Resolution No. 86-117 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO, 86-_
A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
(ZOA 5-86) REQUESTED BY ERNEST AND BARBARA MARX, DENYING THE APPLICATION,
ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.
WHEREAS, the applicants requested a Zone Ordinance Amendment to Title 18 of
the Tigard Municipal Code to allow public agency admi:,istrative services;
lodge fraternal and civic assembly; general retail sales (limited to bulky
merchandise); and personal services as permitted uses in the I-P (Industrial
Park) zone.
WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission heard the above application at its
regular meeting of August 19, 1986, and recommended denial;
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council heard the above application at its regular
meeting of September 8, 1986. No one appeared to testify regarding this
proposal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
Section 1: The proposal is not consistent with all relevant criteria as
discussed in the April 8, 1986, Planning staff report to
Planning Commission (Exhibit "A").
Section 2: The City Council upholds the Planning Commission recommendation
for denial of the Zone Ordinance Amendment as set forth in
Exhibit "B".
Section 3: The Council, therefore, ORDERS that the above referenced request
be, and the same hereby is DENIED. The Council FURTHER ORDERS
that the Planning Director and the City Recorder send a copy of
the Final Order as a Notice of Final Decision to the parties in
this case.
PASSED: This �7J day of 1986.
Mayor - City of Tigard
AI-TEST:
sting City Recorder - City of Tigard _
dj/193
RESOLUTION NO. 86-//?
Page 1
AGENDA ITEM 5.3
PLANNING COMIMISSION
August 19, 1986
MEMO
"A"
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Keith Liden, Senior Planner
RE: ZOA 5-86 for Ernest and Barbara Marx
A. FACTS
1. General Information
i
CASE: Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 5-86
REQUEST: To allow public agency administrative services; lodge, fraternal
and civic assembly; general retail sales (limited to bulky
merchandise such as furniture and large appliances); and
personal services, general as permitted uses in the I-P
(Industrial Park) zone.
r APPLICANT: Ernest and Barbara Marx
13627 Sunset Blvd.
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
2. Background
The I-P (Industrial Park) zone was adopted by the City in November, 1983.
One amendment of this zone occurred in 1985, resulting in the list of
permitted and conditional uses contained in the applicant's narrative.
3. Proposal ♦Description
The applicant is proposing that several additional uses be allowed in the
I-P zone. The contention is that these use are consistent with the intent
of the zone and compatible with or similar to other allowed uses. Listed
below are the proposed uses to be added, the Community Development Code
definitions, and the zones in which these use are presently allowed.
i
Public Administrative Agency
Refers to public service providers, record keeping, clerical, or
public contact services that deal directly with the citizen, together
with incidental storage and maintenance of necessary vehicles, and
excludes commercial use type, "Professional and Administrative
Services." Typical use types are zssociated with governmental
<' ofrices.
(Permitted C-W, C-G, C-P, and CBD zones.)
70A 5-86 (Earnest c, Barbara Marx) - Page 1
Lodge, Fraternal, and Civic Assembly
Refers to meetings and activities primarily conducted for the members
of a particular group. Excluded from this use type are uses
classified as group residential, group care, and transient lodging
(all types). Typical uses include meeting places for civic clubs,
lodges, or fraternal or veterans organizations.
(permitted C-G, C-P, CBD zones, conditional R-12, R-25, R-40, and C-N
zones.)
General Retail Sales
Refers to the sale or rental of commonly used goods, and merchandise
for personal or household use, but excludes those classified as
Agricultural Sales, Animal Sales and Services, Automotive and
Equipment, Business Equipment Sales and Services, Construction Sales
and Services, Food and Beverage Retail Sales, and Vehicle Fuel
Sales. Typical uses include department stores, apparel stores,
furniture store3, pet stores, or book stores.
(Permitted C-G, CBD zones, permitted with 20% limit on total floor
area of a project C-P and I-P zones.)
