Loading...
9925 SW GREENBURG ROAD-2 9925 SW GREENBURG ROAD .o........,....._...._.�...._.......,...w�.,,........r_.....�-....._,......w.,......�....n..w««.........:..0+.�.:.a..,...._......,.....w..n..ww........_—�.y.wry«.+�rrr.nM�ww+nwain++.M:..w.wuw.w..r.�..�w�.N..r.M►....wM..,4w�M-. AN, A-4 0 We ntr 777- q Al"t 04 �4 co ;b I fill �a z co cw V tz 4 , ro 0 z >1 104 l4 M X lu u 0 ............... Q) �4 0 Mill At, Ln0 p LO +j V) Lr) y o U ( W (1) 14 Lr) PC u to rd .11 It i 0 Liu. LOP'S -JU �#�gi, -bog 'EN 600 J�D'Wit I INSP'ECTiION NOTICE City of Tigard Building Department L , P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 37223 Phone:639-4175 1-ype of Inspection Date Requested _ Timey— A. P _ -.—.—�� ------ .— Permit Address # Lot # --- Owner - .-_---_— — PuilderThe following Building Code deficiencies are required to be corrected: r1 l� rYlIGL. ��A pproved Presen. cI to lnt;mctor �— Disapproved Date CALL FOR REINSPECTION YES 0 NO sl► � ,w � sl � s 1 INSPECf10(U NOTICE City of Tigard Build;ng Department P.O. Box 23397 Tigard. Oregon 97223 Phoney 639-4175 Type of Inspection — Date Requested_ _ !__ a A.M. P.M. Address _`>�Z,�_ _�—___ Permit # _— Owner �� ��" _ Lot # BuilderThe followinq Building Code deficiencies are required to be corrected: _,4 Presented Presented to A is Approved Inspector ❑ Disapproved Date CALL FOR REINSPECTION ❑ YES 0 No INSPECTION NOTICE City of Tigard Building Department P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 629-4175 Type of Inspection x Date Requested --- Time A.M. P.M. Address Permit Owner Lot # Builder The following Building Code deficiencies are required to be corrected: 7, or ——------—------ Presented to F�pproved Inspector Disapproved Date CALI, FOR REINSPECTION E71 YES E] NO EV M .111r f SStn 1! S� 86E S7♦I J. C. MILNE REGISTERED IN REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER REGISTERED IN 1312 SW 16TH AVENUE ARIZONA IDAHO POST OFFICE BOX 2740 MICHIGAN PENNSYLVANIA COLORADO ILLINOIS PORTLAND. ORECr'N 97206 MISSOURI TENNESSEE CONNECTICUT INDIANA NEVADA UTAH DELAWARE KENTUCKY PHONE: 19031 '22.9837 NEW JERSEY WASHINGTON FLORIDA LOUISIANA NEW YORK WEST VIRGINIA GUAM MAINE 26 OHIO WISCONSIN June HAWAII MARYLAND , 1987 OREGON CITY OF TIGARD BUILDING DEPAFTMENT P.O. Box 23337 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: CRESCENT GROVE CEMETERY 9925 SW Greenburg Road Addition to Mausoleum Milne Reference #8611 Gentlemen: This letter is to address your concern regarding the Miln-o-Vent crypt vent an7 rain system. The crypt vent pipes are inst2lled in alternate walls and provide a pressure relief passage for any odors that may escape from the caskets. This method of venting has been used in the US and Canada by Milne and most other mausoleum contractors for at least 35 years with no structural side. effects. Because of the dense honeycomb nature of the crypts and the minimal temperature variations in the concrete, there has been no cracking around the vents , Sincerely, '. C. Milne JCM/mas 6/26/87 fro LC30N '���ti°v.'5.'9°'������ man MRC ASO ,(RMST DATE ItEriEMEID BUILDING SAFETY DEPARTMEN? 1lEEYIDIEO By Msec+ on the 1942 Oregon S%iKturai Specialty and Fire h Oft Safety Cod* 9ESCRIPTI011 �� C`a •� /J04 ADDRESS ION %s"�-z <. TL_ i < VALUATI ON kl? ?� L£QAL D1wSCRI PT _ i . - pinion construction based on Occ,. Area A H*Ight is Type ZZ Actual constructioa by design is TyfM , 77;N Actual largest area/floor Allowable area/floor ,Vc+— de Actual total area i O ..— Allowable total area .wr Occupancy Classification 13--6- occupant Load - - - Number of stories G __ Hsedicap Facilities N R N --r Occupancy S%vratlom Al R A-" Separation 1101 r� R Fire SprfrAler System N h • F1ood Plate Elevat'166 -- _- Total Distance r' Yard/StreetVidCA or Wd th of Yard/St Measured to P/L. Street c-' Right of May E ��Gc� �T -�r�<, 4 Rte• _ M Side Ext-rlor Mali Protection en1� Pr'ytectioe� hrapet Mall Projections N 7- Norr Constr ►��� /1//� t . CoRstr Ak-A- �YC� MIWVIP Constr l/Fire Netardant hoof Covering. Sec. :1.*02(b) IbM1 ✓ Indicans it" Conform with two revAlrewents, nMMicat" corrations "Wired to cooftre with code requirements. ndicates 1tr is eat requirM by Code, lndicates itesi Is not applicable to this project ndicates note number "' 00 PIP 6" elmd1cates f t@" not. shown Building is limited to ' .j stories and < feet in height as a Type �'N Occupancy-Sec 507, Table 5D or s- ►- o H a i The actual values are stories and feet in height . a- Ui -tea Com Total building occupant load is yH_s ., w X LWSpecific Areas:_ Assembl-, conference, classrooms, offices, warehorese, etc. or by floor , 2 or 4 hour fire-resistive area separation wall construction-Sec 505(e) . C) X Extend wall vertically from foundation to a point 30 inches above the roof-,Sec 505(e)3. Cr _ Exterior wall termination at horizontal projecting elements such as a balconies , roof overhangs , canopies, etc-:;ec 505(e)2. N W ,all openings protected by fire assemblies having a 1� or 3-hour ._ cc rating-Sec 505(e) . LAJ Q a Openings limited to 25% of wall length in each story-Sec 505(e) . s Occupancy separation, vertical , horizontal or both rated at _ hour fire-resistive construction-Sec: 503(b,c 6 d) . o z PROTECTION OF OPENINGS-Sec 503 Uc W_ ,A, _ bpen�ngs not perm tte ri�Four wall . X: 3-hour fire assembly, limited to 25% of wail le^0th of each story. No opening to exceed 1.20 square feet. °; 0 14-hour fire at, :,,mbly. L^u _ 1-hour fire assembly. Fire damper:. in ducts penetrating wall . ! �( 1-hour fire-resistive corridor ,:onstr,ictirn-Sec 3305(8) . 