Hearings Officer Packet - 12/12/1994i •
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER
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. 320 (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.
(OVER FOR MEETING AGENDA ITEM(S)
TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER - 12112194 PAGE 1 OF 2
hA1og1n%pattylagho1212.95
• r
CITY OF TIGARD
HEARINGS OFFICER
DECEMBER 12, 1994 - 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC HEARING
2.1 CONDITIONAL USE CUP 94-0008 MAGNO-HUMPHRIES LOCATION: 8800
SW Commercial Street (WCTM 2S1 2AD, tax lot 1203). A request for Conditional
Use approval to allow a 3,952 square foot addition to an existing 20,110 square
foot building. This site received Conditional Use approval to allow warehousing
and food processing on October 14, 1986 under Conditional Use Permit 5-86.
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters
18.66, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.120, 18.130, and 18.164. ZONE: CBD
(Central Business District) The CBD zone allows civic, commercial, and residential
use types. The primary purpose of this zone is to provide for a concentrated
central commercial office and retail area which also provides civic, high density
residential, mixed uses, and limited industrial uses.
2.2 SUBDIVISION SUB 94-0005 SENSITIVE LANDS SLR 94-0007
DALTON/BURGE LOCATION: Approximately 700 feet south of SW Walnut
Street, west of SW 132nd Avenue, east of SW 135th Avenue (Hillshire Estates),
and north of Benchview Estates (WCTM 2S1 4, tax lot 600). A request for
approval of the following development applications: 1) Subdivision preliminary plat
approval to divide a 13.7 acre parcel into 47 lots ranging between 7,500 square
feet to 13,000 square feet; 2) Sensitive Lands Review approval of preliminary
plans for grading and road construction of portions of the subject property that
exceed 25% grade which contains a drainage swale. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4,
7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3; Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.84, 18.88,
18.92, 18.96, 18.100,18.102, 18.106, 18.108,18.114, 18.150, 18.160, and 18.164.
ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) The R-4.5 zone allows single-family
residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming,
manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, and
accessory structures among other uses.
3. OTHER BUSINESS
4. ADJOURNMENT
HEARINGS OFFICER - 12/12/94 - PAGE 2
4PPUBLIC HEAR1&
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER,
AT A MEETING ON MONDAY, APRIL 24. 1995 AT 7:00 PM,
IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER,
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223
WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:
CITY OF TIGARD
FILE NO: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 95.0002
FILE TITLE: MAGNO-HUMPHRIES ADDITION
APPLICANT: Thelma Humphries OWNER: Same
8800 SW Commercial Street
Tigard, OR 97223
REQUEST ► A request for a Major Modification to the approved Conditional Use
Permit to allow a 15,000 square foot warehouse building on a site with
an existing warehouse and food processing use.
LOCATION: 8800 SW Commercial Street (WCTM 2S1 2AD, tax lot 1203).
APPLICABLE
REVIEW Community Development Code Section 18.66, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108,
CRITERIA: 18.120, 18.130 and 18.164.
ZONE: Central Business District (CBD). The CBD zone allows a range of concentrated
commercial office retail, high density residential, mixed uses and limited industrial
uses.
.......rte
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF
CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER
18.30.
ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL
ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED
BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 320 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-
2772 (TDD - TELECOM MUNICATIONS,DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE
HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS.
ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING
PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM
THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY.
THE HEARINGS OFFICER MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN
CPA 95-0002 MAGNO•HUMPHRIES, INC. Thelma Humphrles
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, 0 SE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TA CTIQN ON THE APPLICATION.
IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER APRIL 4. 1995, ANY PARTY
IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED
AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN
FOR AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE HEARING.
INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE
TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR
DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND
THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST
PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED.
FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE
HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY TO AFFORD THE DECISION
MAKER AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD
OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE.
ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION
AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER PAGE. AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS
PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO
COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER PAGE.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER WILL WANDREA AT
(503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON.
~f
~I
~lL
mr~-
a
w
0
0
z
z
z
a
a
0
a
c~
LL
0
U
CPA 950002 MAGNo-HUMPH RIES, INC. Thelma Humphries
0 0
'City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall
•Tigard,Oregon
•
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss'
•
Kathv Snvder
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of tha Tiaard-Tualatin Tin
a newspaper of general + irculgtionn as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published a Ticrard in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
Cnridi_ ional Use CUP 94-0008 Maano HumDhr
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
December 14994
Subscribed and sworn to b e me this st day of Decem
Notary Publi r Oregon
My Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC.
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 664.0360
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
• ❑ Tearsheet Notice
Blvd.
97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
Legal
Notice TT 8 0 5 6
RJECEIVEII
DEC 6 1994
.CITY ®I TI~ARla
The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on
Monday, December 12, 1994. at 7:00 P,M. at Tigard Civic Center -
Town Hall, 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, 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 18.32 of the Tigard
Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Hearings Officer. Failure
to raise an issue in person or by letter precludes an appeal, and failure to
specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or
Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal
based on that criterion. Further information may be obtained from the
Planning Division at 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by
calling 639-4171.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CONDITjoNAL USE CUP 94.0008
lu--ar o-HUMPHRIES
LOCATION: 8800 S.W. Commercial Street (WCTM 2S12AD, tax lot
1203). A request for Conditional Use approval to allow a 3,952 square
foot addition to an existing 20,110 square foot building. This site received
Conditional Use approval to allow warehousing and food processing on
October 14, under Conditional Use Permit 5.86. APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Cade Chapters 18.66,
18.100,18.102, 18.106,18.108, 18.120, 18.130, and 18.164. ZONE: CBD
(Central Business District) The CBD zone allows civic, commercial, and
residential use types. The primary purpose of this zone is to provide for a
concentrated central commercial office and retail area which also provides
civic, high density residential, mixed uses, and limited industrial uses.
SUBDIVISION SUB 94-0005
SENSITIVE LANDS SLR 44-0007
DALTON(BURGE
LOCATION: Approximately 700 feet south of S.W. Walnut Street, west
of S.W.132nd Avenue, east of S..W.135th Avenue (Hillshire Estates);
and north of Benchview Estates. (WCTM 2S 14, tax lot 600). A request .
for approval of the following development applications: l) Subdivision
preliminary plat approval to divide a 13.7 acre parcel into 47 lots ranging -
between 7,500 square feet to 13,000 square feet; 2) Sensitive Lands
Review approval of preliminary plans for grading, and road construction
on portions of the subject property that exceed 25% grade, APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 4.2.1,
7.1.2, 7.2.1, 73.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3; Community Development
Code Chapters 18.50, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106,
18.108,18.114,18.150, 18.160, and 18.164. ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential
4.5 units/acre). The R-4.5 zone allows single-family residential units,
public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming,
manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses,
and accessory structures among other uses.
