Loading...
Ordinance No. 94-24 CIT`.t' OF TIGARD! OREGON ORDINANCE ;.ATO. 94- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMEWr REQUESTED BY REMBOLD TRUSTS, INC. . WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Light Industrial to General Commercial and a Zone Change Amendment from I-P (Industrial Park.) to C-G (General Commercial) for a 7.76 acre parcel (WCTM 1S1 35BB, tax . t 500) and a 2.15 acre parcel (WCTM 1S1 35BB, tax lot 300) ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public nearing on August 22, 1994 and concurred with the Planning Division's recommendation for approval; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing September 27, !994 to review the applicants proposal, the staff report, the Planning Commission recommendation and to recieve public testimony; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria based upon the facts, findings, and conc:lusione noted in the attached final order and map, identified as Exhibit A. IRCTION 2: The City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and staff recc-nimendationsand approves the request to redesignate the parcels illustrated on the attached map (Exhibit A) with a Comprehensive Plan designation of General Commercial and C-G (General Commercial) zoning. SECTION 3 xhij ordinance shall be effects.ve 30 days after it--, passage bythe Council, approval by the Mayor, and posci�xg by the City Recorder. PASSED, By U Wane" vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this Vis" day of e 1994. Catherine Wheatley, Cite Recorder APPROVED: This ew<:) -" day of .� 914. J chwartz, Mayor ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 1 ApproAred as to farm; City Attorn 0 Date ORDINANCE No. 94- Page EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS REQUESTED BY REMBOLD TRUSTS, INC.. The!i., and City Council reviewed the application below at a public hearing on September 27, 1994. The City Council approves the request. The Council has based its decision on the facts, findings and conclusions noted below, and the findings, submitted by the applicant, as attached. A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 94-0003 / Zone Change ZON 94-0005 REQUEST: A request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Light Industrial to General Commercial and a Zone Change from I-P (Industrial Park) to C-G (General Commercial) . APPLICANT: Rembold Trusts, Inc 1022 SW Salmon, Suite 450 Portland, OR 97204 OWNERS: Thomas Holce Portland General Electric 109 N Lotus Beach Drive 121 SW Salmon Street Portland, OR 97217 Portland, OR 97204 REPRESENTATIVE: Michael C. Robinson Stoel Rives Boley Jones & Grey 900 Std r°fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97204 LOCATION: 10075 SW Cascade Boulevar . (WCTM iS1 35BB, tax lots 300 and 500) . 2. vicinity Information ilia 8ubja„ct 04.re is loeated on the west aside of SW Cascade Boulevard between SW Scholls Ferry Road and. SYS Greenburg Road. The properties adjacent to SW Scholls Ferry Road to the .north are zoned C-G (General Commercial). Adjacent properties to the north, east, west and south are zoned I-P (Industrial Park) . SW Cascade Boulevard is classified as a major collector street, SW Greenburg Road as a major collector and SW Scholls Ferry Roast as an Arterial on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation map. Cascade Boulevard is developed with commercial type uses at the far north and south intersections with SW Scholls Ferry Road and. SW Greenburg- Road reenburgRoad respectively. The northern commercial area contains Levitz Furniture, Toys R' Us and the Shang Company'. The southern commercial area contains a gas station, furniture rental, convenience store and other sn;.alil retail stores. The area also contains an Office Depot, Designer Choice Furniture and Beaverton Honda stores. The remaining lands are developed with industrial type uses or ure vacant. 3. Baro; Infos n�a ,¢;�n STAFF REPORT - CPA 94-0003/ZON 94-0005 Rembold Trusts, Inc. PAGE 1 The subject site and the majority of the Cascade Boulevard Area was annexed into the City in Tune 1981. At that time, the zone was changed from Washington County M-1 (Industrial) to Tigard M-4 (Industrial Park) . No other land use applications have been filed with the City. On August 22 1994 the Planning Commission conducted a public Hearing concerning this request and recommended that the City Council approve this application subject to the findings within this report. 