Resolution No. 89-44 4
^ A
CITY OP YICLARD, CEIRGOR
RBSOLDTIG6 no. 89-LL
ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER, UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF A HEARINGS
OFFICER DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIANCE REQUEST (CU 89-02/V89--07) BY
THE TIGARD ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH, DENYING THE APPLICATION AND ENTERING
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.
WHEREAS, the applicant reque-ated Conditional Use approval r_0 allow
construction of a gymnasium/multi-purpose romm addition to the Tigard Assembly
of God church and school on property zoned R-3.5E and
WHEREAS, the Planning Division staff forwarded a recommendation for approval to
the Tigard Hearings Officer who held a public hearing on April 5, 1989, and
made findings for denial of this rs..3usst; and
AREAS, the denial by the Hearings Officer was appealed to the City Council,
who at a regular meeting on May 8, 15,89, affirmed Lha Nearings office, decison
for denial.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that.
atlo.-. 1. The Tivard Hearings Officer found that requirements for a
Conditional Use as set forth in Code Section 113.130.040 could
not be satisfied. These requirements involved that the
Conditional Use have an adequate arca for the needs of the
proposed use and that adequate area for aesthetic design
treatment to Litigate possible adverse effects from the use on
surrounding properties and uses.
Section 2: Based on the findings and conclusions contained in the
hearings officer final order, (CU 89-G2 and V 89-07), attached
hereto as 'exhibit "A", the decision of the Hearings Officer be
and hereby is affirmed and the request is denied.
PASSED: This ,L�th day of Jure , 1989.,^'
Mayor - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
Deputy Re.-order - city of Tigard
- �kh, r,•t �
BEFORE THE HEARINGS OFFICER
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD
In the matter of the application )
for a conditional use and variance ) No. C-U89-01 and
to allow the construction of a j y89_O7
multi-purpose building next to an )
existing church; Tigard Assembly )
of God, applicant )
The above entitled matter came before the hearings officer
at the regularly scheduled meeting of March 23, 1989, in the
Tigard City Hall, Town Hall Room, in Tigard, Oregon; and
The applicant requests conditional use and variance approval
to develop a multi-purpose building on property zoned R-3.5 and
designated Lona Density REsidential, and described as Tax Lot
1000, Map 2S1, Section 3DC, City of Tigard, County of Washington,
State of Oregon; and
The hearings offices conducted a public hearing on March 23,
1989, at which time testimony, evidence and the planning
department staff report were received; and
The hearings officer makes the following findings:
1. Seztlon 18.130.040 of the Code contains the following
approval criteria for a conditional use:
(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
1
-Res
and natural features.
(3) . .
There are other criteria for conditional uses, but the hearings
officer does not find it necessary to address them, as the
weight of the evidence is that the applicant does not meet the
criteria set forth above.
2. The application is for a "gymnasium", but the applicant
is actually requesting a "multi-purpose" room, which they want to
use in conjunction with church functions, youth ministries,
weddings, lectures, etc., as well as the daytime gymnasium use in
conjunction with their school. The hearings officer has
considered the actual building use requested, rather than limit
the application to the narrower use of "gymnasium" as that word
is commonly used in conjunction with schools.
3. The site contains adequate area for the placement of the
addition. The hearings officer verified this by walking around
the site and viewing the site from the property lines to the
north and west. By adequate, the hearings officer means that the
set backs may be met for the proposed building.
4. The issue before the hearings officer is whether there
is adequate area to meet criteria. (1) (b) and (2) above. The
existing structure (with the exception of the mobile classrooms)
is a pleasant, although massa-re church with a classroom wing that
extends behind the sanctuary. The surrounding property on the
north and west is fully developed with single family residences
2
on fairly small lots. The hearings officer looked over the lot
line fences to the north and saw fairly shallow backyards which
mean that those single family uses have only the setbacks to
buffer them from this use.
This particular ministry is an active one, with meetings and
gatherings on a regular basis aside from the traditional Sunday
services. There is no restriction in the City's code for the
number enrolled at the school, and the hearings officer noted a
well-disciplined, but congested traffic pattern at a noon school
pick-up time. If the school was to increase in size, which the
City could not control, it would increase the traffic impact on
the site and adjacent property as well.
While the argument was made at the hearing that the use
would tend to contain both the children and the other gatherings
in an enclosed area, that does not address the increazzed noise
from the parking area, both from the cars and from the people
congregating before they go inside. The applicant also admitted
that it wanted to reserve the right to have outside gatherings.
It is clear from the applicants testimony that they anticipate
an increase in other activities at the site, some moved from
other areas in the community where they are now held, and some
generated from within and without their congregation.
The City does not require a fixed lot size for conditional
uses such as this one, but allows the decision to be made on a
case by case basis. The hearings officer finds that this lot
3
does not contain adequate area to mitigate the possible adverse
I effects from the use on surrounding properties and uses. In this
garticular case, due to the size of the surrounding lots and the
nature of the placement of those residences, a more intensive
chuich or school use on this property would adversely affect the
surrounding property. In addition., due to the topography of the
i
area, a structure of the size proposed would increase the face
(and therefore the perceived mass) of the building facing the
property to the north by approximately 150$, and the plans show
that mass to be 20-30 feet even closer to the neighbors to the
north. The church is by far the biggest structure these neigh-
bors can see from their properties; the addition would make the
site too massive .for the neighborhood, dwarfing the surrounding
Properties and making the church a far too visually intrusive
neighbov. in this particular case, the surrounding parking lot
is not sufficient to minimize that impact, even though the set
bac3cs have been met.
The hearings officer is unable to suggest any design fea-
tures which could mitigate that impact, and still give the appli-
cant the building size required. The suggestion that the build-
ing have the same roof pitch as the main building would not solve
that problem, but would simply add additional height to the
building_ Perimeter landscaping or fencing is not an adequate
solution as the shrubs, trees or fencing would have to be So fall
that the neighbors would lose significant light, and would simply
4
have "walled in" their lots in either fences cr shrubs. The
hearings officer finds that to be an unreasonable solution as it
would make those already small backyards even less comfortable.
These neighbors should not have to sacrifice the quiet enjoyment
of their backyards, so this church may increase its ministries on
this site.
There is no doubt that the church does good work and serves
its congregation well. it is natural that it would like to serve
that congregation better. However, zoning and land use laws
balance competing uses of land, with each side compromising some.
Tile neighbors have compromised sufficiently in accommodating the
church at it's present level.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that CU 89-01 be and
hereby is denied. The hearings +ffi....-.- make_ no finding Tegard-
ing V 89-07 as it is }hooted by the denial of CU 89-01.
DATED this 'qday of April, 1989.
PGS _OFFF�'L'R APPROVED:. /
a'
5