Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05/18/2015 - Minutes
CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes May 18, 2015 CALL TO ORDER President Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ROLL CALL Present: President Rogers Vice President Fitzgerald Alt. Commissioner Enloe Commissioner Feeney Commissioner Lieuallen Commissioner Middaugh Commissioner Schmidt Absent: Alt. Commissioner Mooney; Commissioner Muldoon; Commissioner Smith Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director;John Floyd, Associate Planner; Monica Bilodeau,Associate Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Greg Berry, Kim McMillan, Lina Smith COMMUNICATIONS —None. CONSIDER MINUTES May 4 Meeting Minutes: President Rogers asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the May 4 minutes; there being none, Rogers declared the minutes approved as submitted. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING POLYGON AT SOUTH RIVER TERRACE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -PDR2015-00003 SUB2015-00005; SLR2015-00002 REQUEST: The applicant requests a 190-unit single family residential planned development with concurrent concept and detailed plan review, subdivision review, and sensitive lands review on a 27.25 acre site. The proposed development will include 127 detached single- family homes and 63 attached row homes APPLICANT: Polygon Northwest Company ZONE/COMP PLAN DESIGNATION R-7: medium-density residential district; R-12: medium-density residential district; River Terrace Plan District. LOCATION: South of Bull Mountain Road and east of Roy Rogers. Washington County Tax Map 2S1070,Tax Lots 1300, 1302, 1303, 1305, 1900,2000 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.660, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.775, 18.785, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810 May 18, 2015 Page 1 of 14 QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Rogers read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial hearing guide. There were no abstentions; there were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: Feeney, Rogers, Fitzgerald, Middaugh, Schmidt had made site visits. No one in the audience wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner, Monica Bilodeau introduced herself and the proposal. She went over a short PowerPoint (Exhibit AA). She noted that it's a 190-unit single family residential development, 127 detached units — 63 attached— on 27.25 acres just south of Bull Mountain Road. Several community amenities and major infrastructure improvements are proposed. Fred Gast and his team at Pacific community design will go into further detail on the proposal and design. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has thoroughly reviewed the proposed plans and recommends two actions: 1. In favor of the Concept Plan Map. 2. In favor of the proposed Detailed Planned Development Map, Subdivision, and Sensitive Lands Review. QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Fitzgerald pointed out that page 20 of the staff report, 18.430.040 Subdivisions Section A.3 states "The Future Street Plan demonstrates that streets internal to the proposed subdivision are laid out to conform with the existing subdivision to the east and the existing road pattern. This criterion is not met." Commissioner Fitzgerald asked whether that was the case and that the criterion is not met, or whether that was a typo. Monica noted that the criterion actually is met and that was a typo. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Jim Lange with Pacific Community Design thanked staff for the hard work and effort they'd expended on this. He said the Concept Plan created a great framework. He went over a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit A). He went over the logistics of the project— the location, the roads, the pump stations,water lines, density, etc. He noted the diversity of the subdivision— there will be row homes, alley loaded homes, and a mixture of standard, medium and large homes. He showed some photos of the different architectural designs — English, Craftsman and French styles. He reminded the commission that this is the third project they're doing in this area. He said they will all be interconnected by several things. There will be a series of neighborhood parks and that this particular project has one of those parks on it. That neighborhood park and open spaces total about 18 acres. He noted there would be a swim center that would serve this area. There are about 1 1/2 miles of new infrastructure roads. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR - None TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION - None May 18, 2015 Page 2 of 14 PUBLIC HEARING — CLOSED No further testimony or questions from the audience are allowed. DELIBERATION Commissioner Fitzgerald had no concerns, she said it was following along what had already been seen from previous submittals by this developer. It's meeting the intent of what they want in River Terrace. She just wanted the commissioners to note that there was a typo in the findings of the staff report and that should be addressed if a motion is made. Commissioner Feeney believes they're creating a neighborhood with the diversity they want. He commends the applicant and the city for coming together on this. President Rogers — Hats off to all the developers and particularly to this developer as they have taken on the vision of not only council and staff, but the public. There's been huge public outreach with this — the neighbors were brought in at various times. This developer has done a good job of capturing their vision. Moreover, the new vision the city has about walk-ability within the city and "Interconnected Tigard" — they've done a very good job with capturing that. CONCEPT PLAN MOTION Commissioner Fitzgerald made a motion on the Concept Plan: "I move for approval of application PDR2015-00003 and the adoption of the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report." Motion was seconded by Commissioner Feeney. There was a vote -All in favor—none opposed—no abstentions. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY DETAILED PLAN MOTION Commissioner Fitzgerald made a motion on the Detailed Plan: I move for approval of application SUB2015-00005 & SLR2015-00002 and the adoption of the findings and the conditions of approval contained in the staff report with the modification to the Subdivision language in 18.430.040 A.3 - that the staff note needs to be changed to read "met" instead of "not met" [Due to typo]. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Schmidt. There was a vote - All in favor - none opposed—no abstentions. MOTION PASSES OPEN PUBLIC HEARING May 18, 2015 Page 3 of 14 HERITAGE CROSSING ZONE CHANGE AND SUBDIVISION - ZON2015-00002/SUB2015- 00001/VAR2015-00001 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a concurrent Zone Change, Subdivision, and Special Adjustment to street standards to develop approximately 9.10 acres located at 15435 SW Hall Boulevard. The zone change would be a quasi-judicial map amendment from R-12 (existing) to R-7 (proposed), with no associated change to the Comprehensive Plan Map designation of Medium Density Residential. The subdivision would result in the creation of 53 lots intended for single- family residential style development, and an associated water quality tract. The special adjustment requests an alternate street section to match existing streets that adjoin the property. APPLICANT: Venture Properties LOCATION: 15435 SW Hall Blvd. Washington County Tax Map 2S111DA,Tax Lot 00400 CURRENT ZONE: R-12 medium-density residential district. PROPOSED ZONE: R-7: medium-density residential district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370.020.C.9, 18.380.030.C, and 18.430.040.A; and Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 1 QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Rogers read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial hearing guide. There were no abstentions; there were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: Commissioner Feeney noted that he has worked in the past in the same firm as Ms. Doukas. He noted also that their firms are working together on a separate project—not in the City of Tigard. Also he works with Mike Robinson (their land-use attorney) on projects together—but not in the City of Tigard. He stated that this will not impair his decision making ability. Commissioner Fitzgerald noted that Ms. Doukas is known to her from their joint meetings between the City of Tigard and the City of Beaverton with their involvement on the Planning Commission. She believes this will not make her biased. Site visitations: Commissioners Enloe, Feeney, Fitzgerald, Middaugh, and Schmidt had made site visits. No one in the audience wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner,John Floyd, presented the staff report on Heritage Crossing. (Staff reports are available online one week before the hearing). He went over a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit B). He noted staff is recommending denial because the application does not meet the approval criteria for a quasi-judicial zone change or maximum density standards in the R-7 zone. The subdivision is built to R-7 standards;it cannot be approved without a concurrent zone change - otherwise it would not meet our minimum density requirements for the area. The Tigard Development Code specifies three approval criteria for a quasi-judicial zone change: The first bullet represents the criteria—the second bullet represents staff's response. ❖ Compliance with Tigard Comprehensive Plan ➢ The staff report details how the applicant has not sufficiently addressed the criteria pertaining to Goal 2, land use Goal 6 — environmental quality, Goal 10 housing, and Goal 12 transportation. The proposal to downzone is inconsistent with city goals for housing types, transportation system development, etc. ❖ Compliance with other applicable ordinances and requirements (Tigard Development Code, Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan) ➢ Metro and staff found the application inconsistent with the Functional Plan — specifically approval criteria for a reduction of density along Metro designated corridors. Staff does May 18, 2015 Page 4 of 14 not find it consistent in that it's not just a matter of a reduction of housing units —it's also a reduction of the available housing type. The R-12 zone allows multi-family housing and it's easier to develop attached housing under R-12 than it is under R-7. So by going to R- 7, potential housing types are precluded. ❖ Evidence of 1 of 2) Mistake or inconsistency in zoning map. ➢ The staff report details the zoning history and in the attachments there are clear ordinances adopting the R-12 zone in this property in 1983. So it is not a mistake in the designation of R-12 itself. ➢ 2 of 2) change in community or neighborhood ➢ Pages 6 — 9 relate to what actually has changed. In 1983 there were a number of factors that caused the city to assign the R12 designation to this property. Things like topography, natural features, - at the time these were undeveloped parcels. They are relatively unconstrained. That situation has not changed for the site. It's still flat and relatively unconstrained. Also these parcels were adjacent to transportation infrastructure; that still exists today—Hall Blvd back then was used as an arterial— today it still is. Location criterion has not changed. It's also the distance of the site from neighborhood services and commercial centers as well. The school locations are still present, as well as Cook Park—which is also nearby. Those factors have not changed. The applicant has to satisfy all three criterions. It's not a matter of pick one or pick two —it's all three. If the Planning Commission finds they don't meet any one of those three, the application must be denied. John noted that—looking longer term — and more of a policy issue in terms of this —the Planning Commission may want to be careful in terms of setting a precedent of not allowing different housing types next to each other. In terms of future development—if attached single family&multi-family is inherently at conflict with detached,it would be a serious hindrance to the city achieving housing goals across the city; something to consider. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As detailed in the staff report and supplemental information provided, the application does not meet the three approval criteria for a zone change— and the application cannot be conditioned to meet those criteria. So, as such,we recommend the planning commission deny the zone change and with that— deny the subdivision. As a background issue, the staff wants to communicate to the Planning Commission that we have consistently told the applicant that staff has concerns about this proposal. That goes all the way back to the pre-application conference in September. This is not a situation where staff is surprising the applicant. This is something that's been on the table since September. QUESTIONS You've given a good history since 1983 of the initial land use designation. In any Comp Plan updates or anything since 183 to now, has the city or anybody raised this site as being a different zone —be it an R-7 or anything like that? Offhand I couldn't tell you for certain; however, I don't recall any. There may have been some pre-applications in the past but I don't believe there are any actual applications to change it. The city also did a Comprehensive Plan update a few years ago and the Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map were not changed as part of that update. So the zoning has been consistent since then. I'm not aware of any official May 18, 2015 Page 5 414 consideration other than perhaps a pre-application conference. We don't maintain long-term records about pre-apps. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Mimi Doukas of AKS Engineering went over a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit C). She disagreed with staff s assertion that there is no evidence of change in the community citing the following changes: Substantial Changes Since 1983 • Rezone of land to the south from R-12 to R-7 • Rezone of land to the north from R-12 to R-7 • Rezone of land to the west from R-4.5 to R-7 • Build-out of most of the corridor between 1983 and 1998 • Establishment of minimum density provisions in 1998 Ms. Doukas said there was an acknowledged mistake in their decision making in the Sattler Zone Change - [Applicant's Exhibit O] She said, "We've provided a buildable land inventory—we relied on the 2010 Johnson Gardner report which was adopted by the city; as a foundation we updated that for the 2014 land inventory. We laid on top of that the River Terrace new inventory that came on line; then we talked about what this zone change would do to the ultimate capacity. That's all outlined in that buildable land inventory included in the application. The short story is that there is excess capacity for both R-7 and R-12 lands within the city. Actually, you now have excess capacity in all residential zones. We also need to talk about— 'What is the right mix of attached housing versus detached housing?' Staff has said there's more to the conversation than just attached and detached - but that is part of the conversation. So Johnson Gardner identified that from 2000 to 2010 housing demand was 64% for detached housing. Moving forward, they identified a demand of 53.4% for detached housing. Your land inventory provides for 56% detached housing— so it's very close. When talking `type,' the 2010 Johnson Gardner Goal 10 report identified 64% of demand is for detached housing and 36% attached. Inventory provided 53% detached and 47% attached. With approval of River Terrace,Tigard's inventory became 56% detached and 44% attached. This application reduces the total density by 51 units and changes the percentage by an insignificant amount so even with this zone change you still have a 56% capacity of detached housing." Ms. Doukas then spoke to the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies: • Compatibility — Policy 6.1.3: The city shall promote land use patterns which reduce dependency on the automobile, are compatible with existing neighborhoods, and increase opportunities for walking, biking, and/or public transit. — Policy 10.1.1: The City shall adopt and maintain land use policies, codes, and standards that provide opportunities to develop a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents. May 18, 2015 Page 6 of 14 — Policy 10.2.7: The City shall ensure that residential densities are appropriately related to locational characteristics and site conditions such as the presence of natural hazards and natural resources, availability of public facilities and services, and the existing land use pattern. — Unique site configuration with street stub locations — Existing lots to the north and west are only 60-66 feet deep — Compatibility standards require a 30 foot setback where the property abuts lower density,which is north, south, and west. This standard acknowledges the incompatibility of the uses and proposes the setback as mitigation. — Cannot reasonably meet minimum density with detached homes. — In this case, the mitigation extends to three boundaries and uses 24,180 SF of the property. — With the street stub locations, and the design standards for attached housing, parking would be located next to existing homes. — R-12 density doubles the number of units on the property (53 vs 111). She went on to talk about two possible alternate plans and how they wouldn't meet density requirements and how the awkwardness of the property factors in. The design standards require that the buildings need to be placed against the street and parking needs to be placed in the rear. In this particular piece of property it means that the property and service areas and trash dumpsters and the lighting will all be adjacent to the existing homes —which is not a good site planning situation—it's not good for compatibility— and it's the opposite of what you'd want to try to accomplish in a piece of property like this. With the shallow lots to the north and to the west—that's a fairly intense relationship. She spoke about locating higher densities adjacent to city services. She showed a slide with a red circle that is approximately a half-mile circle from the property (as far as most people would want to walk). She showed a handful of parks shown in green. There are schools but the only commercial service is a small store and coffee shop at the corner. There is some low intensity industrial land to the south and further to the east. So it is not a highly serviced piece of property. It is on a transit line but there's not much around it. It is really a residential neighborhood. So, yes it has transit, but it's through transit—it's not really service transit. At this point Land-Use Attorney Mike Robinson (on behalf of Venture Properties) from Perkins Coie came up to address the commission. In response to the staff report, Attorney Robinson noted to the commissioners that local governments simply don't set precedent in quasi-judicial decisions. Each application that comes to you is individualized so to speak. You make that decision based on the facts as you apply the law to those facts. So even if you decide (and we hope you do tonight) that R-12 is the wrong zone for this property— that's not going to compel you to make a similar finding in another case—because the facts may be different. I appreciate staff raising that issue— I think it's an important issue to raise, but my professional opinion— you're not setting a precedent for either yourself, your City Council, or your staff. Secondly— regarding the TriMet Service Enhancement Program. We appreciate staff writing that information, but I know it's not final—it may be adopted. Even if it is adopted, remember TriMet Service is a function of funding. When they don't have funding, they cut back the service. So while we understand the need in Oregon especially because of the TPR to tie land use to transportation, I think it's always a little bit difficult to assume the level of transit service you May 18, 2015 Page 7 of 14 have now or in the future is going to be there. He went on to talk about some other policies and summed up that the commission is not bound to deny the application. They can find that the relevant Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies can be met. He said they certainly can provide findings for them. The key thing is —is this the right site for more intense urban development and will it be compatible? The answer is —it's not appropriate for higher density development and it won't be compatible. Lastly,with regard to Metro Functional Plan Title One, that essentially says that it doesn't prohibit down-zonings —but it says that you can downzone only if you have a quote "negligible effect" —neither Mr. Harper's letter from Metro, nor the staff report tells us what the zone capacity is. We tried to take a crack at that in our May 14f letter and if you look at what the city found to be their remaining residential development capacity in 1996, even if you assume that there's 100 unit differential between R-12 and R-7, that's 1.5% of the available residential units some 20 years ago. The fact that you've had more development potential occur in the last 20 years because you've been annexing brown— River Terrace for example— so I think you can find that, in fact, there is a negligible effect. That's all the Metro policy code requires —it doesn't prohibit down-zoning—it simply says the decision maker has to find a negligible effect and I think that's the case here. We have the greatest respect for your staff but in this case we think that the recommendation is incorrect and that you should approve this;we hope you do. QUESTIONS I keep hearing that it doesn't quite fit with the community and the neighborhood in that area. I see to the southeast that R-12 is actually zoned— so for me to keep hearing that it doesn't fit in—I feel like it visually fits in — I'm not sure about the layout of the site... is it because you think an R-7 zoning is the type of home that would be more marketable in that situation—rather than an R-12? Ms. Doukas answered— Obviously marketing does factor into it. But also,we would have to face the neighborhood and try to get approvals for a higher density project - and that's not a pleasant thought. What's important to remember is that (and I mentioned this in my presentation) land over to the SE was not developed to minimum density standards — so it does look compatible because those lot sizes are closer to what you see in an R-7 zone. We would be looking at lot sizes that are half the width of the existing lots to the north and the west and even worse, to the south. The lots to the south are quite large. So it's about housing type but it's also about lot size and the intensity of that use. It's intensity of traffic, noise, activity—and in certain urban areas that's completely appropriate —but in this case, an established neighborhood like this,it's going to be an anomaly. Mr. Robinson added that there's nothing similar to this zoning west of Hall Blvd. The only support for anything even remotely close to R-12 is to the SE but it was developed at R-7 densities, not R-12. Another point is that even if we could do small lot, single family development,if you looked at how those lots back up to the adjacent lots, you almost always have two new lots backing up onto one lot. Some questions were asked about blended densities & how the previous application— (Polygon's) River Terrace had managed to do it. Kelly Ritz -Venture Properties — addressed the question regarding blended densities and River Terrace. She said that the smaller the scale of the site and the more constrained by existing conditions, the more challenging it is. So when looking at River Terrace she thought it was interesting how they did it. They had the highest density up against the road and then got less May 18, 2015 Page 8 of 14 dense as you went. Where there was existing homes — they went less dense. Where that's a challenge with this site is two-fold— 1) it's only nine acres — almost 10 acres. The site approved for River Terrace was over 200 lots — a much bigger area so in a much larger area you can have different housing types and they seem to work better. The smaller the area of a development, the more difficult it is to blend the housing types. And 2) if you look at our site, it's bordered on three sides by low density. River Terrace was only bordered on one side by the existing lower density. So it was easier to address that. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR Frank Medeiros 9013 SW Pippen Lane, Tigard 97224—lives one block east of the property in question. He urged the commission to approve the rezone. His primary concerns were the nature of the neighborhood and potential effect this would have on traffic — and particularly the livability of the neighborhood, congestion, and public safety— especially safety for the children. Ellen Schell 8625 SW Braeburn Lane, Tigard 97224 - is concerned her property value (Applewood neighborhood) will decrease with all the new traffic. She's concerned about the traffic and noise as well as the safety of the children. She is happy with the Heritage Crossing Subdivision because she believes it's as good as they can hope for in an adjacent neighborhood. An R-12 would make it considerably more crowded on the neighborhood streets as well as Sattler Street. She does not want a high density area; doesn't want tragedy with a child being hit by a car. Sharon Mead 15320 SW Empire Terrace, Tigard 97224—is an Applewood Park resident and is on the Board of Directors for the Homeowners Association. She believes a rezone from R-12 to R-7 would be consistent with the other neighborhoods. She's concerned about traffic going through Applewood Park. Bus line runs along Hall—has never seen a plethora of people waiting for a bus. The busses take a long time to come. Barbara Cumbo 8888 SW Bellflower Street, Tigard 97224—lives in Applewood Park community. They've lived in Tigard for 7 '/Z years —having moved from Queens, New York City. They lived in a high density area in Queens and moved to Tigard because it had a small town feel. They wanted a walkable area—like Applewood Park. She's concerned about consistency of the neighborhoods, traffic, and infill. She wants to change the zoning from R-12 to R-7. Mike Petersen—14145 SW 97th Place, Tigard 97224 —has a rental house in the Applewood area. He's concerned about the traffic for future renter's children. Likes the Heritage plan— thinks it's a good solution. Craig Smelter—14900 SW 103rd Ave., Tigard 97224 - knows the area well. He's astonished the zoning is R-12 and is in favor of the proposed zone change. He thinks it's compatible with the three surrounding sites in the area. He looks forward to the connectivity of the streets completing the project in that area will provide for walking the neighborhood. Matt Hughart— 8817 SW Greening Lane, Tigard 97224—President of Applewood Park's HOA. On behalf of the rest of the board members, they agree that this application is compatible and is the best use of that site — they fully support it. May 18, 2015 Page 9 of 14 Anthony Yi 8967 SW Greening Lane, Tigard 97224 - believes higher density causes more traffic. His concerns are about traffic, safety, and a sense of community that he hopes will be maintained. He supports the current application. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION —None. APPLICANT REBUTTAL Attorney Mike Robinson made two points: He appreciates that people who live in the area had come out to testify in support of the application. He believes they've pretty clearly stated that the R-7 makes a lot more sense to them and is more consistent with their neighborhood than the R-12. With regard to Polygon: This is not a site like River Terrace and is not the same. If this had been planned like River Terrace, you wouldn't see this. You would have seen a conceptual plan that transitioned to a detailed development plan but you wouldn't have a solid R-12 area surrounded by an entirely different use. There would be more consistency— some other kind of compatible use adjacent to this. This is not a site that had the benefit of River Terrace like planning and you can see the result of that. You have R-12 plopped down in the middle of R- 7. Many demands in the R-12 zone that are going to be difficult to achieve. The reality is it's very difficult to take an infill site like this and come up with something that works not only for what the city wants to see but what the market wants to see. You can't disregard what makes sense for the market because if you do you end up with unsuccessful development. R- 7 gives good successful residential neighborhoods, R-12 does not. We hope you'll approve this application. STAFF COMMENTS Tom McGuire,Assistant Community Development Director, reminded the commission that the focus is on the approval criteria before them. It's the applicant's burden to make the case that they meet that approval criteria. He reminded them that they're not looking at a change in density. Both of the zones are the same Comp Plan designation— that's a medium density designation; this is not about high density. He also addressed the compatibility issue — there are many ways this site can be designed under the R-12. Compatibility is in many ways a function of that design. That property could be designed under the R-12 in a way that could be compatible with the neighborhood and allow for the housing that's allowed under R-12. Focus on whether they're meeting the approved criteria for housing type. John Floyd—pulled up some slides of homes from recent developments in the past 10 years that were built in the R-12 zone as examples. Regarding traffic impacts and access to Hall Blvd. — ODOT has reviewed the application— they are comfortable with direct access onto Hall Blvd. There are some final design issues that would need to be worked out—that would be reviewed as part of implementation by the development. Many of the traffic impacts in the area are a result of cut-through traffic occurring because of congestion at the high school. The crosswalk on Durham Blvd causes a lot of congestion. Traffic backs up so people cut through this neighborhood to get to Sattler. So a lot of the congestion is a result of traffic occurring out of the neighborhoods —pass through traffic. Any future development here would have direct access onto Hall Blvd so it would not all be funneling entirely through the existing neighborhoods. May 18, 2015 Page 10 of 14 Mr. Floyd also addressed Ms. Doukas' assertion that the Sattler subdivision zone change was approved based on a mistake. That was one of three basis for that zone change. In that decision staff assumed there was a mistake because they could not find evidence in the record by a certain date. So that was an assumption of a mistake. The Planning Commission chose to go with that in that regards but I want to make that clarification. Also the road capacity of Sattler had been increased since 1983. Also by blending the density they actually increased density in that area. That zone change actually increased the number of units in the area. Regarding the TriMet issue—TriMet's budget does go up and down but they've demonstrated they have a clear and long term commitment to this area. Right now this site is empty so that this particular bus stop does not have a lot of individuals there presently. Ridership and densities go hand in hand. Maintaining the current density levels for R-12 would do more to promote transit enhancements in the area rather than reduce them. Mr. Floyd addressed several additional policies that had not been addressed by the applicant. If we don't maintain the current density levels along the existing transit routes we have to put that elsewhere in the city and that may not be easy to achieve. Also — on page three of the development standards comparison, going back to the compatibility issue —I understand people's concerns about something potentially different coming. I don't think what's allowed under R-12 is that different than what's allowed under R-7. If you look at this comparison you'll see similar front yard setbacks. I think the primary differences here are a matter of minimum lot size and the current standards account for that by requiring the 30 foot setback around the perimeter. The differences are not as great as they may seem. QUESTIONS Can you speak to the comment made about the property that was zoned R-12 but looks like it was built out to R-7 standards? (Northeast - at Hall and Durham). The site immediately across the street from the project site in the R-12 zone was built to R-7 standards but that was prior to our medium density requirements — that would be prior to 1996. The last few years however where infill area occurs,it's R-12. APPLICANT REBUTTAL Mike Robinson— said that not all policies in the staff report are relevant to this decision. Some are more general policies that don't apply to quasi-judicial map amendments such as this. The important policies — the compatibility policies, the corridor policies, the where intense urban development should go policies —you've heard people talk about that tonight and I think you can find that their testimony is relevant. The photos shown are not sensitive, nor are they complementary to this existing residential neighborhood. And that's what your plan policies call for. I think what John showed us are perfectly appropriate in the right context, but we don't know anything about what's going on around them. We don't know whether it's a new area or an infill development. All those things make a difference. I would note that the folks who've testified tonight would tell you that one-car garages with no front yards are not sensitive and complementary to the existing development around them. The photos make a point about what's doable but what's more important is —where are they located. This site doesn't have anything that suggests that that kind of development is appropriate nor that it's occurred here. This is many times more difficult than River Terrace because you're dealing with a vacant site that has May 18, 2015 Page 11 of 14 surrounding properties and notwithstanding that the zoning's been there—it doesn't match what's there today. Mr. Robinson reiterated that TriMet is always constrained by funding and, notwithstanding that, they may be looking at service enhancements for this corridor and may achieve them. It's difficult to hinge a planning program on availability of bus transit because you just don't know what it's going to be like in five years. It ebbs and flows outside of the central city and it has a lot to do with funding. Even without the site's development or without it being R-12 that service frequency will still get increase perhaps, and it might stay for a while. It has nothing to do with developing this site for R-12. Ms. Doukas responded regarding the R-12 design versus R-7. Yes —you can design the site to be R-12. If this application gets turned down,we're going to go back to the drawing board and figure something out but I will tell you that it's going to be very awkward. Staff acknowledged that there are variances involved in the applications that you saw earlier. The code is not set up for it. It's very challenging; it's awkward, forced, and not necessary in this case. You've got plan policies that say you need to look at this in the right way - you don't have to be beholden to the transit conversation. Residential development does not build transit by itself. It builds it in context of a mixture of services and a mixture of community design. This doesn't have it so therefore we're just going to be awkwardly trying to work through the design struggles of different types of development against an existing residential neighborhood that was built in a special way - with very shallow,wide lots. We'd make it work... but it's not a good decision. PUBLIC HEARING— CLOSED No further testimony or questions from the audience are allowed. DELIBERATION Commissioner Fitzgerald: I think it would be great to make it R-7 but I don't believe the applicant has met defending the criteria. I almost wish they could go back to the drawing board and find a different angle to approach getting the R-7 approved. But what I see before me is not convincing me enough that they meet all three of these requirements. I don't want to say that to you but that's where I'm at. I have these rules we have to follow—I think there probably could be a better argument made for the R-7 -what that argument is —I couldn't give guidance to but I think focusing on some of the language that has been focused on hasn't been convincing enough to me. I'd be interested in seeing what the community would say to what an R-12 would be — what would that look like?We're all going to react to a property development next to us that's more than what we have on our property. I would. We don't want to see more traffic —but we're a growing community and it's going to happen. Commissioner Enloe: Since Metro does gives us density requirements to follow and this lot being an R-12 and being next to one of the very few transit lines Tigard has, makes it in my mind, a hard case to make a change in the zoning because we have to make up the density somewhere and there's not very many places with a transit line that we would be able to make that up. Don Schmidt: I live in the area—I live in the R-12 zone on Bond Street and we're going through growing pains. I live across the street from Gage Forest and it was built to the R-12 standards. They are very narrow lots, very close together. The community that has developed there I see as a great neighborhood. I think we have goals and we've had standards to meet those May 18, 2015 Page 12 of 14 goals and it's hard to revert away from that and changing the zoning from R-12 to R-7. I don't know what an R-7 or R-12 neighborhood would look like on this site. I think it's probably doable. I think if the application was formed in a different way it might be more approvable to zone it down but the standard still exists. I can't see supporting the zone change. I would rather the neighborhood that goes in there look like what's around it on three sides. That's what I have a problem with—but I don't have the evidence to support the change. Commissioner Feeney: The R-7 surrounding this —it does feel like it wants to be an R-7 —it really does. I totally agree that the neighbors want it to be very similar—I'd be in the same point as well. And it is a small space comparatively— to try to squeeze some higher density—but it is zoned R-12 and we have those criteria to meet. We've seen some ultimate design showing apartment complexes —I don't want to see that on the site. Is there a blend? I don't know. Can they meet that density? Maybe—but we haven't seen it.Just going R-7 which looks great to worst case scenario — showing an apartment, there might be something in the middle — and if we had something there, maybe it could go the other way. I'm definitely on the fence right now. Commissioner Middaugh: drove out to the site— agrees that it looks like R7 would be more compatible—but there are other areas on Hall that have the higher density apartment complexes, the attached homes. It also makes sense that it would be R-12 as well. He thinks when it was originally zoned in 1983, there was some forward thinking. He thinks they need to take that into consideration. Commissioner Lieuellen: When I see the neighbors here very concerned about traffic and the safety for kids and this kind of thing and boy am I right on that. Sometimes this ideal that we have in Tigard that all of our roads need to connect, personally I'm not on board with that in every situation and if we could have walk-ability here but not necessarily connect the roads, I think we could be taking care of two thirds of the neighbors' concerns so far as increased traffic; however, that's not what's before me. So we have to deal with what's there. President Rogers: I live on the north side of Summerlake and we've got nice big lots and we're going through an apartment complex that's coming in and... trust me — all the pitchforks and torches and all that stuff has come out— and they all know I'm a Planning Commissioner... which is great... so... And I was also president of the Homeowners Association and I can tell you it's a tough thing but the thing I go back to is - the original zoning for the thing was in 1983 and the same thing applies to the piece of land that's being developed in my neighborhood at that point. And where was everybody at that point—when you knew that it was coming down the pike at some point. So I knew it was going to be an R-12 at some point. I love the public turnout here—I think it's fantastic. From the HOA holding public meetings and putting out letters of support, to the neighbors coming out and rallying the cause... but it doesn't change what we do ultimately. I think we are bound by certain rules —I hate that it doesn't blend perfectly with the existing neighborhood—but Tigard's evolving. I drive down Hall—I drive down Greenburg and I see these little pocket neighborhoods that don't fit in with the existing neighborhood - part of that is just change. I'm a public safety guy— so I'm sensitive to the traffic and safety needs —I get that. But when I look at the three things that we're asked to weigh— there's not a compelling argument there. We're stuck and it's not going to be a popular decision. So that's where we're at. Do I have a motion at hand? May 18, 2015 Page 13 of 14 MOTION Commissioner Fitzgerald made the following motion: "I move denial of application ZON2015-00002; SUB2015-00001;VAR2015-00001 and adoption of the findings in support of denial contained in the staff report." Commissioner Schmidt seconded the motion. A vote was taken. In Favor: Commissioners Rogers, Fitzgerald, Lieuallen, Middaugh, & Schmidt Opposed: Commissioner Feeney MOTION TO DENY PASSES 5-1 OTHER BUSINESS —Tom McGuire talked to the commissioners about the upcoming schedule and the fact that the joint meeting with Council had been moved to august. ADJOURNMENT President Rogers adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. o ee�Laugl-ilin, lanning Cona i o�Secre�taiy TTEST: ase rs May 18, 2015 Page 14 of 14 CITY OF ' 1 Respect and Care Do the Right Thing G e t it Done w Polygon at South River Terrace Planning Commission Hearing Agenda Item #5 Community Development I May 18, 2015 Project SummaryNIC ==- tow 190-unit -- / 190-unit single family residential Units, 127 detached and 63 attached . / Community Amenities: 38- foot multi modal trail Pedestrian connection tracts 4 acres of open space / Major Street Improvements including a roundabout on River Terrace Blvd and signalizing Bull Mountain Rd at Roy Rogers Rd . Concept Plan Detailed Plan OPLIJ SPACE — TRACT ROUNDARCUTAT RIVER TERRACE _ SW BULL MDUNTAIN RU 4C.B—W.26)) BLVD R BULL MOURTAII3 RD N NMVER C4LR T LANDOWNER LANE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT _ Opp{ a BULL MOUNTAIN RD,E SPACE A ROY RDGERS RD TRACT n � BEEMEA LANE OTEIlPRA IER€ES T TO BE PRESERVED 6 RIVER TERRACE f p� TRAILCORRIDOR WWIDE CWIOV[LCWRT ETE'.STREET r.r. LANDSCAPETRACT €7CISTING WETLAND — Ey I OPEN SPACE �WQMETEIKTIGN TRACT FTRACT LEVANTO DRIVE DRAINAGE BASIN TRACT OPEN SPACE TRACT E%ISTING Vl ETLnIlD OPEN SPACE TRACT PROVISION FOR FUTURE STREET COIINECTIQ41 EXISTING STREAM PQTEITTIAL TREES TO BE PRESERVED Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission take two actions: 1. In favor of the proposed Concept Plan Map. 2. In favor of the proposed Detailed Planned Development Map, Subdivision, and Sensitive Lands Review. . CITY OF ' 1 Respect and Care Do the Right Thing G e t it Done w Polygon at South River Terrace Planning Commission Hearing Agenda Item #5 Community Development I May 18, 2015 r . SITE r s j i � i I�jw 'f['facc LI,.3,d Ril,.t 1;LLl AreaR ow Alt a � • Protected stream corridor • Enhanced habitat corridor Jfiver lt- ace j'r,n.�K rt:�Ei m Imf�rch•cmcn{ �,.,4aevi�4u.Ts1 i � ry9 ..r4w i 1 • Neighborhood Route I�11'Cf'ld'.1�f�1CL' SJL`Vetit S¢•Yti'm lnspaLYV L'1Lll tLffr L s ,..,a.,y.�..OT� 7CNivyva+iamfw IY• ...L.�..rra.� N—� 1�npq Ctf lTSbF y it hq Ca�aVM —AL _. ........ u3r.....r.. � .* '.1 r • 8" Sanitary sewer in Roy Rogers 7aL'L'I!I�'T'f�CL' VE��lrr=Ryaiern fmrarsM• rr�cmelx ,. u- a.� A ! `. �GI.rnEvn�Tl f All�ahw Til RSnsvade'r�'!LI _ Ylaitr� �s[I 1 xl• �Iu��r �vxAY Wei v� II R1�Xw 17-1 A I -931 lE Nvr Xw F 0 r+e +!.•I T�..r _ �C RAwiCmo tiwNit IY IM ♦w1�bcC . vnu'I��NSI .• - F • 18" Water line in Roy Rogers • 16" Water line in Neighborhood Route AA I�j er'I�rrac SarmaateriFyefcmlmr—m S7'rarCgV Arc;-A ..ifs..n...r�.l R.•Sex. �Tyv.C4'�+'a.r s ! � b �f Y • Regional water quality and quantity facility • Sized using T.R.U.S.T. model + } ' r r., - 4U.L. 1'14'CC 1`L°I')�1CL' Zoniug D'estdceh i FL-2S] iwtid.� 147 x.12 R.12 F�i 3 +1-T 1 I Jr '1T� .2 hrl�• • Row homes2 • Highest density along arterial • Exceeds architectural design standards • English, Craftsman and French Styles �. �. 1'14'CC 1`L°I')�1CL' Zoniug D'estdceh i FL-2S] iwtid.� ilo-tt '�Awa- w..�uii .321 - J &18 AL3 �f 1 i • Alley loaded homes • No garage doors on street frontage • Exceeds architectural design standards • English, Craftsman and French Styles 4U.L. 1'14'CC 1`L°I'I�1CL' Zoniug D'estdceh i 4425 J `i�+tm.unm N-t"M45 cc.c+�wnv tt I Awa-�w..�uii S-7 pp q:4.5 s 3�1RE R-18 F�L 3 i 1 Jr ....1T .2 hrl�• �yTR • Large Homes - • Standard homes • Medium homes • Exceeds architectural design standards • English, Craftsman and French Styles 1" r a f ,s ■■ R - _ 'it f . Ac Ell AA ^ M1 p r 1� f E � r { - y a y +, Auk— W -wrap IT ZE ����s- : IMW 1, f I E i man 631 USE iin moo moo moo G• n d��il� I� �� - II moo i 16 �T i ai J- J. �� . Vii_; -�� �r _ �-- � �,:s„ -� _ - _ -�.»;� _ �. �� _ � _ �� �.� � t .� _. f1 r. �" �� �, w Ot � ■ s y � J �. Nva wr __.. ■� 5 r f ",, s i Y 77 Jo rr 40 Vv- i IV � k � * r t' 1�= s ' - - d! ' a iy ti, �' •� �'h4� ,�q. a '. / - _ t w s.,•'fir.u ll � b ?�,j�'� .� ��• �� r i. dJ � d1 y` ti I hum �I f - - -- I i I f I tl4 ~ A A 4, 33i� y •k tib?