07/18/2016 - PacketPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – July 18, 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: July 18, 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. PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED – 7:05 p.m.
SW 113th COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA2016-00001) &
ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA2016-00001)
REQUEST: The proposal is to annex three parcels and adjacent right-of-way (approximately 7.5 acres)
located on SW 113th Avenue south of SW Durham Road into the City of Tigard. The site’s current
Washington County zoning is R-5, which when annexed automatically becomes City of Tigard R-4.5 zoning.
The applicant is also requesting to amend the comprehensive plan map designation and zoning for the three
parcels from Low Density Residential (R-4.5 zoning) to Medium Density Residential (R-7 zoning).
LOCATION: 16285/16325/16380 SW 113th Ave.; Washington County Tax Assessor’s Map 2S115AB;
Tax Lots 1500, 1400, and 500. COUNTY ZONES: R5: Residential, 4 units/acre minimum density, 5
units/acre maximum density. EQUIVALENT CITY ZONE: R-4.5: Low Density Residential District.
PROPOSED CITY ZONE: R-7: Medium Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.320, 18.380, 18.390; Comprehensive Plan
Goals 1, 2, 10, 11 and 14; Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 222; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10, 11 and
14; and Metro Code Chapter 3.09. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development
Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.660, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.775, 18.785,
18.790, 18.795 and 18.810.
6. BRIEFING 8:05 p.m.
ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES CODE UPDATE
7. OTHER BUSINESS 8:20 p.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT 8:30 p.m.
July 19, 2016 Page 1 of 7
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
July 18, 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
Commissioner Hu
Commissioner Jelinek
Commissioner Lieuallen
Commissioner Middaugh
Alt. Commissioner Mooney
Commissioner Muldoon
Commissioner Schmidt
Absent: Commissioner McDowell; Alt. Commissioner Enloe
Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director; Cheryl
Caines, Associate Planner; Agnes Kowacz, Associate Planner; Doreen
Laughlin, Executive Assistant
COMMUNICATIONS – None.
CONSIDER MINUTES
June 20, 2016 Meeting Minutes: President Fitzgerald asked if there were any additions, deletions,
or corrections to the June 20 minutes; there being none, Fitzgerald declared the minutes
approved as submitted.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING – CONTINUED from June 20, 2016
President Fitzgerald opened the continued hearing.
SW 113th COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA2016-00001) &
ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA2016-00001)
REQUEST: The proposal is to annex three parcels and adjacent right-of-way (approximately 7.5
acres) located on SW 113th Avenue south of SW Durham Road into the City of Tigard. The site’s
current Washington County zoning is R-5, which when annexed automatically becomes City of
Tigard R-4.5 zoning. The applicant is also requesting to amend the comprehensive plan map
July 19, 2016 Page 2 of 7
designation and zoning for the three parcels from Low Density Residential (R-4.5 zoning) to
Medium Density Residential (R-7 zoning). LOCATION: 16285/16325/16380 SW 113th Ave.;
Washington County Tax Assessor’s Map 2S115AB; Tax Lots 1500, 1400, and 500. COUNTY
ZONES: R5: Residential, 4 units/acre minimum density, 5 units/acre maximum density.
EQUIVALENT CITY ZONE: R-4.5: Low Density Residential District. PROPOSED CITY
ZONE: R-7: Medium Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA:
Community Development Code Chapters: 18.320, 18.380, 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1,
2, 10, 11 and 14; Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 222; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10, 11
and 14; and Metro Code Chapter 3.09
QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS
President Fitzgerald 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 Lieuallen,
Muldoon, Feeney, Schmidt and Hu. No one wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the
commission.
STAFF REPORT
Cheryl Caines, City of Tigard Associate Planner, noted that she’d gone over the staff report at
the last hearing. Cheryl entered into the record some information that had come in since the
June 20th hearing; the commissioners had hardcopies of these in front of them: 1) A parking
memo from the applicant dated June 17, 2016 (Exhibit A) – it was in the packets that went out
to the commissioners last week and also went out to those who spoke in opposition to the
proposal at that last hearing. It summarizes how on-street parking would happen with the future
development. 2) There was an email from Robert Began who lives on 113th (Exhibit B) His
concerns are regarding downstream stormwater impacts from development as well as traffic
impacts. To address those – downstream impacts would be addressed as part of the
development review – not part of the annexation of the Comp Plan Amendment zone change.
