09/12/2016 - PacketPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – September 12, 2016
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 of 1
City of Tigard
Planning Commission Agenda
MEETING DATE: September 12, 2016 - 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. BRIEFING – Policy Discussion 7:05 p.m.
6. OTHER BUSINESS 7:50 p.m.
7. ADJOURNMENT 8:00 p.m.
September 12, 2016 Page 1 of 5
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
September 12, 2016
CALL TO ORDER
President Fitzgerald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
ROLL CALL
Present: President Fitzgerald
Vice President Feeney
Alt. Commissioner Enloe
Commissioner Hu
Commissioner Jelinek
Commissioner Lieuallen
Commissioner Middaugh
Absent: Commissioner McDowell; Alt. Commissioner Mooney; Commissioner
Muldoon; Commissioner Schmidt
Staff Present: Agnes Kowacz; Associate Planner; Tom McGuire, Assistant Community
Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant
COMMUNICATIONS – None.
CONSIDER MINUTES
August 29, 2016 Meeting Minutes: President Fitzgerald asked if there were any additions,
deletions, or corrections to the August 29 minutes; there being none, President Fitzgerald
declared the minutes approved as submitted.
BRIEFING
Agnes Kowacz, Associate Planner, told the commissioners that staff is looking for direction on
some policy issues. She gave a presentation on various possible policy change topics, explaining
that staff isn’t looking for formal motions, just an idea as to where the commission is at on the
topics; staff is just looking for a recommendation to either move forward and look into them
further, or not.
September 12, 2016 Page 2 of 5
TOPIC ONE
“Would the Planning Commission consider the reassignment of the planned
development review and Quasi-Judicial zone or text change to the Hearings Officer?”
Options the commissioners might consider:
Reassign to Hearings Officer.
Keep current process.
Tom McGuire explained the current process and noted this first topic would be the biggest
change brought forward. Option 1, “reassign to the Hearing’s Officer” would focus the
Planning Commission’s role to policy and legislative changes.
Comments from the commissioners: “There’s been so much Quasi-judicial work brought
forward to the Planning Commission - when would we meet if we didn’t hear planned
development reviews’?” President Fitzgerald answered that this year has been unusual because
of River Terrace generating a lot of Quasi-judicial work. She said it’s not typical of other years.
Someone asked if the Hearings Officer meetings are public hearings. The answer – yes, it’s the
same public hearing format as the Planning Commission. Another commissioner commented
that if the Hearings Officer heard these cases, how would the Planning Commission know what
has gone on? Is there the possibility of a quarterly report of some sort? Tom said that was
certainly something that could be provided. It could be a quarterly report that summarizes what
development projects have come in and been reviewed; staff could do that. Another
commissioner said “As commissioners, we don’t represent lawyers or code – we represent our
community.” He said swapping the Planning Commission out for a land use lawyer takes a lot of
public input out of the process. He likes that there’s still an appeals process – they can still go to
council - which is also representative of the citizenry. He compared it to a judge and jury system
– saying that most people prefer a jury to a judge. Another commissioner said he doesn’t see any
evidence of this being a broken system. Why change it? After some more general discussion and
questions about the role of the Hearings Officer, the consensus of the Planning Commission
was that this should be explored further, and they noted that they don’t believe zoning changes
should go to the Hearings Officer.
PLANNING COMMISSION’S CONSENSUS REGARDING DIRECTION
Explore the option further; drop the zone changes – draw up language for the Planned Developments with
quarterly reporting. Consider including a condition that it is to be revisited in a few years.
TOPIC 2
“Would the Planning Commission consider removing the requirement for conditional
use review for trails in residential zones when already included on an adopted m ap?”
Options the commissioners might consider:
Allow trails through site development review.
Develop thresholds to allow some trails to be permitted outright.
Keep current process.
September 12, 2016 Page 3 of 5
Staff noted industrial /commercial zones are set up so a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is not
required if they’re building a trail to the specs and location of the adopted plan. CUP’s require a
lot of time and cost for developments. If they’re on an adopted map, they’ve gone through the
public process, there’s been public involvement, and they’ve been vetted by the people that
attended the public meetings – so at that point it went to City Council and was adopted.
