
change to zone R-7 would be fully in keeping with adjacencies for the Comp Plan designations as well as
the individual zone designations.
Higher density housing in this area will provide a buffer from the commercial & industrial zones to the north
and east to the lower density residential zones to the s outh and west. Furthermore, increasing the density in
this area also allows the larger swashes of lower density residential to remain while increasing available
housing within the city limits.
SW 95th Zone Change; Application Compliance R7 PAGE 12 OF 19
2.1 Policy 14:
Requires; Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use applications are consistent
with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan, and when
necessary, those of the state and other agencies.
Compliance: Applicant & Owner acknowledge that we bear the burden of proof to demonstrate this
application is consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code. We have
reviewed Tigard’s Title 18 as well as Tigard’s current Comprehensive Plan and to the best of our knowledge
and understanding this applicant meets these requirements, as demonstrated by this document.
2.1 Policy 15:
Requires;
A: Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available, or comm itted to be made
available, and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation;
B: Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not negatively affect existing or planned
transportation or other public facilities and services;
C: The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as provision of needed
commercial goods and services, employment, housing, public and community services, etc. in the
particular location, versus other appropriately designated and developable
properties;
D: Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable, appropriately designated, land for
the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation;
E: Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could be developed in compliance
with all applicable regulations and the purposes of any overlay district would be fulfilled;
F: Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible, or capable of being made
compatible, with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses; and
G: Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City’s natural systems.
Compliance:
The property is contiguous with residential uses and activities with similar densities to the west and southeast.
The current and proposed designations of the adjacent and the proposed properties are R4.5, R7 & R12 all
of which are compatible adjacencies as shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed project areas will not adversely affect any natural open areas as there are none at the
proposed site or adjacent to these properties. The existing properties are currently developed, albeit very
low density, and therefore development of the properties will be less impa ctful compared to raw
undeveloped land.
There is still a very strong and continuing need for housing in the Portland metro especially affordable
housing and outdoor space for families within city limits. The proposed zone change will add much needed
family housing within the city limits with access to a multitude of public transit and service options.
The proposed zone change is part one of an overall goal of buildable single -family homes. The proposed
R7 designation would be developed, and can be, to comply with all applicable zone code re quirements.
As part of the preapplication process, City of Tigard Engineering reviewed our potential preliminary
subdivision plans, see preapplication notes attached. It was noted that there would be adequate public
SW 95th Zone Change; Application Compliance R7 PAGE 13 OF 19
utilities available to the site, based on R1 density, with some potential upgrades and adjustments. The water
line may require upsizing and the storm system may require repairs in the area for known maintenance
issues. Both of these issues, as well as others, are correct -able as part of and over the course of this
development.
GOAL 3 – AGRICULTURAL LAND: Only land that lies outside Urban Growth Boundaries can be classified as
agricultural.
COMPLIANCE: The proposed lots are within the City of Tigard and currently zoned R4.5, residential. I ncreased
density within the city limits will slow expansion outside of the urban growth boundary thus reducing the
conversion and/or loss rural agricultural land.
GOAL 4 – FOREST LAND:
To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base, and to protect the state’s forest economy by
making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of
forest tree species as the leading use of forest land and, consistent with sound management of soil, air,
water, and fish and wildlife resources, and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture.
COMPLIANCE: Not applicable, the properties were not designated forest land at the time of adoption of this
goal.
GOAL 5 – NATURAL RESOURCES, AREAS, AND OPEN SPACES: To protect natural resources and conserve
scenic and historic areas and open spaces.
5.1 Protect natural resources and the environmental and ecological functions they prov ide and, to the
extent feasible, restore natural resources to create naturally functioning systems and high levels of
biodiversity.
5.2 Promote the preservation and protection of historically and culturally significant resources.
COMPLIANCE: The proposed area of zone change has no known natural resources within their boundaries.
Increased density on existing developed land reduces the pressure on development in or around natural
resources.
GOAL 6 – ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water, and land
resources of the state.
6.1 Reduce air pollution and improve air quality in the community and region.
6.2 Ensure land use activities protect and enhance the community’s water quality.
6.3 Reduce the amount of solid waste entering landfills.
COMPLIANCE: Increasing density of existing under developed land in areas with plentiful services, such as
mass transit, and connectivity like bike paths & sidewalk promotes the use of such services thus reducing air
pollution.
Storm water issues were noted, as part of our preapplication conference, at both ends of the properties.
The adjacent properties on the easterly side have consistent flooding at the termination of SW Tangela Street
due to grading and clogged piping. The westerly side of the property has a series of underground and over
land channels for storm water management.
As part of the future development of these properties, SW Tangela Street will be extended to SW 95th. The
street termination, prone to flooding, will be graded to transition to this extension. This will improve the storm
water management of the street system in this area thus improving downstream quality.
SW 95th Zone Change; Application Compliance R7 PAGE 14 OF 19
As part of the future development, the subject properties will be required to hold and improve the quality of
the storm water before being release to the system. This will also improve the quality of the downstream
environment.
GOAL 7 – HAZARDS: To protect people and property from natural hazards.
7.1 Protect people and property from food, landslide, earthquake, wildfire, and severe weather hazards.
7.2 Protect people and property from non-natural hazardous occurrences.
COMPLIANCE: The subject properties are not heavy sloped, i.e. >25%, and thus not prone to landslides.
Residential units, as part of the future development, will be wood framed and meet all current seismic
codes.
GOAL 8 – RECREATIONAL NEEDS: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and,
where appropriate, to provide for the siting of recreational facilities, including destination resorts.
8.1 Provide a wide variety of high quality park and open spaces for all residents, including both:
A. developed areas with facilities for active recreation; and
B. undeveloped areas for nature-oriented recreation and the protection and enhancement of
valuable natural resources within the parks and open space system.
8.2 Create a Citywide network of interconnected on- and off-road pedestrian and bicycle trails.
8.3 Provide Tigard residents with access to a broad range of recreational, cultural, and educational
activities.
COMPLIANCE: The subject properties are near higher density commercial areas and street systems. The
proposed increase in density in this area will enhance the existing medium density buffer zone between
these higher density areas / street systems (north and east) and the lower density residential & recreational
areas (south and west).
Increasing density in existing developed areas as well as providing density buffers improves the quality of the
recreational areas as well as providing an increased tax base for further improvements to existing facilities as
well as creation of new areas.
GOAL 9 – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety
of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s citizens.
9.1 Develop and maintain a strong, diversified, and sustainable local economy.
9.2 Make Tigard a center and incubator for innovative businesses, including those that focus on
environmental sustainability.
