Loading...
Ordinance No. 95-10 CITY or TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 95- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING PXINNS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A TIGARD C014PREHENSXVE PLAN AXEMXENTZONE CM1NGE REQUESTED BY ANDREWS MANAGMUM (CPA 95-0001/ZON 95-X0002) . WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a comprehensive plan map amendment and zone change from Low Density Residential/R4.5 to Medium-High Density Residential/R-25 on two parcels (1SI 36CC, lots 300 and 400) and from C-P (Commercial Professional)/C-P to Medium-High Density Residential/R- 25 on_ two parcels (1S1 36CC, lots 200 and 2200) ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the proposed amendment and zone change at, its meeting of April 17, 1995, and recommends approval of CPA 95-0001/ZON 95-0002. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposed amendment is consistent with all relevant criteria based upon the facts, findings and conclusions noted in the attached final order (Exhibit A) ; SECTION 2: The City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and staff recommendations and approves the request to designate the parcels illustrated on the attached map (Exhibit A) . SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by ;the Council, signature by the Mayor,.:and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By UnCLn*1'y)oU-5 vote of all Council members present after being read by number and 'title only, ;this' 3 day of , 1995. Cat e� rine Wheatley, Ci Recorder APPROVED: Ey Tigard City Council thisday of s , 1995. 3a s icoli', Mayor i Approved as to form: 12 City Attorn, Date ORDINANCE No. 95- �D Page 'I EXHIBIT A CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDS A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AIM CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN APPLICATION FOR A COMDR SIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY ANDREWSXANAGWMNT- The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at a public hearing on May 30, 1995. The City Council approves the request. The Council has based its decision on the facts, findings and conclusions noted below. A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 95-0001 Zone Change ZOh 95-0002 REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map from C-P (Commercial Professional) and Low Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential and change the zoning from C-P and R-4.5 to R-25 _ APPLICANT: Andrews Management 4000 SW Kruse Way Place Building 1, Suite 270 Lake^ Oswego, OR 97035 OWNERS: Arthur & Margaret Verhar+en Paul & Anna 'Herberholz 12435 SW 60th 8400 SW Pfaffle Street Portland, OR 97219 Tigard, OR 97223 McGuire, Robert/William/ ODOT James and Thomas Region l/Property Mgmt "Dowell, Sarah 5320 SW Macadam 8470 SW Pfaffle Street Portland, OR 97201 Tigard, OR 97223 REPRESENTATIVE: Spencer Vail, Planning Consultant 4505 NE 24th Avenue Portland, OR 97211 LOCATION: South of SW Pfaffle Street at SW 83rd Avenue (WCTM 1S1 36CC, lots 200, 300„ 400 and ;2200) 2. Vicinity The four affected parcels, containing 5.51 acres, are located 1 along SW Pfaffle Street, north of Pacific Highway and east of SW Hall Boulevard (see map, Exhibit B) . The properties to the north across SW Pfaffle Street are designated as Low and Medium Density Residential with a zoning of R-4.5, R-7 and R- 12; to the east are properties zoned C-P and include the General Motors Training Center and some vacant parcels; to the south is Highway 217; and to the west are three small parcels zoned C-P which include a cellular telephone monopole and a single family house. 3. Background Information Parcels A and B were annexed to the city and zoned R-4.5 in 1987 as part of the south Metzger annexation. Parcel C was annexed to the city in 1969 by the present owners. Parcel D, owned by ODOT, is within the original area of incorporation of the city. Parcels C and D are zoned C-P. No development applications have been reviewed for any of the four parcels. The Planning Commission held a hearing on this proposal on April 17, 1995, and unanimously recommends approval. 4 Site Information and Proposal Descr.iotion The triangular site of 5.51 acres is comprised of four parcels. Parcels A and B front on SW Pfaffle Street and have single family houses on them. Parcel C fronts on SW Pfaffle Street and is vacant. Parcel D is vacant and has no roadway access'. All of the parcels are relatively flat but are situated approximately 20 :feet'above Highway 217 along their southern boundary. The applicant requests a comprehensive plan► map amendment from Low Density,Residential to Medium-High Density Residential and from C-P (Commercial Professional) to Medium-High .Density ' ].Residential; and a zone change from R-4.5 to R-25 and from C-P to R-25 on the four properties as follows (see map) : ®' Low Density Residential/R-4.5 to 'Medium-High Density Residential/R-25': Parcel A: WCTM 1Si 36CC lot 400 ;(0.82 acres) Parcel B: WCTM IS1 36CC, lot 300;' (1.25 acres) a` ®' C-P (Commercial Professional) /C-P to Medium-High Density Residential/R-25`: Parcel C: WCTM 1S1 36CC, lot 200 `,(2„55 acres) Parcel D: WCTM 1S1 36CC, lot: 2200_ (0.89 acres) ` A written document, transportation analysis and preliminary site ;plan have been submitted by the applicant. The written document and analysis are included as ?part of this staff report. The site plan was submitted as an example of what 2 could be done on the site. Because the proposed action is a land use change and not a development application, the site plan is not part of this report, though it will be entered into the record as being part of the application. 5. encu Comments The Engineering and Building divisions, Police Department and the Unified Sewerage Agency have reviewed the proposal and have no objections. No other comments were received at the time of this report. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 6.1:1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2, and 12.1.3; Community Development Code chapter: 18.22, 18.32 and 18.56; and Oregon Administrative Rule 660-12-060. 1. Policy 2.1.1 states that the city shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The policy is satisfied because the surrounding property owners were given notice of public hearings related to the proposal and given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. The notices of hearings were also - pasted at Tigard City Halland advertised in a 'local newpaper. In addition, the applicant provided notice of and conducted a meeting on January 13, 1995, for interested property owners within a 250-foot radius of the affected properties. 