SLR1991-00001 Decision - KNEZ CITY OF TIGARD
Washington County, Oregon
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY HEARINGS OFFICER
1. Concerning Case Number(s):SLR 91- 0001 /SDR 91- 0001 /VAR 91 -0004
2. Name of Owner: John S. Knez, Sr.
Name of Applicant: Same
3. Address 8185 SW Hunziker Street City Tigard State OR Zip 97223
4. Address of Property: 8185 SW Hunziker Street
Tax Map and Lot No(s).: 2S1 1BC, tax lots 100, 101, & 102
5. Request: A request for Sensitive Lands review approval to fill and
modify, Red Rock Creek,and related channels and wetlands.
Also requested is Site Development Review and Variance
approval to allow construction of an approximately 50,000
square foot building materials facility with 66 parking
spaces whereas the Code requires 74 spaces and a 24 foot
front yard setback whereas the Code requires 30 feet.
Since the June 24, 1991 hearing on this application, the
applicant has added a request for a Variance from Community
Development Code Section 18.84.040 (D) which requires a 25
foot development setback from a significant wetland as
identified by the Comprehensive Plan's Floodplain and
Wetlands map. Z I -L (Light Industrial)
6. Action: Approva as requested
X Approval with conditions
Denial
7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall,
and mailed to:
X The applicant and owner(s)
X Owners of record within the required distance
X The affected Neighborhood Planning
Organization
X Affected governmental agencies
8. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON August 15, 1991
UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED.
The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can
be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW
Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
9. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in
accordance with 18.32.290(B) and Section 18.32.370 which provides that
a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and
sent. The appeal may be submitted on City forms and must be
accompanied by the appeal fee ($315.00) and transcript costs (varies up
to a maximum of $500.00).
The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 p.m. August 15, 1991
10. puestions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard
Planning Department, 639 -4171.
bkm /SLR91- 01.BKM
•
BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
Regarding an application for site development review ) FINAL ORDER
and exceptions by Knez Building Supply for Sensitive ) SLR 91 -0001
Lands Review for land at 8185 SW Hunziker Street in the) SDR 91 -0001
I -L zone in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Knez Building Supply)
I. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST
The applicant requests approval of a Sensitive Lands Review to modify the 100 -year flood
plain of Red Rock Creek as it passes through the site. Modifications will include (1) filling
within the floodplain, (2) wetland and channel alterations to Red Rock Creek, and (3) main
channel expansion by 20 feet. These modifications will allow the applicant to build a
48,800 square foot warehouse building and associated improvements on the site. The
applicant has obtained federal and state permits authorizing the fill and removal. The
applicant requests approval of exceptions to allow (1) a front yard set back of 24 feet rather
than the standard 30 feet, (2) 66 parking spaces rather than the standard 74 spaces, and (3)
a meandering wetland set back of not less than 15 feet rather than the standard 25 feet_
The Hearings Officer held public hearings regarding the application on June 24th and July
29th, 1991. The applicant and his representatives testified in favor. Two witnesses
testified with concerns about drainage back up, loss of a natural resource and compliance
with City Policies. City staff recommended approval at the second hearing.
LOCATION: 8185 SW Hunziker Street, WCTM 2S1 1BC, Tax lots 100, 101, and 102
APPLICANT: John Knez, Sr.
PROPERTY OWNERS: Tax Lots 100 and 102 Tax Lot 101
Knez Building Supply U.S. Natural Resources, Inc.
8185 SW Hunziker Street PO Box 23038
Tigard, Oregon Tigard, Oregon 97223
APPLICABLE LAW: Tigard Community Development Code Chapters 18.70, 18.84,
18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134, & 18.164. Comprehensive
plan policies 2.1.2, 3.2.1 through 3.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.5.3, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 8.1.1
& 8.1.3.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conditional approval
EXAMINER'S DECISION: Conditionally approved
II. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE, SURROUNDINGS, AND PROPOSAL
The Hearings Officer incorporates by reference the application and supplemental application
by the applicant, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) and Oregon Department of
State Lands (ODSL) permits, and findings in Section II of the staff report dated June 24,
1991, and the amended staff report dated July 29, 1991. As revised, the applicant's
proposal is summarized as follows:
1. The applicant proposes to build a 48,800 square foot building situated about 80 feet
from the east property line and at least 24 feet from the south property line.
Page 1 - Hearings Officer decision
SLR 91 -0001 and SDR 91 -0001 (Knez Building Supply)
2. The applicant requested the following exceptions:
a. That a meandering wetland setback be approved to provide a 25 -foot landscaped
setback area, tapered to a minimum width of 15 feet in areas where necessary to
provide an adequate turning radius for tractor trailers that will use the site;
b. That a front yard set back of 24 feet be approved rather than the 30 -foot front
yard set back required by the Code; and
c. That 66 parking spaces be approved rather than the 74 spaces required by the
Code.
III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The Hearings Officer incorporates by reference the the findings in Section III of the staff
report dated June 24, 1991 with the following additions:
1. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.4.1 provides:
3.4.1 The area shall designate the following as areas of environmental concern.
a. Significant wetlands;
b. Areas having educational research value, such as geologically and
scientifically significant lands; and,
c. Areas valued for their fragile character as habitats for plants, animal or
aquatic life, or having endangered plant or animal species, or specific
natural features, valued for the need to protect natural areas.
2. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.4.2 provides in relevant part:
a. Protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors by managing the
riparian habitat and controlling erosion, and by requiring that areas of
standing trees and natural vegetation along natural drainage courses and
waterways be maintained to the maximum extent possible...
3. The City has determined, in compliance with State Goal 5, that industrial uses
within the floodplain are allowed subject to the provisions of the Sensitive Lands
Review process of the Community Development Code.
IV. HEARING, TESTIMONY, AND NPO & AGENCY COMMENTS
A. Hearing.
The Hearings Officer received testimony at the public hearings about this application on
June 24, and July 29, 1991. 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.
Page 2 - Hearings Officer decision
SLR 91 -0001 and SDR 91 -0001 (Knez Building Supply)
B. Witnesses and a summary of their testimony.
1. Jerry Offer testified on behalf of the City of Tigard Planning Department at both
hearings. He summarized the staff report and recommendation and responded to
questions.
a. At the first hearing, he recommended denial of variances to parking and front
yard set backs and revision of site plan to provide a 25 -foot set back from the edge
of wetlands.
b. At the second hearing, he summarized the amended plan and applications for
exceptions and recommended approval.
2. Roger Harris appeared as the lawyer for the applicant Knez Building Supplies.
John Knez, Sr. testified on his own behalf. Paul Agrimis testified as the applicant's
landscape architect.
a. At the first hearing the following testimony was offered for the applicant:
Mr. Harris disagreed with the application of the 25 -foot wetlands setback buffer
requirement, because it had not been raised earlier. He argued issues regarding
vegetation on the site and proposed mitigation measures had been raised in the
ODSL and USCOE review processes, and additional restrictions would be
contrary to state and federal permits. He submitted a draft of the USCOE
permit.
Mr. Knez answered questions about the typical operational and business
activities of his company.
Mr. Agimis testified that the proposed mitigation measures were based on a 6-
month hydrology study conducted by the state to determine the dynamics of the
wet prairie on the site. He stated the proposed weir system and channel
widening worked together so that only 6 inches of water backed up to maintain
consistent hydric conditions on the site and on land to the north.
b. At the second hearing the following testimony was offered for the applicant:
Mr. Harris accepted the staff report and the conditions of approval as modified
and withdrew the variance requests submitted originally for the front yard and
parking reductions.
3. Rick Jervis and Mark Wilson testified at the first hearing with concerns and
objections about the proposal.
a. Mr. Jervis testified for the owners of the 217 Office /Commercial complex to the
the north. He expressed concern that the land to the north would be adversely
affected by drainage backup from the subject property.
b. Mr. Wilson objected to the project. He argued that the project would eliminate
sensitive and rare nature of botanical species at the site, that sufficient study had not
been done to ensure maximum preservation of the site, and that City Policies 3.4.1
and 3.4.2 prohibit the proposed development.
Page 3 - Hearings Officer decision
SLR 91 -0001 and SDR 91 -0001 (Knez Building Supply)
C. NPO & Agency Comments.
The Hearings Officer incorporates by reference the findings in Section IV of the staff
report dated June 24, 1991.
V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST
The Hearings Officer incorporates by reference the findings in Section V of the staff report,
dated June 24, 1991 as amended by the staff report dated July 29,1991 summarized below:
A. Compliance with Chapter 18.70 (I -L zone).
1. The proposed use, as modified, complies with the dimensional requirements of
Chapter 18.70 except for the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement.
2. An exception to the front yard setback should be granted because:
a. The applicant proposes a 24 -foot set back which will result in less wetland loss
from the northern portion of the site.
b. The exception will have not adversely affect adjoining properties in terms of
light, noise levels, or fire hazards, because adjoining structures are set back far
enough so that there will be no interference.
c. The exception will not increase noise levels, and adequate, safe pedestrian and
emergency vehicle access will be retained.
d. The exception is not more than 20 percent of the required setback, because an
exception of only 6 feet is requested.
B. Compliance with Chapter 18.84 (Sensitive Lands Review).
The proposed use complies with Chapter 18.84, because:
a. The use is listed as a permitted use in an area subject to sensitive lands review.
b. The proposed development will not increase the 100 -year flood level, because
the applicant proposes extensive grading and channelization which will provide a
2590 cubic yard increase in the floodplain storage capacity. In addition, the project
will not narrow the floodway boundary.
c. A pedestrian/ bicycle pathway is not required, because the Pedestrian/Bicycle
Pathway Plan does not identify the subject site as the location of a planned path
segment.
d. Detailed plans have been submitted to and a permit has been issued by the
USCOE and ODSL for wetland filling and modification which has been considered
in acting on this application.
e. The City accepts the conclusions of USCOE and ODSL that the proposed
mitigation fulfills the purposes of Sensitive Lands Review and relevant
Comprehensive Plan Policies.
Page 4 - Hearings Officer decision
SLR 91 -0001 and SDR 91 -0001 (Knez Building Supply)
f. The proposed floodway modifications will increase the volume and retention
capacity of the natural drainageway by means of a detention pond, weirs, channel
relocations, and replanting. Dedication of the floodplain area is required because of
its designation as an open space and to provide for public storm drainage
management.
g. The applicant's request for an exception to the 25 -foot wetland setback should
be granted based on the applicant's Supplemental Report findings at pages 4
through 7.
(1) The applicant has revised the plan, moved the building 12 feet to the west
and decreased its size, thus avoiding the need to fill more wetlands and
increasing the wetland setback over what was proposed originally. The result is
a reasonable balance between permitted uses and wetlands protection.
(2) The area where the exception is proposed is adjacent to what is primarily a
stream channel that the applicant will widen and replant, rather than wetlands
that will be preserved in their natural state. A narrowed buffer at this point will
not affect wetland wildlife habitat.
(3) The Hearings Officer concludes the applicant has made significant efforts to
mitigate and minimize the impact of its development on the unique natural
features of the site and to modify its proposal to preserve the integrity of the
applicant's plan, serving both its needs and the public interest.
C. Compliance with Chapter 18.100 (Landscaping Standards).
The proposed use generally complies with section 18.100, because the applicant has
identified the type and quantity of landscaping it will use along SW Hunziker and in the
floodplain and wetland areas. However, before final site plan approval, the applicant
must show that trees along SW Hunziker will have at least a 2 -inch caliper and that
additional trees will be provided for the parking areas.
D. Compliance with Chapter 18.102 (Visual Clearance Areas).
The proposal can comply with the visual clearance standards of Chapter 18.102.
However, a detailed landscape plan showing plant height and type adjacent to the
accessway to SW Hunziker must be submitted by the applicant to assure compliance.
E. Compliance with Chapter 18.106 (Offstreet Parking and Loading Requirements).
The proposal generally complies with Chapter 18.106 because the applicant will
provide 66 parking spaces, including 3 handicapped spaces and 6 bicycle spaces.
Although 74 spaces are required, an exception should be granted because:
1. The applicant downsized the building to preserve more wetlands and
consequently reduced parking space needs.
2. The number of employees at the site is lower than projected for the use in
question; many employees drive company vehicles and will not need personal
parking spaces. A need for only 50 employee parking spaces is anticipated.
Page 5 - Hearings Officer decision
SLR 91 -0001 and SDR 91 -0001 (Knez Building Supply)
3. Few customers will come to the site, because most business is done by phone
and goods subsequently delivered. If customers do come to the site, they are
normally loaded within the building, based on the applicant's past experience.
4. 55 shared parking spaces are available on adjoining tax lots providing adequate
overflow parking.
5. Fewer parking spaces will result in more wetland preservation.
F. Compliance with Chapter 18.108 (Access, Egress and Circulation), Chapter 18.120
(Site Development Review), and Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Improvement
Standards).
