Loading...
Resolution No. 87-135 CTTY OF -fIC:;(1RCl, OREGON RESOLUFION NO. 87- A RESOLUTION ADOP-TING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO DENY A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMErJT (CPA 87--06) AND ZONE CLIANGF (ZC 87--2.0) PROPOSED BY MARGERY P,RUEGLR. WHEREAS, the applicant requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on two adjoining parcels from Commercial. IUeighborhood to Medium High Density Residential and from Medium High Density Residential to Commercial General and a Zone Change from C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) to R-25 (Residential, 25 du/ac) and R-25 (Residential, 25 du/ac) to C-G (Commercial General); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard the above application at its regular meeting of October 6, 3.987 and recommended denial, based upon staff findings, and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council heard the above application at its regular meeting of November 2, 1987. NOW THEREFORE, RE TT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The proposal is riot consistent with all relevant- criteria discussed in the October 6, 1987 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" (map). Section 3: 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 or-der, as a Notice of Final decision to the parties in this case. PASSED: This _y d._._ day of A;e ;&y-> Vie,, 1987. Thomas M. Brian, Mayor ATTEST: r f/ A oreen R. Wilson, City Recorder cs/1462D STAFFREPORT 1: +� AGENDA ITEM 5.1 October 6, 1987 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13.125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 87-06/Zone Change ZC 87-20 REQUEST: Plan amendment from Nei•lhborhood Commercial to Residential Medium-High Density and zone change from C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre), for 5.0 acres located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and the proposed Murray Boulevard extension. Also, plan amendment from Residential, Medium-High Density to General Commercial and zone change from R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) and R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) to C--G (General Commercial) for 14.98 acres on the southeast corner of the same intersection. APPLICANT: Russell Krueger OWNER: Margery Krueger 1225 SW 66th Ave. 0402 Route 1, Box 792 Portland, OR 97225 Beaverton, OR 97007 f i LOCATION: East side of Scholls Ferry Road along the north and south sides of the proposed Murray Boulevard extension (WCTM 2S1 48 lot 101). 2. Background Information Thearea that includes these properties was annexed to the City on June 12, 1983. In August, 1983, the City approved a variety of plan and zone designations for the area including Medium-High Density Residential (R-20, now R-25), Medium Density Residential (R-12) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-N). In February, 1984, the City approved the relocation of the C-N area from the west side of 135th avenue to the northwest corner of- the proposed intersection of the Murray Road extension and 135th Avenue (CPA 18-83/AC 14-83). In 1985, a shift in the location of the C-N designation to the future Murray Road/$cholls Ferry Road intersection was proposed (CPA 4-85/ZC 4-85). Because the request was determined to be premature due to unanswered questions related to the Murray Road extension, the four acre C-N designation was reapplied at the original location on the west side of 135th Avenue. It was also agreed that once the alignment of Murray Road was determined, the applicant would be entitled to propose another Murray Road location for the C-N zone. STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-06/ZC 87-20 - PAGE 1 fi k �.. In 1986, the applicant proposed shifting the C-N designation to a five acre parcel at the northeast corner of the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and the proposed Murray Boulevard extension. Tho. City Council approved the applicant's proposal and included a declar+ttion that the configuration of the five acres designated C-N could ke modified to conform with the final alignment- of Murray Boulevard. 3. Vicinity Information Except for single family residential development to the northeast in the Cotswald Subdivision, the area surrounding the site is largely undeveloped and currently used for agriculture or is wooded. A few large lot single Family residences also exist in the area. R-25 zoning surrounds the parcel currently designated C-N. The area south of the proposed C-G designation is zoned R-12. The area across Scholls Ferry Road is zoned R-2 (Multi Family, 2,000 square feet per unit) by the City of Beaverton. Other commercial sites within the general vicinity of the proposal include Murray Hill Shopping Center located 3/4 mile north on Murray Boulevard; Howard's Shopping Center located 1-1/4 mile east- on Scholls Ferry -gad; Washington Square located 2-1/2 miles east; and a number of commer.ial areas along Pacific Highway including the Tigard Central Business District. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The applicant proposes redesignating a five acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential. Also proposed is redesignating an adjacent 14.98 acre parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to General Commercial to allow for future shopping center development containing a variety of commercial uses. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has the following comments: Streets & Traffic It is difficult to estimate the traffic generation of a commercially zoned parcel without knowledge of the type of development to occur on the site. However, in general, a larger retail facility will generate fewer vehicles per acre of development than will a small neighborhood commercial site. The larger sites tend to attract customers who come to shop for larger purchases and stay for a while. The smaller sites tend to develop as fast food or mini-market type facilities where customers stay only briefly; these types of facilities have a higher volume of traffic. A rough estimate of traffic generation indicates that the proposed zone change would result in only a minor increase in potential traffic generation. Removal of the C-N zone tends to offset some of the g impact of creating a C--G zone. F STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-06/ZC 87-20 - PAGE 2 Traffic from these sites would be primarily on Scholls Ferry Road (an arterial) and Murray Boulevard (a major collector). These roadways appear to have adequate capacity to accommodate the traffic impacts of the proposed zone changes. At the time of actual development of the C-G site, a detailed traffic analysis would be required. Required street improvements would be determined as a part of site development review, based on whatever actual development is proposed. Utilities At the time of development, it will be necessary to extend storm and sanitary sewer lines to serve this site. Capacity requirements for utilities to serve a C-G site are similar to those for an R-25 site. Therefore, the proposed zone changes will have little iml)act on utilities requirements. Conclusion From an engineering standpoint, there is no objection to the proposed zone change. The Oregon Department of Transportation Highway Division reviewed the proposal and made the following comment: Any proposed development will require a traffic impact- report as part of site development review and improvements may be required to mitigate any impacts, The Beaverton School District, Washington County Fire Department No. 1, and the City of Tigard Building Inspector reviewed the proposal and offered no objections to it. NPO 7, the City of Beaverton, and Washington County's Land Use and Transportation Division were provided with proposal materials but did not submit any comments on the proposal, B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 10, and Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2,1.1, 4.1.1, 5.1,1, 5.1,3, 5.1.4, 6.6.1, 7.2.1, 8.1.1, 9.1.1, and the locational criteria for General Commercial in Chapter 12. The staff- concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Goals based upon the following findings: 1. Goal #1 is met because the City has adopted a citizen involvement program including review, of development applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO), In addition, all public notice requirements are met. 2. Goal 02 is met because the City has applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies, and Development .__ Ccdc tc the ,p-licati_n. STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-06/ZC 87-20 - PAGE 3 3. Goal 1010 is satisfied because the proposal will not bring the City's plan out of conformance with the requirements of the Metropolitan Housing Rule despite reducing housing opportunities. The staff has determined that the proposal is only partially consistent with the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings below: 1. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because Neighborhood Planning Organization 7 and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. 2. Policy 5.1.1 is met because the proposal will have a positive effect upon the number of jobs available to Tigard residents. Since it will be similar to a number of other commercial developments in the Tigard area it will not "diversify" the local economy. 3. Policy 5.1.3 is not satisfied because creating new, large scala commercial development located on the western edge of the City will not "improve or enhance" the central business district as the commercial focal point for the City, Although the specific effect of this proposal may be debatable, it is clear that developments of this type will not have a positive effect upon the vitality of downtown. The downtown has not enjoyed the same economic growth which other areas of the community have in recent years. Increasing commercial use opportunities and acreage in an area which was planned to be developed primarily ciith residential uses would further hold back the revitalization of downtown. The staff, however, believes that the uses allowed by the Neighborhood Commercial zone are appropriate for the acreage currently designated as such in this location and do not conflict with the City's policy of improving or enhancing the central business district as the City's commercial focus. 