In context with the zone change, the CWS standards for stormwater are what apply to this type
of development– and those same regulations would apply no matter how many units – 2, 4, 10 it
just basically is that there’s no impact to the downstream. 3) A letter from Ramona Steele who
also lives on 113th. Concerns are regarding the wildlife habitat and trees – the loss of those and
also a comp that is located within the stream – how stormwater from future development will
impact that pump that they use for landscaping and irrigation on their property (Exhibit C) 4)
lastly – a petition and related materials against the zone change from Mr. Ouzts, who is one of
the neighboring property owners, but signed by several property owners in the area. This
petition is different from the one seen at the last hearing – it’s the same content but signed by
more property owners in the area (Exhibit D).
APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION
Ann Marie Skinner of Emerio Design - the applicant’s representative, entered new information:
a letter dated July 8 (Exhibit E), signed by Vicki Craig, Tim and Kelia Meskel, and Al and
July 19, 2016 Page 3 of 7
Theresa Scott. Ms. Skinner noted that the hearing is for a recommendation from the
Commissioners for a zone change annexation and a comprehensive plan amendment. Regarding
the annexation, she said the subject property is within the Urban Growth Boundary and talked
about the benefits of the UGB. Ms. Skinner went on to talk about the necessity of annexation.
Land inside the urban growth boundary that is able to be annexed into a city is encouraged to
annex into the applicable city whenever possible. In this case, the eastern portion of the subject
site is bordered by City limits on the east. The western portion of the subject site is bordered by
City limits on the west and north. The subject property is also serviced by City of Tigard water
services and Clean Water sewer services. She noted that because the property is bordered by
City boundaries, therefore making it annexable, and because the property is served by City of
Tigard water, there is no other option but to annex the property into the City as per their rule.
She added - approval of annexation, then, is not an issue – as the City of Tigard has essentially
not only asked for it, but required it for future development. The issue then, she said, is the
zone. The City’s development code has a chart that lists current Washington County Codes.
Alongside each WaCo code is the city’s recommended city zone. The rezone is necessary for an
annexation, she said, as the property would no longer be in Washington County and will
therefore no longer be under its zoning rules. The zoning rules for specific zones are different in
Washington County than they are for specific zones in Tigard – including having zones that
Tigard does not have – such as R5. By Washington County standards, the developer would have
to develop at least 30 lots, no more than 38 lots, at a minimum size of 5,500 sq. ft. She
submitted that the comp plan amendment would actually rectify the inconsistency between the
city’s Comprehensive Plan of requiring a zone that most closely conforms and the city’s
development code that aligns the R5 with R4.5. This is therefore in support of the city’s
development code Chapter 18.380.030 B.3.
At this point, the applicant and land manager at Mission Homes Northwest - Kurt Dalbey –
apologized for not being at the last hearing. He was out of town and not aware of the
controversy surrounding the site. He’d met with neighbors and found them to be great people
and said he got along well with them. He saw items that had been submitted late and had a lot
of opportunity to review them – and he said he doesn’t find much disagreement with them.
Most of the issues that are being raised are related to the development of the property subject to
a zone change. So there will be hours and hours of time to get into all those things down the
line. He noted an adjoining site went around the City of Tigard requirements by going through
Washington County and still getting water from Tigard. He noted the land is surrounded by a
highly dense Mobile home court to the south – commercial to the north – and R24 to the
border. He just wants to build 5500 sq ft lots. He said that doesn’t seem like too much - he
plans to provide dramatically different wider streets and sidewalks and everything else to make it
a little bit more livable neighborhood than it currently is. His goal is to do a stunning affordable
project in that location. He noted that some of the people who signed the documents are not
owners, they’re renters – they have rights – he respects them, but as it relates to this land-use
matter, ownership is an issue and he thinks the longevity of these folks is important to look at.
