PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, April 10, 2019 - 6 p.m. – Shirley Huffman Auditorium
Charles Fleisher Holly Neil Judith Shortt Thomas Kim President Vice-President
Wil Fuentes Kipperlyn Sinclair Jeff Bennett
Thank you for taking the time to join us at a Planning Commission meeting!
We encourage our community’s participation. Meeting materials — including agendas and packets — are available at Hillsboro-Oregon.gov. If you have any questions, contact the Planning Department at 503-681-6153. We are happy to assist you!
Sign-language interpreters and Assisted Listening Devices (ALD) are available at no cost. Please call 503-681-6100 or TTY 503-682-6284 72 hours prior to the meeting.
I. Call to Order - Roll Call
President: Charles Fleisher Vice-President: Holly Neill Commissioners: Judith Shortt, Wil Fuentes, Kipperlyn Sinclair, Thomas Kim & Jeff Bennett
II. Communications and Non-Agenda Items
A. None
III. Approval of Minutes
A. February 27, 2019 February 27, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes
B. March 13, 2019 March 13, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes
IV. Consent Agenda
A. None
V. Public Hearings
A. Cultural Resource Inventory 001-19: Robert Busch House Nomination: Request: Consider the Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee's recommendation to approve the addition of the Robert Busch House to the Cultural Resource Inventory. Order No. 8287 is available. (Staff: Rachel Marble) Staff Report and Attachments Order and Exhibits Application Materials
VI. Unfinished Business
A. None
VII. Planning Commission Communications or Reports
VIII. New Business
A. None
IX. Staff Reports and Information
A. Administrative Monthly Report (Staff: Chris Barry) Administrative Monthly Report March 2019
X. Adjournment
Page 2 of 104
XI. Work Session
A. Economic Development Competitiveness (Staff: Dan Dias and Colin Cooper)
Page 3 of 104 Page 4 of 104
Planning Commission Civic Center Regular Session Auditorium February 27, 2019 150 E. Main Street 6:00 PM Hillsboro
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL President Fleisher called the meeting to order.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fleisher, Neill, Shortt, Bennett, Fuentes, Sinclair, Kim
STAFF PRESENT: Cooper, Barry, Hamilton, Klein, Bruce, Marble
President Fleisher read the following statement: “The Planning Commission was placing emphasis on effectively addressing the issues in which we are engaged in a respectful and a timely manner. We ask all parties to hearings and administrative matters during our meetings to assist us with this emphasis by participating in direct and relevant testimony and comments.”
II. COMMUNICATIONS AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS – None
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. December 12, 2018
Commissioner Shortt noted on Page 9, under Agenda Item VIII, the sixth line should read, “…were under $150,000 $350,000.”
Vice President Neill moved approval of the December 12, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes with the correction noted above, seconded by Commissioner Fuentes. Motion passed unanimously.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA A. Zone Change 008-18: Haniyah Request: Consider approving an Order recommending City Council approve a City- initiated Zone Change for a parcel of land being annexed into the City. Order No. 8278 was available. (Staff: Leslie Hamilton)
B. Zone Change 009-18: Riverside at River Bend Request: Consider approving an Order recommending City Council approve a City- initiated Zone Change for a parcel of land being annexed into the City. Order No. 8279 was available. (Staff: Sarah Bruce)
Chris Barry, Development Services Manager, noted both case files would initiate zone changes, which he briefly described.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 5 of 104
Commissioner Bennett: • Asked why the Commission was being requested to recommend approval of a zone change as opposed to just initiating the zone change. • Colin Cooper, Planning Director, replied because the proposed zones were the only zones that would apply for the annexations based on the Comprehensive Plan. The City had a longstanding practice of initiating a zone change as a customer service or friendly gesture to those seeking to annex into Hillsboro. Not a lot of discretion involved, but if an applicant were seeking to change the zone to a non-contemplated zone, it would not be an administrative function as part of the Consent Agenda. • Explained the substantive question was why the Commission was asked to recommend approval instead of doing the administrative task of initiating the zone change. • Ruth Klein, Senior Planner, stated when a zone change was not straightforward, consideration was given to the Planning Commission as the best place to make a recommendation, rather than at City Council. City Council had a longstanding respect for the decisions and recommendations made by the Planning Commission and Council relied on that information. An annexation and a zone change used to be separate processes until it was changed about a decade ago. The initiation step blended the two processes and joined them at City Council. The Council wanted the Commission to weigh-in before they heard the applications. • Noted the process was occurring without a public hearing. • Ms. Klein clarified a public hearing would be held at City Council that would provide an opportunity for public comment. • Said he had asked the question principally because Staff was asking the Commission to apply the standards to a process and make a substantive recommendation to Council on Consent Agenda, which seemed odd. • Mr. Cooper said he could review the process and provide a clarifying memo to the Planning Commission. He understood what Commissioner Bennet was saying, and understood the practice that Staff had used for several years as well, so he could explore it further. • Replied that would be helpful. He asked if the Commission would treat the Consent Agenda items like a quasi-judicial matter tonight, even though it was not. Staff was asking the Commission to make findings on standards and he did not know how to do that without going through a process of learning the facts, applying the standards, and deciding whether the standards were met. He assumed Council would put some weight on the Commission’s recommendation. • Mr. Cooper replied a Comprehensive Plan designation was already applied to the subject properties and the required corresponding land use was being applied to implement it, so Staff was not using a significant amount of discretion in making the recommendation. He did not know if he could completely make Commissioner Bennett comfortable regarding his concerns this evening. • Responded that the standards allowed the Commission to exercise discretion.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 6 of 104
• Ms. Klein suggested phrasing the discussion that the Commission was not considering applying the standards tonight, but rather, considering recommending a zone. If the Commission was not comfortable with Staff’s recommendation for that zone, the Commission would decide to recommend a different zone. In the end, it would still be just a recommendation. The City Council had the discretion during the public hearing process to choose a different zone. The initial step tonight was Council saying they wanted input from the Planning Commission before a public hearing was opened, and the only way to do that in the current process structure was to have a zone change initiation that was a recommendation from the Commission. • Replied he understood, adding it would make more sense to him if the City were to say it had an annexation process to initiate, had looked at the zones that needed to be applied, found the one that made the most sense given the Comprehensive Plan designation, and then chose to recommend that zone without looking at the zone change criteria. He did not believe the Commission was looking at changing the zone, but rather implementing the zone. • Ms. Klein stated she had not seen the zone change initiation template, but wondered if there was a possible mix up because normally, there was just an initiation of the zone without looking at the criteria. • Replied that would make much more sense. Going through the Staff report, he questioned why the criteria were being applied. It was clear which zone would best implement the Comprehensive Plan designation, so why not just recommend applying that zone and not go through the zone change criteria, which required looking at feasibility of utilities, etc. • Mr. Barry stated the Staff report provided more information than was needed for the initiation. The process lead to a City Council public hearing so the information was in the record. He would read the applicable Code section • To inform on where the Commission’s authority stood relative to City Council on an annexation combined with a zone change, he read, “The procedure for a zone change is a Type III procedure” and “The public hearing for a zone change initiated by the Planning Commission in conjunction with an annexation application pursuant to Subsection 12.8.0.010D shall be held before the City Council.” If the Commission wanted to make it clear on the record that they were just initiating a zone change and not accepting Staff’s findings relative to the approval criteria, the City would still be in good shape legally relative to the procedures in the Code. • Responded that made him more comfortable.
Mr. Barry confirmed the wording of the motion did not need to be revised because the Commission was still initiating a zone change. The motion should clearly identify that the Commission was approving the initiation, but not accepting Staff’s findings as part of that initiation.
Commissioner Bennett clarified if a Commissioner felt comfortable with what Staff recommended, they should make that motion, and the Commission would discuss the issue. He acknowledged that other Commissioners might disagree with him.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 7 of 104
• He stated that he did not believe this was the right process. He did not believe the recommended findings regarding compliance with the zone change criteria could be supported by what was in the file, primarily because findings were needed about the feasibility of things like transportation facilities, sewer, and water facilities. The record was quite clear that the City Engineer had not provided any response to City Staff about those issues, and he did not know how the Commission could conclude that compliance to those criteria had occurred. Staff suggested it was not necessary because of the public hearing at City Council, but plenty of land use law in Oregon said that a preliminary body did not have that authority unless credible findings could be made that providing those utilities was feasible. He did not doubt the City Engineer could provide with that information, but it was not provided. He did not believe the Commission could recommend approval of Staff’s recommendation because of the lack of information. The Commission could recommend that the annexation be initiated and that Staff’s opinion of what zone should be applied was correct, and then send it to Council for a hearing about the issues for which the Commission did not have enough information to make findings. He understood the need for moving things along, but he did not believe this was the right way to do it, adding he was a stickler about doing things the right way.
Vice President Neill moved approval of Order No. 8278, seconded by Commissioner Shortt. Motion passed 5 to 2 with Commissioner Bennett and Commissioner Sinclair opposed.
Vice President Neill moved approval of Order No. 8279, seconded by Commissioner Shortt. Motion passed 5 to 2 with Commissioner Bennett and Commissioner Sinclair opposed.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
President Fleisher asked if any Commissioner wished to declare any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest for any of tonight’s public hearing items.
Commissioner Shortt declared her three children attended Evergreen Middle School and Glencoe High School, but she did not believe it would prohibit her from making a logical and educated decision.
Commissioner Bennett declared he had been on the Planning and Zoning Hearings Board (PZHB) when the Evergreen Middle School application came before them as a conditional use. He did not believe it would have any effect on his ability to participate on the application.
President Fleisher declared he lived in the area of Evergreen Middle School and Glencoe High School. He lived along the Glencoe swale, which was the greenway that was the focus of a FEMA action not part of the hearing this evening. He had children who had attended Evergreen and Glencoe. He did not believe that familiarity with the neighborhood or the schools would bias his decisions or considerations.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 8 of 104
Colin Cooper, Planning Director, referenced the sheet he distributed to the Commission this evening that cited Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 19.77.63 regarding State law requiring clear communication to the public and to all those who were participating in a public hearing what standards and criteria would be used in the decision-making process. He noted providing the information had been requested by Chair Fleisher. The information repeated what was included in Staff’s reports regarding the transparency in decision making used throughout Oregon, and Staff had developed a new way to convey the conduct of hearing procedures.
Chris Barry, Development Services Manager, said a video would be used for the first time for reading of the ORS provisions. In the past, the statement was read by Staff which could be a bit monotonous and mundane. The hope was the video to be shown before each public hearing would liven up and add a bit of humor to the beginning of each hearing. The video tonight did not have subtitles, but Staff was working toward providing them in English and Spanish. Other videos were being developed, and Staff hoped to have up to three, eventually.
A. Development Review 059-18: EmpRes Sunroom Applicant: Jeff Martini Legal: Tax Lot 5300 & 5400 on Washington County Assessor’s Tax Map 1N2-32AC Request: Consider approving an Order for a sunroom addition to the existing residential care facility. Order No. 8280 was available. (Staff: Ruth Klein)
Ruth Klein, Senior Planner, played the ORS video, which narrated the conduct of hearing format and she cited the applicable substantive approval criteria. She noted this development review application would not typically come before the Planning Commission; however, because the Applicant was requesting a major adjustment, a change greater than 10 percent to a numeric standard, it required a public hearing. She presented the Staff report with the following key points: • The Applicant was requesting a mMajor Aadjustment to reduce the multi-family residential front yard setback of 15 ft to 5 ft on the eastern edge of the property. This corner lot property had frontage on both NE Cornell Rd and NE Hillaire Dr both of which had a 15-ft front yard setback requirement. The Staff report recommended the adjustment be approved. • The Staff report contained several conditions. One that was out-of-the-norm for a standard development review decision addressed the placement of trees. The Applicant had clustered the trees in one location on the site, but the condition said they should be spaced out so that they cover the entire frontage, and the selection of trees should be carefully made for the portion of the site where there was only a 5-ft separation from the sidewalk. Staff would work with the Applicant to find the appropriate type of tree.
President Fleisher confirmed there were no questions for Staff and that Staff had no petitions or written testimony to submit. He called for the Applicant’s testimony.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 9 of 104
Jeffrey Martini, Applicant, stated he represented the owners of the EmpRes Hillsboro Health and Rehabilitation Center and described it as a skilled nursing facility providing rehabilitation services and long-term care. The Applicant proposed an addition of a sunroom to the east side of the facility. The sunroom would allow the staff to control the environment while providing the benefits of an outdoor experience for the patients. The feeling of being outdoors helped patients as they worked to regain their ability to do daily activities. In similar facilities with sunrooms, it was observed that when patients were able to experience the feeling of being outdoors, they walked farther and longer than when indoors. Currently, when the weather was cold and wet, the only option was to walk the corridors inside the facility. • The sunroom would provide a variety of surfaces, such as artificial grass, pavers or flagstone, and sidewalk-type surfaces with break lines. Navigating those surfaces was something healthy people took for granted in their daily lives. For people recovering from a hip or knee replacement, or even a stroke, such surfaces become a challenge that must be overcome to return to a normal lifestyle. • The benefit of providing this therapy year-round despite weather conditions was needed. People were living longer and staying active in their later years. Because of this, the number of restorative procedures had increased. Skilled nursing facilities played an important role in recovery after those procedures. The sunroom would help the facility reduce the time and cost of recovery for those who needed help as they prepared to return home. • Medicare and Medicaid were the main source of funding for those who lived in the building, so all the elderly and disabled people had access to the Center’s services, regardless of their financial situation. • In order to maintain compliance with the Hillsboro Community Development Code (CDC), a reduction in the property line setback was needed to provide the space to construct the sunroom.
President Fleisher asked if a substantial investment would be made in the kit for the sunroom, so it would match the rest of the handsome building and be there for years. • Mr. Martini confirmed a substantial kit would be purchased, adding the sunroom would be a very modern, state-of-the-art structure. The structure would be vinyl with insulated, slightly- tempered glass on the roof to help with the climate control. • He confirmed he had read the conditions of approval and agreed with them.
President Fleisher called for public testimony in favor of, neutral, or opposed to the application. Seeing none, he acknowledged there was no Applicant rebuttal and closed the public hearing.
Vice President Neill moved approval of Order No. 8280, seconded by Commissioner Kim. Motion passed unanimously.
B. Planned Unit Development 006-18: Timberland Glen Applicant: Matt Newman, NW Engineers, LLC Legal: Tax Lot 1600 on Washington County Assessor’s Tax Map 1N3-25AB Request: Consider approving an Order recommending City Council approve a 5-lot subdivision with major adjustments on a site 1.17 acres in the SFR-7 zone. Order No. 8281 was available. (Staff: Sarah Bruce)
Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 10 of 104
C. Significant Natural Resource Permit 002-18: Timberland Glen Applicant: Matt Newman, NW Engineers, LLC Legal: Tax Lot 1600 on Washington County Assessor’s Tax Map 1N3-25AB Request: Consider approving an Order for encroachments into the Significant Natural Resource Overlay (SNRO) and a compensatory mitigation plan. Order No. 8282 was available. (Staff: Sarah Bruce)
Colin Cooper, Planning Director, confirmed the two applications by Mr. Newman could be heard together, noting the Applicant was requesting a continuance.
A video was played narrating the ORS conduct of hearing format.
Sarah Bruce, Planner, presented the Staff report and listed the applicable substantive approval criteria for a planned unit development (PUD). She noted no Order or packet was provided to the Commissioners as the Applicant's team was working with City Staff to further refine the application and packet materials to ensure all the approval criteria would be met for the PUD and for a Significant Natural Resource (SNR) permit. The Applicant would be working with the City’s urban designer to provide some very clear public benefits regarding the architectural designs. As a five-lot subdivision, an SNR permit would normally not apply, but it would be part of their benefits package. • Because those revisions and conditions of approval were not completed in time for tonight’s packet, Staff requested with the concurrence of the Applicant that tonight’s public hearings for the PUD and the SNR permit be continued until the March 27th Planning Commission meeting when the Applicant would be present and the Orders would be available along with the packets for the Commission’s consideration. • Staff also recommended that President Fleisher query the audience this evening to determine whether anyone was present who wished to provide testimony. • She confirmed no issues existed with the tolling of the 120-day land use clock.
President Fleisher confirmed there was no public testimony in favor of, neutral, or opposed to the applications.
Vice President Neill moved to continue Order No. 8281 and Order No. 8282 to March 27, 2018, date certain, seconded by Commissioner Shortt. Motion passed unanimously.
D. Development Review 078-18: Evergreen Middle School Addition & Site Improvements Applicant: CJ Doxsee, Angelo Planning Group Legal: Tax Lot 1000 on Washington County Assessor’s Tax Map 1N2-30BA Request: Consider approving an Order for a new library and eight (8) new classrooms for Evergreen Middle School with associated site improvements, including a Minor Adjustment to utility undergrounding and a Major Adjustment to maximum parking. Order No. 8283 was available. (Staff: Leslie Hamilton)
Chris Barry, Development Services Manager, introduced Leslie Hamilton, as a new Senior Planner on the Development Services team and briefly described her background, noting most recently she was a Planner with the City of Lake Oswego.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 11 of 104
A video was played narrating the ORS conduct of a hearing format.
Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner, presented the Staff report via PowerPoint, noting the application was for development review for an addition and site improvements to Evergreen Middle School. A minor adjustment to the utility undergrounding standard and a major adjustment to maximum parking were requested. She described the site’s location, zoning, and proposed improvements to parking, traffic circulation, and the addition of a new fire lane. Improvements would also be made to correct an identified stormwater issue and additional stormwater improvements were planned. • Today, the Applicant submitted revised language for Condition 3 and, if the Commission accepted the new language, she had revised drafts of Exhibit A for the record. Condition 3 addressed the public utility permit and stormwater, and the revision was to add a sentence at the end stating, “The Applicant shall provide drainage improvements along the south and east boundary of the field to minimize runoff of surface water onto adjacent properties.”
Commissioner Bennett stated he had attended the conditional use permit hearing for this application. A secondary access existed on the back of this site that went out to NE 4th Ave. Discussion took place at that hearing as to whether the original land use approvals required the access to be gated, so that it would not be open for constant use. He asked that the rest of the Commissioners be brought up to speed on whether that was a full access or not. • Ms. Hamilton stated the access was a fire access lane that would also be used for garbage pickup, but the new gate mechanism proposed by the Applicant would be moved to the west and would not be open during school hours. One issue that arose during the conditional use permit hearing was that parents were driving into that access during pickup time and creating some conflicts.
President Fleisher confirmed Staff had no letters or petitions to submit and called for the Applicant’s presentation.
Adam Stewart, Chief Financial Officer, Hillsboro School District, stated he was responsible for the $408 million bond that taxpayers approved back in 2017. A lot of the work funded by the bond consisted of improvements to the existing facilities. Due to the new construction taking place in the Cities of Cornelius and North Plains, the District was anticipating additional students from those developments and was expanding the capacity at Evergreen Middle School by 200 students and at Glencoe High School by approximately 400 students. The designs and the presentations the Commission would see tonight were to address the additional capacity. The other area that would be adding capacity would be in South Hillsboro where a new elementary school would be built. He thanked City Staff for their help through the challenging process.
CJ Doxsee stated the site improvements being proposed at Evergreen Middle School primarily involved four areas were: • The main driveway entrance would be reconfigured to remove and replace parking with a bus-only lane to improve circulation. • A new parking area would be located in the southwest corner of the site. • A fire access lane would be added around the southern and eastern portions of the building to make a false loop. • An addition to the existing building would be built.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 12 of 104
• The improvements would result in an increase in capacity of 200 to 1,100 total students, and an increase of 30 staff. As part of the application, the Applicant was proposing a net increase of 20 parking spaces. The parking lot in the southwest corner of the site had 33 spaces, but the reduction of parking spaces along with the few existing parking spaces in the southwest corner resulted in a total of 20 spaces. Also proposed was an additional 16 bike parking spaces at the main entrance in an effort to meet the standards in the Code of two bike parking spaces per classroom.
Marlene Gillis, Principal, Soderstrom Architects, stated her firm had been working with the District for the last year on this project. The challenge with additions and renovations to any school was to use what existed to the best of its ability and then add onto it respectfully. Making a 1980s building like Evergreen Middle School modern was a real challenge but also very fun. She described the improvements via PowerPoint as follows: • The first approach was to look at how an addition could be made to the building and still create a continuous interior circulation, which was very important to keep the kids from having to walk outside. As a result, the addition was proposed in the southeast corner of the site, which was beneficial in that the location was the farthest from the property lines and had the least impact on the neighbors. • It was important to meet the additional capacity needs with all of the appropriate support spaces. Classrooms and restrooms would be added and the mechanical system to the existing building would be upgraded. The District took a very strong approach to ensure the interior environment for the students was upgraded and elevated as much as possible. • Because the building’s footprint was very broad and dark, the intent was to create some daylight through the building. Part of the commons renovation involved adding a significant skylight at the core of the building’s space to make a fairly dark space bright and pleasant for the kids to have lunch. • A lot of windows would face a courtyard created by the classroom addition. The courtyard had a covered area to protect the kids from Oregon’s weather. The courtyard was created on a scale appropriate for the kids, so they would feel very comfortable owning, with bright colors and modern materials. • The massing and detailing were carefully considered to ensure the addition fit with the existing building while still creating a very modern aesthetic for the new building. She displayed elevations of the library in the new space which was taller and faced south with a sloped roof facing the residential area to be respectful toward the neighbors. With the library facing south, the sun would also be controlled as much as possible. • She highlighted a series of images showing key elements of the proposed addition, including the courtyard and the courtyard’s covered area, as well as where basketball hoops would replace a flat, blacktop area, which was a significant improvement that would allow the kids could go outside for some activity around lunchtime. Other images showed the corridor to the new classrooms, which would create an extension of the existing entry, the new library interior, which had lots of volume, light, and brightness, and the skylight connection. Adding skylights to the entire interior of the space was a priority to provide additional light to the dark building.