TT8056-Publish December 1, 1994,
NOTICE:
AGENDA ITEM:
OWNER/APPL
LOCATION J
• C/a a-1031
TI0RD HEARINGS OFF ER
ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME AND
NOTE THEIR ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET. (Please PRINT)
p-~- CASE NUMBER(S): AST - l l~ U 7M 14<1 I R72f
DATE OF HEARING:
FAVOR OPPOSE
Name ~'f Name 1 io,ym 1'e
Address • ~~p~~J CI.~/. ~~S~J E Address
Name \ I E:V a 'N. ' rACrON3
Address ~4oro A Sw 4MLrY.F sr
Name
Address
Name
Address
Name
Address
Name
Address
Name
Address
Name
Address
Name
Address
Name
Address v / SJ f /~//C~~L(:
Name VMC~
Address 13 ST?, Cad 4x
Name
Address
Name
Address G7, rffl
Name 1 ,-A Ij
Address ; -15'61 Z 0U
Name C/kf Aa 5&~UA-r
Address 3S(v 3
Name ` U / VI Iii
Address I 0u
Name
I Address
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE
T I R D H E A R I N G S O F F E G
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME AND
NOTE THEIR ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET. (Pleas PRINT)
AGENDA ITEM: CASE NUMBER(S) :
OWNER/ APPLICANT: LOCATION:
ri / l r
NPO NUMBER: DATE OF HEARING:
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE
FAVOR OPPOSE
Name 1 ~7ro t~ ~-J kAw" Name
Address 1,4 o 'r=" S 'S Lo I Address
►~a nom. '97Z23
Name Name
Address I Address
Name Name
Address I Address
Name Name
Address I Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address I Address
Name Name
Address I Address
43
tj- _0 -.R 'i
r'
BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
Regarding an application for a conditional use permit ) FINAL ORDER
to enlarge a distribution and storage building in the )
CBD zone at 8800 SW Commercial Street ) CUP 94-0008
in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Magno-Humphries)
1. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST
The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to add 3952 square feet to a
roughly 20,000 square foot building for processing, storage and distribution of food
products, particularly vitamins and drugs.
The property was used as the Prairie Market Grocery Store until 1982, when the City
approved a conditional use permit for storage and distribution of food products. In 1986,
the City approved a conditional use permit for processing of food products on the site, too,
and the building was modified and enlarged. The applicant now wants to enlarge the
building to further expand the processing use on the site. No change is proposed to the
100-space parking lot, except to add landscaping. A future application may be proposed to
reduce required landscaping, but that application is not relevant to this conditional use
application in this case.
Hearings Officer Larry Epstein held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the application
on December 12, 1994. City staff recommended conditional approval of the permit. Jim
Nicoli and Jim Andrews accepted the City staff recommendation without objection for the
applicant. Two other persons appeared in favor of the application.
LOCATION: 8800 SW Commercial Street; WCTM 2S1 2AD, tax lot 1203
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING: Central Business District
APPLICANT AND OWNER: Thelma Humphries
APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Chapters 18.66, 18.100, 18.102,
18.106, 18.108, 18.120, 18.130, 18.132, and 18.164
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conditionally approve
HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION: Conditionally approve
U. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE, SURROUNDINGS AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
The hearings officer incorporates by reference the findings about the site and
surroundings in Section II of the City of Tigard Staff Reported dated December 6, 1994,
and the NPO and agency comments in Section IV of the City of Tigard Staff Report dated
December 6, 1994.
III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS
The hearings officer incorporates by reference the approval standards in Section III
of the City of Tigard Staff Report dated December 6, 1994.
Page 1 -Hearings Officer Final Order
CUP 94-0008 (Magno-Humphries)
t i
IV. HEARING, TESTIMONY, AND NPO & AGENCY COMMENTS
1. Hearings Officer Larry Epstein received testimony at the public hearing about
this application on July 11, 1994. 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 Mark Roberts testified for the City. He summarized the staff report
and recommendation.
3. Jim Nicoli and Jim Andrews appeared for the applicant. Mr. Nicoli accepted
the staff report without objections or corrections. Stan Baumhofer and Marlin Henderson
also appeared in favor of the proposal.
V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST
The hearings Officer incorporates by reference the findings about compliance with
the Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan in Section V of the City of
Tigard Staff Report dated December 6, 1994.
VI. SITE VISIT BY HEARINGS OFFICER
The hearings officer visited the site and surrounding area. He observed the existing
access to and structures, vegetation, and grades on the site and adjoining property and the
condition of the adjoining streets.
VII. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
1. The hearings officer concludes that 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 effect agencies and public testimony and
exhibits received in this matter, the Hearings Officer hereby approves CUP 94000 8
subject to the conditions of approval recommended in Section VI of the City of Tigard Staff
Report dated December 6, 1994.
ber, 1994.
LA&
Page 2 - Hearings Officer Final Order
CUP 94-0008 (Magno-Humphries)
Larry Epstein A~CP
City of Tigard eari s Officer
0 0
AGENDA ITEM
BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
Regarding an application by Magno- STAFF REPORT
Humphries to build an addition to CUP 94-0005
an existing storage and distribution VAR 94-0003
building.
1. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST
CASE: Conditional Use Permit CUP 94-0008 (Major Modification)
SUMMARY: A request for a major modification of the approved conditional use
permit to construct a 3,952 square foot expansion to the existing facility.
APPLICANT: Thelma Humphries OWNER: SAME
8800 SW Commercial Street
Tigard, OR 97223
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Central Business District
ZONING DESIGNATION: Central Business District
LOCATION: 8800 SW Commercial Street. The southwest corner of SW Commercial
Street and SW Hall Boulevard (WCTM 2S1 02AD, Tax Lot 1203)
APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Chapters 18.66, 18.100, 18.102,
18.106, 18.108, 18.120, 18.1300 18.132, 18.164.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions.
11. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
A. Background Information:
Prior to the current use the property had been used as the Praire Market Grocery
Store. This property was remodeled for the current use under a Site Development
HEARINGS OFFICER - CUP 94-0008 (Major Mod.) - MAGNO HUMPHRIES PAGE 1
0 0
Review approval in 1982 which added 1,920 square feet. In July of 1986 the City
Council heard a zoning interpretation of the conditional permitted uses permitted
uses within Central Business District. The City Council found that production
aspects of the food processing use was secondary to the warehouse and
distribution aspects of the use. The Council interpretation required that applicant
apply for Conditional Use Permit approval.
In September of 1986 Conditional Use Permit 5-86 was approved subject to
conditions which permitted the current use a vitamin and drug processing use.
Through the Conditional Use Permit an additional 620 square foot expansion was
permitted along the southern elevation for reception and conference areas.
General office space within the existing building was also created at that time.
B. Site Size and Shape:
The subject parcel is 1.80 acres. The site is roughly rectangular in shape with
direct street frontage along SW Commercial Street. The parcel adjoins a smaller
remainder utility parcel which adjoins SW Hall Boulevard.
C. Site Location:
The site is located at 8800 SW Commercial Street which adjoins the parcel
located at the southwest corner of SW Commercial Street and SW Hall Boulevard.
D. Existine Uses and Structures:
The property is developed with a 20,110 square foot industrial building and 100
parking spaces. Properties to the south, west and north are all zoned Central
Business District. Properties to the east are zoned Light Industrial and are
developed with industrial uses.
E. Surrounding Land Uses:
The property to the north are developed with a mixture of single family
residences, multiple family residential uses and commercial uses. The property
to the west is developed with a car repair business. To the south the site abuts
the railroad right-of-way and the Water Department facilities.
III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STAN DARDSIEVALUATION OF REQUEST
HEARINGS OFFICER - CUP 94-0008 (Major Mod.) - MAGNO HUMPHRIES PAGE 2
0 0
A. Communitv Development Code:
1. Chapter 18.66 the Central Business District permits Storage and
Distribution Uses subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The
proposed expansion is to provide additional storage areas which was the
primary use permitted through the 1986 Conditional Use Permit for this
facility.
Chapter 18.66 states that there are no minimum lot area or lot width
requirements. There are also no setback requirements except for a 30 foot
setback where a commercial building abuts a residential zone requires a
minimum of a 30 foot setback. There are also setback criteria to address
clear vision and parking lot screening requirements. This site does not
abut a residential zoning district and is required to maintain this setback.