There was a lengthy discussion regarding plans that the city approves after much input from the
citizens – should people who become residents later on have a say in stopping the city from
implementing approved plans? One of the commissioners said this could lead to a NIMBY “not
in my backyard” type of thing; where one new resident could disagree with something that
affects them personally - although the plan was set in place long before that person opted to
move there. He said that person could have done their due diligence before buying, rather than
trying to change things after the fact because they don’t like it now that it’s being implemented.
They could have looked into it, and if they weren’t happy about a plan that the city was going to
execute – that the Planning Commission and Council had made a decision on considering all the
public input – then they could have chosen not to move there. Another commissioner said he
was also interested in those citizens who are affected after the fact – say 10 years down the road.
He believes those residents should have a say as well. Tom McGuire pointed out that the city
also has an obligation to future residents. “The city approved a strategic plan that says our vision
is to be the most walkable city in the Northwest, meaning we want to have better connections,
better trails – and so we’re coming at it from the perspective that we should honor that process -
a lot of citizen effort and city expense went into this.”
There was some discussion as to the differences between Type III Conditional Use and Type II.
One difference: Type III goes to the Hearings Officer. Type II, the site development review
would be a staff administrative decision. There would still be the same public notice – a notice
of application and a notice of decision to the same noticing radius. There would be public input
from those notices, and that input would be considered by staff, and if someone disagrees, then
the decision is appealable to the Hearings Officer.
PLANNING COMMISSION’S CONSENSUS REGARDING DIRECTION
Develop thresholds to allow some trails to be permitted outright.
TOPIC 3
“Would the Planning Commission consider changing the subdivision preliminary plat
requirements for when a preliminary plat application approval lapses?”
Options the commissioners might consider:
Revise time limit to 3 years and require recording of plat.
Keep current process.
Staff explained that subdivision approvals lapse in 1 ½ years unless the final plat is submitted –
it doesn’t have to be recorded, it just needs to be handed in as an application. The Minor Land
Partitions are similar except in that within that year and a half period, the plat actually has to be
recorded with the county, so it’s basically complete once it’s recorded. Staff would like to look at
September 12, 2016 Page 4 of 5
extending the year and a half subdivision approvals to three years - and having the requirement
be recorded, instead of simply submitted. This would provide more time for developers to
complete improvements; requiring that plats be recorded prevents them languishing for years
and becoming out of compliance with newer regulations.
One of the commissioners asked why the year and a half timeframe was there to begin with.
Agnes answered that looking at the language, it appeared it was a “cut and paste” type of thing
from a different code because the language is nearly the same.
PLANNING COMMISSION’S CONSENSUS REGARDING DIRECTION
Revise the time limit to 3 years and require recording of plat.
TOPIC 4
“Would the Planning Commission consider a longer timeframe for phased projects that
are permitted through a Conditional Use Permit?”
Options the Planning Commission might consider:
Revise phase time to 7 years.
Propose a length of time.
Keep current process.
Agnes explained that they’d seen several projects like churches and private schools that have had
difficulty completing phased projects within 3 years because they’re located in mostly residential
zones. They have a difficult time completing the entire phase of their project within 3 years
because of funding, etc. She explained that they do have another phased process through the
planned development that allows 7 years which provides for a more flexible time schedule.
Once an approval lapses, the applicant must reapply. Also increasing three years to seven years
would eliminate the need for a duplicate application.
Tom said in his experience, three years is a very short timeframe for a phased project.
Oftentimes it takes a year or a year and a half just to get through the first land use process. With
private schools, particularly, they’ve done work and then have to get the funding; three years is
really tight for them. One commissioner asked if the city offers extensions. “The extension
would be to go through the process again.”
PLANNING COMMISSION’S CONSENSUS REGARDING DIRECTION
Pursue this further – do some jurisdictional research to see what they have, and is it the right amount of years for
both planned development and the phased permits. Make the timelines consistent for phasing between conditional
use and planned development.
