The URL can be used to link to this page

8900 SW COMMERCIAL+001 l r • t • C 0 1i Nil: fr' r i i 'VII �4 L c; T' ,-. /y11��,r,J ''� , w.....-...aM_.s:.sr+ya.,A.r„•-vr.a.�llwti ..e'•..r..w.-.a.+w+......-.o '.w.-.•w-• w..M.+•.,.._.-•.._ -.____....-..w....•w,....,......,.w..-w..... ' .......,•n►w..w..ww..y.w,yr,..,r,�,,,.r,..,_ •aw_ _ r.r.._-,w 24'A! i �~{+' /..' ... _r+w..•w.--..•. ti.�_._.»_......a.... r+r- .�_.�......_. -+•+.+mow,-. ......... . -...., ill- _..„ .._..-.+.....�...r.....ww...y..w... .._..w.Y.._...w... ..w..Fw.w_�_w•'d.. ou...,....r�+r►.•.r..... +.� �O%1 .. s....._ ..... ,... _.w_..+..,,.• w..._ _r-..++r_..r,.«_...w......-r,. _..,.•.w� ...w ___ Y...r...�......�_...w... .,.. , 6.,i,i1 . Nie. ga' + --.a.�./w...._w......,....w.....�r. w .__««.+,.......,.`.-.._... _._........ __.,.�...»...-..•e..,...-,...w.._..r.. ..+.w._....►.._rw•.._..++.......r w••••...w./�+Y'•' / . . •__..-.. _+..•.w....w.....»..,y_w._r.�.........+..w..+.•.r........._....wr..w«..•.w. r -,.•wr.........w_.-...r..-.r...l ......r. .......................00.0. _ �'.�M/Ao� � 41111111411.11016.11410141.14n +�Ir0w+ .r .....1.11111111111.1.....1. 4111.014111.0111. t +• • ...e ..y! •r�h ..I. 111 .+• w..� r_A •��. _•.E. � ..fir +.sa.+ ......,00 ...r�.r.w�r ..**110... 1 • y . ._ .-. I• . �, , • • • V . ...wr__._... ..- _.-.�.,...._._...,•_.-+..--..._...... _.•w...-.•mow•.•... • I, MIN. M++�M* *n. -.*qw,..-. - * -.a+w•.0....... ...r.. .re1 11•••• 4WMo.'w4:.'r'0r" 'M"�• �M' .".�..�^'.hn wlw,•r..,-..rw.M-..n..._.w•..r.....r•..rP..rw`w•w...+•..w++I...wr..w.w. �.Irrsr•.�__ _ .r-.rte-'.. �"S.•�' .,. 4 ........ ...... - „ .; • i It . _ jli �rdA LL .. `.,F , , ... f I r 4 2 s4 f`t • 17 .. I I I ° , ••••.•••••••••••••....rlo•••V•••••••144 # ik...11,11111 .0..../ It * /� , r ` J '`� t, _ I n • //5.4;,I' ! I� � SALE d 1,A/ARL: '7 A• L: 1.4 C Li S, t . i t It ;, r __.....,.....,..,.. .� ,. , Lcroc:Dkl N G 414S • c Li, .. ;. ---1- .! I.. i1 ? 1 • 1 .. }• . , t • • F N x f� •CJ 1 /33'-6 , I {4 f I J i I , 0.14I k I tt' L5 tj 1 - ..•.�..r.,-..�..........._......_..... _...,...,_s..-+_.._..«..•-�...w....--- ..,.w.-...,w-• ._.......•.. .... .. ♦ ..._-...-.r.w•....-•Y,..,w.w..•_:.1.. _...r••wv.-....+_.'..i.. •. ..,.,,♦ ! ... \„\, N„,..\\:,..„ , ,,,,,,.,,, ..,',.....„::\?..,4i."(. 7.‘,..\,, \ \.,,:-- \\\\ \.0..\\NI . . ' ' \ . 1.\- • • \\ N,,,44 : ,. N. \\\N\\\\\,,\\.\‘‘‘\:.\\\\,\\\\ . \‘,. 1 i 1 . • \ \ \\.\, \\ I �F /'� `•�Tj...f t Jr ti• � w\•- . l1[j{•.rr �/y1�/`) • ,^`tf�) N,� \ tt 3 ,,,. 1 ,l \ `\ `�• ,\\s,,•,. ,1 ,y �'`,r�`� 1 r 1 • f6 6 • r I / '� `rl 1 • r'-1 ',, ` - IF►v. •7 �.I W ♦ V' `,,,I 'M i 7 �. t . �i /��'111s 1lC Q � \A' 1 , il; ,, G. � � , • s.\.\\:4\ :\N.:11:N:\\\'' ...,....:,..",,,I\':‘,1'.: ....\:. '\\'''`O, :N:\.\\. '. ,... ..'.. i'.,,... w I i s..,:),.....‘a\''\,,,,\.„.11%.\\\\.\\\,:\:14.: I 5t , i . 1 1 v\ '` t{t • • \\44.:s:.:\:. . • i 'A\ \ \\: \ IN ft. N. '. \..\\,.`s.,,,,,*\\:\ \ \‘, \••;\:\\*\,,,,,, .. • . N T a .. \ \ *' `,\•.\`,:. ‘,,''''l 17C.n."': '.........4 5. P . LEASE , : i . i1 1 jirl'i 11 I• • • L ILI Q'L I D P foo l.'c ; ! C 1 I . . .. . •, .. . 1 / ;?. 76 Sc. ..: . , . . / ...... , ,,,. . • -...-....+. v.,....,.....w.y`> ' .N r.1�►a,.'1..4:1.`•�. r_ ..w,w..— -'---......i•.........�......,`.YMr+�..' ...w•w.r.... o....._.r...+._r..,.._ .-w.� V . 11 • • • ,471".....'''.. �, ...r.�........-..,r_... .�.n.w�•_ wo' ....s..-.....,.r.w - .1.r..w..........w«..r....'....n.+..,......_................_............,r.............+..r...,.................. ..«....-....w.......�..............-.._.'..-..w _..._._.�.._.._._......... /O� ,/ .___._..._.f,...__-__•_ �.__ ...._._....�_ ..«•.r..._.........._...�..._.. ._. ._,_.._ _ .. .... ___ __....._......_... • I I/ _..w.---•....r..w..✓... ! !. 5 , •..+r»... TT .. .r.....__,....,.ww.. r. .....r....._ .... —........ .r.. .• ..+. 19� ,3i.. __._.............. ........+-.. .... .._ ,....... ._«..-y..•arw+.+. . ...r,.. ..•+.r•..,......1w.....rr+w._�._.....-_....�...a. s.,,w.wr. .. .+..r.'w-.r.. ..►.•--►.r.w....,.F.r-......w+.e•.._...+.r...r....�..L•+.w+rwo..u.+..�.+.rw.wM . 1 • • • '� ...wrrr.._....___w..w......:w ....r.wr...r...r....... ...r..__... .-..,«.. •.r�_w..rw.....,,._......•..,..._........_. ....-r....__..... .. _ ,...- .,+._+......•..,._... t •. DATE . - '' ; I.• . .. . . . . .. } PLOT PLAN • i '°".'"---"--"."I'"N""N""mm"'" """"mml""14"-""mm""m".amft"."'"4""slb"Ib"""'"'"'""-----....._. . ' SI" • t .. • t Ghr?r� • • .,,••• MP...•. - �,,�,..,..,.., • • • r: AW, { ..._ _ NG : r',•\,'.1,-.ER'-.4:::::35:0 IN �. H. A. 11014 t & ;�-, S u c:. ? A � r_ • N tLL 5 �30�'::�. 4�' G (�N • ......i• t .a. IC ,. p,•�......, ..+".�'Fn'fafA,A+1f�1" .. k _ ,. .. - .a '"-' '^'_'"'�R°'�CJ'�R°� „r.b y ` pW '"is• 1. i;.� ?'.4..��,1>. 1 1 1 iIl l l 1 1 1 1 III i t 1 � 1 I t t , t i t 1I1 1 I I�"1 I I III 1 1 �1 1 1 III 1 1 III ► III 1 1 lIf 1 1 I , t i t i , t I t III 1 IIII111 111111 I l l i ] 1I1 1 � 1 Iill IlII111 , 1 11111 "" •,•,,�,^.__._...__ pi. ii � � III � I � I � � i iii isi � � > 1rI illi 1 � 1 IIS ) � III � � i � Ii 1p1 II � IIIII 1 I)0 II 12 � I 2 3 45 6 : 7 8 9 NOTE : 1 F THIS MICROFILMED - DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN _ !` A~ THIS NOTICE . IT IS DUE TO t THF QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. 0£ 62 82 12 92 SZ bZ� £Z zZ I OZ 61 BI LI 91 Si bl CI ZI 1 I 01 6 8 1 9 S is E Z 1 a„'1'" • 111111Iiti1f1111I11t1it111i111l1111I1111l1I1II11111111111111111111111hIt1I1111L1IIII111111usil1111111-Illi111111llii'11111111i11I1111II,11111111/11Il111111$11IMi111A Y ' 2 4 11III11III9I1lIIII9I1iIiiII111111IIII11111/1111111111111/11IIIIIIIIIII$II11101tlIIIIlIIl1I1111t1I1111IM1I11IJ.�)►L1111I11111i HNIIUIii11 .i. WI MICROFILM SERVICE CO. Commercial Microfilming, Processing & Supplies M Portland, OR. Seattle, WA. . . • • 404, ••••,. . 1 ., . . .' • '/ ., v 'AV ' ''', '- '".t.' .reir .-1 .• , , ) •,.. ,, , • ;. • \ • - , A 4,-.,t: . , . , 4411,4014-, 4.,, - ,, .'''if,, ..:' 4,11"," •-, ',#,, '''*. , . . . , , . , 'lei* ' ?' ••' • i . itt t. ,..1 '"'' ' ;4,f, ;,... . ,... •,,. `, , .. ,.e - ` •" • . ' . a , A.4. •• ? , . i . . ••,‘:: ' . • .t . . . ..•• •4 , , ‘. , •. • . .0,,' Ap . , . . , . , . .;.- I • !•• • I..• 1.• • • •. • i • • • 't • J •••1.0Z . •• • i • • • . i• • • . • . •v . A •... ... ,.... , 114 , i • 1 1 11 i , ,.. . •.,- - i . • . .. ' . • 4 . - , . . . .,. . . , • • ? ?i ? , , ' . - T' ... . 4.,. .. , . ., [ . . .... , . • • ., •4 46 ' I I • •• . •A •• ) r. • • , 1'14 . • ) , . •••••• J • : • ' • • ••••• ' • 1 • • 1 • 0 i• • • 1. IP • r ( J • ' . ••• I to. a' r• •% • . ). . , I , . ., . , . • . . t , , ... . . • .. . ••• ;.. . . . . • ,4..0 4 , .. ... • . ' . , . • • • i. .. . . . . , • . f. • • • . . . . ,.. .• , • • . . •,, : .. . t •1•• - • , . .••,!i,,., , . . 'f', ., •••• . . . . 1 17 . ,., . ,, . • . . . • , ,. -it. . ,••. . . . , . . • . • , , . 74 . .. • . ' . .. • : , . . .,. 