4. site I tgmstion and Proposal gescri tion This site contains 9.91-acres. It is located on the west side of Cascade Boulevard between Scholls Ferry Road and Greenburg Road. The Southern Pacific Railroad borders the site on the west. Two seperate ownerships comprise the site. Rembold Trusts, Inc, is the contract purchaser of Tax Lot 500, containing 7,76 acres. PGE owns tax lot 300, containing 2.15 acres. The PGE site contains an electrical substation. The substation would remain after the Comprehensive Plan map change and Zone Change. The Holce property contains a vacant industrial building, formerly the Sentrol building. The proposal is for an approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Light Industrial to General Commercial and a Zone Ch;inge from I-P (Industrial Park) to C-G (General Commercial) . The applicant's possible uses on this site include construcl:ion of-a Smith's Home Furnishings store containing 50,000 sa_uare feet and a seQond specialty retail building containing another 60,000 square feet. 5. Agency Comments The Oregon Department of Transportation has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments: ODOT is requesting more information to address the fallowing issues: 1) The traffic impact analysis report does not include long-range anaays:is cf_ `he transportation system's ability to aceo=nodate the anticipated traffic. ODOT would likes the applicant to provide information demonstrating the trip generation in the current zone compared to the proposed zone. This type of analysis is typically included in a traffic study for a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change application, 2) Because of the storage concerns, the applicant will need to address storage,requirements for traffic turning onto Cascade Boulevard based on the proposed General Commercial zoning compared to the present Industrial zoning. The zone change is expected to increase the westbound left tui.n lase demand on Schol.ls Ferry Road at the Cascade Boulevard intersection. This increased traffic is of conce= to MOT since the storage space available for this flc+w of traffic is limited becausa of the intersection's proximity to the southbound ramp for Highway 217. If the amount of storage space is exceeded, the traffic could Qreate safety and operational problems such as possible traffic .back-ups onto Highway 217 ramp which is unacceptable to ODOT. The skate Highway Division has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: MOT has two concerns regarding the Scholls/Cascade intersection that would be impacted by this develament. Firet, the mitigation stated by the Kittleson Report may iae difficult since moving both thru lanes to the right, would not line ug the thru movement and inhibits right turns on red. Secondly was their analysis of the signal isolated or dirk it include the Highway 217 southbound ramp STAFF REPORT - CPA 94-0003/ZON 94-0005 - Rembold Trusts, Inc. PAGE 2 terminal signal? The proximity of these two signals are so close that they cannot be realistically analyzed independently. City of Tigard Building Division, City of Tigard Engineering Division, General Telephone and Electric, Portland General Electric, City of Beaverton, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, have reviewed the. application, and have offered tto comments or objections, No other comments have been received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant approval criteria is this case are Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 4.2.1, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.6.1, 4.1.1, 8.1.3 and 12.2.1 and Community Development Code Sections 18.22.040 (A), and 18.62. Section 18.22.040 sets forth the standards and procedures for amendments to the Zoning Map as follows: A. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and may designation and; the change will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community; The following are the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies related to this request. The application's relationship to the applicable criteria is reviewed below each policy: Plan Policy 1.1.2 requires that in order to approve a quasi-judicial amendment to the Plan, the City must find that the change is consistent with applicable plan policies, that a change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation, or there is avidence 'ax a change in the neighborhood or community which affects the subject parcel(s). Alternatively, thai City must find that a mistake was made in the original designs ion (Policy 1.1.2, implomentaticn Strategy 2; r_oununity Development Code Section 28.22.040 (A)) . This Policy is addressed under 18.22.049(A) criteria 4. Plan Policy 2.1.1 states that the City shall maintain an ongoing itizen involvement program and shall assure that citizen: will be pr,�ridcd an opportunity to bQ involved in all phases of the planning process. This policy is satisfied as the applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting on May 23, 1394. The East Citizen Involvement Teats WIT's) Representative was also notified of this meeting. Notice of Public Hearings have been advertised in a paper of local circulation and notice of a land use action has been posted on the property. Plan Policy 4.2.1 states that all development within the Tigard Urban Planning area shall comply with applicable Federal., State and Regional water quality standards. This