TOPIC 5
Should brewpubs, wineries, and similar uses that are considered
manufacturing/industrial be allowed in commercial zones if they have a retail
component and are limited in size?
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
R e s p e c t a n d C a r e | D o t h e R i g h t T h i n g | G e t i t D o n e
Title 18 Administration and
Procedures Policy Direction
September 12, 2016Planning Commission
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
Policy Discussion Topics
1.Reassignment of the decision-maker for Planned
Development Review and Quasi-Judicial Zone and text
amendments
2.Removal of a Conditional Use Review for trails in
residential zones
3.Reconsideration of the approval period for subdivision
preliminary plats
4.Reconsideration of timeframe for phased project
permitted through a Conditional Use Permit
5.Allowing uses with a limited manufacturing component
in commercial zones
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
Would the Planning Commission consider the reassignment of
the Planned Development Review and Quasi-Judicial Zone or
Text Change to the Hearings Officer?
➢Focus Planning Commission’s role to policy and legislative
changes
➢Hearing Officer trained and on contract to evaluate criteria and
make findings
➢Consistent with other quasi-judicial reviews
OPTIONS:
1. Reassign to Hearings Officer
2. Keep current process
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
Would the Planning Commission consider removing the
requirement for Conditional Use Review for trails in residential
zones, when already included on an adopted map?
➢No consideration for length or scale of improvement
➢Significant time and cost to development of connections already
vetted through public process
➢Reduced review or no land use approval advances the City’s
vision and removes barriers
OPTIONS:
1. Allow trails through site development review
2. Develop thresholds to allow some trails to be permitted outright
3. Keep current process
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
Would the Planning Commission consider changing the
subdivision preliminary plat requirements for when a
preliminary plat application approval lapses?
➢Subdivision approvals lapse in 1 ½ years unless the final plat is
submitted
➢Minor Land Partitions also lapse in 1 ½ years but the final plat has
to be recorded
➢3 years would provide more time to complete improvements
➢Requiring that plats be recorded avoids them languishing for
years and becoming out of compliance with newer regulations
OPTIONS:
1. Revise time limit to 3 years and require recording of plat
2. Keep current process
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
Would the Planning Commission consider a longer timeframe
for phased projects that are permitted through a Conditional
Use Permit?
➢Several projects have had difficulty completing phased project
within 3 years
➢Planned development process allows for 7 years
➢Provides for a more flexible time schedule
➢Once an approval lapses, the applicant must reapply. This would
eliminate the need for a duplicate application
OPTIONS:
1. Revise phase time to 7 years
2.Propose a length of time
3. Keep current process
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
Should brewpubs, wineries, and similar uses that are
considered manufacturing/industrial be allowed in commercial
zones if they have a retail component and are limited in size?
➢Current code doesn’t allow or clearly define uses containing both
➢In industrial zones, manufacturing uses may have a small retail
component which is permitted as an accessory use
➢Commercial zones prohibit manufacturing of any kind
➢Allowing these uses supports City’s strategic plan and provides
walkable destinations
OPTIONS:
1. Allow with limited production/manufacturing (up to 2,000 sf)
2. Propose a different limitation on production area
3. Keep current prohibition
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
Discussion and Direction
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Tigard Planning Commission
From: Agnes Kowacz, Associate Planner
Re: Administrative Process and Procedures Project Policy Discussion
Date: September 12, 2016
1. Would the Planning Commission consider the reassignment of Planned
Development Review and Quasi-Judicial Zone or Text Change to the Hearings
Officer?
At present, the Planning Commission is the assigned decision-making body for Planned
Development Reviews and Quasi-Judicial Zone and Text Changes. All other quasi-judicial
reviews are assigned to the Hearings Officer or Director of Community Development.
Staff would like to know if the Planning Commission is interested in considering a reassignment
of Planned Development Reviews and Quasi-Judicial Zone and Text Changes to the Hearings
Officer. The purpose of the change would be to focus the Planning Commission’s role on
planning policy and legislative changes to the City’s governing documents and regulations.
Quasi-judicial cases with specific approval criteria would be reviewed by the Hearings Officer
who is professionally trained and on contract to evaluate criteria and make findings.