1 . . . - ' - [.. ., . • $ • , 't• .. t •, , .. . ,... , . - c• f . . t . .. . ' 14‘.• • ''). . . , . • . . ..., t I • ••' . . -s. r - . . .. . . . . , . ... .. . . .... . .. , rApAper . . .. . , . . . \1/4.....,...., • . . . ...... ,............._ .......... "••••••••••••,....•••••,......-..............••••.•.0••• ••.......•.... •..........••••••06••••••••••..................A.........,..• ••••••••,9•••••••••1..44..........moo.*A....va........,,,maafee:rya.a..............,.........,..........•••••....",......................... ....................... ""'"'..• ..:( • N ' r . . .... / , / .. • 1 4 • 1'; / / /' - t , / .... , / / / • . '.., / ///*/ / / / / / f</ / / ......,, . . ,,,./ //' 1'7 - - // 1 .7 N.r\ ... / / ...' , .0. '. / ,i , . , t " '•• •/ /I/ if . / ,, / .... • ... ',., .......- ................. . , , , . ._. .0 0" /.. ,.... • 0 . t !, 1°. FT,/77 /-/-://21—r -------77,7/I" - ! . • ' / / / / / / f. / ...., • ., .. • , . ._ .,- • // 7/ ,.. / / f' ,....' //: 1 ' .. , .... , `N.,.-*:, ... -. ',, 1 / / / , / • / / ./ •.. ft? • . s''' ''---- RQ IT-i')ele7 t ,r-AI- ' -- ,...:‘• 7 • / / , / .i• '' . 1 1 / ' / / .. • f ,• . / S ALES VIARE.00.6St- • ..e. . , !.. / , • ' - • • ! i ,. • .. r/ 1 41 1 ,"-• ,.., -', ., ./ , NEW CONSTRUCTION . ./ / ,../ ...e • ... - , . . / / . r , / / • . . / '* 0/ / d / / 1 ! ,-, ,./ .../ -' .. . W A R E 1-10 ki 5 E . / . / ., ' / E xi I c.:, .tllirdaa : t:at,. f•t •.' alla 41 I I I PI I I•I I 1"I","M.°4".''''''''' 4 , . / i ; 14 t7 7-- 1 - . 1 0 f , / • If / / 00e " / , . LIQUID PLAT/// , .. .. ,, .. . r t , . . . , . , • . , / . . • • / • / i 18:10er ! / / / t Jr A , i . 0( . 1 9.*ef l' i .S/ / • . / ,,- i / • , , .. / ../ / / / „ 0 . ..- , , , . . . / . , .. _A, ta• .: " '" / / / .• . , .• . -r.' . / ..." r..• / / • I • '..• ."''''' '-;'. ' . 1 • 1 . i . • . i'. , .r / / .• .1 / X I S 1-'! /V G- // / ,- / SA L ES Off! . v .. , , . / i i f r / i .. .. , , •/ '' •• / / , . . . . I/ ' / 114 I ., i1' / / / /-•' / ,`/ , I , . , ' , • i , ,,,„,,, / „.• . / 7 / / / / / Al/ III /' i ' # z / A 1 ,lfe/ id ... / . . / i// / .j. ,,,f / / / 1 .. . I I ,.0 .0 / ."' r' / / / ee it. / di . 4 . . , / 41 . ..,..." / '" ... ...........................oweimmui.11"7 . • •-. 1 / ...•../.0 , 7,-, I, ',•=4-.., . ...'' , , • . • • ,. • . . , • .r. #", • /.• 6 : 1 - . • 1•• '. - ------1 ...... AC.... ._ ,, - Re!k; "---.- .. - / • .........wilow.......„..............—...................... ...1•••araid" La •,. Pe/ .1 II)A M P 1.-INA: • ,L . .. , -,, , . , .• . / - 4 - . , 400,• i `... . . ..00,• '• ' • I. ,r /.. ' • 4 4, • • ' ;4 11.., f., 4011 . • , ..e ,.., t ' 0 ‘ * . 4 * , • . J ..4 ,la ,. ..? ' " i I . ,n - , i , A r e or$ 86 , rr 4 ...t , ../ t. , ,i,.f •V..t' Jli.,,,........w. AMMO 111111”1. ............ ..............---.*...r...p.............••••••••••;ra••••••••••••••••••••ram. .' .• /. i fr "j. CONCiet•rbe . . • f . . i . .• . . . . . . , . .. . -•••••••••......••••••0 ••••••••••.........0.0................R...-.4.7.m1atamAman ImPia)mar4aara4maman1,a.4/A LIS 544 . . • . 3r '-A jf ....... . rs•- /. !A- 4.• -- . ., . I , ...4 ,., . V . . P 1 — _ . . ,.• . ^ ,,•,,. .. . . • . . ' - • , . . oc. . . . . fl• . . SOUTHEAST ELEVAT / fON .. . ., . . , i . • . . . . . .... . . . . . 1 , ,., ; . . Tt , . 1 , ‘. . .........._ N ...............--*--............,—do..............................,....., V Pr:F 3/3/75 R 1 . . r . • „..),,,, , . . , \ t . . - . - EL EVI\ T 10N ._ I'dr; I t . • ,.. \ . .. 0 U 1 P 7 Mk•NT 5 *rOR 4,G A , , . , 1 . \ .1 1- i••• ...../ • T 1G.A P D . OP k GC) .........e •.w . • .,,, •I ,,, Ems iN .... ....r r„, , .. . r ' . I. , ?' el .• N i . tf-- r -• ... I-, ,_ c i-lir' t A . TL) --- '--rr: & ' '4 ,,72 14,/ko, i n i ,.....-,) r . . . . , , ,.... ,.... , N ILL S BOND. Le'f''11: G 0 tv .1 , ,--- ,- i . ,..-.•:,,‘,. .... ,i , '• • P, w, S PLk7 !4:74, if ol- / ! „ • . . . . aa . t .a '.-..,. .. . ... .... . .. . . . - • ' SC. A 1,. -- 1/c.'. '' ...- .I. - Lig' . . ... , , . ,. , ., .3 • . „, ,,,., •, ‘,...;,. 4, , . • • 0 ' . ''.•*..$ . ,. •i , • A.f -. ' • ' . . ,......4.....................i....0.1.*Ilmeaimpaamapsoomema...UP........... mA0weal1.0................................4 - .„, . ' • ,. .1 .., ,..,.41.....J..1 Y.- z ••••1 .. .... . ., i ,,• . " . . . ' ' • • • • ' ' ' 4 ' • .• , - . .gr , .., ,4,,,' ;00,,,.. ;...'t • , ..‘ . .., * .., . _. .....”•• ..:Ab,...-:-.„,• ..... ... ....44 1.,r.... ,„AmpaillimiliAtviit,.4.111iliksitiviviiittto,..e.4IllihihliiiIllibdttillkillkiaP..,br,..i.z..au, liItl,MgeeiillIlliitldMINtt,Edltirx.la*wiCjd*rtSitl*f§s.tWiteitrir - ' - ' ' -' - ... ,„, ... ..1141 •^14.11.N4001.11110.713K ••).4, •••••••••••en,r•rer,r,•ryt.irre.e- ., , 1 , • I r * ' '''', ..labia t , f , ' 111- oke ..0060•11.0.6•001.11111100pr— I . 1 • 1\ 10.111411 / 11111 / 111111111 / 1111111 / 1 / 1 / 1111111 / 1 / 1111111 /1/1 siiiipirplisitiptlitiviiiiiiiii witiiiiiiIrispisisiliwilisisiiiippowil , I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NOTE : IF THIS MICROFILMED 6 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR TT-IAN ek a . THIS NOTICE , 1 1 IS DUE TO 4 THF QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. oc ea! 92 12 92 S2 02 CZ 22 ia OZ 61 91 LI 91 SI VI Cl El 11 01 6 9 1 9 S 0 E owliiiiiiiiilltitisItilinilmilliisimilifilitililimiiiiiiiiiilmihnilimillithitiltiiihni11111111111111111i111111111iIiiii111111111111111111111010111111111111111111111111111M11111111111611111111A111111111111111111111111111111116fillfithWiiiiii.11111 , , • ' e' SO . mA ., 2 1991 I MICROFILM SERVICE CO. . Commercial Microfilming, Processing & Supplies . Portland, OR. Seattle, WA. I . t .. _ . ....,11IMPOIPI.si•41^+^... ........- - .„,.._ 400 FARMCRAFT CHEMICALS — Non Conforming Use (NCU 1-75) 8900 SW Commercial 8/12/75 September 3, 1975 Mr. Craig Eagleson Farmcraft Chemicals 8900 S. W. Commercial St. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Reference: File No. NCU 1-75 Dear Mr. Eagleson: Please be advised that the Tigard Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of September 19, 1975, considered your request to expand a non-conforming warehouse building in a C-3M zone, and your submission was approved, subject to Design Review Board review and approval. Please do not hesitate to call this office at 639-4171 if you have questions or need additional information. SSincereiy, Jerald M. Powell, Assoc. AlP Associate Planner JMP:pt •'1 • • TIGARD PLANNING COMMIE ")N AGENDA August 19, 1975 - 7:30 p.m. Twality Junior High School - Lecture Room 14650 S. W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. MINUTES: July 22, 1975 (study session); August 5, 1975 (regular meeting) 4. COMMUNICATIONS 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 ZONE CHANGE ZC 9-75 (Chamberlain) An amendment to the zoning map of the City of Tigard, initiated by the Tigard Planning Commission, reclassifying certain Lands owned by Joseph Chamberlain and Arrow Heating Co. on SW Walnut St. , from R-15 to R-7, Single Family Residential; lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the Lake Terrace Subdivision. 