Ordinance No. 96-32 v
Y
a CITY OF TIGARD,OREGON
ORDINANCE NO.96-3a
t f �
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A TIGARD
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY MATRIX •
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY(CPA 96-00041ZON 96-0003/PD 96-0002)
4
wi
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a comprehensive plan map amendment and znnP £ i
change from Low uensity Kesioenval/K4.5 to Medium-High Density Residential/R-7(PD)on 18.5
acres and a zone change and planned development overlay from R-12 to R-7(PD)on 9 acres of
roe at the southwest corner of Hall Boulevard and Sattler Street,and
P P dY } .
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the proposed amendments
and zone change at its meeting of June 17, 1996, and recommends approval of CPA 96 µ A
00041ZON 96-0003/PD 96-0002.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: r {777 ,
SECTION 1: The proposed amendment is consistent with all relevant criteria based upon y
the facts, findings and conclusions noted in the attached final order(Exhibit 4 `
A), n
SECTION 2: The City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and staff
recommendations and approves the request to designate the parcels`
} illustrated on the attached map(Exhibit B). � '.
SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council,
signature by the Mayor,and posting by the City Recorder. "
PASSED: By nu" -5vote of all Council me ber present after being read by t
number and title only,this--///-3 day Q4 , 1996.
r?CiCiJ! SGi�PGKCa L/Q� /1Gf r/dtC. '
s
Catherine Wheatley,City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this 13 day of C 1996.
gr
/ f
' �� '�u.r..�-t FJwrvt� (yn,r�.Gil (�✓teQiCllt.n# h`y���"";
Y q��
s \ ah
k p
ORDINANCE No. 96-�_ ".
_ - Page 1 '�
a t i z
t
3
L �
l S �
S
Y
n x._
Yp �
+.' "£ �,N
AL
WIN
70
ggg
't sac
n !•
a`t fi
i a w
u
tom: r$ '}'�" �•*s
Approved as to form:
of
Eq G'
*" Attorney
ti
^
vale
qrt T-zS.,
z�3 s
s k,�
rFS
ark - *r
i ,Y f 7
Roo WAY—
not, An
y{
'S
T M M1 i
t
P* € J
12
Y,�t�gzmw
N �
i'� ja'4 3 tia r NEW
r M v 3
����s x k r 'rr kp.ay�i
ORDINANCE No. 96- � '
>3
Page 2
OR
4
noon. H
�No
i#
k u wv rs4
na z
x� r
t
: 4Y C
x
IMF
{ }
3" 44-
f1 CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
�crr FINAL ORDER � , ,
-'A A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN k
APai WATinN FnR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
f= REQUESTED BY MATRIX DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.
The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at a public hearing on July 23, � xi:
1996. The City Council approves the request based on the facts, findings and � r � '
conclusions noted below. �t
Y
A. FACTS _
1. General Information e �
4# b £
CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0004
b. �
Zone Change ZON 96-0003/PD96-002
Y l
REQUEST: The applicant has requested a comprehensive plan y
amendment, zone change and planned development overlay #¢ m
from Low Density Residential/R4.5 to Medium Density .
? Residential/R-7 (PD)on 18.52 acres and a zone change and v
Fy i planned development overlay from R-12 to R-7(PD) on 9 � � .
acres of property at the southwest corner of Hall Boulevard � ;
and Sattler Street.
Ti
APPLICANTS: Matrix Development Company
6900 SW Haines '
l } e
Tigard,OR 97223r
ts
OWNERS: Edward J.Sattler,Jr.
8800 SW Sattler Street f !
f Tigard,OR 97224
Lillian E.Sattler
4 15245 SW Hall Blvd. `"
l} i 3 �
r` Tigard,OR 97224 � {
maM
.
