Resolution No. 82-12 j
RESOLUTION NO. 82- /.2
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIGARD, OREGON
IN RE: Appeal of AMART ) CPR 15-81
DEVELOPMENT, LTD. )
FINAL ORDER
THIS MATTER came before the Tigard City Council for a public
hearing on January 25, 1982, upon the appeal of AMART DEVELOPMENT,
LTD. The decision from which this appeal was taken was announced
by the Tigard Planning Commission on November 10, 1981, following
a public hearing on appellant's request for Comprehensive Plan
change from R-7 Urban Low Density to A-12 PD Urban Medium Density
Development and for a Preliminary Plan Review. The subject
property is located north of Southwest Katherine between Southwest
126th and Southwest 128th (Washington County Tax Map 1S1 33D,
Tax Lot 100) .
The Planning Commission unanimously denied the request,
based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in
the Staff Report and on testimony heard by the Commission.
Appellant filed its Notice of Appeal, dated November 25, 1981,
charging error in the Planning Commission's decision in that:
"After careful review of the testimony in oppositio,, and
comments of the Planning Commission, very few facts were
presented supporting denial of the proposal. The major
issues of compatibility of proposed housing types with
existing neighborhoods and capacity of proposed streets
were not deemed incompatible or unacceptable by the pre-
sentation of facts with the exception that the proposal
is in conflict with the NPO #7 Plan. All requests for
change are inherently in conflict with existing plans but
the City Council has shown a desire to increase density
in the area and the proposal responds to that." (Attachment
to Notice of Appeal)
1 - FINAL ORDER
Resolution No. 82--12.`
The appellant alleged that its interests were damaged by
the Planning Commission's decision in that:
"The applicant desires to build primarily single family
homes on small lots in order to maintain construction
quality but reduce overall costs and thereby provide
homes on lots that people can afford. Most affordable
(twenty percent of the proposed living units) would be
condominiums which would not be built on lots but would
allow home ownership. That cannot be accomplished under
the existing Comprehensive Plan designation of R-7 for
the site but could be accomplished through a Comprehensive
Plan Revision to A-12. Consequently the Planning
Commission decision to deny the change to A-12 does not
allow the applicant to provide the city with the proposed
affordable homes." (Attachment to Notice of Appeal)
The appeal was heard de novo by the City Council under Rule
4 of City of Tigard Ordinance No. 81-68. Upon consideration of
the Planning Commission recommendation, the record in this case
and the public testimony heard on January 25, 1982, the City
Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of
law.
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE
Approval of a revision to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan must
be based on findings and conclusions demonstrating that the change
is consistent with the goals and policies stated in the Compre-
hensive Plan. Because the Tigard Comprehensive Plan has not yet
been acknowledged by LCDC as in compliance with the State-wide
Planning Goals, the proponent of a plan change must also
demonstrate compliance with those Goals. The City Council has
considered the applicant's requested Comprehensive Plan change
in the light of the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and
State-wide Planning Goals and enters the following findings and
conclusions.
2 - FINAL ORDER
RESOLUTION No. 82--_& _
TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Findings. The subject property is located within the area
of Neighborhood Planning Organization #7. The NPO #7 Draft Plan
is used by the City of Tigard as a policy guide for land use
decisions concerning property within that planning area.
Conclusion. The Comprehensive Policies directly relevant
to the subject application are the Goals in the NPO #7 Draft
Plan.
Goal 1 - States the city's intention to limit population
in the planning area to 115,000, with four categories of
residential density to "accommodate the housing needs of
r; different family sizes and income". Goal 1 further states:
"The density of population influences the character of
residential areas and determines the demand for public
facilities and services in different parts of the city.
The citizens of the community should know the density of
development that is planned for different parts of the
city as it affects their own neighborhoods. City
officials need to know the demands for different public
facilities and services in different parts of the city."
Findings. The proposed Comprehensive Plan change would
increase population by 519 over the projected estimate contained
in the applicant's prior development plan for the subject property.