9.3 Make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live and do business.
COMPLIANCE: While this zone change will not include commercial uses, the future development of these
properties will provide improved connectivity, enhance the medium density buffer between
commercial/dense areas and the lower density sections of the city.
Increasing the density in this existing developed area will provide additional housing units while relieving the
pressure of developing lower density residential and recreational areas of the city to meet future needs.
GOAL 10 – HOUSING: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types at a range of price levels to meet the diverse
housing needs of current and future City residents.
10.2 Maintain a high level of residential livability.
SW 95th Zone Change; Application Compliance R7 PAGE 15 OF 19
COMPLIANCE: The proposed increase in housing density will provide more affordable housing through
economies of scale. While a change to R12 would provide more financial security and opportunities for the
development as a whole, a R7 zone change would provide a suitable increase to meet the project goals as
well as City of Tigard development codes. Providing more units on the same amount of land reduces the
economic burden of the fixed development costs which can be used to lower the overall cost of the
homes. The R7’s 5,000 sf lot size provides for ample outdoor area for each home while providing the
possibility of more starter level home lots.
GOAL 11 – PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: To plan and develop a timely, orderly, and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.
11.1 Develop and maintain a storm water system that protects development, water resources, and
wildlife habitat.
11.2 Secure a reliable, high quality, water supply to meet the existing and
future needs of the community.
11.3 Develop and maintain a wastewater collection system that meets the
existing and future needs of the community.
11.4 Maintain adequate public facilities and services to meet the health, safety,
education, and leisure needs of all Tigard residents.
11.5 Private utilities provide the needed energy and communication services
for the community.
COMPLIANCE: As noted in Goal 6, Environmental Quality, the development of these properties will include
improvements to the storm management system in the area. Extension of SW Tangela Street to SW 95 th will
also allow a potential looping, as coordinated with Public Works, of underground utilities providing
redundancy within the system during maintenance and localized failures.
GOAL 12 – TRANSPORTATION: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient, and economic transportation
system.
12.1 Develop mutually supportive land use and transportation plans to enhance the livability of the
community.
12.2 Develop and maintain a transportation system for the efficient movement of people and goods.
12.3 Provide an accessible, multi-modal transportation system that meets the
mobility needs of the community.
12.4 Maintain and improve transportation system safety.
12.5 Coordinate planning, development, operation, and maintenance of the
transportation system with appropriate agencies.
12.6 Fund an equitable, balanced, and sustainable transportation system that
promotes the well-being of the community.
COMPLIANCE: The properties are within a short distance , nine tenths of a mile, of several transit lines
including Tigard Transit Center, which boasts numerous bus lines including a connection to the WES
Commuter rail. The proposed project will include a dedicated right-of-way for extending SW Tangela Street
to SW 95th, including sidewalks, which will also improve the local transportation network.
GOAL 13 – ENERGY CONSERVATION: Land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and
controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based on sound economic principles.
13.1 Reduce energy consumption.
COMPLIANCE: The proposed zone change will eventually be developed into medium density housing. The
housing will be newly constructed and meet all current energy codes at the time of construction.
SW 95th Zone Change; Application Compliance R7 PAGE 16 OF 19
As noted in Goal 12, the properties are within a mile of numerous mass transit connections. Once
developed the area will have improved streets and sidewalks which will help promote use of mass transit, as
well as other lower energy consumption modes of travel.
GOAL 14 – URBANIZATION: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to
accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure
efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities.
14.1. Provide and/or coordinate the full range of urban level services to lands and citizens within the Tigard
City limits.
14.2. Implement the Tigard Urban Services Agreement through all reasonable and necessary steps,
including the appropriate annexation of unincorporated properties.
14.3. Promote Tigard citizens’ interests in urban growth boundary expansion and other regional and state
growth management decision.
COMPLIANCE: The proposed Increase in density, i.e. R4.5 to R7, of these existing properties with the City of
Tigard while not as substantial as R12 will provide an efficient, as well as orderly, way to accommodate
increased populations while reducing the need to annex properties to the City’s inventory or transition rural
lands.
This also has the added benefit of keeping urban services concentrated in higher use corridors, i.e. 99W,
increasing usage of existing services. Increasing capacity of existing urban services is generally less
expensive and timelier than creation and/or expansion of services in lower density rural or remote areas.
GOAL 15 – SPECIAL DISTRICT: Areas identified as needing additional planning attention due to their unique
circumstances and value to the community.
15.1 The City will promote the creation of a vibrant and active urban village at the heart of the
community that is pedestrian oriented, accessible by many modes of transportation, recognizes
natural resources as an asset, and features a combination of uses that enable people to live, work,
play, and shop in an environment that is uniquely Tigard.
15.2 Facilitate the development of an urban village.
15.3 Develop and Improve the Open Space System and Integrate Natural Features into downtown.
15.4 Develop comprehensive street and circulation improvements for pedestrians, automobiles, bicycles,
and transit.
COMPLIANCE: The proposed area is not within any specific special districts. However, the proposed
development will enhance the existing street linkages through the extension of SW Tangela Street to SW 95th.
In addition, pedestrian linkages will be improved through si dewalks and rights-of-way on the same street
extension as well as along the properties SW 95th frontage.
QUASI-JUDICIAL AMENDMENTS: A recommendation or decision for a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment
or quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment shall be based on the following:
a. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map
designations; and
b. Demonstration that adequate public services exist to serve the property at the intensity of
proposed zoning. Factors to consider include the projected service demands of the property,
the ability of the existing and proposed public services to accommodate the future use, and
the characteristics of the property and development proposal, if any.
SW 95th Zone Change; Application Compliance R7 PAGE 17 OF 19
COMPLIANCE: As described in above text, we have demonstrated that the proposed can and does comply
with all comprehensive plan policies. As described in Goal 2.1 Policy 15, based on the preliminary
engineering review there are some modifications needed for the proposed density but the modifications are
possible as part of the eventual development of the properties.
SW 95th Zone Change; Application Compliance R7 PAGE 18 OF 19
18.110 – Residential Zones
REQUIRES: 18.110.020; The R-7 zone is designed to accommodate attached single-family
homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a
minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.
Mobile home parks are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permit ted
conditionally.
Table 18.110.3; Residential Zone Development Standards
Standard R-4.5 (existing) R-7 (proposed)
Minimum Lot Size;
Detached Unit
Duplexes
7,000 sf
10,000 sf
5,000 sf
10,000 sf
Minimum Lot Width;
Detached Unit
Duplexes
50 ft
90 ft
50 ft
50 ft
Minimum Setbacks;
Front Yard
Side Facing Street on Corner
Side Yard
Rear Yard
20 ft
15 ft
5 ft
15 ft
Single
15 ft
10 ft
5 ft
15 ft
Maximum Height 30 ft 35 ft
Maximum Lot Coverage None 80%
Minimum Landscape Requirement None 20%
Minimum Residential Density Requirement 80% of max density 80% of max density
Maximum Residential Density 4.5 unit/acre 7 unit/acre
COMPLIANCE: As part of a future subdivision land use process, the proposed lots would need to meet the
following requirements.