2. Policy 6.1.1 states that the city shall provide an opportunity for a`diversity;of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent' levels. The designation of the r. affected properties to Medium-High Density Residential and R- 25 will allow for the potential development of 137 units of housing. This change would contribute to a diversity of housing opportunities for the city. If approved, the proposal would'also;;increase the housing opportunity index from 10.38 to 10.44 units` per acre, thus helping to implement the Metropolitan Housing ;Rule by increasing the residential density in;the city. 3. Policy 8.1.1 states that the city shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future : growth and development. The transportation impact analysis conducted by Kittelson and Associates, Inc. concludes that all the intersections studied along SW Pfaffle Street will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service during all time periods with full build out under the proposed zoning. Although forced-flow conditions created by traffic backed up' from the SW 3 g Dartmouth/Highway 99W intersection currently occur during the peak hour periods at the SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street intersection, the proposed zoning change would have minimal impacts on this already-existing condition. The study found that the proposed zoning would result in 480 fewer traps on the transportation system than if the site was fully developed underthecurrent zoning. 4. Policy 8.2.2, states, in part, that the city shall encourage the expansion and use of public transit by locating land intensive uses in close proximity to transitways. Tri-met offers bus service on Highway 99W and SW Hall Boulevard. The policy is satisfied, therefore, because the proposed redesignation would locate an intensive residential use within one quarter mile of a transit corridor. 5. Policy 12.1.3 lists the locational criteria for designating land as medium-high and high density residential on the plan map. The locational criteria can be construed in a flexible manner in the interest of accommodating proposals which are found to be in the public interest and capable of integration into; the community. The burden of proving conformance with the criteria varies with the degree of change and impact on the community. The applicable locational criteria with findings are as follows: a. Areas which are not committed to low density development. Although Parcels A and B are currently zoned R-4.5 and have single family houses on them, the area is not committed to low density development. The parcels were annexed to .the city as part of the south Metzger area in 1987. They, were the only annexed parcels located south of SW 'Pfaffle 'Street and were 'assigned an R-4.5 zoning along with all the properties north of the street. This was 'done despite the fact thatthetwo-parcel area had C--P zoning on each side and Highway 217 `along the ' southern border. Parcels C and D have always been zoned for commercial uses. b. Areas which can be buffered from low density residential w areasin order to maximize the privacy of established low density residential areas. The proposed area can be adequately buffered from the low density residential area, on the north side of SW Pfaffle Street through the density transiaion, buffering and screening requirements of the Community Development Code. These requirements would be met during subdivision review when an application is submitted to the city. £y C. Areas which, have direct access from a major collector or arterial street. The proposed area is not located on a. major collector or arterial street. SW Pfaffle Street is a 4 classified as a minor collector by the city. The property is located, however, within 250 feet of SW Hall Boulevard, which is an arterial street. The Kittelson analysis indicates that the amount of traffic that would be generated by the proposed plan amendment and zone change area, even if developed to the maximum allowable density, would be less than -under the current zoning p designations. Less traffic will mean less impact to the existing residential development north of SW Pfaffle Street. In addition, the proposed change to residential land use on the four parcels would be more in keeping with the residential character along this portion of SW Pfaffle Street than would commercial office land use. For these reasons, strict adherence to this criterion is not warranted in this case. d. Areas which-are not subiect to development limitations. There are no known development limitations on the proposed site. Detailed review of the site characteristics would be undertaken at the time of development application. e. Areas where the existing facilities have the capacity for additional development. The existing facilities and services have adequate capacity to accommodate additional ' development. The sanitary sewer, storm and water lines located along SW Pfaffle Street are capable of handling development allowed under the, proposed changes. According to the traffic report, SW Pfaffle Street will operate at acceptable levels of service. Existing police and fire services are available and adequate for the site area: f. 'Areas within one-charter mile of Rublic=transit. Public transit is available on Pacific :Highway and SW Hall z Boulevard, which are within one-quarter mile of the site. g. Areas within one-quarter mile from neichborhood and general commercial -shopping centers ' or business and office centers. Within- one-quarter mile of the site is the Tigard Plaza on SW Hall= and the Pacif is Highway corridor with access to shopping and business/office centers. h. Areas adiacent to either private or-public permanent open s ace. There is no private or public permanent open space areas adjacent to the site. Despite this fact, the proposed plan amendment and zone change is in the 'public interest and is capable of harmonious integration into the community: The site>would' provide the 'capability of developing higher 'density, diverse housing along a 5 RM .,. MR V in transportation corridor within an established urban area. Furthermore, the flexibility of this criterion is noted where other R-25 zoned areas exist in the city without adjacent open space. For these reasons, strict adherence to this criterion is not warranted in this case. 6. Section 18.32 of the Community Development Code sets forth the procedural requirements for review of quasi-judicial plan amendments. The application has been processed in accordance with code sections 18.32.020, 18.32.050 and 18.32.060; hearings have been conducted by the planning commission and city council according to 18.32.090(D) and (E) ; and the requirements for notification of the hearing have been met according to 18.32.130 and 18.32.140. 