The applicant has not proposed to construct new structures within the clear
vision area. The existing landscape buffer between SW Commercial Street
and the parking lot provides sufficient screening of parking lot uses.
Condition of Approval #2 requires additional landscape materials within
the area adjoining a parcel along SW Hall Boulevard. The location of the
addition itself does not adjoin parking lot areas and therefore does not
impact parking lot screening.
Chapter 18.66 also restricts the percentage of structures and impervious
surfaces to 85%. The addition as proposed would develop 84.72% of the
site with impervious surfaces which complies with the requirement. This
chapter also restricts building height to 80 feet. The addition as proposed
is designed to match the existing structure and would not exceed 22 feet
in height. No residential uses within the Central Business District must
also provide a minimum of 15%a of the site with landscaping. The
applicant has proposed to provide 15.28% of the site with landscaping to
comply with this requirement.
2. Chapter 18.130.050 (B) sets forth the criteria for determination of the type
of modification review process required which is based on the nature of
the proposed site and use modifications. This expansion is a Major
Modification review is required because the proposed 3,952 square foot
addition is an expansion of greater than the 10% of the existing floor plan
as stated in (B)(6).
HEARINGS OFFICER - CUP 94-0008 (Major Mod.) - MAGNO HUMPHRIES PAGE 3
0 0
Because a Major Modification review is required Section 18.130.050 (C)
states that a new Conditional Use Permit application shall be filed and
reviewed in accordance with Chapter 18.130.040 which contains the
following general approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit:
1) The site size and dimensions provide:
a. Adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; and
b. Adequate area for aesthetic design treatment to mitigate
possible adverse effects from the use on surrounding
properties and uses.
2) The characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use
considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features.
3) All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the
proposal.
4) The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as
modified by this chapter.
5) The supplementary requirements set forth in Chapter 18.114 (Signs)
and Section 18.120.180 Site Development Review are met.
b) The use will comply with the applicable policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Conditional Use Permit is subject to the development standards set
forth within the Central Business District. The proposed expansion to the
existing use is expected to have minimial additional impact due to its
limited size and the proposed storage use of the expanded floor plan area.
All required public facilities are available to serve this development as
proposed. All applicable standards of the zoning district are met by this
proposal as reviewed within this staff report or as required by the proposed
conditions of approval. The use complies with the site development
standards set forth within the Development Code.
HEARINGS OFFICER - CUP 94-0008 (Major Mod.) - MAGNO HUMPHRIES PAGE 4
0 0
3. Chapter 18.64 specifies that the minimum landscaping requirement shall
be 15 percent. The applicant requested that the requirement for landscape
islands within the parking lot be deleted due to the Farmers Market
activites which take place on the weekends. Based on their proposed
location and because the 1.80 acre site provides two of these planters it is
not expected that the landscape islands would significantly alter the
function of either the current industrial uses on site or weekend community
uses. The overall landscape plan proposes additional landscaping in excess
of the 15% minimum standard for landscaping.
Two revisions should be incorporated into the landscape plan, Condition
of Approval #2 requires that a variance application be filed should the
applicant wish to pursue deletion of the landscape islands. Condition of
Approval #2 also requires that additional matching ground cover be
provided along the property frontage adjoining a remainder parcel which
abuts SW Hall Boulevard. The remainder parcel is undeveloped and
allows direct visibility of the extensive parking lot as viewed from SW Hall
Boulevard.
4. Chapter 18.100 requires that all developments fronting on a public street
or private driveway more than 100 feet in length shall be required to plant
street trees in accordance with Section 18.100.035. The minimum
required spacing is 20 feet with a maximum spacing of 40 feet depending
on the size of the tree. The landscape plan indicates that a total of six to
eight Vine Maple tree are to be provided along the landscaped portion of
the site frontage on SW Commercial Street.
Because the landscaped portion of the frontage is 495 feet a minimum of
16 medium sized trees should be provided along this frontage. Based on
their size at maturity a Vine Maple tree would be considered a medium
size tree which can be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart. Condition of
Approval #2 requires that a minimum of 16 total Vine Maple trees he
provided along this frontage.
5. Chapter 18.102 (Visual Clearance) requires that a visual clearance area be
maintained along the intersections of all public and private right-of-ways.
The site plan does not propose any new structures or landscaping within
the vision clearance area.
HEARINGS OFFICER - CUP 94-0008 (Major Mod.) - MAGNO HUMPHRIES PAGE 5
0 0
6. Chapter 18.106 (Parking) states that the parking ratio for this type of office
shall be provided for at a ratio of one space for each 1,000 square feetof
warehouse, storage and distribution use which requires approximately 21
spaces based on the proposed floor area. The Development Code also
requires 1 space for each 200 square feet of office area which requires an
additional 18 parking spaces due to the size of the existing office space for
a total of 39 parking spaces. The site plan provides 95 parking spaces
which exceeds this requirement.
7. Chapter 18.106 (Bicycle Facilities) requires a minimum of one bicycle
parking space for each 15 required automobile parking spaces for any
development. A minimum of of 39 parking spaces are required to serve
this development so a minimum of three bicycle racks are required to be
provided to serve this facility. Condition of Approval #2 requires that a
minimum of three bicycle parking racks be provided to serve this facility.
8. Chapter 18.108 (Access and Circulation) requires a minimum of a 30 foot
access width standards for this type of use. The current access location and
width complies with the access width standard for a two way access
driveway. The proposed site plan does not currently designate pedestrian
walkways either to adjoining streets or adjoining developments. Based on
existing development constraints due to the elevation of adjoining streets
and the adjoining railroad right-of-way no new pedestrian walkway
connections have been recommended.
9. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Became effective on January
26, 1992. It requires a minimum of two disabled person parking space if
up to fifty (50) parking spaces are required. Two new handicapped parking
spaces are shown on the plan located at the main building entrance in
compliance with this requirement.
10. Chapter 18.130.040(C) provides that the Hearing's Officer may impose
conditions on an approval such as limitations to hours of operation and
design features to minimize environmental impacts. Based on the impacts
of the existing use and the type of modifications which are proposed, no
additional conditions of approval are recommended to address specific
facility operations issues.
11. Chapter 18.164 contains standards for streets and utilities.
HEARINGS OFFICER - CUP 94-0008 (Major Mod.) - MAGNO HUMPHRIES PAGE 6
•
•
a. Section 18.164.030(A) requires streets within and adjoining a
development to be dedicated and improved based on the
classification of the street.
b. Section 18.164.030(E) requires a Minor Collector street to have a
minimum 60 feet of right-of-way, a 40 feet minimum roadway
width, and 2-3 moving lanes.
C. Section 18.164.070(A) requires sidewalks adjoining both sides of a
collector street.
d. Section 18.164.090 requires sanitary sewer service.
e. Section 18.164.100 requires adequate provisions for storm water
runoff and dedication of easements for storm drainage facilities.
The Comprehensive Transportation Planning Map for the City of Tigard designates
SW Commercial Street as a Minor Collector Street previous development
approvals on this site have deferred street improvements along SW Commercial
Street based on line of site issues due to the elevations of SW Commercial Street
towards the intersection of SW Hall Boulevard.
Based on the location of the existing building as it relates to the current public
right-of-way it is not possible to develop a separated sidewalk parkway design.
The use of this design was discussed within the 2040 Regional Design Image for
this area as addressed by Tri-Met in the review of this project. The Engineering
Department has reviewed the street and public utility requirements for the area
and have recommended conditions of approval in accordance with the standards
set forth in the Community Development Code to address the standards set forth
in Sections a through e.
