Loading...
Resolution No. 96-46 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 96- { , ,:�...... A .RESOLUTION BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING FINDINGS ..AND CONCLUSIONS TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT x ' (CPA 96-0001) REQUEST BY BOB BLEDSOE T 2 m { s � , WHEREAS, the applicant requested a comprehensive plan amendment to ' amend the text of the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan by . 'adding a new policy as follows: 10.1.4 An exception to Policy 10.1.3 r x� is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas; ...WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 23, 1996 to consider the proposed amendments as set forth herein; a NOW, .THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: ,'., r, Section 1 The proposal is not consistent with all of the relevant criteria noted in the attached final order (Exhibit A). Section 2: The City Council upholds the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the compreh^:nsive plan amendment as set forth in Exhibit A. 0-6 a ., Section 3: The:City Council, therefore, orders .that CPA.96-0001 be fi DENIED, and further orders that the City Recorder send 'a copy of the finalresolution as a Notice of Final Decision to theL"' t res ;n this case. -- PASSED:: This 3 - day of -�-� 1996. e. Maya- City of Tigard ^ ATTEST: City Recorder - C_ r o£ Tigan-' i � 11 RESOLUTION NO. 96-46 Page 1 V$ 4 yY r CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCILt ' FINAL ORDER A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN xi trz?� 4 APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY BOB BLEDSOE. The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at a public hearing on July 23, 0 1996. The City Council denies the request based on the facts,findings and conclusions ` noted below. a, A. FACTSsrw 1. General Information 0„0�.. CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0001 REQUEST: Amend the text of the Rubanization section of theM0,0=5 Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows: e `�� 't'j 10.14 An exception to Policy 10.1.3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density31 residential established areas. N ,t APPLICANT: Bob Bledsoe 4 11800 SW Walnut Street Tigard,OR 97223 OWNERS: Same 111.t s f LOCATION: Southwest corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota Street(Parcel 3 of Minor land Partition 94-0013}; °M } 2. Vicinity a tai 3 x The proposed amendment would apply to the City's Urban Planning Area and not *= 'toany specific site. r '- y y{ 3. Background Information x "s Historically,when properties have annexed to the City,they have been zoned to match the previous Washington County zone districts as closely as possible. This practice helped to carry out the intent of the Tigard Community Plan. The Urban Planning Area Agreement between Washington County and Tigard,signed in June of 1983,included a provision to require the City to convert annexed land from the City's Area of Interest(Bull Mountain and Metzger areas)to designations that most closely approximate the density, use provisions and standards of County designations. In April of 1984,the City Council,with the recommendation of staff i sX and the Planning Commission,adopted Ordinance 84-21 to amend Section 10.1 of the Urbanization chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to include all annexed land to ,,, }. the City. The purpose of this policy was to accommodate existing development x7t and preserve neighborhoods as they are annexed to the City. x; 4. Site Information and Proposal Description Mr. Bledsoe presented a proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan and waive the application fee to the Central and West CITs during August of 1995. The two $ groups supported his request. At the meeting of September 12, 1995, he requested that the City Council waive the Comprehensive Plan amendment application fee and formally ask Washington county to open the Urban Planning Area Agreement(UPAA)in order to amend the policy on zoning of annexed land. The Council granted the fee waiver and agreed to include his concerns during the next review of the UPAA. The submittal period deadlines(75 to 45 days prior to tr the Planning Commission's first hearings in April and October) precluded Mr. Bledsoe from applying for a legislative Comprehensive Plan amendment last fall. He did submit his application during February of this year. k The proposed amendment would be added to the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan and read as follows: "10.14 An exception to Policy 10.13 is j that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in '.ow density residential established areas." This amendment would apply, ostensibly,to the ^ City's urban planning area that is designated as Low Density Residential and is .already developed with residential units. As properties in these areas annex to the City,the Council would have the option to zone them to a designation that reflects the existing number of units at the time.. 5. Agency Comments Metro reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments: 2 ,ate�,n..... ..... ...... ........r. ... ,..;., ., - s ... *� � •,u-.. .w.,. ,.�.. a Aa � ...... ............�m s �.,.._ ...