Ordinance No. 92-24 CITY OF TIGARD, ORE Ok�T
ORDINANCE NO. 92-
ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A
MPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY PHYLLIS ANDERSON (CPA 92-
0?02) .
W IE Au, the applicant has requested a Co;apr4he„siva plan Amendment from
Cpmmercial Professional (3.19 acres, WCTM 2S1 10AC, tax lots 1.300 aii%d
1400) and Low Density Residential (3.04 acre portion of WCTM 2S1 10DB,
tax lot 2100) to Medium-High Density Residential; and
WHEREAS, the Planning staff made recommendations of findings to the City
of Tigard Planning Commission at a public hearing of April 20, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held public hearing on the proposed
changes on May 12, 1992 and August 11, 1992, to review Planning staff
ad Planning Commission recommendations, as well as public testimony.
T E CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria
based upon the facts, findings, and conclusions noted in
the attached staff report and packet, identified as
Exhibit "A".
Section 2: The City Council concurs with the staff recommendations
and approves the request to redesignate the parcels
illustrated on the attached map, identified as Exhibit
"B" with a Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium-High
Density Residential.
This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the
Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
f
PASSED: By U/n CL/YL�llyl_ �.e� vote of all Council members
present after being read by number and title only, this
day of -e� , 1992.
Y.
Cat'lierine Wheatley, City Rdborder
APPROVED: This day f ' , 1992.
I A4
era d R. dwards, Mayor
Appr ved as to f r�u1
City Attorn y
Date
ORDINANCE No. 92- j
Page 1
EXHIBIT "A"
r.
CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
FINAL ORDER !
A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH INCLUDES FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
RLOUESTED BY PHI-LLIS ANDERSON.
4
The Tigard City Council reviewed the application described below at a public
hearing on August 81 1992. The Council approves the request. The Council hats
based its decision on the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below.
F
A. FACTS
1. General Information
i
CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 92-0092
REQUEST: Plan Map Amendment from Commercial Professional (3.19
acres) and Low Density Residential (3.04 acres) to
Medium-High Density Residential.
APPLICANT/OWNER: Phyllis Anderson
c/o Roger Anderson
8865 SW Center Street
Tigard, OR 97223
AGENT: -Planning Resources, Inc.
(Rick Givens)
6564 Lake Road
Milwaukie, OR 97222 '
s
LOCATION: 11550 SW Bull Mountain Road and abutting properties.
The frontage of the site extends from approximately 500
feet to 1000 feet west of SW Pacific Highway.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: WCTM 2S1 10AC, Tax Lots 1300 and 1400;
approximately 3.04 acres of WCTM 2S1 1ODB Tax Lot 2100. 5
CURRENT ZONING: Washington County's R-6 zone
(Residential, 6 units per acre)
2. Background Information
The subject properties are within Washington County but are within
the City of Tigard's planning area under the terms of the long- }
standing intergovernmental agreement between the City and County.
The City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan Map designates tax lots 1300
and 1400 for Commercial Professional use and tax lot 2100 for Low �
Density Residential use (See attached City of Tigard Comprehensive '
Plan Land Use Map). Washington County currently has all of the
subject properties zoned R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre).
The owner of the subject properties has petitioned the City and the
f Portland Metropolitan Area Boundary Commission for annexation of
4
these properties to the City of Tigard. The City Council and
Boundary Commission reviews of the annexation request are yet to be
scheduled.
On April 20, 1992, the Manning Commission reviewed this application
at a public hearing. At that time, however, the proposed
redesignation to Medium-high Density Residential included
approximately 1.5 acres of additional currently designated Low
Density Residential land on the western portion of this site. The
Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the
application as it was proposed at that time. Staff has reported,
however, that the Commission seemed to feel that the proposal had
much merit except for its potential to place multi-family
residential development next to an existing single family
ne1C3l11Di7113V{Ju C"'U.T.wal tv ti -_-C'g..bOrC ...'.r..Ct.et+0-9forthe e'_.1k4-"t
site. The neighbors, a .# b
g expectations, however, did not appear to be
consistent with the current Plan designation for commercial
development of the site. The Commission briefly considered what
other Plan designations might be more appropriate for the site
rather than either the current and proposed Plan designations, but
the Commission did not make a recommendation on this alternative.