OPTIONS:
- Reassign review of Planned Developments and Quasi-Judicial Zone and Text
Changes to the Hearings Officer
- Keep the current process
2. Would the Planning Commission consider removing the requirement for
Conditional Use Review for trails in a residential zone, when already included on
an adopted map?
At present, trails may only be approved within a residential zone throu gh a conditional use
review before the Hearings Officer, no matter the length or scale of improvements. This
imposes significant time and monetary cost to the development of neighborhood connections,
particularly for those segments that have been developed through a prior planning process
involving public outreach, and are shown on a map adopted through a public hearing where
affected citizenry had the opportunity to participate and comment. As a result, staff would like
to know if the Planning Commission is willing to remove the conditional use review
requirement for trails shown on an adopted map.
A second consideration might be to reduce the review requirement for all trails from a Type III
Conditional Use Review, to a Type II Site Development Review, maintaining the public’s ability
to comment and appeal the decision, but streamlining the review process by not requiring a
public hearing for the first land use decision.
OPTIONS:
- Allow trails in residential zones to be permitted through a site development review
- Propose new language and development thresholds that would allow some trails in
residential zones to be permitted outright without site development review
- Keep the current process of a conditional use review
3. Would the Planning Commission consider changing the subdivision preliminary
plat requirements for when a preliminary plat application approval lapses ?
Currently, a preliminary subdivision approval lapses if the final plat has not been submitted
within 1-1/2 years from preliminary approval. For minor land partitions, the preliminary
approval is also effective for a period of 1-1/2 years from the date of approval. However, the
approval lapses if the partition has not been recorded during that time period.
Staff would like to know if the Planning Commission is willing to change the approval time
period for subdivisions to three years but require that the final plat must be recorded within that
three year period. This change would provide ample time for public improvements to be
constructed prior to the plat or partition being recorded. The current language of the final plant
simply being “submitted” and not recorded is problematic in that we have had plats submitted
and not finalized and developed until many years later. This is problematic because there have
been instances where the plat has languished so long that there have been substantial changes to
regulations that leave the old subdivision far out of conformance with the newer regulations.
OPTIONS:
- Revise the time limit for subdivision final plat approval from 1-½ to three years and
change the requirement from time to submit to time to get the plat recorded
- Keep the current approval period for subdivisions
4. Would the Planning Commission consider a longer timeframe for phased projects
that are permitted through a C onditional Use Permit?
At present, the conditional use chapter provides for a phased development approval that allows
the development of a site to occur in phases of up to a total time of three years. If a project is
not completed within the three years, the approval lapses and the applicant has to re-apply for
the conditional use permit. In staff’s experience, several projects, such as churches and private
schools, have been unable to fund and construct a project in that three year timeframe. In
contrast, the phased development process for planned development approvals allows the project
up to seven years for completion. Providing a longer time frame for conditional use approvals
would allow the project a more flexible time schedule to complete construction as well as
eliminate the need for a duplicate application. Staff would like to know if the Planning
Commission would consider allowing a longer time period for phased developments that are
approved through the conditional use process.
OPTIONS:
- Provide a seven year time limit for conditional use approvals, consistent with the
planned development chapter
- Propose a different length of time
- Keep the current timeframe of three years
5. Should brewpubs, wineries, and similar uses that are considered
manufacturing/industrial be allowed in commercial zones if they have a retail
component and are limited in size?
At present, our code does not allow for (or clearly define) uses that have both, a manufacturing
component and a retail component, within commercial zones. In industrial zones, many
manufacturing uses will have a large production area and a small retail area, which is considered
as accessory and is therefore permitted. In commercial zones, manufacturing of any kind is not
permitted.
Staff requests that the Planning Commission specifically allow these types of facilities within
commercial zones. This would support the City’s strategic plan goals for walkability where
development supports the vision by allowing for more walkable destinations.
OPTIONS:
- Allow uses with limited production/manufacturing operations (up to 2,000 square
feet of production area)
- Propose a different limitation on production area
- Keep the current code that prohibits manufacturing uses in commercial zones