20-minute rated, self-closing, tight-fitting smoke and draft door assembly with label -Sec 3305(h) . z Minimum 4-inch thick wire glass set in steel frames . Total area of all openings, other than doors , limited to 25% of interior corridor wall z Sec 3305(h)2 . a Fire dampers in ducts penetrating corridors-Sec 3305(h) 6 4306. Dead end corridors shall not exceed 2G.-feel in length-Sec 3305(e) . Corridors serving 10 or more shall be minimum 44-inches wide-Sec 33C5(b) l Corridors in RT3 or in R-1 dwelling units shall be minimum 36-inches wide-Scc -.11.95(b) . Cr Corridors in E-. Occupancies shall be width required by Sec 3303 plus 2-feet, but not less than 6-feet-Sec 3319(e) . Corrido•s serving ,any area housing non-arrbulatory persons shall be minimum 8-feet wide-Sec 3321 (c) . 14OTES b COMMENTS CITX OF TIGA IID N o. 2 3 Q 5 7 13125 S.W. HALL BLVD. P.O. BOX 23397 Ate� �/7 TIGARD,OR 97223 Name Address Lot BlocklMap SubdlvlslonlAddress Permit Ks Bldt;. Plumb Cash — Check Sewer Other Wither _ Rec. By Acct. No. u Description Amount 10.432 Building Pemilt Fees 10.431.600 Plumbing Permit F69_8_ 10.431.601 Mechanical Permit Fees —_ 10.230.501 State Bldg. Tax 10.433 Plans Check Fee 30.443 Sewer Connection 30.444 Sewer Inspection 51.448 Street Syst. Dev, Charge 52.449.610 Parks I Syst. Dev. Charge 52.449.620 Parks II Syst. Dev. Charge_ ^_ i 31-450 Storm Drainage Syst. Dev._Charge 10.430 _ Business Tax _ 10-434 Alarm Permit _ 10.227 -- Bail 10.455- Fines • TrafflclMisd/Parking 10.230• CPTA Traffic/"isdlVic. Asst. _ 10.456 Indigent Defense :30-122-401 Sewer Service/USA 30.122.402 Sewer ServiceCity 309% — 0 123 Sewer Sevice/City aA —1nt.— 'l0.125 _ Unmatched 31.114 Storm �ainage 446 dpi^ ancro t rim n. Pymt. —T 0-471 —ancro-#t Ini.Tymt. - I ��— —_ TOTAL •f;,� ,' i •.... 1 DEPT. ��-... I I MILNE May 21, 1987 Mr. Keith Leiden 00KISTRUCTION CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 13125 SW HE11 ilvd. Tigard, OR 9713 Re: MAUSOLEUM ADDITION FOR CRESCENT GROVE C Y Tigard. Oregon �� �g7 Our Reference #8611 MAY w CI i Y OF I IGAW Dear Mr. Leiden : �EpT� PLANNING I was in your office on Friday, May 15, 1987, and spr)ke with Tom Dixon regarding our proposed mausoleum addition in Crescent Grove Cemetery. I left . t that time two copies of sheet 1, dated November 20, 11. 87. Early this week we received cc,}Iies of two documents from Washington County. Onk, document was for u Variance 73 228 and the other for Conditional Use 37-69. Copies of both of these documents are enclosed. I hale also enclosed a copy of the old building permit, which referred tcu CU 37-69. It is our understanding thnt the aausoleum construction ill 1973 was permitted by CU 31--69 and that the Fatback was established at 10' by 73-226V. The one conflict I noted was a staff recommenva- tion, page 4, dated SeFtember 11, 1973 (Exhibit 8), limiting the setback to only the building that was constructed. The minutes' of the public hearing, dated October 2, 1973, page 2 (Exhibit H) noted that the 10, planter strip was to include the entire rear yard. We would like to know the following: 1 ) Will the construction of this mausoleum addition be allowed .ender CU 37-69 and 73-228V? 2) Will there be any othe•• Variances or Conditional. Use Permits required? We look forward to hearing from you on this matter. Si S ly yours, homan D. oodwort TI)W/mav 5/21/87 cc: William Weston Encl : As noted P 0 HOX 274p,PORTLAND.DR[DON 972138 1 712 8 W I6T.AVENU[.PDRTLAND,13REODS' 17701 AR[A C00r 15031 222 9817 A. "' n -� WHITE Impactor Copy YELLOW Permatee nE AMI T NO. _ PINK Cashier GOLDENROD _CirculationBUILDING ERrIT GREEN Temporary File^ y 16 1 WASHINGTON COUNT/ auI,- . 'ocwEss��,r0 S� �E/y/r?A/t/ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING y BUILDING 01VISiON LOC ALIT NEAREST a� S FOR APPLICANT i n FILL IN q�s f c r,oe sa aaE lou• rTPPIVOC S D y I CONST. if'D- fiUIL.71"° /� ^D s- .-Is`IC.AL CL•s SI FICA TION ZON _ASS NO -!! :)WELL UNI'! �' 2 eI� f0 �:.�• f L S=EC •- COw OI 'ONS ARES Or L7• ( AO JI SL Jif _SE .OI Lr 41�.� f �y!1��•+' OA"k , w N Ep Jty/V IIS ICzL--.v I�' Y Vfi- �?�•�J7fy(� ��< �F SA NIDA' ON .I0 CIS- / A70-01Pt_rSs V OLOe ![-[ACR •ROM :�v• �' �� i—�� r,GOT reef _INt Sr AR:rn1T • E_S JR -E_ '•wt T. 0► Na I�Ep [IIS•INc fC'e1CR NI ON 4A .r, !O = TOTAL G 1t NO ^ �i 7ww A• I w IwOM A J C It 9 S 131/ J uJ. � '1� I J • I .�+ I N •K''f — aloe•e0w ![:JACK IRdM ��-- w[ ___ ltw[[•I •^CR FSS S� •wt Jr I [IIf"NO !I[TSACF L T1410-WA• + yAon _ TOTAL RC OESCRIPT'ON OF CO-Vqq CutCrF YES .71 NO �I V E it A O O A- -EG 7re�lq -EMOL'S� _ Sc., sl•r 1 1�".1._ 5-OAi_r.YI L�''fAM SIF$ \� `IC 9[�RC OMS v Cr 9A-..PO�1,.5 U 7• r? I cwa[Futly This cOoflcdtlon Is o SuilGing Permit when rrooerly filled 0,t, F- s' R,.;C UR E Lr nt��u_.M YUl titL_fAW-fhe correct permit fe* n the volickmicim _ '_ L �, fcc;e oelow. oernlsslon Is therefore granted to do such work OF [Mn_7YEcS Q of Intl cared In -n1f pdo licdtidn, In occordance with, and suhle, s'GNATVRE ^r •----.-.-- t0. all o• rne.PrOVluons of the blrilding code, Oreincnce No. 73 Awei.ICAN• Of '.V d1nln�t9n CZUn _ -� -�w ty, Ona rRlafld laws. V• uA- ON} ^ � �111s ee'mIt ""1".2 null and void If work Is net Commenced V '✓ l•,f .00 within 00 dtlYf horn the date of Issuance nr If work is unpismaed r• ^ (C1�7 or cnv •lnle during construct n for more -hen 120 days, at it 114T "E I: S — r r e !1 // �—� cnv work ! Rone un the sold .wilding or structurev�n 010f.on Of Onv COunty OrO:nan Ce or state lOw relating -hereto. 