The application was forwarded to the City Council for review at the
Council's May 12, 1992 meeting. Prior to the Council receiving oral
comments on the proposal, the applicant requested that the Council's
hearing on the item be continued to allow the applicant to meet with
neighbors of the site to see if modifications to the proposal could
be made that might make the request more acceptable to the
commi.nity. On July 9, 1992, the applicant submitted the current
revised request and the revised applicant's statement. The
applicant also requested a further continuance of the Council's
hearing on this matter to allow the community and the City's staff
time to respond to the revised request. The Council continued the
hearing to August 11, 1992. City staff prepared and :nailed a
revised notice of the Council's August 8, 1992 hearing on this iters
to clearly reflect the changed application.
3. Proposal Description
The applicant requests a Plan Map Amendment from Commercial
Professional to Medium High Density Residential for the 3.19 acres f
included in tax lots 1300 and 1400. In addition, the applicant
requests a Plan Map Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium
High Density;Residential for a x
pproximately 3.03 acres included in
tax lot 2100. Washington County's R-6 zoning for these properties
would not be affected by the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment;
however, the zoning is proposed to be changed through the annexation
request that is pending.
The application package includes a revised applicant's statement
prepared by Planning Resources, Inc. dated July 9, 1992 and a
traffic study prepared by Meech Associates, Inc. in support of the
application. The applicant's statement assumes that R-25 zoning
would be applied upon annexation to implement the Medium-High
Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation.
}
a
Page 2
3
4. Site and Vi,2„Dity information
The applicants statement at pages 2 and 3 includes details on
existing development on the subject properties and surrounding area
as well as information on public facilities available to serve
future redevelopment of the site.
5. A-gencv and NPO Comments
The Oregon Department of Transportation-Highway Division, the
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District, Tigard School District
23J, the City of Tigard Building Division, PGB, GTE, and the Tigard
Water District have reviewed the proposal and have offered no
objections to the proposed redesignation. The Tigard Water
District, however, notes that any future development of the site
above elevation 295 above mean Beg level u!Mdz a,-, 4 Liao existing
or proposed zoning, will require an extension of the water main from
the west in order to have adequate water pressure.
NPO #3 has submitted revised comments supporting the proposed
redesignation, as long as the applicant enters into the agreement
reached with neighbors of the site to reduce the area proposed for
redesignation. However, the NPO questions whether there is adequate
sight distance along Bull Mountain Road to allow for intensive
development, of this property and desires that the City carefully
review this issue when development plans are submitted for the site.
The NPO also comments that access for this property should be
coordinated with properties to the east of these properties if
possible.
Vicki Artis, Robert Ball, Herbert Moreno, and Mimi Stover -
neighbors of the subject properties and CPO 4B submitted letters
to the Planning Commission in opposition to the original proposal.
These letters have been provided to the Council.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council finds that the relevant criteria ,in this case are
Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13; Tigard Comprehensive
Plan policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.2 and 9.1.3,
and Chapter 12.1.1, the locational criteria for residential Plan
designations; and the change or mistake quasi-judicial map amendment
criteria of both Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.2 and Community Development
Code Chapter 18.22.
The City Council concludes that the proposal is consistent with the
applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the
following findings:
1. Statewide Planning Goal #1 (Citizen Involvement) and Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 are supported because the City has
adopted a Citizen involvement program including review of all land
use and development applications by City established neighborhood
s
Page 3
i
R
planning organizations (.*Me) and nearby Washington County
established community planning organizations (CFOs). NPO #3 and CPO
#48 have been provided with an opportunity to review both the
original proposal and the revised proposal submitted on July 9,
1992. The NPO°s comments have been reported above. No comments
were received from the CPO with regard to the revised proposal. In
addition, all public notice requirements related to this application
have been satisfied.