5.2 NON-CONFORMING USE NCU 1-75 (Farmcraft Chemicals) • A request by Farmcraft, Inc. to expand a non-conforming • warehouse building in the C- 3M zone at 8900 SW Commercial Street. 5.3 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 4-75 (General Provisions, regarding conditional use status) 6. SUBDIVISIONS: Muttley's Addition (south of SW Tigard St. ) A proposal by Herb Morissette, Builders, to subdivide four existing lots south of SW Tigard St. and directly west of SW 113th. 7. PRELIMINARY PLAN AND PROGRAM REVIEW: (Westridge Park, SW 72nd and Hunziker) A request for concept review of the preliminary plan and program for a proposed commercial and residential planned development at SW 72nd Ave. and Hunziker. St. 8. OTHER BUSINESS 9. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSICN AUGUST 19, 1975 TWALITY JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order at 8:40 P.M. by Chairman Hartman. 2 . ROLL CALL: Members present were Hartman, Hanson, Nicoli, Smelsef and Wakem. Staff present, Powell. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of July 22 & August 5 approved as submiJ.ted, 4. COMMUNICATIONS: Chairman Hartman read a letter from Dr. Jack W. Letch to the Tigard Planning Commission referring to the hearing on the Neighborhood Planning Organization #3 Plan. (Letter attached) . 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 Zone Change ZC 9-75 (Chamberlain) An amendment to the zoning map of the City of Tigard, initiated by the Tigard Planning Commission, reclassifying certain lands owned by Joseph Chamberlain and Arrow Heating Company on S.W. Walnut Street, from R-15 to R-7, Single Family Residential; Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the Lake Terrace Subdivision. A. Staff Report: Staff Report was read by Powell. B. Public Testimony . Mr. Chamberlain testified in his own behalf. Mr. Fieber, a neighborhood resident, queried Chamberlain about his intent to resubdivide. Mr. Chamberlain indicated that resubdivision would not be necessary . . Chairman Hartmarx asked Mr. Chamberlain abo...t lot sizes. . Mr. Chamberlain reponded that they ran from 8,000 egl.are feet to 9500 square feet. . Mrs. Utz asked Mr. Chamberlain about his m.ntent;icr., tc build duplexes. . Mr. Chamberlain responded that he did not now intend tc build duplexes on the lots but had decided to build single family homes instea,i. C. Staff Recommendation . Staff recommended approval. D. Commission Discussion and Action . Motion for approval (Hanson) , se,.anae. (Nicoll ) . • . Discussion cy the (omwi Psion centered .4n conformance with the Compr .rensive Plan and the question of spot zoning. . It was determined by the Commission that this would not be spot zoning and that the requested zoning did conform with the Comprehensive Plan. . Question was called (Smelser) . Motion to approve carried (unanimously) . 5.2 Non-Conforming Use NCU 1-75 (Farmcraft Chemicals) An amendment to the Tigard Zoning Ordinance of 1970 clarifying the rights of certain land owners with respect to properties, the use of which has become characterized as a conditional use after the date of commencement of such use. A. Staff Report . The staff report was read by Powell. . Chairman Hartman asked staff if the square footage indicated on the plans in the Commission's possession was accurate saying that the 1330 square foot mentioned in the staff report seemed in error. . Discussion revealed that the squsre footage of the addition should be 1710 square feet for a 14% increase in size. . Staff amended the staff report accordingly. B. Public Testimony . Mr. Eagleson testified in his own behalf. C. Staff Recommendation . Staff Recommended approval subject to dea4rn nrr.iew approval. D. Commission Discussion and Action . Motion to approle the applicant's request (Hanson). with staff recommended condition. . Seconded (Smelser) • Question (Wakem) . Motion to approve was carried (unanimously) . 5.3 Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZOA 4-75 1 Concerning conditional use status Jf a previa-u317 permitte.± use after a zone change. PAGE 2 - PC MINUTES - AUGUST 19, 1975 - I/ Amendment to the i gard Z rintng G:rdi.ne nc e of " .0 clarifying the rights of certain land owners with regard- to properties, use of which has become characterized as a conditional use after the date of commencement of such use. A. Staff Report . The staff request7d. the Planning Commission disregard the printed staff report and substituted a verbal staff report clarifying the proposed ordinance as proposed by Mr. Bailey, the City Attorney. B. Public Testimomy (See verbatim transcript attached) C. Staff Recommendation . Based on the finding that the public 's right to respond in betterment of a previous error or oversight in zoning or to respond to a change in circumstances in the neighborhood require that the City be able to exercise, through its police power, a change in site controls on not only future development but on expansion of existing development and based on the finding that the rights of no one owner of land within a particular zone ought to be superior to the rights of any other owner in the same zone ° Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment L3 worded by Mr. Bailey with the clear intent to making Said permitted use a permitted use under the development restrictions of the new zone or code not the old zone or code. D. Commission Discussion and Action . It was suggested that the natter be tabled pending further discussion in a study session (Smelser and Wakem) , . Chairman Hartman inilL.ated that he felt that the Bailey version of the ordinance may be too restrictive that the modification suggested by Mr. Anderson may be :-rerl y permissi re. • Wakem moved to table, . Motion died for lack of seo.cnd. . Motion to approve Bailey amendment JHenson) . . Seconded by Ni^olio • Motion to amend Hanson motion (Hartman) tc is lute r (1,;est of the City Attorney that he clarify the ,,. r. l.i r.t 1 posed ordinance to identify whether the rights of the pr:per ty owner to continue developing or relevelop his site- ar� those in the zone pr evicusly held 7r i.r • Seconded (Hansen) PAGE 3 - iC MINUTES - August 19 . 1)75 . Nicoli indicated his agreement with the amendment. (No vote was necessary due to approval of the previous motion' s proponents) . . Question called on the motion as amended. . Motion passed 3 to 2 (Wakem and Smelser voting no) . • Hansen asked the Chairman to request a memorandum from the staff explaining why it took so long for this or- dinance amendment to get from City Council to the Planning Commission. ▪ Staff indicated that the memorandum would be available at the next Planning Commission meeting. 