DIR1989-00002 DEC -28 -89 THU 1 4 4 1 ORE &C 5032432 F4 P 0'2
O'DONNELL. RAMIS. ELLIOTT & CREW _
ATTORNEYS AT LAW .
)
1727 N . HOYT STREET c Cr
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
43031222
DATE December 28, 1989 C � p �� 1 f�
TO Jerry Offer, City of Tigard � � j lo ej �
U,
FROM Phil Grillo, City Attorney's offic c � ' 3 ,
RE A--Boy Appeal to Council
You have asked for a legal opinion on the following issue:
r
uestion:
After a Director's decision involving site design review has
been appealed to the Planning Commission, can a party appeal the
Planning Commission's decision to Council, or is the appeal
strictly to LUBA?
>0Q Answer:
The appeal is to Council.
raplanation
Over the past months, there has been some confusion over the
specific wording in the Tigard Municipal code regarding appeals.
The Code is quite confusing, particularly with regard to the
appeals process, and staff and the city attorney's office are in
the process of reviewing these provisions and proposing needed
changes.
Historically, staff has taken the position that parties to a
Director's decision have a one -step appeal process to the
Planning Commission. Once the Planning Commission has decided,
staff has treated that decision as final and not appealable to
Council. Their position is supportable by certain language in
the Code. Under TMC § 18.32.310(A), director's decisions can be
appealed to the Planning Commission for review. Section
18.32.310(A) states that, once a director's decision is appealed
to the "appropriate approval authority," that decision "shall be
final."
However, a further reading of the Code expressly provides
that a director's decision, after an appeal to the Planning
commission, may be appealed to council.
DEC-28-89 T H U 14:41 iO R E g. C 5032432 4 4 P.03
{
Memo re A -Boy Appeal to Council
December 28, 1989
Page - 2
TMC § 18.32.310(B) provides:
"Any decision made by any other approval
authority under subsections 2 ,32.090(j. or
(C) may be reviewed by the Council . . . ."
(Emphasis added.)
TMC fi 18.32.090(C), referred to above, lists different types
of Planning Commission decisions. Included in that list is:
"5) An appeal of a decision made by the
director under subsection 18.32.310(A) of
this section; . . . ."
In my opinion, § 18.32.310(8) and § 18.32.090(C)(5)
expressly provide a party with the ability to appeal a Director's
decision from Planning Commission to City Council. The use of
the term "final" as it appears in TMC § 18.32.310(A) is not
controlling. The term "final decision" is a legal term of art.
The usual meaning of the term "final" or "final order" is an
agency action expressed in writing that does not preclude further
agency consideration on the matter. Therefore, the use of the
term "final" in our ordinance does not, in and of itself,
preclude further action by the City Council.
In summary, in cases such as this where the Code expressly
provides parties with an appeal to Council, a party is entitled
to exercise that right. The language in § 18.32.310(A), which
suggests that Planning Commission's decisions "shall be final,"
is not controlling.
4/ you have any addit'••al question or concerns, please do not
he ita to cant.- me. these C•.e • ovi on -re C. -ntl
un r view b, staff and •'ty _ttorne•'_ office.
PEG:gaj
PEG \T]GARD \A- BOY.ME1 /gaj
110 ' I '' I I I \
April 17, 1989 CITYOF TIGARD
-?' OREGON
C. Melvin Sliven 0--)4-)--
_T�"
Kim Cope '1
Laser - Technical Instruments, Inc. v\
P.O. Box 1609
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
( 7q % 04
RE: "Ease Classification for Laser - Technical Instruments, Inc. /
Gentlemen:
After reviewing the information relating to the Director's interpretation of
the above case, the City Council has found that the proposed location of Laser -
Technical Instruments, Inc. in the C -P (Commercial Professional) zone is
consistent with the provisions of the Community Development Code. This s,
conclusion is based upon the condition that no more than 15% of the floor space
of the building be used for assembly of products. With this limitation in
place, the business may be considered to be "business equipment sales and
service" as defined in the Code.
Please note that this interpretation merely clears the way for your company to
apply for Site Development Review approval to establish this business in the
C -P zone. This is an administrative review to ensure that the new use will
meet Code requirements for access, landscaping, parking, etc.. ,T
p��s_ - _ ; i1 'kak -and - must be- p eed�
application conference which may be scheduled by calling the Planning Division
at 639 -4171.
Please acknowledge this letter and return for our files. Thank you.
Since ely, Acknowledged by:
' ---AL
Keith S. Liden
Senior Planner
13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639 -4171
o The City park would not generate enough traffic to warrant
construction of a public east -west road.
o No parking area has been designed for the City park.
o Brittany Square area could absorb some of the traffic increase
generated by park usage.
o There would be an increase in public liability and additional
burden to the City to maintain and police a 1,300 street.
o The Centron project would have their own recreational area
negating some of the use needs for the City Park.
o Dedication of additional property would remove developable land
from the tax rolls.
o No reason for building the road, other than for park usage, was
established.
Mr. Oringdulph requested Council to remove the Final Order from the
Agenda to study the issue another two weeks. He said he believed his
request had the support of Centron, Mr. Grabhorn, and others involved
with these properties.
Mayor Edwards reminded Mr. Oringdulph there had been a public hearing
on this issue. The findings contained in the proposed resolution was
approved by a 3 -2 Council vote after the public hearing was closed. In
order for the item to be removed from the Consent Agenda, Council must
approve such action by motion.
Councilor Johnson commented on Mr. Oringdulph's testimony at the public
hearing held March 27, 1989, on this issue. She asked why he did not
speak to the economic issue of the road requirement at the hearing.
Mr. Oringdulph advised the road, at that time, was strictly east -west
and did not enter his property. He learned from staff recently that
the Council action which required the road to be undulating and was now
aligned to cut through his property. He advised he testified at the
public hearing, even though he has no connection or economic interest
with Centron, because he did not feel the road was appropriate.
Councilor Johnson recalled that it was in no small part due to
Mr. Oringdulph's testimony concerning the "straight- shot" design of the
east -west road, that Council made such a point of requiring the
circuitous route. She asked the Community Development Director if the
road alignment had completed within the last two weeks.
Community Development Director responded a preliminary alignment had
been designed. He noted the original concept was to have half of the
dedication on Century 21 property and the other half on the property to
the north.
Mr. Oringdulph advised this road did not affect their property until
the requirement of an undulating road was made.
Page 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10, 1989
Mayor thanked Mr. Oringdulph for his testimony.
Note: Mayor Edwards asked during Consent Agenda consideration if there
was any councilor who wished to make a motion calling for the removal
of any item on the Consent Agenda (other than Item 3.5, which had been
pulled at the request of staff). No motion was made to this effect.
5. CONSENT AGENDA:
5.1 Approve Council Minutes: February 20, 27, and March 6, 1989
5.2 Receive and File:
a. Council Calendar
b. Review of Waste Haulers Annual Reports
c. Report on Status of Traffic Study - "Diamond" Area
5.3 Approve Final Order - Grabhorn (Centron) - SDR 88 -25, MLP 88 -16,
and V 88 -39 - Resolution No. 89 -27
5.4 Accept Mara Woods Subdivision - Resolution No. 89 -28
5.5 Approve Gutherie Slusarnko Associates (GSA) Contract Payment -
Resolution No. 89- - Withdrawn
Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Council or Johnson, to
approve the Consent Agenda with Item 3.5 withdrawn from
consideration as requested by staff.
The motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
6. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION - USE
CLASSIFICATION OF LASER - TECHNICAL INSTRUMENTS, INC.
a. Public hearing was opened.
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
c. Summation by Community Development Director: An appeal had been
filed requesting the Council to overturn the Community
Development Director's interpretation that the operations of
Laser - Technical Instruments, Inc. would be considered
" manufacturing of finished products" for purposes of determining
zoning districts which would allow the use. The business
combines commercial and industrial aspects of producing and
marketing precision marking instruments.
The appellant requested the business be found to be considered a
commercial use. The appellant suggested that the "manufacturing
of finished products" component of their business was subordinate
to the other components which would also be conducted at this
site. Other components would include: "business equipment sales
and service," " research services," and "professional and
administrative services." These use classifications were
permitted uses in several commercial zoning districts.
Laser - Technical Instruments submitted a letter dated January 31,
1989 providing details on the operating characteristics of their
business and the appeal request dated March 14, 1989, providing
additional information. (These documents have been filed with
the Council packet material).
Page 6 - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10, 1989
Community Development Director recommended Council affirm the
Director's Interpretation that the operation of Laser - Technical
Instruments, Inc., constitutes an industrial use with associated
commercial aspects subordinate to the "manufacturing of finished
products" aspect of the business.
d. Public Testimony:
John E. Schwab, attorney for the appellant, testified that his
client presently has an earnest money agreement for purchase of
the property; he wanted to relocate his Lake Oswego business to
Tigard (Address: 7580 SW Hunziker Road.)
Mr. Schwab said they were appealing the Director's interpretation
because they disagreed with the finding that the primary function
of the business was to manufacture finished products with other
aspects of the business being subordinate. He advised that final
assembly comprised only about 15 percent of the floor area of the
current operation and only about one -third of all labor hours.
He noted no noise or fumes would be created to impact surrounding
areas.
Mr. Schwab's testimony included the following points:
o Property across the street was zoned light industrial.
o Contended this situation was no different from the decision
the Council made in 1986. At that time, the former
Community Development Director interpreted the Code in a
manner which would prevent Magno- Humphries from processing
and distributing vitamin tablets in the Central Business
District (CBD) zone. Council had decided that vitamin
production was secondary to warehousing when deciding the
use on the property; therefore, the business was allowed to
operate in the CBD zone.
o Assembly was incidental to the use of the property and
would have virtually no impact on surrounding property
owners. The predominant uses of the property would be the
sales and service of the products, including a show room,
and the research, development, and administrative functions
that support sales.
Mr. Schwab requested that Council find that Laser- Technical
Instrument's business activity would better be described as
"business equipment sales and services" which would allow for it
to be a permitted use in the CP zone.
Council discussion followed. In response to a question from
Councilor Johnson, Mr. Schwab advised his client would prefer not
to go through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process He noted
the appeal process was the option they chose to address their
issues.
Page 7 - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10, 1989
After discussion, Council consensus was the Director correctly
interpreted the manufacturing use; however, the surrounding area
was developed as a light industrial zone and perhaps this
property should be reviewed for rezoning.
There was discussion on granting the appeal as requested by the
applicant and stipulating a condition limiting the amount of
floor space used for assembly work. Meanwhile, Council would
place the issue on their work schedule for further study.
Councilor Eadon advised she would prefer to change the zoning,
but she could support granting the appeal, with conditions, so
long as it was understood the zoning in the area would be
reviewed.
e. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to
grant a conditional use for Technical Instruments to use the
property at 7580 SW Hunziker Road for their business use with the
condition that no more than 15 percent of floor space could be
utilized for assembly work.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present.
Council consensus was for staff to review the area for possible
rezoning.
7. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE
PROPOSED PACTRUST LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT:
a. Community Development Director advised this issue was before
Council at their March 27, 1989 meeting; Council consensus was to
postpone consideration until April 10, 1989 to allow the property
owners an opportunity to present their concerns to Council.
Community Development Director advised that once the Engineer's
Report was completed, there would be two more formal steps,
including a public hearing, before formation of an LID could
occur.
b. Community Development Director advised that PacTrust has agreed
to reimburse the City for staff time and any cost associated with
the project.
c. Public Comment:
o John E. Smets, 6830 SW Bonita Road, introduced members of his
family and employees of Smetco. He advised Smetco had been in
Tigard since 1973. (The text of Mr. Smets' testimony has been
filed with Council packet material.)
Page 8 - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10, 1989
Mr. Smets advised PacTrust verbally offered to purchase his
entire property or exchange it for another property, but at a
price so low it would be impossible for them to move their
business and duplicate the convenience they now have. He
advised his business was in an easy -to -find, safe, and
accessible location and was also close to suppliers. He
further noted his business was steadily growing and he planned
for future expansion. He said the proposed 60 to 80 foot
right -of -way would deprive him of land needed for his
business's growth; he purchased the property for the purpose
of expansion. Evenutally, Smetco planned to employ about 70
people.
o Steven Pfeiffer, attorney representing PacTrust, agreed with
staff's recommendation to proceed with the preliminary
engineering report. He noted many of the concerns regarding
the feasibility of developing the LID would be answered during
the preliminary engineering work. He said failure to act
tonight would cloud the issue.
d. Council discussion:
o Councilor Eadon advised she thought it appropriate for the
information gathering process be initiated and was in favor of
adopting the proposed resolution calling for the preliminary
engineering study.
o Councilor Johnson agreed with Councilor Eadon's comments, but
felt every opportunity should be given so this issue could be
resolved privately. She said she would favor delaying a decision
on the resolution for two weeks to allow the two parties more
time for negotiation.
o Councilor Schwartz noted he was supportive of long -time residents
and business owners in Tigard, but was also supportive of
corporations such as PacTrust, whose developments benefit all
within the Tigard area. He noted he would like to see a
"Win /Win" situation and agreed with Councilor Johnson that a
two -week postponement may be a way to gain this.
o Councilor Kasten noted the results of the preliminary engineering
report would clarify some issues. He agreed that the public
forum should not be the arena in which disagreements of this kind
were resolved; he endorsed Councilor Johnson's suggestion for the
postponement of a decision on the resolution for two weeks.
o Mayor Edwards advised, after reviewing the facts and keeping the
emotional factors aside, he supported proceeding with the
preliminary engineering report. He did not believe an additional
two weeks would make a difference in resolving the issues between
the two parties. He noted he did not believe proceeding with the
engineering study would preempt a fair hearing.
e. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -29 A RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO HAVE PREPARED
A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT REGARDING THE FEASIBILITY OF
PROVIDING STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH THE FORMATION OF A
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED PACTRUST
DEVELOPMENT.
Page 9 - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10, 1989
Motion By Councilor Eadon, seconded by Mayor Edwards, to approve
Resolution No. 89 -29.
The motion was defeated by a vote of 2 -3; Councilors Johnson,
Kasten, and Schwartz voted "Nay."
f. Discussion followed.
Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to
continue consideration of Resolution No. 89 -29 to the April 24, 1989
meeting as a Consent Agenda Item.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present.
(Council meeting recessed at 9:05 pm; Council meeting reconvened at 9:15 pm.)
8. CONSIDERATION OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON SW 135TH AVENUE
a. Summation by Community Development Director:
On March 27, 1989, the Council heard testimony regarding the need
for parking restrictions along SW 135th Avenue. After hearing the
testimony, Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance that would
prohibit parking on both sides of 135th Avenue, between Scholls
Ferry Road and Morning Hill Drive. The Council further directed the
parking restriction should be effected on May 1, 1989. Enclosed
with the Council packet was a proposed ordinance which would
formally adopt the parking restrictions as directed by the Council.
b. ORDINANCE NO. 89 -12. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC 10.28.130,
PROHIBITING PARKING ON THE PORTION OF SW 135TH AVENUE, AND DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY.
c. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to
adopt Ordinance No. 89 -12:
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present.
9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION - CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT: ORDINANCE FOR
APPROVING THE PLAN AND RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE REPORT
a. Senior Planner Newton reviewed and highlighted the past history
of the City Center development which resulted in the proposed
plan and report as presented to Council in their packet. She
also noted some changes which were being suggested for
clarification and in response to concerns raised by members of
Council and citizens. She reviewed the following documents
distributed to Council:
1. City Center Development Plan and Report -- Proposed Revisions
2. City Center Development Plan and Report -- Proposed Additions.
3. City Center Development Plan and Report -- Proposed Deletions.
Page 10 - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10, 1989
(_/
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
apri l iv
AGENDA OF: March 37, 1989 DATE SUBMITTED: March 17, 1989
ISSUE /AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of PREVIOUS ACTION: None
Director's Interpretation -- Use °
Classification of Laser - Technic'i]! . REPARED BY: Jerry Offe , Asst. Planner
1
Instruments ;• c.
DEPT HEAD OW CITY ADMIN OK , l // QUESTED BY: Ed Murphy, Comm. Dev. Dir.
-�' L-
POLICY ISSUE
An appeal has been filed requesting the Council overturn a Community
Development Director's interpretation that the operations of Laser - Technical
Instruments, Inc. are to be considered "manufacturing of finished products" for
purposes of determining zoning districts which will allow the use. The
business combines commercial and industrial aspects of producing and marketing
precision marking instruments. The appellants request that the business be
found to be a commercial use.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On March 8, 1989, the Community Development Director issued an interpretation
that the operations of Laser- Technical Instruments, Inc. are to be considered
"manufacturing of finished products" for purposes of determining which zoning
districts will permit the business. "Manufacturing of finished products" is a
permitted use in the I -P (Industrial Park), I -L (Light Industrial), and I -H
(Heavy Industrial) zoning districts.
Laser - Technical Instruments, Inc. on March 14, 1989, filed an appeal of the
Director's Interpretation. The appellants request that the Council find that
the "manufacturing of finished products" component of their business is
subordinate to the "business equipment sales and service ", "research services,
and "professional and administrative services" components of the business which
also would occur at the same site. These latter use classifications are
permitted uses in several commercial zoning districts. Laser - Technical
Instruments Inc. have submitted a letter dated January 31, 1989, providing
details on the operating characteristics of their business and the appeal
request dated March 14, 1989, providing additional information.
Laser - Technical Instruments, Inc. is a Lake Oswego, firm which seeks to
relocate to Tigard. The firm has interest in a potential relocation site which
is zoned C -P (Professional Commercial).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Affirm the Director's Interpretation that the operations of Laser -
Technical Instruments Inc. constitute an industrial use with associated
commercial aspects subordinate to the "manufacturing of finished products"
aspect of the business.
2. - Reverse the Director's Interpretation regarding Laser - Technical
Instruments, Inc. and issue a Council determination that the operations of
this business fall within a commercial use classification of the Community
Development Code and that the "manufacturing of finished products"
component of the business are subordinate to the commercial aspects of the
business.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
SUGGESTED ACTION
Affirm the Director's Interpretation regarding Laser - Technical Instruments,
Inc.
dj /LASER. JO
McCLURE SCHWAB
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
9250 5. W. TIGARD AVENUE
• CHARLES J. MCCLURE TIGARD, OREGON 97223 FAX(503) 639-3447
JOHN E. SCHWAB TELEPHONE (503) 639 -4108
March 14 , 1989
Mayor and City Council
City of Tigard
13125 S. W. Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223 0
Re: C. Melvin Bliven
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
This office represents C. Melvin Blevin, President of Laser -
Technical Instruments, Inc. A1r. Blevin has signed an earnest
money agreement to purchase property at 7580 S. W. Hunziker Road
and wants to relocate his business there. The property is zoned
C -P (Professional /Administrative Office - Commercial District).
In a Director's Interpretation Letter dated March 8, 1989, the
Community Development Director has made an interpretation that my
client's business must be considered a "manufacturer of finished
products" and that it is not a permitted or conditional use in
the C -P zone. We appeal.
LTI's principal product is the Laser Blazer, a precision
marking device used primarily in the lumber milling business.
The company is expanding its laser technology into other areas,
such as light show systems for night clubs. This is a small
business. All administrative, sales, product repair and service,
research and development, testing and final assembly functions
are curtently done in a small house near Kruse Way. All these
things are proposed to be done at the Tigard location, with the
addition of a sales display room for the company's products.
Although the final assembly comprises only about 15% of the
floor area of the current operation and only about one -third of
all labor hours, the director has determined that LTI's operation
must be classified as the "manufacturing of finished products" and
is not allowed at the proposed site.
McCLU RE SCHWAB
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mayor and City Council
March 14, 1989
Page Two
The Community Developement Code defines "manufacturing of
finished products" as:
" ...the manufacturing of finished products from
a previously prepared materials (excluding raw
materials)." 18.42.020(d)(1)(A).
That does define LTI's process. All components are
manufactured elsewhere and final assembly is hand assembly;
literally using screwdrivers and alien wrenches. There are no
toxic chemicals, no soldering, no fumes, no noise and no
discernible impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The final
assembly is such a small portion of LTI's business that it should
be seen as incidental to "business equipment sales and services ",
"professional and administrative services ", or "research
services" all of which describe LTI's business more accurately
and all of which are outrightly permitted in the zone.
The director classifies LTI's activity as light industrial
because that is the most intense of the several uses of the
property. The definition of "manufacturing of finished products"
quoted above could include many activities, such as an
optometrist assembling a pair of glasses or the assembly of
computer components into a system by a computer consultant. Both
these businesses would be permitted in the zone at issue, because
the assembly activities are incidental to the real business of
the optometrist or the computer consultant. Also, the actives
of one assembling pairs of glasses or computer systems or
bicycles or putting gems into ring settings have such little
impact on the neighborhood there is no public policy reason to
classify them as industrial uses.
The present situation is no different from the decision this
council made in 1986. At that time the former director
interpreted the Code to prevent Magno Humphries from processing
MCCLU RE 8 SCHWAB
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mayor and City Council
March 14, 1989
Page Three
and distributing vitamin tablets in the CBD zone. This council
decided vitamin production was secondary to warehousing as a use
of the property and that predominant use of the property was
allowed in the CBD zone as a conditional use.
Here the situation is similar. The assembly is an
incidental use of the property and will have virtually no impact
on surrounding property owners. The predominant uses of the
property will be the sales and service of the products, including
a showroom, and the research and development and administrative
functions that support sales. The council should determine that,
on the whole, LTI's business activity can better be described as
"business equipment sales and services" and that it is outrightly
permitted in the C -P Zone.
Sincerely,
McCLURE & SCHWAB
/ i d/GU - 42
• n E. Schwab
JES /sw
S.14
cc: C. Melvin Bliven
//Gi III , IpI1 (+ /
March 8, 1989
CITY OF TIGARD
C. Melvin Bliven
Kim Cope ®REG ®N
Laser - Technical Instruments, Inc.
Po Box 1609
5880 SW Meadows Rd.
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Re: Director's Interpretation - Use Classification of the Functions of Laser -
Technical Instruments, Inc.
Gentlemen:
I have reviewed your letter of January 31, 1989, asking into which use
classification of the City of Tigard Community Development Code the operations
of Laser - Technical Instruments, Inc. fall. The purpose of your request is to
identify which City of Tigard zoning designations would allow your business as
a permitted or conditional use.
Our understanding is that Laser - Technical Instruments, Inc., assembles
previously manufactured components into a precision marking device used
primarily in the lumber milling industry and markets this product directly to
end users. Less than one third of the labor hours of your present staff is
involved in the assembly of your products. Less than 20 percent of the gross
floor area of your current operation is devoted to assembly of your products
and storage of unassembled components and finished products. The balance of
both the labor hours and the gross floor area of your current operations are
devoted to research and development, sales, service, and administrative office
functions of the business. The relative proportions of the varied functions of
the business are anticipated to remain relatively constant through relocation
and future expansions of the business. Planning Division staff have visited
your current business location and noted that the exterior appearance of the
business' operation is typical of office and research activities occurring in a
former single family residence.
Laser - Technical Instruments' operations include several functions described by
the use classification definitions of the Tigard Community Development Code.
Tigard utilizes a traditional zoning method by which land uses are segregated
(or combined) by function. This method is used rather than the performance
zoning method by which individual uses seeking to locate in a particular
location are evaluated individually against performance standards in an attempt
to minimize conflicts between neighboring individual uses.
The assembly component of your operations falls under the Tigard Code's
"manufacturing of finished products" functional use classification. This is an
industrial use classification. The sales and administrative office functions
of you business fall within the "professional and administrative services" use
classification. This is considered primarily a commercial function. Because
direct sales of your product are not occurring at your business location, we
are unable to conclude that any part of your operations are "retail sales" or
"business equipment sales and services" for zoning purposes. In the case of a
13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639 -4171
• Page 2
business which combines functional uses, the City of Tigard categorizes the
individual use or business by the most intensive functional use classification.
This is done is order to segregate uses by their potential for impacts upon the
neighborhood. Typically, industrial uses are considered to be the most
intensive uses.
We conclude that because of the assembly component of Laser - Technical
Instruments, Inc., your business must be considered a "manufacturer of finished
products" for purposes of determining the appropriate zoning designation.
"Manufacturing of finished products" is a permitted use in the I -P (Industrial
Park), I -L (Light Industrial), and I -H (Heavy Industrial) zones.
"Manufacturing of finished products" is not a permitted use or conditionally
permitted use in any of Tigard's commercial zones.
The Planning Division staff is available to help you identify available sites
within the I -P, I -L, or I -H zones that may be suitable for your use and to
describe applicable development standards and procedures necessary to establish
a new business in the City of Tigard. Please contact us if we can be of
' assistance.
We apologize for the delay in issuing this formal response to your request for
a Director's Interpretation. Your request raised policy issues which
necessitated that the staff fully consider all implications of this
interpretation. A Director's interpretation can establish a precedent that may
affect later similar requests.
This interpretation may be appealed to the City Council if a written request,
justification, and a $50.00 fee are submitted. Please feel free to contact me
if you have any questions.
Sinc rely, G App oved by
�' '
Keith Liden d Mur.1y
Senior Planner Community De elopment Director
cc: Director's Interpretation File
Jerry Offer
dj /LASER -TE.JO
& JIUILASER.TEcH,VIcAL INSTRUMENTS, I NC.
5880 S.W. Meadows Road
P. O. Box 1609
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
503/620 - 2300 January 31, 1989
Planning Commission
City of Tigard,.. Oregon
Civic Center /City Hall
13125 S. W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Gentlemen:
We are making written request for your consideration to allow our
Company to operate within a commercial or residential zone in the
City of Tigard.
In the true meaning of your written definition (Zone matrix -Page
7 -R 6-86), Laser - Technical Instruments is a "manufacturer ", as we
do produce a finished product. However, our "manufacturing"
consists of nothing more than assembly of small components
purchased elsewhere. This assembly procedure involves less than
15% of our labor /time involvement.
L.T.I.'s final product is marketed only to businesses. Our number
one priority, obviously, is the sale of our product, and number
two, is service of the same. The loading and unloading portion our
sales and service consists of one A.M. delivery and one P.M. pick-
up by United Parcel Service.
For the past twelve years, L.T.I. has purposely maintained a low
key business profile from a private residence in Lake Oswego.
Development of our current site forces us to relocate. It is our
desire to move into the Tigard area, again continuing to maintain
the low business profile of our Company, as well as be in a
position to upgrade our professional appearance.
We are optimistic that after considering the facts in this letter,
our comments during our discussion, and the presentation of our
component assembly', your Committee will reach the conclusion that
L.T.I. does not fit the "manufacturing" definition, and can grant
us permission to locate in a residential or commercial zone.
We thank you in advance for your consideration, and await your
decision.
Very truly yours
C. Melvin Bliven
President
01
•r,
fg t r 2. " 4 '
0 .
ie.
MO
. ,,,, 7 7 . ^• r ,., - a .
''. =t' . 4 ','''',' ' 4i- 4 '•,' '.• ' , 4 ,1' 'N.,' •
, ••• , -;.‘ ,4 ' %,„ - .:•:' , ,• 4 .,;'' .''''',;•*' ‘ ''' '' 4 • 4 •
a
,,,,7„,;,t,„-...,-;-,-4.
.0. E 0
:1 t.,.. ' ' : ' ' ' : %1•= 1 -Y-C. ' ' ' ';', ' ", 1 , i; ' It ' : . '. ".; ''''' ' '", ',.':::4-1\ 4.
11.
0 '1 1.' ' , k*., P. 1.:4, \'' 4 •• it' ' '- ' 2 '. . , y ', ..',.. 4 , , i, .; . -.t • • '', ,-' 1 , '',) .,.
Mal
Ifipie. "lif;; ' • '• i.`,...1. v 1 ., -- , •1 , ,e , t , ,;, c t i : . .• ,, ,,
I. 114E i?..
; LI ';,' /'...,-:' 7‘ , f,:: !) , ' N:„,,, -- - 4 ' '' :,:... '• ••::?..f_ . .. 1 .,... :i 1„.....,...:,/:...:::.,,,2'.,\:\ al Oi
in
,
' ILI
,. MO A
ka _ 1,, 0 , r.-., .t;,. „I'l. ', -- ‘, 1 `...- ' • • ' • •. .' ...N ' - \\
•••'' ' J ' % , '•\ ...' ', ' • .1',- --,, r - ' , ,.';,.' ,,,,,. - `• - , - \ ',,,,..
i!..;`' .:1; '', 1 t'?. ' ,," -,' ' ',,`": -:',, s .- ', 0 ., ... 2, , , ,-„1 4 ',‘. • , %,,,,,'■
;
4,,t ',,,s.'"''.4' • '4•.• N,N •• L. , . , ' s • - 1 - '. " , , .. , ,^ , • '' ' "' '' \
eC 0',t, „...%,' • ''_ `!"'::s, ; , 1`,::, - \ , ,,,` • • . , , ■ -, , • ',. ,%
INII
7 ‘IF ; f' .iri N 1/4
k
P ,,,.) Nk. • i t* 'P' -57-4' - -- ‘74- , -, ,',, ^-- - T''7''''fi'l
\
11 IIN
ii r...
F fa
41 t, ki
"
0 4:1 ,
2' i' ' ' IIIIIII ..., 0° ( ' St, \\ ‘,,,,.. 'i._ \ s"„"k' i ,:ilt., ,:- -, • - , . - ' ,, ' - M44 MI
g III 'am 0
4,..
r I I
oct
O IIPI
4 ',‘. \\`, =------,-.-_,-'' ''.' / '' 4. x • i - , '.' 4,7, ' ', ''• ,, '
."=-:.-". i ''''' \ i'&•• .. ).1l ' C - ,',, 'A ,
, \ '
10) , ^^tt
\'(,:', '4. \ ----='; ",,, i , ••■ \., ,',, s , ' • ; ' ., . ' ■ ,,, I
0
10) 0
i.,
t, \ IP -__-._-'" , I ."■•■\ -.. /ft
ifr
■ \
\ \ ..„=„\_',7,.'•_:,,
i \
1
.. N • • , • • I;
, ?
6 ,
.
. ,
v ,,....„
•
.111
•
Increase Yield From High Cost Wood Stock By 10% or More!
With The LASER BLAZER System for Fast, Accurate Sawing
Adding a LASER BLAZER linemaker to any saw a highly visible line extending to both ends of a board of
operation can result in lumber savings averaging a half- any workable length. With the laser line centered on and
inch or more per cut. The cumulative effect is substantial. parallel to the saw blade, the operator feeds the work
For this reason alone, many users of LASER BLAZER accurately for cutting with maximum recovery.
linemakers report they have paid for the equipment in less For gang ripping, two, three or more LASER BLAZER
than two months. From there on, through years of linemakers may be mounted in a cluster, spaced in their
service, the LASER BLAZER installation is pure profit. brackets to project parallel lines centered on the same
The LASER BLAZER linemaker is a precision number of saw blades. The saw operator chooses the
instrument, yet rugged and dependable. It can be mounted optimum board area for maximum clear cuts, then feeds
on a simple, L- shaped extension arm attached to the saw the work by following the bright red lines. On a single -
table or fastened to the floor. When in place with its blade saw, a cluster of linemakers can save material by
mounting bracket, it adjusts quickly and easily to project indicating the best choice of succeeding cuts.
Typical LASER BLAZER linemaker
mounting, on an L- shaped extension
arm, allows projection of a sharp,
p ..g ~' red line for selective free -saw cutting.
creaa 7°- -.:�: -
/ ‘
4"
46,14 � t ,t 5��+.�'pti 4- e
_ �IIUIIUt� F � t� .J.
- - --:, { >.y
pl
�` 106U pl0011.4f;'="4.=3,:-•• �, � � . M y'^f- 1 -. 7z.: ' SSK 'a yr . r; t 3 - , i M - l� ' 1 ,_ a, 1 �j " k l t y ' -'�, [ n n ✓ 7
;,, =. f"� "",
- i ce S t F l , } C4 3 ` j y i CEPI, s.
. i` 7 A e.. � ,y- "`.. "a =tea -Gxa .
�v,.. -w. ;v .' "- .�:ry -,_y .i ' ^ —fi r
! ,:
r ,
+� ,.. -� �� c „ `s ,, ,i1 .
� .gin
t �} C h4 �it.�.y1
rz a E:77: �J rt ,rl
r+a a 1 1 h „t . •� A
1 t 3 r�
¢ . — With the Linemaker in the same position, free -saw
7, 1' • 7 1 , -- 1 crosscutting becomes accurate and waste -free. - -____ 1 — /
"3a i
�_ _
I 1 An ideal application for the Laser Blazer linemaker
is the initial trim on straight line, chain feed rip
_` / saws.
Three LASER BLAZER linemaker Models Simplify Installation
114
/ _-
77 Right angle projection, line perpendicular to housing axis / N.
77A Line projected from end of housing
A choice of Laser Blazer linemaker models, with the
mounting bracket, makes installation quick and easy.
With the linemaker in its bracket fastened to a wall, ceil-
ing or extension arm, the bright red laser line can be repo-
t....
sitioned or extended for varying stock lengths in a matter
77B Right angle projection, line parallel to housing axis of minutes. (See back page for suggested mounting
systems.)
Other models available for OEM equipment or special application.
LASER BLAZER Mounting Bracket
-r
BASER BLAZER - .a O
A. SERBZaL ER
This bracket is fastened to any stable surface with screws or bolts. It holds the LASER BLAZER linemaker firmly in position. Set-
screw adjustments permit movement of the linemaker laterally, or rotated to aim the laser line for maximum visibility and sharpness
over the entire length of the boards to be sawed.
Typical Do -It- Yourself Mounting Systems
Using the LASER BLAZER mounting bracket, installation of one or metal, and fastened to the saw frame or to the floor near the saw. The
more LASER BLAZER linemakers is quickly and easily handled "in house" mounting bracket is attached to the arm above the saw and the LASER
with readily available materials. An L- shaped arm is constructed of wood or BLAZER linemaker inserted.
Special Application
Call for technical advice anytime. Our research
department is ready to work with you to meet your
•_ _ - special us needs.
- - _ _ _ � Specifications
^' Voltage: Standard: 11SV AC, 50/60 Hz. 230V AC
and 12V DC on special order at no extra charge.
Other voltages also available.
[ — Power Output: 5 milliwatts, pure red light.
- - - Light Source: Helium -Neon Laser.
Power Consumption: Less than 50 watts.
S ide View Front View Diameter: 2.25 inches (57.15mm).
Model Floor or saw table mounting, with L -frame positioned to put Length: 24.5 inches (622.3mm).
77 linemaker above and behind saw. Weight: 6.5 lbs. (2.95kg).
