Loading...
Resolution No. 89-50 CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 89- 5(0 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO DENY A COMPRZILENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA 89-04) AND ZONE CHANGE (ZC 89-C4) REQUESTED BY HUGHES AND POSCO LANDS, INC.. WHEREAS, the applicant requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a 1.75 acre parcel from Commercial Professional to Medium-High Density Residential and a Zone Change from C-P (Commercial Professional) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a 3.02 acre parcel from Medium Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) to R-25 (Residential, 2S units/acre); WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard the above application at its regular meeting of May 2, 1989 and recommended denial; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council heard the above application at its regular meeting of May 22, 1989. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The proposal is not consistent with all relevant criteria as noted below: i. Location Hughes property - 11505 - 11SIS SW Hall Blvd. (WCTM 1521 35DA, tax lot 1400) and Posco property - 11555 SW 88th Avenue (WCTM 181 35DD, tax lot 3300). 2. Sackaround Information Both parcels are within the original 1961 incorporation boundaries for the City of Tigard. Planning Division records show only one land use or development application involving either of the parcels since that time. In 1988, tax lot 1400 was the parent parcel involved in Minor Land Partition MLP 88-01 which resulted in the creation of parcels of 0.74 acres (site of the Rindercare Learning Center) and 1.75 acres (the present tax lot 1400). 3. Vicinity Information Properties to the north and past of the subject properties are zoned C-P and contain a medical office building and a day care center on parcels fronting on Hall Boulevard, nonconforming single family residences and vacant parcels which also have frontage on Hall Boulevard, and three undeveloped parcels which are landlocked. In addition, a mobile home park is located east of tax lot 3300 on property zoned R-12. This Tigard Plaza shopping center is located to the southeast of the subject parcels. This property is zoned C- G (General Commercial). The Plaza Gardens apartment complex is ABSOLUTION NO. 89-�L Page 1 located to the west of tax lot 3300. This parcel is zoned R-12./ Properties to the northwest and west of the subject properties contain single family residences and duplexes and are zoned R--4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre). 4. Site Information and Proposal Description Tax lot 1400 contains two single family residences whicY. are set back approximately 400 feet from Hall Boulevard. A 32 foot by 290 foot accessway, which contains a 30 foot wide paved driveway serving both Kindereare and the houses, connects tax lot 1400 with Hall Boulevard. Tax lot 3300 contains the 49 unit park Place Garden Apartments on 3.02 acres. The parcel is therefor® developed at a density in excess of 16 units per acre. Access to the a:)artments from Center street is via an approximately 45 foot wide by 500 fcat long access drive which is located between the Tigard Plaza and Center Court shopping centers` parking iota. This private road is known as SW 88th Avenue. The applicants request that the Comprehensive Plan map deesigna�tion for tax lot 1400 be amended from Professional Commercial to Madlum_ High Density Residential and the zoning from C-P to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) and also that the Plan map designation for tax lot 3300 be amend, a from Medium Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential and the zoning form R-1.2 to R-25. The redesignations are requested in order to allow apartment development on tax lot 1400 and to allow possible future redevelopment of tax lot 3300 at least its present density. As presently zoned, the apartments on tax lot 3300 are co„side> a nonconforming use because the parcel is developed at a greater density than the zone permits. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has zavi.+ewed the proposal and offers the following ccmmentez 1. Ander the current zoning for tax lot 1400, the potential exists for development of an office building of approximately 1101000 square feet. The proposed zoning redesignation to R- 25 would allow development of approximately 44 apartment units on tax lot 1400. The potential traffic impacts Of full development under the proposed R-25 zoning designation arae less than the potential impacts of full development under the current c-P zonit;g. No analysis was provided regarding the Potential impacts of the proposed redesignation of tax lot 3500. 