QUESTIONS
You mentioned 5500 sq ft lots – how many houses does that translate to? Twenty-eight or
twenty-nine.
July 19, 2016 Page 4 of 7
What do you consider affordable housing? It would be our intention to sell some homes in
this neighborhood that still have a “3” in front of it – which is really hard to do - $399k. The
average home we’re building now would be $640k. It’s strictly related to the land – if we don’t
get density, I can’t do it anymore. The attached stuff is well over $299k now and the last
detached stuff in Wilsonville was at a low of $299k. To a high of $419k I think.
TESTIMONY IN FAVOR – Dustin Pfeif – 1 Jefferson Pkwy #211, Lake Oswego 97035, a
realtor representing the three land owners explained that there’s a low inventory of homes in
Tigard. There are competitive bids – multiple offers. He noted they’re trying to increase
inventory. He said there are 141 single family homes for sale in Tigard at this point, and there’s a
market action index that basically tells you whether you’re in a seller’s or a buyer’s market. A
positive 30 is a seller’s market – a zero is an even market – and negative 30 is a buyer’s market.
We’re currently at a 51.5 Market action index in Tigard. The overall Portland market was above
a 65. We had the lowest point of 742 single family homes. The medium list price is $438K in
Tigard. The applicant is talking about starting as low as $399 and building in that range. What
we need overall in Tigard is more homes so your buyers who are looking to move here have that
inventory. We hope you’ll approve this.
Dave Hopkins – 4300 Orchard Way Lake Oswego 97035 represents the sellers on this
property sale. He lived and worked in Tigard for 23 years prior to moving to L.O. He explained
that Tigard needs housing badly. He said, “These houses will start below the median price in
Tigard. So affordable housing – very favorable density – it should be a fabulous project and I
just wanted to speak in favor.”
Vicki Craig – 16325 SW 113th Ave., 97224 has been in Tigard since 1984. She wants to sell her
property and go on with her life as she’s 81. She is all in favor of this. She noted they studied the
feasibility of developing this area very thoroughly. She believes it will be beneficial to the city
with the property taxes 29 homes will bring in. It’s a nice sized development – fine homes. She
believes this will be good for the City of Tigard and the community.
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION –
Olivia Derridinger 16425 SW 113th Ave., Portland 97224 – She said she’s not in opposition of
neighbors selling property – they have that right and she wishes them luck. She’s concerned
about the rezoning. Thirteen out of the fourteen privately owned homes on 113th Ave. have
signed a petition opposing the zoning change from R4.5 to R7. She said these neighbors want to
protect the land and are concerned about traffic. They are surrounded by high density homes
and the host of problems that brings – suspicious activities, cars turning around in driveways,
etc. They’d like to keep these homes at R4.5 or R5 – whatever you choose to call it. They
oppose the R7 zoning.
Connie Krueger – 16785 SW 113th Ave., Tigard 97224 is concerned about the traffic and
potential crime. Durham is getting highly traveled. The more you pack in there – the worse it
gets and Durham is packed. Parked cars are a problem – transients, etc.
July 19, 2016 Page 5 of 7
Todd Ouzts 16425 SW 113th – moved from a very high density NE Portland neighborhood to
Tigard due to the livability of this area. He’s not happy now that there will be seven neighbors
abutting his property. He said his is the most directly affected property of the whole
development. He organized the petition and was curious as to who got notified by this. He said
someone talked about the residents of Royal Villa (mobile homes) not paying property taxes. He
said on the Oregon Government website there’s a resource about manufactured homes. One of
their top questions is “Do I have to pay taxes on my manufactured home?” Oregon’s answer is
“Yes.” All manufactured structures are subject to property tax at the same rate as other homes.