� fes' Ai, i Y t 'b wGrrr� '77---rrr■■■r ° R��rwir� a c: Olt I 1" r a f q 3 Stream �,' rrlrrmrl', "" • 2� t 111111 ■ENOM!rr■ EMEMMISM - Ilrrrrr■ Corridors with Foots __f mmMma Paths lW Mrrr■ tM Mumma alMoa®Ma1MM1■ 1� — ar. A A 4, `��,;rnm�M rnrnMu�r 1111 alMmiMMMM 11111 au�rmamrr 111111 pl' f\ft cX` _a!u_k1 ti c Or • 3 Regional Storm Facilities � `' ■■■■■■■ un ■ 0 Mumma 1� rr.r■ AN t1Mumma r 49 ■ al.o■®..I.� � -1111..1■ w s arm. A A 4, rim" T"wT 1111 ■.a.... 11111 ■.rr.r.. 111111 pl' u 11111 rrlrrmrl', " _ • Neighborhood °'' ""'`"' �� ; ..,�, urrrr■ Park E � .� rrrrrr■ � t.� • 17.9 acres of joll ■■■■■ Open SpacesW11r rrrr■ �� rrrr■ r e a�rl r rlrral■ � ti�rurr■ .,.r�rnru�� 1111 Arrirrrr IN AIR REIEI .r.-_.. -_- _• tT • % Mile Service Area for Neighborhood Parks r� Maympol Half Court Basketball River Terrace Trail a Youth Playground Overlook Shelter Tot Lot i all l {� ■ HOA Swim Center � t ��?•�� `iii w t"w•6'_r,,,..' `�. • Roy Rogers 'p■■`■■■ • Bull Mountain �?• ■■■■■■■ • River Terrace`' ■■■■ • East/West Collector ► .ti • 2 Signals • Roundabout • N/S Neighborhood Route ` i WI. • Row Homes a ' , 1 .ti ■ � � � © ■ ■ \ t ■ ■�� , � __ � � n■ �■ m■ ®® . � � � - Row Homes �■� ` �_.... k - Alley Loaded . . , NONE : ■ �� �\ wMM_• g . . wv \ FTqwl FTPFRKVrFTIFPr-TPKT I IT 4 a■ ■.■ . i. ■ � t| �■•\ ¥�\ : i ■ �® ONE ■ ■ ■ r i ■ ■� ■ B� IN Illl 1■1 ��;x'is: .• sib; r:.r� °'�. . � :r a 111111�,� ■mission■. • Row Homes ;� X1111 ''• ■■"■■"■■� • Alley Loaded ',� !, , •'g ■■■■■ C� �• No on • Std./Medium t MONO Lots ` == ■■■ , n■ s � !11111 ■f■■■■■ a __ 111111 ■■■■■■■ �' 1 ■■!■m71■gyp, 1111111� ■■Y■B■" ,� � 111111� �■"■■ �„"'� � 1111 � ■■M■■■ � _ ONE ■ ■ ■ r i ■ ■ ■ ■ lill 1 NEW ■ B� IN 1111 A • Row Homes �'• MOREMIEE tr • Alley Loaded ',� , •'g ■■■■■■■ • Std./Medium MEN ■M■` Lots i` ' `� rrrr■ '` ' ! ■■ MEMOS • Large Lots ..■.1.1.■.■ ■ ..�. r • Estate Lots x■■■..■ ....■■... ■ 1 ��In��■gyp A n = ORION" rrr ■ ■ ■ INI 1 mi ■ : • 11w 111 low FROM ;�lrlrrlrr.i ��[rf�llr�lirl' � , 11111 �,` rrlrrlr■ ; ` � 11111 ��' ■rlr�lrr i � � �� �«�,.e ■rrrrrr■ s rrrrrr■ • rrllr■ � ` ■ I rrrr■NINON � ■ nnnrur `inn■ ■ rrrr� ■r�ur� `■ ■ - !11111 ■rrrrrr � 111111 ■rrrrrrr ■ ■ 1 rrU1r11r♦ IIEIII � ■rlp�l♦ � 111111� rr�■ "'" 1111 � ■r!r■ a: � 1 • CITY OF ' 1 Respect and Care Do the Right Thing G e t it Done 9-- - HERITAGE CROSSING: ZONE CHANGE & SUBDIVISION Planning Commission I May 18, 2015 Application Summary ■ Concurrent Application: Quasi-Judicial Zone Change: R-12 to R-7 Subdivision to create 53 Single-Family Lots Adjustment to Street Standards ■ Staff Recommendation: Deny Zone Change Deny Subdivision ■ ,��, , � � ��� moi.' -�%%� � . - . a MIAMI urru■■.ur.■rru■r■uu1soon u.M. ■� ►.wily /III /I� //�/� '� ■......1......1............1..1 ► i - - II ■■.1...1.0....1.....■■■..Oman... WIFE sommommon , .......1....1....mommmummmm.....1.■...... 1.am01.is!uEms 01■■■■■■■.0 0 00 0 .0 a0111000 I.■.1...■.......■.■11..1.1..... 1..........1.1...........1....■ . _ . OAP • n+ 1.......1■...■.1.......1.1....■ -�®I/ ,r /,�bbII��/ iii � • L���� Immmmommommmomm x.......1..1...1..............■ � '• 1111rMU'=11�■ CP mom Ci NO LU AVON ST •• 111111 i �f 111 X11 ■� Bi ll o ® ■�II■■� f�`■ 1 - , AM , •.- ® TIGAPL 7 LE:ISFk L.N as J r. Liu jarms > -c;KLA DR LU T Metro 2040 89 TH PL. Corridor SATTLER S7 rl VL OAKSLN BRAEBURN LN 1 41 LOW LN �,V ,,�5t'DE OR BE&F L DYWER S7 Iz- PPPPEN LN 10A S""t line 76 Bus irEx ca e4f 4. Oy 0 ANG rREE ST H A%I L E T#7 ■ 00 PL LOOP ALOLR ST > Durham Feet 0 1000 < 76-Beavefton/Tualatin //5�—* ILL L NO RTH Beaverton Canyon Rd: Transit Center i Schedule Stop R 6 54 57 188MAXWES Park&Ride TRANSIT f• � SMART r ® Secure Bike Parking G itr —35— Transfer Nearby MAX Line and Station Denney Q mm(:)= WES Line and Station Southwest a for `- ............... Snow Route ..W Hart Rd C Hall[Nimbus W Washington Square O ® Transit Center slums- 4345566278 07-�- ■ a F�j Washington: Square: ro Bea ertan ML Qta n TIGARD / 7 a '��.. ,,,� �.�. Tigard Transit Center ® K"'y 12 45 64 78 93 "�� WESYCTA ' Q #' M» �uuumuuwurtr� _ � _ •`' Heritage Crossing 9aaau"616aEiia�rai�auaa'$46 RV ., ZZ Project Sitei Slierssmu"I ' i w '- fn�u�nr111111rr1111�i cc Tigard HS■ Tualatin Lower Park&Ride TUALATI N Boones 36 37 38 96 wl:exvela Ferry SMART Tualatin r` En O M nd an Park Bus Service Rail Sewice cammanirypek:cann..ea. �+ Hospitals Frequent ieMre MAX elue Llase Sarv'ra Arw Warm Springs ■ _sanaaa�arv;« MAXG—Vae Land—" D 9 Mohawk --- I:,eh-xoarservire � MAxoran,yeune p Park ll xrae � High s<hoelercolkge ai �% � P pnsea xr hCaCadty MAXx Line ® Secure Bike Parking m Hos U Sia ert-96 - : - Tano[ServPCe ®T-IlCenter 0 L*41 ............................ MAXYeIbw Line y For snow/ice detours WES Commuter Pall visit irinnetorg or call 503-238-RIDE(7433). Smu , Arterial— v SW PELLFLpWER STREET [ � _ J __ `—+ __ IM IOi T�xai iu lei I IY.WI r�-_ � * I�hiu.3i r1S 1N � ___� -- •`�_ �s nr ��. __r �� g � r _ _ i .nu i✓x�191 u 101 n r`�� Ti.F`8 o }} Elnex ais I r9IR0 !_S h t= w � Fei ry w, na,"I"�. mnN Eiiw ss�iw � E1 9 1 rnw a rwn �•�m=w II I I R� � LL rem E r i� Z Z a — — — s A1 et ro o ��, � � I � i a co Ii w / r ti !— —J Ne ° m C3 - ! Orriclor z cn LEGEND Dear N 4 C xFA..1w sn�*uur 0 liuA y w \ aE\ w TFEE TABLE U` ex sNw 3mII' �\ J 7 rr scans ono F L� �_ — s m iw wra Anryr:, aaelenl "mes _ �,' -4 m 1 \ pC'm m _SW ASHFORD l % TAMIAP 25 1 f1 CA 1 v�u E fi i--1 pRFfe 9,10 ACRES} w m \ a� rx E m e. ro Z LANE 22 Ln __ W _ EIOWAfEFNp°.. 1 1 IOaTi - - rENm cacao m. uuwn a pwlu¢xE xmm =w ET wa or-Irsms iuw T IW re iur r rainy m. a v pie m . Esero EAI ImG ErIIW ast.gym aAl lim R' I Im EieP! A%W 'A' �__ CL xd ! RAJ kk sm -_..-__-_ - Ai�tl 9tlW IM 9pilFY SW HAMLET COURT 9W HAMLET STREEF a�nm -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- _.- 1,\ 3878 �✓ �,,, -`fH1126 P02 - - - __-+ _--- t-- \ --- -_ITWICAL) _- - 1 It+oo 12+0o Ia+00 1�7 73+59 5'WALL EASEMENT PERS SW BELLFLOWER STREET a PLAT OF'APPLEw00aI `l /j PARK.N0.2'17 JF- �� ] r TAY,LOT -- TAX LOT 3700 TAA LOT TAX LOT TAX L0T TAX LOT TAX LOT t TAX LOT TAXLOT TAX LOT II 6900 6809 b760 5600 6500 4100 40011 J909 3600 `TAX MAP 2S 7 11DA r 0.k MAP g TAX MAP TAY,MAP TRX MAP TAX MAP TAX MAP 25 1 25' TAX MRP TAX MAR 25 1160. TAX MAP r 1100. 25 11100. 25 1 IIOA 25 1 1180. 2S 1 IIOA 1 26 1 1100. 75 11160. 25 1 1100. Wn APPLEWOOD PARK J5 76.13 50.00 50.00 50.DO 55.00 _ ��i 2000 I Al TAX LOT I 14x60 � o 3 S 14 o TA%MAP o, �t t 2S 1110A m w +5,542 SF I1 y',� 9 0 1D 17 12 0 13 o Ne956'S6.6D"E m g 5 +4,741 SF +4;750 SF $ l� W l +5,152 OF 19 34,75a sF 24.750 SF °i 24,750 SF �' }4.842 IF 11053 f 4 24,974 IF w m 25,252 SF 1 y 7 m 20.90'UTILITY AND ACCESS N 27,895 IF ` 4 4 a EASEMENT FOR LOT 14 + TAX LOT N10'59'18.17'W ! rNSVAL EARANCE 15 A _ ___ >ti 1 ` mIANGL (Tw) ----- ±5,726 SE 14760 >. - ---- "c,• N C� __ N3911P2233"E TAR MAP NB9'S4'25.00'E `J>' °,; C3�27.9fi_ 5000 _ 35:93 /�• 1,g �_ 6.06 -50.00 50:00 50.00 ,04 OZS 0.p I g #p 4 N8993.0755'E 251110A 71.16 c.- 93.s7 �� uy 24+da N t oa SW SCHMIDT LOOP 11+oG 1z+D6 Ninu,2.a3"E APPLEwo6DPAR 3 �3k '17`x- -�- -�- - ---+- -+- --�- - t - -�-� �, 16 T N9.3 SU9PINSO 29,515 SF / ® N I5-1 T4 6.00' ,`<J 1 34,Oi7 SF J - I589'39'41.55W TAX LOT � PUE(TYP _- 96,25 14800 9209 r 00 4.00 40.00 2i 2 "� / ---89.61 78,00 LID UK MAP �L� - I I "1 30' 45' CL LU 2S 1110A 2 L "-VISUAL CLEARANCE ``l.'I ' I� o ` ` 17 g a rRIAN (Tm.) 1 1 48 0 49 rB +5,05z sF �J W ,4 595 I 1Ta 1 g.1 +5,542 SF a +5,018 SF ---J> f Lu 559'5425.00W I to o o .o o Q n1 59.85 W j TAX LOT sP27 37 �o,�55 38 38 'T 97.04 9zao 14500 �12A,683 IF,p 24,206 5F +4,20D IF 46 11 5095056.00W S99-50'55.CC'W - o - TAX MAP " 25,4 SF 1a '�� 1+0 2+50 IC+00 5 t]IDA $ �1 SW ASHFORD -�- -- 7. 59 � T19 LM 47 0 LAN �25' +5,l�SF �� �� Q 1 h 14,755 SF +4,600 SF T41r l\ 1 J CURVE RA ------ -- 7115 ��� © 45.00 40.60 .DO 35.00 57.00 O a 95.00 ®2.00 �� �9 r" S89'S0'56.00W S89'50'56.00'W I o j� -- \ C1 12: NI O 0_ 11+a 36 41 LU o 46 0 51 I�� 18 30+ 45 c2 23 -� o o + 00 8F J "' 24,750 24600 SF I� - +4,958 SF ca s9 'SIL SW ASHFORD a60' 24669 sF 4,s SF POE w1o1� Io a 1 p 1 STREET �nP i� 90.00 0 9260 Q 96.90 92.66 1 92.14 0"E CO 89 -� ---------- -- 74.m _ ( ➢ n ' B.aO' m c3 59 f0. o o PUE � 25 zs' TAX Lar 33 SII 35 42 o' �I 45 52 g +a,�9 sF(Tm)� �m� as cs 59 j 74400 +5,109 sF a +4,500 SF +4,600 OF 24,750 sF +4,600 SF r c7 ss 50. NAPx1150. ISI 66.60 92.06 9s.dd s2.9g Sn 66 26 N8954'25.00"E 9146 of N8950'S6.CO E N09'505800E N89'50'56.00"E # N89'50'5fi.00'E 20 gq gg 25` 25' O3 23 25' 25' � G9 log 8. o Igo h CIO 59 32 34 13 1 44 0 53 *426 556 S 2o.uhCC' 8'P E PER P T OF �� }4,968 OF o +5,OL8 SF f 25,183 SF p o 25,018 IF ' R/l4 DEDIYAiIQN OIL 59 yY , I�'� 24,760 OF -J 'AIFPL,.oO pARN� lil S,'] X'1 -- __ --- _/ •g i'� N69'39'42.90°E 30 C12 59 N 3"(TYPICAL} TAX LOT N09'54'25.00°E 76.60 _ 78.06 t� 6100 75.DD V f 90.86 14300 96.46 ( f o 673. 59 TAX MAP zs 1 voA 20�� SW SCHMIDT LOOP 21 c14 59 31 -�- --+- -�- - -I +--- -+- - - --+ -f� �� +7.266 SF c15 5s I y +4,733 SF �$'1 2 19+00 - 16+00 17+90 16+00 ��0.titi ,`C -- ------ m CIE 59 N69'54'18.01'E '9�y. �/T` _ _ J 73.fi7g9 674 34,71 50.00 50.00 5000 50.00' 50.06 50.00 62.29 CVS'c� 677. bB 122,90 2000' 618 14 ' Mos 508.271 PVE fTYP) STORMWATER FACILITY 15'STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT PER PLAT OF ACCESS EASEMENT 30' 45' 619 20 --'APPLEWDOD PARK NO.S 29 36 a +5,037 5F 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 TAX LOT +9,129 SF +4,757 SF �' 24,746 IF �' 24,746 SF +4.746 IF �' +4,746 SF °�' +4,746 IF �' 34,746 SF �' TRACT"A" m 142M00 STCRMWATER FACIUTY { A1 +18,553 SF 2SIDA III I 69 MILNMCNT PARI( 6'DRAINAGE AND UTILITY tl - SUeDINSION EASEMENT PER PLAT OF 35 TAK LOT TAX'LOT TAX LDT TAX LOT 'MILLMONT PARK" TAK LOT TRX LCT TAI(LOT TAX LOT TAM LOT 15100 152dD 15300 15400 15800 15950 1600 TAR LOT 3000 TAK MAP TAX MAP TAK MAP TAR MRP TAX LOT 15700 16100 45 TAX MAP 2S i 11 DD 251 1100 25 1 11 OD 25 1 1100 TAX MAP TAX MAP TAR MAP TAX MAP 15500 29 1 1100 25 1 19aa 251 TIDO 2S 1 110D TAX MAP o 25 11100 TAX MAP TAX LOT 2S 1 1100 2S 1 TIDO 15fidD TAX MRP 251 TOO -- - _ 10'STORM ANO SANITARY - -_----_-_--__-_--_ ___-______-____ -_____________ ___-___-_.. _ '' -- -- - S PARK ,s 'EVER EASEMENT PER PLAT OF"MILLMONT SW HAMLET COURT / Approval Criteria — Zone Change Applicant must satisfy all of the following: 1. Compliance with Tigard Comprehensive Plan 2. Compliance with other applicable ordinances and requirements (TDC,. Metro) 3. Evidence of: Change in community or neighborhood Mistake or inconsistency in zoning map Issues of "Compatibility" "The ability of adjacent and/or dissimilar land uses to coexist without aesthetic, environmental, and/or operational conflicts that would prevent persons to enjoy, occupy, or use their properties without interference. A variety of remedies to compatibility conflicts are normally provided in a jurisdiction's land use program; including limited land use designation, buffering, screening, site and building design standards, transportation facility design, etc." Staff Recommendation / Staff recommends the Planning Commission DENY the proposed zone change based on findings and evidence contained the staff report and supplemental materials. / Applicant advised of unfavorable staff recommendation since September 2014. ' `��� - 1 A �� !f -1 � Ali � 1• ■ �� A; 7^� -•��� r a' i - Sattler Street i �.'� � k L .0 -,... n►. � a t a ... �- -- ham. .ti?_L-1 �_ - i,1 �.<.�.7 .._ r � .�. ,� 'S -. -r � i . h _ w t ✓d .z R. n � �:.+ Durham Road Ste earth pF R-12 ■ R-12 Site - R-12 R-12 R-12 N T .� �r� '' -v l .i R-12 _ y R-7 R-12 Site R-7 L 4 R-12 R-7 c N '' R-12 _ y R-7 .I R-12 Site R-7 R-12 R-7 c N r I i R-12 R-12 R-7p R-12 R-7 :�. t, I u I c R-7 R-12 Site Ir R-12 R-7 — - .tea _ a w�. — - -_ - M�a • "�:�' � w- 1401 sfteL: d S 'el �$ 4 o 5 f R� Feet - — _ .. -' __�-•-. :..a 4. , �g r:"' i. A 41 I _ --; y vw I F Feet - -.• � w�'...r.� r'�►-�' "il'e.:r` �'� it C. The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as provision of needed commercial goods and services, employment, housing, public and community services, etc. in the particular location, versus other appropriately designated and developable properties; D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable, appropriately designated, land for the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation; F. land uses allowed in the proposed designation would be compatible, or capable of being made compatible, with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses; and All R-7 R-12 All Residential Capacity Capacity Residential Capacity vs R-7 vs Need R-12 vs Need Capacity Need 2032 Need 6457 2010 Capacity 628 7 525 0 6714 257 2014 Capacity 563 -58 490 -35 6437 -20 2014 Capacity with River Terrace 2216 1595 1406 881 7421 964 Capacity with proposed Zone Change 2295 1674 1276 751 7371 914 2010 Johnson Gardner Need Projection River Terrace Updates Proposed Zone Change Percent Total Percent Total Percent Detached Attached Detached Units Detached Attached Detached Units Detached Attached Detached R-1 Low-Density 3 0 100% 4 4 0 4 4 0 R-2 Low-Density 2 0 100% 2 2 0 2 2 0 R-3.5 Low-Density 100 0 100% 143 143 0 143 143 0 R-4.5 Low-Density 834 50 94% 1,431 1,350 81 1,431 1,350 81 R-7 Medium-Density 585 36 94% 2,216 2,088 128 2,295 2,162 133 R-12 Medium-Density 200 325 38% 1,406 536 870 1,276 486 790 R-25 Medium-Density 0 1,240 0% 1,991 0 1,991 1,991 0 1,991 MUR-1 Mixed-Use 0 191 0% 191 0 191 191 0 191 MUR-2 Mixed-Use 0 60 0% 38 0 38 38 0 38 [Area 63] West Bull Mountain 637 63 91% [Area 64] West Bull Mountain 1,045 1,087 49% Totals/Averages: 3,406 3,052 53% 7,422 4,123 3,299 56% 7,371 4,148 3,223 56% compatible with existing neighborhoods preferences, present residential densities are appropriately related to locational characteristics and the existing land use pattern. ------------- -- SW UELLFLOWLFt STREET lZI ------------ To LITA T. PWx4,11977 sln9a j1 Z CTm z 0 O-; 7 Ln Wu > CI O 17 l 13 14 Is R, 'I,U '47 4- 7 J- Is Z 4Y SW SCHMIDT LOOP t lo U) 0 cc �ti-------- 7 Lu a IIS 2 ILL SW SCHMIDT LOOP < 0 1 46 47 �48 UN ASHFORD LANE cc Ed 0 TYPICAL LOT DETAIL 4N 50 bl� 62 21 1,-0 rlmr rWABHFORD em 13u1s :sm9s IN fu I STREET pYE Il A7 8 1 44 a5l. ,F as 9 111 1 0 si 1 22 43 54 23 d9j 11 Lu 46 21 )FINSITY CALCULATIONS z 1.1eD ZONE N ILL! M11,11H 395,523 SIF(9.10 AC) C`Nl I.- 257 < PuEuc R.o.w.DmII 111,049 SF(2.55 AC) TRACT EISW SCHMIDT LOOP 1134114PRIVATE 5TRELT TRACTS' 5j65 SF (0.19 AC) Ir z NET DEVELDPABLE AREA: 277,2813 SIT(6.17 AC) Cc 26 MINIMUM--- --- ------------I-..R `� LIT AREA: 3.950 W Lu INS Vm) J AVERAGE LOT AREA, 3,050 SIT F— WAX10I LOT DENNTY. (277.206/3.01=90.91-90 LGT5 —T—T. MINIMUM EDT DENSTY; RG LMS(ffi%) XVI 2 LaTs 39 37 36 32� 31,, .311� 29. 2B� 27� TRACT A y)91PUPM0 LOT DENSITY 55 LQM P US AjiEC� RDP W AVERAGE WT (254,784/55)-3,559 SF PROPOSED AINIMUM LOT AREA: 3,204 SIF ny MIM I-------------- ------I- ------------- .................. ---------- DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM DENSITY l.lU6I OT T IT T. 2Thl. IV SW HAMLET CCALIRT -—-—-—-—---7 8W HAMLET ....... -—-—-—- -— Iasci noo J9B NUMBER 3876 MT ALT -- -------- --------- ---------- _r_—_—_—_— --------- ----------- OOT t UW BELLFT-LCWER TO UMEET rax wr 11 TO W 1. slum ZA z Ln CS i 2: cc� 0� in IiHihiki I I r -%T __j I I I I liLLLLF- Z us TO- cc i ITS i l l ED 0 ;¢ AlinLu EJ 18 ---------- ---L------- SW ASHFORD—_----- cc MEET F DENSITY CALCULATIONS MVA ---------------------- !L_qtLF0Fp_--- PSTREET Lu R-12 ZONE 6�Is GROSS SITE AREA: 196,523 SF(9.10 A6 0 ED ED ED I PEUBUC R.0-W.DEDICATION: 56,713 SIT(1.05 AC) z so I NET DEVELOPABLE AREA: 339,805 SF(9.05 AC) MINIMUM AREA PER UNIT. 3.050 SIT MA)3MJM DENSITY. 339,805/3,050) 111.4 Ill UNIT" —i C MINIMUM DENSITY: �v UNITS(K%) 68.3=88 UNITSTUAT Af PROPOSED DENSITY. 109 UNITS Ld z IP 04 NOTES: TRACTW 1,TRACT A SHALL BE CONVEYED TO THE CIrY OF TIGARD, cc hildidiimrmanurc -------------------------------------- ------------- -------------------- �57 1" -Ni i ' TO. TU I61m 15 W! 'T T Tl- "I Ilm T.- SIN HAMLET cotim UW HAMLET STREET7 3876 MT .... ALT1 d 1.2 ---------- �" ++..ELLFt.4ER$r,FET. - - -- ..1- —-qF—i LU u AM LU I I 1 w E _ m a rrs � � I ------------ i■ - — -- --F---------STFEET STFE�T I hiiiiiiii '- _ I+ A UlITS &ll 1R5 a JI JfIS 4 UpITS TTkk''-- �'uS5 I i9 171 1 �n I I I I � � TgACr"AI � � � • • sw HnMLETmuar _ -t ---- SIN HAMLET STREET I. -Now Xlip 11111111 � � 1 where employment opportunities, commercial services, transit, and other public services necessary to support higher population densities are either present or planned for in the future. m r h ',� ,y-. art �'Ii. -��wu• __ Z.� � r_ _- �. — r ,■ .■ � wr -� _ � � fir" I� a I ;4 �- �. iK • � � .y .. � F ■ r _ S ;{Z91 g �i— i ... � JIB-', �I: Y rV:.t•� :4 -1 2 '�1, .� 14 �'E �TQC Y,t�� t ►•� � � 4 � ���� t . ry • K K ` f4l— jar# . a f� vI>!�i►� G �s�■ * �f,i �i�t�� per. : f■■■ I •���rlr, '► +i �/♦• '1 � _ • s ♦ ► •�♦ .�� ■ ■ ♦moi /♦♦ i*�:1�s :ur■oi111 �'i�+ ♦♦ ♦ ►.frf.+ ,.�y�. ���■ �M:' - il�tl►►yt�t �rr�rs���� � •. .r 1► � �w'r► ♦ a =L lmo� p, 111.11■ •llloillillifillp.+�•,�/ ♦� �� ...:Ili'�� �F r•: Ell Isle lesson �I!■rllfel� ■11l'a�ual ■ r+b� 'r+ �n�� =r. ■■ 11111 . ���1• ■tt '-� �•�. �w ili—■�� F r■1�l�� :�1 I 'm us i/�r11■t� Hili. It ■�+ . '1111�. � Iliiii(Ip■Il 1■a �_oi�f` Ell �.s>r.-.- .. - ,..—. �11 .■Va:IIIIl19f•1 „l lf��. ,; F � 11 -�- n 11-- -ski Iltll■II - ` - ` I �-L•F'�:h7 1!��1■■ - �� ��r-i'ter^t � ►�I �p 1111`N!f � I ■>.Ir .�,1-� - ��,�tNa►■ lingo ■■!r ■■ 'uc,arur min � 1■ { / �..■ ■■111 ''1 r � � r rj j t, 1111111■■r�■- If■■■ - ..■�1 ■■ �.� ■+ stn■���� r li_ ■ ■��— `, ��� ' ■■■■111� i.w.��■ii i► {•®s /i,uu►ir111, � , � r II r�l ���� - ■1 ■■■■■■- �■■■rR■■■■■ �.s-:� w ■■1 pin ul./'r■ 1■I .@moos■ ■r11�a -■n ►■■ ■■■■■.1 ��■� c .... a ■ -�.� ��■ - � 1- ii is ii l'fl 11 1�MEW,■�11■1■ mo `� r !u ii- ■u■ u1- C 1 �'! s� ■ 11 J �I ,■r■ ■r ��/ s {� �•nn ♦. Io ■ I �' 111111 1!� �■■111��.■�■��i// iw *s■-r■�� IIU 1 � � _-� �'/ ■1111 ■1 �■- r.�17 1 ■ 1 -\ � //=C 11■■1 ■ .■ � 1' .... .f `�iu Ir .■\* • 1♦'w rim_ MI ��ri ■ i ril■I ai i�� n�l�ul.■_ _ � �� � nr �.$o:� , #` �, m �r1Aq ■ _ ■�■mnf►�/ ►..�+ ., . �� i @�Ilrr ■111 I '� ♦�//' ��r:it !���.� Illr/i■■■s � ■■■■u■■I 1111/�i■1 - ` �///I/f� �� ■■N�,ununnr ilii an■■ .�����:: r W.rr�. IITj 1111 - 1 '///a r r� . , mi a•�!.m =C �••••• ■/�uuulnuu�_ _�1f�'I■.,�.b yu1►Nut' _ nfT•� i ■„Hurl uuur uuuauum��� � in= .�It� �+• +i tDT IHdl111111 �Effu�■ J i�i 1i � ■■■■ ♦11111 — •,,il�! x�` p� ►,ilri , =r111 a• ��s' lit !• fi■ a�■ ■s �1f1 � •` • .•! � ` � @lour ■i � 1. .. ,,���' �.+i1 i�■ , u' iiia+a��,�ii���11 r @iii:„ � Eli • ���` IS an�■!■■■■' r_...d: .. o.� ■■■ f.+i��.1■Illlldl�srs■_ Iinu� . ,-l! r 5 W ■■■� ���i I I = Iw1t a� {{I{{- I-1e II,y'y'±����I� ,� ■ll 1t1■11 rC:l -. 1►'i�C ua� *• .lull!!!{11!1111 f f Iq. = ����)1�■!j, �.��II:1111110 ! •u !■�+ i gall r�7MIN- r/il +• wf HERITAGE GROSSING g4 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION Z Za - _ a _ APPLICANT 0 a w d a, a M 1ANNRE PROPERTIES.INC. 77 LU$ ,o n CONTACT:KELLY RITZ CC PRO.ECT SITE 7-ra. .-. 4236 GAIEWOCO ST,SEATS IW d 0 I LAKE OSWECO,O1 97675 m t �ll'� PH:50.3-367-7600 N12 "'�"" z ,'Y, • ,n wry (r) R PLANNING�ENGINEERINGZURVEYING! -- -J NATURAL RESOURCErLANDSCAPEORCHITECT FIRM - rd� AKS ENGINEERING 8 FORESTRY,LLC Q CONTACT:MIMI DOUKAS NW,RLA u m u a Q +• 12565 SW HERMAN ROAD,5117E 100 V TUA PH:503-OR 6151 PH:507-557-6151 W FAX 503-563-6152 Cc .T F Cc VICINITY MAP 11' NOT TO SCALE 'L L.-x0 o"1"' A. � i m SITE MAP 1-wo d LEGEND H Ea9ST ! @ d Q crow sdu arwr oh �� D �: W PROJECT LOCATION- 15435 SW HALL BOLUNARD ~ TIGARD.OR 97224 W co SHEET INDEX W 0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Tax LOT 466(TMSHNCI COUNTY TAX = Z a aPOI - COVER SHEET WITH VICINITY AND SITE MAP MAP 25 1 11DA)LOCATED IN THE Q 0, , PG2- EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN NORTHLAST 1/4 6f THE SCUMM OIANIER SECTION 11,TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH. vrdeun s!�rz acw art `�, . rww xr,-rw me o P03- PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT Lll H Q ° • 0�6 � PG4- PRELIMINARY BUILDING SETBACKS PLAN �ANcr6COUNTY,OREGON NUAMR GONLRCIW. 9 T P05- PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION AND REMOVAL PLAN Z rureov mou,nm.s • POE - PRELIMINARY DEMOLITION PLAN EXISITNC LAND USE: IDIS11NG RESIDENTIAL HOME,ASSOCIATED U P07 - PRELIMINARY GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN BUILDINGS AND AGRICULTURLL FIELD j PGS- PRELIMINARY STREET PLAN PROJECT PURPOSE SINGLE FAMILY DETACP0 RESIDENTIAL 53 ewwrn PG9 - PRELIMINARY STREET PR09LES LOT SUBDI P10- PRELMINARY STREET CROSS-SECTIONS - - P11 - PRELIMINARY COMPOSITE UNLTEY PLAN DATUM: EtMM"S ARE BASED GN WASHINGTON P12-CONCEPTUAL FUTURE STREET CONNECTAO PIAN ENTECOUNTYSENCHANE(NO.176 AT THE °AB INTERSECTION P13- PRELIMINARY SITE TREE CANOPY PLAN SW 1wLiNOF BOIJ V�ARDUNAND SIN DUR�LW ------------------------- ——————— P14- PRELIMINARY SITE TREE CANOPY TABLE BROAD A HM 2e ELEVATION 6F HA 55 «�� _........_.__._...__._.....__... .................................. > mw.w,nMe�Me m - w ---- ---_ 3978 PU1 29 SW APPLEWOOD AVENUE-LANE I I I i I I 0g8(IcwB sunm wus i Inxm o¢u rnwfprl�lom er � �i a'PIA vex Rnr rF I I V � I gY CIS ffi;at 0 'xPamm PaM x0.Z r � n 00000 —'PPm 0YL fASEY W i F@ a �i J --_.-- ---._-. _` _ .633 r 141 1 9,Y tl ii e.m I I lu[10! tlr LM to lm J -IM 1011100 a •. PWO I PPRM X0. _ SW BELLFLOWER STREET SII SW SCHiAIDT LOOP Il ru lm >�cm wLar eem, rslar Tax Lm lao Niw Ps�OBuw !md ; amx/ranxln srama nexus uxelx mTe Icwio ruLxnr/wpm rguawc u � a I s - zsM ioi x l nun P.:I,Ion nui i,w u � I� a,nw a,nPx ,Iavn Asp xwoa _ n �wmm e{ nOEo`.0'L E o . �sPg•#rmm $ � rs �4.rsG 4,>.w 1, sowrwt fl O� - ., boo saw sxw w _ 5am mm m.m mro sod ,n.Tr xam -I b 15111G a' elmlw' IAm f.SP:eucr EIU 19T '1 3 9 a 1a S 11 12 s 13 wmsasc.rot 'S a r 30. ov y ¢Dana' +am 1s9ebo.w•r Q 9 Ix� J SS,oSx •TA4 tTiSG 3f ri150 N g 3{d,Y S Yx Pa209 mMAfr m 153Sx N 6 a® P s N T P' T 11 _ ✓ AObAbY ,a® x = C S �� � 3 F I x11x38mt ru Lwm ; oln -_ a - ---- --r-_n a ,s�ss 15u' xw •E N aessaPead•E ssu \a _a'w mw a E g 9a + o>i SW ASHFORD STREET U tltl '.D.it �I110 § `m STM 9CHMIOT LOOP nwa N -0\ wAma.v'E I6 I m zHad IqJ ,3+aa . emw a avvFRawxxT sEel:m kxenrs mlaxx son aGao Tusaln/c,wrm Nxwc N \ xn a§W'dv � ra 3 $3T I°' �m� +taw -e..el „ il_iaoo- 1 aR Ix f I 14 SW ASHfp7P LANE - { 9e.45 xPP51PFL T. ,aa 9xOP iii t /'�— } ly �. - I � I w, Ind 1 f ( me s Aq T I n - a+xLnaxnxr alel� a,x can Amo T x91, sw«,, U -w i, s I. ("P( 1� s, iywxs '� s s I_ k3 ;sous '/-j l nd ,wam 'Ue - 37 $ �_ a I� 3 411. ffi Isllikaa,s if. ANXd 9fig is.40 r Hl sl �`N'8,m'W W• 1 bl a I„w .sem art 8 'I€sl p § ASH,FOORD 3t0P a�:','° nm } Q A7 11� - LAKE g ¢ 1 Pa' T. :ins �j' s �I ialees if, N LLJ 0 I� R vxm 'm�-- Dow aar�v fmrs uomam 2 �� laln smw'.sb:vu r �snscomrr I � -r' m ,v iS e^_ NSW ASHFORD irm'�"'� #f.aON �. Skwos I� 6 IS H' k1�N '� ,em10 f5E T$ I Ha90N C] am.Yiff la{t CZY Ivi2Y xi'W.fsw' ke z STREET Pm 9xm Inesalvl S G fzr,a ssn�zri aon cxl slur �r,s a rm�wls.m e9m 4 1•x w 96m 4Pm J 5w d yak � I ; - p I rx,n ��I m I cs s cx r seuvr�.Ism a, w. •Isr . NI a 42 IST m '8' 45 E 92 Igo of gl 19 I� _ C6 e.x r '.nl'sm m rcw sV Taw R i5,®N ^I Ri i,�mN S f,�y IA AI if 00N IR 45 C} 59W 5Y e� Ci6 .e a61P11 j 051`6wE i Iy2m 1I I 0,16 M @ Saw aTX 5P 1Vn.'eIf CPI tV ❑ I I x 4A[fi x1 xS ,0505n COE s n A56wt xY ll' ICFA'5F.m'E ` M55Y`�09'E Z' I Tj �I 59,E ! Sf59YNc mI1' CM am r! t I I� I R 'aa ISI 81 a,g �1 I; 1 20 Ia 91,Yt2#niY CB aY af{:tlt ❑ � -0v VER nArw+I -� t•72s IS I _y �" isoins IEy#,I S,IWN "� i5n1e4 y I �I rkuvN �� &AI n01 16 Y9 Ht L� G9] DYM N Q rUru loT a9At �' 4 >bm-- - mm -`_ -_ n°° wvsr,wzmc 1 unr 9•are,nk cn w a. s+f 's•. J ' ,+me $ A�.n a I ® I sr M' 21 4s,non '� 51V SCHMIDT LOOP A ( I r I^ y` rP sexx^dt_,su' cti ar ws,xw'w Q S 4k}HN M . Ilxtq i ,PiW Y yrs. 5PP9 ' PAH '.M'E iq.n, CY STIY L vw eV3Y w•-eam' rsr,an esm css t , L Sa8 ]V m f 'TY,n°E J /: __ __ _ �+ �-r+x`tvn }1A0 slwlwe,veuml I use +9•fe cr A,E.n rn W- m� n9e9fc,nm W � x5[vall��'v `• 29 m 5 worms ueELBn �, %• - - I.m; «H5tl56'E Dan a P 80 s:sans x 29 27 2a 25 23 a 22 a 11mo I s+ _w DENSITY CALCl1LA1I0N5 res nw ilxsin g I B I non R-7 70NE n m °tim xim m saw soon wm wm Iom Sam an>s slx resk M.N(c,o AO H®K0.G!AmpfBlYt 91]�Hl S PAI¢ P m. I ) \ 3gnA N{aB!C) r PMx ` 4 _ IReCi PRA xlfk 4.'