The applicant proposed medium density housing in the form of
attached single family dwellings, clustered single family units
and condominiums. The proposed development is south of Summer
fk'
Lake I, a developed, low-density subdivision consisting primarily
of single family dwellings on 7,000 square foot lots. Low density,
single family neighborhoods zoned R-7 are also located to the
IZ
east, south and southwest of the subject property. Undeveloped
�a land designated for Urban Low Density Residential use is located
3 - FINAL ORDER
RESOLUTION No. 82_l,2
to the northeast, east, southwest and west of the subject property,
with the exception of a small parcel directly west of the subject
property which is designated for Urban Medium Density Residential
use. The subject property is located south of Southwest of
Scholls Highway and would depend on 130th Avenue and 128th Avenue,
a local street, for traffic access to a main arterial. The site
is not adjacent to a main arterial.
The site is designated Urban Low Density on both the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Map and the NPO #7 Plan Map. Testimony at
the hearing indicated that property owners in adjacent neighbor-
hoods purchased their homes because of the area's low-density
character and in partial reliance on the designation of the
subject property for low-density residential development. The
NPO #7 Plan Map designates areas along major arterials, including
Southwest Scholls Highway to the north of the subject property,
for medium density residential use.
Conclusions. The requested Comprehensive Plan change
violates Goal 1 because it represents an intrusion of medium-
density residential use into a developed and designated low-
density residential area. The proposed development is inconsis-
tent with the character of surrounding neighborhoods. Its
density is contrary to the expectations of citizens in adjacent
neighborhoods and to the projections made by city officials in
anticipating demands for public facilities and services in the
area. NPO #7 Draft Plan provides for a range of residential uses
within the area to serve different family sizes and incomes and
has designated developable land with direct access to main traffic
arterials for medium-density residential use.
4 - FINAL ORDER
RESOLUTION No. 82-/.2-
Goal 2 - "The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the established
character of existing neighborhoods and seeks to preserve and
enhance existing neighborhood values. Future development
Proposals should be sensitive to the concern of citizens for
their own immediate environment as well as to the well-being of
the city as a whole."
Findings. NPO #7 Plan Map designates the subject property
and the bulk of surrounding property for low-density residential
use. The character of developed neighborhoods immediately
adjacent to the subject property is predominantly low-density
residential. The applicant proposes an increase in density from
approximately four single-family dwelling units per acre to
approximately nine units per acre.
Conclusions. The proposed development would not preserve
and enhance the existing low-density character of existing,
adjacent neighborhoods. The proposal ignores the concerns of
adjacent property owners who considered the property's low-
density residential designation in purchasing their homes. The
proposal violates Goal 2 and is not justified in light of the
availability of more appropriate sites within the: NPO 07 Plan area
designated for medium-density residential use.
Goal 3 - Recognizes the natural features that give the
City a distinctive character and provide for their protection
and enhancement of community Iiveability through creation of
Y
a greenway system.
Findings. Summer Lake City Park is on the northern boundary
.4 of the subject property and a north-south drainageway flowing
5 - FINAL ORDER
RESOLUTION No. 82- l.;_
into Summer Lake will remain undeveloped as a greenway. The
applicant has provided common open space and walkways connecting
these features with school grounds to the east of the property
and planned open space around Winter Lake on the property's
western edge.
Conclusion. The proposed Comprehensive Plan change and
development plan is consistent with Goal 3.
Goal 4 - Recognizes the inherent conflict between large
volumes of vehicle traffic and directs major routes be designed
and located so as to minimize those conflicts while providing
an efficient circulation network for motorists. The Goal
further states that: "the major street pattern indicated in the
Comprehensive Plan will give notice as to how the city intends
to route major traffic volumes in the future."
Findings. Only two local capacity streets provide access
to the property and they presently dead-end at the south and
west boundaries. The construction of 130th Avenue as a neighbor-
hood collector through the site could help alleviate potential
traffic problems. The extension of 130th from the north
connecting to S. W. 128th at the southern boundary is the only
through street proposed for this project. There is a potential
for large volumes of traffic exiting the property to the south
and traveling on S. W. 128th Avenue, a local street leading
through a developed, low density residential neighborhood.
S. W. 128th Avenue and S. W. Walnut Street presently have traffic
loads at or beyond their capacity. Finally, the subject property
is not located adjacent to any arterial.
