Resolution No. 86-129 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 86- �, I
A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT (CPA 8-86) AND ZONE CHANGE (ZC 16-86) REQUESTED BY NORDLING, SCOTT,
AND MARTIN, DENYING THE APPLICATION, ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.
WHEREAS, the applicants requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low
Density Residential to Commercial General and a Zone Change from R-3.5
(Residential 3.5 units/acre) to C-G (Commercial General); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard the above application at its regular
meeting of October 7, 1986 and recommended denial, based upon staff findings,
and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council heard the above application at its rzvilar
meeting of November 3, 1986.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT' RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
_Gctior, ,. The proposal is not consistent with all relevant criteria as
discussed in the October 7, 1986 Planning staff report to
Planning Commission (Exhibit "A").
Section 2. The City Council upholds the Planning Commission's
f recommendation for denial of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
and Zoning Map Amendment as set for*'i in Exhibit "B" (map).
Section 3: The Council, therefore, ORDERS 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 decision to the parties in this case.
PASSED: 'This v�`t day of1986.
City of Tigard
ATTEST:
` Acting City Recorder - City of Tigard
KSL:bs212
S;
RESOLUTION NO.
Page 1
STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM
OCTOBER 7, 1386 - 7:30 P.M.
TIGARD PLANNING COM'M1ISSIC�N ® a ,,� ••
TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL ® 9 `� �•
13125 SW HALL BLVD.
TIGARD, OREGON 37223
�I
A. FACTS
1. General Information
CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 8-86 Zone Change ZC 16-86
REQUEST: For a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Commercial General and Zone Change from R-3.5
(Residential, 3.5 units/acre) to C-G (Commercial General)
APPLICANT: George 6 JoAnne Nordling OWNER: SAME
Eugene Nordling
Jerry Scott
Gordon S. and Gordon R. Martin
LOCATION: 7085, 7105, and 7155 SW Elmhurst Street (WCTM 2S1 IAB, Tax
Lot 200, 300, 301, 302)
2. Background Information
No previous land use applications have been reviewed by the City
regarding these parcels.
3. Vicinity Information
The property to the north and west is zoned C-G (PD) (COMMOrciul
General, planned development). The land to the east is zoned C-P
(Commercial Professional?: and: the properties immediately south sued
southwest aro also zoned R-3.5 and are occupied by single family
residences.
Access io provided .by :Elmhurst Street which is a 30 foot wide public
street and 72nd Avenue, a shejor collector, is immediately west.
A. Site Information and Proaosal Descriction
The subjectproperties are occupied. by single family residences.
applicant proposes to rezone the property to C--G.
5. Actencv &ndWP0-C_0zMrts
Buildf acnd Engineering Division comments will be available at the
"h i"M
o oar icooliants have been received
STAFF REST - ?'A-A-06 TXORa-0L!W8WTT M--T ,°: _ "Am I
1
a. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan
Policies 2.1.1.: 413M, 7.1.2, 7.6.1, and the Locational Criteria for
commercial development (Section 12.2). Since the Tigr,rd Comprohensive
Plan has recently ben acknowledged by LCDC, it is no longer necessary to
address the Statewide Planning Goals..
The planning staff has determined that the proposal is only partially
consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based
upon the findings noted below:
1. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning
Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of
the hearing and an opportunity to convent on the applicant's
proposal.
2. Policy 7.1.2 and 7.6.1 are not satisfied because adequate service
capacity for sanitary sewer and storm sewer do not exist.
Sanitary sewer is not yet available to the general area.
3_ The Proposal does not fully comply with the applicable Locational
Criteria in Section 12.2 of the Comprehensive Plan as discussed
below:
a. The subject property only abuts a residential zone on the
south side.
L. b. The proposal will :not create traffic problems once vehicles
entering and leaving the site get to 72nd Avenue. However.
it is unclear how the eastern parcels will obtain access
without using Elmhurst Street which is substandard and used
by the residents to the south.
C. Except for the western parcel (T.L. 200) the subject parcels
will not have direct access to a major collector streot.
d. Public transportation is not available to the site. The
closest bus route utilizes 68th Avenue, Hampton Street. and
Hunziker Street.
e. The individual parcels will be s t Iiaited as
commercial properties unless they are combined into larger
parcels to better accommodate a eoomreial use.
f. The western portion of the subject property will have good
visibility from 72nd Avenue. f
f
t
1
STAFF REPORT - CPA 8-86 F ®LING/SWTr/ 3ARTSN ^ PAGE 2
9
g. Commercial development on the subject property without the
participation of the residentially zoned property to the
south will cause compatibility problems for two major
reasons, First, the only apparent legal access in the
eastern parcels to 72nd Avenue is via Elmhurst Street which
also serves the residences on the south side of the strec<t.
Second, the residents on the south side of Elmhurst will
them be totally surrounded by commercially zoned property.
h. The proposal will also adversely affect the properties to
the south by the potential commercial development creating
privacy, noise, and other compatibility problems.
One of the major purposos behind the residential zoning districts in the
Tigard Triangle area is to protect the integrity of existing
neighborhoods. This residential Street would significantly changed
by this proposal. The proposal is alsosomewhat premature because
adequate utility facilities are not available to serve the site.
It should be noted that the City intends to leave the option open to
eventually utilize residentially zoned property in the Triangle for
commercial development. However, this transition will be best
accomplished with the consent of entire neighborhoods rather than the
incremental approach prosented in this application.
C. RECOMMENDATION
based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning staff
s recommends denial of CPA 8-86 and ZC 16-86.
PREPARED BY: .ei h Liden APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan
Senior Planner Director of Community
Development
(KS1.:lis 160)
STAFF REPORT- CPA 8-86 P"Rl,LINGL /FARC - PAGE 3
A
s
r r
'ills, ~
y _ •a •- k
aaF a
fit 3
1®s' :10.66 _
-N.d 20 E. - O•ffiO q.
4 1
L •� I a N.0 zol E. 210.60
go-20 w 230.76 'I
. a
0.. 210.85`
`CD
Cl
� 1
, mak, - Pte, - - .�i. `➢�� .tet, ' '
"' 'Yet iJf =a •�
i