Proposed site area, after street ROW, is approximately 51,582 sf.
Maximum number of lots 10; [51,582 / 5,000 sf = 10.32]
Minimum number of lots 8; [10 x 0.8]
SW 95th Zone Change; Application Compliance R7 PAGE 19 OF 19
18.310 – Off-street Parking and Loading
REQUIRES:
18.310.01 A; Ensure adequate vehicle parking. These parking requirements are intended to provide
sufficient vehicle parking in close proximity to the various uses for residents, customers and employees, and
to establish standards that will maintain the traffic carrying-capacity of nearby streets.
18.310.030 - General Provisions
A. New construction. At the time of the erection of a new structure wi thin any base zone, off-street vehicle
parking will be provided in compliance with Section 18.310.070.
B. Location of vehicle parking. The location of off-street parking will be as follows:
1. Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and single-family attached dwellings shall
be located on the same lot as the dwelling(s) it serves.
18.310.040 – General Design Standards
B. Access drives. With regard to access to public streets from off -street parking:
5. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt, concrete, or pervious paving surface. Any pervious
paving surface shall be designed and maint ained to remain well-drained; and
COMPLIANCE: As part of a future subdivision land use process, the proposed lots would need to meet the
following requirements for the intended single family detached homes.
One (1) Off-street parking space per dwelling unit.
On-street parking will be assumed to be required and provided to the greatest extent possible based on the
50 feet dedicated right-of-way.
END OF R7 COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE
NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
_____________________________________________________________________________________
April 23, 2018
RE: SW 95th Zone Change
Dear Interested Party:
Infinite Architecture is representing the owner of the properties located at 11700 & 11730 SW
95th [tax map lots - 1S135DC3600, 1S135DC3700, & 1S135DC3800]. We are considering
proposing a zone change at this location, current zone R4.5 to zone R12.
Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary land use approvals, I would like to
discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You
are invited to attend a meeting on:
Friday, May 11, 2018
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue – Station #50
Community Room
12617 SW Walnut Street
Tigard, OR 97223
Doors open at 6:00 pm with presentation at 6:30 pm.
Please notice this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be
altered prior to the submittal of the application to the city.
I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at (503)
989-2992 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Brian T Cobb
Principal, Infinite Architecture
SUBJECT PROPERTIES
11700 & 11730 SW 95th Avenue
INFINITE ARCHITECTURE
PO BOX 664
Donald, Oregon 97020
503.989.2992
infinitearchitecture@wbcable.net
SW 95th Zone Change; Neighborhood Mtg Minutes PAGE 1 OF 3
July 1, 2018
Meeting Date 11 May 2018
Project Name SW 95th Zone Change
Project Number 2008-03
Meeting Number Neighborhood 01
Purpose Required Neighborhood Meeting
Location 12617 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, OR 97223
To the best of our knowledge, this is an accurate summary of the discussions that occurred during this
meeting.
Meeting Start Time; 6:30pm
Presentation; Brian Cobb (BC) of Infinite Architecture read the required statement.
BC then summarize the proposed application.
1) We noted that the three properties were being proposed to be changed from R4.5 to a R12 zone.
Residential zones with R12 being a higher density, i.e. 12 units per acres instead of 4.5.
2) We explained that the properties are abutting a R-7 zone to the east & south of the property. We
acknowledged that while this is technically a spot zone, as it isn’t directly connected to an existing R-12
zone, that there is a large section of R-12 zone existing to the northwest approximately 500 ft. away.
3) We also noted the proposal would eventually include extending SW Tangela Street to SW 95 th providing
new street connectivity with a 50-ft. right-of-way.
Discussion;
Citizen Concerns & Comments
1) Concerns with spot zoning issue and Comp Plan not reflecting this area being changed.
Response:> Yes, this set of properties would technically be a “spot” zone for now. However, within 500
feet of these properties, there are numerous other zones making this entire 1/2-mile area a series of
spot zones.
Our approach is to plan further ahead and develop the land as R12 . There is R12 within 500 feet of this
area. While the Comprehensive Plan may not show any planned changes in this area we believe
given the multitude of different zones in the area
As the properties in this application are greatly underdeveloped, i.e. only have one structure a piece,
developing these for further integration with the higher density R12, and skip R-7, would make more
sense as its easier to develop in higher densities now then wait until there are 5 -10 structures needed to
be redeveloped.
SW 95th Zone Change; Neighborhood Mtg Minutes PAGE 2 OF 3
2) How does it benefit the existing neighbors?
Response:> The owner has improved these lots through fencing and renovation already so the
neighbors are aware and acknowledged the improvements. Owner now wants to start this process to
further improve the character of the neighborhood through quality single family homes, street
connectivity, and tax revenue. Development will include storm water quality and flow management
alleviating some of the existing known issues.
3) What prevents changing your mind and constructing multi-family development.
Response:> Owner is not interested in multifamily or duplex housing; the intent is creating nice single-
family homes that are affordable and improve the area. In order to accomplish this, we are requesting
a reduction in the minimum lot size in order to increase the number of potential units. Thi s creates an
economy of scale to offset the street dedication as well as the area required for on -site water quality
management.
4) Willing to condition the approval for no multi-family?
Response:> Yes
5) What’s to prevents someone with less intentions coming in and doing a similar rezone. Some concern
about R7 to south and setting a precedent for their density increase and not being able to control their
quality and outcome.
Response:> Nothing can be directly done to prevent another’s application. However, like this
application there are multiple opportunities for public comment , i.e. at the neighborhood meetings,
planning commission meeting, as well as the City council meeting. In addition to this Zone Change
application we, as would other properties, will also be required to submit a Subdivision application and
that process also has multiple comment and review periods as well.
6) What is Subdivision Approval? What does it entail?
Response:> A subdivision is another process in which we apply to have the properties divide in to
buildable lots. There is a significant amount of additional information, research, and drawings that are
produced for this part of the process. This includes surveying of the lots and their intended break down,
research and design of the street & utilities, and things of that nature. Part of the approval of this
process also includes multiple public comment and review opportunities.
7) What about parking? And traffic increases?
Response:> Parking will be dealt with as part of the subdivision process. However, off street parking is
required, one per residential unit. We anticipate providing at least the one spot off street, i.e. in the
driveway, plus one in a garage possibly two where tandem parking is possible. On street parking will be
provided to the greatest extent possible while meeting the City of Tigard street standards and
requirements.