2. Statewide Planning Goal #2 (band Use Planning) and the quasi-
judicial plan and zone change approval standards of Code Section
18.22.040 and Implementation Strategy 2 under Plan Policy 1.1.2 are
supported because the City has applied all applicable Statewide
Planning Goals, City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies, and
Community Development Code tv the review of this
proposal, as described. in this report. The City of Tigard has
notified other affected units of government including Washington
County, the Oregon Department of Transportation Highway Division,
and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development of
the proposal. Service and utility providing agencies have also been
notified of the proposal.
3. Goal #9 (Economy of the State) is supported by the proposal,
although the proposal would reduce the City's inventory of
developable commercial land, because:
a. The reduction in Commercial Professional designated land
proposed is not a large amount compared to the total amount of
developable Commercial Professional designated land in the
city. City staff are not aware of any prior- significant
interest by others in development of tax lots 1300 and 1400
with uses permitted by the current Commercial Professional
Plan designation applied to a portion of the site, or
development of other properties in the general area of the
site with uses permitted by the C-P zone. The amount of
undeveloped and under-developed Cor.-amerciai Professional
designated properties in the City may indicates that the
proposed redesignation will not result in a shortage of a
needed type of commercial opportunity.
b. The proposedredesignation of the Commercial Professional
portion of this site may viewed by some as short sighted in
that long range planning interests, such as the Regional Urban
Growth Goals and Objectives program of Metro, urge the
integration of employment opportunities in close proximity to
housing opportunities. Removing the opportunity for
development of office development of this site which is close
to a Targe, strictly residential area to the west may be
viewed as contrary to those goals and objectives.
on the other hand, the Council finds that allowing multi-
family development on this site near other commercially zoned
developable, or developed but under-utilized, properties may
provide;an attractive mix of land uses thereby helping epur
further commercial development in the general area, although
these other nearby properties are designated for General
Commercial use rather than Professional commercial use. In
Page 4
that way, the City finds that the proposed redesignation is
supportive of the Regional urban Growth Goals and objectives
through supporting existing commercial development adjacent to
residential areas.
A. Goal #10 (Housing) is supported because the proposal will provide
for additional housing opportunities as promoted by the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Housing Rule (Oregon
Administrative Rules, Chapter 660, Division 7). The Metropolitan
Housing Rule requires that the City maintain a minimum housing
opportunity rate for developable land of 10 units per acre and a
minimum 50/50 opportunity affix for single family and multi-family
housing. Approval of the proposal will increase the inventory of
developable residential land within the City's planning area by 3.19
acres and will provide increased housing opportunities on the City's
developable residential lands by a total of 135 diwailing units (at
this maximum density for this site of 25 units per acre). This will
increase the City's housing opportunity rate further beyond the 10
units per acre standard. (NOTE: updated inventory of developable
residential lands includes 13,371 developable units based on
assigned Comprehensive Plan designations, 1298 developable acres,
and a housing opportunity of 10.3 units per acre). Approval will
also provide increased opportunities for multi-family development
relative to single family only opportunities.
S. The proposal is consistent with the public facility objectives of
Goal #11 (Public Facilities and Services) because adequate public
facilities presently exist at or near the site to serve development
at the residential densities proposed by the requested Plan
amendment. As noted by the Water District, however, special
attention will need to be paid to the design of water facilities to
serve development of this site due to the site's topography. The
City's Eng�.neering Department has echoed this concern with regard to
future specific design considerations related: to storm drainage and
sanitary sewers, although the overall storm sewer system and the
sanitary sewer systems have adequate capacity to serve development
of the site under either the proposed or current Plan designations.