9[wte• ACT VT.0 n v •1•w• .CC_ wtA_ '� f •r.L,C••'O•, •r+C lALI_ TwAr rrl[ Aeovt 'f COwwtC Anp Aawt[ 'O Co-OL, A PUbI1C works Deot. Permit if r wires •lL COU N•• pwoiVAwc[! sn•r. .Awa wtduL•r�Nc e0uired for o new drrvewov. •. 'Lolwc cotes-wuc•'cN PI,T=n o ern"t :l eduired. See Health Dept., Lsb N.E. Tlwv. S IQNATURE OF —� L ��I'Ifecr�6A3-3h!8. PERMITTEE (I� ACpRE34 PLAN CHECK VALIDATICN ;. PERMIT VALIDATION //�C U//� �• I UA PC MINUTES 10/29/69 Pa go 3 ZC 90-69 Gordon R. Martin et al - REOUEST: P-R S R-7 to C-3 $ R-7 LOCATION: E. side of Beaverton- Tigard Freeway, S. side of SW gall Blvd. b W. side of SW Greenburg Rd. CU 36-69 S11riners Hospital - REQUEST: Cemetery LCCATICN: N. of SW ScnoIIs Ferry Rd . E. of Reusser Road '?-F9 or en R. 'artin - REQUEST: Cemetery Expansion LOCATION: Approx. £350' W. of the junction of SW Greenburg Rd. & Lehman St. Mr. McDaniel explained the applications and Mr. Johnson explained the staff recommendation for denial of the zone change in that tho proposed regional commercial center has not been considered on the present Plan of Development and the transportation and public facility plans for th4j east county area have rot been developed to reflect a use of the magnitude proposed. He then explained the staff recommendation for approval of CU 36-6; subject to the condition that prior to the development of the property, a site plan, indicating building loc6tion, roads, signs, and similar features be submitted to and approved by the Planning CommissiGn. He also explained that if the Commission approves the zone change, When the staff would also recommend that CU 37-69 ba approved. The hearing was opened ci ZC 94-69. Mr. Gordon Martin appeared in support of the application and informed the Commission of the people who would be pr'©senting the facts regarding the cases and also stated that the two conditional use applications were related to the zona change in that the Cr^sent Grove Corretery would be trading the band contained in the two conditional use applicrtlonsbfor property being utilized by the proposed shopping center. Mr. Larry 6IsSett appeared and explained the charts and studies that had been prepared and how they related to the proposal . He presenied to the Commission the various areas that have Increased in density within 4-he County that would be supplying a large portion of the' population frequeiting the shopping center and that +ne area has changed substantially from the Plan of I-evelopment as adop�ed In 1959. He also explained why this particular site was chosen for the devel opmi,nt of a regional shopping center. Mr. Ste,aart Clark, representing Larry Smit, 3 Company, appeared and presented the economic feasibility study that has been performed for the proposed center and statod that the marker area Is growing rapidly and the need for the proposed type of retail outlets will be realized in the near future. Alvin B. Harrison, represent- Ing the John Graham Office, architect for the de•re;opment, axplalned the site pian layout and the benefits of the entirely enclosed mall concept. Mr. Sy Sususki , Director of Planning, Traffic and Highway Engineering for the John Graham Office, appeared and presert�, - the transportation and growth study mad-) of the area. Mr. Darney Des�o, Vice-President of PC MINUTES 10/29/69 Page 4 ';,inmer Company Inc. presented the major department stores that w I I I be housed in the complex. They include Sears Roebuck, Meier g Frank, J .C. Penney, Lipmar Wolfe 8 Company and Nordstrom Best. Mr. i3issett also informed the Commission that the developers of the complex would be willing to widen and improve both Hall Llvd. and Greenburg Road from their inter- section to the Beaverton-Tigard Freeway. There were no objectors and the public hearing ;:is closed. The public hearing was then opened cn CU 36-69. a\Ar. S.J . Perkins, repre- senting Winrnar C3mpany, Inc. appeared and preset., the proposed develop- ment for the cemetery Kith photos ana slides and presented two letters, one from a cerretery appraiser and one from Property Counselors Inc. , ind'cating that the adjacent value of the residential properties would not be damaged by the propos3d development. fhore were approximately 17 persons present in opposition to the application. Mr. Harold Ward appeared and stated that if the proposal Is approved, he would got be able to o�taln a mortgage to construct a new horn,: on his property that is adjacent to the proposal . Mr. James Jonnscn appeared in opposition to the proposal retarding the future development in the area, whl _r is needed to facilitate bringing adequate utilities into the area. Mr. Robert Steuart appeared in opposition to tie docrease in property value. ivlr•. Arnold Conzelmann Jr. appeared and presented a petition containing 28 signatures in opposi- tion. Mr. Ken Johnk, representing the Department of Public Works, appear-- ed and stated that additional right of way on the east side of Reusser Road of 30' 'from centerline would be necessary for future improvement. The public hearing was closed, The public hearing was then opened on CU 37-69. Mr. Ferkins appeared In support of the application stating that this parcel would be traded to -the Cresent Grove Cametery for a parcel being used by the shopping center. There