7. Section 18.22 of the Community Development Code sets forth standards and procedures for quasi-judicial amendments to the plan and zoning district map as follows: A. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. The applicable comprehensive plan policies-_and man designation and: the change will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community. The applicableplan policies' related to the proposal are reviewed above under section B (Findings ' and Conclusions) . 2. The statewide plannina aoal.s adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197 until acknowledgement of the -Y comprehensive plan and ordinances. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged, therefore specific review of each statewide planning goal is not applicable. Notice of filing this proposed amendment has } been provided to the Department of Land Conservation and n_ Development for comment at least 45 days prior to the final decision date. S 3. The applicable standards of any provision of this code or other apsxlicable 'implementing 'ordinance'. -Code section 18.56 ` (Multiple-Family Residential) contains the standards ,for the R-25 zone. The proposed site could . meet the standards listed under- "dimensional requirements" and "additional requirements" for a development. Specific future site development improvements will be reviewed through the subdivision and/or Site development review procedures to ensure consistency with this section's standards. 6 TER 6�1m 4. Emi ence of chgnge .n the neiahborhood o cn�n-- 'ty ora mistake or inconsistencythe comnrehensive T31ap or z,gninq man as it relates to the gro erty which is the subject of the development application. This criterion is met because there is evidence that a mistake was made in the designations of the comprehensive plan and zoning maps regarding the affected properties. Parcels A and H were annexed to the city, in 1987 as part of the south Metzger area annexation. They were designated as Low Density Residential and zoned R-4.5 along with the properties north of SW Pfaffle Street and east of SW 83rd Avenue to comply with the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) with the county. At the time of annexation, the parcels were zoned Washington County R-5. However, it could be argued that a mistake was made at the time of designation since they were the only annexed parcels located south of SW Pfaffle Street, and the only ones _ zoned for residential land use. Furthermore, at the time of annexation the parcels were, and still are, bordered on the north by medium density residential, on the east and west by C-P zoned property and on the south by Highway 217. This area is not, therefore, committed to low density residential. The. UPAA did allow for an exception to the zoning requirement if the city and county agreed at the time of annexation that the county designation was outdated. Given their location within a commercial and higher density area, the zoning;on the two parcels was outdated at the time of annexation. Parcels C and D are zoned`C-P. Parcel C'was annexed to Y the city in 1969 and has remained vacant. Parcel D, currently owned by DDOT, has been part of the city since` its incorporation and has remained vacant as well. Access to Parcel C is via SW Pfaffle Street only. This parcel has very limited visibility for a commercial land use due to its location and elevation above Highway 217.' Parcel: D has no direct access to `a street. It is a triangular.-shaped parcel that is land-locked by Parcel C to the north, the GPS Training Center, to the east and the Highway 217 north bound on-ramp to the south. The fact ' that no commercial development has been . p proposed on these' - ' parcels since the C-P:`zone was established mayvery well reflect their location and orientation. Due to the preceding evidence, the planning staff concurs' with the applicant and concludes ;that mistakes and/or inconsistencies were 'made in the comprehensive plan and zoning,maps regarding the 'affected 'four ,parcels. 8. Chapter 12, Section 060 of the Transportation Planning Rule requires that amendments to comprehensive plans which' significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure 7 that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of the facility. An amendment significantly affects a facility if it changes the functional classification of an existing or planned facility, changes standards implementing a classification system, allows land uses 'which would result in levels of service which are inconsistent with the classification, or reduces the level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable level. This criterion is met for the following reasons. The amendment and zone change would not change the functional classification of SW Pfaffle Street or SW Hall Boulevard; the proposed residential land use is not inconsistent with the functional classification of the street system in the area; and the traffic level of service generated by the proposal would not reduce the street system below the minimum level. The traffic consultant report found that the SW Hall/SW Pfaffle intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, and that potential development under the proposed change would result in 480 fewer trips than development under the current zoning. C. DECISION The City Council approves the requested comprehensive plan amendment and zone change to designate the following properties as Medium-High Density Residential on the comprehensive plan map and R-25 on the zoning map: WCTM 1S1 36CC, lots 200, 300, `400 and 2200 _ The Council finds that the change will promote the yeraeLaL welfare of 'the city and will not be significantly detrimental and .injurious to surrounding land uses. a INFRIMilk MEN Im- Jim VICINITY .Agtiti ,T'.. .r any � ;� �■� �■1r r"r'�■C�1 E �.x ■� ® � 'ter%�� EXHIBIT MAP TH Scale '.400, .� FEET 0 800 •. w570 .