IV. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
The Engineering Department provided the following comments:
FINDINGS:
1. STREETS:
HEARINGS OFFICER - CUP 94-0006 (Major Mod.) - MAGNO HUMPHRIES PAGE 7
0 0
The site currently takes access from SW Commercial Street, a Minor Collector
street as shown on the City Comprehensive Plan. The existing right-of-way is 60
feet wide and no further dedications are required. The existing improvements in
SW Commercial Street consist of an asphalt concrete roadway of unknown origin
which is in poor condition and should ultimately be re-constructed. In addition,
the existing roadway bed has been constructed to a vertical alignment that is
inconsistent with the standards of a Minor Collector and the street should be
lowered along the site frontage, between SW Ash Street and SW Hall Boulevard.
The new site plan proposes the construction of the building addition only,
utilizing the existing on-site parking lot improvements and the existing single
driveway onto SW Commercial Street, near the easterly edge of the existing
building. The site is not contiguous to SW Hall Boulevard and no access is
proposed.
Although no street improvements are proposed with this minor change to the
existing use, the applicant should be required to execute an agreement that waives
the property owner's right to oppose or remonstrate against the formation of a
future Local Improvement District to improve SW Commercial Street.
2. SEWER:
The existing eight inch public sewer in SW Commercial Street provides service to
the site and no changes are proposed.
3. STORM DRAIN:
The site currently drains toward the existing railroad track area, contiguous to the
site along the southerly boundary and no changes are proposed.
V. CIT & AGENCY COMMENTS
1. Tri-Met has provided the following comments concerning this application: Given
the site's proximity to the Tigard Transit Center and nearby pedestrian
destinations, it is critical that the project include adequate pedestrian related
improvements along property frontages.
The street network and local destinations in central Tigard are particularly well
suited to creating a viable pedestrian district if appropriate infrastructure is
HEARINGS OFFICER - CUP 94-0008 (Major Mod_) - MAGNO HUMPHRIES PAGE 8
0 0
provided. This was illustrated as part of the 2040 Regional Design Images plan
for the area.
It is my understanding that there has been some discussion regarding lowering the
elevation of SW Commercial Street to improve vehicle site distances. Given the
long term and unclear funding source of that project and the high level of existing
transit service in the vicinity, it is Tri-Met's recommendation that the developer be
required to complete all frontage improvements to ADA standards.
It is also Tri-Met's recommendation that a four foot wide landscaping buffer be
provided between the sidewalk and SW Commercial Street as illustrated in the
Regional Design Images work of Calthorpe Associates. The property owner would
be responsible for maintaining this buffer area. Street trees should be provided
within this buffer that are of appropriate species to avoid conflicts with vehicle
circulation while providing weather protection for pedestrians.
2. The Water Department reviewed this application and required that an additional
fire hydrant be provided so that all portions of the building are within 250 feet of
a fire hydrant which is the current standard.
3. Genenral Telephone, the Tualtin Valley Fire District, the Police Department and
the Maintnenance Services Department reviewed this application and had no
comments or objections.
4. No other comments were received by the Planning Division.
VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division concludes that the Conditional Use request for this existing site will
promote the general welfare of the City and will not be significantly detrimental nor
injurious to surrounding properties provided that development which occurs after this
decision complies with applicable local, state and federal laws. In recognition of the
findings staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Major Modification to Conditional
Use Permit CUP 94-0008 subject to the following conditions.
ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE
COMPLETED OR COMPLETION SHALL BE FINANCIALLY ASSURED PRIOR TO THE
ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE STAFF
HEARINGS OFFICER - CUP 94-0008 (Major mod.) - MAGNO HUMPHRIES PAGE 9
•
•
CONTACT FOR ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MICHAEL ANDERSON IN THE
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. ALL STAFF LISTED CAN BE REACHED AT 639-4171.
Recommendations:
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S)
SHALL BE SATISFIED OR FINANCIALLY SECURED:
1. An agreement shall be executed by the applicant, on forms provided by the City,
which waives the property owner's right to oppose or remonstrate against a future
Local Improvement District formed to improve SW Commercial Street. STAFF
CONTACT: Diane lelderks, Engineering Department.
2. The applicant shall submit a revised site and a landscape plans that shows
provision for the following:
a. The applicant shall obtain variance approval for deletion of the two
landscape islands proposed to be located within the parking lot.
b. A minimum of three bicycle parking racks shall be provided.
C. Additional matching ground cover be provided along the
frontage which adjoins a remainder parcel along SW Hall
Boulevard.
d. A minimum of 16 total Vine Maple street trees shall be provided
along the site's SW Commercial Street frontage. Presently 6-8 trees
have been provided.
e. All site improvements shall comply and be maintained in
accordance with the revised site plan or as approved by the
Planning Division.
STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division.
CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN MONTHS FROM THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
HEARINGS OFFICER - CUP 94-0008 (Major Mod.) - MAGNO HUMPHRIES PAGE 10
0 0
e-7~ 12-4-4v
PREPARED BY: Mark Roberts DATE
Assistant Planner
qnc,ck
APPROVED BY: Dick ewersdorff DATE
Senior Planner
HEARINGS OFFICER - CUP 94-0008 (Major Mod.) - MAGNO HUMPHRIES PAGE 11
EXHIBIT A
i s
Sr C OMMEN AL STREEr
Face - PAWMENr
lx~b':va Tl rtneaeo dOMIgCN V~VbcwP¢o w.Pa` faM4lbP.V EDO~ /IdMV"g 90" .•:l nDgLw~l~/.Rl.~
4 LJRG
n,.-
s~-
RM'Fr I e `f~iJ1~a MTta4RTL~~ I T• y .I I ~
. t r~ x.no~ose iN„•Lww.n . ~ I ~ 4e erica • ~.'•e'.' a+w='f" LL~~ _ ~ A 4~
1. ~>su.v - ne:i.~e~SL+°eo:>u~~~cs!o .
Z I I I I
~ E..a . BULCEi6 I I A.~
MLIID &F.
ppoposm
ADDWM ' SH TLI.I. PVRB wt-f( 00- r i i , ,
sAn ar.
- ' cw~+~Pr i'eT'B sa etiLle ris:s . •279: f' 8,
k (:G.CtP-~ iii' LMGb'I`/~D Id.~NV ►
L'YJt.40.
~Lla:'E LpbMi4~ADlA II ~9CC7E PNwTl76rRP80~'K
(nLlHe MWA '11 Nop. SL.n)
rleAi.aQw9 ..f. u~ -If
SITE PLAN
moire v~.rA,. ,
6Wr y~ 4i2 3 r
DY16L)INGM- D9.Oi1 'AP
PAVEV Ap&► ~,R47 Sv •~SlJl7)
LkKDWAFW "L.-i1~79'! 9.F 1►jDt'b~
PAfIfJMq tC ! 1 • ~34ruuyn)
' - If' .'~e..O~kLI rtgy16 O
fOR WIp1 •/N'ED glM/V6 j.
PLOT PLAN
EXHIBIT MAP
1 CASE NO.
T CUP #94-0008
MAJOR MODIFICATION
<4
n~
W
W
a
0
Z
Z
Z
CL
0c
U
U.
O
i
a.
w
z
z
a
J
oc
a
0
VICINITY
EXHIBIT MAID
,-~1
'IN
•
J
PO
CASE NO.
CUP #94-0008
MAJOR MODIFICATION
U.
0
U
a
t~
A'
•
BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
Regarding an application by the Dalton Company for ) FINAL ORDER
approval of a preliminary plat for a 47-lot land division }
and sensitive lands review for a 13.7-acre parcel in the ) SUB 94-0005
R-4.5 zone between SW 132nd and 135th Avenues } SLR 94=0007
south of SW Walnut Street in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Hoodview Estates)
I. SUMMARY
1. The applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat to create 47 lots ranging in
size from 7500 to 13,000 square feet and associated streets and utilities. Proposed lots do
or can comply with the dimensional standards of the R-4.5 zone. Because the site includes
a drainage swale and land with slopes of more than 25%, the applicant also requests
approval of a sensitive lands review.
2. At the public hearings in this matter on December 12, 1994, City staff
recommended conditional approval. The applicant accepted most of the conditions of
approval recommended by staff. Nine witnesses testified against the subdivision or with
objections and concerns about storm water drainage, access to the site and adjoining
undeveloped properties, and the safety of streets affected by the proposal. The hearings
officer held open the public record until 5 PM, December 31, 1994. However, due to the
nature of the new evidence and revised staff recommendation submitted after the hearing,
the hearings officer issued a written order on January 17, 1995 re-opening the record until
January 24, 1995. The hearings officer hereby approves the preliminary plat and sensitive
lands review subject to conditions of approval at the conclusion of this final order.
II. HEARING AND RECORD
1. Hearings Officer Larry Epstein received testimony at the public hearing about
this application on December 12, 1994 and received additional testimony and evidence
through January 24, 1995, when the record closed. 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.
a. City planner Will D'Andrea summarized the Staff Report. He
recommended an amendment to condition number 23 to state that lots 34 through 37 shall
be prohibited from having direct access to SW 132nd Avenue.
b. Mark Ferris, of Alpha Engineering, testified for the applicant in general
agreement with the staff report and recommended conditions except for conditions 15 and
18. Condition 15 requires the applicant to amend the plat to provide for a future extension
of "C" Street to the north and south and/or a pedestrian path. Mr. Ferris argued that three
20-foot public utility easements can be used for pedestrian access and fulfill the
recommended condition. Mr. Ferris stated that "C" Street was not extended to the north
because the slopes exceed 15 percent. Given his experience and a City staff report on a
1991 subdivision proposal for this site, these slopes make the extension economically
infeasible. He also argued that if "C" Street is extended south to the street shown on the
future street concept plan, the block length would exceed 600 feet, in violation of the
standard in CDC 18.164.040. He argued that a 20-foot pedestrian easement is provided
from "C" Street to the south edge of the site in compliance with the Code. Regarding
condition number 18, which requires that 14 lots comply with solar access performance
standards in CDC 18.88.040(C)(3), Mr. Harris stated that:
Page I Hearings Officer Final Order
SUB 94-00051SLR 94-0007 (Hoodview Estares)
0 0
(1) Nine of the 47 lots (5, 6, 10, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39, and 40)
comply with the basic solar access standards in CDC 18.88.040(1(0)(1), because they
have a minimum north-south dimension of 90 feet and a front lot line orientation within 30
degrees of true east-west.
(2) Nine of the lots can be counted as the standard 20 percent
exemption from these basic solar lot requirements.
(3) Fifteen lots (18-27, 30, 43, 44, and 45), comply with the
standards for an exemption for part of a development in 18.88.040(D)(1), because of steep
non-southerly slopes.
(4) 23 lots (1-4, 7-9, 11-17, 34-37, 41, 42, 46 and 47), comply
with the standards for an adjustment to solar access standards under 18.88.040(E)(1)(a)(i)
and (iii) because these lots exceed 10 percent slope and are oriented in a direction greater
than 45 degrees east or west of true south, slopes exceeding 25 percent on the site prevent a
road pattern allowing for lots being oriented for solar access, and that to design the
subdivision to meet the solar orientation requirements would reduce the density and
increase the cost per lot by more than 5 percent.
c. Steve Dalton, the applicant, asked whether the City is asking for "C"
Street to be extended north and south or just for pedestrian access to the area? Will
D'Andrea responded the City is only asking for pedestrian access. He also stated that if the
projected street pattern occurs, the block length would be within the 600 foot code
requirement.
d. Bob Ludlam, owner of five acres at the southwest corner of the
proposed subdivision, generally supports the subdivision. He wants assurance that "B"
Street will be extended to the south edge of the site so it can be extended to serve his
property. He also is concerned about storm water runoff from the site. He stated that the
drainage from "A" Street flows toward his property, but that the developer proposes to
direct this drainage east to "B" Street. He wants to be sure it is collected and not
discharged onto his property. Mr. Ludlum suggested an open area to the southwest would
be a good storm water detention area.
e. Mary Piestrak, owner of land southwest of the site, testified about
concerns with storm drainage, protection of the creek, the safety of the intersection of "B"
Street and SW 132nd Avenue, and the safety of the future street plan for the property to the
south. She stated that grading on Hillshire Estates and Benchview Estates subdivisions
have changed the storm water pattern. The creek has changed since development in the
area. She expressed concern about whether the lot layout best protects the creek. She
stated that SW 132nd has a curve near the proposed access, has high traffic volume and
problems with speeding. She argued that future access points to that street where shown
will be near existing driveways and the crest of the hill and will be dangerous because of
inadequate sight distance.
f. Jim Correll and Craig Price, residents in Hillshire Estates west of the
site, testified with concern about the safety of access onto SW 135th Avenue and adequacy
of drainage management. They argued these problems have not been adequately addressed
in past developments. Mr. Correll stated traffic speeds on SW 135th Avenue. He said that
"A" Street will enter on a blind spot and will compound an existing traffic hazard caused by
speeding traffic. He argued that the proposal does not address the incremental effects of
traffic from developments in the area. Mr. Price argued that speed pumps, a mobile radar
Page 2 Hearings Officer Final Order
SUB 94-00051SLR 94-0007 (Hoodview Estates)
0 0
machine and intermittent traffic enforcement have not solved the speeding problem. They
argued traffic conditions will deteriorate more as more traffic uses the street.
g. Paul and Victoria Etchemendy, owners of two parcels immediately south
of the site testified with objections to the proposed street pattern where it adjoins their
property. Mr. Etchemendy stated that the drainageway through the site carries much more
water and sediment than it did before development in the area. He stated that there is more
water spread over a larger area. He is concerned about the effect of water on the future
development of his lots and requested a continuance to further address storm water. Mr.
Etchemendy testified that the proposed access point from his property to SW 132nd
Avenue will intersect 132nd Avenue at the crest of the hill, and steep slopes and inclement
weather make that a bad location for an intersection. He argued that the intersection should
be moved north or south for improved safety. Mrs. Etchemendy stated that the current
traffic volume on SW 132nd Avenue is 1500 vehicle trips per day and that most of the
approved lots in the area are not improved with homes yet. She confirmed other witnesses
testimony about high traffic speed on 132nd Avenue.
h. Dan Woloschuk, a resident of Hillshire Estates west of the site, argued
that the intersection of "A" Street will complicate existing traffic conflicts. He stated that
there is a dangerous curve near the intersection of Loren Road with SW 135th Avenue, and
the access onto Walnut Street is terrible. He confirmed other witnesses testimony about
traffic speeding on 132nd and 135th Avenues. He argued in favor of requiring more open
space in the area.
i. Christine Shutter, a resident in Hillshire Estates, testified that she wants
height restrictions on lots 1 through 5 to maintain the view from her home across the site.
k. Yvonne Harrison testified with concerns about where storm water will
go after it is discharged into the detention facility. She said the culvert under SW 132nd
Avenue already fills during storm events.