6. SUBDIVISIONS 6.1 (As indicated on the agenda, this matter ha' been withdrawn by the applicant, to be resubmitted for the liext Planning Commission meeting) , 7. PRELIMINARY PLAN AND PROGRAM REVIEW: (Westridge Park, SW 72nd and Hunziker) . A request for concept review of the preliminary plan and program for a proposed commercial and residential planned development at SW 72nd and Hunziker St, . Don Johnson, architect for the development, asked to be recognized by the Chairman before the staff report was read. Mr. Johnson cffered a statement that the applicant had reconsidered his development plan and that the plan submitted to staff was now void. Mr. Johnson went on to say that they felt that townhouses or a similar medium density multiple development would be in the better public interest and would _•:ist. cute a better deve1op- ment of the site. . Motion to table the :tem until Mr. Jchns':: and Mr. Smith resubmitted their develcpment pian (Hartman) . . Seconded (Wakem) . . Motion approved unsnimcusly. 8. OTHER BUSINESS ▪ Chairman Hartman brought up the topic of du.p '.exes on R-7 lots, He requested that the staff lo: .1r.+:7. development of an .increased lot sii.!.e requiement, .for duplexes in single farn2 iy resid-nt1a 1 znes. L':t si7.es III f r� z r� tC,C ;r, t't r. of 10,000 sq in an R-.7 . PC Minutes - Aura t 19. 19T - pag - r R-15 zone and 30,000 sq. ft. in an R-30 zone were suggested. A percentage increase in site size for all residential zones was also suggested as an alternative. . It was pointed out by staff that while this would help in the scale of a duplex to its neighborhood, frequently duplexes are sited on lots that are undesirable for single family development and are therefore especially undesirable for two family development. In staff's experience, the real problem is frequently poor sub- dividing practice and layout. . Further discussion dealt with the difficulties that may be encountered by a builder in a poorly designed subdivision and of what future Planning Commission policies may be with respect to these problems. 9. ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 p.m. PC Minutes - August 19. 1975. - page 5 PUBLIC TESTIMONY Fred Anderson August 19, 1975 ?lanning Commission Meeting Item 5.3 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZOA 4-75 "The pre-existing outright permitted use rendered conditional in the sense that the map or text was changed continues as an outright per- mitted use. Now the question is -- is it an outright permitted use in the pre-existing zone or is it an outright use in the new zone. My opinion is that it is an outright permitted use in the old zone, as of the old zone, and I 'll tell you why. I think we are talking here about what the courts have called a vested right. And I point to the leading case of Oregon called Clackamas County v. Holmes; What I term in the vernacular, the chicken foundry case. In that case, some people who were in the chicken processing business bought a very large tract of land in the unincorporated area of Clackamas County, in about 1965, These dates are approximate. They built a road into it. They dug a well and went for water much greater than what you would need for pasture. They did a number of other things in furtherance of their original intention which they proved to establish a chicken processing plant on this land. They spent between 30 and 40 thousand dollars on these improvements. Seven years later they went to the County to get a building permit, but the County re- fused them on the grounds that in the interim the land had been zoned incompatibly with their objective, In other words, what they want to do is not a permitted '.isF:. They poured their footings for their building, nonetheless, on legal ad'.:ice. A restraining order was served on them, restraining them from proceeding by the Circuit Court, The matter went to trial. The Circuit Court held against them. It went to the Court of Appeal., The Court of Appeals, as I recall, went against them, It went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed on the grounds that, which I think are of some interest here, asmuch as they had spent considerable money for the purpose of using this land for a use that was out:-•.:gn t. authorized when th€y bought the • land and did these improving steps, they hed accomplished a 'rested right and they had a right to do it and continue to d.-, 7! t and ope r'ate their plant, construct their plant, build their plan and Ise it ar7 they did. They did those things; the Court upheld treir .right to do it. Now let's analogize between that and the sit'„rat' or rete. It: Tigard we have two aspects of this matter, both of which have been Aorked quite recently. I am really here in behalf of great ester Corporation, whose land between the two railroads our 'ler' :ia d Progress had been developed, lands: aped. They sper_} a million dollars. They have an area yet to be neve, r I. a:: :4-her. words, they are progressively developding their lar.i. Ncv• the NF's' #2 purported to change this classif+.cation of this land frr ;n to M-4. Their use by that maneuver is defined in the M-4 as a rc ditiona.l use category and they have *his million or more dh:.]ark invested Now, if they were t n ” • Gals and so forth, everybody'll he up in arms. Certainly Y :. g ing to let that happen. Now let's take the other case, reoen,;ly the City Council saw fit to change many of the categories of uses out- right along Pacific Highway west from outright to conditional. There again many of the uses that they changed are "in being" restaurants. Here again are vested rights and by the narrow view, if the narrow view were compatible here, these uses would be precluded except upon an application to the Planning Commission. Now, of course, planners seem to think that there is nothing to getting a conditional use permit when you want one. I have observed both in this room and elsewhere that conditional use is granted like other things are granted, depending upon how much public pressure, how much the outcry is and how the politics are, rather than by the merits. So it is a real threat to an owner confronted with this situation. My thinking has been and is that this matter before you now is aligned with this right theory as much as anything else. Now you could say, but what about changing something to the extent that it's a non-con- forming use. In other words, you change the zone so that use is not permitted there at all. Conditional relevance: You got a non-con- forming use in theory; In practice, as in the Holmes case, you do not. You have vested right to continue that use. It's non-conforming you might say. You call it what you want to.. My point is : there is a right to continue the thing you had in mind in the first place -- develop that property. I think you have to keep the thing in proper perspective. I recommend that this wording (indicating Bailey's wording) or similar wording be adopted by City Council by ordinance as a prt of the 1970 zoning ordinance of Tigard in order to save the City a lot of money and not get involved in arguments about this thing. Because I think on the Holmes case the City is vulnerable if it doesn' t adopt this view. I could suggest some other wording, but I don' t want to con- fuse the situation. I agree with Jerry that perhaps expanding it with the optional additional phraseology might be going some distance, rpt cer+ i_p'_}t his basic phraseology here is well justified „-fie, (Jerry) You suggested that th- • , hts of the 1andowre zoning be retained. 