Mr. Doxsee described the issues that were identified and addressed by the team and the District throughout the planning process as follows:
Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 13 of 104
• With regard to the driveway entrance modifications, the Applicant noticed queuing issues with the combination of buses and cars using a single lane, so the proposal was to remove parking to add a bus-only lane to allow access into the site. • During the December conditional use hearing, some concerns were expressed about stormwater runoff impacting neighbors to the south and a little bit to the east. The Applicant proposed to do some stormwater management improvements along the southern and eastern perimeter of the fields and had recommended an amendment to Condition 3 that would effectively hold the Applicant to that commitment. • The new parking area to the southwest would be primarily for staff during school hours and was also intended to be used by visitors who wanted to use the field or for after-school events. The benefit was that it would shift the demand of parking away from the main parking area, freeing up spaces for visitors and parents picking up and dropping off kids, while also improving circulation along the site. • The access entrance onto NE 4th Ave would be gated and would have a Knox Box to allow access to the fire department and for trash removal. The gate along with the improvements to the driveway and southwest parking area were intended to encourage parents and visitors to use the on-site circulation instead of 4th Ave • The Applicant agreed with Staff's recommendation for approval of the development review permit as well as with the major adjustment to the maximum parking standards and minor adjustment to the utility undergrounding. He noted the exhibit with the proposed revision to the condition had been submitted. The Applicant agreed with Staff's other recommended conditions of approval and requested that the Commission accept Staff’s recommendation for approval.
President Fleisher asked if any Commissioners had questions for the Applicant.
Commissioner Sinclair stated the artist renderings were absolutely beautiful, adding the Applicant had done a great job. She asked if the revisions to the photometric plan recommended by the PZHB had been done to ensure compliance with the minimum lighting levels along the new fire access lane that would serve as a multi-use path. • Brian Feeney, 3J Consulting, replied his firm was the civil engineering consultant for the project and while they were not the consultants for the lighting plan, the team had advised the plan would be updated to meet that condition.
President Fleisher: • Asked if the renovations would mean the Evergreen school site would be 100 percent developed. • Mr. Stewart replied the recommendation from the School Board was to not expand beyond the 1,100-student capacity that the addition would provide at Evergreen. If the demand for middle school and high school spaces continued in the future, options other than expanding the Evergreen and Glencoe campuses would be considered. • Inquired if the full scope of the project had been presented. • Mr. Doxsee replied the site improvements included a reconfiguration of the driveway to allow for the bus lane, the new southwest parking area, a fire access route, and the building addition. He confirmed the storm water was also a site improvement and part of the project.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 14 of 104
• Asked if the proposed reconfiguration was the only option for traffic circulation, adding that from his study of systems, he knew to guard against a single point of failure. Evergreen had one driveway and the emergency access. He inquired if the Applicant's team was convinced that everything that could be done would be done. In his opinion, the only thing that saved real congestion on NW Evergreen Rd was the 20 mph speed limit, which allowed the buses to get out and cars to move, but the congestion could be awful. He asked how the Commission could know the Applicant's solution would work. • Mr. Doxsee replied a consultant, who was present, had done a traffic impact analysis of the site. • Respectfully asked for no discussion of traffic engineering numbers because the Commission really needed to know why the Applicant believed the circulation would work effectively in the future. • Matt Hughart, Transportation Planner, Kittelson & Associates, stated he was hired by the District to prepare the traffic impact analysis for the expansion of the proposed middle school. He agreed that one main point of access existed to the site, which caused congestion at the driveway for a 15- to 20-minute period in the morning and approximately 20 minutes in the afternoon. The District, in coordination with City Staff, tried to improve the situation as much as possible, recognizing the site was hemmed in on all three sides with existing residential development, and to do the improvements in a way that did not put more pressure on the existing adjacent neighborhoods. • The roadway coming in from Evergreen Rd had a bottle-necking element which the Applicant was trying to address by improving the inbound travel lane. In theory, two vehicle lanes worth of stacking could happen in that inbound lane, and that stacking would continue to flow around into the circulation lanes. In order to do that, the proposal was to reduce or eliminate all of the diagonal head-in parking on that driveway throat and widen the radius of the 90-degree curve to allow a bus and an adjacent vehicle to turn at the same time. Part of the solution was to ensure that stacking did not back out onto Evergreen Rd. • The congestion would be contained on-site and not allowed to filter out into the adjacent neighborhoods via some other proposed driveway. The Applicant was attempting to minimize the impacts and doing their best with the closed nature of the site. • He clarified the existing pickup and drop-off lanes used by parents and buses would not change, so children would not have to cross a lane of traffic. The substantive change was to the spur that connected to Evergreen Rd. • He confirmed warrants for a traffic light had not been met at the site primarily due to the congestion being limited to two, relatively short time periods, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, and for much of the remaining hours of a 24-hour day, the amount of vehicular traffic in and out of that driveway was minimal to none. • Asked why the Glencoe high school project qualified for the NW Glencoe Rd exit. • Mr. Hughart replied because several other factors were involved at that location, such as a fourth leg to the intersection, whereas the Evergreen site was a three-legged intersection. There was also a lot more pedestrian crossing activity due to the rectangular rapid flashing beacon, and traffic volumes on Glencoe Rd were higher than on Evergreen.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 15 of 104
• Stated that as acknowledged earlier, he had a vested interest in the downstream analysis because he lived on wetlands into which the runoff would flow. The Applicant’s report said the downstream analysis showed the stream could handle the runoff, which was an imprecise statement. He asked if the person who performed the downstream analysis could give a clearer picture of how much runoff would go into the Glencoe Swale. • Mr. Feeney stated 3J Consulting performed the downstream analysis and although he did not do the analysis directly, he could speak to it. The analysis was done per City and Clean Water Services standards and the existing system had the capacity to handle the additional runoff proposed. • During the initial conditional use hearing, the point was raised that significant surface water was draining past the fields and down the sidewalk southeast of the site and into the existing neighborhoods. One proposal to mitigate that issue was to design some cutoff trenches along the south and east ends of the site, just north and west of the existing sidewalks to try to collect the water and direct it into the existing underground storm system to be taken off site before it crossed the sidewalk and went down the pathway. Neighbors had videotaped the significant rains from about three weeks ago which highlighted that the entire site drained in that direction. • He confirmed that during a 100-year storm, some overflow would go into the stream. He clarified his firm designed pipes to the 25-year storm standard and anything exceeding that standard would overflow into the Glencoe Swale, just like any city street and city system. He also confirmed that he was unaware of FEMA's interest in the Glencoe Swale. • Inquired if the building met the sustainability criteria, noting it seemed to have a lot of glass and faced south. • Ms. Gillis replied yes, adding that energy efficiency was very important. The District was not pursuing Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, but her firm was using the LEED standard as a baseline. The project also met, at a minimum, the very strict Oregon Energy Code as a baseline. Soderstrom's engineers usually designed above those minimum requirements, but even if the minimums in the Energy Code were met, the building was still very efficient. The heat gain from south-facing glass would be mitigated with overhangs and shades, and the glazing would be coated and insulated.
Commissioner Bennett: • Thanked the Applicant for responding to the issues raised at the PZHB in December. He appreciated knowing the Applicant was listening and responding to what the community wanted to protect. • Asked why the Applicant believed they needed to exceed the parking standard set in the Code. • Mr. Doxsee replied one of the largest factors was the need to accommodate the current and anticipated staff, as well as some visitor parking and some parking for parents picking up and dropping off kids. Currently, the school had approximately 70 staff and a little more than 100 staff were expected given the proposal. Without a corresponding increase in parking spaces, little to no parking would be available for visitors or parents. Additionally, staff and the principal at the school communicated that the field had to be used for parking for after-school events. The requested major adjustment to parking was an effort to reduce that need and utilize the proposed parking as well. • Asked if Mr. Doxsee believed the City’s adopted parking standard was too low.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 16 of 104
• Mr. Doxsee replied perhaps, and added that as part of the justification for increasing the parking, some existing parking situations at other schools were also considered. Evergreen Middle School's parking ratio was a bit below average compared to other schools. • Responded that put the Commission on a slippery slope, because every time the School District asked for an increased number of parking spaces, the increase previously received was used as the basis for the new increase. The Commission's unfortunate dilemma was that they were supposed to implement the standard adopted by the City, unless the Applicant demonstrated, according to the criteria, that there should be additional spaces. • Asked what the School District did from a policy level to encourage its students and staff to carpool, ride bikes, etc., so the Applicant could comply with the standards that the City adopted. For example, was there a program within the school to encourage parents to carpool their kids to school? • Mr. Doxsee replied that as part of this effort, and in an effort to provide a public benefit to accommodate this request, the District had agreed to participate in the Safe Routes to School Program, which encouraged students overall to travel to school by walking or biking. The program could be one way the District encouraged alternative ways of transportation. • Stated he would feel much more comfortable with such requests if he knew that a balance existed within the School District as a policy matter at every one of its schools. It seemed like every school required a major adjustment to the parking standards to comply with the limits the City had set, or the District said the City’s limits were not realistic and needed to be bumped up so the District was not required to ask for an adjustment every time a school was modified. • Understood the need for more parking, but at a time when the community was trying to reduce the impact of vehicles on the environment, it seemed the School District might want a policy that encouraged less dependence on the single-family automobile or a large vehicle in favor of an alternative means of transportation. • Mr. Hughart said another reason the team was striving for a little extra parking on this site was because the school was located adjacent to neighborhoods. The District believed a bit more parking on the site could minimize the spillover into the neighborhoods for special events. • Agreed, adding he believed that was a valid point.
President Fleisher called for public testimony in favor of or neutral to this application.
David Warner stated he lived in one of the lots adjacent to the proposed parking lot so he was not a big fan of the idea. He suggested putting more parking spaces on the west side of the school where some staff parked now, or adding more spaces to the existing parking in the northeast corner. He asked if the proposed parking lot would be lit because all of the bedroom windows for the adjacent lots would face the parking lot. He also questioned the need for 30 new staff for eight additional classrooms.
Commissioner Bennett: • Confirmed Mr. Warner lived on NE 4th Ave and asked if his question was about the parking on the west side of the school or the new parking proposed on the south part of the site.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 17 of 104
• Mr. Warner replied his concern was the new parking on the south portion, adding he would like it to be moved to other areas, such as the west side where an additional six or seven spaces could be added on the hard-packed ground near the existing Staff parking. • Asked if he was concerned about cars facing west in the lower—. • Mr. Warner clarified he was mainly concerned about the new parking lot.
Linnea Gruber stated her home was directly across the street from the emergency driveway into the school. She had raised her concerns at the PZHB meeting. Prior to that meeting, the emergency exit drive-through gate was open 24 hours a day. Since the PZHB meeting, that gate had been locked, except when opened for garbage trucks and service vehicles, and it had greatly reduced the traffic on NE 4th Ave, which made her very happy. • Next to that gate was a separate walk-through gate which had been opened before school, closed and locked during the school day, and then reopened at the end of the school day and relocked afterward. She had seen people climb over the fence because they could not get out. Another walk-through a gate was located a little closer to NE Sunburst Ave on a path going north and had also been locked. • Many of her concerns had to do particularly with how the drive-through gate would be handled in the future. She asked if it would be closed at night. One of the past problems was people driving in and meeting back there at night and the neighbors not knowing what was going on. • When the emergency exit gate was locked on the new parking lot, she assumed drivers would have to come in the front and travel down the side of the school to get to the lot. She would be very unhappy if the application was approved and the changes made, and then the gate left open for drivers to zoom in and out to the back parking area. • She was very concerned about the emergency exit gate that was signed "No Parking". When facing the gate to the left, there were fire lane signs. When that gate stood open during school events, drivers parked where it said, "No Parking Fire Lane." Sometimes they parked on both sides and made it impossible for an emergency vehicle to get through. • Parking in the evening on NE 4th Ave during events like parent-teacher conferences did not cause problems because it was infrequent. Sporting events had drawn the bigger crowds parking on the streets. She hoped that if the emergency gate remained locked, drivers would come in the front entrance to park on campus. • She also questioned the proposed increase from 70 to 100 staff members for eight additional classrooms because it seemed a bit high, as did the number of requested parking places. She asked if such a large lot was really needed.
President Fleisher called for public testimony opposed to the application. Seeing none, he called for the Applicant's rebuttal.
Mr. Stewart stated the estimate the District received from its school performance personnel was that 30 additional staff members would probably be needed for the additional classrooms and the media center expansion. They were not just teachers, but the support staff assigned to those buildings, in addition to the classified staff, cafeteria personnel, and additional custodial staffing would be required to maintain the new spaces.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 18 of 104
Mr. Doxsee stated the Applicant’s proposal met the standards for light trespass from the parking lot, adding that Hillsboro had good standards for minimizing light trespass onto other properties. He could not off the top of his head explain in detail what was proposed to minimize light trespass.
Ms. Gillis said that conceptually, light fixtures were designed to throw light down and out toward the site. Typically, the requirement was to keep the added light thrown downward onto the site for safety.
Commissioner Bennett understood the concern was the vehicle lights, not the light fixtures.
Mr. Doxsee noted landscaping was proposed around the perimeter of the parking lot to reduce light from car headlights. The Applicant had met the landscaping standards that specified more landscaping requirements for portions of the parking lot adjacent to other properties. He suggested the lights proposed for the site could be put on a programmed timer to be dimmed or turned off at dusk.
Commissioner Fuentes asked how late the lights would stay on for evening school events. • Mr. Doxsee believed one of the school principals could better speak to that, though typically, parent-teacher meeting nights were held a bit later in the evening to allow parents time to get off work and get to school. Events could go from 7 pm to 8 pm or 9 pm. • Mr. Stewart said 9 pm would probably be the latest some parks and rec programs would last.
President Fleisher: • Suggested the proposed lot would not be used late in the evening because parking would be available elsewhere. There would not be a full load of vehicles at some evening activities, and it made sense to have some school standards or policies to encourage drivers to use the front entrance. • Mr. Stewart noted an exception would be for events in the fields behind the school when people would want to park closer to the event. • Stated even then, not using the lot should be considered out of respect for the neighbors even if it meant people had to walk a little farther.
Mr. Doxsee addressed Mr. Warner's question about why other areas on the site were not considered for parking, explaining that very few locations existed where parking could be expanded. Parking could not be expanded eastward because of an existing stormwater facility. The existing sports fields were used by students and staff, as well as for programmed activities. The design used as much of that space as possible, while still meeting the needs for a soccer or baseball field, so few options were left to locate additional parking on the site.
Ms. Gillis stated from a design standpoint, the Applicant tried to keep the tennis courts, but that also impacted where the addition would be located. They were also trying to keep the function of the field to the south as much as possible. The current design shifted the addition a bit to the east, but the footprint was the same or similar in a very similar location, which helped with the site as well as the cost of the work.
President Fleisher asked Staff if a condition of approval guaranteed dense landscaping between the parking lot and the adjacent neighborhoods. He noted landscaping could be six-inches high.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 19 of 104
• Ms. Hamilton did not believe an existing condition addressed his concern landscaping because a standard already existed in the Code that appeared to be met when reviewing the plans. An additional condition could be added to address anything specific. • She believed the standard would adequately shield the neighbors from the very beginning of the development.
Commissioner Bennett: • Asked for the site plan for the parking lot to be displayed on the screen. • Mr. Doxsee displayed the landscape plan showing the proposed landscaping for the parking lot area. He indicated a line of shrubs between the parking area and the adjacent properties, as well as a series of trees. He confirmed a sidewalk ran along the western side of the parking lot. • Confirmed the distance between the far west side of the parking spaces and the property line was approximately 10 ft to 15 ft and asked if the idea was to have a little row of bushes along the property line. • Ms. Gillis replied typically, the Code required three layers of small, medium, and large landscaping to help build out the buffer. • Noted the area was not very wide as maybe 3 ft existed between the sidewalk and property line. • Ms. Gillis replied an additional sidewalk to the east connected with this; the thinking was that this sidewalk would be the one utilized by the neighborhood. • Understood the reason for a sidewalk there, but he did not understand how the landscaping was going to protect the three lots to the west from the lights of 15 cars pulling in there at night. The lights would shine into backyards and living spaces, which was a problem the Commission needed to consider dealing with. • Mr. Barry noted Ms. Hamilton had located a Code provision that might ease the concern.
President Fleisher asked why the lot could not be moved 20 ft to the east where there appeared to be a space between the field and the lot. It would move the lot significantly away from the property line.
Ms. Hamilton read Subsection D from the Code which dealt with perimeter landscaping screening for non-residential parking as follows: "Non-residential parking and loading areas adjacent to or within residential zones or adjacent to residential uses shall be designed and constructed to reduce impacts on residential uses through installation of a sight-obscuring fence at the property line. The fence shall be between five and six feet in height except for vision clearance or sight distance triangles are required." • The language was very specific to fences. There were also additional standards about perimeter landscaping.
Mr. Barry explained the reason for noting the Code provision was that a fence would seem to address the issue of headlights shining into the rear of the properties. In addition to the fence, landscaping was required. Staff was addressing the concern related to the headlights shining in the rear of the properties. There could be issues with noise from doors closing or people getting out of their vehicles. He did not believe Staff was the best suited to answer the question about whether the parking lot could shift to the east.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 20 of 104
Commissioner Sinclair understood the discussion was about after-hours programs and concerns about lighting affecting the residential areas adjacent to the southwest parking lot. She asked if the gate would be open for the parking lot to be accessible at nighttime. • Mr. Doxsee stated the gate would be closed 24 hours a day and only accessible as needed, either for fire access or for garbage hauling services. • Ms. Gillis clarified the parking area could be accessed from the front of the school as well, so they would not need to use the access, but drivers might want to be adjacent to the fields.
Commissioner Bennett: • Asked if the Applicant would agree to a condition of approval stating the emergency gate shall be locked 24/7 with the exception of access for emergency and garbage vehicles. • Ms. Hamilton replied Condition 7 regarded the Knox Box and allowing fire department access. She confirmed the condition did not state anything about limited hours. • Confirmed the Applicant was willing to a slight modification that said the gate should always be locked except for service vehicles.
Mr. Doxsee stated he was not a landscaper, but if the concern was about the size of the shrubs along the fence line, perhaps a taller, arborvitae-type plant could be used for screening.
President Fleisher: • Believed taller landscaping was a solution some Commissioners were driving at, noting Mr. Barry had raised the noise question. He would not require moving the lot 20 ft to the east, but asked if there was a reason why the lot simply could not be shifted farther away from the fence. • Ms. Gillis replied the designers’ job was to advocate for the District and the students for the best use of their property now and in the future. Right now, it looked like that 20 ft was there to use, but it would take that 20 feet out of use for the rest of the life of the project because once money and resources were put into parking, which was one of the most minimal costs for schools, the District would not pay to take it out later. • The parking lot was sited in the proposed location because it was the most efficient use of the site and provided the most continuous green space for the kids in the field. It also allowed the school to use the site as they saw fit now and in the future. If they wanted to upsize the soccer field in the future for example, the extra 20 ft or so of land would provide the flexibility and opportunity to do so. From a design standpoint, it was important to try to maximize the District’s resources, which was literally every square inch of dirt on the site. • Pointed out the counter argument was that if the parking lot was built hard up against the neighbors' houses it would be there for perpetuity. • Ms. Gillis agreed.
Commissioner Shortt: • Inquired if the goal was to be a good neighbor, was it not feasible to put in a fence that would definitely quell headlights in the neighbors' bedroom windows and family rooms, which were usually in the back of the house where people lived. A fenced seemed to be a logical solution. • Mr. Doxsee believed a fence already existed, but it might be a bit obscured on the line work presented.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 21 of 104
• Ms. Gillis believed the line shown with the little squares that went out to the street indicated a fence, which the Applicant would want to keep around the perimeter as much as possible. If the fence was not already there, the Applicant could definitely commit to installing one. • Confirmed the existing fence was chain-link and noted that would not take care of the issue. Once the lot was in place, it would stay that way and whoever owned the adjacent lots would have to live with it. No one would want a bright light or many lights coming at them in their family room. Sometimes fences were the best solution for good neighbors.
Mr. Barry noted the provision Ms. Hamilton read was a Code requirement to provide a 5-ft to 6-ft fence. If non-residential parking existed adjacent to a residential area, the fence would be required. Ms. Hamilton would check during the permitting phase that the Applicant provided the fence in accordance with the Code.
President Fleisher said he assumed Mr. Stewart had heard the whole discussion and would do what was necessary to protect the neighbors. It could not be written into the conditions. • Mr. Stewart replied he had heard the discussion loud and clear, adding the District wanted to be a good neighbor.
Mr. Barry asked if the Planning Commission wanted to increase the Code minimum landscaping adjacent to that fence, so Staff would know for the future phase of the project specifically what the Commission and District would be comfortable providing. He confirmed the standard stated "sight-obscuring fence" and did not specify the material.
Commissioner Sinclair confirmed a non-chain-link fence as well as a taller, denser landscaping bush would accommodate the concerns and comply with Code.
President Fleisher closed the public hearing and called for Commission deliberation.
Commissioner Bennett proposed an amendment to Condition 7 to require that the vehicular gate at the secondary access at NE 4th Ave be locked 24/7, 365 days a year, except as needed to provide access to emergency and service vehicles. • Mr. Barry clarified the gate would allow garbage access as well. He believed a new separate condition would be more appropriate because Condition 7 was the mechanism for Staff to confirm that, prior to the issuance of the Applicant's private utilities permit, the plans showed a minimum gate with all the technical requirements. Layered on top of that condition would be the timing of the gate according to the private utilities permit. The gate was not meant to last in perpetuity.
President Fleisher noted the Applicant had not had an opportunity to review that condition and the hearing had been closed.