1. Mr. Ferris and Jerry Palmer testified in response to public testimony.
Mr. Ferris pointed out that the potential future street plan submitted shows just a possible
alignment. Mr. Palmer responded that the drainage way has undergone changes to upland
development which occurred under prior development standards. As the properties above
develop, the drainage will need to be handled. The proposal is to build adequate capacity in
a drainage pipe to a detention facility in the northeast corner of the site. There are two 30-
inch culverts crossing SW 132nd Avenue. The detention facility can be designed to release
the water into the culvert when it has capacity or the culverts can be replaced. The
proposal involves filling on the south edge and depressing the inlet structures so water can
be collected without backing up onto the upstream properties to the south. He argued that
future access onto SW 132nd Avenue needs to be located at the crest of the hill to achieve
required sight distance of 300 to 350 feet. That distance is adequate for speeds of 30 to 35
miles per hour. Regarding the access onto SW 135th Avenue, the location was selected to
maximize the distance to the crest; it was moved north 150 feet from the original proposed
access to improve the site distance. He argued that it is not an unsafe access.
m. At the end of the testimony, the hearings officer concluded that the
applicant had not submitted new evidence and closed the public portion of the hearing
without continuing the hearing. The hearings officer ordered the public record to be kept
open until December 31, 1994 to receive for additional testimony about the preliminary
street and drainage plan.
Page 3 Hearings Officer Final Order
SUB 94-00051SLR 94-0007 (Hoodview Estates)
0 0
2. The hearings officer received the following evidence between the close of the
hearing and December 31, 1994.
a. A December 19, 1994 memorandum from Michael Anderson stating that
supplemental calculations were submitted that verify the size of the detention pond and that
these calculations and the drainage pipe size and inlet requirements will be reviewed with
the final plat to verify they satisfy the design standards of the Unified Sewerage Agency.
b. A December 23, 1994 letter from Paul and Victoria Etchemendy stating
that they favor placing a street between the site and their adjoining lax lots 501 and 502 to
the south rather than have an east west street cross their property from 132nd Avenue to
"B" Street (extended). One-half of this street would be on the subject site, and the other
half of the street would be provided when the Etchemendy property develops. Compared
to the street shown on the future street plan, they argued a street on the property line
provides better sight distance at the intersection with 132nd Avenue, reduces the
environmental impact on tax lot 501 (because of the slopes on that lot), and provides better
access to tax lots 501 and 503 to the south.
c. A December 27, 1994 letter from Will D'Andrea supporting and
recommending approval of the proposed new street alignment suggested by Paul and
Victoria Etchemendy, and recommending that access to this street should be restricted to
lots 37 through 40. The staff further recommended that "C" Street either be shortened or
have its access from the new street rather than from "B" Street to eliminate the creation of
lots that have frontage on two streets.
3. By letters dated January 12, 1995 from Mark Ferris and January 16 from Steven
Dalton, the applicant requested an opportunity to respond to the new evidence submitted
after the hearing. The hearings officer received those letters into the record and issued a
written order, incorporated herein, re-opening the record for seven calendar days to allow
the applicant to respond to the new evidence. Mr. Ferris subsequently submitted a written
rebuttal to the new evidence. In that rebuttal statement, he argued in relevant part:
a. A half-street will not work, because it provides only a 14-foot paved
street section. If a full street is situated on the applicant's property, it will eliminate too
many lots and will make the subdivision infeasible.
b. The half-street approach improperly shifts more of the cost of
development to the applicant.
c. It may not be possible to develop all of the Etchemendy property, due to
wetland conditions; therefore, the half-street road might never be improved to full width
standards.
d. There is insufficient analysis to warrant requiring the redesign of the
preliminary plat to incorporate a half-street abutting the Etchemendy property.
III. SITE VISIT
The hearings officer visited the site before the hearing without the company of others.
The hearings officer announced at the hearing that he had done so and invited parties to ask
what he observed. No one did so.
Page 4 Hearings Officer Final Order
SUB 94-00051SLR 94-0007 (Hoodview Estates)
0 0
IV. WCUSSION
1. City staff originally recommended approval of the application subject to
conditions in the Staff Report as amended at the hearing. The hearings officer finds that the
Staff Report generally contains all the applicable standards for the application and findings
showing the application complies with those standards. Those findings are not disputed in
large part. To the extent the findings are not disputed, the hearings officer adopts them as
his own in support of a decision to approve the subdivision subject to the conditions
recommended in the Staff Report except as expressly provided otherwise below.
2. There is a dispute about whether the subdivision complies with CDC
18.164.040(B), which prohibits block perimeters from exceeding 1800 feet unless
topography requires otherwise. The perimeter of the block fronting "A" Street exceeds
1800 feet. However, the uncontested evidence is that this result is warranted, because the
site contains slopes exceeding 25 percent. Extending the street is not economically feasible
or practicable, based on the applicant's testimony and the Staff Report in the matter of SUB
90-0015/SLR 90-00141VAR 90-0039. City staff recommended either that the developer
provide for an alternative perimeter street or mid-block pedestrian paths. The hearings
officer finds the utility easements from "A" Street to the north edge of the site, from "A"
Street to "B" Street, and from the south end of "C" Street to the south edge of the site can
be used to comply with the condition recommended by staff and with applicable City
standards. Conditions of approval 15 and 21 should be administered accordingly.
3. There is a dispute about whether the subdivision complies with CDC 18.164
regarding streets. The Etchemendy's and City staff argue that, to provide safer access for
future development to the south and a more convenient location utilities, a street should be
located along the south boundary of the site. The applicant disagrees. The hearings officer
finds that the preliminary plat complies with applicable street standards in CDC 18.164.
Therefore, a condition of approval is not warranted requiring the applicant to redesign the
plat to provide for a half-street centered on the south edge of the site.
a. CDC 18.164.030.F provides for future street plans. Subsection 1
requires an applicant to file such a plan. Subsection 1 provides:
When necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future
division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary
lines of the tract to be developed...
(1) This section does not authorize the hearings officer to require an
applicant to relocate streets on the site of a given development to conform to a proposed
street pattern off the site. It merely requires an applicant to extend streets to the edge of the
site so that they can be extended off-site in the future. The applicant has done so by
extending "A" and "B" Streets to the south edge of the site. The record reflects that those
streets can be extended off-site to the south, although physical constraints may affect such
extensions. Without more evidence about the off-site conditions, the hearings officer
cannot determine whether it is feasible to extend streets off-site to the south, but the CDC
does not require such a determination at this time. If a subsequent application to develop
adjoining land includes evidence that extension of the street is not feasible, then CDC
18.164.030.F.1.a allows modification of the approved street plan.
(2) There is not substantial evidence in the record that the sight
distance from proposed access points violates applicable standards or that the sight distance
at proposed intersections complies with those standards. A condition of approval is
warranted requiring the applicant to submit certification from a professional engineer that
Page 5--- Hearings Officer Final Order
SUB 94-00051SLR 94-0007 (Hoodview Estates)
a 0
sight distance at proposed intersections with 132nd and 135th Avenues complies with city
standards if any.
b. A half-street would not comply with general standards of the CDC.
CDC 18.164.030.J provides that partial street improvements are "generally not acceptable,"
although they "may be approved where essential to reasonable development..."
(1) The hearings officer finds the record does not contain evidence
showing that a partial street centered on the south edge of the site between "B" Street and
132nd Avenue is essential to reasonable development. On the contrary, the preliminary plat
shows that the subject site can be developed without the half street. Therefore, in the
context of the application under consideration, the half-street is not essential.
(2) The record also does not show that the half-street is essential to
the development of the Etchemendy property. There is testimony disputing the safety of an
intersection of an east-west street from the Etchemendy property to 132nd Avenue, but that
testimony is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Neither City staff nor the
Etehemendy's provide substantial evidence of sight distance, such as measurements, speed
studies or the like, at either of the possible 132nd Avenue intersection points. Neither
provided substantial evidence that the street system shown on the future street plan
prepared by the applicant is not feasible due to topography or natural conditions. In light of
the lack of substantial evidence of the essential need for the half-street, the hearings officer
finds a half-street should not be required instead of the proposed streets.
4. There is a dispute about the safety and adequacy of access to SW 135th Avenue.
The parties did not cite to specific code language regarding this dispute. The hearings
officer concludes that the proposed location of the intersection of the street on the site to
135th Avenue is safer than the location that was approved when 135th Avenue was created
(as reflected by the curb cut abutting the site), because it provides better sight distance. The
intersection at SW 135th with Walnut Street is awkward, but the proposed subdivision
does not significantly affect that intersection. By providing for access between 135th and
132nd Avenues, the proposed subdivision may reduce traffic volumes on 135th Avenue.
In any event, the evidence in the record does not show that 132nd or 135th Avenues are
operating over capacity or are subject to significant hazards.
5. There is some confusion about the application of solar access standards to the
subdivision. CDC 18.88.040 requires that 80 percent of the lots meet certain standards for
solar orientation. CDC 18.88.040(D) provides criteria for exempting lots from the solar
orientation standards and CDC 18.88.040(E) provides criteria under for reducing the
percentage of the lots that must comply with the standard. The hearings officer finds that
the preliminary plat complies with the solar access standards, with exceptions and
adjustments permitted by law, based on the unrebutted testimony of the applicant.
Therefore, condition of approval 18 should be deleted.
6. There is concern about storm water drainage. The hearings officer finds the
preliminary drainage plan, the findings regarding storm drainage in the Staff Report,
further calculations reviewed by the City staff confirming that the size of the detention pond
is adequate, and the fact that drainage improvements will be reviewed with the final plat to
verify that they satisfy the City's design standards show that the plat complies with the
approval criteria for a sensitive lands permit within drainageways in Section 18.84.040(C)
and with storm drainage improvement standards in Section 18.164.100.
Page 6 Hearings Officer Final Order
SUB 94-00051SLR 94-0007 (Hoodview Estates)
0 0
7. There is a dispute about protecting views from adjoining property. However,
the city land use regulations do not require the owner of one property to protect views from
another property. Therefore, the dispute is irrelevant.
8. There is some uncertainty about whether there are wetlands on the site. The
preliminary plat shows a "drainage swale" across the site. Testimony at the hearing
indicated that there is a "creek" across the site which may have associated wetlands.
Condition of approval 19 requires the applicant to obtain permits from the Oregon Division
of State Lands and US Army Corps of Engineers. Before obtaining those permits, the
applicant must show whether any wetlands exist on the site and protect those wetlands or
receive approval to modify therm. That assures wetlands on the site will be addressed.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the above findings, and the conclusions in section VI and VII of the Staff
Report, the applicant's request does or can comply with the applicable standards of the City
of Tigard Community Development Code and should be approved, subject to the
conditions of approval in the Staff Report with certain changes.
V. ORDER
The applicant's request, SUB 94-0005 and SLR 94-0007 (Hoodview Estates), is
hereby approved, subject to the conditions in Section VII of the Staff Report, with the
following amendments:
1. Condition of approval 18 is hereby deleted.
2. Condition of approval 23 is hereby amended to read as follows:
The plat shall prohibit direct access from any lot in the subdivision
onto SW 132nd Avenue
is 6th day ffebruary,1995.
/WVzW /11
Larry Epste' , ZP
City of Tig s Officer
Page 7--- Hearings Officer Final Order
SUB 94-00051SLR 94-0007 (Hoodview Estates)
0 0
AGENDA ITEM Z, 2
BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
Regarding an application by the Dalton Company STAFF REPORT
for a subdivision consisting of approximately SUB 94-0005
13.7 acres located west of SW 132nd Avenue, east SLR 94-0007
of SW 135th Avenue, approximately 700 feet south
of the intersection of SW Walnut Street and SW 132nd
Avenue and 1000 feet south of the intersection of
SW Walnut Street and SW 135th Avenue.
1. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST
CASE: Subdivision SUB 94-0005
Sensitive Lands Review SLR 94-0007
SUMMARY: The applicant requests Subdivision approval to divide a parcel consisting
of approximately 13.7 acres into forty-seven lots ranging in size from 7,500
square feet to 13,000 square feet. The applicant also requests Sensitive
Lands Review approval of the preliminary plan because road construction
and lot preparation would include areas with slopes in excess of 25
percent. The site also contains a drainage Swale.
APPLICANT: Steve Dalton OWNER: Jerry Burge
8465A SW Hemlock 18975 NE Calkins Lane
Tigard, OR 97223 Newberg, OR 97132
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5, (Residential, 4.5 units per acre)
LOCATION: (WCTM 2S1 413, tax lot 600)
HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 94-0005 - Dalton/Burge PAGE 1
0 0
APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92,
18.100,18.102,18.106,18.108,18.114/ 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. Comprehensive Plan
Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions.
II. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
A. Site size and shape:
Tax Lot 600 is a rectangular parcel containing approximately 13.7 acres. The site
is approximately 650 feet north-south by 975 feet east-west. A 225 foot by 185
foot notch is taken out of the northwestern corner of this rectangle for the parcel
containing the Tigard's Water District's water storage tank on SW 135th Avenue.
B. Site location:
The site is bounded by 132nd on the east and SW 135th Avenue on the west.
The site is approximately 700 feet south of the intersection of Walnut Street and
SW 132nd Avenue, 1000 feet south of the intersection of Walnut and 135th
Avenue, and east of "Hillshire Estates" subdivision.
C. Existing uses and structures:
The site is presently vacant and shows evidence of having been logged sometime
in the last 10-15 years.
D. Togoeraphv and drainaee:
The site slopes significantly from a height of approximately 450 feet adjacent to
the newly constructed area of SW 135th Avenue to a low elevation of
approximately 300 feet in the northeastern corner of the site. A drainage swale
runs across the southeast corner of the site. The applicant has submitted a slope
analysis map that notes that approximately 2.17 acres of this site contains slopes
in excess of 25 percent grade. Because a portion of these slopes in excess of 25
percent will be utilized for road development and residential development and the
site contains a drainage swale, a sensitive lands review is considered as part of this
subdivision application.
HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 94-0005 - Dalton/Burge PAGE 2
E. Surroundine zonine and land uses:
The surrounding properties to the north and south are zoned for single family
residential development at a density of 4.5 units per acre. Properties to the west
are currently being developed with single family homes on property zoned R-7
(Residential, 7 units per acre). Properties to the north of the subject site contain
a number of single family residences on lots substantially larger than the minimum
lot size for the zone. These lots have potential for redevelopment. A Tigard
Water District water storage tank is located on a parcel to the northwest of the
proposed subdivision. Parcels to the east and south are largely undeveloped and
are wooded.
G. Proposed use:
The applicant proposes to subdivide the site into 47 single family residential lots
ranging in size from 8,000 to 13,440 square feet. The subdivision proposal
includes the development of local streets off of both 132nd Avenue and SW 135th
Avenue. Because of the steep topography, the two roads on the site are not
intended to be connected at this time. The westernmost road would serve 20 lots
and would terminate in a temporary dead end abutting Tax Lot 500 to the south.
The easternmost road would serve 27 lots and would also terminate in a
temporary dead end abutting Tax Lot 500. The preliminary plat shows a possible
scheme for road development and connections on the four parcels to the south.
This scheme would provide for a future street connection between SW 132nd
Avenue and SW 135th Avenue. No road connections to the north are proposed.
The applicant also requests Sensitive Lands Review approval of the preliminary
plan because road construction and lot preparation would include areas with
slopes in excess of 25 percent and the site contains a drainage swale.
III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS
A. Communitv Development Code:
Development Standards: Section 18.50 contains standards for the R-4.5 zone.
Single-family detached residential units are a permitted use in the zone, and must
comply with the following dimensional requirements:
Minimum lot size 7,500 square feet/unit
Average lot width 50 feet
HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 94-0005 - Dalton/Burge PAGE 3
0 0
Front setback
20 feet
Garage setback
20 feet
Interior sideyard setback
5 feet
Corner sideyard setback
10 feet
Rear setback
15 feet
Maximum building height
30 feet
Solar Access: Section 18.88.040(0)(1) contains solar access standards for new
residential development. A lot meets the basic solar access lot standard if it has
a north-south dimension of 90 feet or more and has a front lot line that is oriented
within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis. A subdivision complies with the basic
requirement if 80% or more of the newly created parcels meet this standard.
Alternatively, an applicant can meet the City's Solar Access Standards by
complying with the protected Solar Building Line Option or the Performance
Option. Energy efficiency is ensured through the location of the residence with
sufficient solar access or through the design of the homes which incorporates
window glazing with solar orientation. An applicant can request an exception to
the solar access standards based on the following development constraints: Site
topography in excess of a 10 percent slope, shade from existing on-site or off-site
vegetation or structures, significant natural features, existing street public easement
patterns, impacts to density, cost or amenities of the project which adds five
percent or more to the cost of each lot.
Sensitive Lands: Section 18.84.040(6) contains regulations for the development of
lands with a slope of 25 percent or greater. The intent of the Sensitive Lands
Review process is to assure that land disturbances on slopes of 25 percent or
greater are limited in extent to what is necessary for the intended use so as to limit
soil erosion, ground instability, and other possible adverse effects or hazards to life
or property. The Director shall approve an application for sensitive lands permit
on slopes of 25% or greater based upon findings that all of the following criteria
have been satisfied:
1. The extent and nature of the proposed land use form alteration or
development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that
required for the use;
HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 94-0005 - Dalton/Burge PAGE 4
2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in
erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site
and off-site effects or hazards to life or property;
3. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural
stability and proper drainage of foundation and crawl space areas for
development with any of the following soil conditions: wet/high water
table; high shrink-swell capability; compressible/organic; and shallow
depth-to-bedrock; and
4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration
or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces
will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100,
Landscaping and Screening.
Section 18.84.040(C) states that the Director shall approve or approve with
conditions an application request for a sensitive lands permit within drainageways
based upon findings that all of the following criteria has been satisfied:
1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or
development will not create site disturbances to the extent greater
than that required for the use.
2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in
erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse
on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property.
3. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased.
4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form
alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or
impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in
accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening.
5. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate
size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the
adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan.
HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 94-0005 - Dalton/Burge PAGE 5
0 0
6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon
Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals shall be obtained.
7. Where landform alterations and/or development are allowed within
and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the
dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the
floodplain in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. This area
shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of
a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance
with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan.
Because a subdivision is reviewed by the Hearings Officer, the sensitive lands
requirements for slopes and drainage come under the scope of the Hearings
Officer review.
Densitv: Section 18.92.020 contains standards for density. The number of
dwelling units permitted is based on the net development area, excluding sensitive
land areas and land dedicated for public roads or parks, or for private roadways.
This land area is then divided by the minimum parcel size permitted by the
zoning district to determine the number of lots which may be created on a site.
Landscaping: Section 18.100 contains landscaping standards for new
development. The applicant must also comply with the standards set forth in
Section 18.100.035 which requires that all development projects fronting on a
public or private street, or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length plant
street trees.
Visual Clearance Areas: Section 18.102 requires that a clear vision area shall be
maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or
the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A visual clearance area
is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30 foot distance along the street right-
of-way and the driveway and then connecting these two 30 foot distance points
with a straight line. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting,
fence, wall structure, signs, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding
three feet in height. The height is measured from the top of the curb, or where
no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this
height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are
removed.
HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 94-0005 - Dalton/Burge PAGE 6
9 0
Access. Egress. Circulation: Section 18.108 contains standards for the width of
access driveways to single family residences. In order to comply with the
standard each lot must be provided with a ten foot wide residential driveway.
Tree Removal: Section 18.150.020(E) requires a permit for removal of trees
having a trunk six inches or more in diameter measured four feet above the
ground level. A permit for tree removal must comply with the following criteria
as specified in Section 18.150.030(A):
a. The trees are diseased, present a danger to property, or interfere
with utility service or traffic safety;
b. The trees have to be removed to construct proposed improvements
or to otherwise utilize the applicant's property in a reasonable
manner;
C. The trees are not needed to prevent erosion, instability, or drainage
problems;
d. The trees are not needed to protect nearby trees as windbreaks or
as a desirable balance between shade and open space;
e. The aesthetic character in the area will not be visually adversely
affected by the tree removal; and
f. New vegetation planted by the applicant, if any, will replace the
aesthetic value of trees to be cut.
Subdivision Design: Section 18.160.060(A) contains standards for subdivision of
parcels into four or more lots. To be approved, a preliminary plat must comply
with the following criteria:
1. The proposal must comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the
applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and
regulations;
2. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must
otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92;
HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 94-0005 - Dalton/Burge PAGE 7
3. Streets and roads must be laid out so as to conform to the plats of
subdivisions and maps of partitions or subdivisions already
approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and
in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public
interest to modify the street or road pattern; and
4. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements.
Street and Utility Improvements: Section 18.164 contains standards for streets and
utilities serving a subdivision:
1. Section 18.164.030(A) requires streets within and adjoining a
development to be dedicated and improved based on the
classification of the street.
2. Section 18.164.030(E) requires a local street to have a minimum 44
foot right-of-way and 28 foot paved section between curbs and
sidewalks.
3. Section 18.164.030(F) states that where it is necessary to give access
or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall
be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and
a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street.
4. Section 18.164.030(K) requires that a cul-de-sac shall be no more
than 400 feet long nor provide access to greater than 20 dwelling
units.
5. Section 18.164.030(M) requires that grades shall not exceed 12
percent on local streets, except that local residential streets may
have segments with grades up to 15 percent for distances of no
greater than 250 feet.
6. Section 18.164.040(A) (Blocks Design) states that the length, width
and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing
adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of
needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street
traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of
topography.
HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 94-0005 - Dalton/Burge PAGE 8
7. Section 18.164.040(6)(1) states that the perimeter of blocks formed
by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-
way line except:
a. Where street location is precluded by natural topography,
wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing
development or;
b. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access
highways, major collectors or railroads.
C. For non-residential blocks in which internal public
circulation provides equivalent access.
8. Section 18.164.040(6)(2) states that when block lengths greater than
600 feet are permitted, pedestrian / bikeways shall be provided
through the block.
9. Section 18.164.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5
times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times
the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district.
10. Section 18.164.060(6) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of
frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley.
11. Section 18.164.060(C) states that through lots shall be avoided
except where they are essential to provide separation of residential
development from major traffic arterials or to overcome specific
disadvantages of topography and orientation, and;
a. A planting buffer at least ten feet wide is required abutting
the arterial rights-of-way; and
b. All through lots shall provide the required front yard setback
on each street.
12. Section 18.164.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all residential
streets.
HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 94-0005 - Dalton/Burge PAGE 9