1)c y2u mean to include land coverage, parking space requirements. . . ? (Fred) If I understand you, you are asking me -nn the x: ._ - difference between those elements within a pre c lz. where you find a piece of property, which elem a � n (Jerry) I am asking if you are suggesting Lhat all r 4•1:7 ^ "r 'r"+ -h- previous zone be brought forward with the pemi.ssil, nr Ci isL as page 2 - public testimony - pc meeting 3 l9/75 an outright use. (Fred) Yes, I would say this, that keeping the matter in proper perspective, where a person had a piece of land and had started to carry out a certain objective, one that they can prove; and that objective does not comport with the setbacks of a new zone that they may be put in; and failure to comport with that would defeat their right tc the use of the land to attain their objective, I say the setbacks must yield. If that be not so, how could Holmes have built a chicken foundry at all? Some more important, much more important elements yielded. The element of contravening the whole zoning phi.losphye Now I would go one step further and say that where the setback and other eleme'.ts are compatible with the objective, I would say otherwise. So I say that you have to keep these things in perspective. Does that answer your question? (Jerry) Doesn't your suggestion give the owner of such a piece of land superior rights to develop that land than is common to others in that zone? (Fred) That is, not developed? (Jerry) Developed or undeveloped -- It gives it a peculiar set of rights that inhere only because of previous use, real or anticipated. (Fred) Yes , but what better reason is there then the man who has already dedi- cated his lifetime And his wealth to it. We :rave to keep in mind that there is a constitution in this country too that says no man's property shall be taken without just compensation. That is par4 „r tie .,am' regimen and zoning has come as close to be an. arbi.l:-ark je 'e et as there is, but it is supposed to be to the benefit , ,., 1_ e there are limitations to it and this :les one of. ,n rh,.s s nfl ' just Oregon , You will find the vested right tneo. over the country, but you have to meet certain guise. iree. our context dere, I consider (this request) as ,_L;5 "i 'i r": " y i right more than anything else, (Jerry) Would you say that the vested right theory , the r tr, aria advancing, is universally accepted land use leN (Fred) Not universally, I don't think they have that In .: (Jerry) Universal in Oregon page 3 - public testim,,ny - pc meeting 8/19, 7' (Fred) Well, I would say that the Holmes case is the law in Oregon. Yc only have one Supreme Court, (Jerry) The notion that a "right" under zoning at a particular point in time is a vested right at a future point in time is the law? (Fred) Yes, I think the Holmes case is very much alike it: the way we zone (Jerry) No, I asked if the vested rights theory, , , (Fred) It is not a theory! Would you allow that the Supreme Court case is the law in Oregon? (Jerry) Wait a minute! You called it a vested right theory ! (Fred) Sure, but it is the law, The law is what the Supreme Court says is the law. Until the case is reversed, it is the law. As much as if you had read it in the 1975 version of the legislative inactments0 (Don from Crestview) I did not come here to speak, but this aroused my curiosity, I would like to know in a hypothetical situation what would happen if a property owner "A" owned a parcel of ground and set about imprmin_g it for a junk yard and property owner "B" set about improving (lets assume both these hypothetical development situations were permitted under the existing zone) the adjoining piece of property for re, - dential use, neither one knowing what the :,then re 'ca.: in rri n , at some point in time these sites become zoned res: Tjerr.' =7 , 171- that 7z-that this man had spent some money tr develop a j1.;.-i care. +. going to give him a vested right to go ahead with ?Ii6pre so than the guy who poured some money in his property for ri= res: How would that shake down in your .pi,zion. (Fred) Well, I see them as comparable, We have jun'.( ',ra.rd side, Nobody can close them down because mast if p non-conforming, So I would say the term junk -r - -- • - vernacular, It is a deprecating and s, :re of 1 Again, looking at the thing from the standpoa.r -. z can conceive of a situation where the so-calle,? a vested right and I think (Don) What about the !:: reon who had plt an eq rel page 4 - pudic r,= :cnny - p, mei' ing 3/19 development for a residential purpose? (Fred) I think that is true too. I think he could have a vested right. (Hartman) The existence of a junk yard would preclude the existence of the resi- dential area and make it less desirable. But still the fact that the junk yard was there and was a permitted use when it was established would mean that it would be allowed to continue as a permitted use as long as it remained in business. If it went out of business and remained out of business for a set length of time, it could not be re-established. (Smelser) I think the situation that the staff is trying to address here is where property has been developed or is intended to be developed for a specific use -- does that mean that forever more, regardless of change of zone, that property can continue to expand for that intended use? (Jerry) It seems to me that the application cf the vested rights principle in this particular issue that is before the Planning Commission almost precludes the public 's right to better .revious errors, oversights of even changes in circumstances which the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon has specifically said must be recognized (by subsequent actions) . (Fred) I don't feel that there is anything alien between the Holmes case and anything the court has said since, In fact, the Holmes case only came down in '74, And if I am not wrong, it probably followed Fasano. Fasano came down in '73 , (Hartman) I would like to hear wh.et alterna e ( — this, (Fred) Well, I am hesitant because I hope jective be attained. H.)w you get read to you what I have here: Whenever a previously outright permii relegated to the conditional use grc•), - zone or another zone all wholly pa- ` sL = • erties then in outright use status in e.!, -.v•-r • - - . 1 retain all the incidents of pre-exi_fi '. • ' ,s , fication applicable to such prnperty - expand, alter, .hange tht, i -r '. ' a existing �c- page 5 - public te.:.timony - • r • • • • I have another one Property wholly or partially developed and in use in any zone for any outright permitted purpose for that zone when such use purpose is reclassified in the same zone or a different zone to a conditional category shall retain all use rights previously available to such property under its outright use category pre-existing the reclassification so long as such pre-exiting use continues including the right to expand., alter, or change the extent of area or use of such pre-existing use purpose. Now, I think that all I have done there is maybe use more zonin, jargon than perhaps Joe Bailey did, I would rather see you re.' mend his because Council has copies , It is already submitted in writing. My purpose is to get the job done and not to argue about the words. I felt or thought that maybe the Planning Staff would find fault with Joe 's wording, so I had an alternative to offer, (Hartman) I am not sure that I am completely clear on everything that the pro • - posed ordinance implies. Where this ordinance states "the owner of the land shall have all of the rights he would have had hard the use remained a permitted use in the new zone" . That seems to me to be ambiguous on these matters of setbacks and landscape, There ° •, difference between "had the use remained a permitted use in the new zone" or "had the land remained under the previous zoning" , and that seems to me to be the crux of the matter right there. (Fred) Well, I discussed the staff's proposal here with Dick Bolen, .i didn't discuss it with Jerry, And I think that there is ambisu.i t;- in the proposed change, If you intend that the property rezonewould have all the elements of outright zoning in the new zone, thr* Tight so severely restrict the owner that he couldn't use t. ' ; purpose. I am suggesting to you that the proper appoach - - to permit the, what I chose to call element. :f prn• -: to remain applicable to the property -- a proper',; partially developed for a given ,. ontinuous, purpose -- a necessarily zoned for any use that it might ave be u down the scale 20 or 30 uses -- but for the` pre-e'; t'...: - • - (Hartman) For the pre-existing purpose it will remain in ti- e pr.e--x in effect. (Fred) Well, yes, it will remain in the pre-existing established use, public testimony - page 6 - pc meeting B!i9/ (Hartman) And that seems to me the point that is not clear i„ the way this is written right here. The way this ordinance is written it seems to me that it remains a permitted use in the new zone and what you are saying is that it should remain a permitted use in the previous zone according to the rules of the .p• ious zone, (Fred) mjs ie what I am suggesting, (Hartman) Which is quite a different kettle of fish, (Craig Eagleson) If I understand this correctly, this (ordinance) doesn't forbid a chemical company from expanding its business operation; however, it can' t expand its business premises based upon the code of 20 years ago- It will be allowed to expand under a conditional use permit according to today's code, under which the building will have to conform to architectural design, landscaping and so forth, This doesn' t mean that the company will not be able to continue in business- Right? (Hartman) (Under t"e proposed amendment; , Farm: raft Chemicals would be allowed to expand their building without the .O percent limitation. It would be allowed to expand as though it were a permitted use in the zone it is in right now, but would etill have to conform to whatever set- back and landscaping rules are embodied in the new zoning, Isn't that correct, Jerry? Whereas the way Mr, Anderson sees it, it should be set up so that he would be Bund by the setback rules and Dn of the previous zone rather than of the zone he is in now, (Fred) Well , I didn' t exactly say tha,. On y - 1 . - that where adhering to the _qtr: - - • - - changed would interfere with o woui - feat . owner may prove, then I say th- - are compatible (with the inter9l a f . - But what we are basically t.i k. ng acs :t _ • _ .. - basic use, I think you've got to keep .i can the property owner use that p-oher-ty - -- pro re, and I say prove,, a =_ a part of his i n. build Rome in a day, You don' t build a p-1 = :,' objective in a day, If, in the E roc ess of br_i::1 - ' :r ir- progress of the building the city changes :Its r . -L e• - w some protection For instance, I could be r„� •,T the rafters up for c 2 story and you all r ` have a single story there, See what I mean , - - - rage - public: testl..iory • I 6 ? /I (Hartman) I don't think that is reaching too far because Tigard does have -v:_es against a 3 story housed (Fred) I only have 2 in my case. (Hartman) • Yes, I know, but the analogy is there; at a point in time in the past Tigard changed its rule to disallow three story houses. (Fred) If the three story had the rafters up. „ . (Hartman) They would be entitled to finish it, but the guy that bought the lot next door couldn' t build a three story house. (Craig Eagleson) I have seen incidents where some guy has sat out on a corner of a street with a little grocery store on an acre of land , Through the years built up around him are beautiful residential homes. And all of a sudden he thinks he has a good thing there so he decides to build a supermarket which, as anybody can see. would not be in the right location for a supermarket. But if I understand Mr. Anderson's proposal, he would be allowed to go ahead and build a supermarket there because he has been in business there as a grocery store. (Fred) You mizunderstand0 I did not say that, (Hartman) I don't think that would oe unless he had, as time . �.:1 . tinued adding to his store, making it larger end (Craig) His intentions were: he was in business an he wer{.-.4 . (Fr•.d) No, now wait a, minute. You're engrafting up.�r; r, �e - -r - new -r - new element: was this intention (and inter.ticn= ar,7 tas,. • extra words) , was this intention a harbored ir. en**,•� effect by plans at the time he started a grc''e •y s ^r . l (Craig) Yes, because he purchased an acre of ground or a r : ti: page 8 - public testimory - p. meeting 8/:1.9 • (Fred) Make it five acres and I could buy the supermarket theory. All these things are subject to the facts that pertain to them. You change these • facts and you. are changing the theology. In the chicken case you remember the facts - and they are established facts. The courts so found that they had done this, this and this in a continuing chain of events to accomplish that. O.K. Now many businesses, like you said, would be the same way. They don't just come into being. Let's take Washington Square. They are still building, aren't they? That is all under one ownership, isnit i'6? Yes, it is, and so they have a laid out plan which is given effect year by year over 10, 20, 30 years. Now you saw off the thing in the middle. That is wnat I am talking about. Public Hearing Closed. • page 9 - public testimony - pc meeting 8/19/75 STAFF REPORT Tigard Planning Commission August 19, 1975 • Non-Conforming Use NCU 1-75 (Farmcraft Chemicals) Agenda Item 5.2 Applicant Craig Eagleson (Farmcraft Chemicals) Applicant's Request ' x Approval of a non-conforming use expansion for property located at 8900 S. W. Commercial St. , comprising . 