77
77,
F
M F
y"
t4 st �
Q
9
IrM
Y _
� 2
ii
LOCATION: West of Hall Boulevard and south of Sattler Street (WCTM
2S1 11 DA,Tax Lots 100,200 and 300)
2. Vicinity
The three affected parcels are located west of Hall Boulevard and south of Sattler
Street (Attachment B). The properties to the north across Sattler Street are
designated as Low Density Residential with a zoning of R-4.5(PD); to the east
(acress Hall Boulevard), south and west are properties designated as Medium r
Density Residential and zoned K-i. Ali of ih=iv eaz developed as
subdivisions. One parcel immediately adjacent to the site along Hall Boulevard to u
the south is zoned R-12 and contains a single-family residence. x
40,
i L
3. Background Information
1 F
Site History. The entire site,consisting of 27.52 acres,was annexed to the City in
March of 1982 and designated as Urban Low Density with zoning of R-5(eastern 9 ,
acres of site including tax lot 300 and two-thirds of lot 100)and R-7(western 18.52
acres of site including tax lot 200 and one of lot 100). At the time, R-5
j c a ;
denoted 5,000 square foot minimum lot size and is equivalent to the City's current
R-7(7 units per acre/5,000 square foot minimum); R-7 denoted 7,000 square foot :.
minimum lot size and is equivalent to the City's current R-4.5 (4.5 units per f
acre/7,500 square foot minimum). The current zoning map, therefore, should
show the eastern portion of the property as R-7 and the western portion as R-4.5. � a '`
However, the eastern portion is shown as R-12 (12 units per acre/3,050 square x g '
foot minimum lot size). See below under Section IV, Policy 1.12 for explanation of
this discrepancy. There have been no other actions staff could find related to this
property,including a zone change from R-7(formerly R-5)to R-12. +
l 4. Site Information and Pr000sal Descri t
The"L"shaped site is comprised of three tax lots. Parcel 100, abutting both Hall +
and Sattler, is 12.65 acres with a single-family residence and farm buildings; the , R�
remainder is open grassland. Parcel 200,the western portion of the site, is 14.57 zF
acres and used as pasture land. A single-family residence is located in the 4
northwest section of the parcel. Parcel 300, located along Hall Boulevard,is 0.30
acres and contains a single-family residence. There are two identified wetlands on '
the site totaling 0.78 acres. They have been described by the City's Local
Wetlands Inventory as farm ponds with no adjacent tree vegetation, the shrubs
totally grazed by cattle and emergent vegetation as not recognizable. They have
received the lowest functional value of any wetlands in the City. Further, in a letter
..J
2
k€
z
v
F
IiP x
MINN I
[dip
�
r�6�7R
3
IN
K ��SEE
# z
yrx
4=,
-k ; from the Division of State Lands to the applicant's wetlands consultant,dated May ,
r 16, 1996,the Division's Wetlands Program Leader refers to these water bodies as
stock ponds and states that there is no wetland area surrounding the ponds.
The applicant requests a comprehensive plan map amendment,zone change and
planned development overlay from Low Density Residential/R-4.5 to Medium
Density residential/R-7(PD)on the western 18.52 acres; and a zone change and
planned development overlay from R-12 to R-7(PD) on the eastern 9 acres. A
written narrative has been submitted by the applicant in support of the request. if i
Y.-
the proposal is approved,the applicant has expressed a desire to develop a neo-
W,P P pP PP P p �r WI
traditional subdivision on the site. There are no plans or submittals, however, � ��
s ! pertaining to a subdivision development as part of this application.
5. Agency Comments
r �p
r �
ODOT has reviewed this application and informed staff that the proposed change ,�
i is not significant under OAR 660-12(Transportation Planning Rule)and,therefore,
did not submit comments. -
�9
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS f ` �
E The relevant criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 6.1.1,
8.1.1, 12.2.1 (2); Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32 and 18.86;
and Oregon Administrative Rules,Chapter 660 Division 12. a
WN
COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES:
General Policies: Policy 1.1.2 requires that in order to approve quasi-judicial
changes to the comprehensive plan map,the City Council must find:
1. The change is consistent with applicable plan policies; P ;r
2. A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original r '
designation,or; ``x
z `z
3. A mistake was made in the original land use designation.
r The proposed comprehensive plan map change from Low Density to Medium Density ' k x
' Residential is consistent with all applicable plan policies(see below).
r;
4f
The applicant makes cases both for a change of physical circumstances and a mistake r ,.
to meet this criterion. The change argument is based on two circumstances (see %
x applicant submittal, pages 17-20). Staff does not consider the first circumstance to m
constitute a physical change. The applicant states that an R-12 area southeast of the ;
---j, -.
vs
61
ArF
F
1
is
-
t I �
d
'JYr
`M 5
NO
t
LNJ
x�
view
rz�
3
a
site has developed as single-family homes with smaller lots to a density of
approximately seven units an acre only. This may be the case, however, it is not a 4
physical change which is cause for a zone change to the affected site. The
development at seven units an acre is allowed under R-12 zoning. The second [®
argument, based on a staff recommendation to the Planning Commission and City t
Council in 1987 to'upzone'the R-4.5 portion of the site, which was denied, claims that
the findings given at the time are no longer valid due to changed circumstances. A
denied recommendation for a city-initiated zone change by itself does not qualify for a
physical change of circumstance. Staff agrees, however, that changes have taken {
place since this portion of the site was zoned R-4.5 which enhance its ability to t t
accommodate medium density housing. Since the site was assigned R-7 (equal to = #,
current R-4.5)zoning in 1982, the following improvements to the transportation system
3 that serves the site were planned and implemented:
• Intersection improvements(1989)and signal installation(1992)at Bonita&Hall;
i Widening of Durham Road between Summertield and Hall(1990); ' `
i Widening of Durham Road between Hall and Upper Boones Ferry Road (currently � u � ;
under construction), , a .
• Transit service initiated by Tri-met along Hall Boulevard(1993) r 3
``,'%
The site now meets all criteria for Medium Density under the Comprehensive Plan's l r,
Locational Criteria section(see Locational Criteria,Policy 12.1.1(2)below).
The applicant states that a mistake has been made in the zoning designation on the R- t3 r
i 12 eastern portion of the site (see application, page 20). Staff agrees that a mistake
was made in changing the Comprehensive Plan and zoning from Urban Low Density/R-
5 to Medium Density/R-12. R-5 is a former City designation which meant 5,000 square
foot minimum lot sizes and is equivalent to the current R-7 designation. The City
Council initiated annexation of this site in August of 1981 and assigned R-5 zoning. '`
The Boundary Commission approved the annexation request in March of 1982. TheL,
Interim Zoning Map of 1983 and all zoning maps thereafter, however,show the eastern '
portion of the site zoned R-12. Staff could find no official record, including staff report ��' u
and findings, regarding the rezoning of this area from R-5 to R-12. For this reason, R
staff believes that an error was made in reassigning an R-12 zoning to this site. ,
Citizen Involver+Qnt: Policy 2.1.1 states that the City shall maintain an ongoing E
citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an
opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The notice for the xi
planning commission hearing was sent to surrounding property owners within 250 feet of
the affected property, posted at Tigard City Hall and advertised in a local newspaper. In
addition, the applicant provided notice of and conducted a neighborhood meeting on
3
Y.
4 s
If dry;,
yY
, a
r
f
p � w
� t
P ( '
-� March 19, 1996,for property owners within a 250-foot radius of the affected property and
other interested parties. This policy is satisfied.
Housing: Policy 6.1.1 states that the City shall provide an opportunity for a M
diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent
levels. It is primarily implemented through OAR 660-07,the Metropolitan Housing Rule.
The rule requires the city maintain sufficient residential buildable land to provide the
opportunity for at least 50% of new units to be attached single family or multi-family
housing and to provide for an overall density of ten units per acre. Because the R-7
zoning district is included in the range of zoning districts(R-7 through R-40)used by the t s
City in the calculation of attached single-family or multi-family housing, the net affect of
1 the zone change would result in an increase from 77%to 78%of new units being of this
type. In addition, there would be one additional unit of housinq added to the City's `>_.
inventory under the proposed rezone. The proposal would not,therefore,affect the City's
current housing opportunity index of 10.46 units per acre. This policy is satisfied.