8) What about sidewalks on 95th and other streets?
Response:> Sidewalks will be a part of the subdivision approval and be provided along the new street
dedication as well as along the SW 95th frontage of the subject properties. These properties are
beyond the distance that would require Owner to extend the sidewalks beyond our property onto other
properties. Furthermore, Owner wouldn’t want to take people’s land to put in a sidewalk without them
wanting it as the cost of maintenance is typically put onto the owner of the property it is located.
9) Timeline?
Response:> The Zone Change and Subdivision process could take about a year to complete at which
point building permits for the homes can be submitted. Long term timeline is approximately 2 to 3
years to complete construction.
SW 95th Zone Change; Neighborhood Mtg Minutes PAGE 3 OF 3
10) Will these be rented or sold?
Response:> Not sure yet. Owner’s preference is to sell over owning them all and renting them out.
Owner wants people in there that care about the area, like what Drew (Owner) did with the existing
properties.
11) Why shoot for R-12 in lieu of R-7 when the property is contiguous with R-7 and would provide additional
lots without being a spot zone?
Response:> Future casting and the need for flexibility. We want something better for area. With the
increased potential lot count, it would allow for other things such as a larger open area fo r activity other
than just water management, flexibility on home style, size, and layout, etc.
General Comments;
CITIZENS;
1) Sharing the community is important, We moved here a quieter less crowded area.
2) Park and open community is important.
OWNER;
1) I have improved the existing structure to be a quality single family home. I have put up fencing and
screening to improve the area around the salvage yard. I care about the area, my daughter is living in
the house, and want to come to improve the character .
2) I am not intending to build cookie cutter housing. I want upgraded nice homes the blend well but are
more unique. Blending into the neighborhood is important. I don’t want something crappy.
3) I want to address the concerns and build something nice.
4) Parking and overflow will the reviewed as we don’t want any issues in the neighborhood either.
5) A small open space for community use is worth looking into. However, it will depend on density and
standards approved under this application.
6) We want to keep it nice, maintain good traffic flow without parking problems and overlap.
7) The street extension will complete what the city intended, i.e. extending SW Tangela Street to SW 95th.
SW Tangela currently ends in a dead end, i.e. no cul de sac, and is prone to flooding and other issues.
Eventually, as part of future phases of this project, we will be dedicating a 50-ft. right-of-way for the
extension of SW Tangela Street to SW 95th. This connection will include street parking, trees, and
sidewalks.
Project Representatives; Architect – Brian Cobb
Owner – Drew Jones
Owner Rep – Joe Green Jr
End Time 7:30 pm
Recorded By Brian Cobb
END OF MINUTES
DATE:
SCALE:
PROJ. NO.:DWN BY:
INFINITE
P.O. Box 664
Donald, OR 97020
(b) 503.989.2992
(f) 503.776.9013
ARCHITECTURE
REFERENCE DRAWING:
2018-02 BTC
05/10/18
A1SITE DIAGRAM
SW 95TH REPLAT
11700 & 11730 SW 95TH
TIGARD, OR 97223
APPROX MINIMUM
LOT SIZE
SIMILAR SIZE LOTS & DENSITY
SITE
R7
R4.5
R25
DATE:
SCALE:
PROJ. NO.:DWN BY:
INFINITE
P.O. Box 664
Donald, OR 97020
(b) 503.989.2992
(f) 503.776.9013
ARCHITECTURE
REFERENCE DRAWING:
2018-02 btc
07/09/18
A1COMPREHENSIVE MAP
SW 95TH REPLAT
11700 & 11730 SW 95TH
TIGARD, OR 97223 HALLBLVD72ND AVEGREENBURGRDB O N I TA RD
S C H O L L S F E R R Y R D
BANGYRDW A L N U T S T
N R D TIEDEMANAVEGAA R D E S T DARTMOUTH S TMURRAY BLVD62ND AVE62N
DDRB
U
R
N
H
A
M
STOLESONRD135TH AVEHUNZIKER RD125TH AVELESSERRD121STAVEM C D O N A LD ST
BR O C K M AN ST
217
99W
5
CP
OS
L
IL
M
IL
MH
OS
OS
OS
CP
CC
PI
ML M
MUR -1
MUC
IH
L
L
TMU
L
M
MH
L
MUE-2
CN
CG
MUE
M
IL
MH
MUE-1
CG
MUR-2
M
H
MH
CG
CP
CP
MU-CBD
M
MUE
MH L
PI
0 0.50.25 Mi les
S c a le
C o m p r e h e n sive Plan
City of Tig ard, OregonEffective 12/14/17
5TH AVELo w De n s i ty Residential
Med ium D e ns it y Residential
Med ium -High D e n sity Residential
H ig h De n s i ty Residential
Mix ed Us e Residential 1
n ation
R-1, R-2, R-3.5, & R-4.5
R-7 & R-12
R-25
R-40
R-12
R-7
R-4.5
R-25
1/4"
MILE
EXHIBIT
DATE:
SCALE:
PROJ. NO.:DWN BY:
INFINITE
P.O. Box 664
Donald, OR 97020
(b) 503.989.2992
(f) 503.776.9013
ARCHITECTURE
REFERENCE DRAWING:
2018-02 BTC
07/07/18
A2PROJECT AREA ZONING
SW 95TH REPLAT
11700 & 11730 SW 95TH
TIGARD, OR 97223
1/4" MILE RADUIS FROM
PROPERTY CENTER
~500 FT RADIUS FROM
PROPERTY CORNER
EXHIBIT07/09/18
February 25, 2019 Page 1 of 12
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes, February 25, 2019
Location: Tigard Civic Center
Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
CALL TO ORDER
Acting President F eeney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Acting President Feeney
Commissioner Brook
Commissioner Hu
Commissioner Jackson
Alt. Commissioner Quinones
Commissioner Roberts
Alt. Commissioner Sarman
Commissioner Schmidt
Commissioner Tiruvallur
Commissioner Watson
Commissioner Whitehurst
Absent: None
Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director;
Gary Pagenstecher , Project Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant
COMMUNICATIONS – None.
CONSIDER MINUTES
Acting President Feeney asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the
December 17 minutes; there being none, Acting President Feeney declared the minutes
approved as submitted.
PUBLIC HEARING
- 95th Avenue Zone Change - Remand
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2018 -00003;
Zoning Map Amendment (ZON) 2018-00004
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Zoning Map
Amendment from R -4.5 to R-12. The subject property is comprised of three existing lots
February 25, 2019 Page 2 of 12
totaling 1.64 acres (71,438 sf), which are predominantly flat and open. The site is accessed on
the west by 95th Avenue and on the east by 92nd Avenue. The R -4.5 zone abuts the property to
the north and west and the R -7 zone abuts to the south and east. The purpose of the zone
change is to increase density for the development of single -family housing units.