He talked to five homeowners there and confirmed that they do pay property taxes. They own
title to the homes – they just lease the site. And none of them had heard about this. So just
imagine you or your parents living in one of these mobile homes and you wake up to bulldozers
clearing land on the other side of your fence next to your bedroom window… that would be
shocking. I believe they have the right to be notified of this proposal. Regarding zoning - the
definition of R5 is no more than 5 units per acre. The primary purpose is to protect existing
neighborhoods developed at 5 units per acre or less. The Tigard Code 18.510’s main purpose is
to “preserve neighborhood livability. To protect the livability of existing and future residential
neighborhoods.”
RESPONSE FROM STAFF
Cheryl Caines stated regarding the noticing of property owners, “The mobile home park
residents pay taxes, yes, but they are personal taxes – they are not property owners and do not
pay property taxes on the land their property sits on.” She stands by her earlier explanation
about not having to notify them in this case. She continued, “After reading all the material that
has been submitted since the last meeting, staff has not seen any evidence that would change or
modify the recommendation that was presented in the original staff report.”
REBUTTAL FROM APPLICANT
Applicant Kurt Dalbey, Mission Homes – The word “confusion” was used and I want to
make sure that this is very, very clear. We’ve developed in 27 jurisdictions in the region and it’s
consistent throughout the region. If the unit is attached to a piece of land, and there’s a fee title,
it has property tax. If it is not, it’s rented property, it’s lease hold property – so they pay on their
unit itself, which is movable to any part of the United States they want to take it to. But, they do
not pay on the land. The underlying landowner’s notified. For the same exact reason you don’t
notify every occupant of an apartment complex, because that changes monthly – move-ins,
move-outs, it’d be impossible for a city or an individual to do. You notify the owners – and the
owners were notified across the board. So there’s no confusion – never has been – every city has
done it the same way. I don’t think there’s any confusion here tonight. Also – just to be clear
“seven new neighbors” was suggested too. In just the example we submitted – there are three
backyards to this man’s property – and those three backyards were left at an extreme depth.
You’ll notice the dotted line through them that you have on your proposed plat – not even a
filed plat - that shows extraordinary depth to him – he gets more depth on that side for the
reason of a transitional zoning. So I think we’ve tried to accommodate him in every way we
possibly could and still make a Washington County zone match a Tigard zone in every way.
Thank you very much.
July 19, 2016 Page 6 of 7
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
DELIBERATION
Some points – comments:
I believe it makes sense to go to R7.
I can see the concern but we are bound by the city code. I believe with more “eyes on
the road” there will be less suspicious activities going on. These are good homes and the
homeowners will take pride in their properties and will likely keep an eye out for those
issues that the neighbors have seen.
Just to be clear - does code “require” us to approve an annexation to the City of Tigard?
President Fitzgerald: “We are not approving it, we are only making a recommendation to
council.” Does code require that we recommend annexation to the City of Tigard? “We
can recommend to deny.” So that would be within code – to recommend denying
annexation? I just want to be clear on that. “Yes, we do have that option.”
Are all the properties that surround the three properties that we’re discussing at this
moment within the City of Tigard – or are they county? The little sliver behind the
shopping center would still be in the county – that’s just to the north of the subject
property.
I understand the concern for parking, wildlife, nature, etc. but this is about annexation
and zoning. If we are to allow development, it needs to be annexed. I don’t see anything
that prohibits the development. The zoning request makes sense. From my
understanding what is being requested is the closest to what it is currently zoned with the
county. So even though it’s hard to make a decision on – I’m in favor of doing the
development, the annex, and zoning change.
MOTION
Commissioner Middaugh made the following motion: “I move that the Planning
Commission recommend to City Council approval of CPA2016-00001 and ZCA2016-00001
as determined through the applicable approval criteria in section 5 of the public hearing
process and based on the staff report.” Commissioner Muldoon seconded the motion.
VOTE
Seven in favor, one opposed; Commissioner Lieuallen cast the opposing vote.
RESULT
Motion to recommend approval passes 7 – 1.
BRIEFING – Assistant Community Development Director Tom McGuire noted that associate
planner Agnes Kowacz was unable to be at the meeting so the Administration and Procedures
Code Update briefing will be rescheduled. He said, “There may be a fair number of people that
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT E