Loading...
Hearings Officer Packet - 01/23/19950 0 CITY Of TIGARD OREGON PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Planning Commission meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 323 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above. (SEE OTHER SIDE FOR AGENDA) TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER - 1123195 PAGE 1 OF 2 i CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER JANUARY 23, 1995 - 7:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 CONDITIONAL USE CUP 94-0009 ST. JAMES EPISCOPAL CHURCH LOCATION: 11511 SW Bull Mountain Road (WCTM 2S1 1013D, tax lot 100). A request for Conditional Use approval to allow the addition of an acolytes preparation room and small chapel to an existing sanctuary, remodel of an existing parish hall for use as handicapped accessible offices and new facility entry and an addition of a two story parish hall/sunday school wing. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.46, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.130 and 18.164. ZONE: R-2 (Residential, 2 units/acre) The R-2 zoning allows single family residential, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming, manufactured homes, family day cares, home occupations, temporary uses and accessory structures. 2.2 CONDITIONAL USE CUP 94-0010 INTERFAITH OUTREACH LOCATION: 8815 SW O'Mara Street (WCTM 2S1 2DB, tax lot 500). A request for Conditional Use approval to allow the operation of a severe weather homeless shelter within the basement of the Tigard Senior Center. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.130, and 18.164. ZONE: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) The R-12 zone allows single family attached/detached residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivisions, public support services, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER - 2/23/95 PAGE 2 OF 2 0 0 R E C E I V E r COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. JAN 1819% `CITY OF IIGARD City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall •Tigard,Oregon STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ass. 0 ? Tearsheet Notice Legal Notice TT 8080 Duplicate Affidavit The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Mon- ! 23 19be at 7:00 ed b 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, TigaP-M., at rd, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 1832 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and Procedures of the Hearings Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter preclu officer- an a appeal, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or C at which a co I, being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 mes and 193.020; published at Tigard aforesaid county and state; that the in the a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 0_ NE successive and consecutive in the following issues: January 12, Subscribed and sworn afore me this arl Not Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising Blvd. 97223-8199 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION cr'tcriOn- Further informtion may be mment is directed precludes an appeal based on that ` ° at 13125 S.W. Hall BI da Tigard, R 97223, or from the Planning Division , - PUBL4C by calling 639-4171, HEARINGS ; CONDITIONAL USE CUP 94-0010 LOCATION: 8815 S . W. ?RFAITI.1O TREACH request for Conditional-se app o13 val to allow the 2S I opea w d' weather homeless shelter within the t lot ere " on of tax x a severe APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIASe om of the Tiger Senior Center. Chap E. 18.54 18.100,18.102 18.]D618,1D8t 18.130?a°d l8C1e ZON: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre), the R-12 zone allows single' family attached/detached residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential ca public re facilities, mobile home parks and support services, family ., uses, and accessory day care, home occupations btempoons, structures among other uses. CONDITIONAL USE CUP 94-0009 ST. JAMES EPISCOPAL CHURCH LOCATION; 11511 S.W, Bull Mountain Road (WCTM 2S1 10BD, tax lot 100), A request for Conditional Use approval to allow the addition of. . an acolytes preparation room and small chapel to an existing sanctuary, remodel of an existing parish fices and hall for use as handicapped new new facility entry and an additi day scho on of a two staccessible of- wing, APPLICABLE REVIEW ry parish hall/Sun- , D evelevelopment Cade Chapters 18.46, 18,lO, munit, ' 18 150, 18.130, and 18.164. apt rsil CRITERIA: Community _ R-2 zoning allows single family esi-2 (Residential 1, p 18 . 1 public' treatment homes, farming , 2 units/acre) The cares, home occupations, tem ' manufactured homes, family facilities, - temporary uses and accessory structures. TT808 ° ' 0 - Publish January 12, 1995. T IA R D H E A R I N G S O F F &E R ..T NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME AND NOTE THEIR ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET. (Please PRINT) 4 1 ? ?? 0 AGENDA ITEM: ' CASE NUMBER(S): Cr (? i OWNER/APPLICANT: r SO) &&Ah & ' 'P)ad LOCATION : w j NpQ 044iBO - DATE OF HEARING / : PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE FAVOR OPPOSE _-??---_-------- Namc LAKIF L 172ott-s f - A.r7i`u t??- T nT- Address 5 to u w 'brRta Fbrt-r zo Address Name h t% &kp .-s Name / Address2-s-Lj tL 1 Address Name Name Address l?SG6 Cc! /?,^. ?? Address r Name Name Address 14 3 Sv) C?QS 'e Address Name Id?S v ?? C? i Name Address lCl 2 6 SW ??1???. ?, Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address NOTICE: AGENDA ITEM: T I& R D H E A R I N G S O F F AE R ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME AND NOTE THEIR ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET. (Please PRINT) ' A CASE NUMBER(S): 6a,p 77 LA-1/D OWNER/APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE OF HEARING: If FAVOR OPPOSE Mama eaz? q"ve'1j N?rnc ?[Y lA ?I!' (`rJo U O,4 Address T? `-eck:Lt_.? D Address L 6 S'b Name IA/ y 7 ZL? Name Address Address Name ame 'address i Address Name ? J? cJt/ V t 1 C? ?/ ??" Name Address Address Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Lp PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE • 0 BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by St. James Episcopal ) FINAL ORDER Church for a conditional use permit to remodel an ) existing church at 11511 SW Bull Mountain Road ) CUP 94-0009 in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (St. James Episcopal Church) 1. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to remodel an existing church by adding an acolytes' preparation room and small chapel to an existing sanctuary, converting an existing parish hall to offices and a new entry, and adding a two-story parish hall and Sunday school wing to the church. The applicant will add 10,190 square feet and remove 1895 square feet for a net addition of 8295 square feet. Hearings Officer Larry Epstein held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the application on January 23, 1995. City staff recommended conditional approval of the permit. The applicant accepted the Staff Report and recommended conditions of approvals except several conditions that require the applicant to make frontage improvements along Bull Mountain Road and to install utilities underground or a pay a fee in lieu thereof. Instead the applicant proposed to defer the frontage improvements and utility work or payment until a local improvement district is formed to improve a larger portion of SW Bull Mountain Road. Four witnesses testified in favor of deferring the road improvements, arguing frontage improvements would be unsafe, inefficient and costly. No one else appeared at the hearing or submitted written testimony about the application. The hearings officer closed the record at the end of the hearing and took the case under advisement. LOCATION: 11511 SW Bull Mountain Road; WCTM 2S 1 10BD, tax lot 100 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density ZONING: R-2 (Residential, 2 units per acre) APPLICANT AND OWNER: St. James Episcopal Church APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code ("CDC") Chapters 19.46,18. 100, 18.102, 18.106 18.108, 18.130, 18.150, and 18.164. Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conditionally approve HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION: ConditionaIly approved 11. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The Hearings Officer incorporates by reference the findings about the site and surroundings in Section II of the City of Tigard Staff Report. III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS The Hearings Officer incorporates by reference the approval standards in Section III of the City of Tigard Staff Report. Page I --- Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 94-0009 (St. James Epsicopal Church) C? N. HEARING, TESTIMONY, AND NPO & AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Hearings Officer Larry Epstein received testimony at the public hearing about this application on January 23, 1995. A record of that testimony is included herein as Exhibit A (Parties of Record), Exhibit B (Taped Proceedings), and Exhibit C (Written Testimony). These exhibits are filed at the Tigard City Hall. 2. City planner Will D'Andrea and engineer Michael Anderson testified for the City. Mr. D'Andrea summarized the staff report and recommendation. In response to comments from Washington County, Mr. Anderson testified that condition of approval 4 is intended to require the applicant to comply with County requirements, but it could be made more clear that the applicant is required to obtain certification of sight distance and to grant a non-access reservation except at approved access points. Mr. Anderson also testified that condition 5 should be modified to require dedication of a storm drain easement for a new catch basin at the northeast corner of the property and access to the easement. 3. Architect Lane Brown testified for the applicant. He accepted the Staff Report and recommended conditions except requirements for frontage improvements and for under grounding power lines in conditions of approval 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9. He submitted seven photographs showing conditions along Bull Mountain Road at the site. a. He argued against street improvements recommended by City staff along Bull Mountain Road (i.e., paving to 22 feet from the centerline of the road with a curb and 6 foot wide sidewalk) for the following reasons. (1) At the east end of the sidewalk, pedestrians would move from the sidewalk to the shoulder at a point with poor sight distance because of trees on the neighbors' property to the east; trees on the property to the east would prevent motorists from seeing pedestrians coming onto the shoulder of Bull Mountain Road from a sidewalk abutting the church property. He argued it is safer for people to walk on the paved shoulder, because they can be seen more easily by traffic. Also, because of the grade difference between the site and the neighboring property to the east, a retaining wail about three feet high would be needed at the end of the walk. (2) At the west end of the sidewalk, there is a catch basin which obstructs its westerly extension. Because there is no street lighting at the site, motorists might fail to see a pedestrian emerging onto the street from the sidewalk or the pedestrian might accidentally walk off the sidewalk into the catch basin. (3) Also he argued, because parking is not allowed along Bull Mountain Road and no bus service is available, the sidewalk would not be usable by pedestrians from vehicle parking or transit access. West of the church is a subdivision of lots with access to streets internal to the subdivision and not to Bull Mountain Road. b. He argued against recommended conditions that the applicant install existing overhead utilities along S.W. Bull Mountain Road underground or pay a fee in lieu of doing so. Existing power poles are located in the edge of the existing paved portion of Bull Mountain Road. They also serve properties across Bull Mountain Road; therefore, either the poles have to be relocated and continue to provide service to the properties across the road, or service to those properties has to be placed underground. If the properties across the street continue to be served by overhead lines for now, when those lines are relocated underground in the future, some of the recommended street and sidewalk improvements would have to be dug-up to accommodate the lines. Page 2 --- Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 94-0009 (St. James Epsicopal Church) 0 0 c. Mr. Brown argued that it would be better to do all of the improvements when adjacent properties develop pedestrian access or when a local improvement district is formed to finance improvements of a larger section of S.W. Bull Mountain Road. 4. Church members John Burgess and John Swiski agreed with Mr. Brown. Mr. Swiski testified he runs along the paved shoulder of Bull Mountain Road regularly, and a brief section of sidewalk abutting the church is not necessary. Church Pastor Douglas Hadley agreed with the other witnesses, and testified that the improvements should be coordinated in a timely manner. The improvements would be costly for the church alone, particularly if the church has to improve the frontage within 200 feet of the site. 5. Mr. Anderson argued the conditions of approval for frontage improvements are required by the CDC, including consideration of improvements necessary within 200 feet of a site, and those improvements cannot be deferred unless it complies with the CDC. Deferring the improvements in this case does not comply with those standards. He argued the cost of improvements is less if those improvements are made privately as part of an adjoining development. He said that the local improvement district (LID) process adds about 30 percent to the costs of improvements. He stated that the sidewalk does not have to be contiguous to the curb, but that it can meander away from the street so that trees can be avoided. That and other design measures can make the ends of the sidewalk safe. He argued the improvements are timely, because the expansion of the church will increase its impact on the road and increase the need for pedestrian features to accommodate them. He noted that surrounding property is developed and does not have direct access to Bull Mountain Road, so the owners of that property have little motivation to join an LID to improve that road. The City and County have no plans to improve Bull Mountain Road. 6. In rebuttal, Mr. Brown repeated concerns about the grade differences between this site and adjacent properties and safe sidewalk endings at the east and west property lines. Mr. Cooper, a neighbor, argued the improvement would be piecemeal and untimely. Mr. Burgess repeated concerns about the high cost of the required improvements. Mr. Anderson noted that the applicants can try to form an LID to pay for the improvements. 7. The hearings officer incorporates by reference the NPO and agency comments in Section IV of the City of Tigard Staff Report. The hearings officer notes that the conditions of approval recommended by City staff do not explicitly include all of the information recommended by Washington County DLUT. V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST 1. City staff recommended approval of the application based on the findings in the Staff Report and subject to conditions of approval as amended at the hearing. The applicant largely accepted the findings and recommended conditions, as amended, without correction or objection. The applicant objected to conditions of approval 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 for the reasons described herein. Washington County DLUT recommended additional conditions. 2. The hearings officer finds that the proposed conditional use permit does or can comply with the applicable standards of the CDC, based on the findings in Section V of the City of Tigard Staff Report, and the following findings. 3. CDC section 18.164.030.A.1 requires an applicant for development to improve streets adjoining the site, including pedestrian and utility improvements. CDC section 18.164.030.A.1.c allows the City to: Page 3 --- Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 94-0009 (St. James Epsicopal Church) • 0 [A]ccept a future improvement guarantee in lieu of improvements if one or more of the following conditions exist: (i) A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design standards; (ii) A partial improvement may create a potential safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians; (iii) Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties, it is unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity; (iv) The improvement would be in conflict with an adopted capital improvement plan; (v) The improvement is associated with an approved land partition on property zoned residential and the proposed land partition does not create any new streets; or (vi) Additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards for the street and the application is for a project which would contribute only a minor portion of the anticipated future traffic on the street. 4. The hearings officer understands and appreciates the arguments by the applicants. The hearings officer finds that those reasons are not sufficient in this case to warrant deferring frontage improvements or payment of a fee in lieu of installing utilities underground for the following reasons. a. The hearings officer finds it is feasible to achieve proper design standards, based on the findings regarding the site, the preliminary site plan and required City review and approval of final plans. Design standards allow for a meandering sidewalk and other adjustments to accommodate natural and developed conditions. The applicant did not show it is infeasible for the applicant to install utilities underground or pay a fee in lieu. b. The hearings officer finds that a partial improvement will not create a potential safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians due to conditions at the east and west edges of the property. The improvements can be designed in a way that provides for pedestrian safety. (1) For instance, clearly visible and secure bollards or other barriers can be installed at the ends of the sidewalk to prevent users from continuing off the end of the sidewalk. The sidewalk can be extended to the curb at the edge of the shoulder on the road. When pedestrians enter the shoulder of Bull Mountain Road from the end of the sidewalk they are not entering a travel lane. They are visible. It is true that they would not be as visible as if they walked along the road shoulder, but that does not mean the transition creates a sight distance hazard. The hearings officer finds pedestrians also are safe on a sidewalk --- even more so than on a shoulder, because of the grade-separated character of a sidewalk. Given the relatively gentle slope of the site frontage and adjoining road sections, the mostly unobstructed views motorists will have of the sidewalk, and CDC requirements for street lighting, the hearings officer finds the sidewalk will not be subject to a sight Page 4 --- Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 94-0009 (St. James Epsicopal Church) 0 0 distance hazard. Motorists have a responsibility to be watchful for pedestrians on the shoulder. The City could require trimming or removal of trees in the right of way if necessary to improve sight distance. The transition from the sidewalk to the shoulder could be situated where sight distance can be maximized, even if the sidewalk does not extend to the edge of the property. (2) Installing utilities underground or paying a fee in lieu thereof does not create a potential safety hazard, because it does not affect sight distance or other characteristics that contribute to motorist or pedestrian safety, except to the extent that, by installing utilities underground, safety is improved by removing one obstacle to people and vehicles --- power poles. c. The hearings officer finds that it is unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future, because the properties adjoining the site's Bull Mountain Road frontage already are developed. Therefore, the frontage improvement can be deferred consistent with CDC section 18.164.030.A.1.c if that improvement does not represent a significant improvement to street safety or capacity. (1) The hearings officer finds that the evidence is not overwhelming, but the frontage improvement in this case does provide a significant improvement to street safety by providing a more improved, grade- and/or distance- separated pathway for pedestrian and cyclists along the relatively large frontage of the church. (2) There was some dispute about the need for such a feature and, therefore, the significance of it. However, the hearings officer finds there is a need for enhancing pedestrian and bicycle features to the standards required by the CDC. Although there is a paved shoulder for pedestrians along Bull Mountain Road, that is not the safest facility, because of its proximity to and common surface with the road. People now walk, run and bicycle along the church frontage based on the oral testimony, sometimes to attend church activities. A sidewalk also would enhance safety for people who are dropped-off along Bull Mountain Road to attend church activities. In the future, Tri-Met bus service can be provided along that road even if it is not provided now. In part, the relatively large size of the church frontage makes the improvement significant, even though incremental. (3) The incremental improvement is related and proportionate to the impact of the church and its expansion. It is consistent with City standards and practices to require the improvements in this case, and, therefore, to recognize that the improvements are needed and significant enough to require them in this case. d. The hearings officer finds frontage improvements (including utility improvements or fees) are not in conflict with an adopted capital improvement plan and are not related to a land division. e. The hearings officer finds frontage improvements (including utility improvements or fees) can be done without additional planning work to define the appropriate design standards for the street in this case. The City can rely on adopted standards and modifications to those standards permitted by law. f. The hearings officer finds the cost of frontage improvements is not relevant to whether the improvements should be deferred, because cost is not one of the considerations in CDC section 18.164.030.A. 1.c. The hearings officer acknowledges that it may be necessary to remove and replace a small section or sections of sidewalk and frontage improvements in the future to extend underground utilities to properties across Page 5 --- Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 94-0009 (St. James Epsicopal Church) • 0 Bull Mountain Road if underground service to those properties is not made when the frontage improvements are made. However, that is not one of the considerations in CDC section 18.164.030.A.1.c. 5. To better coordinate City/County review of future applications required to implement the conditional use permit, the hearings officer finds that the conditions of approval should be amended to more clearly reflect the requirements of Washington County for access to Bull Mountain Road. VI. SITE VISIT BY HEARINGS OFFICER The hearings officer visited the site and surrounding area. He observed the existing access, structures, vegetation, and grades on the site and adjoining property and the condition of the adjoining street. VII. CONCLUSION AND DECISION 1. The hearings officer concludes that the proposed conditional use permit does or can comply with the applicable criteria and standards of the Community Development Code, provided development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state, and federal laws and with conditions of approval warranted to ensure such compliance occurs. 2. The applicant's request, CUP 95-0009, is hereby approved, subject to the conditions in Section VII of the Staff Report, with the following amendments: a. Condition of approval 4 is hereby amended to read as follows: The applicant shall obtain a facility permit from the Department of Land Use and Transportation of Washington County to perform work within the right-of-way of SW Bull Mountain Road. A copy shall be provided to the City Engineering Department prior to issuance of a Public Improvement Permit.. To fulfill this condition, the applicant shall submit the following to Washington County except to the extent modified by the County: (A) A completed "Design Option" form, $750 administration deposit, certification from a registered professional engineer that adequate sight distance exists or what specific improvements must be made to provide the requisite sight distance and two sets of engineered plans for construction of frontage improvements, access and roadway drainage (Contact Land Development Services staff Tracy Stone or Carolyn Cook @ 648-8761). (B) Financial assurance for the construction of approved frontage improvements. (C) Dedication of right of way to the County as necessary for a 33-foot half-width from the centerline of Bull Mountain Road along the site frontage and of a 1-foot non- access reserve strip along the Bull Mountain Road frontage of the site except at approved access points Page 6 --- Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 94-0009 (St. James Epsicopal Church) 0 L' b. Condition of approval 5 is hereby amended to read as follows: The applicant shall provide for roof and pavement rain drainage to the public storm water drainage system or to an on-site system designed to prevent runoff onto the adjacent property and shall dedicate to the City an easement for the storm drain and catch basin to be located in the northwest corner of the site and for access to that storm drain and catch basin to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Larry 1 Tigard is 6th day/6f Uebruary, 1995. Page 7 --- Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 94-0009 (St. James Epsicopal Church) 0 0 EXHIBIT A CL uj 0 0 Z H z a 0 ?e a U LL 0 VICINITY EXHIBIT MAP CASE NO. CUP qq-(:)Oc) 9 0 NEW HEARING • • 0 BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by Interfaith Outreach Services ) F I N A L O R D E R for a conditional use permit for a severe weather ) homeless shelter in the Tigard Senior Center at ) CUP 94-0010 8815 SW O'Mara Street in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Interfaith Outreach) 1. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit for a severe weather homeless shelter in the basement of the Tigard Senior Center when temperatures are predicted to fall below 35 degrees for two or more consecutive days or when snow or other weather conditions are deemed severe enough to warrant operating to prevent a substantial health risk to homeless persons from November through April. Hearings Officer Larry Epstein held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the application on January 23, 1995. City staff recommended conditional approval of the permit. The applicant accepted the staff report and recommendation without objection. A neighbor testified with concerns about the impact of the proposed use on safety in the neighborhood. LOCATION: 8815 SW O'Mara Street; WCTM 2S 12DB, tax lot 500. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Medium Density Residential ZONING: R-12 (Residential, 12 units per acre) APPLICANT: Interfaith Outreach Services OWNER: City of Tigard APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.130, and 18.164. Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, and 8.1.3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conditionally approve HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION: Conditionally approved II. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The Hearings Officer incorporates by reference the findings about the site and surroundings in Section II of the City of Tigard Staff Report. III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS The Hearings Officer incorporates by reference the approval standards in Section III of the City of Tigard Staff Report. Page 1--- Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 94-0010 (Interfaith Outreach) 9 • IV. HEARING, TESTIMONY, AND NPO & AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Hearings Officer Larry Epstein received testimony at a public hearing about this application on January 23, 1995. The record was closed at the conclusion of the hearing. The record includes Exhibit A (Parties of Record), Exhibit B (Taped Proceedings), and Exhibit C (Written Testimony). The exhibits are filed at Tigard City Hall. The Hearings Officer incorporates by reference the NPO and agency comments in Section IV of the City of Tigard Staff Report. 2. City Planner Will D'Andrea testified for the City. He summarized the staff report and recommendation and introduced two letters. 3. Karen Gardner, Director of the Tigard Senior Center testified in favor of the application. She summarized the proposed use. The program will be run by Loaves and Fishes. Only the lower level of the Center will be used, and there will be consistent supervision provided by the Interfaith Outreach Services. She contacted all the user groups of the Senior Center. Only two objected, the bridge group and the art club. The quilters group had concerns, and arrangements have been made for their items to be locked up. She said only the kitchen is the responsibility of the staff, and it is licensed and inspected by the County health authorities. There have been no violations from recent inspections. The building is cleaned nightly under a contract by Service Master. She stated that having a shelter at the center poses some problems but they can be handled. The proposed use furthers the goal of the Center of maximizing use of the building by serving the needs of the community. 4. Jack Schwab, chair of a City task force about homelessness in Tigard, testified in favor of the application. He argued the proposed use is consistent with the existing use of the Center and is supported by the neighborhood and the Senior Center Coordinating Committee. The shelter will be a limited to 50 people who will use the facility only after it is closed to other uses. There are 57 existing parking spaces, so parking is sufficient, particularly since many homeless will not have cars. 5. Kim Brown testified for Interfaith Outreach in favor of the application. She stated that Interfaith Outreach has operated a shelter in Tigard at the Methodist Church for six years. Interfaith Outreach has been operating a temporary severe weather shelter in the Tigard Water District building since December 6, 1994. So far it has been open 35 nights and has served 15 to 16 persons per night. The people they have served come from Tigard and Tualatin or are employees in the area. They have experienced no problems with communicable diseases, loitering, vandalism, etc., at the shelter. The Senior Center closes at 6:30 PM when the cleaning service finishes. The facility is available at 7:00 PM for use as the severe weather shelter and will close in time for items to be stored before the Senior Center opens in the morning. She described the qualifications of shelter staff. Clients are screened for drugs, alcohol and weapons before admission. In a three month period, the agency has turned away more than 800 people for shelter because of lack of space. Most shelter applicants are families. 6. Sergeant Chuck Martin, night watch commander for the Tigard Police Department testified in favor of the application. He testified City Police have not had any problems with the shelter at the Methodist Church or the temporary severe weather shelter. He stated that the incidence of public disturbances in the City is reduced by the availability of this service. He said the shelter is well run and staffed. Page 2 --- Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 94-0010 (Interfaith Outreach) • 0 7. Laura Grubaugh, a neighbor, expressed concerns about the impact of the proposed use on the safety of the area. The main concern is the woodland area in Cook Park. The City has had to remove shelters in the park erected by the homeless. She is concerned the shelter would increase this activity. 8. Sergeant Martin responded to Ms. Grubaugh by stating that since the shelter has opened, there is less camping in public places. The City now has a ordinance to regulate camping. If there are problems the police department will respond, post the area and get people out of the park within 24 hours. V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST 1. City staff recommended conditional approval of the application based on findings and conclusions in the Staff Report and subject to recommended conditions of approval. The Hearings Officer finds the findings in the Staff Report show that the proposed use complies with the applicable standards of the Community Development Code. Therefore the Hearings Officer and adopts and incorporates by reference those findings. 2. The Hearings Officer finds, based on the testimony by Ms. Gardner, Ms. Brown and Sargeant Martin, that the proposed severe weather shelter is not reasonably likely to cause adverse effects due to the concerns raised by the bridge and art clubs and by Ms. Grubaugh, because the operators of the shelter will follow procedures to prevent occupants of the shelter from creating such problems. The shelter will not create a hazard to public safety. On the contrary, by providing housing for people who would otherwise be without shelter when weather conditions are hazardous, the shelter will reduce that hazard for occupants of the shelter. Based on the City camping regulations, people cannot camp legally in the parks. The approval of the shelter will not change that restriction. VI. SITE VISIT BY HEARINGS OFFICER The Hearings Officer visited the site of the proposed use and surrounding area. VII. CONCLUSION AND DECISION 1. The Hearings Officer concludes the proposed conditional use permit complies with the applicable criteria and standards of the Community Development Code, provided development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state, and federal laws and with conditions of approval warranted to ensure such compliance occurs. 2. In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the Staff Report and other reports of affected agencies and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the Hearings Officer hereby approves CUP 94-0010, subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the Staff Report. this 6th day of_T?ehruary, 1995.' Larry I Tigard Page 3 --- Hearings Officer Final Order CUP W-0010 (Interfaith Outreach) f r EXHIBIT A ?9f LL W cl a z Z z a CL 0 o? a c? LL 0 c? VICINITY EXHIBIT MAP CASE NO. 0 Lp qq- oa) o 0 EXHIBIT 9 • • . r ? • '•. i:?t?i : 'i' ? x'13 te ` ££ :a iii } . l ^?r, 1'• .. • . _ ? Y? 1 +rt? ' . ' tF z i ? ? •s r E 5+. /. 1 jr a-1, 1 ? 1 ?? ? - ` ! 1 f 1 ?1. 01 , Y ff 1 :tiF'; aU ?xl ???p(.?G'}r d'U TrI (JSt f r?y f??,pr:r;};' ? L +t k 5 it r ` y, l?Cry??„r} a r? }4a S r ti't' r i. , .' i ?+ n i J•. s.? MSnr'4?, / r t} ? + r - - ` ?l s Ltr ,"?t?'-' (?r??7-?•y,. ?}x'ria7 v7"'rt ,c r r•} +'•?,' . '' i ? to fr. ti sl 1 3{ r t v fv ?fj' o-r y 5.?,?' '??y} ttl t} < t ,?•i??yt? r• y?la 1 i h ? `?I• ??.?^rtS? 7 lt?t„•'-i ir7eE!Yt`?'( 1.. +r 4 's , y rvr4 c l ?`3 , ?d ? r"?A ? hf[ r d? dy ?' f 'J?,?s ?lr'i4rr? tV?tr}??i'?`,?5 ? • ?i<n, '3?r a. T y ry r;? +r Js 3zu t + ??'a1v? ! d1: - tt s ?xFYFx1 Ih TcrAlr?}'4 tia ka h '< +V•Y.1q ?xlhs 1. ya ? ^t, •Y ?7" •e4 !}C5.}s'V? {}•tyr?`y([y9?„?j ???3•r L? Y?., Ill J ? ,(.1 M(' l L.LG?.l?:la.io:•r4'i? kfi 1's d +r J. i d ?: l r Y: . 7 S:yki Yd .) ti r<, it fi ?. r t •?fY{ ; 3rly hr, !? ?r fr ,?, is f 1 I f I I rl ba4lrLb A01114 Auq 3 ' f x x AMPW q :? t i .• a ? 1 y., r y,yW'f I. 1'?yyry I , ' .?+ 4 Lp? ,yru J ) x ??C . +?wYY???w1. ?+ 7?hiy ? r F?V {/II s"C"a .. L jJ`Il r f'YN+rr,? R ' ,S??r r+ ? ;o h?yl? d r'r^9t1?i-r 7 G ?1 .r•?i#•+i ., . ? ? . f???11 } !? f ) eft { rY •'hl+ 1 y `• W. cAleeculb r"rrr.?? ..:• xfrf 1 1'' ?ITr nl A ALTERATI 8815 S.W. C D?41NIN(3 INDE A 1. I., SITE PLAt A 1.2 DEMOLITI( A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 1 M2 El NOT USEC FLOOR PL NOT USE[ BUILDING ELEVATIM WALL SE( HVAC FLC SPECIFICP ELECTRIC E2 ELECTRIC • v I? 10 q g I 1 ? 