Transportation - Traffic Ways: Policy 8.1.1 states that the City shall plan for a
safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and r
anticipated future growth and development. As a directive to the City, this policy
J requires planning for a street system that can meet current and future needs based on
the land uses it must support. Hall Boulevard has been designated as an arterial and
Sattler Street a Minor Collector on the City's Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map.
These designations support the existing zoning of the subject site. Under the proposed
zoning, the residential development potential is virtually the same as that under the
existing zoning. Based on the City's density calculation method, the existing zoning
could yield 190 units and the proposed zoning could yield 191 units on the site. Upon
development of the site under either scenario,the developer will be required to dedicate t _
install. necessary sued improvements to implement
` necessary rights-of-way(s and ',�+.,I'h^ ^,.,..._---•..•__
the street standards of Hall Boulevard and Sattler Street which will maintain a safe and
j efficient roadway system. This policy is satisfied. z .
Locational Criteria: Policy 12.1.1(2)provides the locational criteria for designatingWim k`
land as Medium Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan map. It is ( . ,'n v
intended that the locational criteria be construed in a flexible manner, in the j
interest of accommodating proposals which, though not strictly in conformance t fr
with the applicable criteria, are found to be in the public interest and capable of {
harmonious integration into the community. The burden of proving conformance r
of the proposal with the criteria varies with the degree of change and impact on the
community: the more drastic the change and the greater the impact, the more
strictly the criteria should be construed. The applicable locational criteria with
findings are as follows:
5 i
g -
4
OVUM
p f•
f OW
,kr < .
� k
Pe, M01
t
4k ty .�•
JIM
A. The following factors will be the determinants of the areas designated for
medium density on the plan map:
(1) Areas which are not committed to low density development; <
The surrounding area is zoned for a mix of low and medium density development:
To the north of the entire site and south of the western portion of the site are Low
y Density Residential districts;to the east,west and southeastern portion of the site
are Medium Density Residential districts. This area is not,therefore,committed to
low density development.
(2) Areas which have diroct access from coiiector or arterial streets;
The site has direct access to!y�1!Roulevard! an art _, w-' er Street,a minor
coiiector. " h
i7. Mr�*#�, i
(3) Areas which are not subject to development limitations such ash
topography,flooding,poor drainage; c �
The site is not constrained by development limitations. The two wetland areas ,
1 identified in the City's Inventory are farm ponds with no adjacent tree vegetation, ��
ltotally grazed by cattle and contain no recognizable emergent vegetation. They ,
have received the lowest functional value of any wetlands in the City. The letter
from the Division of State Lands considers these water bodies as stock ponds E
and states that there is no wetland area surrounding the ponds.
(4) Areas where the existing facilities have the capacity for additional ;
development;
The existing facilities and services have adequate capacity to accommodate :
development at the site. The proposal would allow virtually the same number of
residential units as the existing zoning. Sanitary sewer,storm and water lines are
located in Hall Boulevard, Sattler Street and 88th Avenue. The street system is 1
l designated to handle additional traffic. The detailed analysis and evaluation of r x
service capacity and needed improvements will be addressed as part of the
{ development review process. sxVr
` a >'
(5) Areas within one-half mile of public transportation;and
TrLmet bus service is available along Hall Boulevard.
(6) Areas which can be buffered from low density residential areas in
order to maximize the privacy of established low density residential
areas.
w
6 1
i
} l
K
z
t 3
S a31
t
MiASr t
a
a�# �.4 {s....... _. .. ._ _ .. ... .. «..n._,.,..,m.,vs
3
Y C
The proposed area can be adequately buffered from the low density residential
area on the north side of Sattler Street and along the southern boundary of the site p
through the density transition, buffering and screening requirements of the
Community Development Code. These requirements would be addressed duringo
.
subdivision review when an application is submitted to the City.
i Based on the above facts, Policy 12.1.1(2) is satisfied for locating a Medium Density
Residential area on the western portion of the subject site.
, s . r
COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: �
Amendments to the Title and Mao: Section 18.22 of the Community Development
Code sets forth standards and procedures for quasi-judicial amendments to the al ,;
plan and zoning district map. A recommendation or a decision to approve,
approve with conditions,or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment i
shall be based on all of the following standards:
Z 'w `
.