Commissioner Bennett pointed out he had specifically asked the Applicant whether they would be willing to accept the condition and they said yes.
President Fleisher responded if Staff agreed, that was fine with him. He did not believe it was necessary to read the new condition beforehand as he was sure Staff was capable of revising the Order.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 18 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 22 of 104
Commissioner Bennett stated the Commission could give Staff the language for the condition and the motion to adopt the Order could include the new condition. • Ms. Hamilton reminded about the change to Condition 3 mentioned earlier for the Commission’s consideration, as well as the new Exhibit A.
Vice President Neill stated she was concerned about the wording of the condition to say the only reason the gate could be opened was for a fire truck or a waste truck. Essentially, the Hillsboro School District would be breaking its own rules, if for example, a science teacher wanted to bring in a trailer to move equipment for Evergreen’s robotics team. She believed the Commission would be unnecessarily tying the school's hands. Given the flow of the parking lot, nobody would want to drive back there during the school day. The condition should be precisely worded to ensure the school and the District could use the space, too, and have access to an alternative way to back in with a trailer. • She did not believe a teacher with robotics equipment, for example, should go through the front gate. People attend all kinds of special events for science, technology, or agriculture. As a Future Farmers of America (FFA) team advisor and robotics team advisor, she had brought very unusual stuff to campus, and had to ask for special permissions often. The School District had to be able to make those decisions. She suggested asking the District what terminology would work for them. She completely understood not allowing the general public to use the emergency entrance, but if the School District wanted to bring in a horse, an extra-long horse trailer could not come in the front. First and foremost this was a school. • She clarified the School District had already committed to not leaving the gate open for teachers to come and go anytime they wanted. She was asking the condition to be worded in such a way to point out the emergency access was not for general use, but that the school could still use it for unique situations. She did not believe the condition needed to say that only a fire truck or garbage truck could use the access, because it would preclude so many situations that come up in a real educational setting.
Commissioner Bennett said that not being a teacher, he deferred to Vice President Neill. He suggested allowing Staff to draft the condition because they would do a better job.
Vice President Neill suggested the security and safety plans could be looked up for each one of the schools. School districts were very precise about setting up specific safety plans. At her own school, every single access point was locked. The gate was supposed to be locked and she was sure the School District was very pleased to hear that was happening now. Allowing the School District to use that space as they saw fit still meant it was in their best interest to not allow access except for unique situations.
Commissioner Bennett asked if she agreed in concept with the idea to keep the gate locked.
Vice President Neill replied absolutely and agreed the School District would want it locked as much as possible because allowing people access to the back was a security risk. The school did not want people going through that gate because the school's security officer would not be able to see people come onto campus property.
President Fleisher stated he would accept Mr. Barry's invitation to have Staff draft the condition given the healthy discussion.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 19 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 23 of 104
• Mr. Barry agreed to do so, adding it would be useful for City Staff to touch base with the School District staff to hear their thoughts.
After a brief discussion, the Commission decided reopen the public hearing to allow School District staff and others to provide input.
Vice President Neill moved to reopen the public hearing on Order No. 8283, seconded by Commissioner Bennett. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Barry suggested that Mr. Stewart weigh in on Vice President Neill's comments about the use of the access point other than for emergency and trash services, and to provide the School District's perspective on that possible need. Staff would draft the revised condition after hearing Mr. Stewart's comments.
Mr. Cooper noted rebuttal for the public would also need to be provided after Mr. Stewart's testimony.
Mr. Stewart said he agreed with Vice President Neill that narrowing any possible use of the gate to just those two situations could potentially be a problem. He believed deliveries might come through that gate. He was unsure how to word the condition and suggested that his team and City Staff convene briefly to craft the language. The school’s intent was to keep the gate locked except when public safety or delivery vehicles needed access.
Commissioner Shortt suggested the wording, "support, service, and safety vehicles", which would allow access for garbage trucks, people bringing food in, etc.
Vice President Neill: • Believed the language was appropriate and would allow flexibility for the School District. She was certain the District had documents about security, deliveries, maintenance, etc. on the school properties. • Mr. Stewart confirmed those documents were available to the public, and added that a big focus of the bond that the District was in the process of developing currently, concerned safety and security at all of the school campuses, involving everything from security cameras to security fencing, as well as ideas discussed tonight about securing school sites. • He confirmed the District did not want the general public going through the emergency gate, reiterating the intent was to keep the gate locked. • Believed what Commissioner Shortt suggested allowed some discretion. It was not a general public gate and she believed each school, especially Evergreen, had specific policies in place, such as having only one key held by the resource officer who had to be called to let people in.
Mr. Barry recommended the following language for new Condition 20, "The gate provided at the access point from/to NE 4th Ave shall be closed and locked at all times and shall only be opened for support, service, and emergency vehicles."
President Fleisher noted Mr. Stewart had given the ‘thumbs up’ sign.
Commissioner Sinclair asked how interested parties could find the school's security plan.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 20 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 24 of 104
• Mr. Stewart replied that a couple of pages about safety and security upgrades were included in the bond and could be found on the bond page of the School District's website. A safety and security page also existed for District policy level information on the website.
President Fleisher called for any additional public testimony regarding Condition 20 as proposed. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing and called for any further discussion by the Commission.
Commissioner Kim asked about incorporating Commissioner Sinclair's suggestion regarding a condition for the fencing adjacent to the parking. • Mr. Barry replied new Condition 21 could be added for the fencing. He reiterated that the Code required a fence, and Staff would ensure that requirement was met prior to the issuance of the private utilities permit.
Commissioner Bennett asked if a condition was really needed if the Code addressed the requirement already. • Mr. Barry replied Mr. Cooper had relayed that sometimes, it was good practice to reiterate certain Code requirements if there was public testimony and discussion about a specific area of the site. Staff would ensure that the requirement was met, but if the Commission felt more comfortable with reiterating Code through a condition, that would be their discretion.
Commissioner Kim pointed out the Code did not specify the actual material for the fencing. He hoped a condition could be proposed to require substantive materials for the fencing and landscaping that would affirmatively block the light. • Mr. Barry noted the Code said a fence should be 5 ft to 6 ft high, but did not specify the type of fence. The Planning Commission could specify the type of fence, for example, "a 6-ft high wooden fence", but he recommended confirming the language with the School District. He reiterated it was a Code requirement, and the Applicant had to meet the requirement when Staff reviewed permit drawings.
Commissioner Shortt moved to reopen the public hearing on Order No. 8283, seconded by Commissioner Fuentes. Motion passed 5 to 2 with Vice President Neill and Commissioner Bennett opposed.
Commissioner Shortt suggested saying the fence needed to be non-chain-link to allow for whatever material the District wanted to use, except for something that could be seen through. • Mr. Barry noted other options existed that provided transparency. The Commission could be specific and state, "a 6-ft, unobstructed wood fence" which might provide Commissioner Kim intent.
Commissioner Kim agreed it would, adding any material that would substantively block the passage of light would do the job. It was not necessary for the fence to be wooden.
President Fleisher stated the fence should be 6-ft tall to prevent people from seeing over it. • Mr. Stewart stated he was comfortable with that as long as a wooden fence was not specified because it would have long-term maintenance issues.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 21 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 25 of 104
Mr. Barry read the proposed language for new Condition 21 as follows, "Prior to the issuance of the private utilities permit, construction plan shall show a 6-ft opaque fence along the western property line adjacent to the new parking lot."
Commissioner Sinclair noted the Commission had discussed at great length taller, denser landscaping next to the fencing to further accommodate the adjacent neighbors and prevent unwanted light from spilling into those properties.
Mr. Barry read the revised language for Condition 21 as follows, "Prior to issuance of the private utilities permit, construction plans shall show a 6-ft opaque fence and a 6-ft evergreen hedge along the western property line adjacent to the new parking lot."
Commissioner Kim agreed with the revised language.
President Fleisher asked Mr. Stewart if a tall, dense evergreen along the fence was appropriate, noting he believed it was something that Mr. Stewart mentioned before.
President Fleisher confirmed there were no further comments and closed the public hearing.
Vice President Neill moved approval of Order No. 8283, including the revised Condition of Approval 3 and new Conditions of Approval 20 and 21, seconded by Commissioner Shortt. The motion passed unanimously.
President Fleisher called for a brief recess and reconvened the meeting at approximately 8:30 pm.
E. Conditional Use 010-18: Glencoe High School Addition & Site Improvements Applicant: CJ Doxsee, Angelo Planning Group Legal: Tax Lot 100 on Washington County Assessor’s Tax Map 1N3-25DA and Tax Lot 12800 on Washington County Assessor’s Tax Map 1N3-25AD Request: Consider approving an Order for seismic and safety upgrades throughout the school, multiple building additions, and associated site improvements. Order No. 8284 was available. (Staff: Rachel Marble)
Rachel Marble, Planner, noted Order Nos. 8284 and 8285 would be heard separately. A video was played narrating the ORS conduct of a hearing format and Ms. Marble read the substantive approval criteria. She presented the Staff report and Supplemental Staff report via PowerPoint, explaining in detail the two concurrent major adjustments requested by the Applicant that called for a decrease in the minimum bicycle parking spaces and an increase in the maximum vehicle parking spaces. She also described the details of the proposed building expansion as well as the improvements to be made to the northern and southern parking lots. • Written testimony was received from one neighbor who was very concerned about the row of parking to be added along the northern property line. Unlike Evergreen Middle School, there was no sidewalk in front of the proposed row parking; instead the Landscape Plan showed a 7-ft landscape buffer that had an evergreen hedge that would grow to 4 ft to 6 ft at maturity. • Public comment was also received regarding the Douglas firs that would be removed for the parking lot expansion. The eastern portion of the parking lot expansion would encroach into the Significant Natural Resource Overlay (SNRO), which would be addressed in the next
Planning Commission Minutes Page 22 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 26 of 104
hearing item, and mitigation of those trees would be handled through the Significant Natural Resources Permit (SNRP). • However, over the last two weeks, Staff had several conversations about the 15 Douglas fir trees proposed for removal with the District, who had also been talking with the neighbors. Once the District realized that the message mistakenly conveyed at the neighborhood meeting was that the Douglas fir trees would not be removed, the District told Staff that alternatives would be considered for the parking lot. In doing so, the District hired an arborist and the arborist’s report, which was included in the Supplemental Staff report, stated the Douglas fir trees needed to be removed due to disease. Subsequently, the District decided to proceed with the original proposal for the parking lot and provide additional mitigation for the trees. As noted in the supplemental Staff report, a condition requiring that mitigation had been added and was in excess of the SNRP requirements, as a public benefit for having to remove the trees, which were also being mitigated through the SNRP elsewhere on site. • The current application did not reflect the changed layout of the parking lot or the associated updated lighting plan, so new Condition 26 was added today, requiring that the lighting plan be updated prior to issuance of the engineering permits. She read the new condition as follows, "Prior to issuance of the PUP, Applicant shall submit a revised lighting plan demonstrating that site lighting does not increase lighting levels at the property lines more than 10.75 lumens per square meter or 10 ft beyond the property line. All parking lot lights shall be concealed or shielded with an illumination Engineering Society of North America full- cutoff style fixture with an angle not exceeding 90 degrees to minimize the potential for glare and unnecessary diffusion on adjacent property." • Staff recommended approval of the conditional use and development review application with two concurrent major adjustments with the conditions attached.
Commissioner Bennett: • Noted the parking spaces per student at other schools had been used as a partial justification for the additional parking spaces. He asked for the parking numbers at the four other high schools and if those numbers were determined before or after the current number of parking spaces required by the Code. • Ms. Marble replied the number had been determined at different times. The most recent application was for Liberty High School, which included a variance, not an adjustment, because it came in prior to the change in the zoning ordinance in 2014. • She clarified the Community Development Code (CDC) was adopted in 2014 and confirmed the parking requirements for Century, Glencoe, and Hillsboro High Schools were all prior to that as well. • Asked how relevant those numbers were given that the Code had changed since the applications were approved. • Ms. Marble replied she was not sure what the parking ratios were back then, but the existing parking ratios in the zoning ordinance clearly were not working because the high schools still had to get variances and adjustments to achieve the existing parking ratios. • Inquired if the City's parking ratios were bad.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 23 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 27 of 104
• Ms. Marble replied, potentially. The Hillsboro School District’s application referenced a school parking study that provided a parking ratio that was higher than the parking ratio the City currently allowed. She noted the Code's minimum and maximum parking standards were exactly the same, providing no leeway whatsoever for schools as an exact number of parking spaces had to be provided. This was atypical for the City's parking Code. Most other businesses, whether commercial or industrial, had a range of minimum and maximum parking ratios. • Asked if any Staff could shed light on where the current parking requirements came from and why they were so out of sync with reality. • Colin Cooper, Planning Director, replied the parking requirement numbers had been in the CDC for some time. When the current Code was adopted in 2014, the parking standards were not changed and likely reflected the international traffic engineering parking standards combined with Metro standards that originally required all local jurisdictions to adopt minimum and maximum parking standards. Staff would be happy to follow up on the issue. He noted Ms. Marble did a good job trying to demonstrate the balance in relationship to the demand. • Ms. Marble added the District map showed how spread out the district was for Glencoe High School. A fair amount of students traveled to the high school on foot, but a large number definitely lived too far to get to the high school on foot or by bike. Alternatives like bicycling to school might not be safe because many students live in rural areas. Driving was the only option for some students, along with busing. Because Glencoe High School had many students who lived outside of the city in more rural areas, the school had a greater parking need. • Confirmed that the east end of the south parking lot would be extended farther east, adding he would ask the Applicant how far east the lot would be expanded. • Ms. Marble confirmed the lot would extend to the Douglas firs. A displayed map showed the existing parking lot and drive aisle; the trees that had to be removed to accommodate the new parking lot were indicated with orange highlight. • Mr. Cooper clarified that the Applicant could confirm how many parking spaces would be added by extending the parking lot into the Significant Natural Resource (SNR). • Noted a finding on Page 10 stated, "Because the school expansion would serve up to 400 more students, the City Engineer has determined that additional on-site parking is required to limit queuing impacts on Glencoe Road" however, the Applicant's statement dated this month stated the City Engineer had not weighed in on that issue. He asked if there was a report from the City Engineer. • Ms. Marble replied none of the reasons that allowed for an increase in parking were applicable to the site because they were all specific to different uses, industrial properties, etc. • Mr. Barry confirmed no document existed in the Staff report from the City Engineer. However, the City Engineer had reviewed the application and provided his comments to Staff, who had consolidated the information into the report, so a discussion had taken place, but no formal document existed in the Staff report from the City Engineer. He noted Joseph Auth from the City’s Transportation Planning team or the Applicant’s traffic engineer might be able to speak in more detail to address Commissioner Bennett’s concern about the inconsistency.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 24 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 28 of 104
Commissioner Shortt: • Asked if the parking numbers were the same for all elementary, middle, and high schools. • Ms. Marble answered no, and confirmed more parking was allocated for high schools. • Noted the question was pertinent as to why the expansion was taking place or why the numbers were not correct. Obviously, there would be differences between them. • Ms. Marble clarified elementary and middle school parking was measured per classroom, probably assuming that the person driving would be the teacher. Different minimums and maximums existed for elementary and middle schools. For high school, the requirement was .2 parking spaces per student and full-time employee, and that was same for the minimum and maximum.
President Fleisher asked if protected and/or secure parking for bicycles was provided, adding that such protections might encourage people to ride bicycles. • Ms. Marble believed a bicycle rack was provided, but deferred to the Applicant to describe the type of bicycle parking.
President Fleisher confirmed the Commission had no further questions and confirmed Staff had no petitions or letters to submit. He then called for the Applicant's testimony.
CJ Doxsee, Angelo Planning Group, representing the Hillsboro School District, introduced the project team and highlighted the team’s upcoming presentations. The Applicant was proposing some site improvements to Glencoe High School, the bulk of which would be the reconfiguration of the northern and southern parking lots. The proposal would add a little over 20,000 sq ft, allowing for about 15 new classrooms and an increase in the total capacity by 400 students and 30 Staff. Also proposed were 100 additional parking spaces, subject to a major adjustment for which Staff had recommended approval. Bike parking was also subject to a major adjustment due to the underutilization of the existing bike spaces. No additional bicycle parking was proposed, and Staff also recommended approval of this major adjustment. • Half-street improvements were also proposed to Glencoe Rd, which included improving the northbound travel lane, a new buffered bike lane, and a sidewalk, and meeting the conditions to replace the pedestrian signal with a full signal at the northern driveway entrance.
Jason Karam, BLRB Architects, noted the current school was about 40 years old and mostly tilt- concrete construction, which did not allow for a lot of transparency in the school. A separate building housed the cafeteria on the west side of the site and would remain. The building had a wood frame construction which offered a little more transparency. It also had a basement, where offices and storage were currently located. The two-story portion on the south part of the building contained general education classrooms. • His team had looked at providing more transparency in the school for security and safety, and making a connection to the standalone cafeteria building. The school had requested general education classrooms, a science lab and classrooms, a weight room addition, team rooms for athletics, health science classrooms for career technical education, roughly 6,000 sq ft for the cafeteria addition, as well as new parking and parking lot lighting. • Referencing displayed site elevations, he presented the proposed building addition and related structure improvements with these key comments:
Planning Commission Minutes Page 25 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 29 of 104
• The primary entrance was on the south side of the building and most visitors would come in through the new vestibule. Currently, no vestibule existed nor a lot of safety and security. He noted the south parking lot would be mostly for staff and visitors, and the north parking lot would be for students. • The new entrance would have a double-height canopy with a lot of glazing in the front to bring in more light to the classrooms and media center. • The addition would be two stories high to match the scale and massing of the existing building and would be more transparent along with the higher level of security. • The administration office would be renovated for better circulation, and the classrooms on the second floor would be renovated. • Classrooms would be located in the new entry addition, and the media center, currently located on the second floor of the existing building, would be relocated into the addition for better community access and be made more efficient, as it would be reduced from approximately 10,000 sq ft to 7,000 sq ft. • An existing covered walkway would be utilized to connect to the cafeteria which would essentially enclose the campus so students did not leave the building to go to lunch. The cafeteria expansion would have a double-height space to match the scale of the existing building, and the windows would provide views of all the trees on the north side of the site. • With student parking lot on the north side of the building, a new vestibule area would act as a new entrance for the students. Currently, students used an unmarked door. • The existing concrete building did not have much relief, and while the design team tried to keep the massing and height of the building the same, they also tried to add some more relief into the building and make it more visible to the interior. • Because the proposed improvements would displace the current weight room, a new weight room facility would be built that faced Glencoe Rd and the high school’s fields, which had already been renovated with new turf.
Mr. Doxsee highlighted the issues raised during the planning process that the Applicant had addressed as follows: • The tree removal in the southeast area had been brought to the Applicant's attention relatively recently, and in an effort to address those concerns, the District sought to redesign the area and had brought on an arborist to assess the trees and advise on construction practices that would minimize impacts to the trees. The arborist found the trees were diseased and the District made a commitment to work with the neighbors to mitigate the trees accordingly. Ms. Hamilton had drafted a condition that would provide guidance on how the District could address the matter. • Another issue regarded the adjacency to the neighbors of the north parking lot. Ms. Hamilton had described the landscaping standards that would mitigate the issue. He anticipated the discussion would be similar to the issues raised about the Evergreen project. • He noted no proposed changes would be made to the curb line of the north parking lot, but the existing parallel parking would change to head-in parking. More importantly, with the new design the bulk of the parking would shift away from that area. • The north parking lot design was the basis for a lot of discussion and collaboration between the City and the District's design team in terms of improving safety, circulation, and the ability for queueing on site, as well as reducing the possibility of spill back onto Glencoe Rd.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 26 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 30 of 104
• As noted, the Applicant would be working with Washington County to submit applications to do half-street improvements on Glencoe Rd to include an improved northbound travel lane, a buffered bike lane, sidewalk, and, as conditioned by the City, to replace the pedestrian signal with a new traffic signal. • Regarding the question raised about the City Engineer's determination regarding the need for parking, he believed it was a typo of sorts or an error in updating the application. The Applicant originally submitted the application in December for completeness review and the parking numbers were updated in the narrative as a result of the collaborative efforts to redesign the north parking lot; however, that particular section had not been updated. He apologized for the miscommunication, noting City Staff were correct in their response to the issue. • He understood no protected or secured bike parking existed on site. The bike parking was currently located next to the main entrance, and the plan was to reuse that parking in its current location. • The Applicant agreed with Staff's recommended approval of the conditional use, the development review and of both major adjustments. They also agreed with Staff's recommended conditions of approval, as well as one more condition that was created collaboratively during the recess that he would like entered into the record.
John Howarth, 3J Consulting, elaborated on the new condition mentioned by Mr. Doxsee. As noted, the arborist's report stated that the Douglas fir trees on the south side of the south parking lot were diseased and recommended their removal. In light of that new information, the Applicant wanted to be good neighbors and provide some sort of mitigation for the loss of trees. The District's representatives, including Mr. Stewart, reached out to the neighbors who have been in discussions and collaborating on the issues, even throughout this evening. • The project team along with the neighbor to the south who had brought up the tree issue, recommended a new condition of approval to ensure the trees were addressed specifically, because Staff's conditions of approval referred to the arborist's recommendation of replanting fir trees. The Applicant also wanted the landscape architect, in conjunction with the neighbors, to weigh in on exactly what type of plant material might be used to reestablish the site-obscuring nature of the trees. • The proposed new condition of approval would state, "Prior to issuance of the PUP, the Applicant shall provide a revised landscape plan adjacent to Tax Lots 8400 and 8500 to include, at a minimum 8- to 10-ft high arborvitae and/or an 8- to 10-ft high incense cedar or other similar planting material to provide site-obscuring mitigation due to the loss of the existing fir trees." • On a displayed site plan, the south parking lot was shown in the lower right-hand corner of the lower diagram. He confirmed maple trees were located just west of the south parking lot along other tax lots. The arborist's report also recommended that the maple trees be removed and replaced with new trees from the planting plan, as shown in the application material.
Mr. Doxsee concluded the Applicant’s presentation by requesting that the Planning Commission accept Staff's recommendation for approval.
Commissioner Bennett asked how far east of the existing south parking lot would the new south parking lot be located. • Mr. Doxsee replied the new parking lot would extend 35 ft to the east.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 27 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 31 of 104
• Brian Feeney, 3J Consulting, explained the curb bump-out was about 35 ft and the grade transition extended it a bit farther. The main reason was to add some parking there, but also to add queuing capacity for additional buses needed to accommodate the increase in students and avoid having the buses back up onto Glencoe Rd.
President Fleisher: • Confirmed the Applicant had conducted hydrologic stormwater and runoff calculations, and asked how much water would flow into the Glencoe Swale, the wetlands next to the high school and at what time. • Mr. Feeney replied currently the entire site drained into Glencoe Swale and the site would continue to drain to the east. The runoff was piped into three existing outlets, and any expanded areas would be connected back to those outlets. Currently, the new fields created last summer had new stormwater treatment facilities, but the rest of the site was untreated. Because of the expanded parking lots and disturbed area, water from the entire site, including from the parking lot and roof areas, would be treated onsite before being discharged into the creek. • The water quality would change and the quantity would remain the same. The runoff would be undetained, but the downstream analysis showed the treatment was adequate and all the pipes could handle 25-year to 100-year storm events. • Noted as a retired architect, he wanted to discuss the weight room addition. He agreed the existing, tilt-up concrete school was bland. The proposed front entrance was semi-elegant, so he questioned why the Applicant would put a red shed on the side of the building. • Mr. Feeney replied the shed was located there due to the proximity to the three existing gymnasiums and locker rooms. The weight room’s proposed location was also good for the connectivity to the recently-redone fields along Glencoe Rd. That location also meant no parking areas had to be removed. The shed reflected the schools’ branding with the Crimson Tide school color and the Glencoe High School logo, which provided more of a presence along the street. • Stated the shed was certainly distinctive, but he believed the shed would be an eyesore. • Inquired about using the strip of parking on the double-loaded aisle just above the tennis courts and removing the north parking spaces. He asked if that would damage the Applicant’s request for a .22 parking ratio. • Mr. Doxsee replied the request for the .22 parking ratio was driven by the need for student parking. Currently, a lottery system was used for student parking permits but more than 50 and possibly over 100 students every year did not qualify. The parking needed to be expanded to accommodate those students and the increase in Staff. The design team looked at maximizing every possible portion of the site. Removing the north parking spaces would be detrimental to the project due to the difficulty in finding parking elsewhere on the site. • Believed a lottery for student parking was an excellent idea, and addressed Commissioner Bennett's question about how the District was managing parking, driving, and access in the future. • Mr. Doxsee confirmed a good number of students were not currently allowed to park at Glencoe High School due to the lack of parking space. The expectation was that the students parked in the surrounding neighborhoods. One of the issues that was pointed out was that the northern access between the neighborhood and high school was heavily used by –
Planning Commission Minutes Page 28 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 32 of 104
• Interjected stating, students did not park there because signage prohibited it. He lived there and noted students were picked up there by their parents in the afternoon. • Asked if the removal of the 20 parking spaces would have a significantly detrimental and harmful impact to Glencoe High School. • Mr. Doxsee replied he would not use the word "significant", but the Applicant wanted to maximize the amount of parking. • Understood, but noted the Commission did not want to maximize the damage to the neighbors. There was very little clearance between the parked cars and the neighbors' properties. The curb line was shown, but not the bumper overhang, so the cars' headlights would be about 6 inches from the fence. • Mr. Feeney replied currently, the buffer was 7-ft wide and the vehicle overhang was 18 inches. The existing curb line was roughly in the same location. During the reconstruction, the curb would be moved about 1 ft, but the existing curb would not allow for much expansion. • Asked what the impact on the neighbors would be with the proposed landscaping and layout. • Mr. Feeney replied the conditions were very similar to those with the Evergreen Middle School project. Landscaping had already been suggested to provide screening and would enhance the area and make it better than it was today. He confirmed the neighbors' backyards were already fenced. • Ms. Marble stated no condition currently required additional fencing, and the application did not specify what type of fencing currently existed. She confirmed the same landscape requirement applied to the Glencoe project as on the Evergreen site, which required a 4- ft perimeter landscaping buffer be planted with an evergreen hedge that would be 4 ft to 6 ft tall at maturity.
Commissioner Fuentes: • Asked if the Applicant's team agreed that in comparison to the rest of the high schools in the District, Glencoe was more of a commuter high school, so kids traveled farther to reach the school, like from North Plains. • Mr. Doxsee replied he was not familiar enough with the other schools to be able to answer that question. • Mr. Sweeney said that generally, he agreed with Staff that the site was on the edge of town, so students and others commute from farther out than normal. • Stated North Plains did not have a high school and that community continued to grow. He wanted to confirm there was a need for the additional parking at Glencoe High School. • Mr. Sweeney said that was correct, adding that with the anticipated expansion and the ultimate build out of North Plains, there would be additional students. A new elementary school was being planned for the North Plains area, which was expanding very similarly to South Hillsboro, and the new homes in North Plains would feed into Glencoe High. The entire proposed expansion was for the ultimate build-out for the maximum students anticipated at the school; therefore, additional parking was needed.
Commissioner Shortt: • Asked how many parallel or angled parking spaces could be added there, so the cars would not be directly adjacent to someone's backyard.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 29 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 33 of 104
• Mr. Sweeney estimated about 12 parallel parking spaces could fit there, and a bit more if the spots were angled. However, parking on that side of the road would be angled towards Glencoe Rd, and drivers would need to go past the parking spots and loop back around to park, so it was not a functional design for angled parking. He confirmed the 12 parallel parking spaces would reduce the proposed parking by eight spaces. • He noted the current proposal for the north parking lot was bit different than originally proposed because Staff did not believe the Applicant had solved all the issues of at least the parent drop-off and the flow of the parking lot. The redesign meant the loss of 15 to 18 stalls, but with Staff's help, a better site plan was created for that area. • Understood the shortage of parking because she had kids who attended Glencoe High School. She believed doing something to prevent headlights from shining into the adjacent backyards was a strong good-neighbor policy. Often, the Commission was working to find a balance between two parties. • Mr. Sweeney agreed, adding the same issue would exist with parallel parking as with angled parking, because to legally parallel park, drivers would have to bypass the parking, turn around and approach from the opposite direction, crossing the flow of traffic. • Mr. Doxsee pointed out students would primarily use this portion of the parking area during daylight hours, so light trespass was not a great concern. During sporting or other after-school events, drivers would first use the southern parking area where the possibility of light trespass was not nearly as much of an issue as in the north lot. If the northern parking lot was used for after-school events, drivers would be more likely to park closest to the sports field or to the building itself in the portion of the parking lot that would be shifted westward.
President Fleisher: • Noted the track meets were held on the field to the right and the band practiced there. It was a heavily-used secondary field. • Stated he was perplexed by the bathroom design in the cafeteria and asked if it was appropriate to have a bathroom right next to food service and eating areas. • Mr. Sweeney replied the bathroom layout was a collaboration between the District, his team, and another architecture team that developed the standards for the restrooms, which were also gender-inclusive. • He believed only two toilets currently existed in the entire cafeteria. The proposed restrooms would add a much-needed stall count for the existing and renovated cafeteria The proposed restrooms' sightlines did not allow anyone in the cafeteria to see into the stalls, and privacy existed for the gender-inclusive stalls as well. • He confirmed no sound-absorption materials would be used in the restrooms because hard surfaces, like ceramic tiles, would be used on all wet walls with moisture- resistant gypsum board on other walls. The cafeteria would have sound-absorbing materials, including Tectum ceiling-mounted panels with acoustic clouds hanging below them. • Pointed out there were no urinals in the bathroom. • Mr. Sweeney responded that decision was made with the District and the other architect to make the bathroom all-inclusive and equitable for all users.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 30 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 34 of 104
Vice President Neill: • Believed an equity issue existed with the parking, adding that the other high schools had a larger number of parking spaces for the number of students. Considering the number of students on free or reduced lunch or working at Glencoe High School, the removal of parking spaces affected kids who needed a car to get to a job, or to transfer siblings, or to drive from North Plains, not the rich kid who needed parking for convenience. She was frustrated with the parking proposal. As someone who grew up at Newberg High School where there was never enough parking, she knew kids would literally try to hide their cars in residential areas or try anything else possible because they had these other things to do and had to be at school. Students with children attended Glencoe High School and needed to be able to transport them. When dealing with a high school, the students had to be treated as adults. She was curious why the Applicant's team did not try to fit in more parking out of respect for the number of students they proposed putting on the campus. • Mr. Sweeney reiterated that originally, about 15 additional stalls were planned in the north parking lot, but it had to be redesigned because of queueing and other issues Staff noted. Also, the environmental zone was located on the far east side of the site. The Applicant tried to squeeze out as many parking stalls as possible, given the spacing, adequate landscaping, etc. The project team wanted those stalls, but could not go too far into the buffers or the wetlands. They were already encroaching on some of the SNRO areas as would be heard in the next hearing. • Inquired if the tennis courts on the other side were in the SNRO zone. She clarified she was not asking if that could be changed into parking, but a need existed for more parking at Glencoe High School, as heard from the students, and the stakeholders could be asked as well. Was the Applicant optimizing parking for them? • Mr. Sweeney replied they were where possible. The tennis courts were being relocated to add more parking, and no other location existed on the site to put the tennis courts. Staff pointed out raised issues with leaving the tennis courts where they were due to the pedestrian crossing on the north end, which was why the push was made to locate the parking lot as proposed. Many different factors were involved.
Commissioner Bennett: • Understood the existing bicycle racks were not used to their maximum capacity, which could be for a number of reasons, possible old thinking, but if kids who rode bikes were given a bonus in the lottery, they might ride bikes to school to have a better chance of getting a car parking space later. He did not believe bikes should be given a short shrift and wanted to understand why more space was wanted for cars and less for bikes. The school ought to encourage movement in a different direction, rather than relying on vehicles and ignoring alternative means of transportation. He understood Vice President Neill’s comments about kids' realities, but why not encourage them to bike to school. He asked why the District appeared to be discouraging bikes with the request for less bicycle parking and more vehicle parking. • Mr. Doxsee replied the team had done a couple of site visits to observe parking utilization and found the bike racks were about 30 percent used. That number was extrapolated to the current student population and the capacity increase was also factored in. The team found the current supply of bike parking would accommodate the increase with plenty still left over, so the 86 bike parking spaces were enough to meet the current demand, as well any additional growth beyond what was being proposed.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 31 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 35 of 104
• He could only speculate why more students were not biking, but the design was based on the current and future student population. The need for car parking was a serious issue. Although biking was a good mode of transportation to promote and encourage, he did not believe bicycle riding to school was being discouraged by retaining the existing bike parking supply. • Replied that reasonable minds could differ.
Commissioner Sinclair believed a great duality existed with regard to the car and bicycle parking as the community's population increased and urbanization expanded. First of all, the site was more of a rural area for the School District and she believed the Applicant was doing a great job accommodating the current need. She briefly explained the benefits of the Safe Routes to School Program, which included increasing the number of students walking or biking to school, reducing the number driving to school, and improving traffic and environmental factors around school. She noted the City, Hillsboro School District, and Metro all participated in the national program, which took effect in 2016. She would distribute copies of the program to the Commission later tonight. • Mr. Doxsee confirmed he was not aware of the program, but believed Mr. Stewart, the bond managers, and project managers for the overall school projects were aware of it.
President Fleisher confirmed there were no further questions for the Applicant. He thanked the members of the public in the audience for their patience and called for public testimony in favor of, neutral, or opposed to the application.
Christoph Roudin stated the map showed that two-thirds of the land was divided between sports fields and cars. He grew up in a country where his high school had 1,800 students and 400 covered bicycle and moped parking spaces. The driving age in France was 18 and not 16, so students used bicycles or walked. The plan to expand parking lots meant more cars, more pollution, and climate change. • His property was on the southeast corner. When the neighbors were presented with the plan back in October, it looked good. Out of the blue in November, a revision was made to both parking lots and to remove the big fir trees. The trees were part of his property view and their removal would be a big blow. He was unsure if all the SNR permits were in line, but it seemed that by raising a bit of noise, suddenly an arborist showed up and rightly identified that the trees were diseased and therefore, were a danger. He believed it was convenient that it happened at the time the neighbors raised issues with the parking lot moving east into the riparian zone by about 35 ft. • More parking spots led to more dirty drainage water. He was relieved to hear about the water treatment from the Applicant. • He had accepted the arborist's report, but asked if the diseased trees were still structurally sound. The arborist was pretty sure two of them were not sound. The Applicant's suggestion for mitigation seemed to have been proposed this evening, and appeared to be last minute. The mitigation appeared to be adequate if the view to the parking lot could be blocked in some way. • Lighting contributed to pollution. The big field had been improved at the cost of $3.4 million and a good job was done on the lighting, but he did not know how the other neighbors felt about it. The south parking lot was okay right now, but expanding it to the east and including more lighting would cause light pollution, removal of trees, and more traffic. That may be an improvement to the school, but how was it an improvement for the neighborhood?
Planning Commission Minutes Page 32 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 36 of 104
Kevin Buckel stated he had written the letter to the Hillsboro Planning Department. He lived on the north side of the north parking lot and the majority of the parking lot adjacent to his house was a one-way drive aisle with about 3½ spots of parallel parking next to his fence. With the current layout, he was exposed to people and engine noise, and his privacy was directly affected by the parking lot. For example, every day the garbage trucks started at 4:45 am, which would not be blocked by the proposed 4-ft tall hedges. Currently, a 5-ft tall wood slat fence existed that blocked very little light shade. • The new plan would double the amount of parking and change the area with one-way traffic into two-way traffic. All of the traffic would be directed along his fence line, whereas currently, especially in the morning, the garbage and delivery trucks come in to the south, cut diagonally across to the cafeteria, and did not come close to the neighbors’ fences. Now, all of the traffic coming in and out of the site would be directly outside his fence. • The tennis courts would be located between the most distant parking and the school structure. Pushing all the parking away from the school did not seem beneficial for student supervision. • He asked what the official hours were for the campus and at what times it was supervised. At 10 pm the day before the Presidents Day holiday, over a dozen cars were in the north parking lot. There did not appear to be any supervision or any official posted times. He noticed the gate onto Glencoe Rd was locked only intermittently. • He asked if the two or three fences that existed on the school side of the property would remain or be removed when the hedges were planted. • He noted a comment from the architect for the middle school application was very interesting. She said that she was hired to look out for the greatest benefit of the school, not necessarily the neighborhood. He asked how that attitude made the school a good neighbor. The residents nearby were supposed to be good neighbors to the school. The school should act the same way toward them. • He had heard earlier that the South Hillsboro build out would feed into Glencoe High School, and he wanted to confirm whether that was truly the plan.
Joseph Johnston stated his backyard faced the entrance on the south side of Glencoe High School. He had lived there since the summer of 1997. He pointed out that when the parking was full, drivers would park in the surrounding neighborhood. He had been collecting parking data since September and knew which cars belonged to students or their parents. He took photos of the front and the back of the cars and of the license plates and recorded them in a spreadsheet. He knew what days were easy days and what days were difficult for parking. • The new weight room was located on the west side where Glencoe High School's band trailers were parked. The trailers were large to accommodate band gear and would need to be parked somewhere. • He could see the bicycle rack on the south side of Glencoe High School's entrance from his kitchen and had never seen more than three or four bicycles locked to the racks since the summer of 1997. Bikes were not used like they used to be. He rode his bike until he got his license and a car. Students today preferred cars because they were comfortable, warm, and protected them from rain. Hardly anyone rode bikes any more. Students use cars; they work, drive home, and were part of transportation.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 33 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 37 of 104
• His neighborhood was loaded up with parking because it was a drop-off zone because the north parking lot was difficult to use. He had tracked the data for drop-off and pick-up since September. The average morning drop-off meant about 35 cars were in his neighborhood. The peak was in the high 60s. The numbers were much lower in the afternoon. The difficulty was that cars were parked anywhere, like in front of the mailboxes and in the driveway. Some drivers were rude when parking in his driveway and would ask him if he could wait to leave his garage because they were waiting for a student. He had seen seven cars at once having difficulty getting out of his cul-de-sac. His own cars parked at the curb had been struck four times in nine years from inattentive drivers. • Parking, pick-up, and drop-off were the issues. He was pleased the north side was being reworked and the flow was much better. He hoped the revisions would make it easier.
Commissioner Bennett: • Understood from Mr. Johnston’s comments about parking in his cul-de-sac that he was in favor of additional parking on the site. • Mr. Johnston replied more parking would be helpful, or possibly the lottery system needed to be changed and things made easier for vehicles, especially for parents and students. Twenty-two loaded buses came to campus and parked about 8 ft to 10 ft away from his house. He did not open his windows in the afternoons because of the diesel exhaust. The buses were now turning off their engines, which was better, but the direction on the south side for the buses was much improved and farther away. However, parking was an issue and would be a greater issue for other activities like sports and homecoming. • Asked how heavily the parking lots were used during special events like basketball games. • Mr. Johnston replied when the parking lots filled, drivers came into the neighborhoods and parked anywhere. It could be a basketball game or an after-school activity and, depending on the event, sometimes cars were parked there until about 10 pm when the gates closed and there was no way to get out.
Vice President Neill thanked him for collecting the data and being able to give the Commission empirical evidence of what he had observed in his neighborhood.
President Fleisher noted the audience member was substantiating Mr. Johnston's testimony.
Cecily Huson stated she lived at the southeast corner of the parking lot where the proposal would encroach upon the wetlands, an area that was very important to her. The proposed plan would push the bus line right behind her house where she had a view of the wetlands and the beautiful fir trees. • The buses were heavy-use vehicles and vibrated her house when they went by and, they would travel very close to the wetland. She believed the report on the impact of the encroachment on the wetlands was very vague and asked how many parking spots and bus spaces would be gained by the encroachment upon the wetland. • The neighbors discovered last week after receiving the public hearing notice that the fir trees would be cut down. The picture that was sent with the public notice showed the trees still standing. Later, she discovered that the Applicant had not mentioned cutting trees in the application. As stated in the Staff report, the trees were far in excess of 24 inches in diameter. She did not understand why the trees were not discussed with the neighbors, but it was irrelevant now because the trees were diseased.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 34 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 38 of 104
• She strongly believed if the parking lot was pushed back into the wetlands, the Applicant should absolutely have to mitigate. The parking lot was being pushed closer to her fence line but the Applicant had been working with her and the neighbors affected by the plan to provide larger trees than what was proposed. Currently, a 2½ inch diameter tree was proposed, but she believed a condition of approval was added later for building, which was very important.
President Fleisher confirmed there were no questions from the Commissioners and called for the Applicant's rebuttal.
Adam Stewart, Chief Financial Officer, Hillsboro School District, clarified the new South Hillsboro development would not feed into Glencoe High School. The District anticipated having to build a new high school in South Hillsboro in the future. The new growth anticipated would be from North Plains and Cornelius where a lot of development was happening. • He did not have the opening and closing times for the school, but added that not all of the use was school use, especially with the new turf fields being used by the community after school hours and on weekends, which was the intent.
President Fleisher noted that at the last hearing, Mr. Stewart stated there was an increased emphasis on security on school campuses and asked if a defined time existed or would be created for when the gates would be locked. • Mr. Stewart stated he would meet with the building principal for information on opening and closing times. The zero-period classes often started before regular classes and activities could go until 10 pm.
Mr. Doxsee clarified the proposed location of the tennis courts, rather than locating them closer to the northern property line, provided close proximity to the gyms and was beneficial to the students. The desire was to keep the students from crossing parking areas for safety reasons.
Mr. Karam stated students used the north entrance as the primary one, but once the team room with a new vestibule was added on the west side of the building, most of the parking would be located where the tennis courts currently were. Also, the circulation for students would be redirected.
Mr. Stewart noted part of the reason band trailers were parked where they were currently was because the students had to access them daily to retrieve their band instruments.
Mr. Karam indicated a new area for band parking and noted that the building exit was nearby. Some areas on the interior had been identified for renovation to create band storage. It was hoped the number of trailers could be reduced as well.
Mr. Doxsee clarified the plans currently showed no changes to the fencing located on the northern property line. The Applicant would look at improving the fence's sight obscurity with the proposed landscaping.
President Fleisher inquired if the Applicant would agree to a condition similar to the one placed on the Evergreen Middle School project requiring an opaque fence and appropriate plantings as a good-neighbor policy. • Mr. Doxsee replied that appeared to be a workable solution last time.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 35 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 39 of 104
• Mr. Barry confirmed Staff would replicate the condition from the Evergreen project for this application.
Commissioner Bennett: • Noted the area where the conflict between pedestrians and vehicles was reduced and asked what burden would be placed on the Applicant if a gate was installed on the north side, near the northwest corner of the tennis courts, that closed at 6 pm to prevent parking in the back lot. • Mr. Doxsee replied he could not say what the impact would be because he was unaware of how the sports fields at the northeast of the site were programmed or their usage. • Mr. Stewart stated he did not know either, but he believed it would force people to park in the western parking lot and walk over to the football field and the track. He confirmed a greenhouse was located there on the back side. • Believed closing the gate would solve the problem of light trespass in the neighbors' yards because the back parking lot would not be accessible after dark. • Mr. Stewart stated he would like to speak to the building principal before committed to such a change. • Mr. Doxsee confirmed the fire access was located along the northern drive aisle and extended south along the eastern perimeter of the building clear to the cafeteria area. Any sort of gate would need to have fire access mechanisms, which he confirmed was possible. • Asked if parking adjacent to neighboring yards could be limited to daylight hours, adding the challenge would be keeping people out of there even if it was posted. If a space was available people would park there. • Mr. Karam noted the football fields needed parking as well, and the principal had said the cafeteria expansion would be utilized for the dance team and other extracurricular activities. Because those assembly spaces were used for other events, that parking would be needed. • Responded he understood that; he was trying to explore solutions to keep light from shining into neighboring properties.