policy is satisfied as the site is already developed. Building and site improvements were reviewoud for compliance with applicable federal, state and regiona! water quality standards in effect at the time of development. The proposed redesignation would not, by itself, affect compliance with this plan policy. However, the proposed'redesignation of the site for General Commercial use will likely result in building and site STAFF REPORT CPA 94-0003120N 94-0005 - Rembold Trusts, Inca PAGE 3 i modifications. The applicant is proposing to .construct two 60,000 square foot buildings. The applicant's proposal shall require a Mite Development Review approval. Compliance with water quality standards is one of the approval criteria. Therefore, any proposed development shall comply with Fede r;il, state and Regional water quality standards. Plan Policy 5.1.4 stater, that the City shall ensure that neer commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial uses. This Plan policy ie satisfied because the subject property is not located Within or adjacent to a designated residential area. Plan Policy 7.1.2 states that as a pre-condition to development that: A) Development coincide with the availability of adequate service capacity for public water, sewer and storm drainages 8) The facilities are capable of serving intervening properties and the proposod development and are designed to City standards: and C) All new development utilities be placed underground. This policy has been satisfied because the subject property is currently served with urban services, including water, sanitary and storm sewer. This site is already developed rzd is not within the boundaries of the 100-year floodplain or a designated area of ground instability. Additionally, all bervice providers have had the opportunity to comment on this application and have offered no comments or objections. The requested amendment will likely result; in the construction of two new buildings. Service providers will have a further opportunity for review as part of the Site Development Review application. Plan Policy 7.6.1 states that the City shall require as a pre- condition te:, development that: teha devetlopment be served by a water system having adequate beater pressure for fire protection purposesi shall' not reduce the water pressure in the area below a level a,,*quate for fire protection purposesa and the applicable fire:, district review all appiicationa. The proposed redesignation would not, by itself, affect compliance with this plan policy. Tha Tualatin Valley Fire District and Tualatii valley Water District have reviewed this proposal ane have offered no comments or objections. Proposed future buildings ahall be :reviewed by these agencies for compliance with these requirements. Plan Pelicy 8.1.1 states that the City shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development;. This policy is satisfied because this property fronts SSR* Cascade Boulevard, a major collector, which abuts a State Highway (Highway 210, SW SchJlls Ferry Road) and SW Greerburg Road, a major collector. The applicants have submitted a report evaluating the traffic impacts of the proposed development under current and proposed zoning. The report concludes that the potential traffic impacts of development under the proposed zoning are not significantly greater than those of potential development under the current zoning. The proposed change can be accommodated while atill maintaining acceptable levels of traffic operations and safety on the surrounding street system. While the City of Tigard Engineering Department has ae~cepted the conclusions of the traffic report, the applicant will have to address the concerns expressed by the Oregon Department of Transporrtation Plan Policy 8.1.3 states that: as a precondition of development that: dsvelopxment abut a publicly dedicated street' street right,of way be STAFF REPORT - CPA 94-0003/vOPt 94-0005 - Rembold Trusts, Inc. PAGE 4 dedicated where the street is substandard in width; developer commit to coaotz,uction of street improvements to City standards to the extent of the development's impacts; parking spaces be set aside and marked for cars operated by disabled persons. This policy will be satisfied as a condition of approval of any future development or redevelopment on the site. completion of any necessary street improvements along the site's frontages and/or parking lot modifications would be required to be installed by the developer at the time of such development or redevelopment. The Engineering Division and affected reviewing agencies will review any future development proposals for the site. Plan Policy 12.2.1 d2 lists the locational criteria for General Comimercial zonees. The applicable locational criteria specified in Chapter 12 of the Comprehensive Plan aro the following: a. Spacing and locational criteria require that the commercial creta shall not be surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. This site is not adjacent to a residential zoning district on any side. b. Site access criteria requires 1) the proposed area shall not create traffic congestion or traffic safety problana; 2) the site shall have direct access from a major collector or arterial street; and 3) public transportation shall be available to the site. This site does have access to a Major Collector Street. Public transportation is available on SW S.cholls Ferry Road and SW Greenburg Road. The traffic study demonstrates that the proposal will not create congestion or traffic safety problems. The Oregon Department of Transportation has expressed concerns related to storage capacity. The applicant will ha•-e to address these concerns as requested by OregonDepartment of Transportation. C. Locational criteria also requires that the site be of a size wh'ictcan accommodatw projected uses and that the site po6saxs high visibility. This criterion is .oatlefied for the 9.91 acre site. .he existing building and site improvements, as well as proposed buildings can adequately accommodate a variety of uses permitted within the C-G (General Commercial.) zoning district. This site is also highly visible frost adjoining roadway and state highways. d. Impcct Asseemment is determitiod by addressing the following criterias 1) the scale of the project shall be compatible with the surrounding uses; 2) the cite configurations shall be such that the privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained; 3) it shall be possible to incorporate unique site features into the site design and development plant and 4) the associated lights, noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining non-coaaaercial uses, This Plan policy is satisfied because the impact to the surrounding land uses is determined to be negligible. The scala of the present development as well as the proposes) development on this site is compatible with the surrounding uses. There ars no residential zoning districts adjacent to this site. The site is presently STAFF REPORT - CPA 94-0003IZON 94-0005 Rembold Trusts, Inc. PAGE 5 developed and does not possess 'unique site features. Off-site impacts should not interfere with adjoining industrial uses. 2. The statewide planning goals adopted under Oregon Revised Statues Chapter 197, until acknowledgement of the comprehensive plan and ordinance*. The Comprehenaive Plan has been acknowledged. Each amendment to the plan is provided to the appropriate State Agencies for review. Notice of filing of this application has been provided to the State Department of Land Conservation and Development for comment more than 45 days prior to the final hearing on this application as required under State of Oregon Administrative Rule 660-18-020. 3. The applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance. Code Section 18.62 (General Commercial) contains the standards for the General Commercial zone. The subject site meets these requirements in that the minimum lot width is greater than 50 feet and the existing structure does not exceed 45 zeet in height. Additionally, the proposed development will require a site development review and will be reviewed for compliance with C-G standards. 4. Rvidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a4 Mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. (Ord. 89-06 Ord. 83=52) The applicant's Supplemental justification submittal presents evidence of a change in the neighborhood. This evidence includes the following; Past land use decisions have recognized the need for and support of Commercial zoning designations; The majority of uses are retail or service and not industrial, Market demand in the area is for retail use; The existing Sentrol building is no longer needed for industrial use because it unds:natiilzes the site; and that transportation changes have occured in the area. The applicant's evidence of mistake in the Comprehensive Man and Zoning Map include: The area does not meet the purpose of the I-P zone as described in the Community Development Code, Property vacant in 1987 is still vacant se"sen years later, indicating that the zoning is a mistake because it has discouraged development of vacant properties; Rail access is not important to this area; Induetrial land protection is not needed, as the Z-P allows numersus commercial uses '7-be area has not developed in accordance with the intent of the I-P zone; and that the original City designations are not justified. The applicant concludes that the original comprehensive plan and zoning map designations wt this site arc mistaken because they are not required by the Tigard Comprehensive Plan nor do they reflect the development pattern in this area, The applicant also states that because of the land use and transportation chances that have occured in the area since annexation, because there is no strong policy justification .for I-P zoning on this site and because the area cannot fit the I-P characteristics, this request should be approved. dence of Cliarcro in the Neighborhood. The applicant states that past land use decisions 'recognize the need for commercial zoning and that: several zone changes since the site's annexation have reduced the I-P zoned area to the lots along the middle part of Cascade Boulevard. The applicant cites Zg_IL-M (Levitz/Toy's R' us), CPA 91-04 43013 91=g (Share Co.) and SDR. -06. 