were no objectors. The public hearing was closed. C,,ommissioner Gestring asked the staff when the resources would be available to study and revise the Plan of Cevelopment for that area if the zone change were approved. The staff informed the Commission that the Board of Commissioners would have to chance the present priority of projects to accomplish this within the next year. Commissloner Annand asked the applicant what the time schedule fcr occupancy of the shopping center complex was and Mr. Martin stated that they wish to start occupancy by 1972. Mr. Annand rroved that Zone Chance 94-69 be approved. Mr. Gestring seconded and the motion carried. The Commission also concurred that the Board of Commissioners be advised that this area must be studied and the Pla-i of Development revised ano that it be accomplished within one year. In addition , attention needs to be given to the need for additional right of way on Hall Blvd. and Greenburg Road, and a study of the entire road network within the immediate area must be made. Thu, Commission then justified the proposed chance cause of the fact that the area has r M' PC MINUTES 10/29/69 ' Pa ge 5 substantially changed since the 1959 Plan of Development, particularly since the development of the north-south freeway through the area, and that this change will be compatible with the area ,and with the revised Plan of Development. Commissioner E' schen then stated that he would like to have the action on the zone cnaige application tabled until the discussion and vote on CU 36-69 and so moved. Hr. Curtis seconded and the motion died for lack of a majority vote. Mr. Shattuck, Annand, Busch, Kinney, Gestring and Spr_er voting in opposition to the motion. The. question .gas than called For on the motion to approve ZC 94-54 which was approved unanimous;y. The Cemnissicn then r-d a brief discussion concerning the proposed ceme-tery causing a decreasing valuation on s, -rounding propert l es. lAr. Annand moved that CU 36-69 be approved subject to the staff recommendation and that additions; right of way on the east side of Reusser Road be dedicated to facilitate future widening and improvement. ivlr. Kinney seconded and the motion carried. Mr. Curtis voting in opposition to the motior. Mr. Snattuck moved that CU 37-69 be approved. Mr. Curtis seconded and the motion; carried. ?LANNING DIRECTOR' S REPORT Mr. Johnson informed the Commission that there will be a joint study meting with the Fianning Commisslon and Board of Commissioners at Goldberg's Restaurant on Tuesday, November 18. He also reminded the Commission that the November II Planning Commission meeting has been rescheduled to Jovember 12. Mr. Johnson Informed the Commission that the Board rf Commissioners approved ZC 85-69 for a change of zone from F-I to M-2, and have requested the Planning Commission to Initiate a review and amendment to the Plan of Development in and around the Cornelius Pass, Sunset Highway area as it relates to the existing and proposed industrial development for that area. Mr. Spoer moved that the Planning Department prepare a study and possible amendrrents to the Plan of Developrrent for the Cornelius Pass, Sunset Highway area and si3t a date for public hearing on same. i,lr. Annand seconded and the motion carr-led. Mr. Johnson Informed the Commission that there will be a meeting in the Banks area regarding a plan and zcning for the arca and Commissioner Kinney stated that he would represent the Commisslon at that meeting. There being no furthor business, the meeting was adjourned at 11 :45 p.m. 36/636 A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Washington County Planning Commission at its meeting of 7: 30 P.M. on Wednesday the 29th day of October, 1969, in Room 206 of the Washington County Courthouse, Hillshcro, Oregon will consider the application: OF: Gordon R. Martin 12265 S.W. 72nd Tigard, Oregon FOR: Conditional Use (Item No. CU 37-69) Cemetery Expansion LEGAL: T1S , R1W, Section 26C; Tax Lot 1104 (portion) , W.M. , Washington County, Oregon. Any persons having interest in this matter are Invited to attend and be heard. 4 Cetiber 30, 1qr�9 Cordon Re Martin 12"65 3.W. 72nd ?Hard, Oregon Re: CU 37-69 Dear Ar. Martin: !It its wasting on October 29, 1969 the Washington County Planning Comstission recomended for approval, pour aprlication requesting a Conditional Une ;permit for a Cemetery on property described as Y!3, 11W, Section 26C; Tax Lot: 11,04 (pMion), w.H., Wasbtngton County, Oregon. The above act_c►n of the Plamdng Commission will be rwviewed by the 3card of County Comissioners at its maetin3 on Tuasday, Novembar 25, 1969 at 7130 P.M. in Hoar 206 of the Washin3ton County Court- house, Hillsboro, Oregon. 3ircesnly, Rex Xcrania1 Zonis;-, admintatrator R:12 39 cc: Douglas J. White WASHINGTON COUNFf PANNING COMMISSION Sta eport October 29, 1969 described as portion of tax Ic�t 1101 C, nditlonal Use 6C. kfoPpl leant- Gordon R. itirtin. on tax map IS! 26 APPLICANT' S RE, UF T Planned ResidentiAl , Approval of a c'iange of zone classification from P-R, R-7, Single Family Residential with conditional use for cemetery pur- ta approximately 2. 