�4 N(4U ITC'➢ M I}>m nIM�LOr fANYE f PEk M[V m5 1 T.Wi ru to inY LnT IT 11, Ni yaO N OEM ny L, sAzL9i ru® $M i r TM naP nes r m 1 rex wr \ s.. Tu. lue,w LrxawW Immminm aaa yuaeva/�+uAn7-mrn-axon P, fv WPm nn x51 n00 IM Yee It9l 1,I.tl 1s I,IW a� ImSemd•{#9A..ulaas E tib.§' xS I,IC6 M3m S- Tei yt� mTAPUE}f)Y9rfr 511015 f' \ -- ,tl�sl0w xx0 S,WPRY�e''g� nRa' lYhrlJ sy M,$).5m3s EtSEnIL flat SW HPtWA0108'W mi OEk 1.011N AMLET COURT \. � 'I Plwe' SW HAMLET STREEF NOTES, 3878 vcE P03 w, n+oa ------------- —-—-—- —-—-—- pay(y SW BELLFLOWER STREET --—----------------- -- z 0; rAY YAPTdP] 0 LU .-T Er E9g1 ism 0 L7 FT F- I r,- -1 F----1 17- 7' -7 F M —1 in" I I i 12 1 l 13 u- 141 �,m� z Lc--i -, , , " 4 —. J L.-=J L. =J in —---------- 3 0 LIL! cm 2 Tu LDT LLJ 0 8W ASHFOR m P LANE r 1 ",sI z. T --_LS ---- « I i jl* ILL 7 Z 41� i114 I lam R �1 . I i - 1! -- i I I REWIRED SETBACKS 1- jj 8 LL- Ij SW ASHFORD ��,FF 1-T STREEI I ; I -j < -TI rr --'71 FRONT YARD: 15 IFF 42 IQ IFIMIT IA.: -11 Fr 11�T., 1 35 IM 33 1 01- SIDE YARD: 5 FT III CQRNrR LOT SIDE YARN 10 FT T,-,- --Ji L- ----.jj __j L _2I T', READ YARD: 15 Fr cc T. 34_ (m T IM I ILL I'- 17.1 J L ILL! rw"'Tf, Liu Is«m—-— --.1 21. al cc - ---- ---- ---- ----- ----- V -7i F—=-:=i F 1 30 1 .1— 1 1 ".. : : 21 lI I 1 24S 23S 22S I p �,20 1 1 — T. T I TRI --1 L A L -1 L L.--.-J L.--,-J OEM 4-,� /\7777 "o A� ..T T. ..T T�Mi 1. T. 15,11W uaa - = ,AN YAPT ------------------------------ ffr 3076 SW HAMLU COU BW II STREET PO4 Im rwo a n - --� 1{x- eN 1L 3 Sl I ila' a - W — 1` n„ LEGEND � i ?V SW BELLFLOWER STREET �Y Y1Yn0o at AST mYlYe IRPIIIw -- t1P_--- IAY scI > I 'mow' li I'I I ewPao ra sma Ps 'tl. mnYYl fs sO 41. 4 '" IY� I I,IYs uu BInAw al �rwlon I" - Trx�T ry -we e %PAP woM YML N1Ta'YNMS V y IAPu't�NPAS x I�1 f5Y0� OSINe rt¢m rww w Y. _ P f CQ Dame�o-s m aumm y - GLL, m -rcxa ' Yno aY Yw�lul¢I, 3�� x -- -- — uo nmuwe nv. -J, w ✓�j /� Y'J .: Y � ¢s.uon �— Z z o V 1 + are oo ar rawlm ewe m LU NErm DEuamdN NOTES Qi N timxsory `f y P ;' m u nn (� "107 S I a exa w:sAYon[rm1 Z LTm a nilwloA , t a caws ostYc ve 3a Fi � '�.` I r aLUE nYt nYIL m m51Yw m�Pw[-m1m1c1w w N "s r , , ' conlsliYm h�T'PIAp'.G AHI � ae so.F. le P rAnwc rmY°sw m<<rNlOGtm■rwx PwPosm uvor_ac (� !.1! 5 s GPR9MArf WM W01 NA P1Y IE6A1gNw eA°I'A,W YwYeY �Y NAY mYa .w era ¢ a - = (3-9 v v r TAW LOT 400 rxs car Iz wo xxaL°Ir uusnc saws ui YAP °-P TAM MAP 25 1110A P- a t I� la aNws msec arraww au m Amarwm ra msoao AREA:9.16 ALRESt %^�'uYalvm,ls 0 � � l�� _ aNc+t Im'Ixc s,aal meclws _ I t IaaY YnIL �' 41 � — aauaw Iloe Ya'P�aor, rw on wlw m J T m� Im Plan mnusmre d i �I \ i �'� - .>A�mumgvuex 6+u rrmaur.wrvre ululm.nl w I w w ' \ �' � -- ., z mYmc s rterwlw Pw uvuuac caul,srAm IND rix wuYc oma. 0 Z 1 � / - � / - -. - ' �amasmaNmlAi vei iwuew.at•Imx nate wo rmwx. y. s- aux �°. 1 - l - onroActm ro amsuc ua 1rnr NI,ulssrr>E w Rnxme /, , I`c r.�° © rxa w Ana w,wats ntt xo ru wvtaxs Z_ Des wiu V � - r w W nx LPt rAr sor tied»i s Ler . �T TAP'LL T I I T rtYYx W 11' I 15W I�5Z4 t� ISYw ru lm / ,\ e591q SPA t'A00 IttU 71em I P rSx Yu 1 YM Sa YW 7Ar1119AP I� 15500 IA,Y.NAP 25vllw I. YSA�Y® InYIWP Jam^ YAP %I11W SSIIIW SI11m fltIIW i %111W _ HAMLET.W VRT 8W HAMLET STREET ;� r1 / �. - - — 1. ✓r x- Tax YnP i e i Y.. jm 3876 P06 1.IT 6 BW BELLFLOWER STREET 55WH Te'.',�T 1. T. z......... I ineolnl777 0 0. Tl�I,I I— Tl�111. T. LU rJ < 7 4 1i ITz T,11 I n, v- sw Scbmw LOOP LLJ f 40 f14 1.IIT 37 LEGEND LLJ ag 50 FORD z 0 Tl— �+ 1511X9 T. 2 c11T z Z z cc 0 20 0 < 43 44 (CMEW) W ------ ------ z 7) 0 Ir H Tl�I DTLOOPA 31 - - --- - 21 LU uu CL TM 36 29 2 27 26 A 23 22 (D 7q. q_11 M T, TAX I- T,vol IA LR IM. T. .111M JM MMODI 3076 vcrr P07 —-- -- - $ -- -- --—--—- = �� e am am _lam IT- lam �s I O � '"'ysyLo• r.w SW APPLEWOOO AVENUE-LANE eTm nA nwffi S®It1al�SEt 4 = -F__ - �` �.1 ,n ImAo i3n' Irn'u' s z SN a 9Y YPNBROA u91[ - �IS.S ed � P6 2® p1R4r/rAN[U iilrNx flIQ LfXCM 0[11A rl1K(Y71Np9 NlAN �� SW BELLFLOWER STREET L y r _ 10 r w6iC5iASF Lor TO w uX lur a� r --- r�r risco r lar rAe yu n l uw f $ rA aY s°Rww nw Ylw w �sbila O a e sorra®art � o 15 1 IVYI I P1 0.4 EI IYA 1 sn,oer°�m Raw aeo'". s ��— �;ss®rte , +wweus uoww Z Za Paa - w,loP)i mra, O 0� Aeon p 1# 14 SW SCHUIOI LOOP N_ W a6c 2 - ECA � RA1f➢mss I �smn��� mxNr s wusn Nrmgwoa a �_ B 7 N 10 11 12 13 axliu enAcvNN !rzM Lar sR'xta 0 B IsrR u - 1 t I 5 m 15 r w _ar som�mtY $ mr aPoviceL r 1y z I.F A...ulr 9 •r �O�_ .--Im-- —_---x -_I (Trot r6 Y $ r ce ,tiwn�uu'e s ar 8WSCHMIOTLOOPLAI LOT \ al EAI � An �, -- - --- Lu rAa Ye 2 I ♦' NAW QEN4A4! 1� y L, l r 4a 49 g 17 ' 4 ASNR1RD STREET rM iaT ' i 37 38 39 '11 },a , rxTYu [,R) - _ i __— ruYx/r M clNlm , xr/NNYo ffiNNE Q qw I - 1 l S,A NU0.0C 9Y.19RA0— '. i.W I 51 2—91 ASIItt@ LtlE R IIH5H r MI891'LR'[ S .sra lslaTm a*n1N, SW RFORO _ _ PolacAoo.ylr lLyi enLuram fle k I 11 _ 47 50 r.�, NE `mar A SW ASHFORD cc Q$ NHw z � - e-e TYTt6px �_ O ,STREET = �9 ilA,af0405Y EYRG R.NUH- I } , -- h e-E Ntdi[CIIA L ' Y -- r) uwYE/LMmIL St ¢Na/pmlp NRTTC STk IN10.X 9k AA/OPP SNHi �..... ,� = A SW ASHFOROn.CRBATA n✓.zso�'ma,mm �1 46 5tL,a em - { ' @STREET 36 41 # -- 'iG I i N TO w, auj ' py 33 SIAi1a0�60di A4lOPG SINK �I 19 3s 42 ub! N5 FFLE�.�G7END - I�- rAIrx3Po Iti nrw"`»i wr atYawNLrlucwr nCmum6aeYmnRutacsIlFmArtnfierrn axNxxcolwlcNcawtahiua r. z W v 3a 43 4432 a9 Lor oQzC Lu zQJa cwlaRCLw- ' i I . \,� x;H e.o, �..-n.m la vANn eATw wum I � � IAw Yc ryrNtar.nA Toren¢caaN J —_ �—. �-_._..1 ti«Lm -- ---- ---- —- iIAI a. 22 --- – a H gp 28 27 26 25 24 23 22LIT Yml sla3T rNuawumm�a Ps'o�,�iw omrw°,La ren °O wL sa�w� N $ . la«aro pE�0 —0—o _ --- ' � 1 9W LdMOTREE M Yu�yrxr a:lx i ', m-v-sas .. f - STREET rtl Lor r,Ara 'X LEI I-Xwr / rA}MLpr j 1'M lno rAe Lm. T R6® TO Loi � �`� ]YN �IAX W TO Y!P r YM S!a y rti IM. I r�AN IIVP amt nro rte.i nr ml a+ ILu zs l nm a l l'L�o 1 g �`'_ia[• wr SI 4p . 8W- -H-AM-L-€T COURT- - Er SHAMLET SRE zs woIoXm sC118 L•-4o eBm ®. \'.. JOB 3876 91EF1 P08 n Rn wn R/. €� aq W nd s �O � ����� sr I I I I I Z za WwT]'IV� Wlt5f.V41 1 1 p pp $AP I 1 1 Wwi' SOER'.vA S1M L S1PoP 95EWA ' a. [LL \4G. I wwa seE wfr �� i IZ3 RSI i I�ASIfam VMEI owa I later � 0 co6 4� F 4e D SI 'R ep 4151Ex Iwre] W 4UIIP 1>'P) //"'tGG� Iryp� l3'� z lae,4 R'oLH4 waeo RRa a um z n wxc I a'1 N SW ASHEORO STREET F SW APPLEWOOU AnUE owa 4'a LA o Aanc�A.rt aax cool SW SCHMOT LOOP w5W AS TORD 1 AHE ! s aAsO 11RY4 AGIIM ISaRA A4np1 Indo AcwERAIE s�ASE Rax RM%CIL SELMN I1ftGL itoDF WER Y 1 /r-0 CtfEEAR 9JABISE RD]f (wTF I�-SIA I1+56531 (3TA I Wm®-SxF H41.wQ ONR ti 6 pCl[9 9btRNA Isis a6,a¢m-5lF N'9iRQ [SfA 9+g0.pp-SA 2!96541 or.R Ir�mFPAciso sl9LxeDL I-s Y-5' I t'-5 1•-g U W C7 H � cc aa 1n n 6L 0 g RM sd S.D Litl 132f 5d 5.d 1 LU LU SLEW% SIPo' SRPoP f 5LiWILX I {� Z I -2LRa -2m; - �Om I 5 N —. s. LIJ HR,o«Po Lai Q � I 1„P1 1p.R pL�e'urt BASE � w.I' SW ARR FWYYA I AME 9591 a'I-I/4'-D AF(�GI19 smRFs Rop - ------- aLw,rmmwAcrto Aa[AME J � r� FR«suu W U 6L wn so'RAr 1 f"]Ar d mV FR.d x I u ¢ Y'eRl[S FLSi 5[WN 25' l.5' i,5' 35 QR' }S' 5 43 I �5, NPnAHMlL q9 P.IN9tC aARq,W� kI I IRB AILSN[9 w PLLLFD ARY rAwQli LMF aASx soox s'wAx �e - - - 41vim�. al-I In'!- 11 IFI z t/r ocRa wA®xww fl LE11 ssaAu�manx. o e^m 5/�'s xxREa,E RAs�« �"crn7 rRlrtx _ rnR 6 rc)/i'-o MUALAR'ews Rrcs 6 mfw S aI wclm vwau[ � O40i Ip'(F IXIRpC�SfBSPAtt LC'IA AND�5 ACCESS TRACT'A'ACC€SS SW HALL SDU EVAFM �,�ffa Aw AE T 3876 1sIA Iwmm-SIA Ew4iro) (51'A 1R9AW-SIA 4w12Ri1 �,A Rsfln.Oy-f�TA I�.I+YLw} Pio owl •cc - � / _,'•+111_ SW BELLFLOWER STREET Y - _ _ _ 1 // ------ ------ -- - - ---.-._ Tai\ _ InY IDi iM1%L01 Ir IAXOI rU[YW6r�S]J1� ur r x000 y I b r�M xnP I Ar 1tiv xM y' tlw 11 Y� 1. Lar` � � I tlpF Ilk 251 IIOn SI IIM. ?SI tI9M1 151 IItlY a 9Y I I i 6'A[CL m f>mfllp xNEYppp PMN .� iU WAP Z x 3 p SaR.xEY maw rl>F� t• O p I WCC ,non a 8 i 10 11 12 13 ' a T N uc YYx b1 a `. Z , xl ron I - •� . I ' 'n 3slauMti 3 i _. _ F_ _ �: _ ems. _ _ m ___. is �y U) 8 LOOF 17� U as w 1 W �' IRI mi 37 3a 3B L �. - t. _-— Q ❑ a Yrs I 4131 Tem SW ASHFORD �- m s I„ox osY 47l 53 �Y= STREET Q$ i u I 1 am ' W 0 g 41t I- 46 61 I rp ixwY I L U ` [096'1 A LYTIm -STREET C • 1`1 $ 1 u I T1s�Ivw 33 35 2 `' to xo , I p C 1 J G 45 52 I A3 9Y4 - 44 l nr Lm 12 V Q• P. I .. 1 �I lia IaDrT `r ------' zSmIST° ' I I •.. Sw BfR1 � ._ X91 J nm 21 i l.Lk 3p 24 28 27 25 25 24 23 22 ; am as "I.w srunTRACT 1rn Ymin ssir laR el I�ixuo I - 0I0-1� 9W_ —-- iM1r LmET 8TRIXEl EE rnN or �`�' Is1w si swo +r Lor p� rs Lor wr ` T.- ]S 1 1�AY Wa SAN YW r Y Y i rnN mP A T= Rlm 4M0 1HW m AIlim tl Pni 1=0 TM:fp0151t1p0 1tw SI Im .11100 fi WPp 1 - —__— � 1 SS I IOG -_--__-- ___.._ ------- --------------- ----- - 1 - II1LC pP ,� RC Ym SW HAMLET COURT SWHAMLETSTREET ` —— 3876 wm P11 ............... ------------------------- L ...................... A j: .............. ------ -------------- —.ter.— 4----------------- ........................................... Tffm ...;=... . �_ \ ............. .. . ............. ........... ....................... k� I ------------ .i .............L .................. ------- ------ ..... ---------- .. ........ ... "T A 0; Ot ;14LU Mfg----------- ------- .. ..........................------ .............................. 0 I r H:... =7 .•........... Eisr ........... Go I. ...........------——-IC M AL AN: .......... L---- SW DELVLOWER----- ------------J I Ih�� IA STREET ........................................ 0 14 4 .... .. ..... ... ....... ........ LANE... .... 16 Ir Sw PIPPEK. ......... .. ............ ............ . 3 — —— ---L------ f I I LLJ Og % 40 41 m PR 1-37 39 40 SW ASHFORD 47 so STREET Z 36 41 48 61 .................. LU ...................... M 42 45 52 19 u 1 20 un ol 22 2: sw 21 LILI, LANE-...---.:E,_ 30 21 zz LU 21 27 w I IL o MA ........... L) 0 LU SW IANCTREE 5TRIETT -------------------------- LEGEND LU ----------- — + -� r \,yam~ I I l — seQwm.�ars.�m TM y ...... ------------------ . ... ........ ---------- %IV t 1- 11 I-T im MUM 3076 % P12 1 CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY CITY COUNCIL Concerning Case Number(s): CPA 96-0004/ZON 96-0003/PD 96-0002 FILE NO: CPA 96-0004/ZON 96-0003/PD 96-0002 FILE TITLE: SATTLER SITE APPLICANT: Matrix Development OWNERS: Edward J. Sattler, Jr. Lillian E. Sattler 6900 SW Haines Street 8800 SW Sattler Street 5245 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0004/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96- 0003/13LANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) 96-0002 SATTLER SITE REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map on 27.5 acres located on three-par els west of SW Hall Boulevard and south of SW Sattler Street. The application seeks to change the eastern 8.5 acres, along Hall Blvd., from Medium Density Residential/R-12 to Medium Density Residential/R-7; and to change the western 19 acres from Low Density Residential/R-4.5 to Medium Density Residential/R-7. LOCATION: West of Hall Boulevard and south of Sattler Street. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.1(2); Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. ZONE: R-4.5 (Single-Family Residential) allows single-family detached units, manufactured homes, farming family day care "and conditional uses such as single-family attached units, duplex units, religious assembly and schools. R-12 (Multple-Family Residential) allows single-family detached and attached units, duplex units, multiple-family units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivisions, public support and family day care services and conditional uses such as community recreation, religious assembly, schools, hospitals and residential care facilities. Action:❑ Approval as requested Approval with conditions ❑ Denial Notice:Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: 0 The applicant and owner(s) Q Owners of record within the required distance Q The affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator ® Affected governmental agencies Final Dn: THE DECISION WAS SIGNED ON u 3 _ 1996, AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON D * ion: , 1996. The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. QUESTIONS: If you have any questions, please call the Tigard City Recorder at (503) 639-4171. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) City of Tigard ) hereby certify: Please Print That I am a22ck5'r-O-CA for"the City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served notice of the Tigard City Council A✓ 6-e o rG2sLji- CoA - ct Co-0,x) l 2-C-A 'tet .(L03 /X 4G-06D a - F1'1C 1 c S&44el of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named persons on the — day 19 % , by mailing to each of them at the address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit B), said notice is hereto attached, and deposited in the United States Mail on the IS — day of i-c 19ff� postage prepaid. Prepared Notice Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 9 OFFICIAL SEAL M JO ANN HAYES NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON Notary PL&ic of Oregon COMMISSION NO.042148 My Commission Expires: oLa.�, l4 qg MY 09MMISSION EXPIRES MAY 05,1999 h:\1og1n\oathy\0ofmai1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 96-3a AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY MATRIX DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (CPA 96-0004/ZON 96-0003/PD 96-0002) 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-7(PD) on 18.5 acres and a zone change and planned development overlay from R-12 to R-7(PD) on 9 acres of property at the southwest corner of Hall Boulevard and Sattler Street, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the proposed amendment and zone change at its meeting of June 17, 1996, and recommends approval of CPA 96- 0004/ZON 96-0003/PD 96-0002. 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 B). 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: ByU 0001MOdSvote of all Council me be present after being read by number and title only, this 13..x' day 1996. 4- eour)u lv,r 5ch.eck(a /701- 14f) Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this 13 day of , 1996. ORDINANCE No. 96- Page 1 Approved as to form: Attorney Y l i. / . Date' ORDINANCE No. 96- 3a Page 2 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY MATRIX DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at a public hearing on July 23, 1996. The City Council approves the request based on the facts, findings and conclusions noted below. A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0004 Zone Change ZON 96-0003/PD96-002 REQUEST: The applicant has requested a comprehensive plan amendment, zone change and planned development overlay from Low Density Residential/R4.5 to Medium Density Residential/R-7 (PD) on 18.52 acres and a zone change and planned development overlay from R-12 to R-7(PD) on 9 acres of property at the southwest corner of Hall Boulevard and Sattler Street. APPLICANTS: Matrix Development Company 6900 SW Haines Tigard, OR 97223 OWNERS: Edward J. Sattler, Jr. 8800 SW Sattler Street Tigard, OR 97224 Lillian E. Sattler 15245 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97224 1 • • LOCATION: West of Hall Boulevard and south of Sattler Street (WCTM 2S1 11 DA, Tax Lots 100, 200 and 300) 2. Vicinity The three affected parcels are located west of Hall Boulevard and south of Sattler Street (Attachment B). The properties to the north across Sattler Street are designated as Low Density Residential with a zoning of R-4.5(PD); to the east (across Hall Boulevard), south and west are properties designated as Medium Density Residential and zoned R-7. All of these ,areas are developed as subdivisions. One parcel immediately adjacent to the site along Hall Boulevard to the south is zoned R-12 and contains a single-family residence. 3. Background Information Site History. The entire site, consisting of 27.52 acres, was annexed to the City in March of 1982 and designated as Urban Low Density with zoning of R-5 (eastern 9 acres of site including tax lot 300 and two-thirds of lot 100) and R-7 (western 18.52 acres of site including tax lot 200 and one-third of lot 100). At the time, R-5 denoted 5,000 square foot minimum lot size and is equivalent to the City's current R-7 (7 units per acre/5,000 square foot minimum); R-7 denoted 7,000 square foot minimum lot size and is equivalent to the City's current R-4.5 (4.5 units per acre/7,500 square foot minimum). The current zoning map, therefore, should show the eastern portion of the property as R-7 and the western portion as R-4.5. However, the eastern portion is shown as R-12 (12 units per acre/3,050 square foot minimum lot size). See below under Section IV, Policy 1.12 for explanation of this discrepancy. There have been no other actions staff could find related to this property, including a zone change from R-7 (formerly R-5) to R-12. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The "L" shaped site is comprised of three tax lots. Parcel 100, abutting both Hall and Sattler, is 12.65 acres with a single-family residence and farm buildings; the remainder is open grassland. Parcel 200, the western portion of the site, is 14.57 acres and used as pasture land. A single-family residence is located in the northwest section of the parcel. Parcel 300, located along Hall Boulevard, is 0.30 acres and contains a single-family residence. There are two identified wetlands on the site totaling 0.78 acres. They have been described by the City's Local Wetlands Inventory as farm ponds with no adjacent tree vegetation, the shrubs totally grazed by cattle and emergent vegetation as not recognizable. They have received the lowest functional value of any wetlands in the City. Further, in a letter 2 from the Division of State Lands to the applicant's wetlands consultant, dated May 16, 1996, the Division's Wetlands Program Leader refers to these water bodies as stock ponds and states that there is no wetland area surrounding the ponds. The applicant requests a comprehensive plan map amendment, zone change and planned development overlay from Low Density Residential/R-4.5 to Medium Density residential/R-7(PD) on the western 18.52 acres; and a zone change and planned development overlay from R-12 to R-7(PD) on the eastern 9 acres. A written narrative has been submitted by the applicant in support of the request. If the proposal is approved, the applicant has expressed a desire to develop a neo- traditional subdivision on the site. There are no plans or submittals, however, pertaining to a subdivision development as part of this application. 5. Agency Comments ODOT has reviewed this application and informed staff that the proposed change is not significant under OAR 660-12 (Transportation Planning Rule) and, therefore, did not submit comments. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1, 12.2.1 (2); Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32 and 18.80; and Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660 Division 12. COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: General Policies: Policy 1.1.2 requires that in order to approve quasi-judicial changes to the comprehensive plan map, the City Council must find: 1. The change is consistent with applicable plan policies; 2. A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation, or; 3. A mistake was made in the original land use designation. The proposed comprehensive plan map change from Low Density to Medium Density Residential is consistent with all applicable plan policies (see below). The applicant makes cases both for a change of physical circumstances and a mistake to meet this criterion. The change argument is based on two circumstances (see applicant submittal, pages 17-20). Staff does not consider the first circumstance to constitute a physical change. The applicant states that an R-12 area southeast of the 3 site has developed as single-family homes with smaller lots to a density of approximately seven units an acre only. This may be the case, however, it is not a physical change which is cause for a zone change to the affected site. The development at seven units an acre is allowed under R-12 zoning. The second argument, based on a staff recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council in 1987 to 'upzone' the R-4.5 portion of the site, which was denied, claims that the findings given at the time are no longer valid due to changed circumstances. A denied recommendation for a city-initiated zone change by itself does not qualify for a physical change of circumstance. Staff agrees, however, that changes have taken place since this portion of the site was zoned R-4.5 which enhance its ability to accommodate medium density housing. Since the site was assigned R-7-(equal to current R-4.5) zoning in 1982, the following improvements to the transportation system that serves the site were planned and implemented: Intersection improvements (1989) and signal installation (1992) at Bonita & Hall; • Widening of Durham Road between Summerfield and Hall (1990); • Widening of Durham Road between Hall and Upper Boones Ferry Road (currently under construction). • Transit service initiated by Tri-met along Hall Boulevard (1993) The site now meets all criteria for Medium Density under the Comprehensive Plan's Locational Criteria section (see Locational Criteria, Policy 12.1.1(2) below). The applicant states that a mistake has been made in the zoning designation on the R- 12 eastern portion of the site (see application, page 20). Staff agrees that a mistake was made in changing the Comprehensive Plan and zoning from Urban Low Density/R- 5 to Medium Density/R-12. R-5 is a former City designation which meant 5,000 square foot minimum lot sizes and is equivalent to the current R-7 designation. The City Council initiated annexation of this site in August of 1981 and assigned R-5 zoning. The Boundary Commission approved the annexation request in March of 1982. The Interim Zoning Map of 1983 and all zoning maps thereafter, however, show the eastern portion of the site zoned R-12. Staff could find no official record, including staff report and findings, regarding the rezoning of this area from R-5 to R-12. For this reason, staff believes that an error was made in reassigning an R-12 zoning to this site. Citizen Involvement: 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 notice for the planning commission hearing was sent to surrounding property owners within 250 feet of the affected property, posted at Tigard City Hall and advertised in a local newspaper. In addition, the applicant provided notice of and conducted a neighborhood