Personal Services Facilities
Refers to the establishments primarily engaged in the provision of
informational, instru-'ional, personal improvement, and similar
services of nonprof-<sional nature but excludes services classified
5^ under Spectator Sports and Entertainment Facilities, Participant
Sports and Recreation, or Transient Lodging. typical uses include
photography studios, driving schools and trade schools or reducing
salons.
(Permitted C-G, C-P, CBD zones, permitted with 20% limit on total
floor area of a project I-P zone.)
4. Agency & NPO Comments
The Engineering and Building Inspection Division have no objection to the
request.
NPO H 1 and 4 have recommended against the proposal.
No other comments have been received.
B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Section 18.30.120 of the Community Development Code states that ordinance
amendments shall be consistent with Statcawide Planning Goals, federal and
state statutes, applicable plans adopted by Metro, applicable
Comprehensive Plan policies, and relevant ordinances. No Plan policies
apply directly to this application and none of the other items mentioned
above would be in conflict with this request. The purpose statement for
the I-P zone and a comparison with the other uses presently allowed in the
1 zone provide the most suitable guidance for reviewing this proposal. The
relevant purpose statements in Section le.68.010 (a) of the Code are
subsections (1), (2), and (4) which are stated below:
ZOA 5-86 (Earnest & Barbara Marx) - Page 2
6
(1) For combining light manufacturing, office and complementary related
commercial use e.g., restaurant, barber shop, beauty salons and
fitness centers;
(2) For combining uses which have no off-site impacts in terms of noise,
odor, glare, lights, vibration, smoke, dust, or other types of
off-site impacts;
(4) Which prohibit residential uses.
Public Agency Administrative Services are consistent with the above
purpose statements and this use is similar to other categories permitted
in the I-P zone such as financial, insurance and real estate services;
professional and administration services; and research services. Public
agencies and utility companies would be well suited for the I-P zone,
particularly when vehicle and equipment storage is necessary.
Lodge, fraternal, and civic assembly meets t'lie above purpose statements
and it should be noted that this is not a residential use. there are no
similar uses presently allowed in the I-P zone.
General retail for bulky merchandise is presently permitted in the I-P
zone if it does not exceed 20% of the total square foot of a development.
The sale of bulky merchandise involves more extensive storage requirements
than other commercial retail establishments. Also, the traffic generation
of these uses is less than most retail uses as reflected by the parking
requirement in the Code for one space for every 1,000 square feet of floor
p area.
K The Planning staff does not object to the presence of bulky merchandise
sales in the I-P zone, however, clear criteria should be formulated to
strictly limit this use to bulky merchandise only and to avoid the
establishment of businesses which sell a variety of large and small
merchandise.
Personal services, general are presently allowed on a similar basis as
general retail sales. This category is consistent with the purpose
statement for the I-P zone and the use appears to be compatible with the
intent of the zone. Since the present vocational training center located
on the property owned by the applicant occupies more than 20% cf the total
floor area, it is considered as a non-conforming use.
C. PEC0MMENDATION
The Planning staff recommends approval of the above proposal to allow
public agency administrative services; lodge, fraternal, and civic
assembly; and personal services, general as permitted uses in the I-P
zone. The sale of bulky merchandise is also appears appropriate, provided
that clear definitions and/or criteria are established to prchibit variety
stores which are only partially devoted to the sale of such merchandise.
The staff will be prepared at the hearing to discuss possible methods for
enforcement- of this distinction between the two types of general retail
d sales.
dj/119
ZOA 5-66 (Earnest & Barbara Marx) - Page 3
5.2 SUBDIVISION S 14-86, LOT 1-ENE ADJUSTMENT M 6-86, VARIANCE V 13--86 NPO ft 3
ALBERT AND VIRIGNIA MISTEREK NPO # 3
°
This item will be readverti sed foYr'°e hearing later in the year. 4CX14 d arrr
RECESS 8:45 PM
RECONVENE 8:55 PM
5.3 ZONE ORDIANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 5-86 ERNEST AND BARBARA MARX (TMTLE 18)
A request for a Zone Ordinance Amendment to Title 18 of the Tigard
Municipal Code to allow public agency administration services; lodge,
fratenal and civic assembly; general retail sales (limited to bulky
merchandise such as furniture and large appliances); and personal services
as permitted in the IP (Industrial Park) zone.
o Commissioner Newman stated that he would notparticipate as a Commissioner
in this hearing as his wife is one of the tenants on the property and he
would be testifying as an individual.
