Resolution No. 86-56 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
( RESOLUTION No. 86-J�,
A FINAI. ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT (CPA 2-86) AND ZONE CHANGE (ZC 4-86) REQUESTED BY WHITE AND
WII.HELM, DENYING THE APPLICATION, ENTERING FTNDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.
WHEREAS, the applicants requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from
Low and Medium Density Residential to Commercial Neighborhood and a
Zone Change from R-4.5 and R-12 (Residential 4.5 and 12 units/acre) to
C-N (Commercial Neighborhood); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard the above applicatio r. at its Regular
meeting of April 8, 1986 and recommended denial; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council heard the above application at its regular
meeting of April 28, 1986. Dr. Wilhelm appeared representing the applicants,
and Gary Ott, representing NPO ifl, Donna Sandbo, 11475 SW 91st, Tigard,
and the Community Development Director reviewed the Planning Commission's
recommendation for denial, appeared in opposition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
Section 1: The proposal is not consistent with all relevant criteria as
discussed in the April 8, 1986 Planning staff report to
Planning Commission (Exhibit "A").
Section 2: The City Council upholds the Planning Commission's recommendation
for denial of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map
Amendment as set forth in Exhibit "B" (maps) .
Sectior. The Council, therefore, ORDERS that the above referenced request
be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. 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 a l"t1 day of �}`��L-� 1986.
Mayor City of Tigard
W TEST:
r �
put" City Recorder - City of Tigard
�Tf.FF REPORT nGl NDA I)t.M ',. 1
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1986 - 7: 10 I'M
TIGARD PLANNING �;OMMCSS ION
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SC(400(. - LG 1
10865 S.W. WALNUT
TI:GARD, OREGON 97223
A. FACTS
1, General Information
CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 2--86 and Zone Change ZG 4--86
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low and Medium Density
Residential. to Neighborhood ne
Commercial and a Zone chag
from R-4.5 (Residential 4,5 units/acre) and R-12
(Residential, 12 units/acre) tr, C-N (Commercial Nei.yhborhood)
APPLICANT: Tom Fisher/Michael Wilhelm OWNER: Irma White
13085 SW View Terrace Michael Wilhelm
Tigard, Oregon 11730 SW i.;reenburg Rd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
LOCATION: 11730, 11780, 11782, 11784 SW Greenburg Road (WCTM 1S1 3500,
Tax Lot 7P00, 7600),
2, Background
No previous land use applications have been reviewed by the City
relating to this property.
3. Vicinity Information
The area northeast and southeast of the two parcels is zoned R-4.5 and
is occupied by single family residences. The properties on the east
side of 90th Avenue contain apartment buildings which are zoned R--12.
Greenberg Road borders the subject properties on the south and single
family homes that are zoned C-P (Commercial Professionalare situated on
the south side of the street.
4. Site Information and Property Description
This proposal involves two separate parcels which havo two different
Comprehensive Plan and Zone designations. One lot is located on the
northeast corner of Greenburg Road and 90th Avenue. II: contains a
triplex and is zoned R-12. The second lies immediately northwest along
Greenburg Road and it is occupied by a house and is zoned R-4.5.
STAFF REPORT - CPA 2--86/ZC 4-86 - PAGE 1
�o
t
The applicants' intend to use Lho pre,per-tiees for dental offices, 1-he
proposed C-N zone allows den L.+l and medic;+l offices as wolf as a variety
of other commercial activities, but the ma.i.mum siee ofany individual
business is 4,000 square feet. of floor area. the northerly 80 feeL of
the western parcel is intendeed to r(--La in the present R-4.5 zone
designation.
5. Agency and NPO Comments
The Engineering Division has no objection to the request. It is noted,
however, that a Site Development Review application will be necessary
and that public facilities such as half street improvements will. be
required prior to establishing a commercial use.
The Building Inspection Division has no objection to the proposal.
NPO N I is opposed to the application as it is not compatible with the
concepts contained in the Comprehensive Plan. There is a limited
opportunity to provide an adequate buffer between commercial development
and adjoining residential uses. Some of the uses permitted in the C-N
zone, such as convenience sales, are inappropriate for this area.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan
policies 2.1.1, 5.1.4, 6.3.3, 6.6.1, 8.1.1, and Locational Criteria in
Chapter 1.2. Since the Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged, the
f' Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines no longer need to be addressed.