Vice President Neill: • Understood that Glencoe High School had programming from outside of the Hillsboro School District that generated an income through rental of certain spaces. Because the facilities were public use spaces, she expected the school was working with the City of Hillsboro and Parks and Recreation. She asked if the Applicant would consider it detrimental to their ability to rent out and generate income from those spaces if they did not have applicable parking spaces for the attendees. • Mr. Stewart replied the District made a big effort with the current bond and previous bonds to create community spaces, so having adequate parking was important. • Asked if the District had a security officer on campus 24 hours a day, based on how the spaces were used. • Mr. Stewart replied a security monitoring team monitored all of the District's campuses but were not on site 24 hours a day. Electronic security systems were located in the building and School Resource Officers (SROs) were on campus.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 36 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 40 of 104
President Fleisher: • Stated it appeared the Applicant was creating some situations in the southeast corner. He noted certain instances in the Applicant's plans for both Glencoe High School and Evergreen Middle School where they had not paid much attention to the neighbors. He hoped that with the Commission's urging things would improve. • Understood from the arborist report that the fir trees were diseased, so the trees could have blown down, possibly onto the neighbors' properties. • Asked if the Applicant could soften the impact of the big yellow school buses in the driveway right behind the neighbors' houses. • Mr. Stewart replied that according to the Applicant’s proposed new condition, fencing would be installed and an arborvitae hedge and trees would be planted. • Said it appeared from the plan that something, possibly the sidewalk, was hard up against the property line and did not leave much space for a buffer. • John Howarth, 3J Consulting, stated President Fleisher's comments and concerns were valid, which was why the Applicant's team had come to the table with the neighbors. It was also why the Applicant's team had not come up with an exact plan. They wanted to work with the neighbors on a plan that met their approval and lessened the impact of the removal of the fir trees on the neighbors. Removing trees was not an easy thing to do and not something the team wanted to do inadvertently at the last hour. • He took responsibility for the lack of clarity on the tree issue, adding his team had been doing several projects very quickly throughout the District to deliver the bond in a timely fashion and some things were missed. The problem had nothing to do with the District, but when his team found out about it, they wanted to take care of it immediately. The team was trying to do the best it could with the neighbors and would not propose something the neighbors might not want to live with, which was why they proposed a condition and were working with the neighbors already. He was being somewhat flexible, but still providing some certainty so that the neighbors understood the difficulty in hiding a big yellow bus because buses needed to be visible for safety on the highway. It was a catch 22. His team wanted to make sure to maintain as much screening as possible in a responsible way for the neighboring properties.
Mr. Cooper asked if the Commission had received clarity from the Applicant on the conditions of approval the Commission wanted to impose that might not be in the Staff report. He reviewed the additional conditions and topics as follows: • He noted Mr. Howarth had given Staff the condition he read into the record concerning additional landscaping along the south property line. • The Commission also requested that a condition, similar to the one imposed on Evergreen Middle School, be imposed for additional screening along for the northern property line for the 90-degree parking adjacent to the residences. • He asked if the Commission had consensus on gating the parking lot, noting Mr. Stewart had said he wanted the principal to weigh in before agreeing to that condition. It would be difficult for the School District to agree to the condition tonight without the principal's input. He noted that gating the parking lot would not negate the Code requirement to provide the landscaping and the fence.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 37 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 41 of 104
• He confirmed the condition requiring landscaping on the northern property was agreeable to the Applicant and a nonissue at this time. He sought consensus from the Commission about gating the parking lot, so the Applicant could acknowledge whether they agreed with the condition as well.
Commissioner Bennett stated the Commission did not need the Applicant's consent to condition their application, though it might be polite to consult them. • Mr. Cooper agreed that was true. He noted that during the Applicant's rebuttal, the Commission could ask clarifying questions about a proposed condition relative to the public testimony without adding new information. He was suggesting the Commission be consistent with the process used during the Evergreen Middle School hearing and ask the Applicant the question. He added that a number of procedural issues would be reviewed in an upcoming work session.
Vice President Neill asked what kind of constraints would be placed upon the Applicant if a gate to be closed at a specific time was installed at the entrance to the parking lot with the spaces that faced into the neighbors' yards. Would the school be able to enforce it? Would it cause financial duress? Could it work? • Mr. Stewart reiterated that it would reduce access to the play fields to the east, and less parking would be available on major event evenings. He would rather convert those spaces to parallel or diagonal parking and not lose them entirely. He preferred to not restrict access to that area with a gate. • Mr. Howarth clarified one reason for moving the tennis court location was to provide safer, more adequate circulation on site and to move most of the parking to the west. Circulation was a big issue, and a gate would reduce circulation to some degree. Consideration needed to be given to the maintenance, operation, and up-front costs of anything added to School District property. The Applicant's team was trying to provide enough off-street parking that was outside of the adjacent neighborhood, and do the best they could at mitigating any issues such as light trespass, which he hoped would not occur very often in that location. • He noted a similar experience in his neighborhood where headlights were shining into neighbors' yards and a request was made for signage to limit parking in those spaces to certain times. Something similar could be done in the evenings on the subject property at Glencoe High School. Some simple signage might be sufficient.
President Fleisher confirmed there were no further questions for the Applicant and closed the public hearing. He called for the Commission's deliberation.
Commissioner Bennett stated he had offered the gate as one solution, but was not adamant about it. A compromise was needed to balance the interest of the School District to have a functional parking area and the neighbors concerned about headlights shining in their backyards. One option was to follow the example from the condition placed on the Evergreen project to require some kind of fencing and decent landscaping. • He believed that this project was compromised compared to Evergreen's because the planting strip between the parking spaces and the fence was not very big. Light would spill into the backyards, there would be engine noise, and noise from kids getting in and out of cars. His suggestion was to gate that lot for a limited time to at least limit the pollution that comes from vehicles being so close to the neighbors' backyards.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 38 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 42 of 104
• Another alternative was to remove those 20 spaces, but the testimony tonight had been very clear that Glencoe High School needed additional parking even though the Code did not allow it. The Commission was trying to accommodate a School District that was asking for 100 extra spaces, an 18 percent increase, with people owning property next door, so the options needed to be discussed further.
Vice President Neill believed the issue was one of equity. She felt sincere empathy for the neighbors because she had grown up next to a high school. • She noted Glencoe High School already had to follow the quiet hours the City required by law and in Code, and the Planning Commission could not add or subtract from that. The high school and its sounds had been there the entire time and changing 20 parking spots would have zero impact on the amount of sound. • She understood the issue with car headlights and believed the solution was to require the School District to offer mitigation through landscaping, a berm, or whatever was needed to help the neighbors. However, that issue already existed prior to this project and asking the Applicant to do something about a preexisting issue was where the Commission would start to have problems. • She did not believe a gate was a viable option to close off the parking because it was asking the Commission to get into the business of legislating the use of public school buildings and property.
Commissioner Shortt appreciated the idea of limiting the hours of parking close to the property lines of the neighbors on the other side of the fence and suggested signage listing the hours and regulations. It was the least obtrusive solution and did not remove any parking spots. The 20 parking spaces would not be missed at night; however, they would be greatly missed during the day. She confirmed the limit to parking should be in addition to the landscape buffer. • She had light in her backyard at times at night and hated it. The parking lot would generate a lot of light and the Commission had to listen to what the citizens were telling them and try to find a compromise. The easiest one to employ would probably be setting certain hours for parking. The other compromise might be parallel parking, so headlights did not shine into the backyards. • She confirmed that conditioning signage to restrict parking to a certain time was within the Commission's authority. She noted that if a sign stated cars would be towed during certain hours, the neighbors could report any violations. Enforcement would not have to be conducted by just the school. She understood it might not create harmony, but it would address a big problem that had few solutions.
President Fleisher believed the gate was a creative idea but was concerned that the access led around the other side of the school and might be important for a number of reasons. He would favor the signage and a buffer. The parents and the kids would recognize that parking there was not allowed at certain times.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 39 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 43 of 104
Commissioner Sinclair noted Glencoe High School and Evergreen Middle School had different setups and a different proximity since students, staff, and employees used the campuses differently. She reviewed the solutions being considered were to install signage instead of a gate to address the flow of traffic and when parking would be accessible, and, as the Applicant stated previously, installing fencing and hedges that would grow 4 ft to 6 ft tall to provide a dense screen for the neighbors. She understood the Applicant had also mentioned trellises as being a solution through this process. She asked if the fencing would be the same as that conditioned at Evergreen, since the Commission was trying to set a standard and received confirmation that the Evergreen condition had required opaque fencing.
President Fleisher said he did not recall any discussion about trellises.
Mr. Barry clarified there were three additional conditions of approval. The first was the condition the Applicant provided regarding the landscaping for the southern property line, the second condition replicated the condition imposed on the Evergreen Middle School application for a 6-ft opaque fence and 6-ft evergreen hedge along the northern property line. Both conditions seemed to have consensus from the Commission. • The third condition regarded the parking signage, and he asked the Commission to clarify what hours or times the parking should be restricted so it was not left to Staff’s discretion. He suggested perhaps "dusk to dawn" might be more relatable.
Commissioner Shortt agreed that was appropriate because the restriction would change as the seasons changed.
Vice President Neill noted dusk occurred around 4:30 pm in the middle of winter. She agreed the signage was appropriate, but it should reflect other parking signage in the city. She listed several after-school activities that might require 100 percent of the parking.
Commissioner Shortt noted the bulk of people were at the school during school hours.
Vice President Neill stated parking at Glencoe High School would fill up for a basketball game. She was concerned about the Commission imposing a parking restriction not found anywhere else in the City of Hillsboro. She believed the Commission could solve the problem with the tall hedge and thick, opaque fence.
President Fleisher believed this was a different situation and suggested that maybe it was time for a new type of parking restriction.
Vice President Neill said she appreciated innovative techniques but believed the Commission would be restricting the ability of the principal to be the principal of Glencoe High School.
Commissioner Bennett noted only 20 of 500 parking spaces would be restricted.
Vice President Neill asked if the Commission was going to make a condition of approval specifically restricting certain parking spaces from being used during certain hours. Was the Commission going to be that specific?
Planning Commission Minutes Page 40 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 44 of 104
Commissioner Shortt questioned whether the Commission had to specify a time or could the Applicant be conditioned to do a signage plan with time limits of their own choosing.
Vice President Neill said she had suggested the School District come up with specific time limits.
Commissioner Kim stated the issue with being vague was that the decision made might never address the problem heard from the neighbors today about the noise, lights, and etc. The Commission should specifically address those issues just like they did with the fence and the plants. If the decision were left up to someone else, the restriction might be created in a way that was ineffective. He wanted to provide value and protection to the citizens. He believed the situation and issues with the school's parking lot were unique. He had seen dusk-to-dawn parking restriction signs in multiple state and federal parks and he supported that idea, or some sort of restriction. He wanted to be sure to address the concerns the Commission heard from the public tonight.
Commissioner Bennett noted some evidence was heard that those parking areas were empty except for special events, and suggested perhaps, carving out special events.
Vice President Neill expressed concern about the Commission getting into the business of using a condition of approval to legislate every minute of a moment. The Commission would be creating a policy by doing this condition of approval, and legally putting in stone when this property could and could not be used, which was not in the purview of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Bennett stated he completely disagreed. It was the Commission's role in a quasi- judicial hearing to look at the impacts of development and try to deal with those impacts with conditions of approval. Conditioning a half-street improvement on Glencoe Rd and conditioning a proper landscaping buffer were both lawful types of conditions, as long as there was a reasonable relationship between the impact that was created and the condition that was generated to deal with that impact.
Vice President Neill agreed that many times conditions of approval were appropriate, but he was asking the Commission to make a condition of approval that restricted when a space could be used to specific hours of time.
Commissioner Bennett noted the alternative was to not allow the parking spaces.
Vice President Neill countered that the alternative was to allow a different use of the space. She understood the solution for Commissioner Bennett might be to not allow the spaces, but that might not speak for every Commissioner.
Commissioner Bennett replied he understood that, too.
Commissioner Shortt inquired about conditioning it so that the school could specify the hours to prohibit parking in those spaces and then the City could approve or not approve it. She asked how to proceed as the Commission seemed to be at an impasse.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 41 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 45 of 104
Mr. Cooper acknowledged the Commission was debating several items and if they were unable to come to a consensus, they would need to start calling some motions to begin sorting out what solution the Commission wanted to apply to solve the issue, whether it was to restrict hours or remove parking. Someone would need to call the question.
Ms. Marble noted the recent Evergreen Middle School application involved a similar situation where parking faced neighboring property owners. The Commission had required evergreen hedges as a buffer, and because of a sidewalk, the landscaping area was 3 ft to 4 ft narrower at Evergreen than at Glencoe High School, which had 7-ft of landscape area, so Glencoe had potential for more landscaping. A condition that would additionally restrict the use or remove parking at Glencoe seemed disproportionate to the Evergreen situation, which had a very similar parking situation with less landscaping. The Commission had allowed that parking with only a fence and one row of hedges.
Commissioner Shortt noted Glencoe High School was also a different demographic with older kids and a lot more activity, cars, and people. She asked for the Commissioners' opinions on the parallel parking idea, which would require no signage and would limit headlights shining into someone's backyard.
Vice President Neill stated the Commission should move on, adding that she was willing to concede to conditioning signs that restrict the use from dusk to dawn for the 20 parking spots, and that it would be beneficial to ask the other Commissioners for their opinions on the idea.
President Fleisher confirmed the other Commissioners agreed with the idea. He asked Staff about the status of preparing the conditions.
Mr. Barry confirmed the two conditions related to the landscaping had been written, and he felt comfortable with drafting the language for the third condition regarding the parking signage based on the input provided by the Planning Commission.
Vice President Neill moved approval of Order No. 8284, including the three new conditions of approval as discussed by the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Shortt. Motion passed unanimously.
F. Significant Natural Resource Permit 001-19: Glencoe High School Addition & Site Improvements Applicant: CJ Doxsee, Angelo Planning Group Legal: Tax Lot 100 on Washington County Assessor’s Tax Map 1N3-25DA and Tax Lot 12800 on Washington County Assessor’s Tax Map 1N3-25AD Request: Consider approving an Order for site improvements and a building addition encroaching into the Significant Natural Resource Overlay (SNRO) and compensatory mitigation. Order No. 8285 was available. (Staff: Sarah Bruce).
A video was played narrating the ORS conduct of a hearing format.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 42 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 46 of 104
Sarah Bruce, Planner, read the substantive approval criteria and presented via PowerPoint the Staff report dated February 20, 2019 in the regular packet and the supplemental Staff report dated February 26, 2019. Copies were provided at the back of the room, but she believed they had all been taken. The consultant's SNRO map, Figure 3C in the SNRO assessment report, was inadvertently included in the packet twice. • She reviewed the Applicant’s proposed encroachments into the SNRO, as well as the encroachments resulting from additional improvements requested by the fire department and due to some trenching for a utility. The condition of approval relating to addressing any additional encroachments was worded in such a way as to account for any the potential changes. • Staff had received no letters of testimony on the Significant Natural Resource Permit (SNRP) application, although a lot of interest was shown by the neighbors adjacent to the site, particularly about the trees in the southern portion of the site. • There had been questions about the relationship between the Glencoe Swale letter of map revision and process with FEMA. She clarified that this project had no influence on the elevation of the base flood and involved no flood plain activity. The site was entirely above the base flood elevation and was completely unrelated to the letter of map revision. • She concluded noting the proposed conditions of approval in both the February 20th and February 26th Staff reports, and the revised findings from the February 26th Staff report, adding Exhibits C and D were unchanged.
President Fleisher noted the Applicant had some issues with its edges of neighborhoods and now he discovered the Applicant was obligated to mitigate. He asked if the two applications could be combined to get the maximum result that would improve the conditions, so the Applicant’s money would go in the right direction to be good neighbors. • Ms. Bruce replied the SNRP approval criteria did not relate to impacts on neighbors, but rather impacts on the natural resource. Staff was very careful to keep the issues separate so that the impacts on the neighbors would be treated differently from the impacts on the resource. More mitigation would result by keeping the issues separate than addressing them as one piece because the Code specified the mitigation ratios. • Another reason the applications and the impacts of tree removal on adjacent neighbors were addressed separately was because the SNR calculated mitigation based on area and did not account for the age of the trees. Therefore, the approval criteria and the compensatory mitigation required for SNRP approval were met separately and aside from the discussion the Commission just had regarding the trees and screening.
President Fleisher confirmed there were no questions for Staff and that Staff had no additional petitions or letters to submit. He called for the Applicant’s testimony.
CJ Doxsee, Angelo Planning Group, stated his team agreed with Staff's conditions of approval and recommendation for approval. The reason for expanding the parking area to the east was that no room existed elsewhere on the site. Other areas were either developed for an existing building, sports fields were being renovated or being used, and the unused areas were proposed for new uses, particularly parking.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 43 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 47 of 104
• The need for extending the parking area east by about 35 ft was largely driven by the need to store buses. Currently, 27 buses serviced the site and with the proposed expansion, the number would increase to 35. Creating the ability to stack the buses determined a lot of the design of the parking area. Unfortunately, the parking could not be moved easily in any other direction to avoid impacting the SNR. The decision was made because of the other goals necessary to meet the school's objectives. As such, the Applicant was proposing mitigation as described in Staff's presentation. • He acknowledged that identifying some utility lines for impact mitigation on site had been overlooked by the Applicant's team, along with the fire access lanes. The report would be updated to include those two issues. • The current utility lines, specifically water and electrical, were located in between the existing cafeteria building and the main school building where the new cafeteria was proposed to be built. Best practices and a standard by PGE prohibited water lines underneath the new building. The most direct route for the water line connection to the building was used and did have some impacts on the SNR area. • The typical trench width for a water line was 3 ft to 5 ft and a lot of it could be mitigated in place. • He stated that he and his team fully appreciated the effort and collaboration of City Staff for helping make the project as good as it was.
President Fleisher confirmed the Commission had no questions for the Applicant and called for public testimony in favor of, neutral, or opposed to the application.
Christoph Roudin appreciated the spirit of collaboration the neighbors received from City Staff, who had talked to them directly and were cognizant of their concerns. • He had carefully read the arborists' reports, noting two arborists agreed the trees were sick. However, the most recent arborist's report identified 16 trees that were dead or nearly dead. If some old growth trees were removed from the group, the remaining trees would suddenly be exposed to the elements, which the arborist identified as a risk that the remaining trees would fall. • He had noticed the latest arborist had put tags on the trees and identified in his spreadsheet which trees were in fair or poor shape. He wanted the Applicant to commit to keeping the trees identified as in fair or good condition. One tree was 53 inches in diameter and identified as having good structure and being in fair health. • Sixteen of the 21 trees were recommended for removal by the arborist. If that happened, the remaining five trees would need to be monitored carefully by the school for disease and for their general health. He would like a condition imposed to require the school to provide mitigation by planting bigger trees, especially for Cecily Huson's benefit, his neighbor who had testified at an earlier hearing tonight. • He believed efforts regarding the trees were last minute and he wished there was more time to negotiate with the Applicant to determine what was feasible based on professional expertise.
President Fleisher understood the discussions were not over yet and that the Applicant intended to meet with Mr. Roudin and the other neighbors to work out the best plan possible. He believed the Applicant would address Mr. Roudin’s idea of saving a couple trees during rebuttal. • Mr. Roudin replied he wanted to be sure a solid commitment was made by the Applicant.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 44 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 48 of 104
President Fleisher confirmed there was no further public testimony and called for the Applicant's rebuttal.
Mr. Doxsee stated that the District expressed its commitment to work with the neighbors and address their needs as best as possible. He recognized the circumstances regarding the trees were unfortunate. He noted Condition 24 in the supplemental Staff report required the submittal of a landscape plan that showed improvements to that area and required certain specifics, including that the replanting be as close to the felled trees as possible. Discussion had also taken place about keeping the felled trees in place to contribute to the ecosystem. He believed the condition was worded that input from the neighbors was also required. All the information was required prior to receiving the public utility permit. The District was committed to working out the issues, especially considering they were so last-minute.
Ms. Bruce confirmed Mr. Doxsee was correct. She noted the measures to mitigate the loss of trees and screening was applied to the conditional use agreement. Condition 3 addressed the maintenance of the organic matter as a preference for the area that would remain SNR. Also recommended was an arborist's report at project close-out that would address newly exposed trees and recommended an inspection and maintenance schedule to the school.
President Fleisher asked if it would be possible to implement Mr. Roudin's suggestion to keep and monitor some of the trees that were in good or fair condition, rather than clearing them all. • Ms. Bruce clarified Condition 6 required that the Applicant’s arborist’s report provide recommendations and a schedule for ongoing inspections and maintenance to the school.
Commissioner Sinclair recalled that during the previous hearing, the Applicant's team had confirmed stormwater runoff that drained into Glencoe Swale would be treated and filtered. She asked if such treatment was currently taking place. • Ms. Bruce replied stormwater management was not part of the SNRP application.
President Fleisher confirmed there were no further questions or comments from the Commission and closed the public hearing.
Vice President Neill moved approval of Order No. 8285, seconded by Commissioner Shortt. The motion passed unanimously.
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None
VII. NEW BUSINESS – None
VIII. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS OR REPORTS
President Fleisher recommended postponing any reports by the Commission.
Commissioner Shortt stated she had emailed her housing report to the Commissioners.