6 - FINAL ORDER
RESOLUTION No. 82^!L
Conclusions. Permitting medium-residential use of the
subject property would violate Goal 4 because such use would
introduce large volumes of traffic into developed, low-density
neighborhoods. Large volumes of traffic on local streets
conflict with residential values and pose a threat to neighbor-
hood liveability. The existing street network is inadequate to
meet the influx of traffic entailed in the proposed development
and the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that proposed
street improvements would satisfy the demand and successfully
eliminate the conflicts with adjoining residential neighborhoods.
Goal 7 - Provides in relevant part that, "the location of
schools and parks affects the liveability of Tigard's residential
neighborhoods. Youngsters in the elementary grades should be
able to walk to school and should not have to cross busy streets."
Findings. Although the proposed development is located
adjacent to Mary Woodward Elementary School in the Tigard School
District, the children residing in the development would not
attend this school. The subject property is located in the
Beaverton School District, and the nearest elementary school
serving the proposed development is approximately two to three
miles away, on the north side of Scholls Ferry Road. Written
testimony from the Beaverton School District indicates that the
District has adequate classroom space to handle the projected
number of students residing in the proposed development. However,
the projection was based on current demographic studies indicating
that condominiums and attached single-family units are purchased
(' primarily by singles and families without children. Other
testimony indicated that housing of this type may be the family
7 - FINAL ORDER
RESOLUTION No. 82--1,2—
f
home of the future and that many more children may reside in the is
proposed development than currently projected.
Conclusions. Location of a medium-density residential
development on the subject property is inconsistent with Goal 7,
because children residing in the development would have to travel
more than two miles to the elementary school serving the develop-
ment. There was no testimony indicating that the nearby
elementary school in the Tigard School District could adequately
serve the proposed development. Nor was there any substantial
testimony as to whether it would be feasible to incorporate the
subject property into the Tigard School District. Allowance of
the requested Comprehensive Plan change would constitute a
potential violation of State-wide Goal 2 (see infra at 11) ,
because of the lack of coordination between local governmental
units and special districts.
Policy 5. "The single-family character of the area desig-
nated on the Plan Map as Urban Low Density is viewed as a positive
asset to be retained. Projects proposed for this area must be
judged according to effects upon this character."
Findings. See Findings on Goal 2, supra.
Conclusions. The proposed Comprehensive Plan change is
inconsistent with the low-density character of surrounding
neighborhoods. The proposal would be detrimental to that
character because of increased population density and increased
automobile traffic and its attendant noise, fumes and risk of
accidents on neighborhood streets.
8 - FINAL ORDER
RESOLUTION No. 82-j,z_
Policy 8. "When developments are proposed in the Urban Low
Density area for sites which include identified natural features
worthy of preservation, the planned development concept shall be
utilized if the Planning Commission determines it the best method
for preservation."
Findings. The proposal is for a planned development which
identifies adjacent natural features and provides for their
preservation and incorporation into the overall plan.
Conclusions. The proposed development conforms to Policy 8.
Policy 9. "The maximum overall density of development will
be 12 dwelling units or 29 persons per gross acre."
Findings. The proposed development's density per gross
acre is 9.27 dwelling units.
Conclusions. The proposed development is consistent with
Policy 9.
a Policy 11. "Development will coincide with the provision
of public streets, water and sewerage facilities. These facilities
a shall be (a) capable of adequately serving all intervening
properties as well as the proposed development, and (b) designed
to meet city or county standards."
Findings. The subject property is served by a sewerline
running north-south through the property. The property is served
by S. W. 130th Avenue connecting north to S. W. Scholls Highway.
S. W. 128th Avenue and S. W. Falcon Rise Drive, both local
streets, presently dead-end at the southern and western boundaries
of the property.
Conclusions. For the same reasons cited in the conclusions
under Goal 4, supra, the requested Comprehensive Plan change
9 - FINAL ORDER
RESOLUTION No. 82
i
violates Policy 11 because the applicant has not adequat-ly
demonstrated that existing and proposed streets in the area will
adequately serve the proposed development without substantial
adverse impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods.
The City Council has considered Policy Nos. 10, 12, 13, 14,
21 and 22, discussed by the applicant in its development proposal.