92-13, and 44-05 (Beaverton Honda) as examples of ch=ge in the neighborhood. A small area near the: Cascade Boulevard/Greenburg Road intersection is and has been .zoned commercial since its annexation to Tigard in 1972. With this STAFF REFORT - CPA 94-0003/ZON 94-0005 Rembold Trusts, Inc. PAGE 6 exception, the Cascade ares has historically been zoned industrial, The bulk of the Area was annexed to the City of Tigard in Jtuze 1981. At the time of the annexation, the zone was changed from Washington County M-1 (Industrial) to Tigard M-4 (Industrial Park) . A Council finding of that annexation states: "The territory.is substantially developed with industrial uses. There are some vacant lands suitable for industrial development". In July 1981, immediately following annexation, Portland Chain/Toys R' Us was granted a zone change from M-4 to C-3 (Commercial General), for prof.,erty located at the far north and west part of the Cascade Area. The City staff ~eport to the Planning Commission stated that Cascade Avenue is a well established industrial zone and;will-not eventually go commercial. The report noted that Staff would now'have made an approval recommendation had the applicant proposed a greater number of retail outlets instead of the large furniture warehouse with a retail outlet proposed at that time. In 1986, the Planning Commission and City Council denied an application to change the allowable uses in the I-P zone to allow, in part, retail use on I-P property. This property is located across the street from the parcel involved in tnis application request. Staff had discouraged a zone change on the property and so recommended a Zone Ordinance Amendment. Planning Commission minutes record that Staff felt the entire area should be evaluated rather than changing the zoning on this one piece of property. The City Council requested that City staff conduct a study to determine if this area should remain zoned I-P or if the area would be more appropriately rezoned C-G. The 1987 Cascade Area Steady was prepared as a result of this request. In summary, this report concluded that; there was no compelling reason to change the zoning designation within the Cascade area. In 1591, a zone change (CPA 91-0004/ ZON 94-0007) was granted from I-P to C-G fol: ink thr 1.1 acre parcel (Times Building) north of Cascade Boulevard at its intersection with Scholis Ferry Road. This property was annexed into Tigard Li October 1985. Upon annexation, the property was rezoned front Washington County M-1 (Industrial) to Tigard I-P. A mistake was found to have been made in the industrial designation because the I-P zoning constituted an industrial "island". In 1992, approval of SDR s2-0006, 92-0013 w«s granted on property across the street from,applicant's property. The 1992 approval allowed the conversion of the former Power Rents building to be used as a motorcycle and lawn equipment sales facility, with subsequent expansion for warehous space. This use is classified in Section 1.8.68.030(A) (2) (b) as Automobile and Equipment: Sales and Rental, light equipment and is a permitted use in the T-P zoning district. in 1'994 an approval was granted SDR 94-0005 for an expansion for warehouse space and a showroom.. Cons iderat.ions I oncerns/Evaluation 1. Thn evidence for a chane in circumstance is not very strong. The 1981 zone change (ZC 16-80) was granted but with a reference that the Cascade area would net be converted to commercial. The report also noted that Staff would not have made an approval recommendation had the applicant proposed a greater number of retail outlets instead of the large fu-niture warehouse with a retail outlet proposed at that time. The only other change was the 1991 zone change (CPA 91-04/ZON 91-07) . The applicant, in quoting the 19§1 staff report, paints out teat "when the subject site was annexed mato the Citgo, the site wab given Tigard zoning designation which most closely matchead the original Washington County designation. However, tho effect of the previous 8.23 acre zonc. change from I-P to C-C, which ocoured in 1980: is ANIL STAFF REPORT CVA 94-0003/ZON 94-0005 11embold Trusts; Inc. PAGE 7 that a land use pattern bad been ciceated whEreby the newly zoned subject site would not fit the existing land use pattern. In effect, an I-P island surrounded by commercial uses had been created. It a1D. eayrs that the C-G designation would have been a more -aouroxir{ate designation when the aronerty initially recieved a city zone." It should be pointed out that the 1991 report also states "the applicant stated that several changes in physical cire-umstances have occured since Washington County originally applied an industrial designation to the subject property. Staff recognizes one such physical change on this site. With the approval of ZC 16-80 (Levitz/Toys R' Us), tie subject property was left as an "island" of I-P land surrounded by arterials and commercial zoning. Approval of 94703 would create an island of C-G. The conclusion of CPA 91- 04 was that there was a change in the neighborhood and that a. mistake was made in the zoning designation. The change was caused by the zone change in 1981 and the mistake was creating an I-P island surrotuided by C-G. The reasoning and justification that applied to the I-P "island" does not directly apply to the application presently under consideration. 2. it would appear that the City is facing a similiar decision as it did in 1986, when it denied a Zone Ordinance Amendment. The application in 1986 was in p&rt for permitting a creneral retail use on an I-P property. The City determined at that time that a closer examination was needed in order to determine the most appropriate zoning for the Cascade Area. The 1987 Cascade study concluded that with the exception of a small area presently and historically zoned commercial, the 77ecoa:ds clearly show that this area was consistently zoned industrial. Recorde of past decisions affecting zoning with4.n the Cascade Arca show that there was a desire to maintain this area for industrial uses. The properties that have been zhwngsd to a commercial zone are located near either Greenburg Poad or Schol?s Ferry Road. Many comments made during hearings for these zone changes indicate that a commercial zone designation was appropriate only far the;particular site in question, not for the entire area. While suitable expansion of commercial areas can be beneficial, retention of established industrial uses is also eery important. The results of the 1987 study showed no compelling reason to change the zoning designation within the Cascade Area, ai that time. 3. Approval of the subject zone change would create a C-G "island" st rrounded by I-P zoning. Such a zone change would be creating a similiar situation that the 1991 zone change cPA 91 X004 (Times Building) tried to correct. If CPA 94w03 is approved, there is little reason not to approve the wholes area for commercial. Approval of this zone change would certainly open the door for further zone changes to commercial. If the arguement can be made for the CPA 94-03 property, it can be made for all the remaining I-P property along Cascade Boulevard. There would be little remaining justification to continue I-P zoning for the Cascade Area, Past land use decisions discussed and the 1987 study indicated the industrial nature of this area. The industrial potential of this area could be lost through piecemeal changes in zoning. The applicants proposed change should occur only with a policy decision that the I-P zone in this: area is no longer needed and the whole area would be more appro,.�pri_ately zoned commercial. S. The applicant states in the supplemental application that the area is not appropriate for the I-P or industrial designations and that industrial land protection is not needed. The applicant, points to STAFF REPORT - CPA 94-0003/ZON 94-0005 - Rembold Trusts, Inc. PAGE 8 the fact that the area has not developed as the i-P zone intended and that many of the allowed uses in the I-P zone are commercial in nature. The applicant also implies that there is not that great a difference between the C-G and I-P zone. The applicant notes that the I-P zone lists 24 permitted commercial uses. The I-P zone dcas allow 24 commercial uses as defiaed by Commercial Use Types. Of those 24 use types, only 5 are essentially retail in nature. `The I-P zone allows for general retail but limits these uses to Z0# of the development complex. While the building character and function of these retail type buildings may be similiar to some industrial uses, staff believes also there is a need to retain an inventory of Industrial land. The question is whether it should be retained here. The Tigard Database 1994 provided updated information concerning acres of vacant land by zoning classification. This inventory identifies 434 total acres of General Commercial and 448 acres of IndustriAl Park. Of that, vacant lands constitute 114 acres of C-G with 150 vacant acres of I-P. There are approximately 40.95 acres zoned I-P in the Cascade area, with approximately 3.5 acres of vacant land. An inventory of buildable vacant I-P lands identified approximately 85 acres of buildable I-P lands available in the City. The applicant contends that while the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges that a "core problem" facing the City is lack of buildable land designated for industrial use, vacant bv:,ildable land must be appropriately located. The applicant states that in this case, the best evidence demostrates that the site is more suitable for commercial development than for industrial park developm_=nt. The site is relatively small (loss than 10 acres) and is near commercial uses on the nc,rth and south ends of Cascade Boulevard. The development trend in this area appears to be away frcm industriF1 uses and towards commercial uses. Staff recognizes that some change in uses have accured in the area, particularly Office Depot and. Designer Choice Furniture locating across the -,treet on Cascade Boulevard. 