2. Sanitary and storm sewers are available to sery-e future development on these properties. The Park Place Garde apartments are presently served by sanitary and storm sewers. The adequacy of these facilities to serve future development proposal. RESOLUTION NO. 89-50 Page 2 The Oregon State Highway Division reviewed the proposal and offered no objections to the proposed cedes ignat ions. The Highway Division, however, noted that access impacts upon Hall Boulevard will need to be addressed through the review for any future development proposal on tax lot 1400. The Metzger Water District, Washington County Fire District #1, and the City of Tigard Building Division reviewed the proposal and offered no comments or objections. No other comments were received. 2. FI di.n99 and Conclusions The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Coals 1, 2, and 10; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1; 6.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.8.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, and Chapter 12, Locational Criteria; and the change or -i.stnk. quasi-judicial wap amc.^.'amen,. criteria of beth the Comprehensive Flan and community Development Code. The City Cour_cil concludes that the prop: sal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Coals and guidelines based upon the following findings: 1. Co-31 i-1 is :..a^t be -SuBe the (City has adopted £ Citizen Program including review of all development- applications by Neighborhood Planning Organizations (NPO). In addition, all public notice requirements have been satisfied for this application. 2. Goal #2 is met because the city has applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code requirements to the revie=w of the proposal. 3. Goal #10 is satisfied because the proposal will provide for additional housing opportunities as promoted by the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Housing Rule (Oregon F d'ainistrativa Reil ww_, r__fiantn.-r 660_ niv_i_w nn 71_ Aaarnval. cf th- proposal would increase housing opportunities on the City's dAvelopable residential lands to 10.18 dwelling units per acre as compared to the current 10.116 units per acre. Approval would also provide increased opportunities for =Ulti-family development. Only potential housing opportunities on tax lot 1400 are included in this calculation since tax lot 3300 is already developed and therefore is not included in the City's buildable land. The Metropolitan Housing Rule requires that the City maintain a minimum housing opportunity rate for developable lands of 10 units per acre and a minimum 50/50 opportunity mix for single family and multi- family housing. The City Council has determined that the proposal is only partially j consistent with applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: RESOLUTION NO. 89-6 Page 3 1. plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because Neighborhood Planning Organization $2 and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the proposal. 2. The purposes of plan policy 5.1.3 will be furthered by the proposed redesignation bscause alloy Xnlcmet of theaaen raresbusiness opportunities within close proximity rter mile south, may make,which is approximately one 4u"a the central business dlatrict more economically viable because p future residentsof the properties would be anticipated to utilize withe central nearby commercial and civic opportunities gna business district. In addition, tion lnofthcommercial property outside of, but clo�xe to, the central business district may reduce the likelihood that a nowommerclal en a trnhe s centrawoul commercial development Opportunities business district. oposal would provide 3. Plan Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because the pr the opportunity for additional multi-family development and would Ek increase the net housing opportunity on buildable lands in the 9 City. This is detailed in the discussion for Coal 10 above. The 1i[ Rule City of Tigard is obligated through he ty mix llofnsingle nfamily to provide for an equal housing opportunity density of 10 and multi-family units with ancve_--- -- - units per acre. The City must ensure that sufficient higher density areas are available eo the intent of the Housing Rule can be met. The prop^..sed rwdesionation would further the City's compliance with these requirements. 4. Plan policies 6.3.21 6.3.3 and 6.6.1 will not be satisfied because the property location• size, and configuration would allow for redevelopment of the properties in ways that may be less compatible with adjacent established residential areas than the existing uses or currently permitted uses of the C-P zone. Future development of the parcels will be subject to density limitations within 100 t feet to of lower density residential zones and also will be eubj esci.