The City Council finds that the development as proposed provides
two separate accesses to collector streets and concludes that it
would comply with Policy 21. It is concluded that the other
policies discussed by applicant are not relevant to the City
Council's determination of this application and that compliance
with them would be determined during site design review. The
City Countil concurs with applicant's conclusion that Policy
J
�7
Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are not applicable to this
Comprehensive Plan change proposal.
s
} STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOALS
GOAL 1 (Citizen Involvement) -- Goal 1 requires the city
to provide opportunities for citizens to be involved in the
decision-making process.
Findings. Notice of the Tigard Planning Commission's
hearing was published in the Tigard Times on October 29, 1981
z
and November 5, 1981. Notice was mailed to surrounding property
owners within 300 feet on October 30, 1981. Appropriate noti-
fication of the City Council hearing on January 25, 1982, was
provided in conformance with the Tigard Municipal Code.
10 - FINAL ORDER
RESOLUTION No. 82-
Conclusions. The hearing process involved in the city's
consideration of the subject Comprehensive Plan change request
conforms with Goal 1 and citizens were given adequate opportunity
to be involved in the decision.
GOAL 2 (Land Use Planning) -- Goal 2 requires that (1) the
City of Tigard have an adequate factual base for its decision,
E:
t; (2) the decision be consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan,
and (3) the needs and concerns of other affected units of
s
government be considered and accommodated to the extent feasible.
Findings. The City Council, in these findings, has demon-
strated the factual base for its decision. The findings and
y
conclusions addressing the goals and policies in the NPO #7 Draft
_F
Plan demonstrate that the requested Comprehensive Plan change
' does not conform to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The findings
and conclusions concerning Goal 7, supra, at 7, indicate a
potential lack of coordination between the City of Tigard and
other affected local governments and districts with respect to
y provision of public schools and distribution of classroom loads,
if the proposed development were approved as requested.
Conclusions. An adequate factual base for the City Council's
+i
decision has been demonstrated. The requested Comprehensive Plan
change is inconsistent with applicable goals and policies of the
Tigard Comprehensive Plan and would entail a lack of coordination
between local governments, with respect to provision of public
schools, in violation of Goal 2.
GOAL 3 (Agricultural Lands) -- Goal 3 requires that agricul-
tural lands be preserved and maintained for farm use.
11 - FINAL ORDER
RESOLUTION No. 82- /..?
Findings. The subject property is entirely within the City
of Tigard's Urban Growth Boundary and, therefore, contains no
agricultural land.
Conclusions. Goal 3 is not applicable to the City Council's
decision.
GOAL 4 (Forest Lands) -- Goal 4 requires that forest lands
be preserved and maintained for forest uses.
Findings. The subject property is entirely with the City
of Tigard's Urban Growth Boundary and, therefore, contains no
land designated for forest use.
Conclusions. Goal 4 is not applicable to the City Council's
decision.
GOAL 5 (Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural
Resources) -- Goal 5 requires protection of listed types of
natural resources, including needed open space and sites/structures
with historic or cultural significance.
Findings. Summer Lake City Park is on the northern boundary
of the subject property and a drainageway flowing into Summer
Lake bisects the property in a north-south direction. The
proposed development designates the drainageway as a greenway and
is designed to maintain and enhance the resource values of Summer
Lake.
Conclusions. The proposed development is in compliance with
Goal 5, because it would protect natural resources on t:ie subject
property.
GOAL 6 (Air, Water and Land Resource Quality) -- Goal 6
requires the protection of the air, water and land resource quality
of the state.
12 - FINAL ORDER
RTSOLUTION No. 82-_62—
a
Findings. Public testimony indicated that increased auto
traffic on the local streets through the adjacent residential
neighborhoods would be detrimental to air quality in those areas.
There was insufficient evidence to establish a threat to
compliance with or attainment of federal, state or local air s
quality standards. Increased volume and velocity of storm runoff
from the development as a result of construction at a higher
density may increase turbidity of Summer Lake and reduce its
quality as a recreational resource.
Conclusions. Approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan
t
may violate Goal 6 because of potential threats to air and water
quality.
GOAL 7 (Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards) --
Goal 7 requires the protection of life and property from natural
disasters and hazards.
Findings. Public testimony indicated that Summer Lake has
approached its capacity during certain periods of rainy weather
in the past. Development of the subject property at an increased
i
density could add to the volume and velocity of storm runoff and
exacerbate the potential flooding problem in the greenway. The
record does not indicate the presence of any other natural hazards
in the area.