6. Goal #12 (Transportation) and Goal #13 (Energy Conservation) are
satisfied through providing the Plan change providing an opportunity
' for an intensive land use (multi-family development) to be located
adjacent to a major transportation corridor (Pacific Highway) that
presently is served by Tri-Met buses. In addition, the requested
redesignation will provide housing opportunities near a substantial
amount of existing retail and service opportunities (Canterbury
Square shopping center).- The convenience of nearby tranuit service .
and commercial opportunities to a higher density residential
development can result in lesser needs for individual vehicle trips
on overcrowded roads and a companion benefit of lesser energy
resource use. Therefore, the land use pattern that would be
furthered by the proposal is supportive of these Statewide Goals.
The subject site is located along a major collector street, SW Bull
Mountain Road. Specific design concerns related to access to this
road will need to be considered in the development review process
for future development of the site under either the current or
proposed Plan designations.
Page 5
Y
The City Council finds that the proposal is consistent with applicable
policies of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below:
7. Plan Policy 6.1.1 is supported because the .redesignation will
provide the opportunity for additional multi-family development and
will increase the net housing opportunity on buildable lands in the
City. This is detailed in the discussion for Statewide Planning
Goal 10 above.
8. Plan Policies 7.1.2 and 7.6.1 are satisfied because adequate public
water, sewer, storm sewer, fire and rescue, and police service
capacities are available to serve potential development on the a
subject properties. Specific concerns related to extenaicr, of
utility services to the a{t_ :Zr andiysis of storm drainage
provisions will need to be considered in the development review
processes for future development of the site.
9. Plan Policy 8.1.1 commits the City to plan for a safe and efficient
street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated
future development. Theoretical traffic generation figures for
development of typical uses and intensities under the current and
proposed Plan designations are relatively similar. The traffic
study submitted by the applicant assumes development of the current
Commercial Professional designated portion of the site with medical I
and dental offices which has a high traffic potential. Because of
this assumption, the traffic study is able to conclude that
development under the proposed multi-family residential
redesignation would result in less traffic than development under
the current mix of Plan designations. While this might be true for
a comparison of "worst case" development situations, it is difficult
to make assumptions at this point with regard to actual types or
intensities of development under either the current or proposed Plan
designations.- However, the Council finds that the requested change
should not u:2u6au«..<.
-- the objectives of Plan policy 8.1.1 due to the
absence of an increase in anticipated traffic levein.
Questions related to adequacy of sight distance and necessary street
improvements sb+ou A not i.� _ -'.` ..{�L wta _
�_ h t:::
proposed redesignation would not appear to significantly affect
traffic potential from the site. These issues will need to be
reviewed closely under the site development review process for any
development of the site.
4;
10. Plan Policies 8.2.2 and 9.1.2 are satisfied because Tri-Flet offers
bus service on SW Pacific Highway approximately 500 feet from the 4
eastern edge of the site. 3n addition, a variety of commercial and
service opportunities exist along SW Pacific Highway relatively
close to the site. Therefore, the proposed redesignation would
locate an intensive type of development within close proximity to an
existing public transit route and needed retail services supportive
or residents, needs, thereby encouraging a reduction in energy
consumption as compared to typical suburban development patterns.
11. Plan Policy 9.1.3 is supported because the requested redesignation
would allow for the possible development of passive solar designed
multi-family residential units maximizing the sites south facing
orientation thereby resulting in reduced energy consumption as
Page 6
r
r ,. r
compared to building residential units at a 1680 favorably situated
site. This is not to say that the eame benefits could not result
Y
from development of various uses under the Commercial Professional
Plan designations.
12. The locational criteria specified in Plan Policy 12.1.1 for Medium-
High Density Residential use are satisfied for the fallowing
reasons:
a. The subject properties are not committed to low density
development. As the applicants statement points out, the
surrounding area contains quite a mixture of land uses
including multi-family residential development immediately to
the south.
b. Density transition, buffering, and screening requirements of
the Community Development Code may be used to help make future
development on the subject properties compatible with
neighboring low density single family residences to the north
and west. In addition, topography and existing trees could
also be utilized to buffer multi-family usage on this site
from those neighboring single family residential areas.