meeting on 4 March 19, 1996, for property owners within a 250-foot radius of the affected property and other interested parties. This policy is satisfied. Housing: 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. It is primarily implemented through OAR 660-07, the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The rule requires the city maintain sufficient residential 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 of ten units per acre. Because the R-7 zoning district is included in the range of zoning districts (R-7 through R-40) used by the City in the calculation of attached single-family or multi-family housing, the net affect of the zone change would result in an increase from 77% to 78% of new units being of this type. In addition, there would be one additional unit of housing added to the City's inventory under the proposed rezone. The proposal would not, therefore, affect the City's current housing opportunity index of 10.46 units per acre. This policy is satisfied. Transportation - Traffic Ways: 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. As a directive to the City, this policy requires planning for a street system that can meet current and future needs based on the land uses it must support. Hall Boulevard has been designated as an arterial and Sattler Street a Minor Collector on the City's Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map.. These designations support the existing zoning of the subject site. Under the proposed zoning, the residential development potential is virtually the same as that under the existing zoning. Based on the City's density calculation method, the existing zoning could yield 190 units and the proposed zoning could yield 191 units on the site. Upon development of the site under either scenario, the developer will be required to dedicate necessary rights-of-way(s) and install the necessary street improvements to implement the street standards of Hall Boulevard and Sattler Street which will maintain a safe and efficient roadway system. This policy is satisfied. Locational Criteria: Policy 12.1.1(2) provides the locational criteria for designating land as Medium Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan map. It is intended that the locational criteria be construed in a flexible manner, in the interest of accommodating proposals which, though not strictly in conformance with the applicable criteria, are found to be in the public interest and capable of harmonious integration into the community. The burden of proving conformance of the proposal with the criteria varies with the degree of change and impact on the community: the more drastic the change and the greater the impact, the more strictly the criteria should be construed. The applicable locational criteria with findings are as follows: 5 A. The following factors will be the determinants of the areas designated for medium density on the plan map: (1) Areas which are not committed to low density development; The surrounding area is zoned for a mix of low and medium density development: To the north of the entire site and south of the western portion of the site are Low Density Residential districts; to the east, west and southeastern portion of the site are Medium Density Residential districts. This area is not, therefore, committed to low density development. (2) Areas which have direct access from collector or arterial streets; The site has direct access to Hall Boulevard, an arterial, and Sattler Street, a minor collector. (3) Areas which are not subject to development limitations such as topography, flooding, poor drainage; The site is not constrained by development limitations. The two wetland areas identified in the City's Inventory are farm ponds with no adjacent tree vegetation, totally grazed by cattle and contain no recognizable emergent vegetation. They have received the lowest functional value of any wetlands in the City. The letter from the Division of State Lands considers these water bodies as stock ponds and states that there is no wetland area surrounding the ponds. (4) Areas where the existing facilities have the capacity for additional development; The existing facilities and services have adequate capacity to accommodate development at the site. The proposal would allow virtually the same number of residential units as the existing zoning. Sanitary sewer, storm and water lines are located in Hall Boulevard, Sattler Street and 88th Avenue. The street system is designated to handle additional traffic. The detailed analysis and evaluation of service capacity and needed improvements will be addressed as part of the development review process. (5) Areas within one-half mile of public transportation; and Tri-met bus service is available along Hall Boulevard. (6) Areas which can be buffered from low density residential areas in order to maximize the privacy of established low density residential areas. 6 The proposed area can be adequately buffered from the low density residential area on the north side of Sattler Street and along the southern boundary of the site through the density transition, buffering and screening requirements of the Community Development Code. These requirements would be addressed during subdivision review when an application is submitted to the City. Based on the above facts, Policy 12.1.1(2) is satisfied for locating a Medium Density Residential area on the western portion of the subject site. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Amendments to the Title and Maw Section 18.22 of the Community Development Code sets forth standards and procedures for quasi-judicial amendments to the plan and zoning district map. 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: The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designation; and the change will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community; The applicable plan policies related to the proposal are reviewed above under Compliance With Comprehensive Plan Policies. Based upon the facts and findings in this report, staff has determined that the proposed amendment and rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community. The statewide planning goals adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197, until acknowledgment. of the comprehensive plan and ordinances; The Tigard Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged, therefore, specific review of each statewide planning goal is not necessary. Notice of this proposed amendment has been provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development for comment at least 45 days prior to the final decision date. The applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; Code section 18.52 (R-7: Single-Family Residential) contains the standards for the R-7 zone. The proposed site could meet the standards listed under Dimensional Requirements (18.52.050) and Additional Requirements (18.52.060), including the residential density transition provisions of 18.40.040, for a single-family development._ Specific future site development improvements will be reviewed through the subdivision procedures to ensure consistency with Community Development Code standards. Evidence of change in neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the 7 subject of the development application. See above under Compliance With Comprehensive Plan Policies, Policy 1.1.2. Procedures for Decision Making - Quasi-Judicial• 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; a hearing has been conducted by the Planning Commission according to 18.32.090(D); and the requirements for notification of the hearings have been met according to 18.32.130 and 18.32.140. Planned Development: Section 18.80 of the Community Development Code sets forth the approval process and elements of a planned development overlay designation. Section 18.80.015 states that this overlay zone shall be processed in the same manner as a zone change under the provisions of Chapter 18.32 (Procedures for Decision Making: Quasi-judicial). This application is indeed being processed according to Chapter 18.32. The proposal also meets the requirements of Section 18.80.060, Planned Development Allowed and Disallowed, because the affected site is classified as a developing area. The remaining requirements of this code section, which address implementation of the Planned Development overlay, will be reviewed upon submission of a development plan. This policy is satisfied. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND REGIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Oregon Administrative Rule: Section 660-12-060 requires that comprehensive plan amendments which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with identified function, capacity and level of service of the facility. The proposed amendment/zone change would result in a net change of one additional residential unit allowed on the site. This change would not significantly affect a transportation facility. ODOT agrees and did not require or request a traffic study of the proposal. This rule is satisfied. C. DECISION The City Council APPROVES the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0004 and Zone Change ZON 96-0003/PD 96-0002 based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions. 8 �,� J1� Ili P 0 0 ►iii - � / / fir/ ■. �r��■I :. • ww �♦♦♦♦.♦♦♦♦♦♦ ry �':. � ���.. ♦ � ■j � ■ � � � /11111 � 111 H ♦ .. .9 - ■�■����n � ///1111 ■�■►�■■II � .._ . . . >= Propos - '� 11111111 Vicinity Map , Map Amendment.Zone Law._ :: ❖.❖:•:=o:❖: Proposed Zone Change and Planned Development 1 , 1 Comprehensive Plan Change Rezone 1 and 1 Planned Development Overlay 1 1 proposal A submitted to the City gof Ti and 1 1 . 1 Prepared for Matrix Development Corporation 1 Plaza 2, Suite 200 6900 SW Haines Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 1 1 Prepared by W&H Pacific 1 8405 SW Nimbus Avenue Beaverton, Oregon 97008-7120 1 March 25, 1996 1 r ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Pie ' I. Requested Action H. Site Description .................:.............................................................................................3 ' III. Conformance With Applicable City Of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies .....................6 IV. Conformance With City Of Tigard Development Code ....................................................15 ' V. Evidence Of Change In Circumstances, Inconsistency Or Mistake In Comprehensive Plan ..........................................................18 VI. Conformance With Applicable Locational Criteria .........................................................27 VII. Statewide Planning Goals And Findings .........................................................................29 VIII. Summary And Conclusions ............................................................................................34 ' FIGURES ' A. General Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................... B. Site Plan .........................................................................................................................5 C. Chronology .....................................................:.............................................................21 ' D. City of Tigard Ordinance 81-93 and Attached Map ...................................................22-25 E. Map of Albertsons Density Transfer Sites (Approved 1987)...........................................26 ' TABLES ' A. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation ...,.......................................8 B. Density Chart.................................................................................................................11 ATTACHMENTS ' A. Comprehensive Plan Map B. Zoning Map ' C. Legal Description D. Pre-application meeting notes E. Other application materials 1. Application Form 2. Assessor's Map NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Section II, T2S R01W) F. Neighborhood Meeting Summary ' 1. Mailing List of property owners within 250 feet of proposal area and affidavits 2. Affidavit of posting for neighborhood meeting 3. Notes and Sign-in sheet from Neighborhood Meeting ' 4. Letter of Support I. REQUESTED ACTION ' Matrix Development is proposing a Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change which would enable it to construct single family residential units at a density of approximately 7 units per acre on a vacant site in the City of Tigard, bounded by SW Hall Boulevard on the east and Sattler Street on the north. Figure A shows the general vicinity of the project. No site plans have been prepared beyond a concept level; however, approximately 191 homes could be built on the site if it were zoned R-7 and had a Planned Development (PD) overlay. The applicant is also requesting that the site be designated as a Planned Development Overlay ' Zone (/PD). The subject site covers about 27.5 acres (calculated from the Washington County Assessor's map). The Tigard Comprehensive Plan designates the eastern 8.5 acres as Medium Density Residential, the remaining 19 acres is designated as Low Density Residential. Current zoning on the eastern 8.5 acres is R-12, Multiple Family Residential (12 units per acre), while the ' western 19 acres is R-4.5 Single Family Residential (7,500 square foot lots or 5,500 square feet per unit). This application seeks a change in plan and zoning designations so that the entire site is designated as Medium Density Residential (changing the designation on 19 acres ' of the site) and that the entire 27.5 acres be rezoned to R-7 Single Family Residential (5,000 square feet per unit)for the entire parcel. The application also seeks a Planned Development overlay for the entire site to allow for flexible lot sizes to accommodate natural resource areas such as the pontis, and allow for neo-traditional subdivision design standards. This application is submitted in accordance with the Tigard Municipal Code sections 18.22, ' amendments to the Title and Map, and 18.32, Procedures for Decision Making: Quasi-Judicial and the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 1 ' Matrix Plan Change,Rezone,PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 2 ' U. SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed development site (Tax Lots 100, 200 and 300; NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Section II T2S R1W W.M.) is bounded by SW Hall Boulevard on the east, Sattler Road on the north and the Summerfield development on the west. (See Figure A). A parcel immediately south and east of the subject property is zoned R-12 and is currently developed with a single family dwelling. The subject site is currently developed with a total of three single-family houses and several farm-related outbuildings. There are two small agricultural ponds on the site. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan classifies Hall Boulevard as an Arterial, while Sattler Street is classified as a Minor Collector. Adjacent to the site, Hall Boulevard includes two vehicle ' lanes and is designated as a regional pedestrian and bicycle route in the Comprehensive Plan. Hall is served by regular Tri-Met bus service line #76. Sattler Street is currently developed with two lanes and sidewalks along most of the segment west of Hall. Sattler Street is planned as a local pedestrian and bicycle route in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan map adopted in 1983 shows the subject site is located in a ' "Developing Area." The proposed site is used as a pasture and slopes slightly to the southeast. Eight and one-half acres of the site, at the intersection of Hall Boulevard and Sattler Street, are planned and zoned for Medium Density Residential (R-12) use. The ' remaining 19 acres, with frontage on Sattler Street are planned and zoned for Low Density Residential (R-4.5). Developed land to the southeast, east and west is zoned R-7, and area to the southwest of the site is zoned R-4.5. This creates a situation where parcels "leapfrog" in terms of zoning densities from R-12 along Hall Boulevard, to R-4.5 on the subject property, to R-7 on the property to the west. The site is located within-a"Developing"area as defined by the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Developing/Established-Map. Matrix Plan Change,Rezone,PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 3 3 w cNh,aF Nr ^s FIGURE R -- - -- --- . . d q Villa rr W „w I Ride .... s "so " P roRIlANO € Ofl a 99W COMMUNITY t sj eo U.I L w•n•R,•aTTf GENERINL VICINITY MAP " T Ts[ 10twyiAaL s ;` sw ^+ ia•4O a ri c,Y 'i POs , - sT ,. =bu„Ao I " i L Ii V� ''� y\\y .o TIGAR „^ ., • f^ ' `' x)FA J /bid" '0",-ur `i,r�Cr°�'`: ,.• ` f,C[ ' °tOk4` s 7 ! '✓< ■= YARNS -( 13 _- _ _.I- r 'i Jr+`"� i` �_ ' �+Ly.•.� •i•' 0 .•' �°• ,u ` `$ Ia,, Sw f §c"" 'A c.t[xa.o,oucNsw 11. �b rc, aI �—__. '�"i'^ s "`c'^.- °3`i a � •Noe � � ws 3� a4'f++ It l " u�r•W[ [' se�� tw [a[w000 � s I °� �4c -12 Bonita 8 a f1w.s •�nK .-__'=`rr--'�4[: �__J "I al � . " = = �_ M o � '.��T'� .°"R.s . Y.,°.•a. :' �I, o.,r, ,o �. _ew u-I - r� :�srQy• I Mn�$�nv �•T, i�,~�O Fo D o`c rt,w,.? ;-s. •; :rITe - s Y- <jlJ�[...m w MOUNTAIN r:: •` > C� 1P`�`6 - ••�WaAq° °ouu s �r>� " KINGCA'11 AL _ = Y °I r. IT Ifsr o s:.iL000•r r.,r':; "•�``a y`'"r" ,Y F0.OY' '"•, 'w < '-' - kf?•� eT 15300' i, �a _ ii`ar`x♦ co-- •SIS[ Al :%a �eJ �,�_,'%� 99W _� t nct�s"M !``<''= wyA ssi I ` o —_ 9J�°L• p�� ¢ac.:..::'. sarn.l , .., '= r ti., ; S ,,• t`. rr rox rw 5 :SIR wRcowu !p.. #[ON000 s., I 'w` - ° .[.ttr SSS unlatis _ al l' [c^ s Jean -It.l WNoct Ct A= IYO WFR BO „�O l_ i n EMMA ' "; Rosewood GENERAL LOCATION OF SITE 9P, - ,, r° = T _ , ;N .[Tt sa�� EWA j ° NS ai .�ROAO^ ..;s> 4A. Comwlminry es Pork o` s y .ass s.wuto c, 0.O o.0 <o..w. ,v.r. lt : maW` •- cNi o io.s 11 c`f.G°' , • sw t[i p0. -_ ts .r s ..T� » IVERGROVE . t W CNILDS- a°R A M — ; v r ' ` • - BpO N Sw if Cr` -c' ® I `UPI•. ,q oac S� c w f'—I - — -- y . SW"IBE O ST y II ; we 1 • 0.°* ,� ITk4k W I-_J ' ! i Sit 4T •r j V Js sT"c r •yy. ST ,^ i d•/ _ .tom? � !� `• w'`u - Bg.Na•c^tet c I < _ I ;^V E TA 3TAT Cs Slatlord o .n NORTH 0 f SCALE 1"= 0.64 MILE 5 5��f ' age Figure B Site Plan CITY OF TIGARD ZONING MAP y` R-12: 12 units per acre (3,050 sq. ft. minimum lot size) ' '- R-7: 5,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size T w: R-4.5: 7,500 sq.ft. minimum lot size FOoJ`� /PD: Planned Development R\25 -, AI D'19 nc _ ,9, SCALE: 1 inch = 800 feet ` 5? CIT _ R-1'�, Y\Y: n -1 HALL I £tom" � �• ••:� �'z ,r{MUNICIP& COURT NORTH lam, `�J-" -' TIGAFJ: �- e iSEN10R R'-4 E�-1 CENTER— Ai P „It•,�r l I t i III :� I I L j e,.7T: � I �'�4 Eel t-s7. r` '! 111'" I A4, (� • I M1•r�;•��1^�'-I -1-��1r �-rT��1-:_:. r J--.�[']-I, 7— J r�.' ftt R-7 it ° _J i I �LIi_L AI TWALITY I -�_ ® JUNIOR r— I ' C F- < t i G I SHIGHCHOOL 1- rte- gra T' c� IRPD -Ti ��- •1'IT,LI-_i' �I 'MPLETON � e I— tt!T A R Yt- 1 -- r L ,. . r E}i00 � I E la 11 1 1 Sattler StreetL!;.' _ __ R�.a� I Tom_, .r; , TT- r�� AFI = R �.� R-12 -.2 - ° ! -c- -P - iy I .. l'T uo� 4.517 =;J - _ I_P 1 •':.. — `� ,��I�IiU - Si 1��;. -— - Durham Street TIGARD r I ! ® HIGH SCHOOL �� Jii_,=r E:1 qTARY cS.CH.40 . ; '.5: -_I USA 1, iP.CATb!EWT I ^y� •.�? ret 17 R—`T.5 PLANT -P 1 � • M. CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES Citizen Involvement 2.1.1 The City shall...assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in ' all phases of the planning process. 2.1.2 The opportunities for citizen involvement shall be appropriate to the scale of the ' planning effort and shall involve a broad cross section of the community. a. The citizen involvement teams shall be the primary means for carrying out the program. 2.1.3 The City shall insure the information...is available in an understandable form for all interested citizens. Response: In compliance with City policy and Statewide Planning Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement) requirements, the applicant advertised and held a neighborhood meeting on March 19, 1996, with notification given to ' surrounding property owners within 250 feet, the South CIT, and posted around the site. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the project; approximately 75 members of the public,the Property Owner/Developer and Project Consultants were in attendance. The sign-in sheet and notes from that meeting are included as Attachment F. Informal discussions with other non-attending neighbors have also occurred on the telephone. ' The applicant received 1 letter of support, which is also included in Attachment F (4). In addition, City of Tigard requirements for public notice are being met, including notification of adjacent property owners, posting of property and advertisement of hearing(s) in the local newspaper, all in a timely manner. Information prepared for the applicant has been written in a clear, concise manner. Natural Features and Open S e atu ac p p ' Chapter 3 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan establishes policies for protection of natural resources. "The chapter reflects the concerns expressed in several of the Statewide Planning ' Goals, including: Goal #3 - Agricultural Lands; Goal #4 - Forest Land; Goal #5 - Open Spaces; Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources; Goal #7 - Areas subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards; and Goal #8 - Recreational Needs." (Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Page II-11). 