Conclusions. The applicant has not adequately addressed
the impact of developing the subject property at an increased
density on storm runoff and potential flooding in the Summer Lake
greenway.
0
13 - FINAL ORDER
RESOLUTION No. 82- i Z
GOAL 8 (Recreational Needs) -- Goal 8 requires governmental
'�... units that have responsibility for recreation areas and facilities
to plan for meeting the recreational needs of the citizens of the
state and visitors.
Findings. Applicant has donated the land around Summer Lake
to the city and made many of the improvements during development
of Summer Lake Phase I. The proposed development is consistent
with the Tigard Park and Open Space Plan.
Conclusions. The proposed development complies with Goal 8.
GOAL 9 (Economy of the State) -- Goal 9 requires the diversi-
fication and improvement of the economy of the state.
Findings. Development of the subject property at the
requested density, instead of for low density residential use for
which it is presently designated, will have no significant impact
on the economy of Tigard or the state.
Conclusions. Denial of the requested Comprehensive Plan
change will not adversely affect the economy of the area.
GOAL 10 (Housing) -- Goal 10 requires comprehensive plans
to provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Findings. NPO #7 Draft Plan provides for a mix of adequate
numbers of housing units to meet varying, family sizes and incomes.
The applicant relied heavily on the argument that its proposal
will provide "affordable housing"for those who cannot presently
purchase conventional single-family homes on large lots. The
applicant's testimony indicated that the single-family attached
units would range in price from $105,000 to $120,000.
Conclusions. It is questionable whether the applicant's
Cis
proposed housing units prices in excess of $100,000 will help
14 - FINAL ORDER
RESOLUTION No. 82_ el_
g alleviate the need for affordable housing referred to in Goal 10.
The proposed development seems to provide exclusive hcusing,
on a scale commensurate with the surrounding, low-tensity single-
family neighborhoods, but at a density incompatible with the
existing development pattern in those neighborhoods. Denial of
the requested Comprehensive Plan change will not adversely affect
the provision of affordable housing needed by the state's citizens.
GOAL 11 (Public Facilities and Services) -- Goal 11 requires
local governments to plan for a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services.
Findings. Public testimony indicated that the subject
property is served adequately by sewer and water facilities.
There was conflicting testimony concerning the adequacy of the
existing and proposed street system to serve the increased
residential density contemplated. The applic.aut's own testimony
presumed reconstruction of the intersection at S. W. 130th Avenue
and Scholls Ferry Road with a traffic signal.
Conclusions. The requested Comprehensive Plan change
violates Goal 11, because it would require additional street
improvements not presently planned or necessary for the existing
level of low-density residential development.
GOAL 12 (Transportation) -- Goal 12 requires the provision
of a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
Findings. The potential adverse impacts of the proposed
development on the existing street network, the need of improve-
ments to handle the increased traffic resulting from the
development and the location of medium-density residential use
without direct access to a traffic arterial place stress on the
15 - FINAL ORDER
RESOLUTION No. 82- /2_
existing transportation system and disrupt planning for future
transportation needs in violation of Goal 12.
GOAL 13 (Energy Conservation) -- Goal 13 requires local
governments to encourage the conservation of energy.
Findings. The proposed development would include condominiums
and attached single-family units and the site design would
encourage conservation.
Conclusions. The proposed development complies with Goal 13.
GOAL 14 (Urbanization) -- Goal 14 requires an orderly and
efficient transition from rural to urban land uses.
Findings. The subject property is located within the Tigard
Urban Growth Boundary and the city limits of Tigard.
Conclusions. The requested Comprehensive Plan change
complies with Goal 14.
GOALS 15 - 19.
Findings. The subject property does not include any portion
of the Willamette Greenway and is not in the coastal area of the
state.
Conclusions. Goals 15 - 19 are not applicable to the City
Council's decision.
Based upon all of the foregoing considerations and the
findings and conclusions set forth above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the requested Comprehensive Plan
change be and hereby is DENIED.
3
16 - FINAL ORDER
RESOLUTION No. 82-12-.—
PASSED: This day of 1982.
ayor - City of Tigard
i
ATTEST:
Recorder - City of Tig
.9
{
17 - FINAL ORDER
RESOLUTION No. 82- /1