The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designation; and theiN
change will not adversely affect the health,safety and welfare of the community;
j The applicable plan policies related to the proposal are reviewed above under
Compliance With Comprehensive Plan Policies. Based upon the facts and findings in
this report, staff has determined that the proposed amendment and rezone will not �»?
adversely affect the health,safety and welfare of the community. �'
The statewide planning goals adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter '.
197, until acknowledgment of the comprehensive plan and ordinances; The t }
Tigard Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged,therefore,specific review of each Y ;00-
statewide planning goal is not necessary. Notice of this proposed amendment has �F
',, S<
been prrJ,iiylo"1 to the Department of Land Conservation
,^,d Development fCr CCm�nent
at least 45 days prior to the final decision datev~ ,
The applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable kg, F
implementing ordinance; Code section 18.52(R-7:Single-Family Residential)contains
the standards for the R-7 zone. The proposed site could meet the standards listed under ;
Dimensional Requirements (18.52.050) and Additional Requirements (18.52.060),
including the residential density transition provisions of 18.40.040, for a single-family '
development. Specific future site development improvements will be reviewed through :`
the subdivision procedures to ensure consistency with Community Development Code
standards. yfi
Evidence of change in neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency
in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the '
7
e
a
t
t
p gg
t"-AqQ!
p,L"
2 4L
Comprehensive Plan Policies,Policy 1.1.2.
A subject of the development application. See above under Compliance With
Procedures for Decision Making Qua5l-Judicial: Section 18.32 of th
Community Development Code sets forth the procedural requirements for review
of quasi-judicial plan amendments. The application has been processed in
accordance with Code Sections 18.32.020, 18.32.050 and 18.32.060; a hearing has
been conducted by the Planning Commission according to 18.32.090(D); and the
requirements for notification of the hearings have been met according to 18.32.130 and
18.32.140.
Planiled--Development: Section 18.80 of the Community Development Code sets
forth the approval process and elements of a planned development overlay
designation. Section 18.80.015 states that this overlay zone shall be processed in the x"o-;g,j
tW M,
same manner as a zone change under the provisions of Chapter 18.32(Procedures for
41�1--
Pr"
Decision Making:Quasi-judicial). This application is indeed being processed according
to Chapter 18.32. The proposal also meets the requirements of Section 18.80.060,
Planned Development Allowed and Disallowed, because the affected site is classified
as a developing area. The remaining requirements of this code section,which address
Zip- -
implementation of the Planned Development overlay,will be reviewed upon submission
of a development plan. This policy is satisfied.
VM
M.,
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND REGIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
OregQn Administrative Rule: Section 660-12-060 requires that comprehensive
plan amendments which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure
that allowed land uses are consistent with identified function,capacity and level of
service of the facility. The proposed amendment/zone change would result in a net
change of one additional residential unit allowed on the site. This change would not
significantly affect a transportation facility. ODOT agrees and did not require or request a
raffic study of the proposal. This rule is satisfied.
tj
-FFV"�""g fw'��'tp-rNM
i"-� A'2`151�-'-;.
C. DECISION
—H'� -P
osr'&
The City Council APPROVES the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment
CPA 96-0004 and Zone Change ZON 96-0003/PD 96-0002 based upon the
foregoing findings and conclusions.
V
8
nzv
3
ss
1 -
J
f
j CIT/O®
EGWH '
l ■
L
w INGS
E E
p
m
_ C
G7 ® sr
DAWN '
C WES L
R a ♦^ i ,7....
L
> C
CL
Z � F
� u
E
1
t, s}
i0 1
T E
S r
x ( ®
u 0
—CT _ ani jHE
U
}§} t
i { ORR
h
l � i
� f
y DURHAM RDLL
[ "
i I
j ® Proposed ComprehensWe Plan Map Amendment, -
i A Zone Chantle,and Planned Deve6pmant Oveday t om
Vicinity Map y` Lm Density R-4.5 to Medium Dens NlR-Y(PD)
11
Note: Map is not to scale Proposed Zone Change and Planned Development
(v Werlavtrom R-12 to RJ(PD).
) v � .