Commissioner Sinclair noted she would provide copies of the Safe Routes to School program for the Commissioners to read at their leisure.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 45 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 49 of 104
IX. STAFF REPORTS AND INFORMATION A. Administrative Monthly Report (Staff: Chris Barry) President Fleisher confirmed that the Administrative Staff Report could be postponed. He noted that the Planning Commission’s rules of order stated that meetings were not supposed to go past 10:00 pm.
Colin Cooper, Planning Director, noted the rules stated that new hearings were not supposed to be opened after 9 pm and that extending the meeting past 10 pm required a vote of the entire Commission. After consulting with Mr. Barry, Staff chose not to raise the point to allow the process, in which the Commission had invested time, energy, and effort, to continue and not bifurcate the SNRP from the conditional use, which seemed counterproductive. He thanked the Commissioners for their hard work tonight.
X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, President Fleisher adjourned the meeting at 11:18 pm.
______Charles Fleisher, President
ATTEST: ______Gretchen Olson, Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes Page 46 of 46 February 27, 2019
Page 50 of 104
Planning Commission Civic Center Regular Session Auditorium March 13, 2019 150 E. Main Street 6:00 PM Hillsboro
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL President Fleisher called the meeting to order.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fleisher, Neill, Shortt, Fuentes, Sinclair, Bennett
COMMISSIONERS EXCUSED: Kim
STAFF PRESENT: Cooper, Barry, Crampton
II. COMMUNICATIONS & NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Darcy VanderZanden updated that through Representative Janeen Sollman, a bill was presented to the State Legislature asking for ‘employment’ to be removed as a use in Subzone A, so that planning would be addressed by the City of Hillsboro, so the limitations would be removed. She, her husband, and a couple neighbors testified before the legislature and Representative Clem, the author of the original Grand Bargain, assured the issue would be taken care of, but she was not certain what would happen. There was zero opposition in committee. • Many of the neighbors witnessed the work session at City Council to see the interaction with Staff, and she and a couple neighbors also testified with Council after the meeting because Council had recommended moving forward and had agreed the neighborhood could still testify. • She was disturbed that one of Staff’s recommendations to Council was that Industrial did not want Residential across the way; that it would not work. She emphasized that was absolutely not true. For example, Orenco Station was directly across from the huge Ronler Acres Intel campus, and Hawthorne Farms Village was right across the street from Intel. Orenco Station was a nationally recognized neighborhood planning concept and won many awards for neighborhood planning. The report of incorrect information was frustrating. • She briefly reviewed the legislative issue regarding how ‘employment’ limited the development by the land owners in Subzone A, adding it was extremely frustrating that Staff said the City would move forward, even if employment were removed. This was exactly the opposite of what the neighborhood had been told. Again, the legislature feedback was very positive and yet, Staff told the North Hillsboro Alliance, “Well, if this bill passes, you can kiss what you want goodbye. It’s going to block what you want.” So, backroom dealings were happening as well. • She expressed her incredible frustration in that she was going through the right channels and democratic process, and doing everything she was supposed to, but with each step forward, the neighborhood was told something different.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 3 March 13, 2019
Page 51 of 104
• The Jackson East Project website stated that the City of Hillsboro fought to not have Subzone A brought in, and now the City said they had to have it. During the Grand Bargain, the City did not want it, and now, they needed the industrial land. If the City needed Industrial, why was there a Top Golf, racetrack, and Starbucks going in on valuable Industrial land? And now, the City needed their land. • The biggest concern was that Subzone A would not work for Industrial land, which kept getting ignored. The acreage was fragmented with 48 owners on less than 200 acres. Industrial did not want it. All 48 owners would never agree to sell land to any company. Blue on a map did not mean it would succeed in any way; it would not work. She had research available that showed that this had not worked in other areas of Hillsboro. • The designation was devaluing the land, ruining the home values, and prohibiting them from moving; just to make the map look better for the City’s plan, which was unknown.
Colin Cooper, Planning Director, confirmed there were no issues with people recording Planning Commission meetings, either audibly or on video.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Consideration of the January 9, 2019 Planning Commission minutes Vice President Neill moved approval of the January 9, 2019 Planning Commission meeting minutes with the correction noted above, seconded by Commissioner Shortt. Motion passed unanimously.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA A. Zone Change 003-19: Project Emerald Request: Consider approving an Order recommending City Council approve a city initiated Zone Change to apply I-S Industrial Sanctuary zoning for a parcel of land being annexed into the City. Order No. 8286 was available. (Staff: Andrew Crampton)
President Fleisher confirmed the Commissioners had no questions or comments.
Vice President Neill moved approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Commissioner Shortt. Motion passed unanimously.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS – None
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None
VII. NEW BUSINESS – None
VIII. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS OR REPORTS
Commissioner Shortt stated she would email her real estate report to the Commission.
Commissioner Bennett noted tonight’s Consent Agenda item was similar to that on February 27th, at which time he had raised questions about the way such applications were processed. He asked if Mr. Cooper had talked with the City Attorney about the matter.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 March 13, 2019
Page 52 of 104
Colin Cooper, Planning Director, replied that due to conflicting schedules, he was still working to connect with the City Attorney. He would talk with the Code Administrator about the City’s internal and legal procedures.
IX. STAFF REPORTS AND INFORMATION A. Administrative Monthly Report (Staff: Chris Barry)
Chris Barry, Development Services Manager, reviewed the January 2019 Administrative Monthly Report prepared for the February 27th meeting which had concluded late, highlighting the gym addition at Mooberry Elementary and the conversion of two buildings into a data center for EdgeConnex. He also reviewed the February 2019 Administrative Monthly Report, reporting on the approval of the Genentech expansion, which was awarded to Hillsboro for a number of reasons, as well as a new transportation facility for the Hillsboro School District to be located across from Liberty High School that would provide a continuing education program for the students. • He noted land use applications were expected to see an increase over the next month or so. Clean Water Services (CWS) was updating its standards and in order to vest themselves/their projects, property owners had to submit their land use application prior to April 22nd, when the new rules would come into effect. CWS had held a couple public forums on the standards, and Public Works had been engaging with CWS on a variety of items. The specific updated standards had not been issued yet. Staff would forward the link to the interim standards found on the Design and Construction page on the CWS website to the Commission.
Colin Cooper, Planning Director, reported that the Planning Commission Retreat had been scheduled for May 11, 2018, noting he was unable to accommodate one Commissioner’s schedule. He distributed an invitation to the training event being held for all volunteers and encouraged the Commissioners’ participation.
President Fleisher confirmed the Planning Commission Retreat venue had changed from the Riverhouse to the Brookwood Library.
X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, President Eyre adjourned the meeting at 6:20 pm.
______Charles Fleisher, President
ATTEST: ______Gretchen Olson, Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 March 13, 2019
Page 53 of 104 Page 54 of 104
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning Commission
From: Rachel Marble, Planner
Date: April 4, 2019
Subject: Request for nomination of a property to the Cultural Resource Inventory Case file CRA 001-19: Robert Busch House Nomination
Site Assessor’s Tax 261 NE 3rd Ave 1N231CB07900 Address: ID: Location: North of NE Lincoln Street, south of NE Jackson Street SCR-DNC Station Comprehensive Community Residential- SCPA Station Community Zoning: Plan Downtown Neighborhood Planning Area Designation: Conservation Applicant’s Applicant: Suzannah Stanley None Representative:
Requested Planning Commission Action: Planning staff requests that the Planning Commission consider the application for an addition to the Cultural Resource Overlay (CRO) and subsequent inclusion in the Cultural Resource Inventory (CRI) per the recommendation of the Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee (HLAC) made at their March 20, 2019 meeting. Should the Planning Commission find that the subject property is consistent with the applicable approval criteria for nomination to the CRI, a draft order is attached, recommending approval of the application to City Council.
Background/Project Overview: The City maintains CRO zone to identify and manage cultural resources. According to CDC Section 12.27.310, the purpose of the CRO is to:
A. Promote public awareness and appreciation of the community’s social, political, economic, and architectural and archaeological history, and advance civic pride and identity; B. Contribute to the community’s economy and enhance local property values; C. Provide required protection for Cultural Resources: the provisions of this Subchapter meet Statewide Planning Goal 5 (ORS 197.015 (8)) and OAR 660, Division 23 to inventory and protect Significant Cultural Resources according to specific procedures, standards and definitions. Cultural Resources are those sites designated as such on
Page 55 of 104 CRA-001-19 Robert Busch House – Planning Commission Staff Report 2
the Cultural Resource Inventory after designation pursuant to Section 12.27.320 below. D. Balance preservation with alternative land Uses. Standards in this Subchapter conserve and protect Cultural Resources while allowing reasonable economic use of property where adverse impacts to the resources can be mitigated. E. Evaluate development proposals. Standards in this Subchapter provide means to evaluate permitting development that affects Cultural Resources. There are two ways the CRO zone may be applied to a property: either by property owner request or by the City via nomination by the HLAC. Following a nomination, the HLAC findings and recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration at a public hearing. The City Council may apply the CRO to the site by finding that it is culturally significant, thereby adding the site to the Cultural Resource Inventory.
Pursuant to CDC Section 12.27.330.C, at any time prior to Council action on the nomination, the subject property owner may refuse to consent to the application of the CRO and the addition of the site to the Cultural Resource Inventory. This refusal to consent shall be made in writing and filed with the Planning Director. The receipt of a refusal to consent shall remove the property from any continued consideration for application of the CRO or listing in the Cultural Resources Inventory.
Site Description: The subject site is described as a Tudor-revival house that was likely built in 1937 by Robert C. Busch. According to the applicant’s research, Busch was born in 1895 in Forest Grove and moved to Hillsboro in 1937. Busch owned a car dealership and repair shop, also located on 3rd Avenue. The house at 264 NE 3rd Avenue, directly across the street, was built around the same time for his twin brother Albert.
The house has undergone a few exterior alterations including potential removal of the brick wing wall which extended off the roofline on the left side of the front façade and change of one exterior window on the second story of the south façade. There was also previously an interior chimney towards the rear of the house which has been taken down below the roofline and is still evident on the interior. These alterations are minor and do not detract from the overall character of the house.
Summary of Procedures: Application Submittal Date: 01/22/2019 Application Deemed Complete: 02/19/2019 Date Public Notice Mailed: 03/20/2019 Public Hearing: 04/10/2019 State Mandated 120-Day Rule: 06/19/2019
Public Testimony: As of the writing of this staff report, no written testimony in support of or in opposition to this proposal has been submitted.
Page 56 of 104 CRA-001-19 Robert Busch House – Planning Commission Staff Report 3
Key Considerations: The key consideration for this application was the house’s ability to meet the approval criteria for addition to the CRI
Project Analysis Based on Approval Criteria: Community Development Code (CDC) Ordinance No. 6094, as amended, contains the approval criteria for each application type:
• Section 12.27.330: Addition to the CRO
The approval criteria are provided below in this staff report. Staff’s analysis of the project’s compliance with the approval criteria is provided in the form of findings and is attached as Exhibit B of the Draft Order.
The applicant’s findings in response to the relevant approval criteria can be found within the application narrative.
Cost: This is an applicant-initiated application with no fee. The associated costs are City staff time and cost of public notice printing and mailing.
Approval Criteria: CDC Section 12.27.330 specifies the approval criteria for a proposed application of the CRO and inclusion in the CRI as follows: 1. The site is located within the City limits; 2. The building, structure, site, or object is over 50 years of age or of exceptional importance; 3. The site possesses sufficient historic integrity, meaning that there are no major alterations or additions that have obscured or destroyed the significant historic features. Major alterations that may destroy historic integrity include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Changes in pitch of the main roof; b. Enlargement or enclosure of windows on principal façades; c. Addition of upper stories or the removal of original upper stories; d. Covering the exterior walls with non-historic materials; e. Moving the resource from its original location to one that is dissimilar to the original; and/or f. Additions which significantly detract from or obscure the form and appearance of the historic resource when viewed from the public right-of- way. 4. The site has historic significance as demonstrated by meeting at least 1 of the following criteria: a. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of city, county, state, or national history; and/or
Page 57 of 104 CRA-001-19 Robert Busch House – Planning Commission Staff Report 4
b. Association with the lives or persons significant in our past; and/or c. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and/or d. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission open the public hearing for Case File No. Cultural Resource Alteration 001-19, accept testimony and recommend approval of the application to City Council. A draft Order No. 8287 recommending approval to City Council is attached as Exhibit A.
Attachments: A. Maps o Comprehensive Plan Map o Zoning Vicinity Map o Aerial Context Map
Decision Documents Draft Order No. 8287 o Exhibit A: Findings o Exhibit B: HLAC Recommendation o Exhibit C: Oregon Historic Sites Form o Exhibit D: Tax Map
Cc: Suzannah Stanley File
Page 58 of 104 CRA-001-19: Robert Busch House
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
DISCLAIMER: This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or survey purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. SOURCE: Hillsboro & WaCnty Data; updated weekly, Metro Data updated quarterly.
City of Hillsboro, OR Planning Department: (503) 681-6153 0 282.1 Feet
Page 59 of 104 CRA-001-19: Robert Busch House
ZONING MAP
DISCLAIMER: This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or survey purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. SOURCE: Hillsboro & WaCnty Data; updated weekly, Metro Data updated quarterly.
City of Hillsboro, OR Planning Department: (503) 681-6153 0 282.1 Feet
Page 60 of 104 Page 61 of 104 Page 62 of 104 ORDER NO. 8287
CRA 001-19 ROBERT BUSCH HOUSE
AN ORDER APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCE OVERLAY TO THE ROBERT BUSCH HOUSE ADDING IT TO THE CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY.
WHEREAS, the Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee (HLAC) applied for City approval to apply the Cultural Resource Overlay (CRO) to the Robert Busch House, thereby adding it to the Cultural Resource Inventory (CRI), and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2019 the HLAC voted to recommend that the Planning Commission grant approval of the addition of the house to the CRI, and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2019 the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and heard testimony in support of and in opposition to the addition of the Robert Busch House, and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2019 the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and deliberated.
THE CITY OF HILLSBORO PLANNING COMMISSION ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Based on the testimony, record, and findings attached as Exhibit A, the Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of the application of the CRO to the Robert Busch House, thereby adding it to the CRI as a historic site per inventory form attached as Exhibit C, located on the tract of land described below and attached as Exhibit E:
Tax Lot 7900 on Washington County Assessor’s Tax Map 1N2-31CB Section 31, Township 1 North, Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian Plot date February 13, 2017
Section 2. This order takes effect immediately upon approval.
Approved this 10th day of April, 2019.
______Charles Fleisher, President
ATTEST: ______Gretchen Olson, Secretary
Page 1 of 1 Order No. 8287 Planning Commission
Page 63 of 104 Exhibit A Findings of Fact Case File No.: CRA-001-19 Robert Busch House
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The property under consideration for an addition to the Cultural Resource Overlay (CRO) and subsequent inclusion in the Cultural Resource Inventory (CRI) is located at 261 NE 3rd Avenue. The house is described as a Tudor-revival house that was likely built in 1937 by Robert C. Busch. According to the applicant’s research, Busch was born in 1895 in Forest Grove and moved to Hillsboro in 1937. Busch owned a car dealership and repair shop, also located on 3rd Avenue. The house at 264 NE 3rd Avenue, directly across the street, was built around the same time for his twin brother Albert.
The house has undergone a few exterior alterations including potential removal of the brick wing wall which extended off the roofline on the left side of the front façade and change of one exterior window on the second story of the south façade. There was also previously an interior chimney towards the rear of the house which has been taken down below the roofline and is still evident on the interior. These alterations are minor and do not detract from the overall character of the house.
City mapping does not identify any Significant Natural Resources or Impact Area or Regulatory Floodplain Overlay on the subject site. The site does not contain Clean Water Services’ Vegetated Corridor and/or Sensitive Area(s).
II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
The City maintains a CRO zone to identify and manage cultural resources. According to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 12.27.310, the purpose of the CRO is to:
A. Promote public awareness and appreciation of the community’s social, political, economic, and architectural and archaeological history, and advance civic pride and identity; B. Contribute to the community’s economy and enhance local property values; C. Provide required protection for Cultural Resources: the provisions of this Subchapter meet Statewide Planning Goal 5 (ORS 197.015 (8)) and OAR 660, Division 23 to inventory and protect Significant Cultural Resources according to specific procedures, standards and definitions. Cultural Resources are those sites designated as such on the Cultural Resource Inventory after designation pursuant to Section 12.27.320 below. D. Balance preservation with alternative land Uses. Standards in this Subchapter conserve and protect Cultural Resources while allowing reasonable economic use of property where adverse impacts to the resources can be mitigated.
Page 1 of 3 Exhibit B
Page 64 of 104
E. Evaluate development proposals. Standards in this Subchapter provide means to evaluate permitting development that affects Cultural Resources.
There are two ways the CRO zone may be applied to a property: either by property owner request or by the City via nomination by the Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee (HLAC). Following a nomination, the HLAC findings and recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration at a public hearing. The City Council may apply the CRO to the site by finding that it is culturally significant, thereby adding the site to the CRI. Pursuant to CDC Section 12.27.330.C, at any time prior to Council action on the nomination, the subject property owner may refuse to consent to the application of the CRO and the addition of the site to the CRI. This refusal to consent shall be made in writing and filed with the Planning Director. The receipt of a refusal to consent shall remove the property from any continued consideration for application of the CRO or listing in the CRI.
III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA
CDC Section 12.27.330.D specifies the approval criteria for the proposed Application of the CRO and Inclusion in the CRI as follows:
1. The site is located within the city limits;
Finding: The site is located at 261 NE 3rd Avenue, located within the city limits of Hillsboro. This criterion is met.
2. The building, structure, site, or object is over 50 years of age or of exceptional importance.
Finding: According to Washington County tax records, the residence was constructed in 1937. This criterion is met.
3. The site possesses sufficient historic integrity, meaning that there are no major alterations or additions that have obscured or destroyed the significant historic features. Major alterations that may destroy historic integrity include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Changes in pitch of the main roof; b. Enlargement or enclosure of windows on principal façades; c. Addition of upper stories or the removal of original upper stories; d. Covering the exterior walls with non-historic materials; e. Moving the resource from its original location to one that is dissimilar to the original; and/or Additions which significantly detract from or obscure the form and appearance of the historic resource when viewed from the public right-of-way.
Page 2 of 3 Exhibit A
Page 65 of 104
Finding: The HLAC concurred with the staff report findings that the Robert Busch House had undergone exterior alterations in the past including the possible removal of the brick wing wall which extended off the roofline on the left side of the front façade, the alteration of one exterior window on the second story of the south façade, and the removal of a rear chimney below the roofline. However, the HLAC determined that the alterations have not “obscured or destroyed the significant historic features” of the building, including the many details characteristic of this style. Furthermore, the HLAC found that despite the alterations, the house retains an appearance that is similar to and consistent with its original overall appearance.
4. The site has historic significance as demonstrated by meeting at least 1 of the following criteria: a. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of city, county, state, or national history; and/or b. Association with the lives or persons significant in our past; and/or c. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and/or Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Finding: The HLAC reviewed the staff report presented, which concluded that the home, “embodies the distinctive characteristics of Tudor-revival homes. Further examples of this style can be seen in Hillsboro and Portland. Typical features of this style are large articulated chimneys, steeply-pitched roofs, multi-paned leaded glass windows, arch details, and asymmetrical designs. This house is characteristic of this style in many ways.” Due to its distinctive characteristics of the Tudor-revival style, the HLAC found this structure is significant based on Criterion C.
Staff agrees with HLAC’s finding. The Robert Busch house is a good example of a Tudor- revival style house, making the building significant under Criteria C.
IV. TESTIMONY FROM PARTIES
No written testimony was received prior to the preparation of the staff report.
V. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS CITED BY REFERENCE AND INCLUDED BY REFERENCE IN FINDINGS
The Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 3, 2019, the HLAC staff report dated March 13, 2019 along with the original application submittal, deemed complete on February 19, 2019 are incorporated by reference.
Page 3 of 3 Exhibit A
Page 66 of 104 Exhibit B
MEMORANDUM
Date: 3/27/19
To: Hillsboro Planning Commission
From: Hillsboro Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee
Subject: Recommendation for the Robert Busch House, CRA 001-19 ______
During their March 20, 2019 regular meeting, the Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee (HLAC) voted unanimously to nominate the Robert Busch House to the Cultural Resource Inventory. The City maintains a Cultural Resource Overlay (CRO) zone to identify and manage cultural resources. There are two ways the CRO zone may be applied to a property: either by property owner request or by the City via nomination by the HLAC. The HLAC may nominate any site within the City which is determined to have potential cultural significance. Following a nomination, the HLAC findings and recommendation are forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration at a public hearing. The City Council may apply the CRO to the site by finding that it is culturally significant, thereby adding the site to the Cultural Resource Inventory.
At the March 20, 2019 HLAC meeting, members reviewed and discussed the staff report and application materials. After discussion, HLAC members found that the application met criteria the four approval criteria for addition of a property to the CRO.
1. The site is located within the city limits;
HLAC Findings The HLAC concurred with the staff report findings that the site 261 NE 3rd Ave is located within the city limits of Hillsboro.
2. The building, structure, site, or object is over 50 years of age or of exceptional importance;
HLAC Findings The HLAC concurred with the staff report findings that the building is believed to have been built in 1937, making it 82 years in age. However, the HLAC determined that no evidence was provided attesting to the age of the gazebo accessory structure associated with the home.
3. The site possesses sufficient historic integrity, meaning that there are no major alterations or additions that have obscured or destroyed the significant historic features. Major alterations that may destroy historic integrity include, but are not limited to, the following:
Page 67 of 104 a. Changes in pitch of the main roof; b. Enlargement or enclosure of windows on principal façades; c. Addition of upper stories or the removal of original upper stories; d. Covering the exterior walls with non-historic materials; e. Moving the resource from its original location to one that is dissimilar to the original; and/or f. Additions which significantly detract from or obscure the form and appearance of the historic resource when viewed from the public right-of-way.
