Resolution No. 82-136 1
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 82-13(c,
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON COUNCIL REVIEW
OF ITEMS S-4-82 AND ZC 12-82, AS PETITIONED BY THE ROBERT RANDALL
COMPANY, APPLICANT.
THIS MATTER came before the Council at its meeting of November 15,
1982; upon the filing of a Notice of Review under TMC Sections
18.84.240 and 18.84.260.
The Council had before it the entire record of the proceedings
before the Tigard Planning Commision, which denied the request
with one dissenting vote, on September 5, 1982. The applicant,
The Robert Randall Company, has sought review of that decision
by filing a timely Notice of Review on Octob:r 5, 1982.
The applicable criteria to this decision are the following:
--State-wide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 1' 12, 13
and 14.
--NPO Plan Policies 2 through 6, and the Plan Map.
--TMC Section 17.06.065.
Based on the record in this case, the Council makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The subject site is located within the corporate limits
of Tigard, Oregon at 15280 S. W. 100th Avenue, and is also
identified as Washington County Tax Map Parcel 2S1 11CA Tax Lot
900, comprising 3.89 acres, more or less.
2. The subject site is designated Urban Low Density on the
NPO 6 Comprehensive Plan, which is applicable to this case. The
site is zoned R-7 (single family residential, 7,500 sq, ft.
minimum lot size) and is proposed to be rezoned R-5 (single family
residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to accommodate the
proposed subdivision.
3. The surrounding area has been developed primarily as
single family residential, although the Church of the Latter Day
Saints lies directly to the south and the property to the east
is vacant.
4. There is an existing house and garage on the site which
could be integrated into the new subdivision. The site is grass
covered and slopes to the south. There are a few trees on the
northern portion of the site.
5. The subject site is within the acknowledged Metropolitan
Service District Urban Growth Boundary and is both too small
RESOLUTION ->4C). 82-�(o C
Page 1
and surrounded by development to allow for farm or forest uses.
6. There are no resources as listed in State-wide Planning
Goal 5 on the subject site.
7. There is standing water on the site, causing drainage
difficulties (Transcript, pp. 6 and 17) . Otherwise, there are
no natural hazards on the site.
8. The area has sufficient recreational facilities,
according to the Tigard Parks Plan.
9. The staff report, Section B(1) (d) notes that no storm
drain plan was submitted with the application, that fire hydrants
were not located and there was no response regarding the capacity
of the schools. The Council determines that the applicant failed
to show compliance with State-wide Planning Goal 11, notwith-
standing the proposed attempts (Transcript at p. 15) to show that
proposed drainage facilities were adequate. No drainage plan was
submitted with the application and the verbal indication of
compliance is insufficient. See also, Staff Report, February 20,
1980, Finding 12.
10. The city has undertaken a revision of the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan and will bring the draft revised plan,
including consolidation and revisions of the existing NPO 6
Comprehensive Plan before the Council in December, 1982 for its
review.
The Council also makes the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. The Council concludes that the main issue in this case
is conformity of the application -pith the Tigard Comprehensive
Plan, in this case NPO 6. The application could allow up to 25
units on the site, while the R-7 designation would allow as
little as 15. The PD District is not applicable to thi: -ite
to increase density, as the site is less than four acres is size.
2. The application does not conform to the Tigard Compre-
hensive Plan Maps of NPO 6, applicable to this site. In order
to approve this application, there would have to be a
Comprehensive Plan revision.
3. The Council notes that the Planning Commission considered
the possibility of revision of the NPO 6 Comprehensive Plan for
this site when all comprehensive plans are reviewed by that body
and the Council, The Council concludes that this process is a
more appropriate means of dealing with the issue of "split
density" on the site rather than applications such as this or
small-tract comprehensive plan revisions, because the policy
issues of housing need ai.d density are more appropriately addressed
at that level. McIntyre-Cooper Co. v. Bd. of Commis of Washington
County, 55 Or. ADD, 78, 637 P.2d 201 (1981) .
RESOLUTION NO. 82-13C>
Page 2
4. The Council reed not reach the issues of compliance
with other applicable State-wide Planning Goals, neighborhood
compatibility, nor the adequacy of facilities and services,
with the exception of drainage .facilities. On this point, the
staff report found, and the Council believes, that there was
insufficient evidence to shot: compliance with Statewide
Planning Goal 11, as stated in Finding of Fact No. 9. The
Council rejects the staff conclusion at p. 31 third paragraph,
which is a conclusion not based on the evidence in the record.
5. The applicant states that Policy 2 of the NPO 6 Plan,
limiting density to four dwelling units or 12 persons per gross
residential acres, should be construed as to allow an increase
in density in the area. The applicant does this by suggesting
different demographics by way of household size, MSD and LCDC
rules, and the Draft Tigard Housing Plan.
The Metropolitan Service District and LCDC housing
rules are directed to the plan adoption and revision process,
not to individual zone changes and subdivision requests.
McIntyre-Cooper v. Bd. of Comm'rs., supra; Fujimoto v. City of
Happy Valley, 55 Or. App. 905, 640 P.2d 656 (1982) .
Nor is the city bound to accept more recent, but con-
flicting, evidence of household size over its adopted
comprehensive plan. Homebuilders Association v. Metropolitan
Service District, 54 Or. App. 26, 633 P.2d 1306 (1981) ; Valley
& Siletz Railroad V. Laudahl, 56 Or. App. 487, 642 P.2d 337 ,
(1982) .
Nor is the city obligated to use its Draft Plan over
its comprehensive plan already adopted. Green V. Hayward, r
23 Or. App. 310, 317-318, 542 P.2d 144 (1975) ; reversed on other
grounds, 275 Or. 693 (1975) ; Deters v. Bd. of County Commis,
1 Or. LUBA 217, 221 (1980); Tiffany v. Malheur County, 5 Or.
LUBA 57, 62 (1982) ; Atwood v. City of Portland, 2 Or. LUBA 397
(1981) .
6. The city interprets NPO Plan Policy 2 to emphasize the
four dwelling units per gross residential acres. The reference
to 12 persons per gross acre is illustrative and surplusage, p
especially in view of the remainder of that policy. As inter-
preted, the Council concludes that the applications do not meet
this policy. 4
7. Because of the noncompliance with the NPO 6 Plan, the
applications also fail to meet State-wide Planning Goal 2 and
TMC Section 17.16.100(b) (3)
The Council, therefore, ORDERS that the above-referenced
applications be, and the same hereby are, DENIED.
2-/PaRESOLUTION NO. 82-/-
Page
ge 3
_ The Council FURTHER ORDERS that the Planning Director and the
City Recorder send a copy of the Final Order as a Notice of
Final Decision to the parties in this case.
PASSED: This / " day oflo� . 1982, by
ty o
the Council of the Cif Tigard.
Mayor - City o£ Tiga
i
ATTEST:
City Recorder ity of Tigard
r
i
.e' RESOLUTION NO. 82-j=;�(v
Page 4
i