1 1 Q Q- 1.r 6?GN0 IUSULy :. r A,` .r.`w'JZMOMK , . ? r J ? :? ? r ??, Doo•?IusTa.?uew canes . yy , ?he l?,e f . j I; EVATIoTICAM ?Q u' r V , J y,? 5?1 y. ?E ArD4 Stir' ?t r r '?1{r' 3n ? zri? a t.! xr? < A C v p a , >i: ; X' r ll¢If?91DIIJ9TC sr , r•I`??.?I r '. ?Y?,r? PLC {N - dh?.?f 1 'ry 1 r t '. Jy ??i tlni la s? ? `tip '? .._•+?? .t? a7t'I' .. t, Ex15T> r+ s'I h s . ' t -17 ! .. ) 2 n Q q. 3 I I I ? LJ 71 001 .I LT-1". UAW L, 106Ta14. u>;w wiuoows WWORdubT151L-L%&?J ILlblbt,l. L4U IxGRb (5E6 WIWDOW 9tNl ugWGjCOLk4TD • I I• D uowMIt.IQ spibl M 16 4 A Law aau4Vr.??;+G 0 r SUBMITTED AT THE REARING • • January 17, 1995 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 ATTENTION: HEARINGS OFFICER LARRY EPSTEIN RE: HEARING JANUARY 23, 1995 ITEM # CUP 94-0010/HOMELESS SHELTER Dear Mr. Epstein: The Tigard Club meets weekly in the Tigard Senior Center and is comprised mostly of senior citizens. Many of these seniors also utilize the center for its various uses at other times throughout the year. We wish to go on record as opposing the use of the Senior Center to house "the homeless". By allowing the homeless to be housed in the center jeopardizes the health, safety and welfare of the Senior Citizens who daily use the facilities, not only from the Tigard area but from the surrounding communities as well. Older citizens are very susceptible to communicable diseases, such as tuberculosis, influenza, hepatitis, herpes, etc., and have a very difficult time recuperating from these types of illnesses. Due to the very nature of their lifestyle, "homeless" people are known to carry and spread the aforementioned diseases. It is also known they spread fleas, lice and mites, which would be left behind in the Center's overstuffed furniture upon which they would sit and sleep, and which would be picked up by the seniors who would later use this furniture. It is very questionable that the Senior Center Staff are adequately educated to effectively sanitize the center in the downstairs kitchen and bathroom facilities, where the Art Club members meet, and where the"homeless" are to be sheltered. Not only the seniors in the Art Club, but many other seniors in the Tigard area who use this senior center have told us they would not continue to use the Center anymore, and would go elsewhere. We suggest the "homeless" go elsewhere, instead of the Tigard seniors, and would point out there are other facilities such as various churches and schools which could be used to give them shelter. The Tigard Senior Center was originally built for use by the senior citizens, as regulated by HUD and Tigard City ordinances, and this fact should be kept in mind when making your decision. By going elsewhere, the seniors will probably not be willing to make their contributions of service and monies to our Tigard Senior Center. We ask that you give consideration to our concerns, and find other facilities for homeless shelter instead of the Tigard Senior Center. Keep it for the use of the Tigard and other surrounding area senior citizens, who use it daily, and protect their health and welfare. Thank you. Yours very truly, TI ?L[dB $9M ?760 a e Je L. Percy Margaret David,wL& Maxine Coxley k,, Margaret Morris 2Gjej Jen Skyhar Margaret Verharen Ay/, Margaret Pearson'?ZA Joyce Hughes , Yvonne Burgess. and others. Jan Devlin January 0995 Regarding the use of the Tigard Senior Center for a Homeless Shelter. We the undersigned have concerns with the proposed use of the Senior Center as a severe weather homeless shelter. Our rain concern is that of the park being in close proxiemity of the Senior Center. There have been problems in the past of loitering in the park, and of breakins of cars in the surrounding neighborhoods. If the homeless shelter is not open continually and people go there for shelter, they may feel it ok to use the park, thus creating a problem. The swounding neighborhood might also be used as a thoroughfare which may frighten some of the chil&en that play in the area. Children as well as adults may be frightened to use the parr. As it now stands. Fanno Creek Park is scary to use by yourself. When walking the dog, going to the library, riding bikes, crawded fishing, or whatever outdoor activity a person might want to enjoy there is always a thought in the back of your mind on safety. There is too much shrubbery growth and too many places to be concealed in the park that it may turn into a plane people would vent to use instead of the shelter. After the bad weather subsides the homeless may decide to stay around and use the park to camp out instead of moving on to other places. We understand the necessity of a severe weather shelter for those who are not fortunate to have a home. However, a shelter by a park makes no sense at all, specifically by a park where homeless camps have been a problem before. We urge you to reconsider the application of the Interfaith Outreach Services for the use of the Tiagud Senior Center and look for a more convenient location near services such as stores, bus lines, job opportunities, etc. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Sincerely, VILA e,__ 631-1 qs)