18 acres. poses for a rarcel containing pP LOCATiNSNDF 0—FS��BJECT PR.OPERT) 850 feet WASt of the junction The sub j oct site is located approximately of SW GrEerburg Road and Lehman Street and is vacant. SURROUNDINGZON1N' AN 0 USE subject parc. � a -7 zoning on the south and east where an The t��o west and north existlny cemetery Is nbuts R located and P-R zoning to which is vacant. APPLICANT'S JUSTI1-ICATION No letter of jus•riflcat'.on submitted . PUBLIC UTILITIES REPORT er Sanitary District have both The Progress Water District andthservlce. approved the subject property o SPECIAL CONSIDERATION � . CU I6-65 was approved for a !?.88 acre addition 1•o the original existing cemetery' non-conforming 2. CU 23-67 was approved to bring852, original cemetery, b virtu© of its exlstance since 1 1852. Into compliance to permit Y additional building construction. STAFF FtECO`ND`4� 'ION -69 The sulaject request is being proce�c+djonsn�InvolvedYlnithezproposedand s directly related in the land trans adjacent Progress ress Shopping Conter. If T. e staff has recommends denial of 2tha4 -t6heasdh ubjectrequest would at tben 1I is upheld, It is staff understanding 1 unnec9553" yin center } if ZC 94-69 is approved to facilitate the shoppovgd. However, development, it Is recommndod that this request be app 1 LAW OrrIces Or TH0MPSON. ADAMS & LUNO ROBERT E.THCMPSON 12600 5 W.CANYON ROAD JAMES S.CASTLES ROONEY a ADAMS BEAVERTON. OREGON 97005 or COUNSEL JON 4 LUND 644-2148 PAUL J.DEBAST September 13, 1973 Washington County Planning Commission Washington County Commission Washington County Courthouse Hillsboro , Oregon 97123 Re : Appeal of Variance Application - Crescent Grove Cemb`.ery Gentlemen : This is notice that, on behalf of Crescent Grove Cemetery, we appeal the decision of the Board of Adjustment as rendered on Tuesday, Septemher 11 , 1573 denying the variance for set-backs at Crescent Grove C,Emetery , and we request this matter be scheduled on the next agenda at the Washington County Commission. Kindly advise us of the time and place of the hearing. Very truly yours ., THOMPSON , ADA14S !: LUND , Rod y�C.. Adams RCA/sv cc : C.;:,scent Crove Cemetery �y P�PNN�NG 1913 C'0 C�� IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON ' In the Matter of Petition No. 73-228-V; RESOLUTION AND ORDER For A Variance In Washington County ZONING ORDER NO. 73-228 By Crescent Grove Cemetery Association) The above entitled matter came on regularly before th3 Board at its meeting of October 2, 1973; am It appearing to -!'he Board that the above named petitioner applied to the Board of Adjustment of Washington County for a variance on certain real property, purjj;ant to Section 2100 of the Washingtoo County Zoning Ordinance, which said petition Is now before the Board for public hearing and final order; and It appearing to the (hoard from -Ine testimony, reports, and Information produced by the petitic.ner, Interested pi�rtles, the Planning Commission, and the Planning Department, that said petition should be granted; and It appearing to the Board that the findings of the Planning Department and Board of county Commissigners should be adopted as the basis for the Board's decision, and the Board being fully advised In the premises; It is, *herefore RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the petition to which reference was hereinabove made is -anted and the findings of the Planning Department and Board of County Cormissloners as described In Exhibit "B", attached hereto and by thls reference made a part hereof, are adopted. DATED this 2 day of October, 1973. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGCN ELr;CN HOU a r Cha rma n-� is A:-i jr 'An^en ZOPI i tlG ORDER 40. 73-229 Record n9 Secre 1 ary -���V NOTICE OF PUBLIC H OF: Crescent t1rove Cemetery Assn. 94E30 SW Lehman Tigard, ^,re,on 0722.3 FCP: Board of Adjus't'ment ( Item PJo. 73-228-V) Rear Yard Variance LOCATION: Tax lot 1900 located on the west side of St4 Greenburr_ "odd approximately 260 feet north of SW :ust street southeast of Beaverton in Sectico 26C, TIS, R1W, CRV:SIWr 4 kl nf.N gO�' dl n�ii`a0�1E11AM /r r tgr01 •��"h C 4 H ST 7PM L_�( ��� ` .i+T_-I Progress Downs _ _ / I�Cf N1Yl04 E�$K KFNSIMTON. II ZH 'v HW`. �r�UnICIpal ,�S l`I Q 1 dolt Course O1 (I �� 7 P R 0 G f� E yq � OV so e o ,� y W .�^ -- JAN 5+ 1 ! o• `?r' AYl^RS ^ �__ , l j . 2.7 a' j •�y 5 .v I P!1„�� fel i Ir ►—J woe rLT ,r r ASNIAIGroN � �. _I f S µARE i �1L 1`7 T�r NF=-'- OE OI a [ELMI I n1j) PC.- c O 217! eI� u4+lr KI ST,j r + AL I ST I 'ME Z ,- R L AV^ta,l ;rove PLELEAF I\Dr L ^IntnrH� uAk.rrD/ i''PINE I � W f I CASCADE— ( -_ � L � �spRUCC �`'"•. _ ISLV0 1• rt40414 I: t Nfl N•T� 3/�..rr� pR� 1 W I y I ONr.s AR - I�, 3 6 e.��. I I tA1N2.tIrI/,S I �i' I Q PbIYr.` r r VAh01'A �I 'U (w "�I (�I Jc+' PFa . «l[�., �ntlg '.LMR t EXHIBIT "A" WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT September 11, 1973 Board of Adjustment 73-228-V for property described as tax lot 1900 on tax mrn 1S1 26C. Appli:ant: Crescent Grove Cemetery. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 1903-5, Yards c, for a 5 foot rear yarn, a variance of 25 feet from the required 30 foot rear yard on a parcel containing approximately 24 acres. LGCATIGN AND LAND USE OF SUBJECT PRCPERTY: The site, supporting a cemetery and mausoleum, Is located on the west side of SW Greenburg Road, approximately 260 feet north of SW Locust Street in the Progress area. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE: The site abuts the Washington Square Shopping Center to the north and west, RU-4, with a requested change to C-P pending, to the south, and developed RU-4 and RU-8 Districts to the east across Greenburg Road. CONFORMANCE TO THE PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT: The adopted Plan of Development for the area designates the site for Residential Development. PUBLIC UTILITIES REPORT: The applicant states the site is served by the Metzger Water District and the Unified Sewerage Agency. STAFF FINDINGS: 1 . The applicant presents the following In support of the request for the variance: A. Our General Interpretation of the Problem: 1 . Land planning for a cemetery-mausoleum ccmplex requires special attention to all available land regardless of zoning district. Concern for light and air and space setback from ones' neighbors is a proper and necessary requirement in a esldential area, but In a cemetery where there is very little structure above the ground an abundance of open space exists and will as long as the cemetery remains. The owner wishes to make the very best use of rhe land re- maining to him and is concerned that the "setback" require- ment will produce undesirable land for ground burial . 2. The cemetery i being deprived of the right to develop its property to ii , ful ! potentlai and best use. In the ayes of -qny land pl-inners, cemeteries are open spaces much like �,xHjBrr „B„ w s .n '•� 73-228-V Page 2 public parks adding trees, grass and flowers to the communities they serve. Open spaces which forever will be beyond the grasp of developers. The owner desires that the cemetery's future development be in the best interest of -the public and consistent with comprehensive planr proposals but feels the enforcement of a 30 foot _+be.ck will not serve that purpose. B. Reasons for '2eauest i ragar iance: T. The specie ' conditions which make this case unique are that Cresc©n+ Gro%e Cemetery now borders on a giant shopping center, where formerly It looked out over a green rolling valley which was designated a residential district and farm land. 2. rhe literal interpretation of the zoning ordinance would deprive the applicant of certain rights because the elevation of the land of the cemetery in comparison to that of the shopping center is such that it makes effective screening for the cemetery Impossible. We believe that effective screening is a right of the cemetery in order for them to develop the full potential of their land, as is the case with other cemeteries. 3. The design of the shopping center In which the rear entrances and trucU loading dock wore plan ed adjacent to cemetery property was beyond the owner's control . 4. The zone change and subsequent construction of Washington Square Shopping Center has changed the character of the area substantially. What was originally a seml-rural neighborhood I§ now a commercial district with all its attendant noise, '+raffle, concrete and asphalt. This change in environment has forced the owner to re-evaluate the cemetery's role in the services it provides and to look to a vidster plan of development for the future. A copy of this plan Is Included with the application for your considera .-Ion. 5. This variance does not confer any special rights to the applicant which are not commcnly given to other cemeteries in the district as there are no other cemeteries there. Cemeteries in the Portland area have been granted the right to use this 30-toot setback space for mausoleums under similar circumstances. 6. The common property line between the cemetery and shopping center is zoned C-2 of one side and R-7 on the other with no buffer In between. C-2 requires no roar-yard setback and R-7 requires 25 feet (30 feet In this case because of con- ditional 'use) . Since a 6 foot sight-obscuring screen Is required by code on the part of Washington Square anyway, It appear to he unfair to deny the cemetery use of this most valuable land. The owner wisne3 In effect to build EXHIBIT "31 " 73-2?.8-V Page 3 to the property line, which is consistent with rights of its neighbor and to help develop this common boundary Into an attractive buffer-screen of wall and plant material which will effectively obscure the view from each side. 'r . Croscont Grove cannot comply in the spirit of a cemetery as a sacred and hallowed place without a substantial visual screen separating the burial of the dead from the hustle and bustle of the truck service entrance of a major shopping center. 8. Conformity with the setback requirement would result in the misuse of approximately one acre of land which would be left between the mausoleum and the property line. This space will be unsalable for ground burial and a constant maintenance problem for the cemetery and pose a possir-le vandal problem and fire hazard to the community. Cie irly, this is not a sutuation to be encouraged and such would be the case if relief is not granted in this appeal C. Justification and Public Interest; rhe applicant can prove: 1 . That this decision is definitely in the public interest. The non-profit organization of Crescent Grove Cemetery has been a continual public service since 1852. 2. Crescent Grove provides and with the granting of this variance will continue to provide facilities of a non- profit basis at less cost to the public than any other cemetery in the Greater Portland Metropolitan Area. 3. In order to have the best planning counsel , a national expert in cemetery development was engaged and their recommen- dation was the basis for selecting this site. The need for esthetic burial facilitle!i In a setting of seclusion -ras one of the major factors consciously considered In developing the plan In cempli.incP with ORS 215.055. Other factors are that the proposal Is in compliance with land improvement and more particularly, cemetery land improvement. 