1. The proposal can comply with Chapter 18.108, because the site plan shows
adequate access. The number and dimensions of accessways complies with the City
code. Adequate emergency access has been provided. The site plan should be
amended, however, to show that the proposed sidewalk from the entrance of the
building will connect to the public sidewalk along SW Hunziker.
2. The proposal complies with Chapter 18.120, because it promotes the general
welfare of the City by creatively conserving and enhancing the natural environment and
contributing to attractive appearance for the City.
3. The proposal complies with Chapter 18.164, because the frontage of the site along
SW Hunziker is fully improved, and adequate sanitary and storm sewer and public
water supply service can be provided to the site.
G. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies.
1. The proposal complies with Policy 2.1.1, because notice of the application or
hearing was provided to the neighborhood planning organization in the area and to
owners of property in the vicinity of the site and published in the Tigard Times. New
notice of the second hearing was provided, because the application was amended. The
concerns raised by the NPO and other interested parties have been considered in
reaching this decision.
2. The proposal complies with Policies 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4 and 3.5.3, for the
following reasons:
a. The proposal will not result in a rise in the 100 -year floodplain elevation
according to the hydraulic analysis submitted by the applicant.
b. The proposed main channel widening will preserve and improve the functioning
of the zero-foot rise floodway and increase its streamflow capacity.
c. The site is separated from other segments of Red Rock Creek by upstream and
downstream bridges and embankments, thus isolating the impact of development on
the site. A buffer is not needed between the site and residentially zoned or
developed areas, because none exist adjacent to the site. Similarly, the Tigard Area
Comprehensive Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway Plan does not call for a pathway in this
area, and thus, dedication of land for such a purpose is not warranted.
Page 6 - Hearings Officer decision
SLR 91 -0001 and SDR 91 -0001 (Knez Building Supply)
d. Conditions warrant dedication of all undeveloped land within the 100 -year
floodplain, pursuant to Policies 3.2.4 and 3.5.3, as a condition of approval.
3. The proposal complies with Policies 3.4.1 and 3.4.2, because
a. The existing riparian vegetation to be removed will be replaced by more diverse
plantings and a wier water retention system installed to compensate for the
disturbance caused by the development.
b. Although the site has been designated an area of significant environmental
concern, the City has followed the Goal 5 process to determine how to manage this
area. Volume I of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan notes that the City has decided to
fully allow uses which conflict with resource values within industrially designated
areas within the floodplain subject to the provisions of the Sensitive Lands process
of the Community Development Code. The City considers the USCOE and ODSL
permits for the proposed fill and removal comply with the Policies.
4. Conditions warrant that the applicant comply with Policy 4.2.1 by submitting an
erosion control plan, complying with Washington County erosion control measures,
and using sedimentation control features on slopes.
5. The proposal complies with Policies 7.1.2, 7.1.4, and 7.6.1, because adequate
public water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer facilities are available to serve the
proposed project.
6. The proposal complies with Policies 8.1.1 and 8.1.3, because:
a. There is adequate access to a safe, improved and sufficient road system.
b. Proposed access driveways are appropriately sized, located and improved.
VI. SITE VISIT BY HEARINGS OFFICER
The Hearings Officer visited the site without the company of others.
VII. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Hearings Officer concludes that the proposed wetland and floodplain modifications
comply with the applicable approval criteria for a Sensitive Lands Review, the site plan
complies with applicable standards for Site Development Review, and the exceptions
comply with the applicable approval standards. In recognition of the findings and
conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the public testimony and exhibits received
in this matter, the hearings officer hereby:
1. Approves SLR 91 -0001 and SDR 91 -001, based on the amended site plan.
2. Approves an exception to the 30 -foot front yard setback to allow the proposed 24-
foot set back as shown on the amended preliminary plan.
3. Approves an excpetion to the minimum parking space standard to allow 66 spaces
instead of 74 as shown on the amended preliminary site plan.
Page 7 - Hearings Officer decision
SLR 91 -0001 and SDR 91 -0001 (Knez Building Supply)
4. Approves an exception to the wetland setback requirement to allow a meandering set
back no less than 15 feet as shown on the amended preliminary plan.
Before implementing the development and exceptions authorized herein, the applicant shall
comply with the conditions of approval of the June 24 staff report except as modified by
the July 29 staff report.
D • TED,. is 2nd day o e st, 1991.
'RI ' .../ ill...
Larry Epstein, jTTfficer
Page 8 - Hearings Officer decision
SLR 91 -0001 and SDR 91 -0001 (Knez Building Supply)