1 Matrix Plan Change,Rezone,PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 6 r r Response: There are two small ponds that are identified as wetlands on the Zoning map (F-11 and F-12)totaling approximately 0.78 acres (according to the City's local wetlands inventory). The local wetlands inventory describes these areas as "agricultural ponds" and notes there is "no adjacent vegetation," that shrubs are "totally grazed by cattle," that emergent vegetation is "not recognizable," and that the ponds are "severely ' impacted by cattle". The change in plan designation and zoning will not directly affect the wetland areas, which will be addressed in accordance with local, state and federal regulations during the site plan development. The applicant ' wishes to have a Planned Development (PD) overlay attached to the site, which would allow flexible land division and development standards to preserve any significant natural areas, in accordance with implementation strategy 2, (Policy 3.4.2) "the City shall encourage, through the Planned Development Process, the retention of large, varied habitat areas on private and public lands including inventoried plant and animal communities," page II-17 in the Comprehensive Plan. There are no areas on-site subject to erosion,slope, floodplain or other ' natural resource limitations. Further, the proposed development will be designed to ensure that there are no adverse impacts to off-site resources. For complete findings on Statewide Planning Goals, see ' Section VIII of this application. Air Qualily 4.1.1 The City shall maintain and improve Tigard's air quality and coordinate with other jurisdictions and agencies to reduce air pollution within the Portland-Vancouver air tquality maintenance area (AQMA). Response: The proposed zone change and plan amendment and subsequent development will comply with all applicable local, regional, state and federal air quality standards. The site development review will specifically address such issues. However, it is expected that ' redesignation of the site to allow for a uniform density and the planned development overlay will result in a development using "neo-traditional development concepts" which will have a positive effect on air quality in relation to development of 19 acres of traditional single-family development. The reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is due to benefits of neo-traditional design as opposed to the traditional single family subdivision. Matrix Plan Change,Rezone,PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 7 The plan amendment and rezone to R-7 supports the use of alternative transportation modes by increasing residential pedestrian connections in the vicinity of transit service (Hall Boulevard). This is in support of Implementation Strategy 6 (Policy 4.1.1), "the City shall aim to reduce the quantity of vehicle emissions by pursuing an energy-efficient urban form which reduces the number of vehicle-miles-traveled, and by ' encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation, especially mass transit and pedestrian [modes]." Page H-23 of the Comprehensive Plan. The energy conservation policy can be further implemented in the site plan by arranging building entrances and pedestrian walkways in such ' a way as to support transit use and local pedestrian access. ' Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Rates, the proposed rezone would generate more trips than the current zoning. Traditional single family homes generate, on the average, 9.55 ' daily trips. ITE research has shown that smaller homes tend to support smaller households, which generate fewer than 9.55 daily trips. Higher density (greater than 5 units per acre) also creates incentives for trip reduction. Table A, shows a reduction factor of 1.8 trips for household size and 0.1 trips for density greater than 5 units per acre. The following Table A shows the numbers of trips. TABLE A - Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Table ' No. of Use units* Daily AM In AM Out PM In PM Out Single Family 9.55 0.19 0.55 0.65 0.36 Single Family (adj.) 7.65 0.15 0.44 0.52 0.29 Adj. Factor -1.9 0.04 0.11 0.13 0.07 Ratio 0.80 MultiFam. (post '73 Apt.) 6.28 0.11 0.33 0.31 0.18 R-4.5 Single Family* 88 840 17 48 57 32 R-12 Multi-Family* 102 641 11 34 32 18 Total w/existing zoning 190 1481 28 82 89 50 ' Proposed R-7 Single Family* 191 1461 29 84 99 56 ' *R4.5 and R-7 units assumes 20% of total acreage is use for R/W, utilities and open space R-12 assumes 15% of total acreage is use for R/W, utilities and open space Matrix Plan Change,Rezone,PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 8 1 ' Water QualAy 4.2.1 All development within the Tigard urban planning area shall comply with tapplicable federal, state and regional water quality standards. Response: Development of the site will comply with all applicable local, state and ' federal water quality standards. This will be analyzed and documented in more detail during site development review. Noise Pollution 4.3.1 City shall require development proposals located in a noise congested area or a use ' which creates noise in excess of the applicable standards to incorporate [optimal building placement or landscaping and other techniques] to lessen noise impacts to ' levels compatible with the surrounding land uses. Response: The subject site is not located within a noise congested area. Residential developments are not considered to be significant noise generators. EX 5.1 The City shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of the economic ' opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis placed on the growth of the local job market. ' Response: The proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change will enable development of affordable single-family homes in Tigard. This development can serve as an attraction to diversify Tigard's residential base. ' Housing 6.1.1 The City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and ' residential types at various price and rent levels. Response: The principal review criterion under the City's housing policy is that ' the proposal comply with the Metropolitan Housing Rule, OAR 660 Division 7. The rule requires that the City maintain an inventory of developable residential land providing a housing mix of at least 50% ' multiple family dwellings and an overall minimum average density of 10 units per acre. With approval of the plan amendment and rezone, Matrix Plan Change,Rezone,PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 9 the City will continue to be in compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule and meet projected housing needs. The total number of units that can be built on the site if it is rezoned to R-7 = 191, while the total number of units that could be built under ' the existing zoning = 190 units. The change from R-12 to R-7 reduces multi-family housing potential on ' a portion of the site by approximately 86 dwellings, but replaces these with 47 single family units. The c:'iange from R-4.5 to R-7 increases single-family potential by 39 units. The net difference is one additional ' single-family unit to the site. The reduction in multi-family units is deemed to be insignificant due to the fact that the actual housing density is increased and the change represents less than 0.5% of the City's housing opportunity index; the City maintains an inventory of 13,730 potential housing units and 1,313 acres of developable residential land, providing an overall density of 10.46 units per acre (Ray Valone, City of Tigard Community Development Department, Preapplication meeting, February 19, 1996). Based on the following model, the net addition of 1 dwelling to the housing inventory results in no change to the city's overall density rate. ' Density Calculation The development code specifies a method for computing allowable residential density (18.92 Density Computations). The code requires a calculation of buildable land with deductions for public right-of-way, private streets, existing development, sensitive land areas, and park and other public land dedications. Residential development ' potential is determined by multiplying the "net" buildable area by the maximum allowable housing density per zone district. Density may also be limited indirectly by minimum lot size, setbacks, landscaping and density transition standards. For demonstration purposes, it is reasonable to assume that approximately 20% of the subject single fancily (R-4.5) and 15% of the multiple family (R-12) site would be used for public right-of-way, private streets, water quality facilities and other dedications, as required by the City. Based on this assumption and the above methodology, redesignation of the 8.5 acre site from R-12 to R-7 causes a reduction to the housing inventory by a total of 43 dwelling units, but the change of 19 acres of R-4.5 to R-7 represents in increase of 44 units, for a net change of one additional unit. Density calculations are as follows: Matrix Plan Change,Rezone, PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 10 R-12 density calculation: 8.5 acres x .85 = 7.2 net acres 7.2 net acres x 43,560 square feet per acre = 313,632 square feet 313,632/3,050 square feet minimum lot size = 102 units R-7 density calculation (for R-12 area): 8.5 acres x .80 = 6.8 net acres 6.8 net acres x 43,560 square feet per acre = 296,208 square feet 296,208/5,000 square feet minimum lot size = 59 units R-4.5 density calculation: 1 19 acres x .80 = 15.2 net acres 15.2 net acres x 43,560 square feet per acre = 662,112 square feet 662,112/7,500 square feet minimum lot size = 88 units R-7 density calculation (for R-4.5 area): 19 acres x .80 = 15.2 net acres ' 15.2 net acres x 43,560 square feet per acre = 662,112 square feet 662,112/5,000 square feet minimum lot size = 132 units R-7 density calculation (for entire site): 27.5 acres x .80 = 22 net acres 22 net acres x 43,560 square feet per acre = 958,320 square feet 958,320/5,000 square feet minimum lot size = 191 units The total number of units would increase by one should this rezone and comprehensive plan change be approved. This increase in one unit represents an insignificant change to the City's overall planned housing density for developable ' lands. ' TABLE B: Density Chart ' Number of Acres Current Zoning and Proposed Zoning and Dwelling Units Dwelling Units 8.5 acres R-12 = 102 dwelling units R-7 = 59 dwelling units 19 acres R-4.5 = 88 dwelling units R-7 = 132 dwelling units TOTAL 190 dwelling units J11.dwelling units Matrix Plan Change,Rezone,PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page I I f The northern and southwestern portion of the parcel is subject to density transition requirements (Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.3.2; Community Development Code Section 18.40.040). The code requires that any new development located within 100 1 feet of a designated "Established Development" may not exceed 125% of the allowable density in the established development's plan designation. In this case, some of the established development is designated Low Density Residential in the Comprehensive ' Plan to the south and north. Therefore, the abutting lots would be developed at a maximum of 6.5 units/acre. Because of access requirements on Sattler Street, lots along the extension of SW 88th Avenue would be larger than the average lot east of tthe road extension. 6.3.1 In all phases of the development approval process in a residential "established ' area," a primary consideration of the City shall be to preserve and enhance the character of the adjacent established areas. The subject site is located adjacent to an established residential area. As discussed above, density of the proposed residential development and adjacent residential areas ' will occur within the parameters of the zoning code (Section 18.40.040). The primary reason to seek these amendments to the existing policy is to provide an area zoned for small lot single family detached housing, which matches the surrounding area. The tdetails of the development will be developed at the development stage. Public Facilities and Services 7.1.2 The City shall require as a Pre-condition to development approval that: a) development coincide with the availability of adequate service capacity; b) the facilities are capable of adequately serving all intervening properties and the proposed development; and are c) designed to City standards. ' Response: The rezone of the property from R-4.5 and R-12 to R-7 would not change the requirement for public facilities and services to be provided ' to the above standards because the number of units is essentially the same. It is the applicant's understanding that facilities to serve water, sewer and storm water needs are available to meet the needs of the proposed use. 7.2.1 The City shall require as a pre-condition to development approval that: a) a site ' development study be submitted; b) natural drainageways be maintained unless studies show that alternative drainage solutions can solve on-site drainage problems and will assure no adverse off-site impacts; c) all drainage can be handled on-site or there is an alternative solution which will not increase the off-site impact; d) the 100-year floodplain be protected; e) erosion control techniques be included as part of the site development plan. Matrix Plan Change,Rezone,PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 12 ' Response: The proposed rezone would not change the need for a site development study to be prepared and that best management practices be used for on-site surface water drainage. It is believed that any adverse impacts to natural drainageways, adjacent lands and floodplains can be properly mitigated. The Planned Development overlay will make it easier for the developer to plan for a single family development that both enhances and utilizes one of the existing natural features on the site by providing flexible development standards. The Planned Development overlay includes a two-step public review process. 7.6.1 The City shall require as a pre-condition to development approval that: a) the ' development be served by a water system having adequate water pressure for fire protection purposes; b) the development shall not reduce the water pressure in the area below a level adequate for fire protection purposes; and c) the applicable fire district treview all applications. Response: It is believed that the proposed residential development can meet all ' applicable water pressure and fire protection standards. The change in zoning will increase the number of units possible on this site by one unit. This change should not impact the water supply system. It is the ' applicant's understanding that sufficient water pressure exists to meet the demand of the proposed land uses and fulfill the fire pressure requirements. The proposed development will be reviewed by the ' Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Department as part of the development approval process. Transportation ' 8.1.1 The City shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. ' Response: This policy is directive to the City. The proposed residential development will meet all adopted City, county and regional roadway level-of-service and operational standards. Furthermore, the proposed residential development will use neo-traditional, transit- and pedestrian friendly design and layout to encourage minimal impact on the transportation system and provide connectivity between SW 88th Avenue and Sattler Street. The exact location of the intersection of the connecting street and Sattler Street will be determined during the development process, and reviewed by the Planning Commission during the Planned Development reviews. 1 Matrix Plan Change,Rezone,PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 13 ' 8.1.2 The City shall provide for efficient management of the transportation planning process within the City and the metropolitan area through cooperation with other federal, state, regional and local jurisdictions. ' Response: This policy is directive to the City. Site development review of the proposed residential development will be coordinated with Washington County, the City of Tigard and Tri-Met to assure conformance with local and regional transportation plans. Hall Boulevard is designated as a Corridor on the Draft 2040 Growth Concept. The proposed pedestrian and transit friendly development within 1/4 mile of a Corridor is consistent with the 2040 Growth Concept. This proposal ' is also consistent with the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) in that it allows for more densely developed single family housing near activity centers (Tigard High School and Cook Park). Other portions of the TPR apply to specific site plans, which are not part of this action. ' 8.1.3 The City shall require as a pre-condition to development approval that: a) development abut or have appropriately-authorized access to a publicly dedicated street; b) street right-of-way be dedicated (if substandard); c) the developer commit to the ' construction of street improvements within the development; d) individual developers participate in the improvements of existing streets, curbs and sidewalks to the extent of the development's impacts; e) street improvements be made and signs or signals provided ' when the development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard; f) transit stops, bus turnout lanes and shelters be provided if development is the type generating transit ridership; g) disabled parking spaces be set aside and marked; and h) land be dedicated to ' implement the adopted bicycle/pedestrian corridor plan. Response: Table A, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation ' Analysis, shows that there will be a slight decrease (20 fewer trips) in the number of daily trips from the proposed zone change. This ' decrease is due to the trip reduction factors present in a small lot, higher density single family (i.e. neo-traditional) subdivision layout. The proposed development will include transit and pedestrian friendly design features such as small lots, pedestrian and bicycle accessways and streets that will provide connectivity to existing streets. The applicant will conform to all conditions made at the development review stage. 8.2.2 The City shall encourage the expansion and use of public transit by locating land intensive uses in close proximity to transit ways. ' e Matrix Plan Change,Rezone,PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 14 Response: The plan amendment and zone change will support public transit service by allowing for development of neo-traditional, transit oriented single family residential development along an established transit route ' (Hall Boulevard). Further details about location of sidewalks, landscaping and appropriate lot orientation to encourage pedestrian access to nearby transit and pedestrian facilities will be addressed ' during the site plan review stage. t En 9.1.2 The City shall establish a balanced and efficient transportation system which ' compliments the land use plan and is designed to minimize energy impacts. Response: The plan amendment, rezone and planned development overlay would t support a development that would encourage transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel due to proposed neo-traditional design. Appropriate street improvements, such as sidewalks, and accessways would be provided to encourage transit use. The proposal is consistent with implementing strategy 8, page H-62, ' which recommends that the City support public and private planning efforts that advocate alternative forms of transportation such as mass transit, bicycling and walking for commuters. The higher density residential land use is within walking distance to the Tigard High School and is adjacent to a transit service route (Hall Boulevard). IV. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY OF TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE ' Zoning District Classification and Requirements ' 18.040.040 A. and B. Residential Density Transition Requires that "any property within 100 feet of an established area shall not be developed at a ...density greater than 125% of the allowed density in the adjacent areas." The "allowed density" is based on the planning designation, not the specific zoning district. The limits do not apply to areas separated by a major collector or an arterial. ' Response: Some of the adjacent properties are "established development" and are P J P P designated Low Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. These ' areas are located adjacent to portions of the south and north boundaries of the proposed development. Therefore, the proposed Matrix Plan Change,Rezone,PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 15 ' abutting lots would be developed at a maximum of 6.5 units/acre at the southwestern and northern portions of the site. Because of access requirements on Sattler Street, lots along the extension of SW 88th ' Avenue would be larger than the average lot east of the road extension. 18.50 The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to provide for urban low density residential development. The permitted residential uses include: Single-family detached, residential treatment homes, manufactured homes and other such uses. Duplex units are allowed as a Conditional Use. ' Lot dimensions: The minimum lot size is 7,500 square feet per detached unit and 10,000 square feet for duplexes. Average minimum lot frontage shall be 50 feet for detached units and 90 feet for duplexes. Minimum lot widths are 50 feet for single family and 40 ' for attached units. Front yard setbacks are 20 feet in front, 5 feet on the side, 10 feet on a street side, and 15 feet from the rear. Garages must be set back at least 20 feet from front property line. Maximum allowed height is 35 feet. ' 18.52 The purpose of the R-7 zoning district is to provide for single-family detached and attached units for medium density development. The permitted residential uses include: ' Single-family detached (one per lot), single family attached (not more than 5 per group), duplexes and manufactured homes, and other related uses. Lot dimensions: The minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet per detached unit, 10,000 square feet for duplexes, and 5,000 for each attached unit. Minimum lot widths are 50 feet for single family and 40 for attached units. Front yard setbacks are 15 feet in front, 5 feet on the side, 10 feet on a street side, and 15 feet from the rear. Maximum allowed height is 35 feet. ' 18.54 The purpose of the R-12 zoning district is to provide for single-family attached and multiple family residential units for medium density developments. The permitted residential uses include: Single-family detached, duplex, single-family attached, and multiple-family dwellings. Lot dimensions: The minimum lot size is 3,050 square feet per unit, with a maximum lot coverage of 80%. Setbacks for multi-family structures are 20 feet in front, 10 feet on the side, and 20 feet from the rear. Maximum allowed height is 35 feet. ' Response: The applicant proposes to raise the density on 19 acres of the 27.5 acre site from the current low density residential (zoned R-4.5) to medium ' density residential that would allow R-7 zoning. On the remaining 8.5 acres, the applicant proposes to reduce the zoning from R-12 to R-7. Matrix Plan Change,Rezone,PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 16 This "trade" in residential densities would allow the applicant to develop one single family detached subdivision with a consistent zoning for the entire site. ' The areas to the east and west are developed at R-7, and if the applicant's development proceeded under the current zoning, there ' would be a strip of R-4.5 residential development adjacent to R-12, potentially multifamily uses. This is not consistent with the City's density transition goals. 1 Furthermore, this request includes Planned Development (/PD) ' overlay, which would give the City staff and appointed officials an opportunity to review site plans for appropriate landscaping, lot set backs, etc. A /PD overlay would provide flexibility in setback and layout standards to facilitate a neo-traditional development (such as placing detached garages behind the dwelling units. ' Planned Development 18.80 The purpose of planned development overlay is to provide flexible standards to ' allow application of new techniques in community development, to facilitate efficient use of land, promote economic clustering of buildings, circulation and open space, preserve existing landscape features, and encourage innovative and diversified living environments. ' The PD process requires several public meetings and review of a detailed development plan by staff and approval of the planning commission. Response: This proposal seeks a Planned Development (/PD) overlay in ' conjunction with the rezone and comprehensive plan amendment. The PD overlay suits the proposed development of a neo-traditional subdivision, since such layouts include "unusual" development techniques such as alleys, traffic circles, and smaller homes, lot sizes and street widths. The Planned Development will help the applicant address the two agricultural pond wetlands located on the site, by ' allowing flexibility in development standards in exchange for development of open space areas. ' Future residential development will meet all of the City's Planned Development review criteria upon approval of the rezone. 