Fan Angle: 90 degree fan angle standard. Other fan
Nt_ 7 angles on special order at no extra charge.
=I1 MOUNTING BRACKET
Length: 18.3 inches (464.82mm).
i
_ _ Width: 3 inches (76.2mm).
- - _ _ I Height: 3.6 inches (91.44mm).
i
-- 1 - - - - _ Warranty
LASER- TECHNICAL INSTRUMENTS, INC.
. [ products are warranted against defects for a period
of 15 months from date of delivery (for full war-
_ ranty statement, refer to Operating and Maintenance
_ - - manual).
Side View Front View
Model With the laser line projected from the end of the housing, Repair Service
77A mounting can be on L- frame, ceiling or wall. WE REPAIR ALL MAKES OF LASER LINE -
MAKERS.
Factory repair service is fast - turnaround, low in
IIIIIONNII • cost, and offers 15 -month warranty on repairs.
. I
Safety
-' . \ I All LASER BLAZER products conform to the
i' . I regulations of the Bureau of Radiological Health,
. the U.S. Government agency which controls the use
of lasers; and are certified to Canadian Electrical
Code by the Canadian Standards Association.
— - - tzi, ep. U; [ Es GE., -.... CR.
Side View Front View s i -c: 4 'i
Model With the line projected parallel to the linemaker, the area over F. „� ”? ^`
77B the saw blade is clear of obstructions. 'x4r ^ rr 't t
x
m ... ; r m . `s
B ASER BLAZER
Sales, Development, & Manufacturing by
LL 7r " LASER.TECHNIcAL INSTRUMENTS, INC.
P. O. Box 1609 • 5880 S . Meadows Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 • (503) 620 -2300
SWW 5-87 5M
PRINTED U.S.A.
DATE: 4/10/1989
CODE SECTIONS: 18.130 t r {,
18.340
18.520
TOPIC:] Appeal of a Director's Interpretation Regarding the Use Classification of Laser - Technical
Instruments, Inc. to Operate in the C -P Zone.
Location: 7580 SW Hunziker Road
INTERPRETATION: THE FOLLOWING EXERPT IS COMPRISED OF THE APRIL 10, 1989 CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
An appeal had been filed requesting the Council to overturn the Community Development
Director's interpretation that the operations of Laser - Technical Instruments, Inc. would be
considered "manufacturing of finished products" for purposes of determining zoning
districts which would allow the use. The business combines commercial and industrial
aspects of producing and marketing precision marking instruments.
The appellant requested the business be found to be considered a commercial use. The
appellant suggested that the "manufacturing of finished products" component of their
business was subordinate to the other components which would also be conducted at this
site. Other components would include: "business equipment sales and service," "research
services," and "professional and administrative services." These use classifications were
permitted uses in several commercial zoning districts. Laser - Technical Instruments
submitted a letter dated January 31, 1989 providing details on the operating characteristics
of their business and the appeal request dated March 14, 1989, providing additional
information. (These documents have been filed with the Council packet material).
The Community Development Director recommended Council affirm the Director's
Interpretation that the operation of Laser - Technical Instruments, Inc., constitutes an
industrial use with associated commercial aspects subordinate to the "manufacturing of
finished products" aspect of the business.
John E. Schwab, attorney for the appellant, testified that his client was appealing the
Director's Interpretation because they disagreed with the finding that the primary function
of the business was to manufacture finished products with other aspects of the business
being subordinate. He advised that final assembly comprised only about 15 percent of the
floor area of the current operation and only about one -third of all labor hours. He noted
that no noise or fumes would be created to impact surrounding areas.
Mr. Schwab's testimony included the following points:
- Property across the street was zoned light industrial.
- Contended this situation was no different from the decision the Council made in 1986. At
that time, the former Community Development Director interpreted the Code in a manner
which would prevent Magno- Humphries from processing and distributing vitamin tablets in
the Central Business District (CBD) zone. Council had decided that vitamin production
was secondary to warehousing when deciding the use on the property; therefore, the
business was allowed to operate in the CBD zone.
- Assembly was incidental t the use of the property and would have virtually no impact on
surrounding property owners. The predominant uses of the property would be the sales
and service of the products, including a show room, and the research, development, and
administrative functions that support sales.
Mr. Schwab requested that Council find that Laser - Technical Instrument's business activity
would better be described as "business equipment sales and services" which would allow
for it to be a permitted use in the C -P zone.
After discussion, Council consensus was the Director correctly interpreted the
manufacturing use; however, the surrounding area was developed as light industrial zone
and perhaps this property should be reviewed for rezoning.
There was discussion on granting the appeal as requested the applicant and stipulating a
condition limiting the amount of floor space used for assembly work. Meanwhile, Council
would place the issue on their work schedule for further study.
Councilor Eadon advised she would prefer to change the zoning, but she could support
granting the appeal, with conditions, so long as it was understood the zoning in the area
would be reviewed.
Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to grant a conditional use
for Technical- Instruments to use the property at 7580 SW Hunziker Road for their
business use with the condition that no more than 15 percent of floor space could be
utilized for assembly work.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present.
Council consensus was for staff to review the area for possible rezoning.