55 acres • within a C-3M, General. Commercial Main St. , zone. (tax map 2S1 2AA, tax lot 4700) . Applicant's Proposal To construct an addition to an existing non-conforming use, in this case, a warehouse in a General Commercial Main St. zone. Staff Findings 1.. The applicant currently owns and operates an existing chemical warehouse on the subject site and is requesting to construct an additional 1390 sq. ft. of building floor area. The applicant states the additional area is needed because "the economic need to utilize all available space is imperative because of the high land value and property tax obligation. " 2. Section 18.68.030, Tigard Municipal Code, states that, "Following the procedures set forth in Sections 18.84.010 and 18.84.02.0, the Planning Commission may authorize the alteration of a non-conforming use or structure subject to the following limitations: AO "A non-conforming use may be permitted to decrease or enlarge up to twenty percent in floor area or in those cases not involving structures, up to ten percent in land area as existing on August 24, 1970. " 3. The applicant's existing building comprises 12,510 sq. ft. of floor area. He proposes to construct a 1,390 sq. ft. chemical storage addition to the existingstructure. This would not exceed the allowable 20%, amounting to an 11% expansion. 4. Adjacent land use consists of a vacant lot to the south, commercial and professional businesses, as well as the Tualatin Rural Fire Dept. and Tigard Water District office to the east; a vacant lot being used fol- parking to the north and the Southern Pacific railroad tracks to the west. The site is :oned C--3M, General Commercial Main Street, as r proposed by the N.P.O. #1 Plan for the Ash Avenue-Downtown Area and rezoned by Ordinance 75-35. 5. N.P.O. #1 Plan for the Ash Avenue-Downtown Area states that, "to improve successfully the viability of downtown as a retail commercial and community center for the citizens of Tigard. . .the existing trend towards industrial development must be halted. " In order to accomplish this N.P.O. #1 Plan objective, properties along Commercial St. previously zoned M-3 have now been rezoned to C-3M, General Commercial Main St. 6. The architectural design of the existing building may be enhanced by the proposed addition. The proposed new con- struction will serve to create a flat uniform plane along the side of the south wall. 7. In the staff ' s judgment, no material adverse effects to adjacent properties will occur if the applicant is allowed to expand his existing chemical warehouse facility as requested. PC Staff Report - 8/19/75 - item 5.2 - page 2 • • FACTORS THAT MAKE BUILDING EXPANSION NECESSARY • Farmcraft, Inc. is one of only two full-line pesticide dust blendirg facilities remaining in Oregon. Therefore I submit that it is in the public interest to expand this faci] ity. Fruit, nut and vegetable growers throughout the North end of the Willamette C . Valley depend on Farmcraft, Inc. services for crop protection materials. The Tigard warehouse and blending facility serves three other sales outlets. of the company, at Hillsboro, Gresham and Dundee. • Thus its location in Tigard is central to the area served. Farmers need this manufacturing and distributing se-vice to insure the continued production of uninfested food. It is a public service • vital to the local food supply. The size, construction and appearence of the building are • compatible with surrounding struc'-"res and uses. A vacant lot sep- • • •. arates the Farmcraft Chemicals building from the Prairie Market on the S. W. side of Commercial. Another vacant lot separates it from the Tigard Auto Body Shop in the opposite direction. An engineering office and beauty shop are across the street, as well as a plumbing shop, T. V. repair shop and the Justice of the Peace's office. The Tigerd Water District office and Tualatin Rural Fire Hall are across • the street to the Southeast. The proposed construction is in line with a long term plan to finish the building and provide additional warehouse space when needed. A present warehouse client (The Occidental Chemical Co. ) needs more space than is now available. The Belem Industries, Inc. has stated a positive intens; to lease chemical storage space when available. The present shop which is to be eliminated, is a temporary addition built some 15 years ago. Its low ceiling and roof support poste make it unsuitable for current storage needs. The roofing has cracked and must be replaced before winter. It would be better to raze this old part and create new and valuable storage space. The economic need to utilize all available space is imperative because of the high land value anti property tax obligation. The proposed construction is in the public interest for aesthetic reasons. Most of the building is concrete block or similarly painted metal clad frame, with the exception of Vara unsightly low-roofed shop and walled-off drum-storage yard. A uniformly high straight wall as propo,,ed, along the entire side of thebuilding would be much better looking. The additional landscaping needed to conform will further en- hance the appearance of the property and upgrade the Commercial Street district. „, . ( . - -- T--------- -. .......m.. .Imu.......'I. ....”" .,,. i i /.,.5 P_5-- AFFIDAVIT SAFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION RECEIVED �-- -� ri .,,..,-, --7.. . : ,. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING` STATE OF OREGON, l AUG 19 1975 I CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING ; COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, JI ss' COMMISSION " i / I Notice is hereby' ven that pub e CITY OF TIGARD I,Commission of the City held bthe Planning l of Tigard in the 1, --_--_._............_.-----.--••-_..JO S eph.. C.110.1_4 ' -----_Y.Y._----- C.Twality Junior High,School Lecturo Room,14650 S.W.97th Avenue,Tigard, being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the publisher .__.__.