'he planned development review submittal will address siting and design criteria, tincluding parking, landscaping, environmental performance standards, access and circulation, setbacks and other requirements of the City. Matrix Plan Change,Rezone,PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 17 1 tV. EVIDENCE OF CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES, INCONSISTENCY OR MISTAKE ' Comprehensive Plan Amendments [Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.2 (2)] states that amendments to the plan meet the following criteria: a. The change is consistent with applicable plan policies; b. A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation; and ' C. A mistake was made in the original land use designation. Section 18.22.040 of the Development code implements this Plan strategy and states the ' standards that must be met in order to approve an amendment to the comprehensive plan and zoning map. Subsection 4 requires "Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it ' relates to the property which is the subject of the development application." Response: Change in Physical Circumstances ' The attached chronology (Figure C) highlights some of the changes that have occurred in Tigard's planning policies over the last 15 years. Specifically, the City ' of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1983, establishing the plan and zone designation for the area in which the subject property is located. Since that time, development and physical circumstances have changed significantly with regard to ' the Tigard planning area. 1. Development of surrounding area zoned as R-12 has been less than ' anticipated. The two subdivisions located to the east of SW Hall Boulevard, located along Langtree and Bonaventure Streets and on Bond and Church (zoned as R-12) provide approximately an R-7 level of development (roughly ' 7 units to the acre). Another large lot in this R-12 area was recently developed with the Tigard Friend Church, providing a loss of housing density for the City. Generally, development in this area is consistently built at the R-7 level, with smaller lots and single-family homes. 2. In 1986, the City Council approved a change in designation and zoning of Albertsons property at Durham Road and Highway 99 from High Density Residential (R-40) to C-G. In 1987, city planning staff recommended 7 sites 1 ' Matrix Plan Change,Rezone, PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 18 ' for "upzoning" to make up for the loss in 400 housing units. Three of the seven sites were approved by the City Council, refer to Figure D, Map of 1987 Density Transfer Sites. To date, those sites have been partially developed. The R-4 5 portion of the applicant's site was included as Site F, and recommended by City Planning Staff for upzoning from R-4.5 to R-7. There was limited testimony in opposition to this site. The Planning Commission and City Council denied the change based on following findings which are cited here from the minutes of the March 3, 1987 Planning Commission meeting: "1) Inadequacy of transportation in the area, lack of bus service; 2) need to ' preserve R-4.5 zoning; 3) non-compliance with applicable locational criteria; 4) reduces the livability of the established areas; 5) impact on the schools would be greater if the above sites [the approved sites] are increased in ' density." These findings are no longer relevant when applied to the R-4.5 portion of the ' applicant's site as follows: a. Transportation facilities have been improved, and will continue to ' improve as development occurs along major arterials. Hall Boulevard is designated as a major collector in the comprehensive plan and Sattler Street as a minor collector, and a designated pedestrian and bicycle ' right-of-way with long stretches of improved sidewalks. The R-4.5 site has direct access onto Sattler Street. Hall Boulevard has been designated as a transportation corridor in the Metro 2040 Framework Plan. Tri-Met provides bus service along hall Boulevard with routes #76, with service all day, including 15 minute service during peak ' commute times. b. There were no reasons given as to WHY the city needed to preserve R- 4.5 zoning, just this one sentence finding. This R-4.5 area is "sandwiched" between R-12 and R-7, with the majority of the surrounding area being developed at approximately 7 units per acre. ' C. The locational criteria for this area to be designated medium density and R-7 are met as follows: direct access to a minor collector, no ' development limitations, public facilities are available immediately, public transit is available, convenience retail is available at the corner of SW Hall and Durham Road, approximately 1/4 mile to the south, ' and public open space is available at Cook Park, Durham Elementary School, Fanno Creek Greenway, and Tigard High School. Matrix Plan Change,Rezone,PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 19 d. The proposed R-7 development will not reduce the quality of life for the surrounding area. The proposed combination of rezones is anticipated to result in one fewer dwelling unit than the R-12 and R-4.5 ' zoning, the PD overlay allows for public review and comment on the subdivision (street and lots) layout, and the surrounding area is already developed with R-7 developments. e. Impact on the schools is likely to be less with the proposed small lot ' and small homes proposed by the applicant. The anticipated number of housing units is basically the same for the revised zoning as for the current zoning. ' Inconsistency/Mistake in City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan (19831 ' As the Chronology in Figure C shows, this property was annexed into the city in 1982, as a portion of the Durham Island annexation, per Portland Boundary Commission Final Order 1820. When the Tigard City Council initiated this ' annexation with the Boundary Commission in 1981, in Resolution 81-93 (Figure D) it included an automatic rezone provision into Section 3 of the Resolution: ' "Section 3: Upon annexation the zones will be changed from Washington County "RU-4" to the Tigard comprehensive Plan designation of "R-5" and "R-7" Urban Low Density. See attached Figure D for listing by lot number of the zoning." Exhibit B ' and the attached map show the area currently zoned R-4.5 as R-7 and the area zoned R-12 as R-5. ' At that time, R-5 meant 5,000 square foot lots, and R-7 meant 7,000 to 7,500 square foot lots. However, when the comprehensive map was adopted in 1983, the zoning ' for the site was R-4.5 (matching the old R-7) and R-12 (NOT matching the previously zoned R-5, which should have been changed to R-7 -- 5,000 square foot lots). As of March 12, 1996, city staff could not find any official record, ordinance, map or ' findings showing the rezone action to R-4.5 and R-12. Since this was during the time when the Comprehensive Plan was being developed, it is likely that the mapping of part of tax lot 100 and tax lot 300 was done in error. Matrix Plan Change,Rezone,PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 20 ' FIGURE C ' CHRONOLOGY OF ZONING ON SATTLER FARM 1 1980 Washington County Zoning is RU-4 1981 Tigard Ordinance 81-93 initiates the island annexation of the Durham Island including the Sattler property. This ordinance also rezones the area "upon annexation" to R-5* and R-7*, as shown on the attached map. ' 1983 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map is adopted with the property zoned as R-12 and R- 4.5, designated medium density and low density. ' 1986 Albertsons zone change approved by the City Council resulting in the loss of 400 dwelling units. City staff recommends 1987 Study and action by the Planning Commission and City Council to upzone 7 sites to regain the lost units. One of the sites (Site F) was the western portion (R-4.5 section) of the Sattler site, which city staff recommended be upzoned to R-7. ' 1987 Tigard Planning Commission and City Council recommend and approve upzoning of 3 g g sites (as shown on Figure E). These sites are all located along Highway 99, one is in the Tualatin River flood plain (outside city limits), and two have slope restrictions. ' 1996 None of the upzoned sites is developed. ' *The original R-5 = minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and R-7 = minimum lot size of 7,000 to 7,500 square feet. Matrix Plan Change,Rezone,PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 21 � r Figure D-1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ' RESOLUTION No. 81-_q:�_ A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL INITIATING ANNEXATION AND REQUESTING ' AN ANNEXATION REQUEST BE FORWARDED TO THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION (Short Title - Durham-Island) . ---------- ------------------ ------------------------------- ------ ------------ - ' WHEREAS, annexation to the City of Tigard territory so bounded as noted on Exhibit "A" would constitute a "minor boundary change" under the boundary commission law, ORS 199.410 to 199.510 and, ' WHEREAS, by authority of ORS 199 .490 (1) (a) the Common Council of the City may initiate the annexation, ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Tigard, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon at a regular meeting held. on August 10, 1981 that: ' Section 1: The Council, pursuant to ORS 199.490 (1) (a) hereby initiates proceedings for annexation of the territory to the City. ' Section 2: The Council hereby approves the proposed annexation and requests the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission to approve it. Section 3: Upon annexation the zones will be changed from Washington County "RU-4" to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan designation of "R-5" and "R-7" Urban Low Density. See attached Exhibit "B" for listing by lot number of the zoning. Section 4 : The City Recorder is hereby directed to file a certified copy ' of the Resolution with the Commission at once . DATED this �_ day of y�1�� Sy 1981. ' Mayor ' ATTEST: IJ/ Recorder �^ ' RESOLUTION; No. Page 22 Figure D-2 Proposed Zoning and Comprehensive Plan DesignatZon Upon Annexation P g TAX MAP 2S1 11D TAX MAP 2S1 12B LOT #�t1000' R-5 Urban Low Density LOT # 3400 R-7 Urban Low DF 1002 it3500 it ' 1100 it 3600 If 41001 R-7 Urban Low Density 3601 " 3603 " ' TAX MAP 2S1 12BC 3604 If " LOT # 100 R-7 Urban Low Density 3700 " 200 to to 3800 " It 300 it to3900 Itif 400 it if4100 it 500 if is4200 it 600 to it4300 it 700 of 4400 it It 800 " It 4500 " It 900 " 4601 " ' 1000 It if4602 to If 1100 to it4603 toif 1200 it to 5000 of to 1300 to If5101 " ' 1400 If " TAX MAP 2S1 12C 2E.1 12C CONTINUED LOT # 3400 R-5 Urban Low Density LOT # 1401 R-7 Urban Low Der 3402 " " 1402 If 3500 Is 111500 if 3600 It of 1600 3700 it of1700 " 3800 to1701 " 3900 it1800 " ' 4001 ": 1801 " 4002 111900 If " 4003 " If 1901 it It ' 4004 It of2000 if It 4100 to is2100 isit 4200 if2200 Ifit 4300 it " 2203 if of 4400 It2300 itit 4500 " " 2301 It It4600 is 112400 Itif 4701 " 112500 if it 200 R-7 Urban Low Densitv 2600 It If 300 2700 " ' 400 2800 " 500 2801 " 600 2802 " 700 " ' 790 " 800 " 900 " l 1000 " J 1101 IfIf 1400 i Page 23 1 Prop Figure D-3 os a I No. 10,40 SE%4 -'ff ll 72S RIW WM i TIGAR i M Y Y .\ i ov s v Z ^ A 1 11fL'•''� ti Y 0 -_ 7 i 1: u !o �c = AREA TO BE ANNEXED 03 7 O ;o � N o r v :: r m 1m O A .J CJ I � O I: .n .� I I — S n • _ as i .. - ...z PROPOSAL NO . 1820 — --" ' CITY OF TIGARD �i�o a •� z se=` ,�� ANNEXATION � FIGURE �IA H ' Page 24 Figure D- v � t. ' r1 zr,_�7_�, – I1 Q 1 it L I I ; Lj I —_� -rt� �I ' J-•` --..... ,`V -----_- I I + rte � \ �� _.. �i _— I '�] j•P' LJ L1 L LZ nT r ` I PARR , ,yfj/ �,L-.,,y,♦ ' ' , Page 25 /• �� –(,('� %:`4y< /� /% i; %�/%-ii-jj�j i �'.•;:/_;�h�.i.j:� / %% UP Vwx opi% ARLES F. ARD G R-25 EC ENT E RR 'R 2 Of= f�=12 ///// •a.�: .tet---�-- �--- _� I-�'L: � _'_'� 7AL TI JUNIOR rF�� - :1i j= '. SCHOOL i.. E � EE -�;eo(«j�Y—.l-::••t_��EMPLETON r F�-25 _ ,--I-_- -1-ri /;, NENTARY I '•`�Q'�.+ / PD I �1 '']-T\-1--L'_,- -i—�JL-- -�I CH00� - L Ed , C-G ; I \L ��_ CJ I - HIIGARDSC 2 55 Figure a/ „ ,/ /, /�•�/��j jam"� �.:.:,=°�':+�•f; >'.''�—"':c."'.="z3��,..-F. COOK PARK 7;.Up�� � ,$i#es Page��,; g 26 VI. CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA Policy 12.1.1 of the Comprehensive Plan establishes criteria for residential housing ' densities. The implementing strategies in that part of the Plan describe low density and medium density locational requirements. Response: This application for medium density designation of 19 acres of land meets those locational criteria for Medium Density Residential from the ' Tigard Comprehensive Plan as follows: 1. Although the area is designated for low density development, it is almost totally surrounded by single family, medium density residential development (at R-7 level). 2. Transportation facilities are adequate. The medium density site will have direct access to Sattler Street and is adjacent to Hall Boulevard. Hall Boulevard is designated as a major collector in the comprehensive ' plan and Sattler Street as a minor collector, and a designated pedestrian and bicycle right-of-way with long stretches of improved sidewalks. The R-4.5 site has direct access onto Sattler Street. Hall Boulevard has been designated as a transportation corridor in the Metro 2040 Framework Plan. r3. There are no development limitations and public facilities are available immediately. 4. Public facilities are available and have the capacity to serve this site. 5. Tri-Met provides bus service along hall Boulevard with routes #76, with service all day, including 15 minute service during peak commute times. 6. Low density residential development to the north is buffered by Sattler Street, a minor collector. Low density residential development to the south of the area will be buffered through implementation of the city's Density Transition Policies (Development Code 18.40.040). Density Range Criteria 1. Density in the surrounding area is at the R-7 level, which is the proposed zoning. Matrix Plan Change,Rezone, PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 27 . 2. Topography and natural features of the area do not restrict the degree of buffering for adjacent low density developments. ' 3. Services are available to serve the proposed R-7 zone. 4. Public transit is available within less than 1/4 mile from the proposed R-7 zoning. 5. Convenience retail is available at the corner of SW Hall and Durham rRoad approximately 1/4 mile to the south. 6. Public open space is available at Cook Park, Durham Elementary School, Fanno Creek Greenway, and Tigard High School. Spacing and Location The proposed R-7 development will not reduce the quality of life for the surrounding ' area. The proposed combination of rezones is anticipated to result in one more dwelling unit than the R-12 and R-4.5 zoning, the PD overlay allows for public review and comment on the subdivision (street and lots) layout, and the surrounding area tis already developed with R-7 developments. Access The site has direct access from the south on SW 88th Avenue which will eventually extend north through the site and connect to Sattler Street. Impact Assessment The proposed residential concept conforms with the City's criteria for impact assessment. The scale, design, configuration and function of the conceptual development is compatible with surrounding uses. The final site design will provide landscape screening, building orientation, and ' parking and circulation layout to maintain the privacy of residents and adjacent properties. Sidewalks and landscaping are also provided to assure compatibility. The proposed development strengthens the owner-occupied nature of housing in the area, by providing reasonably priced single family homes close-in to Tigard activity centers such as schools and retail. The proposal also supports Transportation Planning Rule objectives by using "neo-traditional" site design of streets and alleys to serving residential uses. Matrix Plan Change,Rezone, PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 28 0 0 VII. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND FINDINGS Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Public notice for the hearing on this application will be provided through the City of Tigard's notification procedures. The public will have an opportunity to review the application and staff report in advance of the public hearing and provide testimony at the hearing. In compliance with City requirements, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting to discuss the project on March 19, 1996; approximately 75 members of the public, the developer and project consultants were in attendance. Goal 2: Land Use Planning The plan amendment application includes a thorough factual base that demonstrates the need and justification for the proposed amendment. This factual information includes a review of historical residential zone changes and comprehensive plan amendments initiated by the City of Tigard in 1987 and research into the original rezoning of this property following its annexation into the city in 1982. As well, the application demonstrates how the amendment complies with the City of Tigard's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan policies and the Community Development Code. Goal 3: Agricultural Lands This goal is not applicable due to the fact that the proposed residential use is located within the City of Tigard's acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary. ' Goal 4: Forest Lands This goal is not applicable due to the fact that the proposed residential use is located within ' the City of Tigard's acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary. ' Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and 'Natural Resources There are two small wetland areas identified on the Zoning map (F-11 and F-12) totaling approximately 0.78 acres (according to the City's local wetlands inventory). The local wetlands inventory describes the wetland areas as "agricultural ponds" and notes there is"no adjacent vegetation" that shrubs are "totally grazed by cattle," that emergent vegetation is "not recognizable," and that the ponds are "severely impacted by cattle". The change in plan designation and zoning will not directly affect the wetland areas, which will be addressed in accordance with local, state and federal during the development process. The applicant wishes to have a Planned Development (PD) overlay attached to the site, which would allow development to occur while preserving any significant natural areas, in 1 Matrix Plan Change,Rezone,PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 29 accordance with implementation strategy 2, (Policy 3.4.2) "the City shall encourage, through the Planned Development Process, the retention of large, varied habitat areas on private and public lands including inventoried plant and animal communities," page II-17 in the Comprehensive Plan. There are no areas on-site subject to erosion, slope, floodplain or other natural resource limitations. Further the proposed development will be designed to ensure that there are no adverse impacts to off-site resources. For complete findings on Statewide Planning Goals, see Section VIII of this application. ' Goal • Air Water and Land Resources Quality ' This goal is not applicable, as the plan amendment from low density residential to medium density residential and a "trade" in rezoning two areas of the site will not have a significant impact to air, water or land resource quality. The proposed residential development densities are basically the same to those allowed without these changes. The proposed residential development will conform with all applicable federal, regional and City of ' Tigard development codes to protect air and water quality and control erosion. Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards ' This goal is not applicable due to the fact that there is no existing hazard, and the area is subject to the same risk of natural disaster as other commercial sites in the vicinity. The proposed residential subdivision will comply with all applicable building, fire and life safety codes of the City of Tigard and Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District. The area is not located within a flood plain. ' Goal 8: Recreational Needs This goal is not applicable due to the fact that the proposed medium density residential land use designation and zoning "trade" will result in one fewer dwelling units and will not ' adversely impact the supply or demand for recreational lands in the planning area. Goal 9: Economic Development ' The proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change will enable development of affordable single-family homes in Tigard. This development can serve as an attraction to diversify Tigard's residential base. Matrix Plan Change,Rezone,PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 30 Goal 10: Housing The application demonstrates that the plan amendment will not significantly impact housing supply in the City of Tigard. The City will maintain compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660, Division 7) upon application approval. The rule requires that the City maintain an inventory of developable residential land providing a housing mix of at least 50% multiple family dwellings and an overall minimum average density of 10 units per acre. With approval of the plan amendment and rezone, the City will continue to be in compliance with the Metropolitan Housing,Rule and meet projected housing needs. The total number of units that can be built on the site if it is rezoned to R-7 = 191, while the total number of units that could be built under the existing zoning = 190 units. The change from R-12 to R-7 reduces multi-family housing potential on a portion of the site by approximately 86 dwellings, but replaces these with 47 single family units. The change from R-4.5 to R-7 increases single-family potential by 39 units. The net difference is zero (1) additional single-family unit to the site. The reduction in multi-family units is deemed to be insignificant due to the fact that the actual housing density is increased and the change represents less than 0.5% of the City's housing opportunity index; the City maintains an inventory of 13,730 potential housing units and 1,313 acres of developable ' residential land, providing an overall density of 10.46 units per acre (Ray Valone, City of Tigard Community Development Department, Preapplication meeting, February 19, 1996). Based on the following model, the net addition of 1 dwelling to the housing inventory results in no change to the city's overall density rate. ' Density Calculation The development code specifies a method for computing allowable residential density (18.92 Density Computations). The code requires a calculation of buildable land with deductions for public right-of-way, private streets, existing development, sensitive land areas, and park and other public land dedications. Residential development potential is determined by multiplying the "net" buildable area by the maximum allowable housing density per zone district. Density may also be limited indirectly by minimum lot size, setbacks, landscaping and density transition standards. For demonstration purposes, it is reasonable to assume that approximately 20% of the subject single family (R-4.5) and 15% of the multiple family (R-12) site would be used for public right-of-way, private streets, water quality facilities and other dedications, as required by the City. Based on this assumption and the above methodology, redesignation of the 8.5 acre site from R-12 to R-7 causes a reduction to the housing inventory by a total of 43 dwelling units, but the change of 19 acres of R-4.5 to R-7 represents in increase of 44 units, for a net change of one additional unit. Matrix Plan Change,Rezone,PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 31 Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services Public facilities are available and adequate to serve the subject property with the proposed residential densities. There will be no substantial impact to public service capacity with medium density residential use (with R-7 zoning). Any required public facility improvements will be addressed during site development review. Goal 12: Transportation ' A trip generation chart has been prepared and is included in the application. This analysis shows there will be no significant impact to the transportation system and that the current road functional classifications are appropriate on the adjacent road system. The primary transportation facilities that will be affected by the proposed plan amendment include the following: 1. SW Hall Boulevard is designated as a major collector, and is not developed to the full right-of-way width at this time. Hall Boulevard is served by Tri-Met route number 76 with a regular schedule. 