Senior Planner Liden reviewed the proposal. Lengthy discussion followad
regarding changes being proposed.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
o Chuck Cota, Cushman & Wakefield, 111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 2400, Portland, OR
97204, representing the applicant. Explained this request was the result:
of property located on SW Cascade Blvd, next to Power Rents. He explained
that his client will be upgrading the property and would like the
flexibility to lease to uses that are being permitted in the area, such as
Levitz. He questioned whether Power Rents was being catagorized
appropriately. They had originally wanted to do a Zone Change on the
property, but staff had discouraged them and suggested they request a
modification to the IP zone permitted uses. He stated that the parking
requirements for bulky funiture are the same as for other warehouse uses
and would be appropriate for what i_ in the area now.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o Geraldine Ball, NPC # 4 Chairperson, stated that their NPO felt that the
property should have a zone change rather than changing the T_P zone city
wide.
o Will Newman, 10065 SW River-wood Lane, stated that his wife is the Director
of the School which occupies half the facility in question. He did riot
support the proposed change. He did not feel the site had adequato
parking as is and felt the request was more for a CG zone than a IP zone.
He also opposed changing the zoning on the property to CG.
REBUTTAL
o Chuck Cota, explained that their preference would be for a comprehensive
plan and zone change, however staff would not support that proposal. He
stated that the site has 60 parking spaces, which is adequate for the
#' existing use. He continued that because of the change of uses in the area
they would like the ability to lease to a wider market.
PUNNING COrMMISS%ON MINUTES AUGUST 19, 1986 - PAGE 3
r>E
o Discussion followed regarding staff's position on the comprehensive plan
and zone change. Staff felt the entire area should be evaluated rather
than changing the zoning on this one piece of property.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o Consensus of the Commission was that it would not be appropriate to change
the IP zone uses for the entire City. It would be more appropriate to
evaulate the entire area to see if a C-G designation should be assigned to
the area.
* Commissioner Fyre moved and Commissioner Vanderwood seconded to forward
ZOA 5-86 to City Council with a recommendation for denial. Motion carried
by majority vote of Commissioners present. Commissioner Newman abstained.
RECESS 9:32 PM
RECONVENE 9:45 PM
5.4 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 9-86 CROW/SPEIKER/HOSFORD NPO N 5
Request for a Sign Code Exception to allow for the expansion of one free
standing sign and the ability to modify a second sign of three free
standing signs which previously received Sign Exception approval (SCE
1-85) on property zoned C-G (Commercial General). Located: SW Garden
Place (WCTM 2S1 IBB lot 400, 1400, and 1600).
Senior Planner Liden reviewed the previous approval and explained that
this proposal would increase the size of the sign on Hall Blvd. to the
same size as the one on SW Pacific Highway. Also, they would like the
ability to add a reader board to the sign located on Highway 217, if
necessary.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
o Randy Mawhirter, 9350 SW Tigard, Luminite Sign, explained that his client
was still having difficulty with people finding their location. He stated
that the message sign for 217 is something they are anticipating, however,
it may not happen. They would not be increasing the size of the sign on
Highway 217 if they decide to make this charge.
o Discussion followed regarding location and what the signs would look fake.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o No one appeared to speak.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o The majority of the Commissioners supported the proposal. Commissioner
Newman was concerned that the reader board sign location on Highway 217
would cause a visual distraction as it is located where the traffic merges
onto 217 from Pacific Highway.
# Commissioner Fyre moored and Commissioner Vanderwood second--d to approve
( the SCE 9-86 as submitted. Motion carried by majority vote of
Commissioners present. Commissioner Newman voting no.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 1986 - PAGE 4