LOCATION: 11700 & 11730 SW 95th Avenue
QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS
Acting President F eeney read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi -
judicial hearing guide. There were no abstentions; there were no challenges of the
commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations:
Commissioners Jackson, Whitehurst, Feeney, Schmidt, and Tiruvaller had visited the site. No
one in the audience wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission.
STAFF REPORT
Project Planner Gary Pagenstecher introduced himself. As a reminder for the commissioners
who were present during the original hearing , and to familiarize the new commissioners with the
case he went over the original PowerPoint that he’d used at the November 19, 2018 original
public hearing (Exhibit A). After the review, he explained why it was remanded back to the
Commission. Basically, a week before the City Council hearing took place, the trees that were
part of the discussion were removed. Neighbors made st aff aware of that. At that point, since
the circumstances had changed on which they had based their recommendation, staff
recommended that the Council remand it back to the Commission. In the meantime, staff has
received additional comments from both the applicant and neighbors. The applicant has
indicated in emails and letters that the trees were not fit to be retained. They were hazardous in
some way, but there were no arborist reports or data. Gary noted that the photos that were
shown documenting the tree removal in the memo show clean cuts of Oak trees tha t looked to
be in good condition. Both the canopy and the butt cuts of those trees seemed to indicate that
at least some of the trees may have been worth keeping.
At this point, Assistant Community Development Director, Tom McGuire addressed the
Commission. He said , “It’s a bit unusual to have a hearing like this as technically, the tree cutting
was legal; the Commission is not looking at any kind of a code violation. However, staff is not
happy with the way this was conducted – the way it was done. For the record, I think that given
that the trees were a part of the discussion of the Planning Commission, and that there was an
expectation that we were looking for additional information on the quality of the trees and their
character , that that would be br ought to the City Council hearing ; that would be part of the
discussion. I believe that was what the Planning Commission was expecting. So , we were very
surprised to hear that the trees were cut down. We didn’t get a copy of any kind of report – we
didn’t even get notified that it was going to happen ahead of time; i t just happened. We wouldn’t
have found out about it if the neighbors hadn’t told us. It’s pretty bad form to do that in the
middle of what is essentially the discussion of the case. I wanted to get that on the record, but
again - technically it was legal, and I want to make sure the Planning Commission understands
that.”
February 25, 2019 Page 3 of 12
STAFF RECOMM ENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Tigard City Council
APPROVAL of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation change from low - to medium-
density residential. And that the Planning Commission further recommends changing the zoning
classification from R4.5 to the R -7 zone, with future development reviewed through a planned
development process as conditioned in the staff report.
QUESTIONS
So, the main thing we’re talking about is whether or not they need the Planned
Development review – that’s our main topic of discussion, right? That is one of them, yes –
that would either change your recommend ation or decide to keep it.
Is the City’s recommendation still an R -7 approval? Yes.
The Planned Development was not part of the original November 19 request? Or was
staff’s recommendation? That was staff’s recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning
Commission voted to recommend that to City Council.
There was a question about the “dead -end” where one side is 95th and one side is Tangela Court
– which is off of 92nd. The right of way is abutting a property – it has access from that right of
way. Tom McGuire came up and explained that that is technically a “Stub Street.” He said,
“Normally, if it’s not intended to go through as the neighboring property develops, the city requires a cul -de-sac. So
when we intend it to go through sometime in the future with the next development, we stub it lik e that. It’s not a
cul-de-sac; the intention is that it eventually goes through.”
There were questions about the neighbors’ written comments asserting that the
Planning Commission didn’t consider several applicable approval criteria when it
submitted its recommendation to the Council last November. Gary Pagenstecher went through
them one by one and explained why they were internal policies for the City rather than applicable approval
criteria.
APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION – Architect Brian Cobb, Owner of Infinite
Architecture addressed some of the written comments. He said, “Some of the comments
questioned what the site benefits; the immediate local residents; and the salvage yard. The City
as a whole is benefitting from the addition of housing . It’s the law of Supply and Demand – if
supply is down, then the cost comes down as well – until the demand - and so forth. On the
other hand, there’s potential for hazardous or toxic materials on the salvage yard portion. Well,
that’s been around for a very long time. The benefit to the immediate neighborhood is that we
are removing that. We’re changing the designation and taking that back to residential use - and
we didn’t comment on that in our original presentation and materials because there are laws out
there stating that the hazardous materials found on the site need to be cleaned up or mitigated.
So we’re benefitting the neighborhood itself while reducing the hazard of the salvage yard.
We’re aware there may need to be some soils reports and things done – we feel that level of
detail is not this process. The zone change process isn’t the time or place to be doing that. It’s
February 25, 2019 Page 4 of 12
more in the subdivision material where you get into the detailed location of the lot lines, the
roads, the houses and where things are placed .”
He reiterated what Tom McGuire had spoken about – that Tangela Court is an extension, and
not a cul-de-sac. 92nd Avenue is actually a cul -de-sac as it terminates in the turnaround. He went
over a .pdf of various trees to explain the damage to the trees (Exhibit B ). He noted that 57%
of the trees that were counted, remain. The majority of the White Oaks happened to be near or
at the middle third of the site, and most of those were damaged as the various pictures show. He
used the photos to show that damage. Because of the level to which the trees were damaged – a
couple of the trees fell on their own. He explained why they felt it necessary to take the
damaged trees down – mainly due to liability if the diseased tree falls on top of a person or a
house. The soils report showed some of the effects of the current use (the uses that they’re
changing) – there were materials and debris that were compacting the soils and things that were
damaging the trees that exist on sit e now - which is why some of them were in bad health.
Regarding the traffic studies – he said they certainly are willing to do anything that’s required, as
long as it’s required of everybody else. But that particular level of detail is something that would
be covered in the subdivision phase o f the project, which has to go through this similar process.
He said, “I don’t believe it goes to City Council, but it goes through Planning Commission. So
you’ll see that as well – with the neighbors being able to comment on that.”
QUESTIONS
Do you want to have the option of going through Planned Development Review, or do
you not care? We would prefer to stay out of a Planned Development if there’s no particular reason to cover
that. It’s just an additional level of time and effort that brings up the cost and then gets pushed on down the road.
Do you have reports from the arborists that were on the property? No. We didn’t feel it was
worth the cost of the report to substantiate some of the clearly deficient trees. It’s over $1,000 for the repor t and
just additional fees, time and effort. At the time it didn’t seem to be of benefit for the overall project.
Are any of the arborists here tonight? No, they are not.