C. The subject parcels have direct access to SW Bull Mountain
Road, a major collector street. The subject properties are !
also in close proximity to SW Pacific Highway which is
functionally classified as an arterial street. s
d. Serious development limitations affecting the properties, such
as flood plains, excessively steep slopes or poor drainage,
are not evident. The site does contain steep slopes, but
these slopes are not anticipated to negatively impact the
residential developability of the site.
e. Essential public facilities are present to serve future
development on the properties, although extensions of some
service facilities to the site itself will be .neceaswi
13. in order to approve a quasi-judicial amendment to the Plan's land
use map, the City must also find that there is evidence of a
Physical change in the neighborhood or community which affects the
subject parcel. Alternatively, the City must find that there has
been a mistake or inconsistency made in the original designation of
the parcel (Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2, Policy 1.1.1,
Implementation Strategy 2; Community Development Coda Section
18.22.040(A)).
The applicant's statement at page 5 asserts that a mist- waa made
in the oriainat desig atio_ '-
�••..•.,��.,., of a portion of the site with the
Commercial Professional Plan denignation in that office building
development is often difficult to accomplish on hillside sites.
Portions of the subject site contain slopes of approximately 15
percent grade. The applicant states that multi-family development
can be more readily accommodated on steep sites because of the use
of smaller buildings than typical office buildings and the ability
to step foundations between units. The applicant's statement
asserts that "the presence of a steep hillside on this property
constitutes a development limitation for which the 1983 designation
did not account and, therefore, the application of the c-P
designation to this site should be considered a flaw, or mistake, in
that plan designation." The Council concurs with the applicant
that the substantial slope of 15 to 25 percent on portions of this
site is typically not conducive for typical office development. As
was recently demonstrated by the Council's approval of the Triad
apartment site plain, slopes similar to the subject site's can be
conducive, and actually attractive, for multi-family development.
The Council therefore finds that a mistake was apparently made in
designating a portion of the subject site Commercial Professional
due to the development limitations imposed by the site's slope on
the construction of typical office buildings found in that zone.
The applicant also has argued that the Plan Amendment and Zone
Change (file #CPA 4-84/ZC4-84, approved May 14, 1984) and subsequent
development of the Wellington Estates condominium complex which
occurred subsequent to the original designation of the subject
properties with their current Plan deoiglations constitutes a
substantial change in circumstances in the neighborhood of the site
that affects the subject properties. CPA 4-84 redesignated the
Wellington Estates site from the Commercial Professional Plan
designation to High Density Residential with R-40 zoning. The 6
current applicant's statement says that "the elimination of this
area of potential office development seriously eroded the
feasibility of developing an office park in this area as it removed
access to Beef Bend Road. As a result, all of the impact of office '
related traffic would fall upon Bull Mountain Road rather than being
split between two intersections with Highway 99W." Staff testified a -
that comments from residents of the subject area indicates that this
potential traffic impact, coupled with what the neighbors perceive
as an intrusion of commercial development into a residential area,
would be very undesirable to the neighbors.
The Council concurs that the rezoning of the Wellington Estates site
and the subsequent developmecit of apartments on the Wellington site
was certainly a change in physical circumstances affecting this
area. This change has removed the potential for developing these
Page 8
{
1
s
i
parcels jointly with a possible road connection to Beef Bend Road.