�.s �., ,�.m l ^r 3 3� "This amendment is not compatible with the direction of the 2040 Growth Concept. It would serve to substantially reduce the allowable residential densities for those - newly incorporated areas. While Tigard may not need to increase its current i r densities would limit the City's flexibility in achieving these targets. In addition,Mr. r Bledsoe's reference to what constitutes "buildable lands" in incorrect. The definition includes redevelopable lands as well as vacant lands." }; Washington County reviewed this proposal and has the following concerns: k ;. "In order to effect the change, it would appear that the Urban Planning Area s: Agreement must be amended_ It is not clear if the proposal has an impact on the City or County ability to demonstrate compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule. It is not clear how the proposal operates in"low density residential established areas". Would this preclude infill development? � I x It would seem the proposal may be contrary to the concepts included in the Y Regional Framework Plan,Urban Growth Management Functional Plan,regarding greater density of development and the ability of the City to accommodate its „r share of regional growth, While these requirements are not yet binding on the City,this change may have an impact on the City's future ability to demonstrate , compliance." 7 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Thp relevant _;;t_,i„ in this case are Statewide Goals 1, 2, 10 and 14; Oregon Administrative Rule .660-12; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1:1, 2.1.1 .and 6.1,1; Community Development Code.Chapter 18.30. STATEWIDE GOALS s Citizen Involvement: Goal 9 requires a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the planning process. -Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1,1 and Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18 provide for citizen participation and notice. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing and opportunity for response was advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITs and the Department of Land Conservation and S. 3 9;9 t } Development. In addition,the proposal was presented to the CITs and their comments are included with this report.This goal is satisfied. a Land Use Planning: Goal 2 requires,in part,that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to take into account changing public policies and circumstances. The proposal would amend existing adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plan and i intergovernmental agreement requirements relating to the zoning of annexed property to the City. If exercised,the policy would encourage the downzoning of residential land as it is annexed to the City. The public policies and circumstances are changing in the Metropolitan Portland area as well as in the City toward increase of residential density in .order to meet regionwide goals within the Urban Growth Boundary. The proposed I amendment would be counterproductive to this direction. This goal is not satisfied_ Housing: Goal 10 requires that plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and allow for flexibility of housing location,type and density. The applicant states that this goal '`' does not apply to his proposal because the goal is limited to the development of vacant, buildable land only. The goal,however,defines'buildable lands'as lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable,available and necessary for residential use. It is not confined to vacant land only and includes redevelopable land. Implementation 4 of the housing goal states that ordinances and incentives should be used to increase population densities in urban areas taking into consideration (1) key facilities, (2) the economic, environmental, social and energy consequences of the proposed densities and(3)the optimal use of existing urban land particularly in sections containing significant amounts of unsound substandard structures. The effect of the } � proposed amendment would be to decrease zoning and therefore population densities. t For,despite the wording of the proposal to assign zoning closest to existing development, ' the density could only be reduced and not increased because the highest zoning the City can currently assign is R—,.5 the closest miatch ,,; he unt,_ R-5, and.still implement the Low Density j Residential designation of the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted, however,that assignment of City R-4.5 zoning (7,500 square foot minimum lot size)is actually a reduction in density from the County's R-5 zoning(7,000 square foot minimum lot size). Staff finds that the proposal is not consistent with Goal 10 and would have a negative impact on encouraging the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and allow for flexibility of housing location,type and density.Staff finds,therefore,that this goal is not satisfied. Urbanization: Goal 14 provides for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. This goal is carried out by way of the establishment of an urban growth 4 boundary. The proposal addresses zoning for annexed lands within the urban growth boundary and therefore not subject to this goal's provisions. The City's annexation policies are included in the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan and the reader is referred to Policy 10.1.3 below. ? s COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTES OR GUIDELINES Oregon Administrative Rule: Section 660-12-060 states that plan amendments which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land c.