As City staff mentioned – this is about timing. The applicant had a right to take down
the trees at any time, but why in between Planning Commission approval and
recommendation to right before City Council? It seems a little strange. By the photos,
yes, it appears there are diseased trees – I don’t doubt that. But I’m curious about the
timing. It seems a little questionable. I would agree that we could have at least discussed the situation
with you all earlier. I wasn’t fully involved in it for the whole period of time or I could’ve helped out with the
communication between the two. The issue of it happening the week before the council meeting was not really our
intent. The owner and his mother (who owns the other property – the salvage yard part if I remember correctly ) –
they both took a lot of time to decide whether or not they wanted to save the trees or work with the trees , and they
spent two or three weeks trying to decide whether or not they wanted to remove them . In the end they left it up to
the owner’s representative to make the decision ab out whether or not the trees stay. It wasn’t their intent to wait
until the week before, but it was just the time needed to make that decision. We should have communica ted with
you all about what was happening and the health of the trees before we went ahead with it.
February 25, 2019 Page 5 of 12
You mentioned that it is currently a scrapyard but that you are no longer having a
scrapyard on the site. What is going on currently with that process? The owner may be able to
address that, but I believe during the last couple of months they’ve been clearing out the stuff that is on the site.
They are clearing the site and that’s one of the reasons they felt it necessary to cut the trees – because they did have
other people working on the site and there were limbs falling – so there would be liability for people getting hurt
while working on the site.
With the future development, have you considered open space designation if the
Planning Commission decides to suggest a Planned Development review to include the
open space designation? I’m glad you asked because I meant to talk a little bit about the park space.
Given the site is fairly small in relationship to other developments of size – there’s at least four parks of multiple
acres within a half mile of the site. We didn’t feel that we would be able to create a park of a useful enough size
other than a place where a dog could go and sit on the grass or perhap s to locate a picnic table. To make it
worthwhile for more than just the immediate residents, and since there are acres of parks within a half mile, we
don’t feel that it’s necessary to create another park that would split services.
TESTIMONY IN FAVOR
Andrew Jones, 11715 SW 95th Ave., Tigard is the property owner. He said he lives directly
across the street from the junkyard on the property that he’s developing. He noted that he
personally financed both properties to do what was right. His mother owns the property next to
him because he gave it to her. He worked hard for a long time to purchase both properties , and
he did that with the city in mind. He understood when he bought the junkyard first that the city
had a plan to push that property through. That’s why the street behind there is not a cul-de-sac.
It wasn’t easy for him to obtain both properties. The person who sold the other property knew
that as well and highly taxed him on it. But he did it because he felt it was in the best interest of
the city because that’s what the city wanted. H e didn’t see a way forward for the city to develop
that street through if one person owned one property and the other person didn’t want to do it.
It looked like a dead end. He reiterated that while everybody does have an opinion about his
trees… they are his trees. He paid for them. He understands the timing issue and he gets the
communication issue; he said he’s not a land developer by trade. He has a job – he owns
multiple companies in multiple states – that’s what he does. This is a hobby for him. He wa nts
to do something good for his neighborhood and the city. But at the end of the day – those trees
are owned by him – he worked for them. There are multiple reasons why he did what he did,
but at the end of the day, they were his to do with what he wanted to do. At the last meeting it
had been noted that the trees were able to be cut. They were not heritage trees. Staff mentioned
that there wasn’t a city issue at the time. He felt that was an understanding by the commission –
nobody asked him not to do it; nobody said not to do it. Everybody said that it was okay and he
feels like he’s getting reprimanded for acting in his own best interest, with my own property – in
a legal way – for something he worked hard to pay for. He wants everyone to keep in mind . At
the end of the day, he’s working under the guidelines that he was presented by e veryone in a
legal fashion for the property that he worked very hard to own. He hopes that will be respected.
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION
February 25, 2019 Page 6 of 12
Josh Jones (no relation), 9555 SW Lewis Lane said he and other neighbors put together a
letter with several concerns that they have as neighbors of the property and of 95 th Avenue. The
biggest concerns they still have are parking, 92 nd is lined with cars constantly. Additional houses
on a through street could extremely impact available street parking with increasing the density.
He thinks R-7 would add to o many cars to the area. The street is difficult to navigate as it is
because it’s so narrow; t he street is only 20’ wide.
QUESTION
Do you prefer the R-7 or R-12 designation? Mr. Jones answered – I’d like to keep the same
designation – R-4.5.
Eric Nicholson 9550 SW Lewis Lane is against unknowns. He’s neither for or against the
development. He is against ploughing forward without figuring out certain unknowns. He said
he heard a lot of “trust me’s” and “Let’s kick the can down the road .” Ultimately the purpose of
the zone change is for development. We need a traffic study. Why not have these studies, so we
have the knowledge before we kick it down the road further. Generally, he’s for the
development – no one likes having a scrap yard right next to them. But at what cost does it
come? He doesn’t know and doesn’t think anyone on the commission does. He asked that they
use their discretion – they have the ability to submit to Council and they have the discretion to
apply certain conditions to a zone change – 1) Traffic Study 2) Soil Study 3) Greenspace. He
asked that they p lease consider that.
Mitch McBride 9630 SW Lewis Lane – Recently purchased his house. They have an 8 -
month-old son and he’s concerned that there are v ery few sidewalks on 95th . He’s unhappy they
cut the trees down.
Stacy McCormick 11690 SW 92nd Ave. had written a letter. She’s representing the 13 homes
on the cul-de-sac that will be affected . She’s said she’s here to let the commission know that
they want to keep the cul-de-sac. She would like it if they don’t cut through Tange lo Ct. She’s
concerned about what that will do to the parking and traffic. She said they bought their houses
on a cul-de-sac because that’s what they like.
.
Julia Good – 11865 SW 95th Ave. She believes 95th offers a variety of housing options. She is
against this because this would triple housing density. There are other areas tha t can tolerate
such a project; 95th Avenue is not that area.
RESPONSE FROM STAFF
QUESTIONS & REPLIES
If it were to stay R4.5 – then Tangelo would open up and it would become a thru-street.
Is that correct? Any development would require the street to be completed. No differentiation .
Could we as a condition of approval say you can do R -7, but require that they give a
traffic study – or a soil study? Is that within our jurisdiction? You could require that, yes;
February 25, 2019 Page 7 of 12
however, you would have to tie it to the approval criteria you would want to tie that requirement to. In this case
that it meets the relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies – so in requiring a traffic study you would need
to indicate which goals and policies you think require that traffic study – or would inform your decision as to
whether they meet those goals and policies by needing the information in that traffic study – or in that soils report.