'Whether these charges are significant enough to justify a change in the zcae from Industrial to General Cormnercial is open to question:. The issue before the City Council is whether or not the area along Cascade Boulevard should be Industrial or Commercial. If the propsed change is made, it should be made with the notion that the entire area should be commercial and the present zonig is outmoded for ti�ir area. C. DECISION The City Council approves the requested Compreharmive Plan Amendment for Washington County Tax Map properties 1$1 35BB, tax lots 300 and 500 from -Tight Industrial to General Cor=ercial and a Zone Changs from I-P (Industrial Park) to C-G (General Commercial) . The City Council finds that the change will promote the general welfare of the City and will not be significantly detrimental or injurious to surrounding land uses. It is further ordered that the applicant and parties to these proceedings be notified of the entry of this order. :STAFF REPORT CPA 94-0003/209 94-0005 s Rembeld Trusts, Inc. PAGE 9 SUPPI',FMNTARY FINDINGS REGARDING TRAFFIC ISSUES FOR CPA 94-0003 AND ZON 94-0005 The staff report recommended limited approval of this request because the Oregon Department of Transportation District IIA office indicated a concern about tha impact on state highways of the comprehensive plan map and zoning map change. Gary McNeel of ODOT District IIA commented on July 12, 1994 to the City as follows: 11ODOT has two concerns regarding the ScholasfCascade intersection that will be impacted by the development. First, the mitigation stated by the Kittelson report may be difficult since moving both the lanes to the right would not line up the through movement and inhibit right turns on red. Secondly, was their analysis of. the signal isolated or did it include the Oregon 217 southbound ramp terminal signal? The proximity of these two signals are so close that they cannot be realistically analyzed independently." The ODOT District IIA comment is in the record.. Additionally, the ODOT Region I office submitted a letter dated Tw August 2, 1994 raising several questions and issues. That letter is included in the record in this matter. The applicant responded to both letters. The City Council notes that the August 12, 1994 mem•:;randum to Michael Robinson from Lee Rodegerdts of Kittelson & Associates indicated that the ODOT District IIA concerns had been resolved after a meeting with Mr. Rodegerdts. Subsequently, the appliaant, submitted a memorandum to Mr. Rodegerdts from Gary McNeel of ODOT District _!IA, dated August 12, 1994. The memorandum is in the record. The memorandum states: "In accordance with our meeting in your office August 11, 1994, ODOT is withdrawing the written comments submitted to the Tigard Planning Department in July of 1994. Our discussion included potential methods of re-striping both Cascade approaches in such a manner that through movements can line. up. We also deL•ermined that the method of analysis used for the signals develop a reasonable picture of existing and proposed traffic conditions.8° PDX1-143527.1 23455: 0001 Further, the City Council nates that the applicant submitted a supplemental memorandum from ODOT Region I, dated September 28, 1994, into the record. The memorandum is from Martin jensvold, ODOT Region I Senior Transportation Analyst. His memorandum stated: 'II have reviewed Kittelson's August 22, 1994 response to ODOT's concerns regarding the proposed rezone application. Kittelson addresses the issue of left-turn storage on Scholls Ferry Road satisfactorily. With regard to the long- term traffic forecast, the City determines Kittelson's response to be satisfactory, it's recommended OD`,' not challenge it." The City Council notes that the record contains a memorandum from Randy Wooley, City Engineer, to Will D'Andrea, dated July 12, 1994, in which Mr. Wooley stated that the Engineering Department has no objections to the proposed zone change and that the Engineering Department accepted the conclusions of the Kittelson traffic report. Based on the above, the City Council finds that the applicant has adequately 'demonstratead resclution' of concerns expressed by ODOT and that substantial evidence in the whole record demonstrates that neither ODOT nor the City are concerned about impacts from ,the request on city or state highways. i PDXS-143927.1 23452 0001 2