In addition, the current application has made neighbors of the
subject site aware of the site's current Plan designation and its
potential for office development. Many neighbors were apparently
unaware of this development potential and have essentially opposed
not only the proposed Plan redesignation to Medium-high Density
Residential but also the current Plan designation bsc=Auee of
potential traffic conflicts aad feelings of incompatibility between
differing land uses. These neighbors should understand that due to
the proximity of this area to Pacific Highway and the intensive
development that necessarily exists along such a roadway, there has
to be some interface between different land uses in this area. That
interface has previously been established by the Comprehensive Plan
to bisect the Anderson properties in the boundary between Commercial
Professional and Low Density Residential designations. It would be
very difficult for the City to now down-zone the higher intensity
designated, but as yet undeveloped properties so as to move this
interface between uses further eastward to "protect" the low density
uses to the west but to diminish the values of these properties.
However, the current proposal offers to replace the current
potential for office development with a possibly more acceptable
potential use from the neighbors, perspectives. while this change
in the neighbors' awareness of the current development potential of
the subject site, and possibly a change in what the neighbors feel
is an acceptable neighboring land use, are not changes in physical
circumstances, these circumstances certainly are relevant
information for the City council to consider in considering a
modification to the Plan designation of the subject site.
The applicant has offered to change this application from how it was —
originally proposed to essentially ;Uarantaa a physicai separation
between existing low-density residential development owned by others
and thepotentialmulti-family development on the subject site
through removing some of the applicant's property from consideration
for intensification. This also should result in a less significant
increase in traffic on Bull Mountain Road upon development of the
site than was assumed in the applicant's traffic study. This change
in the application should Y .e to ms,.e the Curr6iaar^gie8awere
acceptable to the neighbors than
has been reflected in the earlier
comments received by the Planning Commission and City Council.
C. DECISION
The Tigard City councii concludes that the requested Comprehensive Plan
Amendment will promote the general welfare of the City and will not be
significantly detrimental non injurious to surrounding land uses, provided
that development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable
local state and federal laws.
In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and
incorporating the staff report and other reports of affected agencies and
public testimony and exhibits received in this. matter, the Council
approves the requested Plan Map Amendment from Commercial Professional to
Medium High Density Residential for the 3.19 acres included in tax lots
1300 and 1400 and from Low Density Residential to Medium High Density
r Residential for approximately 3.03 acres included in tax lot 2100 (See
lz Page 9
Exhibit B). Because the redesignation will result in a split Plan
designation for tax lot 2100, approval of the redesignation request is
conditioned upon the applicant adjusting the property boundaries for this
tax lot through either a lot line adjustment or minor land partition prior
to or concurrent with any development application for the laarcel.
It is further ordered that the applicant and parties to these proceedings
be notified of the entry of this order.
PASSM This day of August, 1992, by the City Council of the City of
Tigard.
Gerald Edwards, Mayor
Tigard City Council
Page 10
f
. �.......
•} : r'1 EXHIBIT "B'
rc:5 1 1-C I A
_•- . � SIJ Y ... P=��'
200 w'f }tom c MY t� ~
31
.' �:s� o.•7 7,y�°�! r' f� �� _ � :fi? � .'.s+dr.•-'/'P_ � �R,..-. `t"-`a:��'�i2f0�4:°
+Ge C
••y !Y1'"7r"P -: �+t�. n' ,. � // 1200
® �, 9iLb ,,...a..r•• tel.
Ar-
13},7'S'" • ate• �,j � �
!+�c •.u+
«
2100 M — .4 _ •
.X.ITAC•
1500 !� `
loo .SsAG LI7.IC K ti'
e
r•reic f�K•73 0 'i
^ ? s3
A
L '•' f
rcl
e`
14
71
OL
ntf
Goo
.cruor
y f CTM 5 I lo A C.- TAX LOTS 13 oa /4CP
Fp CC 04 P,.-C,114L PR ,51C,OJAC-
M�D► t GN IDEN5f1N efsiDr_ rv !� L
3.011 ACPs-5 CAPpkf. ) or WC7aU, :151 101)6
F2ow, G.Ot-,.) DEKJ5i Til To
f'vl! Imo(m 16ry iJ f,7 c I raj 1f