There was a comment regarding the distinction between Geotech – or the ground
stability, vs. a soils report that might be looking for contaminants. Generally, issues of soil
contamination are under the purview of the Department of Environmental Quality at the s tate level – the City
doesn’t usually get into that. I don’t believe we have any goals or policies that would be specific enough to tie into
that particular requirement.
Is it within our ability to require they replace similar trees relative to the new de sign and
whatever the zoning designation is? Kind of going through that way rather than arguing
open space? Again, in this process you would have to find a relevant Comprehensive Plan Goal or Policy that
you think would justify that type of condition.
APPLICANT COMMENTS
Andrew Jones said he has no intention of building the amount of homes that R -12 allows. He
doesn’t want to do that and doesn’t want to pay for that. It’s expensive. He’s not doing it for
profit – he said he’s doing it to build the neighborhood that he lives in. He’s interested in the
flexibility of being able to build the way they would like to build – being able to adjust the lot
sizes to fit the land in the appropriate way that’s beneficial to just how they want the area to
look. Regarding walkability, he said he’s heard a lot of issues along 95 th Ave and it’s a problem
to walk because there’s a huge junkyard there. It’s had metal sitting there for 60 years. People
come and drop trash on it. He said, “I keep hearing opposition to us putting in a sidewalk where
people are talking about walking their dogs and kids through a junkyard! That doesn’t make any
sense to me at all. People literally dump truckloads of garbage there that I have to throw away all
the time. I can’t imagine how anybod y doesn’t want to not see that there – doesn’t want a nice
sidewalk and so forth. I hear a lot about parking as well – people can’t park there because it’s my
property. You can’t park in my junkyard driveway – being able to put a sidewalk there will allow
more people there – give people more places to park than they currently already have. I’m not
understanding where this huge traffic jam, parking problem walkability issue keeps coming up
that isn’t going to be improved by more sidewalks in an area right do wn the middle of those two
properties where everybody can go and park that currently doesn’t do it now. I’m finding this
disconnect between the reality of the situation and people trying to convince me that their kids
have it better now walking through my junkyard. That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.”
“Regarding adding trees? I fully plan on adding as many trees as I possibly can. I love trees.
That’s in the plans to do. I plan on adding qui te a few trees, including red woods if possible. I
saved what I could .”
Brian Cobb added , “Regarding white oaks and the sensitivity and liability issue there - it was
actually a large white oak that fell down in January in one of the parks – the Dirksen Nature
Park. It damaged the playground equipment – so that is the type of thing we were trying to
avoid . Regarding p arking and sidewalks – we are obligated to put in enough parking to cover
February 25, 2019 Page 8 of 12
the new houses we’re putting in. There will be on-street and off-street parking in the driveway –
and there will be garages. So there are a number of places for people and guests to park within
the development area. Sidewalks will be required along our pro perty on 95th as well as along the
new street that connects the two. That will improve the walkability as well. You will be able to
walk through the property and that will create some connectivity. As I mentioned earlier, there
are over 60 acres of parks within ½ mile of the site, so we don’t think an additional couple
thousand square feet of park will benefit the overall city.
Regarding R -12 vs. R-7 vs. R4.5: You all approved R -7, which we are fine with. The R -7 would
be adjacent to an already designated zone of R -7, so that would be much more compatible and
adjacent; so there won’t be any spot zoning required.
Regarding additional studies – those processes are more easily regulated by the commission
during the sub-division process which is the next step in this development. So you will be able
to add to whatever other documentation t hat we already presented in the process for that
approval.”
COMMENT
Commissioner Hu noted “Just to be clear, if this is a straight subdivision, it doesn’t come before
the Planning Commission again. There’s no planned development review.
And regarding Mr. Jones’s point about R-12 saying “I don’t want to build that many houses” –
you have to understand that if it’s designated as R -12, it’s out of our control. We cannot be sure
that you will not build up to 16 units. That’s why we can’t just take your word for it. If you really
want to pursue the R -12, you could resubmit this again (staff can confirm with that) with
concept plans - pretty much going through Planned Development review at the same time, and
we’ve done that before. But without that we can’t just take your word that you’re not going to
build 16 units with an R12 designation. So , I hope you understand that.” Mr. Jones answered, “I
do understand that.”
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
DELIBERATION
Acting President Feeney reminded the commission that they are looking for a recommendation
to City Council and asked for comments.
Commissioner Brook: “The last time we discussed this particular situation I was 110% onboard
with the R -7 change, but I don’t feel that way anymore. If we keep it as an R -4.5, the land will
still be developed, and the neighborhood will still be improved because no on e wants to live
next to a scrapyard. It’s better to live next to some brand new beautiful houses. And also, the
addition of the sidewalks, and all the other regulations we have with every zone type – as they all
have certain standards to meet – so it will have a certain number of trees, etc. In my opinion, I
think our city’s rules on parking is a little stingy; I think we need more parking than that. But
they will have to abide by all the rules for whatever zone we pick , so I think that even if we keep
it at R-4.5, this development would increase the benefit of the neighborhood , and it would not
February 25, 2019 Page 9 of 12
detract as much as it would if it were an R -7 or R-12. The streets would be lined with cars. Also
– I think if diseased trees were a legitimate concern, I think an arborist report would have been
provided. I think the benefits of developing at R -4.5 do not have as many negative
repercussions as the R -7 or R-12, so I think it’s a better match to keep it zoned as is.”
Commissioner Watson was concerned about the safety and the amount of traffic. She was also
concerned about lig hting and safety concerns. She believes the benefits of additional parking
and the sidewalks are going to occur regardless of the zoning, but the roads don’t seem terribly
wide or necessar ily well lit, so there’s that other level of concern. Even though this would just be
a few more houses and not multi-family housing going in – she believes it would still increase
the amount of traffic going through there.
Commissioner Roberts was good at the R -7 at the last recommendation and wonders if there is
something that would drive them to change that recommendation – either up or down. He said,
“I was actually thinking – do they really get more flexibility by going to an R -12? Can we still
limit what happens on the 12 by going through the planned development process? I was
thinking keep it the same or go up with some semblance of control over how things get laid
out.”
Commissioner Jackson noted that the only actua l material change compared to when they first
looked at it is the trees are gone. He noted, “From that perspective, I was for R-7 then and still
am now. I still don’t want R -12. I understand the argument for flexibility using the R -12, but
there’s a higher minimum density requirement, so there would be to some deg ree more houses.”
Alt Commissioner Quinones said , “Another consideration to compromise both is that because
the flexibility is still there with R -7, you can think about the open space designation, because if
there’s a small lot and if that’s something we can control on that open space size, that would
also limit the density of the houses with the R -7. So that could also be a compromise , plus
you’re negating increased traffic.”