`uav:, y 9_q . -_A 3n.,dacapinc requirements. However, because v6 of the emallsize of the property, it will be difficult to sati_ Y these Code requirements. Also, this rezoning addition 1 setbacks and the abutting properties zoned C-P to provide buffering to w),at is presently necessary. S. plan policies 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4• and 7.6.1 are satisfied because adequa" public service capacities are available to serve potential development on the properties. Storm se-Wer and sanitary sewer on tax extensions will be necessary to seave future development lot 1400. This can ba accomplished as a condition of developing tyle site. 6. plan policy 7.8.1 is satisfied because the Tigard school District was informed of this proposal. The School District is preseatly � boundaries.and is also constructing an additionDn a Those reviewing proposed change to school attenda In existing i` actions are intended to alleviate overcrowding RZsor,UTION No. 89--60- page 4 classrooms and to provide additional capacity to serve future growth in the area. 7, Plan Policy 8.1.1 commits the City to plan for a safe and efficient meets current needs and anticipated street and roadway system that future development. This policy would be satisfied because the proposed redesignation of tax lot 1409 would reduce the anticipated traffic onto Hall Boulevard as noted by the Engineering Division and because any additional traffic that might result from ,,development of tax lot 33CO woun arterial id not directly impact a or collector street. The Engineering Division will review any future d..rslapmart proposals for either of the properties and may ted public streets to reduce impacts require improvements to affec resulting from future developments. I a= plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition of approval of street any future development of fixe props rt_:ee_ Necessary improvements to Hall Boulevard may be required at the time of development or` tax lot 1400. The) City's Engineering Division and ure the Oregon State Highway Division �olllBg iew anydevelopment proposals for either of the Properties' g. Plan Policy 8.1.2 is aatisflsd because Tri-Met offers bus service o on Pacific Highway, less than one quarter mile from the properties, e. and on Hall Boulevard, on which taw lot 1400 locate an an intensas ive Therefore, the proposed redesignation to existing public type of development ..=hie close proximity transit routes. 10. The Locational criteria specified in Chapter 12 of the 'Plan for &tedium-High Density Residential use are not fully satisfied for the following reasons: low density a. The s:abjct but adjacent are notrtiess are.committed toThe necessary development, but ad-jacfer props density transition, buffering. and :�cre,ning requirements of y .,.:+y nevelopment code will not be sufficient in L.-.Q _ nts on the properties compatible with making future developme neighboring duplexes and single family residences as well as with other apartment developments. b. Tax lot 1409 has direct access to Hall Boulevard, an arterial. to Pacific Highway, which also is and indirect access -i arteria functionally classified as a. and to OGreenburg Road,access to both Pacific HZghwaY a major collector street. C. Serious physical development limitations affecting the her properties are not evident and public facaLities zey on the t presenor can be extended to serve foto,, deveiopme- properties. However, the property is limited in terms o£ satisfying the buffering and compatibility issues noted above. RESOLUTION KO. 94-� Page 5 d. Public transit is available on both Hall Boulevard and on Pacific Highway within easy walking distance of both properties. &. Convenience retail service is available nearby along Pacific Highway. Commercial and business centers are located within lose proximicy to both properties. f, The Park Place Garde Apartments are presently provided with a swimming pool and other common open spaces. Common open space and recreational facilities that customarily are provided with multi-family developments will be required of future multi- family development on tax lot 1440- No public open space is located within the immediate vicinity of these parcels. In order to approve a quasi-judicial amendment to the Plan and zoning maps, the City must also find that there is evidence of a charcie 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 Code Section 18.22.040(A)). For the subject parcels, it deep not appear that a mistake has been made and a change of circumstances has occurred. The Council concludes that the existing C-P and R-12 zone designations are appropriate for the subject properties. Section 2. The City Council Upholds the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Hap Amendment as Bet forth in Exhibit "A" (map). Section 3: The Council, therefore ORDERS that the above referenced request be 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. ifA PASSED., This�o day of June, 7989. kdr-ik V Brie A. Johnso ourcil President ATTESTt Cathy Wheatley, Deputy C y Recorder CPA89-04.kl r RxSOLUTl^CV lnx 82-..` 0 Passe 6 A"WITEXHIBIT "A" -- WITHIN HIN THE SW 1/4 SECTION 35 TIS RI W,W.N. 5 `= LST ,v i a -y_ m STREET yl 'V F.:- ! NO (SCALE — DESCRIBED AREA - �� A m 8 iy R � — 7 T.L. �\ d to c� 9G � Q�• � x � —� • 0 \ �a - 36