4. That the interest of the public demands a separation or visual screening between the mass of a shopping center and the open spaces provided by the cemetery. The construction of a mausoleum provides the buffer and gives the public the privacy they demand in times of burial from the shopping district. y 2. Staff has discussed the request In terms of site design and It Is the opinion that a variance to a 10 foot rear yard would allow space to provide for adequate buffering Including trees as well as shrubs. A `i foot /ard ,could not be adequate to allow for tre ;. EXHIBIT "l ' ?3-229-V ',age 4 a. The mausoleum and landscapirg would shield the cemetery and residen- tial uses further east from the loading activltle4 of the largo shopping center. 4. The requirement of the full 30 foot rear yard setback would present exceptional and undue hardship by eliminating use of land for cemetery purposes In an area which no longer abuts residential but commercial uses. 5. Such relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent, purpose and integrity of the Zoning Ordinance as embodied in the maps. RECOPMENOATION: The .sFaff recommends approvai of a 10 foot rear yard setback to allow for adequate landscaping to the rvear of the building. This approval shall be subject to: 1 . Limltati :)n to the building proposed to be built at this time. 2. Approval of a sits plan by the Planning Director c - his designee prior to construction of the building. EXHIBIT 73-228-V Page 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RECOMMENDATION The Board of Adjustment recommended that the application be denied. MINUTES Mr. McDaniel presented the application and explained the staff findings as written in the staff report and the recommendation for approval subject to two conditions. Mr. Rod Adams appeared in support of the request anc brought with him several drawi ,is and overlays which he used as he explained what Their ideas are in redes i gr,i gig the (-emetery. Mr Milne, the architect fur the cemetery plan, spoke in support of the request and answered several questions from }he Commission. Mr. Adams then requested that rather than separate approval for each phase of construr; lon the Commissioners look at the full plan today and make final appro/ar for all phases at this time. Mr. McDaniel at tnis time read a letter from the Washington SgLare Lane, Inc. and Fringe Land of Oregon. The letter stated the reasons they are opposed to the approval of the variance. Mr. Meyer then stated that the item would be carried over until 11 :50 a.m. and at that time hear from the opposition, if any, at which time the Commis- sion will make their decision. Mr. Meyer asked if there was anyone present opposed to the cemetery case. Mr. Moyer then continued case number 73-228-V. Dougias 'White appeared in opposition to the case. i1r. Wh; `a represented Square Land Ltd. and Fringe Land Ltd. He stated that it wa!, their feelings that "nu practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardships are being visited upon." He also read a second letter which he had written but not mailed which he handed to the applicant and the Commission. They felt that no public interest- would be served by allowing the variance. They stated tunneling of air pollution, the unpleasant view of a large solid brick wall and very little lan,)scaping was objectionable. Mr. Carl holm of Winmar Pacific appeared and assisted Mr. White w th the presentation in opposition of the request. #149 Mr. Adams appeared again in rebuttal . He Stated that they can build at 25 feet back from the prr:perty line but that the cemetery felt they could use to better advantages the bind for burial plicas rather than landscaping. Mr. White again was asked to appear if he had any further comments. He again pointed out that the cemetery has 80 acres further "up the line" that could have been used for the mortuary. 1 P s- 73-228-V Page 6 Mr. Curtis moved for denial because the cemetery does have other developable land, and that he fe3ls the more space the better. Mrs. Won seconded wity the statement that This seemed to be a self imposed hardship. Mr. Meyer feels that the staf; 's opinion was sound. The request was denied with Mr-. Meyer -oting in or-position. AYE - Curtis NAY - Meyer Won 1 ' p Lujri! of Cniimi::.;Ion-!rs Uct. 1, 1'j7J Y�j;u l systelu;, wuro discuszed. WRITTEN Cu.AKUNICATIOdS There was no No.trd .action reL;ardinG letter from lits. iruvene E�1Smont, requesting Board of Commissioners to contact the Cormissioners of Clark County in r^.^zrd to Placa-r scoUol Lullul.l ; r ::i on :iuilitia : on rile auvelol)er. Co=missiolier Dag coved to refer letter from R. G. Eeaumier, re-.zrding bicycle path-puGestrian walkway along Oleson Road aria tr,:ffic si,;nul at the corner of Vermont arid Oleson ito.ad, to ::blit t:or Rs Depart=ent for a report, seconded by Co:cmissicn'_r Nilson; carri_u. 01-1-0 73-668) Sitd U1C'.1 IrcvLcv, 7.i-3—D. Tl::_er,.ree:c(rev;:cd s1:C nl:a) was continued t0 Oct. i ca cotioa or Co:..:iszicner Wil:.:oa, secor..;ea by Co�_,.:zioaer Roth; carried without objection. PU�i,IL tt::iL•:L.,i.