The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is not totally consistent
with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the
findings noted below:
a. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfiea because the Neighborhood Planning
Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of
the hearing an an opportunity to comment on the applicant's
proposal_
b. Policies 5.1.4 and 6.3.3 are not satisfied because the proposed
change will introduce a commercial activity on the border of an
established residential neighborhood. The parcels involved are
across the street from single family residences that are zoned C-P
but all other abutting properties are zoned for residential
purposes.
The plan to retain the northern 80 feet of the western (White)
parcel a.s R-4.5 partially addresses the encroachment issue, but is
not sufficient to overcome potential problems. When dealing with
this issue it is also necessary to consider whether a precedent
may be established to alln,,i si.mi.lar proposals in the future. It
is common for requests such as this to create relatively small
incremental changes but significant cumulative impacts over a
period of time.
STAFF REPORT - CPA 2-86/7C 4-86 - PnGf 2
c. Policy 6.6.1 calls for adeaquate screening and buffering between
different lard uses such as residential and commercial
development. It appears that for the proposed dental offices, the
existing vegetation in combination with new plantings, fencing,
etc. could achieve an adequate buffer as required by the Community
Development Code. However, it is questionable whether other uses
that are permitted in the C—N zone would also be capable of
meeting Code requirements.
d. Policy 9.1.1 obligates the City to plan for a safe and efficient
street system which meets current and future needs. One component
of such a system relates to the uses allowed and the access that
is permitted along public streets. Although the traffic impact of
two small dental offices will be minimal, additional commercial
development situated with direct access to Greenburg Road will
tend to impede traffic flow by attracting vehicles and causing an
increase in the number of turning movements on and off of the
street. .
e. The Locational Criteria in Chapter 12 of the Plan are partially
satisfied. The proposal is consistent with the criteria because
the site is less than two acres, the service area for the proposed
dental offices is greater than one half mile, the C—N zone would
be located on one quadrant of the intersection, the site has
direct access to Greenburg Road which is a major collector, and
the site can probably accommodate the proposed dental offices.
The request does not appear to comply with the other criteria
because it has not been demonstrated that the uses allowed in the
C—N zone will not create adverse impacts for adjacent residential
properties and that the privacy of these uses will be maintained.
In summary, the staff is concerned about this request because it
represents the introduction of commercial uses in an established
residential neighborhood. Although the proposal is modest, it will tend
to set a precedent for similar rezoning applications which in turn lead
to at "strip" commercial situation with the related traffic impacts and
disruption of the established residential areas that straddle Greenburg
Road from 90th Avenue to Tiedeman Avenue.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning staff
recommends denial of CPA 2-86/ZC 4-86,
PREPAR D BY: Keith 1_iden AP DD BY: A. Monahan
Senior Planner Director of Community
Development
(2437P/dmj)
v
STAFF REPORT — CPA 2-86/7C 4--56 — PAGF 3
ltJ D i ���2A+c� 3608 Q
80007 IOU
10 700 z p/ 3b396503A0
7c
;-36-0-9
4c 700(3-L, 50 —
T
/S(f�no
7900
7300
r
—
L�^ 3704724AC�
37-3
8 t 36 Ac45 Ac
r
RVQfo9Y }p 9°!) E Q
J •!O ,.. °1 �. .I; rOe•4i• ,° r25 /e\
7600 V•
�5 Crj 7400
r !` ti^ c r•. o
,00 ,- T
zs 20 I
- 7700 o N 3701 i
r6♦ ! 09°l1�H
to v9��}�'E
lJ }
3800
150Cr— ° z°
Q25 20 3a A. I - "Ol ° I .3/Ac. 44 C.c
Ci f 0 7600 �I c
23E 66
�r 3900 0=--
6c 92
f oI� 14G0\1I 3CCc. 4406
E+. •^.0 I I _2296}4000
2`
4100 5327
r 1701 LI - CI C.5 r
3 z / 9c 4200 3
3. UJ .. �F� �F '4
1702 = jQ �C_ S69 400
i. /7AC '.'1�— 2'G 244C oar .T
1O 4300 4401
ms~�
CS 7803 -7. •• p. \ ss j` \ 2
1 200 0 1 CSN u,z.,
1700
�o sl 1100 `
U) I
�( W rS7.:re I C.S _`'c,Q oi Q 60G'+L Q J, 100
- a �o
T l S 13.76 g C] `s crq` c`o'
f o� �83 Bel
• 92 pL 9r 6E I -6
1 1900 IGoo FP CS 6061)
I� I C S 6t` -