Commissioner Hu said “Last time I was here too, and I was okay with R-7 without any
conditions or R-12 with the condition that it be only single-family housing. I concur with
Commissioner Jackson – the only material change I see is the lack of trees. I understand Mr.
McGuire’s frustration, and I’m frustrated too. My favorite professor in law school used to say
“Just because something’s legal doesn’t mean you should do it” and I think the applicant just did
it. I’m not happy with that , but having said that - I don’t think we should punish the applicant
for doing what he’s legally allowed to do. The staff recommendation last time was R -7, and we
found R-7 was the most appropriate zoning based on all the factors ; and the neighborhood is
already R -7. I don’t think I would push R -12 this time and I will fully support R -7 rezoning
without the condition of planned development review. For a small property like this, I don’t see
why the landowner should bear the burd en of providing a public park. If there was a motion for
R-7 rezoning without any conditions, I would fully support it.
Commissioner Brook believes what we can limit the negative repercussions by keeping it R4.5.
February 25, 2019 Page 10 of 12
Commissioner Whitehurst thinks staff’s recommendation of R -7 is appropriate. He thinks it wil l
improve the walkability, and also believes the lighting and street improvements will better the
community.
Commissioner Roberts is for the R-7 because of the missing middle potential option. He’d like
to make it as easy as possible for them but thinks they should give visibility as they go forward -
so he’s for the R -7, but in favor of keeping the Planned Development.
Commissioner Schmidt believes the R-7 is still appropriate. He thinks the Planned Development
review is appropriate because it gives options for potential open space and other amenities that
the site could offer. He thinks the R -7 provides a better chance of affordability and connectivity
with the existing development as a whole. He’d like to see an arborist report with the Planned
Development, but he’s in favor of the R -7 designation with the Planned Development .
Acting President Feeney thanked the neighbors for coming back out. He shares their concerns
and frustrations regarding the trees. He can go either way wi th R7 – with or without the
condition of the PD. He thinks the PD gives more flexibility to the applicant. They would have
to put some open space in there, but they could maneuver things around ; propose some lots to
make something work. Regarding an R4.5 he said , “I just don’t believe you’re going to be able to
connect that street that’s required by the city, and get the number of lots out of it that would
make it viable for them to move forward – just because of the size. I still believe the R -7 is the
way to go. Opening that up will also allow emergency vehicles more access.”
Commissioner Watson thinks R-7 is a reasonable way to go ; especially because it abuts other R7
property. The trees are a done deal and it’s not about punishment – but lessons learned are that
there’s a hole in the code about this that could probably be cleaned up so that the contradiction
is less. She doesn’t believe the property owner should be rewarded for making an abrupt change
to the property in an undocumented way.
MOTION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Commissioner Hu made the following motion: “I move that we recommend to the City
Council in the case of CPA2018-00003 to amend the Comprehensive Plan from low
density to medium density based on the staff report and testimony received today.” The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Roberts.
VOTE
Eight in favor, one opposed. Commissioner Brook cast the opposing vote.
RESULT
Motion carries.
MOTION FOR ZONE CHANGE
February 25, 2019 Page 11 of 12
Commissioner Roberts made the following motion: “Regarding ZON2018-00004, I move
that we recommend that the City Council changes the zoning from R-4.5 to R-7, with a
condition added to it that the application needs to go through a Planned Development
process.
Commissioner Jackson seconded the motion.
VOTE
Seven in favor. Commissioner Bro ok opposed, Commissioner Hu abstained.
RESULT – Motion carries.
Acting President Feeney asked staff when this wil l be going to the City Council . Gary
Pagenstecher said that this will have to be confirmed by City Council, but that it’s planned to go
to Council on Tuesday, April 2 at 7:30 PM.
OTHER BUSINESS
Tom McGuire said that he’d talked with the City Attorney Shelby Rihala about meeting with the
Planning Commission to have a legal Land Use 101 type of discussion. He noted t his has been
done in the past, but it’s been quite a while, and he believes the commission might benefit from
that. Attorney Rihala would come to talk to them and would be available for any questions they
may want to ask her after the discussion. The Planning Commissioners agreed that this would
be a good idea, and they would like for her to come out to have that discussion.
ELECTIONS
The Planning Commission bylaws state “The president and vice-president shall be elected at the
first meeting of each odd numbered year, and shall serve until their successors are elected and
qualified.” This being an odd year, nominations were entertained at this first Planning
Commission meeting in 2019.
NOMINATIONS for President
Commissioner Schmidt nominated Acting President Brian Feeney for President. There were no
other nominations. Commissioner Hu seconded the nomination.
All in favor – none opposed.
NOMINATIONS for Vice President
Commissioner Brook nominated Commissioner Hu for Vice President. There were no other
nominations. President Feeney seconded the nomination.
All in favor – none opposed .
RESULT
Commissioner Brian Feeney was elected President, and
Commissioner Yi-Kang Hu was elected Vice President.
CITY OF TIGARDRespect and Care | Do the Right Thing | Get it Done95thAvenue Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map AmendmentsLow-Density to Medium-Density ResidentialR-4.5 to R-12 or R-7 Planning Commission HearingCommunity DevelopmentNovember 19, 2018
CITY OF TIGARDProposed change from Low-Density Residential, R-4.5 to Medium-Density Residential, R-12 or R-7 1.64 acre site bordered by R-4.5 and R-7-zoned properties R-7 allows increased density up to four additional units, and increased height to 35 feet.R-12 allows increased density up to ten additional units, increased height to 35 feet, and multifamily housing type.Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments
CITY OF TIGARDExisting Zoning and Adjacent Development“Permitted land uses compatible with surrounding land uses.”Immediate neighbor-hood has retained 1980’s zoning.Legal non-conforming apartments exist within the R-4.5 and R-7 zone.
CITY OF TIGARDOregon white oak tree canopy on site“Demonstrate Amendment does not detract from the viability of the City’s natural systems.”Extension of Tangela Street shows net developable areas north and south containing Oregon white oaks and other trees.
CITY OF TIGARDRecommendationStaff recommends that the Planning Commissionrecommend to the Tigard City Council APPROVAL of theproposed Comprehensive Plan Designation change from lowto medium density residential.Additionally, staff recommends changing the zoningclassification from R4.5 to the R-7 zone with futuredevelopment reviewed through a planned developmentprocess, as conditioned.Approx. 1‐20‐17 (JL)Approx. 1‐23‐17 (JL)
CITY OF TIGARDRespect and Care | Do the Right Thing | Get it Done95thAvenue Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map AmendmentsLow-Density to Medium-Density ResidentialR-4.5 to R-12 or R-7 Planning Commission HearingCommunity DevelopmentNovember 19, 2018