„t uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity,and level of service of the facility. Zoning annexed land to existing densities would not generate additional s ` traffic or significantly affect a transportation facility. This rule is not, therefore, applicable to the proposed plan amendment. COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(a)requires that legislative changes are consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The proposal is not consistent with statewide planning goals as addressed above under 'Statewide Goals'. There is no applicable adopted regional plan. This policy is not satisfied. r Citizen Involvement: Policy 2.1.1 states that the City shall maintain an ongoingM cifrzen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an . opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. A request for comments was sent to all City CITs and the Planning Commission hearing was legally rc advertised. In addition,the proposal was presented at all CIT meetings during May. This policy is satisfied. Housing: Policy 6.1.1 requires the city shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This t� .. policy is primarily implemented through OAR 660-07,the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The ' rule requires that the city maintain sufficient resider tial buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50%of new units to be attached single family or multi-family housing and to provide for an overall density often units per acre. �x The proposed amendment could affect City compliance with the Housing Rule by lowering the potential number of units per acre if annexed land is zoned at lower densities. If,upon annexation,properties are downzoned from the County designation, s ' then the City's housing opportunity index would have to be recalculated because the affected properties were originally calculated in the County for higher density. The Housing Rule states that a jurisdiction need not include plan and/or zone changes made by another jurisdiction before annexation to a city. However, Section 660-07-045(b) > 5 states that a city shall include changes to annexed or incorporated land if the city changed type or density or the plan/zone designation after annexation or incorporation [emphasis added]. The City, therefore, would need to recalculate the housing index every time property(ies) were zoned, after annexation, at a different density than the previous zoning in the County. More importantly,downzoning of residential land would lower the index. The City could fall out of compliance with the rule's minimum r requirement of 10 units per acre,especially considering that approximately 535 acres of + low density established land could be eligible for rezoning.As the index approaches or ' falls below the 10 units per acre standard,the City would need to make up the difference for new housing opportunities in other parts of the City through rezoning of land. This proposed amendment by itself will not cause the City to drop out of compliance with the housing rule. The amendment would, however,greatly increase the probability for reducing residential density and result in the incremental loss of housing opportunities. For this reason,staff cannot make a finding that this policy is satisfied. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: ' Procedures for Decision Making. Legislative: Chapter 18.30 establishes procedures for consideration of legislative changes to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, implementing ordinances and maps. Section 18.30.120 lists the factors upon which the Planning Commission and City Council shall base their decisions. The factors and responses are as follows: 1. The statewidelannin r p g goals and guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197. These standards are addressed in Section IV under'Statewide Goals'in this staff report. 2. Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable. The state's Transportation Planning Rule is addressed in Section IV under'Compliance with Federal and State Statutes or Guidelines'. 3. Applicable plans andguidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District.There are no applicable plans or guidelines adopted by Metro. See Section VI(Agency Comments)for Metro staff response to the proposal. 4. -The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map.:These standards are addressed in Section IV under'Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies'. „ 5. -The applicable provisions of-the implementing'ordinances. The implementing ordinances are contained in the Tigard Community Development Code,which are addressed in this section of the staff report. 6 . M - ih l� 4tU 6. Consideration may also be given to proof of a change in the neighborhood a ?� or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or iu implementing ordinance which is the subject of the application. The applicant does not address this factor. 1 Annexations: Chapter 18.136 implements the policies of the Comprehensive Plan regarding annexation requests. if the proposed amendment is approved,Section 18.136.030,Approval Standards,provision B would have to be revised. Currently,this provision reads, "The plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation." The change would have to allow for y w the option to zone a property with a designation that matches the existing development 'in the area. C. DECISION ' The city councils denies the requested comprehensive plan amendment CPA 96- y 0001 based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions. t �. �at s t n ;3 n S4xt Ykt fi 3 7 4 �qk ' 3X 1�'