HLAC Findings The HLAC concurred with the staff report findings that the Robert Busch House had undergone exterior alterations in the past including the possible removal of the brick wing wall which extended off the roofline on the left side of the front façade, the alteration of one exterior window on the second story of the south façade, and the removal of a rear chimney below the roofline. However, the HLAC determined that the alterations have not “obscured or destroyed the significant historic features” of the building, including the many details characteristic of this style. Furthermore, the HLAC found that despite the alterations, the house retains an appearance that is similar to and consistent with its original overall appearance.
4. The site has historic significance as demonstrated by meeting at least 1 of the following criteria: a. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of city, county, state, or national history; and/or b. Association with the lives or persons significant in our past; and/or c. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and/or d. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
HLAC Findings The HLAC reviewed the staff report presented, which concluded that the home, “embodies the distinctive characteristics of Tudor-revival homes. Further examples of this style can be seen in Hillsboro and Portland. Typical features of this style are large articulated chimneys, steeply-pitched roofs, multi-paned leaded glass windows, arch details, and asymmetrical designs. This house is characteristic of this style in many ways.” Due to its distinctive characteristics of the Tudor-revival style, the HLAC found this structure is significant based on Criterion C.
HLAC Recommendation At the conclusion of the discussion, the HLAC voted 4-0 to forward a nomination to the Planning Commission for inclusion of the Robert Busch House, at 261 NE 3rd Ave, in the Cultural Resource Overlay. They recommend the inclusion of the Gazebo in this nomination but determined that the owner should be able to later remove the Gazebo if evidence of its age is provided and it is not of an age to be considered contributing.
Page 68 of 104 Exhibit C
Oregon Historic Site Form external site #: (ID# used in city/agency database) LOCATION AND PROPERTY NAME
rd address: 261 NE 3 Ave apprx. historic name: Robert Busch House addrs city: Hillsboro current/ vcty co: Washington other names: Optional Information assoc addresses: block nbr: 2 lot nbr: 4 tax lot nbr: 7900
(former addresses, intersections, etc.) township: 1 range: N section: 231 1/4: CB location descr: zip: 97214 tax map ID: 1N231CB07900 (remote sites) PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS resource type: Building height (# stories): 2 total # eligible resources: 2 total # ineligible resources: 1
elig. evaluation: NR status: Not Listed
primary constr date: 1937 X (c.) secondary date: (c.) NR date listed: (optional--use for major addns)
primary orig use: DB - Residence orig use comments: secondary orig use:
primary style: RN – Tudor Revival prim style comments: Tudor-Revival single family residence secondary style: sec style comments:
OT – Cedar Shingles primary siding: siding comments: Siding is believed to be original. CH – Rug Face Brick secondary siding: architect: unknown
unknown plan type: RX - Crosswing builder:
comments/notes:
GROUPINGS / ASSOCIATIONS farmstead/cluster name:
survey project name or other grouping name: RESEARCH INFORMATION (Check all of the basic sources consulted and cite specific important sources) Title Records X Census Records Property Tax Records Local Histories X Sanborn Maps Biographical Sources SHPO Files Interviews Obituaries Newspapers State Archives Historic Photographs City Directories Building Permits State Library
Local Library: University Library: Historical Society: Other Repository:
Bibliography:
• 1910 Census • 1930 Census • 1940 Census • Registration Card (D.S.S. Form 1 - Revised April 1, 1942) • Washington County Tax Records
Page 1 of 3
Page 69 of 104 Oregon Historic Site Form external site #: (ID# used in city/agency database)
ARCHITECTURAL / PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Include expanded description of the building/property, setting, significant landscape features, outbuildings, and alterations)
The Robert Busch House is sited on its original foundation in Block 2, Lot 4. It is significant as a structure that embodies the distinctive characteristics of the Tudor-revival story. The structure is a mid-20th century cross-gabled, two-story, asymmetrical Tudor-revival. The dominant front-facing gable is clad with rug face brick. The structures main entrance faces north, situated on the eastern elevation of the dominating front gable. A pentagonal bay protrudes from the structures side gable at its northeast corner. All elevations but the front facing gable are clad in cedar shingle. The structures roof has been re-shingled using composite shingles.
The home features several elements distinctive of the Tudor-revival style. The structures features a steeply pitched roof on the dominant front-facing gable. The north side of this gable features a wing wall that terminates at a rug face brick post. An identical post is present on the south side of the gable but the wing wall has been removed (stepping in the brick courses evidences the removal of this architectural element). A single diamond-paned leaded glass window is located at the peak of the brick front gable centered over a large rectangular leaded glass window. A large brick chimney extends from the exterior of the structures southern elevation, the main entrance features a wooden door with arched trim and a functional arched hinged window, and the overall massing of the structure is asymmetrical in design (the elevation fronting NE 3rd Ave is composed of the primary front-facing gable and side gable with pentagonal bay). All of these element are characteristic of the Tudor-revival style popular from the 1920s to mid-century.
Few alterations have been made to the structure since its construction. As previously mentioned the original roofing material was replaced with composite shingles and the southern wing-wall of the primary gable was removed. Additionally, one original window on the structures south elevation has been replaced. These alterations are minor and do not detract from the overall character of the structure.
In addition to the original house there is also an accessory structure present on the site. A wooden hexagonal gazebo located in the back yard houses a large brick outdoor chimney. The gazebo features exposed rafter tails and a timber frame. It is unknown if this accessory structure was constructed at the same time as the home but it is stylistically compatible.
HISTORY (Chronological, descriptive history of the property from its construction through at least the historic period [preferably to the present])
The home was constructed in 1937 for Robert C. Busch, a local Hillsboro businessman. Busch was born in 1895 in the adjacent city of Forest Grove. At the time of construction of his home in Hillsboro Busch owned a car dealership and repair shop also located on NE 3rd Avenue. Busch’s brother Albert had a home constructed across the street from his brother around the same time and in a similar Tudor-revival style. By 1942 both men still lived in their homes on NE 3rd Avenue, evidenced by WWII draft cards.
Photos (2018)
Page 2 of 3
Page 70 of 104 Oregon Historic Site Form external site #: (ID# used in city/agency database)
Left: southeast corner of property. Right: main entrance to property located on east elevation.
Above: primary eastern elevation of property, viewed from NE 3rd Avenue.
Page 3 of 3
Page 71 of 104 Exhibit D Page 72 of104 150 East Main Street, 4 th Floor, Hillsboro, OR 97123 Phone 503-681-6153 | Fax 503-681-5250 www.hillsboro-oregon.gov
CULTURAL RESOURCE NOMINATION OR REMOVAL APPLICATION
NOTICE TO APPLICANT: On original application form, please pr int legibly using black/dark blue ink or type. Applicants are advised to review the list of submittal requirements and recommendations indicated on each land use application form and in the applicable Ordinance prior to submitting an application. When applicable, applicants are also advised to submit a draft application package in advance of deadline dates for public hearings: a list of meeting dates and deadlines is available on request. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECEIVES ALL REQUIRED SUBMITTAL MATERIALS.
TRACKING INFORMATION (For Office Use Only)
Processing Procedure: Type III
File # CRA-001-19 Planner Rachel Marble Hearing Date April 10, 2019
SITE LOCATION & DESCRIPTION
Tax Map #(s) 1N231CB Tax Lot #(s) 07900
Frontage Street or Address 261 NE 3rd Ave
Nearest Cross Street NE Jackson St
Plan Designation SCPA Zoning MFR-1 Site Size_ 7,835 SF (acres or sq. ft.) Dimensions
Historic Name of Cultural Resource Robert Busch House?
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Name of Inventoried Cultural Resource Robert Busch House?
Narrative Summary: (Provide a brief summary of proposed activity .) Add home to CRO/cultural resource inventory. No work proposed. See included narrative.
Subject to previous Land-use approval? Yes x No File No. (attach copy of Notice of Decision)
NOTE: The summary provided above must be part of a more extensive written narrative that describes the project and justifies the requested cultural resource alteration based on the approval criteria. For more information read Approval Criteria and Submittal Requirements on pages 4 and 5. CONTINUED ON PAGE 2
Effective August 1, 2017 1
Page 73 of 104 CULTURAL RESOURCE NOMINATION OR REMOVAL APPLICATION (CONTINUED)
DETAILED SITE INFORMATION
Are any of the following present on the site? If so, please specify number of acres and/or percentage of site affected. No
Floodplain Wetlands Significant Natural Resources
Cultural Resources Airport Noise Contours Slopes greater than 25%
Are variances or adjustments requested? Yes No (If Yes, cite applicable code standards.) No
Water Provider: x City of Hillsboro Tualatin Valley Water District Other:
Does the site have access to City street(s) x Yes No (Please explain) Driveway on NE Jackson
Does the site have access to County road(s) Yes x No (Please explain)
Are there existing structures on the site? x Yes No (If Yes, briefly explain future status of structures.) Home built in 1937. Gazebo with fireplace also assumed to be from 1937. Modern shed
and deck.
OWNERSHIP AND APPLICANT INFORMATION (Property owner signature must be a wet-ink signature. If the property is under-going a change of ownership, proof of purchase or purchase contract must be provided if property owner of record is not the signing party.)
Property Owner(s): Name(s) Suzannah Stanley
Business Name
Mailing Address 261 NE 3rd Ave Hillsboro OR 97124City State Zip
Phone # 503-380-6490 Fax # Email Address [email protected]
Does the owner of this site also own any adjacent property? Yes x No (If Yes, please list tax map and tax lots)
Property Owner(s) Signature(s) Date: (If more than one property owner, please attach additional sheet with names and signatures.)
Applicant: Name Same as owner
Business Name
Mailing Address City State Zip
Phone # Fax # Email Address
Applicant’s Signature Date:
Applicant’s interest in property Owner
CONTINUED ON PAGE 3 2 Effective August 1, 2017
Page 74 of 104 CULTURAL RESOURCE NOMINATION OR REMOVAL APPLICATION (CONTINUED)
ADDITIONAL PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS
ProjectDox Primary User (the individual point of contact responsible for the electronic plan review process):
Contact Name Suzannah Stanley Business Name
Phone # 503-380-6490 Email Address [email protected]
Applicant’s Representative: Contact Name
Business Name
Mailing Address City State Zip
Phone # Fax #______Email Address
Civil Engineer: Contact Name
Business Name
Mailing Address City State Zip
Phone # Fax #______Email Address
Architect: Contact Name
Business Name
Mailing Address City State Zip
Phone # Fax #______Email Address
Landscape Architect: Contact Name
Business Name
Mailing Address City State Zip
Phone #______Fax #______Email Address
Additional Personnel:
Role Contact Name
Business Name
Mailing Address City State Zip
Phone #______Fax #______Email Address
CONTINUED ON PAGE 4
3 Effective August 1, 2017
Page 75 of 104 CULTURAL RESOURCE NOMINATION OR REMOVAL APPLICATION (CONTINUED)
EXISTING CONDITIONS - Architectural Design NOTE: Provide a complete description of the resource, including its architectural style, as well as any significant architectural features. Also include a description of the site, including any significant landscape features over 50 years old.
See narrative
(Attach additional pages as needed) CONTINUED ON PAGE 5
4 Effective August 1, 2017
Page 76 of 104 CULTURAL RESOURCE NOMINATION OR REMOVAL APPLICATION (CONTINUED)
EXISTING CONDITIONS - Integrity
Construction Date of Proposed Cultural Resource: 1937
Architect (if known): Builder (if known): ______
Please list all known alterations to the proposed resource and their approximate dates:
See narrative
Please list and describe all other structures on the site which are over fifty years old (garages, sheds, outbuildings), including their condition:
See narrative
Are there other existing non-historic structures on the site? (less than fifty years old) x Yes No
If yes, please list the structures and their intended use:
See narrative
5 Effective August 1, 2017
Page 77 of 104 CULTURAL RESOURCE NOMINATION OR REMOVAL APPLICATION (CONTINUED)
PROPOSED NOMINATION – Statement of Significance NOTE: Provide a statement regarding the history of the property based upon historic research, including a chain of title and biographical research. Describe how the resource meets the criteria in Section 12.27.330 of the Community Development Code, specifically how the proposed resource is associated with significant local historical or cultural events or persons, and/or demonstrates architectural integrity in its style, workmanship, or design. Additional information may be required by the Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee and/or the Planning Commission).
See narrative
(Please attach additional sheets as needed)
6 Effective August 1, 2017
Page 78 of 104 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECK LIST (CULTURAL RESOURCE NOMINATION)
Submittal Recommendations:
Applicants are advised to schedule a pre-application meeting with Planning staff to discuss request prior to submittal of application.
Applicants are advised to submit a draft application package prior to full submittal, or at least one week in advance of application completeness deadline dates for public hearings.
Application submittal requirements are set forth in Section 12.70.110 of the Community Development Code (CDC). The following is a check list based on the specific requirements for Cultural Resource Nomination or Removal set forth in Section 12.080.030, Section 12.27.300 (Addition), Section 12.27.340 (Removal) and Section 12.70.050 Type III Procedures:
Application Submittal Requirements: The following is a summary of the minimum application submittal requirements that must be received by the City. File order and details of each submittal item are shown on the following pages. Application materials must follow the specified order and the appropriate electronic file naming standards shown on the following pages to ensure a complete application.
ProjectDox Submittal: 1) Application Form, (Completed, Signed): the original completed, signed application which must include a “wet ink” signature from the property owner or owner’s authorized agent. The primary contact person responsible for uploading application materials to the online services must be identified on the application form. 2) Applicable application fees: the appropriate filing fee PAYABLE TO CITY OF HILLSBORO. Please consult the fee schedule for current fees. 3) CWS Sewer Use Information Card: (applicable only for commercial, industrial or multi-family residential projects). Card may be obtained in the Planning office if not attached to application form. The top portion of the card must be filled out and signed by the applicant and turned in to the City with the original application. It does not need to be copied or scanned into your application materials packet.
4) Materials Board: if applicable, a board with examples and descriptions of materials to be used on proposed structures. 5) Complete electronic set of all application materials:
a. ProjectDox Submittal: Upload all application materials electronically to ProjectDox within 3 days of application submittal: A full electronic version of all application materials, including all applicable items listed on the following page, uploaded to the City’s online service, ProjectDox. The electronic files must include a complete application packet in the order specified on the following pages and with correct file naming standards.
11 Effective August 1, 2017
Page 79 of 104 ELECTRONIC FILE ORDER AND DETAIL (CULTURAL RESOURCE NOMINATION)
File Order and Detail: Application materials must be provided in the following order and uploaded electronically to the ProjectDox web site.
1) Application Form (Completed, Signed): The original completed, signed application form. The original application form must include a “wet ink” signature from the property owner or authorized agent.
2) Narrative and Response to Approval Criteria: A written narrative describing the project and addressing compliance with all approval criteria and applicable standards from the Community Development Code (CDC). The narrative should include a written statement describing the proposal. Details for narratives shall be provided under the following headings: Existing Conditions (Architectural Description), Existing Conditions (Integrity), and Proposed Nomination (Statement of Significance).
3) Clean Water Services (CWS) Service Provider Letter: One copy of either: A CWS Service Provider Letter, or a determination by CWS or the Hillsboro Engineering Division that a Site Assessment is not necessary.
4) Plans/Drawings: Appropriate and necessary plans and/or drawings as set forth in CDC Section 12.80.030: site plans, maps, drawings and exhibits.
Plans Saved to Scale All plans must be saved to a legible and reasonable scale. Examples of preferred plan scales include:
- Site plans: 1” = 20’ (24” x 36”); 1” = 40’ (11” x 17”) - Landscape plans: 1” = 20’ (24” x 36”); 1” = 10’ for detailed plans; 1” = 40’ (11” x 17”) - Architectural drawings: floor plans, building elevations, and other architectural drawings: 1/8” = 1’; no smaller than 1/16” = 1’; 1/4" = 1’ for detailed plans.
Site Plan Specifications:
GENERAL INFORMATION Proposed/existing cultural resource name. Map context information including date, north arrow, and scale of drawing. Vicinity map showing the general location of the property in relation to the nearest major street or highway. Contact information including names, addresses, telephone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses. Contacts should include owners, applicants and consultants. Recent photographs of site and building elevations, including adjacent streets and surrounding area.
EXISTING CONDITIONS Location, name and present width of all streets, alleys and rights-of-way on and abutting the property. Natural features such as watercourses, rock outcroppings, wetlands, wooded areas (other than brush and scrub), and areas of the site within the 100-year floodplain. Existing uses including the scaled location and present use of all existing structures on the property.
PROPOSED NOMINATION Narrative Architectural Description of the resource and description of any outbuilding, significant trees or other natural features on the site, as well as a description of siding, window, foundation and roof materials. Include a timeline of development and description of any alterations that have been made to the resource since its original construction. Narrative Statement of Historic Significance addressing the criteria in Section 132(4)(a). Please include a complete bibliography and description of research methodology. Include any historic photographs or original plans for the resource and/or site.
12 Effective August 1, 2017
Page 80 of 104 261 NE 3rd Ave Cultural Resource Overlay Application Narrative
1. Background Existing Conditions (Architectural Description)
The subject home is on tax lot 1N231CB07900, which is 0.18 acres (7,835 SF). The main two floors of the home total approximately 2,500 SF, and there is an approximately 1,000 SF basement and 400 SF attached garage.
There are no Significant Natural Resource Overlay, Regulatory Floodplain Overlay, or Clean Water Services Vegetated Corridor designations on the property.
Existing Conditions (Integrity)
The home is in working condition. Mature landscaping separates it from the NE 3rd Avenue public sidewalk, and vegetation on all four sides has been recently trimmed. Almost all of home’s original features have been preserved. Some elements of the home have not been maintained over the past several years, and there is moss on the roof and the paint is fading.
The home contains two stories plus a basement. There are large, leaded glass windows and a turret on the east elevation. There is a small concrete porch near the front door, which faces north. The most prominent element of the east elevation is the brick and steep roof angle on the left side.
The primary construction materials are cedar shingle and brick. The foundation is concrete and there are concrete window wells on the north, west, and south facades. The windows are wood framed, most with leaded glass panes.
1
Page 81 of 104 2
Page 82 of 104 The south side of the structure contains a tall chimney with crown detail. The only non-original window on the home is on this elevation, on the second floor.
3
Page 83 of 104 The north side is also shingle and has a covered side entrance and garage doors. There was once a second chimney protruding between the main house and garage near the northern wall, but it has been capped and roofing covers the opening. (The fireplace remains inside.)
4
Page 84 of 104 In the backyard there is a newer deck between the garage and hot tub/shed structures. There is also a gazebo with fireplace (believed to be original).
5
Page 85 of 104 6
Page 86 of 104 The home was originally built for Robert C. Busch, who was born in 1895 in Forest Grove and in 1937 owned his own car dealership and repair shop, also on 3rd Avenue. The home across the street (264 NE 3rd Avenue) is of a similar style and was built around the same time for his twin brother Albert. These two homes mimic each other in style and represent a unique corner in the downtown Hillsboro residential area.
Census records show that in 1930, Robert lived on Walnut Street in Hillsboro, but by 1930 he lived at the subject property. WWII draft registration cards confirm Robert and Albert lived at these homes at the time of the Fourth Registration, or “Old Man's Registration,” held on April 27, 1942. Both men owned their own businesses in downtown Hillsboro.
2. Purpose This application represents a property owner request for application of the Cultural Resource Overlay (CRO) zone. The home’s current owners believe the building should be recognized as a unique home and part of Hillsboro’s history, and believe the CRO designation will help preserve it by keeping it from being overly modernized and providing support for critical exterior improvements that help it maintain its historic character.
3. Approval Criteria/Proposed Nomination (Including Statement of Significance) The following section describes the application’s compliance with 12.27.330.D.
1. The site is located within the city limits;
7
Page 87 of 104 Response: The site is at NE 3rd Avenue and NE Jackson Street, within Hillsboro boundaries. This standard is met. 2. The building, structure, site, or object is over 50 years of age or of exceptional importance; Response: The structure was built in 1937 and thus is approximately 81 years old. This standard is met. 3. The site possesses sufficient historic integrity, meaning that there are no major alterations or additions that have obscured or destroyed the significant historic features. Major alterations that may destroy historic integrity include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Changes in pitch of the main roof; b. Enlargement or enclosure of windows on principal façades; c. Addition of upper stories or the removal of original upper stories; d. Covering the exterior walls with non-historic materials; e. Moving the resource from its original location to one that is dissimilar to the original; and/or f. Additions which significantly detract from or obscure the form and appearance of the historic resource when viewed from the public right-of-way. Response: No significant changes have been made to the exterior of the home. All of the windows are original except one, on the second story on the south (plainest) facade. The siding is also original. The roof has been covered with newer shingles. Storm windows have been added to many of the windows, though are not permanent, and have not been added to the iconic windows on the front elevation. This criterion also requires that the site possess “historic integrity.” The National Trust for Historic Preservation identifies seven aspects of integrity, listed below, with responses for the subject property in-line. ● Location: Original location, near downtown Hillsboro. The first owner worked only a few blocks away, at 141 3rd Avenue. ● Design: Generally original design with minimal changes except paint and roof material. The design is characteristic of a 1920’s-30’s Tudor revival home seen commonly in Portland, with a few other examples in Hillsboro. The brick, steeply pitched roof, leaded glass windows, diamond paned window, and rounded detail on the front door are characteristic of this style. ● Setting: Downtown/grid street location near other homes of similar age, including the one across the street built for the original owner’s twin brother, Albert Busch. Classic 1930’s residential area setting. ● Materials: Original materials including cedar shingles and leaded glass windows.