4• Policy 5.1.4 is not satisfied because the proposal would allow encroachment of commercial development into an area planned primarily for residential use. The proposal would result in a threefold increase in area committed to commercial uses in the immediate area and an expansion of potential commercial use types allowed. 5. Policy 6.1.1 is linked to State Goal No. 10 and the Metro Housing Rule which requires that the average density allowed for all undeveloped residential land in the City be a minimum of ten dwelling units per acre. Applicant's dual redesignation proposal would result in a net decrease in residentially designated area of 9.98 acres and a reduction in housing opportunity of 201 units. The City's. plan as acknowledged by LCOC in 1984 inventoried 1,311 acres of developable residential land in the City. Zoning at that time provided for a housing opportunity of 13,110 units, just meeting the Metro Housing Rule de::sity standard. Since that time, sevenplan amendments affecting the buildable lands/housing opportunity inventory have occurred. Those redesignations provide a current inventory of 1,290 acres and a housing opportunity for 13,088 units acre). Approval of the (10.14 units per amendment r developable acreage to 1,280 Proposed housing would reduce the g opportunity to 12,887 potential units (10.07 units per acre). The Metro Housing minimum density requirement will continue to be met by the city Rule's the proposed amendment is approved, although at a density quite close STAFF REPORT — CPA 87-06/ZC 87-20 — PAGE 4 4 to the standard. Staff recommends that if this proposal is approved that approval be contingent upon the current housing opportunity density being maintained or, increased through other redesignations to a higher density• This will assure that Policy 6.1.1 is met. To that end, the applicant points out that if another current- plan and 'zoning amendment application, CPA 87-07/ZC 87-21, is approved, the 108 dwelling unit increase that would result would provide a net housing opportunity for 12,995 dwelling units or 10.15 units per j acre. That housing opportunity density is slightly greater than presently exists. 6. Policy 6.6.1 calls for• visual buffering between different uses such as commercial and residential. Although buffering issues are addressed during Site Development Review, it appears that adequate space is available to provide sufficient buffering. 7. Policy 7.1.2 is met because adequate public facility (sewer and water) capacities exist to service the site and any development will be required to connect with those systems.as a condition of approval for Site Development Review. 8. policy 8.1.1 is satisfied because the evidence suggests that additional traffic generated by the uses allowed by the General Commercial zone should not exceed the traffic capacity of Scholls Ferry Road and the proposed Murray Boulevard extension. No problems �. are anticipated that cannot be resolved during the Site Development Review process. 9. The applicable locational criteria for general commercial development are partially satisfied for the following reasons: a. Spacing and Location The property is adjacent to residentially zoned property on four sides. The locational criteria states that a maximum of two sides may be bordered by residential development. This criterion is not met. b. Access Commercial development of the site will not likely create unacceptable traffic congestion as discussed in finding 8 above. Direct access to both an arterial and a major collector street is available. Public transportation is available on Scholls Ferry Road. Critaria related to access are therefore satisfied. c. Site Characteristics The size of the site should be adequate for accommodating proposed uses. The zits ;q highly visible. These criteria are met. STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-06/ZC 87-20 - PAGE 5 p _ _ d. Impact Assessment Without an actual development proposal it is difficult to assess project will be compatible with whether the scale of the surrounding uses. Therefore, it is not clear whether these criteria would be satisfied. 10. Although demonstrated need for a development is not a criterion for a plan map and zoning amendment, the applicant presents a market analysis at pages 5 and 6 of the application booklet. The staff- notes that the applicant presents a highly optimistic picture of demand for a shopping center on the site through using a potential and extending market area centered on the proposed development outward two miles while largely ignoring competition for this market area from existing commercial developments just beyond the two mile radius. These developments include Washington Square and a large number of developments and individual businesses along Pacific Highway. Because of this, staff is unable to concur with the applicant's conclusion that a need exists for General Commercial designation of this site- c. ite.C. RECOMd`7ENDATION The Planning staff recommends denial of CPA 97-06/ZC B7-20 based upon the above findings and conclusions. 1 rry r AP OVED BY: William A. Monahan PREPA BY: j ssistant Planner Development of Community Development cs/1119D `s i f i 1 STAFF REPORT'— CPA 87-06/ZC 67-20 — PAGE 6 ------------------- SUtA#AEPLAKE MARY oP arW w ' WOODWARD uosaln ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 3 33 V y 4 a« . * - Q 3334 1 �'�\ reee:oSyae�� oea� r tea. a 9 a � -- 1 1