� LE 9-7s, i_ �1 i:_eu::c�n, Lot of :::�c p=ica � (F-1) Di- -•i t Seat. 25 1973 s r ��� c (continusd C�. is io d to Oct. 9 __ n` r.otn ro•re s..co:dad by Cxx:issioaar Ung to ccat_...:�: 1 73, c�_. L ,:it.cit C'-- ar. 73'227'3, L'3= nvestsent Co. , fro- .3 RU-20 Urban residential !tedium,, High Dersity to C-3, Rata.il Cc.-nercial. Sta=. andP1a:air.^ C:-mastich reco-..sided d I,al ....^.:ll: :. .. end ce LQ'I.l yr e:.enzt�d a ::-=,racdum in au-.)?o.` or . tae .,-.or.e caaa^e apo! a±�.n. :tie •,^ is t:clri^:; closca. & ter a.cccssiu n, .:oma issio:.r _ _ .:.uvea, seconded by Co%l 1SJioner Fi_lsca to Le-117 .;JF.ra initic:e a C-P zone cr,�­.;e e:.d gra_ra ..0 73-6Oy) _'T'J''. 1;-4 7-r u^,trial Pa--.Y, District to ;t-3 ^-C- 'd-� :E'.•-.--=eAa:d approval aha that tt13 request -He ac :Cricu L ltll t:_ c?COZ:iOh G: v:Gl:1rr1CQ i.0. 1�5. :nit flit_, the Cranage ;.:Gula be su.o ect to coral �-1s, °i a ;,, f_. ] ti -d'' ; s CCL'1iSslc:1 :'_C G:2IIG2� a-r—roval sub j?Ct to a. ' St 2'dCU'�tdnGdtlOns c aunSing condition e3 and adding condition f'5. T.-ere was no testll:ony. Cc:i_-ai.ssioa"r 1:ast^rs roved to tend^.::e. until Ordinance iic. 125 1 ; 2L�)_tCu Or :Gr JV C.7! i, mai Ctle:c^ OCCLZS :i.;t, sE"-Oh'°_a by COG::iz:sioner iiil30n' carrieu :)-j.. � u 7.3-21d-V, Cr este w Grove Cemetery Aasn. St 4 f re--C=_nded approval with 2 conditions. doard o.: Adj=,':rent rec":=Enced dcniai. Fad Ad=:;, attorney, r^preL3er.ted the appl1C3Ilt. J17 1!_"inC, cOIrt:ultlnz fir.;i.^.C.r, stated t:2 was in aireewent with sraf- reco^_1_n.rstiolt to Duilu iJ' In :rJ:J the Cr oDerty ,Line. ucui;las White, attorney, rerreseutin� the u. vele= ers of i:asniny:on OgLare, ""eared iu oppostion. The hearing wds ciccG eu. l.C.::IialO::•'r Lail:on t.:oved t, brant the var•iacce wit!: LO' setback with staff fiudin,,s a;iu tate cexetcry raint.aln the 10' planter strip to include the entire rear yarn, "cua.,eu Ly Ccr.,:ni:sinner.• c„_Tied 5-0. (::0 73-219 After a short recess tqe meeting reconvened. F xHIBIT "B" ZONING VARIANCL APPLICATION OWNER ADDRESS- . � -- TELEPHONE _ 31 5-2-y) CITY d STATE ZIP SIGNATURES OF OWNER L DES'-RIPTION OF PROPERTY TAX ;4AP /:� z- �- I � _ TAX LOT(s) Ii' e7(- e LEGAL DESCRIPTION, METES AND DOUNDS OR LOT AND BLOCK (attach copy) LCT SIZE�_t�f�±�-c''t ;'1 rL� i'7 a C-��%., ` y`y f�?-�11—.�7 ��'--Iru lt- VAcres or square feet) USE EXISTING `/�-9- ,n •wee . PROPOSAL - Jac m_ Cil., Ilk ma -Al't .'� ZONING G UTILITIES WATER SERV I C.E -.��„L SANITATION SERVICE REQUEST Var'ance Re uIrement Proposal Difference Cher REASON FOR REQUEST INC VAR i ANCE,,J�-� I DO NOT WRITE BELCW THIS LINE i Code No. Ira Request KF,qk Yf) O t4ri�9NC Receipt No. _- Received By Date_ Admin. App. _Date —_- Date of - Eoard Hearing Case No. 75 I tv T Al / /C-& T CZA c1- DATIKNINSP. TYPE INSPECTION REMARKS PLUMNIMO DATE 4CC419— Contractor Permit No. Hough-in 'Fixture ,Final HEATING Contractor Permit No. Got or Oil Rf,,)gh in Final SEWER Final DRIVEWAY Final Storm Drainage (Rain Drain)Final SkIevAlk Curb&Street Final Approach MMG, DEPT.FINAL TMPORARY CATE OCCUPPNCY CERTIMCATE OCC"ap,�.W .yt CERT"ri Approach Lsridwsping Znnin g Final BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION DATE._ ts_ W?3 THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY APPLIES FOR A PERMIT FOR 1 HF WORK HEREIN 114DICATED SUIL.DER PHONE 222 OR AS SHOWN AND APPROVED IN THE ACCOMPANYING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. OWNER PHONE emotery LOT NO. _ OWNER Grove JOBADDRESS 1225 f,lji rrs?anbur:g R.d. _ ,;C 1906 972111 ENGINEER ARCHITECT BUILDER M3.IIlC coriet ADDRESS__ NW 16th pur,J`Dn(JDESIGNER — C Mijae_ STRUCTURE _ D NEW 11 REMODEL __)Q ADDITION ❑ REPAIR ❑ RENEWAL ❑ FIREDAMAGE ❑ DEMOLITION O RESIDENCE C*COMM ❑ EDUCATIONAL. O GOVT ❑ RELIGIOUS ❑ PATIO l_j CAP?ORT ❑ GARAGE (_' STORAGE 11 SLAB❑ FENCE OCCUPANCY _LAND USE ZONE—_` 07 3LDG.TYPE _ 2N FIRE ZONE._._ _PLAN CHECK BY G!s -HEAT_— Can tructieddi tyon t� xtugol,3un+, rro ddt1 11 ml P1hn_ ❑r mQch_ _ ,,l pnr_ Qnuroved L) -►res S ffig-jert to Eire nnpt - revinw- _ SEWER PERMIT# OCC.LOAD FLOOR LOAD CLYr1C HEIGHT 16 NO.STORIES _ 1 AREA_ 14" NO,BEDROOMS uVALUE 127• A 7 BUILDING DEPARTMENT SETBACKS FRONT RkAR tQ _LEFTSIDE 3t1'= RIGHTSIDE 6600 Permit _ CD3'0� THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE BUILDING CODE, ZONING REGULATIONS AND ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES, AND IT IS HEREBY AGREED THAT THE Plan Ch � 1,��.r1� WORK WIL4 BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND IN COMPLIANCE Subtotal WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES. THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT WAIVE ��+� �n x _� RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS. CONTRACTOR AND SUR CONTRACTORS TO HAVE CURRENT CITY BUSINESS State Tax 20. a,2 LICENSE.SEPARATE PERMITS REQUIRED FOR SEWER,PLUMBING AND HEATING. Total SDC— PDC# APPLICANT OH AGiN M y By 4Jr, a -- Approved - ----- Receipt No. 14 =3-i -�- L ' L1 ADDRESS PHONE DATE- INSP. TYPE INSPECTION - REMARKS PLUMBING DATE 7-z 01�11 Ael: Contractor -- - AV ' Permit No, 7 Fixture Final HEATING Contractor C Permit No. - Gas or Oil Flough-in Final SEWER Final _— ' DRIVEWAY ---- ,—T-' Tom— ----- -- S, X JAA- 1,4 L �s I.J - Final �Zof2 (.L Storm Drainage --- — - — (Flain Drain)Final A _ W Q+ C t,.z-�-•� ot.• Sidewalk -- -- g-A/ ,/ 1. Q..✓ -a�1 •N c C y urb Ri Street Final 8 2 y1r�' i t rq���Q -LZi_,./t -- Approach B.DQ DEPT.FIN 4L "T"EMP�RARY CE IF] ATCCUPANCY( Final_ - ^�CERTIFICATE OCCUPANCY — �— -Y Landscaping +— Zoning Final