8
Page 88 of 104 ● Workmanship: Solid workmanship such as sloped exterior window sills. The home is still in relatively good condition despite lack of care over the past decade. The workmanship of the home is typical of that of the era. ● Feeling: Classic, historic cottage feel from the street. ● Association: A few other historic homes in downtown Hillsboro are of this style, including 264 NE 3rd Avenue across the street built for the original owner’s twin brother. The corner of NE 3rd and Jackson is memorable due to these two relatively unique partially brick homes. The home’s association with downtown Hillsboro is strong, as it has not been moved and was originally constructed for downtown Hillsboro business owner whose brother had a home built across the street.
In summary, the home is one of two coordinating ones built for old Hillsboro business owners, in a notable architectural style. The home displays classic Tudor Revival architectural elements and is located in a prominent location in the downtown Hillsboro residential grid. No significant changes have been made to the exterior which would cause it to lose its significance. This standard is met.
4. The site has historic significance as demonstrated by meeting at least 1 of the following criteria: a. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of city, county, state, or national history; and/or b. Association with the lives or persons significant in our past; and/or c. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and/or d. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Response: While Robert Busch likely did make contributions to downtown Hillsboro’s growth in the first part of the 20th century, the building most clearly meets option c. of this standard. The architectural features of the home are distinctive characteristics of the Tudor Revival style. Tudor Revival homes were generally built in the 1920's through the 1940's and are seen throughout
9
Page 89 of 104 the inner Northeast neighborhoods in Portland, with a few in Southwest and the suburbs. They often have exposed beams with stucco or brick, particularly on the front facades, and steep roof lines. These homes are almost always two stories; some also have basements. They feature leaded glass windows, iron work, and other decorative details reminiscent of Tudor England of the early 1500s. Typical features of Tudor homes which are also seen on the subject structure include: ● Large chimneys with brickwork shapes ● Steeply-pitched roofs, often with overlapping gables and dormer windows. ● Multi-paned leaded glass windows (such as the 7' wide by 6'5" tall front window in the brick facade and the three-panel multi-paned window under the front porch overhang), sometimes in a decorative diamond pattern (like the small narrow window in the brick facade on the second floor). ● Entrance doors with rounded tops or arch details (the subject home’s front door is rectangular, but with a rounded molding detail and small, functional arched hinged window) ● Asymmetrical design, in an English country look (a response to symmetrical Colonial revival and craftsman homes of the turn of the century)
4. Summary
This application requests addition to the Cultural Resource Overlay. The home in question complies with applicable approval criteria and should be recognized as a historic resource displaying distinctive characteristics of the Tudor Revival style in downtown Hillsboro in the 1930’s.
Bibliography
1910 Census 1930 Census 1940 Census Registration Card (D.S.S. Form 1 - Revised April 1, 1942)
10
Page 90 of 104 Page 91 of 104 Clean Water Services File Number 19-000025 Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site Assessment
1. Jurisdiction: ______Hillsboro
2. Property Information (example 1S234AB01400) 3. Owner Information Tax lot ID(s): ______Name: ______Suzannah Stanley ______1N231CB07900 Company: ______Address: ______261 NE 3rd Ave Site Address: ______261 NE 3rd Ave City, State, Zip: ______HILLSBORO, OR, 97124 City, State, Zip: ______HILLSBORO, OR, 97124 Phone/Fax: ______5033806490 Nearest Cross Street: ______Jackson E-Mail: [email protected]
4. Development Activity (check all that apply) 5. Applicant Information o Addition to Single Family Residence (rooms, deck, garage) Name: ______Suzannah Stanley o Lot Line Adjustment o Minor Land Partition Company: ______o Residential Condominium o Commercial Condominium Address: ______261 NE 3rd Ave o Residential Subdivision o Commercial Subdivision City, State, Zip: ______HILLSBORO, OR, 97124 o Single Lot Commercial o Multi Lot Commercial Other ______Phone/Fax: ______5033806490 ______Single Family, no work proposed E-Mail: [email protected]
6. Will the project involve any off-site work? o Yes o8 No o Unknown Location and description of off-site work ______7. Additional comments or information that may be needed to understand your project ______No work proposed. Application to add home to Hillsboro cultural resource overlay. (Their form requires an SPL.)
This application does NOT replace Grading and Erosion Control Permits, Connection Permits, Building Permits, Site Development Permits, DEQ 1200-C Permit or other permits as issued by the Department of Environmental Quality, Department of State Lands and/or Department of the Army COE. All required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local, state, and federal law. By signing this form, the Owner or Owner’s authorized agent or representative, acknowledges and agrees that employees of Clean Water Services have authority to enter the project site at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting project site conditions and gathering information related to the project site. I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this document, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, this information is true, complete, and accurate. Print/Type Name ______Suzannah Stanley Print/Type Title ______Homeowner ONLINE SUBMITTAL Date ______12/29/2018
FOR DISTRICT USE ONLY o Sensitive areas potentially exist on site or within 200’ of the site. THE APPLICANT MUST PERFORM A SITE ASSESSMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER. If Sensitive Areas exist on the site or within 200 feet on adjacent properties, a Natural Resources Assessment Report may also be required. o Based on review of the submitted materials and best available information Sensitive areas do not appear to exist on site or within 200’ of the site. This Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site Assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered. This document will serve as your Service Provider letter as required by Resolution and Order 17-05, Section 3.02.1. All required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local, State, and federal law. o Based on review of the submitted materials and best available information the above referenced project will not significantly impact the existing or potentially sensitive area(s) found near the site. This Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site Assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect additional water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered. This document will serve as your Service Provider letter as required by Resolution and Order 07-20, Section 3.02.1. All required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local, state and federal law. o This Service Provider Letter is not valid unless ______CWS approved site plan(s) are attached. o The proposed activity does not meet the definition of development or the lot was platted after 9/9/95 ORS 92.040(2). NO SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS REQUIRED. Reviewed by ______Date ______1/2/19
2550 SW Hillsboro Highway • Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 • Phone: (503) 681-5100 • Fax: (503) 681-4439 • www.cleanwaterservices.org
Page 92 of 104
April 2, 2019
To: Planning Commission
From: Planning Department
RE: Report of Administrative Review Land Use Applications
The following report represents administrative review applications processed by the Planning Department staff in March 2019.
Applications Approved by the Planning Department
File No. Name/Description Site Applicant DR-002-19 Liberty High School Hoop House 7444 NE JACOBSON Mercedes Smith Development Review approval for the proposed ST; 3J Consulting Approved on construction of a hoop house to serve the sustainable (503) 946-9365 X211 3/5/2019 agriculture and design program at Liberty High School on 1N214CD00301, property zoned I-G.
DR-006-19 Ligman Lighting 7144 NW PROGRESS Leslie Jones Development Review approval for a 1,940 square foot CT; CIDA Approved on addition to an existing building, located in the I-P SID zone. 503-226-1285 3/21/2019 1N215AD00300,
DR-043-18 Carl's Jr. - 10th Ave Renovations 575 SE 10TH AVE; Joseph Moore Development Review approval for alterations to an GMA Architects Approved on existing fast food restaurant located on a site 0.85 acres in 1S206AA09600, 541-344-9157 3/7/2019 size, zoned SCC-DT.
Site Plan Attached DR -050-18 Rick Residence 22860 NW Tami Rick Development Review approval for renovations to an DOGWOOD ST; Approved on existing Single Family Residence with a detached garage 562-335-1003 3/13/2019 located on a site approximately 0.23 acres in size, zoned 1N234DA00600, SCR-OTC.
DR-060-18 Pinefarm Industrial Park No Applicable Nacia Bonilla Development Review approval for five (5) industrial Address; Westlake Approved on buildings to be located in the Pinefarm Industrial Park Consultants 3/21/2019 Subdivision (SUB-005-18) in the I-P zone. 1N222AB00100,
DR-064-18 Evergreen Apparel Manufacturing Site - Addition 845 NE CENTURY Steve Fosler Development Review approval for proposed addition to BLVD; Fosler Architecture Approved on the existing building on a site approximately 0.62 acres in 503-241-9339 3/22/2019 size, Zoned SCI 1N234DB11300,
Page 93 of 104 Report of Administrative Review Land Use Applications 2
Applications Approved by the Planning Department (continued)
File No. Name/Description Site Applicant DR-076-18 Acumed and International Paper 5602 NE HUFFMAN Alex Stout Development Review approval for new site development ST; T.M. Rippey Approved on on existing industrial properties to provide a new public Consulting Engineers 3/14/2019 street. Site is approximately 16.62 acres in size, Zoned I- 1N222C001900, P. 1N222C000800 1N222C000900 1N222C001700 DR-085-18 Century Industrial Shell Building 6173 NE CENTURY Crystal Molina Development review approval for construction of a new BLVD; Mildren Design Approved on 27,032 square foot concrete tilt industrial building with Group 3/7/2019 four (4) loading docks located on a site approximately 1N2220003400, 503-244-0552 1.96 acres in size, zoned I-P. Site Plan Attached
DR-091-18 Wood Street Training Facility 620 SW WOOD ST; Maggie Gordon Development Review approval for a new public safety AKS Engineering and Approved on training facility to be located on a site approximately 9.71 1S301DA00500, Forestry 3/25/2019 acres in size in the I-G zone.
DR-096-18 Poynter Middle School Temporary Classrooms 1535 NE GRANT ST; Stacey Morrill Development Review approval for temporary classrooms AKS Engineering and Approved on to be located on a site approx. 15.77 acres in size in the 1N2320000900, Forestry 3/26/2019 SFR-7 zone.
MOD-003-19 Washington County Event Center No Applicable Gail Sargent Minor Modification to the Washington County Event Address; LRS Architects Approved on Center (DR-008-18), to change the Expo Hall roof, revise 971-242-8147 3/21/2019 the north exterior wall, and removal of the northern- most crosswalk at the northeast drop-off and loading area. MOD-028-18 Reed’s Crossing Phase 1 SFRD Front Load Traditional & No Applicable Michele Schiedler Rear Load Small Lot Address; David Weekley Approved on Minor Modification to the approved Reed’s Crossing Homes 3/18/2019 Planned Unit Development Phase 1 approval (Case File 503-213-4415 No.: MOD-003-17) for additional architectural approval for detached single family residential homes with front load garages, on traditional sized lots and detached single family residential homes with rear load, on “small lot” sized lots. MOD-034-18 Digital Realty Trust Inc. 6425 NE 62ND AVE; Scott Franklin Minor Modifications to the previously approved PACLAND-Portland, Approved on Development Review application (Case File No.: DR-015- 1N2150000600, Inc 3/15/2019 17 Hillsboro DFT OR1), approved in August 2017. The proposed changes will increase the landscaped area, reduce building size and will change the location of the back-up power generators.
Page 94 of 104 Report of Administrative Review Land Use Applications 3
Applications Pending Approval by the Planning Department
File No. Name/Description Site Applicant DR-019-18 Tuality Apartments 415 SE 2ND Nancy Wargo Development Review approval for a four-story AVE UNIT B; SR Design LLC Carried over mixed use building located on a site 503-469-1213 from approximately 0.28 acres in size, zoned SCC-DT. 1S206BB06500, previous 1S206BB05200 DR-025 -18 Majestic South Huffman II No Applicable Katelin Brewer- Development Review approval for a three (3) new Address; Colie Carried over industrial buildings, located on a site approximately Mackenzie from previous 45.5 acres in the I-S zone. 1N2210002700, 503-224-9560 report 1N2210002600 DR -065-18 Brookwood Elementary Replacement 3960 SE CEDAR ST; Mercedes Smith Development Review approval for the construction 3J Consulting Carried over of a replacement elementary school on a site 1S204BD00100, from previous approximately 9.51 acres in size, zoned SFR-7. report DR -067-18 Vivi's Restaurant 1013 NE 25TH AVE; Peter Wasch Development review approval for a new restaurant Pacific Design Carried over building located on a site approximately 0.15 acres 1N232AB00600, Works, LLC from previous in size in the I-P Industrial-Park zone. Existing 503-310-0438 report building on site will be demolished. Site was granted Variance approval (VAR-002-18). DR-075-18 Main Street Townhomes 1037 E MAIN ST; Samedy Kem Development Review application for a single family Kem Consulting Carried over residential attached townhomes to be located on a 1N231DD01200, from previous site approximately 0.58 acres in size, in the SCC-DT 1N231DD01300 report zone.
DR-082-18 HSD Transportation & Support Service Building No Applicable Courtney Simms Development Review approval for a new industrial Address; Angelo Planning Carried over building with educational services and vehicle Group from previous storage located on a site approximately 15.43 acres 1N214CD00300, 503-227-3661 report in size, zoned I-G
DR-094-18 Next Level Pinball Shop and Museum 1458 NE 25TH AVE; Trisha Clark Development Review approval for exterior Northwest Land Carried over improvements to an existing building that recently 1N229DD00400, Planning from previous obtained Conditional Use approved in the I-P zone. report
DR-097-18 JSR Micro No Applicable Suzannah Stanley Development Review approval for a new 160,179 Address; Mackenzie Carried over square foot light manufacturing industrial building 503-224-9560 from previous located on a site approximately 25.60 acres in size, 1N2210001550, report zoned I-S.
Page 95 of 104 Report of Administrative Review Land Use Applications 4
Applications Pending Approval by the Planning Department (continued)
File No. Name/Description Site Applicant DR-099-18 Reed’s Crossing Phase 1 Townhomes 6802 SE BLANTON ST; Nick Peets Development Review approval for architectural Lennar Carried over review of new proposed townhomes, located in nine 1S210DA00200, Northwest from previous (9) buildings consisting of 45 multi-family residential 1S211CB03900 360-258-7889 report attached homes on Lots 19-27, 89-93, 97-105, 125- 1S211CB04000 130, 160-164, and Lot 169 within the Reed’s 1S211CB04100 Crossing Planned Unit Development, including two 1S211CB04200 minor adjustments. 1S211CB04300 1S211CB04400 1S211CB07400 1S211CB07500 1S211CB07600 1S211CB07700 1S211CB07800 1S211CC01300 1S211CC01400 1S211CC01500 1S211CC01600 1S211CC01700 1S211CC01800 1S211CC01900 1S211CC02000 1S211CC02100 1S211CC05800 1S211CC05900 1S211CC06000 1S211CC06100 1S211CC06200 1S211CC06600 1S211CC06700 1S211CC06800 1S211CC06900 1S211CC07000 1S211CC07100 1S211CC07200 1S211CC07300 1S211CC07400 DR-100-18 Kirkland SDU 843 NE BIRCHAIRE Gregory Kirkland Development Review approval for a Secondary LN; Carried over Dwelling Unit (SDU) on an existing lot, in the SFR-10 from previous zone. 1N231AC00129, report
Page 96 of 104 Report of Administrative Review Land Use Applications 5
Applications Pending Approval by the Planning Department (continued)
File No. Name/Description Site Applicant DR-100-18 Kirkland SDU 843 NE BIRCHAIRE Gregory Kirkland Development Review approval for a Secondary LN; Carried over Dwelling Unit (SDU) on an existing lot, in the SFR- from previous 10 zone. 1N231AC00129, report
DR-003-19 Reed's Crossing Lots 94-96 7443 SE CHINKAPIN Michele Schiedler Development review approval for lots 94-96 DR; David Weekley Carried over consisting of 3 unit attached single family building. Homes from previous 1S211CC06300, 503-213-4415 report 1S211CC06400 DR -004-19 Intel MPTF-1 3100 NE SHUTE RD; Noel Vennes Development Review approval for construction of Intel Carried over a new multi-purpose technical building, 1N2270000100, 503-519-9147 from previous approximately 862,410 square feet in size located report on a site zoned I-P.
DR-005-19 Intel DIX-Mod3 3100 NE SHUTE RD; Noel Vennes Development Review approval for expansion of an Intel Carried over existing fabrication facility located in the I-P zone. 1N2270000100, 503-519-9147 from previous 1N2270000104 report DR -007-19 Baseline MMJ 652 SW BASELINE ST; RL HOLDINGS LLC Development Review approval for new medical marijuana facility 1S301AB00100, 503-887-5554
DR-008-19 Reedville Crossing Bldg F No Applicable Address; Trisha Clark Development Review approval for construction of NW Land Planning a new building located on a vacant site with the 1S211BC03201, 5033302019 Reedville Crossing shopping center. Site is approximately 0.49 acres in size, zoned I-P. DR-010-19 7-Eleven 5222 NE Stephanie Development Review approval for a new BROOKWOOD PKWY; Tandberg Carried over convenience store located in the I-P zone. PM Design Group from previous 1N222B001300, 360-216-1329 report DR -011-19 Hillsboro Community Center at 53rd Avenue 215 NE 53RD AVE; Mercedes Smith Development Review approval for a Community Center 3J Consulting to be located on a site approx. 17.95 acres in size in the 1N2330004201, SCBP zone. Received Conditional Use approval (CU-009- 18).
DR-012-19 Marvelle and Harvey Facade Demo 140 NE 2ND AVE; Delilah and Marc Applicant requesting DR for demo of exterior façade for Ahrendt a building on 2nd Avenue. 1N231CC00700, 5033129197
Page 97 of 104 Report of Administrative Review Land Use Applications 6
Applications Pending Approval by the Planning Department (continued)
File No. Name/Description Site Applicant DR-070-18 Kem Apartments on 4th Avenue 346 SE 4TH AVE; Samedy Kem Development Review application for a 9-unit apartment Kem Development, building to be located on a site approximately 7,533 1S206BA02700, Inc. square feet in size in the SCC-DT zone. 971-205-2602 MOD-014-18 Stonewater Trellis Replacements No Applicable Suzie Spencer Minor Modification to the Stonewater Subdivision Address; Spade & Pencil, Carried over (Case File No. SUB-009-00) to allow replacement of LLC from previous the existing trellises with landscaping. 503-593-0818 report
MOD-025-18 Rosedale Parks - Lennar Detached II No Applicable Nick Peets Minor Modification to the approved Rosedale Parks Address; Lennar Carried over Planned Unit Development (Case File No.: PUD-008- Northwest Inc from previous 16) for architectural review for an additional 1S215AB00100, 360-258-7889 report detached housing plan.
MOD-026-18 Reed's Crossing Phase 1 SFRA Townhome No Applicable Nick Peets Minor Modification to the approved Reed’s Crossing Address; Lennar Carried over Planned Unit Development Phase 1 approval (Case Northwest from previous File No.: MOD-003-17) for architectural review & 360-258-7889 report approval of specific house plans that demonstrate compliance with a specific sub-section of the conceptual elevations approved in MOD-003-17.
MOD-030-18 Reed’s Crossing Phase 1 SFRD Alley Load Small Lot No Applicable Michele Schiedler Minor Modification to the approved Reed’s Crossing Address; David Weekley Carried over Planned Unit Development (PUD) Phase 1 approval Homes from previous (Case File No.: MOD-003-17) for additional 503-213-4415 report architectural review & approval of specific house plans for detached single family residential homes with rear loaded garages. MOD-035-18 Reed's Crossing Phase 1 SFRA Contemporary No Applicable Michele Schiedler Minor Modification to the approved Reed’s Crossing Address; David Weekley Carried over Planned Unit Development (PUD) Phase 1 approval Homes from previous (Case File No.: MOD-003-17) for additional 503-213-4415 report architectural review & approval of specific house plans for attached single family residential homes with attached garages.
Page 98 of 104 Report of Administrative Review Land Use Applications 7
Applications Pending Approval by the Planning Department (continued)
File No. Name/Description Site Applicant MOD-004-19 Ambassador Glen 260 SE 24TH AVE; Chris Baker Minor Modification to the Ambassador Glen PUD (Case NW Engineers File No. PUD-006-16) to phase the 5-lot PUD into two 1S205AB02900, 5036014401 phases to allow Lot 1 to be platted in Phase 1 and Lots 2- 5 platted in Phase 2 upon completion of the public improvements. SNRP-002-19 Intel DIX-Mod3 2111 NW 229TH AVE; Noel Vennes Approval for work within the Significant Natural Intel Corporation Carried over Resource area in relation to DR-005-19. 1N2270001650, 503-519-9147 from previous 1N2270000100 report 1N2270000104
Attached is the March 2019 Building Permits report for your information. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Chris Barry at (503) 681-6179.
Key to Acronyms: DR = Development Review MOD = Modification SUB = Subdivision SNRP = Significant Natural Resource Plan
Page 99 of 104 Building Department 150 East Main Street, Fourth Floor, Hillsboro, Oregon 97123-3963 Phone 503-681-6144|Fax 503-681-6469 [email protected] Inspection Request Line (503) 681-6244 VALUATION YEAR TO DATE Reporting Period: March 2019
Type Of Construction Current Month Fiscal Year To Date
Units Permit Valuation Units Permits Valuation
SINGLE FAMILY 18 18 $0 181 182 $10,747,781
DUPLEX 0 0 $0 0 0 0
MULTI-FAMILY 197 1 $30,268,299 645 6 $91,385,163
RESIDENTIAL REMODEL/REPAIR 12 $400,829 99 $2,845,576
COMMERCIAL 0 $0 10 $66,151,036
COMMERCIAL REMODEL/REPAIR 19 $3,637,856 148 $76,054,653
INDUSTRIAL 1 $16,118,865 3 $16,968,865
INDUSTRIAL REMODEL/REPAIR 16 $2,222,963 202 $373,113,574
PUBLIC BUILDINGS 5 $398,261 14 $46,398,872
MANUFACTURED HOMES 0 $0 0 $0.0
SCHOOL NEW AND REMODEL 5 $5,629,997 19 $7,921,248
CHURCH NEW AND REMODEL 1 $100,000 4 $1,522,000
TOTAL 215 78 $58,777,070 826 687 $693,108,768
Page 100 of 104 DR-043-18 Page 101 of104 DR-043-18 Page 102 of104 DR-085-18 Page 103 of104 DR-085-18 Page 104 of