2. Sattler Street is already designated as a minor collector, and is appropriately designed to handle trips generated by the proposed medium density development. Access to the-medium density area will be directly onto Sattler Street, and the developer will comply with access improvements required by the city. Sidewalks will be built along Sattler Street, acknowledging the pedestrian and bicycle function served by this street. 3. SW 88th Avenue will eventually connect at Sattler Street in accordance with engineering standards for safe intersection design and City standards for intersection spacing. Table A shows that there will be a slight decrease (20 trips per day) in the number of daily trips from the proposed comprehensive plan designation change, zone change and PD overlay. This proposed development will include transit and pedestrian friendly design features such as small lots, clustered housing, pedestrian and bicycle accessways and streets that will provide connectivity to existing streets. The applicant will conform to all conditions made at the development review stage. The plan amendment and zone change will support public transit service by providing for development of neo-traditional, transit-oriented residential development along an established transit route (Hall Boulevard). The proposed development will include sidewalks, landscaping and appropriate lot orientation to encourage pedestrian access to nearby transit and pedestrian facilities. Matrix Plan Change,Rezone, PD Overlay March 28, 1996 Page 32 Transportation Planninz Rule (OAR 660-12-0601 The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) chapter regarding Land Use amendments states as follows: (1) Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with identified function, capacity, and level-of- service of the facility. This shall be accomplished by either: a) Limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned function, capacity, and level-of-service of the transportation facility... b) Amending the Transportation System Plan (TSP) to provide adequate transportation facilities to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division, or C) Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes. (2) A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it: C) Allows types and levels of land uses which would result in level of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility. (3) Determinations under subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall be coordinated with the affected transportation facility and service providers and other affected local governments. Table A shows the projected number of vehicle trips using ITE standards and a factor to account for the proposed smaller houses and higher density. The analysis shows that there will be a slight reduction (20 fewer trips per day) if the area is rezoned to R-7 and given the PD overlay. Land Division and development of the site will meet requirements of the TPR. Goal 13: Energy Conservation Residential development of the site will be basically the same with the new zoning and ' medium density designation. The Planned Development overlay may allow a higher density development, which will allow more residents close-in to schools and retail areas Matrix Plan Change,Rezone,PD Overlay March?8, 1996 Page 33 I in the southwest Tigard area and assist in minimizing the distance people will need to travel to shop or go to school. The site is located on a major transit route and future retail activity will be readily accessible by transit as well as the local sidewalk system. Goal 14: Urbanization This goal is not applicable due to the fact that the proposed residential land use designation is located within Tigard's acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary. Sufficient market ' demand is present within the existing Urban Growth Boundary to support the proposed medium density residential designation and small lot residential single family development. VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis and findings, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change should be approved. The application meets all applicable criteria for approval, including City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies, development code standards and Statewide Planning laws. The primary points include: ► There was an error in the zoning map for the eastern portion of the site. There does not appear to be a record of a decision nor finding that this area was tlegislatively rezoned to R-12. The original zoning adopted by the City Council upon annexation was R-5 (5,000 square foot lots), which should have beer, changed to R-7, not R-12, when the City revised its zoning district naming practices. ► nearby R-12 areas has occurred at R-7 densities or Actual development patterns in ear y lower). This physical development leaves what would essentially be an "island" of low density land adjacent to multi-family land. Such a contrast*in densities is not consistent with the City's Density Transition Policies and standards. ► Because of the 1986 rezoning of the Albertsons property at SW Durham Road and Highway 99, there was a physical change in circumstance that affects this property. The city council rezoned three sites in 1987 in an effort to make up for the lost potential for 400 housing units. These sites have been partially developed with residential multi-family units. The western portion of the applicant's site was recommended for upzoning by City staff in 1987, and is now being proposed for R-7 development at this time. The upzone of this portion of the site meets the City's requirements and overcomes objections raised in the 1987 upzone process, since the applicant proposes a "trade" in zoning districts, with no net increase in' density for the entire site. Matrix Plan Change,Rezone, PD Overlay Manch 28, 1996 Page 34 f � � fATTACH LENTS fA. Comprehensive Plan Map B. Zoning Map f C. Legal Description fD. Pre-Application Notes fE. Other Application Materials 1. Application Form f2. Assessor's Map NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Section H, T2S R01W) fF. Neighborhood Meeting Summary 1. Mailing Lists and Affidavits 2. Posting Affidavit f3. Sign-in List and Mailing List of Interested Parties f4. Issues Raised at Meeting 5. Letter of Support 1 1 1 1 1 1 _s Matrix Plan Change,Rezone,PD Overlay March 22, 1996 Page 35 1 1 ■moi; ■ �r�e �,� �ISMitems ,■. =�ntt tlllta►� °� . �. ■ �■ ■®��■ ■a n' 11M,all E® III - ■ \.�' i i�lf�,\ �I '11 �■� �� ��®® f�� ! „�� ��■ .. - �.�IIII SIA■ iii■ • CT • R�ial -®��■ ®®®■ ®� VIII ■. o►.�1/■■,.�� ■►� ROSS � ������a���: `• a �r �s �- :1�������ll;■� �- -� -LIr ��� r'. �\EI iCiGfiia�1111 '• ��n� �t�® ■ 0 ■ ■■� I.�� ,•i.i r ;■n:, .o ■ai . ���� Ile o��l;'��i)j�.1 ■�in''- un�e `� �► . � � .i ■� �,r� �� � � 111 ■■��mu�1P�,, r �� 111111 ■■■■Qi■ i�i�{i. Ups ' •��i r-. _ ■•■6► /II. r.. ��� i_/� ►J `t �1 a �® of ,, ,���� • ���►Q •+ +�;��: .iVil�H� s�i►/ I�GCI::1111 : ,�..� Millig ■,AGi� � ••�:. �� ��.����'~O� :� � ���� �%�IIIr -1����11�1_ � =� �Ols�ll TIGARD HIGH SCfl*00L ME PUB -ago rl ■ �� .!� �� � __ ,���e �a -�� .. � RRA*,IIIIIIEI 11� �Illlol �,:. 1t�ann is - ••�"� � � • '� � `� C�a�a■ sklilllllll i� ■■■� _ �j� 11!!11 �n�t� `�i���; l�Q�i �� :::�:�� � � � ��' � ia� �7T� e, tZs .. . • �... • ® ■ �;�' j: 11111111 Grp a��� �.®y �����>, .�■ INSISM . . _� r a r • r • Attachment B / - CITY OF TIGARD ZONING MAP R-12: 12 units per acre (3,050 sq.ft. minimum lot size) \ i R-7: 5,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size - �� R-4.5: 7,500 sq.ft. minimum lot size — /PD: Planned Development j 'r- RPS 4-a TiG AID® SCALE: 1 inch = 800 feet CIT ` L �f4UNICIPQ COURT �5 �: `�1 NORTH TIGAP�. ®`;SENIOR ' CENTER �j I_ - j •� I I—P ���� !T' T1-jI f. I -xT-��~j__I I J l./c• O�L�� r-..5 �r �>� __.—_—_. _I_� ; c7• I—� t2—.. µ r � y = ` UIk4:c � 1`'tt ` . '� Y ~\ JEL TWALITY � � I � �I JUNIOR '_ ----- �� LI r I HIGH _L SCHObL I^' `�—{ m �_; J '_�- M�RI�'r i7 [I,�.I."' 'I LE —f1�J 'MPLETTON II=ENTARE I� Sattler Street Rt--17i�,' �'F:, i'-•mss � i. (PD)`! _ I-PSite �r ....� 14 A _ ---_ Durham Street TIGARD . f � 12 HIGH SCHOOL R11 i, 3 ��C fTARY cS:DHOO . — 1 Ii rx �1±-j .-I USA TRCATv.E„T Li --- )\ tP,� :CLQ'qt\'1 DT 4.� FLA'IT E -� I—P �jIX ���J'� �-; -••�: E_�, -_R-�2 ._ MINE -- -. I-P DUR� �I Order No. 785675 Attachment C-1 i REVISED EXHIBIT "A' PARCEL I: Commencing at the Southwest corner ofie parcel of land in Deed dated April 8, 1890, recorded in Book 28, page 62, Deed {accords of Washingt,.h County, Oregon; thenoe Eaet 6.71+/4 ohainc to a atako; thonoo North 8.331/3 chains to a stake;thence Weft 5.711/4 chains to a stake;thence South 8.33+4 chains to the place of beginning, being part of Donation Ld id Claim of Solomon and Elizabeth Richardson, in Section 11, ' Tnwnship 2 South, Randa 1 West, of the"lWillamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon. I; PARCELII: A part of the Donation Land Claim of St bon and Elizabeth Richardson in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon lying ini Section 11, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian, commencing Ext a point 16.68%bhalno North of 17.15 chain$Wcst of the Southeast corner of said Section 11, running thence North 15.3 ;6hains; thence West 5.71+/4 chains; thence South 16.36%chains; thence East 5.711/4 I chains to the place :beginning. I ' PARCEL III: Commencing at the Northwest corner ofithat certain tract of land conveyed by J. T. Ruffing and Martha A. Ruffing,'husband and wife, unto Anton Sattler and Mary Sattler, by Deed dated May 29, 1909 and recorded June 2nd, 1909 in Book 83, page 212, CSaed Records, in Section 11, Township 2 South, Range i West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon; running thence Easterly along the Northerly line of said tinct 200 feet to a point; thence South 100 feet, more ur le", lU a point;thence Westerly and parallel with tl e Northerly line of said 200 feet to a point; thence North 10o feet, more or less, to a point In the Northerly line of said tract. PARCEL IV: Commencing on the East line of the Salomon and Elizabeth Richardson Donation tend Claim, twenty-five (25) chains North of the Southeast cornerof Section 11,Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon and running thence West 17,15 ' chains;thence North 8.031h chains: thence East 17.15 chains to the East line of said Donation Land Claim; thence South 8.031A chains to the place i5f beginning, EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Northerly 1 oo feet of the Westerly 200 feet thereof. EXCEPTING THERr=;'ROM a parcel of la' i in the Southeast one quarter of Section 11, Townehip 2 South Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridla�!In the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, being more particularly described as folr'ows: Beginning at a point that bears North 01156' East, along the East line of said Section 11, 287.40 feet from the Southeast corner of that certain parcel conveyed by need recorded in Book 83, page 212, Washington County Records of Deeds; thence continuing along said East line, North o°56' East 105.0 feet to a point; ' thence North 88'48' West 158.0 feet to a polnt; thence South u,58'West 105.0 feet to a point;thence South 88°48' East 156.0 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, the East 30,0 feet in State Highway 217. !I ' PARCEL_ V: A parcel of land In the Southeast one quarter of Section 11, Township 2 South, Rnnfla 1 Wafit, of the ' Willamette Meridian, in the City. of Tigzird, County of Washington and State of Oregon, being more particularly described as follows: 11 ,i Beginning at a point that bears North 040' East, along the East line of said Section 11, 287.40 feet from ' the Southeast comer of that certain parol conveyed by Deed recorded in Book 83, page 212, Washington County Records of Deeds; thence conbq,'0ing along said East line, North 0°56' East 105.0 feet to a point; thence North 8848'Weat 760.0 feet to a oint;thence South 0`50'West 105.0 feet to a point;thence South ' 88°48' East 156.0 feet to the point of tU!glnn(ng. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, the East 30.0 feet in State Highway 217. I I THIS MAP IS FURNISHED AS A CONVENIENCE IN LOCA rs ,. ., I;R c ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY VARIATIONS AS MA TING PROPERTY AND THE COMPANY IIY 8E DISED BY ACTUAL,SURVEY ' First Artrlcan T' rtle Insurarrc, Company of Oregon ' SA frsumed Dua/ne;s nem.Qt VTLE WSURAN-,rCOMPANY OF OR GGOH 2S 11�J 1700 S.W. FOURTH AVE.. PORTL,�ND, OR 97201-5512 ?1DA (reduced map) (503) 222-365.4 LC SATTLER STREET''' S I ' r.r•,,��(f I I +iP�L� �I 100 .r.r.r.r r \Mr I I w 7 I � IIII � �``,� ;; - �• S i 1 _� PPR � iSEE I.ICP � 25 I n:p Attachment C-2 1 � • ATTACHMENT D Preapplication Meeting Notes 1 Comprehensive Plan Change, Rezoning, and Planned Development Overlay for the Matrix Development (Sattler Property) 1 February 20, 1996, Tigard City Hall 1 Attending: City of Tigard: Ray Valone, Mark Roberts, Nels ' Matrix Development: Larry York W&H Pacific: Laura Jackson, Chris Eaton Items covered: Laura reviewed the proposal to change zoning on three tax lots from R-12 and R-4.5 to R-7. ' Larry talked about the type of development his firm wants to build, and noted they are not interested in multi-family development, and would prefer to build one single family development ' over the entire site. He plans to build a neo-traditional, detached single family development. Laura asked about the best timing of applying for the PD overlay and city staff said concurrent application with rezone, etc. would be fine. Ray reviewed timeframe for public hearing once application is submitted. The planning ' commission hearing would probably be in 3-4 months, and is not covered by 120 day requirement. Mark reviewed notification process for neighborhood meeting. He gave out handouts with ' samples, and directed the applicant to provide notice to the South CIT representatives and property owners within 250 feet of area. This meeting must occur prior to submitting the application. Ray discussed strategies to address the City's criteria for comprehensive plan changes, including what constitutes"physical change". Ray gave some information about the property's history, ' including the ordinance and zoning map that initiated the annexation, which appeared to have a mistake. Ray suggested that the applicant analyze traffic impacts prior to the neighborhood meeting, and be sure to address the Transportation Planning Rule in the application. The City staff noted that ' in site planning, they would want SW 88th Avenue to connect through the development to Sattler. Ray talked about Tigard's current balance of housing units to meet the Metro housing rule. Attachment E-1-1 � CITY OF T Zd� IGARO, OREGON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Bos 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639-4171 FOR -STAFF USE ONLY CASE N0. C)>,A ?C-Ooo Z2,Aj %-Ovv3 OTHER CASE NO'S: ' RECEIPT NO. APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE: 3 (A 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elements submitted: PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION SW Hall Boulevard and \, (A) Application form (1) ' SW Sattler Street V" (B) Owner's signature/written TAR MAP AND TAR LOT N0. NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Section authorization ' T2S R01W Tax Lots: 100, 200, 300 r/(C) Applicant's statement SITE SIZE 27.5 Acres (pre-app check list) PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* See attached owner's list ,/(D) Filing fee ADDRESS `PHONE Additional information for Compre- CITY ZIP sivePlan Map Amendments/Zone Changes APPLICANT* Matrix Development V/(E) Maps-indicating property ADDRESS 6900 SW Haines PHONE 120-8080 location (pre-app check list) ' CITY Tigard, OR ZIP 97223 11"__(F) List of property owners and *When the owner and the applicant are differentaddresses within 250 feet (1) people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record ,/"(G) (G) Assessor's Kap (1) or a leasee in possession with written authorization { (H) Title transfer instrument (1) from the owner or an agent of the owner with written ' authorization. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on page two or submit a written authorization with this application. DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE: 2. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (if COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION: ' applicable) from low density to medium density res P-4•S 19 aS Fw„ and a Zone Change from R-12 and R 4.5 to rN�D- �s,� ��-►2 �� A R-7 �C . OR• LST 1 The applicant requests an amendment to the Planning Commission Approval Date: following sections of the Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Code N/A City Council Approval Date: 0737P 23P ' Rev'd: 5/87 Attachment E-1-2 , 3. List any variance, conditional uses, or other land use actions to be considered as part of this application: Apply Planned Development Overlay ' 4. Applicants: To have a complete application you will need to submit attachments described in the attached information sheet at the time you submit this ' application. 5. THE APPLICANT(S)• SHALL CERTIFY THAT: ' A. The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. B. If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights ' granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. ' C. All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the ' applicants - so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any '.such statements are false. D. The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including ' the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. ' DATED this . day of 19 SIGNATURES of h ' enc owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property. p Edward J . Satt er , Jr . ' r Lillian E . Sattler , �-w�•U� ���1 ^-u,7�"tom Lil ian E . Sattler , Trustee , (KSL:pm/0737P) Attachment E-1-3 PROPERTY OWNERS Edward Jacob Sattler, Junior; heir and designee of Agnes Sattler Miller ' (Tax lot 200) II Address: e g o o S ttl, &4V� r wy' 5V KT 9 Z Z L( ' Phone: 2 �1 75 3 ' Lillian E. Sattler, Trustee of the Edward J. Sattler Revocable Living Trust (Tax lot 100) ' l J ' Address: Z S� S° I:t/, f c� V Phone: ' / 2-6 7 2. ' Lillian E. Sattler, Trustee of the Lillian E. Sattler Revocable Living Trust (Tax lot 300) Address: I �� �r 5, C�ll �3/UJ Phone: 67 a i 1 Attachment E-1-4 „ I. R I c ASSUMES NO JILITY FOR ANY VARIATIONS AS MAIM BE DIS&eO BY ACTUAL, SURVEY Fast American Title Insuranc+a Company of Oregon x an 4ssumsd CVJ/n833 nem.Of TITLE tNSURAN =WPANr OF DRrpoN 1700 S.W. FOURTH AVE.. PORTL4,ND, OR 97201-5512 2S .114 11DA (reduced map) (So ) 222- !1 LER 1-1 717 STREET'Im �O 1 3••�-- .,.- { � .. I it l I 1 _ y ooR o SE: MAP 25 i 1W I Am �� a ,•� m i ORI .i yP , 1• QaAo" 1`����+mm �` ^;' ; 23-7`4 '1111 Z: J ' alr ] ` SITE MAP Q i>wo n.co 6 n Z: -1 }e.« u.00, nape 1` � !,' •� i+lo aoo s( � ^'�I aem 1'n«,ibo.�{s'« #�•-s � �i__••••��- o.w SW. u,«�•ss ::� ]s r ma` pxa`,N�' 1 ` s • S' s '>Q., 1 ' WILSON A CRE S •]..STREET, ` ss ' .....�,..�,.. _ ,,.�.�,.,----•a�� ..._.. �. ie;00 1e L ae«4 ` ie Q✓ 4 `n]00•- . ',;VC �:0`0'`Ni.:.YM V • • .u< w I��..i-,.. j nsco0 ,n 1 21'• :sm „ �S j"90 z o>m yy ..« ,"� as o li •' `. /y>> ,<.:le].� w x 2 'Y '�000D � ., I u .1 a> 0K0 ' F- '•:'X- :Ci.p 12 � _+L�•1 W � ' , � Q M.ao n,«1a:« rr« 3•�,rmc� `.. m w I: s• �_ €€� 1990•012 , sp y a? •: : _ :anJ It'p� :\ °s°o_ ''a:o•; fEE ] t x $x! •0 ..n 2 M• N, 1]UO ,1b0, n Cri li iV00 I U*JC. :«:o•� /rT ± , 1 u.c0 CT 3ui v .. Y ' - v'• ua: .x.:o zxo 'I:]a :]a: rl:]]co�� z a :w.-o •wo ' eco _r j w i a. 'sx I .,S";�'.:.la>:„�.C.:i'�• ..e _ ~EET Sattler Street > I„oo� ao� .,,Y » ,arm .bo cap'• b am - 1II` :....... IG 0 0 D �A C ZON E C30V N pftfL'( is 7-:T q-, Y 23-74 m •� 'w a '�S.w p; 'atl. .:, � ` �. \ i' !! ...... -.. .•. . >o« ... ai«la•z a>«'a�i:a« xa•esa I S. sao j >���_�__�____..____���j I' �«` sao � •a' � II ^na,o moo ni:zeoo f`}.r�'°0° •occ ' I46 `/f SL;z Yq 3ccfio,,2: T25 R IW O -DRIVE K„•Y DRIVE- !•e",00�o, `• II o,y� �n t - KENrON �� @ `• 4.?�� >ra _ �'°'°° >:c - j�� � I17 as � •,Lc, .;oe�..«•.:mwaacciu>o e«•_ n .a z�o�•«o. .r-_ z ✓ PO;.,! 11I S' =.. .ao J. oa � 23 I � � ”' ! � .,m Je.i n fl YI ss 1 n s+ s: I•x � * i 'o t'n t 't. � - i _ 'n w ` • �1/' L� .m f° , e>r. K ai.,c3,� .:« ^,s•;o :'« ,eo0� 3 i-„ ; /�J•2 ...'._yn "_�^c -S1= i - Al 'S"e _ Js°s3't��” a,- a`'c •t. T 1>_—>.- ' ' 1 i - i f'7 ,..n j - twm-f�•sx 8_�nc�• '_ i aioo .000 .,00 1.`aco 'a°°+o'..'on �� +y"'�� a>oo l 1TQ ' a 1 t>.tn L¢ �.... .r - Z ��iomo>, . ao;•sa,o,p �.o• : la Si`G a[sL� •i aom S sao t:�-' �+`'b.°z S .r� v ••xo ,su L += S.W. += I LJ z r �; 1 1 0 •s.f ai ca �3, --, ' Sia � 3 g,]op'LI I ' ...•"''oe, ..I7 •• F •�° � � � •� • .� ,�' ]�° i �•- r: �_�,«� .ix = E, Y. .,, Je'•• `�" {AMLET ly 4. FiAMLETj, a t 6¢ _-J1 115 fD✓t S' ✓ �D. e000 app Y«" am �0 {L�TAO aseG D00 ] W I/00 > 1 J A Northy .. " nao wpo f •?'.00 a 'off ' w>ao „ -_ 2 o •� ,` a000 ,_ COURT . " • Syt-•EP _ �' ,,,, SCaIP, •Ao I pVON , ��Y S J' ' �• G p STREET I `n rn ���� LAnKhc�wr