-_-_-_.._.._. Oregon. Said-hearings1975, at3 will occur illi August 19, 7:30 p.m. and wNI-I ,concern the following `'.) . -.I of The Tigard Times, a newspaper of general circulation, as defined • An amendmentto the Zoning Map of the City.of Tigard, initiated by the 4 by 0115 193.010 and 193.02t, published at Tigard, in the aforesaid county and ' Tigard Planning Commission, reclassi- fying certain lands owned by Joseph state; that the legal notice, a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was CI-.imberlain and Arrow Heating Com- pany on SW Walnut St., from R-15• to R-7, Single Family Residential; lots I, published in the entire issue of said newspaper for .. 1. successive and 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the Lake Terrace Subdivision. consec'itive weeks in Cie following issues _......._._._._._.-_..-._ _._.__..._._.-_ _ • An amendment to the Tigard Zon- ing Ordinance of 1970, clarifying the' rights of certain land owners with_-._ ._..�.-.__ AUGUST 14.x --1 ?5-. - re- gard to properties,the use of which has • become characterized as a conditional. use after the date of the commence- (Sign)e) 22/------ ment of such use. •+ 2•;,‘ •.-::-4 E•. • A requestby Farmcraft,Inc.to ex- Subscribed and siiurn to befere me this 1A1,11 day of ..-_._ Pand a non-conforming warehouse... ,building in the C-3M zone at 8,104 Commercial Street-.i : ;:r4-:s.,..•.., August 19 .75 All persons having an Interest,In* ' these matters are invited to attend and he heard.. ... _.- ( (TT 2456 ,+ Publish Aug 14, 1975) iYI No ry Public o Oregon My commission expires ... .._.._..i -.-..&' 19.27 t 4 ZONE CHANGE - CONDITIONAL USE - VARIANCE - TEMPORARY USE - NON-CONFORMING USE REQUESTS APPLICATION File # n/C Li I- '2 Fee Rec'd. )00,00 Tigard Planning Commission 639-4171 Receipt # l?-f.s 12420 SW Main St., Tigard, Oregon 97223 Date Rec'd. e-/2 9' By PLEASE PRINT IN INK OR TYPE Action Requested Building Expansion for a Non-conforming Use Applicant's Name Craig Eagleson, d.b.a. Farmcraft Chemicals Phone 639-1151 Applicant's Address 8900 S.W. Commercial Tigard, Oregon 97223 (street] (city) (state) (zip) Owner's Name Craig Eagleson Phone 639-1151 Owner's Address 8900 S.X. Commercial, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (street) (city) (state) (zi.1,57- Applicant is: Owner_ Contract Purchaser Developer Agent Other Cl Owner Recognition of application: IL4 H signature of owner(s) Person responsible for application Craig Eagleson 8900 S.W. Commercial Tigard Oregon 97223 (street) (city (state) (zip) PROPERTY INVOLVED: Tax Map # Tax Lot(s) 2S12AA 04700 02174 Address 8900 S.X. Commercial Area 0.55 (acres) Existing Buildings (# and type) Concrete Block Warehouse & Blending Plant Current zoning C-3 Current Use Warehousing & Pesticide Applicant's Applicant's Blending. Proposed Zoning Proposed Use Same use as for past 25 years SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: x Title Report "Fesano"Requirements _Legal Description ` Vicinity Map _ Tax Map _A._ Site Development Plan Site Plan FACTORS THAT MAKE BUILDING EXPANSION NECESSARY Farmcraft, Inc. is one of only two full-line pesticide dust blending facilities remaining in Oregon. Therefore I submit that it is in the public interest to expand this facility. Fruit, nut and vegetable growers throughout the North end of the Willamette Valley depend on Farmcraft, Inc. services for crop protection materials. The Tigard warehouse and blending facility serves three other sales outletsof the company, at Hillsboro, Gresham and Dundee. Thus its location in Tigard is central to the area served. Farmers need this manufacturing and distributing service to insure the continued production of uninfected food. It is a public service vital to the local food supply. The size, construction and appearence of the building are compatible with surrounding structures and uses. A vacant lot sep- arates the Farmcraft Chemicals building from the Prairie Market on the S. W. side of Commercial. Another vacant lot separates it from the Tigard Auto Body Shop is the opposite direction. An engineering office and beauty shop are across the street, as well as a plumbing shop, T. V. repair sho.p and the Justice of the Peace's office. The Tigard Water District office and Tualatin Rural Fire Hall are across the street to the Southeast. The proposed conu'truction is in line with a long term plan to finish the building and provide additional warehouse space when needed. A present warehouse client (The Occidental Chemical Co. ) needs more space than is now available. The Baleom Industries, Inc. has stated a positive intent to lease chemical storage space when available. The present shop which is to be eliminated, is a temporary addition built some 15 years ago. Its low ceiling and roof support posts make it unsuitable for current storage needs. The roofing has cracked and must be replaced before winter. It would be better to raze this old part and create new and valuable storage space. • The economic need to utilize all available space is imperative because of the high land value and property tax obligation. The proposed construction is in the public interest for aesthetic reasons. Most of the building is concrete block or similarly painted metal clad frame, wit the exception of the unsightly low-roofed shop and walled-off drum-storage yard. A uniformly high straight wall as proposed, along the entire side of thebuilding would be much better looking. The additional landscaping needed to conform will further en- hance the appearance of the property and upgrade the Commercial Street district. ' I M•0s° 1974 • 75 REAL PROPERTY TARES ACCOUNT NUMSEM LEVY CODE 211274/UU Sod ACUO..TY 1u4.19 Washington County Oregon ASSESSED VALUATIONS IWA;f11NUTON CU 1E„ a7.2u MUSIC•5 or We,..r11974 P01!Bt.t'IAP EN.Oc • + DPTUJ CUM LVL LU 4b•!'4 +.It,op.Het•1uMY'elf•ION 111)01 ILA, •;. lees° 17,800 s¶ChoUL UIS d2-'JT IPU9J•74 DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION ti14c,Aku Vr ATCk ULbI G3.4b ISE N.FIRST AVENUE IMPPUVEMINTS .711200 I UNIF ICV Sf:..L1i .6 15.10 HILLS/ORO.OREGON 91177 ''CONS"0IMMS u TUALA TIN J1 Hh PU 1's 7.34 Pi•:C 1T 5 ' TOTAE A•oESSFD 091 tUO 04016 l OF POT<TLFIND 1J.11 na'e501 oCITT OF T1t,Ak1. 04.88 • • • EXEMPTION • W//1 •t, $ ? 1•Irn no ,•AMP.•.A 11598.U4 • LMs76L.Av,.1 LFIA►b AI EMI% LISMFT C11C,';►L•sL5 o9LU S.. LUMML.N4►A6 1►UMNUP UIl.VUN Veda CIIPCFNT TARES A ASSESSMENTS 11101 TO DISCOUNT 1.59d.114 „ «ME •«IN J i'� 1 e• r DICOUNJ 1!011'11 NOV IS IR. I h)AND PAr011 DI 7.99.«i !•N P/19•14 1� AND Iecevt, DDcou10l of HQ,/ a n1 1 • r DISCOUNT TO MME .P NT CY* T ILII��1 SKIM •.D SKIM OF 23.97.,011!Or Nov IS 494 E 1•1.76.• ADDRESS OP PIOPEIIr ) '• .ND nay! E..10000..0 •s I•941 •. 1 s A•JJU•lU 4 AXIS .0Cm (NAw1 I MOA S OEi IROUEpNITNCIUDEP _ w111111.cu@s ON INCH Own'/w4OwNC CNMg111$111111 ADQ•ISS Its Out DM! 010111 .Ab Al I 3 OP 0101010 01 IIACIION TI11IIOP --'pij PAH IS COM. s!1 11,110 5,0! 101 POSFt.i OS111! 0000/ •• INUIT COT EEOC" CLW! a le.AA u4/OU UtJ74 I• 0Up1P" .5501E 2 7! I ` 4 y.91 D • Fotocopy of tax assessment showing ownership and valuation. • • • l