The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Packet - 08/19/1975 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions please contact City of Tigard Records Department. POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions please contact City of Tigard Records Department. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSI AGENDA August 1'9, 1975 - 7:30 p.m. �_ '�.'waLity Junior High School - Lecture Room 14650 S. W. 97th Aven�e, Tigard, Oregon 1. CALL TO ORDEIt 2. ROL,L CALL 3. MINUTES: Ju1y 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 Planrcing Commission, reclassifying certain lands owned by Joseph Chamberlain and Arrow Heating Co. on SW Walnut St. , from R-15 to R-7, Si.ngle Family Residential; lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17 and 18 af the Lake Terrace Subdivision. 5.2 NON-CONFORMING USE NCU 1-75 (Farmcraft Chemicals) A request by Farmcraft, Tnc. � to expand a non-conforming � warehouse building in the C- 3M zone at 8900 SW Commercial Street. i , 5.3 ZONING ORDINANCE AI+IENDMENT ZOA 4-75 . (General Provisions, regarding conditional use status) 6. SUBDIVISIONSt Muttley's Addition (south of SW Tigard St.) A proposal by Herb Morisse�tt�.,: 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 A�ve. and Hunziker St. . 8. OTHER BUSINESS 9. ADJOURNMENT r . � �8.� �., � .. . , . . . � . . . � . _ . . , . _ . . . �� ""� �. , �. .;: MII�UTES TTGARD PZANNZNG COMMISSION AUGUST �.9, 197 5 !�"�T,ITX JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL l. CALL TC1 ORDER: l�eeting was �alled .to order at �3a40 P.�I. 'by Chair�►aM Hartman. 2, ROLL CALL; Members present were Hartman, Hanson, Nicoli, Smelser �nd Wakem. Staff pr��ent, Powell. 3. pPPROVAL OF MINUTES. Minutes of July 22 & August 5 approved as ' submitted, i , 4, COMN�tJNICATIONS;. � � ; Chai.rman Hartman read a let�ter from Dr�. Jack W. Letch to the Tigard Planning Commission referring to the hearin� on the Neighborhood Planning Organization #3 Plana (Letter attached) . '; 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS � 5.�. Zone Change ZC 9-75 (Chamberlain) � � An amendment to the zoning map of the City of Tigard, initiated � by the Ti'gard Planning Commission, reclassifying certai.n lanc�s owned by Joseph Chamber�.ain and Arrow Heating Compan,y on S�W. Wglnut Street, �rom R-15 to R�-7, Single Family Residential; Lots Z, �2, 3, �, 15, i6, 17 and 18 0� the La�t� Terrace Subdi�ision. � A. S-�af� Report� Staff Repo�t was read by F�well. B. Public Testimony . Mre Ch�mberlain testified in his owr} behalf. , Mr. Fieber, a. neighborhood resident, queri.ed Chamberlain � about his intent to resubdi�ride. Mr. Chamberlain indicated ' that resubdivision wo�zld not be necessary. � ' man Ha�tman a�k�d M�°. Chamb"e�lain �.bout lot sizes. � . Cha�.r . Mr. Chamberlain repon�ed that they x�an from 8,000 square I' f�et ta 9500 square feet, � i . .Mrso Utz asked Mr. chamb�rl.ain about his intentions to � 'tauild dupl.exes, � Mr. Chamberl.ain responded �that �e did not now intend t� i � build du�lexes on the lots but had decided to build ; single family homes instead. .�„�. C. Staff Reco.mmendation � , Staff recommended ap�r�ov�.l e �. Commission Discussion and Action . Motian for approval (Hanson) � seconded �Nicoli) . ,,..eA.t�—_.,�.��. . . . . . � . .�. . ._ _. . . .-_. . . .. .�—.--_ — —� .. ' � L �� YY Z V+�+ e D�.scussion �y the Commz.;�sion cen�t�red o�xr conforrnanr, the Compx�enen�ive Plan an.d the question of spot zoninge , It was datermined by t�e Commission that this would not �-� be spot zoning and that the requested zoning did conform w�.th the Compreh�n�i�r'e P�an e , Questi�n was aalled (Smelser) , Mo�ion to �ppr�o�re carried (unanimously) . 5.2 Non-Conforming Use NCU 1-75 (Faxlmcraft Chemicals) An amendment to the Tig�rd Zoning Ordinance of 1970 clarifying with res ect to ro erties, o er� P P d wn i hts of ce rt ain lan p therg �the use of which has become char�.cterized as �. conditional use aft�r the d�.te of commencement �� such usee A, St�.ff Report .. The staff �°epo�°t w�s reafl by Powel.l o e Chairnran H�:rtman a�ked st�.f� if thE square �ootage iridicated on �the plan� in �he Comm�.ssion's possession was accurate �aying th�t the 3300 square foat mentio�ed in the �taf� report �eemed in error. . Discussion �°e�eal.ad that the square footage of the add�.tion ,�, should be 171U �qua�°e feet fnr a 14q� increase in size, �: , StafF amended the �t�.f� report accordinglya , Ba Fublic Testimony Mra Eagleson testi�°ied in his own behalfo C. Staff Recommendation e Staff Recommend�d �p�:r°o�r�.�.. �ubject to d�sign review approval� D. Commission Diseu.ssio�. and Action p Motion to ap�r°ove the applicant's request (Hanson)A with ��taff r°ecommended candi.tiono o Seconded (Smels��°) , Question (Wakem) � o Mc�t:�on to approve was car�°ied (una,n.i.mously) . 5.3 Zoning Or�dinance Amendment ZOA 4--75 Concerning �ondL�tional. u�� status of a �reviou��.y permitted use �' after a zone ch�ng2o , FAGE � - PC MYNUTES - AUGUST �9, 1975 � Amendment to the � �.�°d Z�yiix�g O�s di.nanca of 1 ��' c:larifying the ri h-�,� of r.��°tain lar�d own�r� with �ega.�d�r� properties, g use of which has ��com� cha�°�zcterized as a conditional use after� the d�te o� commencem�r_t o�' such use a �' A. Staff Report , The s�af� r°equested the P1.anna.ng Commission disregard the prin�ted staf� r°eport and substituted a verbal staff report clarifying the proposed ordinar�ce as proposed by Mro Bailey, the City Attorneye B. Public Testimomyo (See verbatim transcript attached) C. Staff Recommendation . Based. on the finding that the public 's right to respond in betterment of a pr�vious error or oversight in zoning or to respond to a chan.ge .in circumstances in the neighborhood require that the City be able to exercise, thrAugh its police power, a change in site contro7.s on not only f"uture dev�loprnent but on expansion of existing developmen.t and based on the finding that the rights o� no �ne owner of land wit�:�n a particular zone ought to � be super�io� to th� rights af any other owner i.� ;the same , • zonet Sta�f recommend� approval of the propased zoning ordinance amenc�nent as worded by Mre Bailey with the clear intent to making said permitted use a pexmitted use under the development restrictions of the new zon.e or code not the bld zone or codeo �e.. . A, .,Gommission D:i,�scussi:on and Action � �.�� e It was� �ugge�ted that the matter be tabled pending �ur�her discussion in a �tudy session (Smelser and Wakem) a . Chairman Hartman indic�t�d that he felt that the Bail.ey version of the o�°din�nce r�a� ba too restrictive that the mod��'�ication �uggested by M.ro .Ander�on may be overly , permis�i�re a o Wakem mo�red to table o . Motion d.ied for lack of secondo o Motion 'to appro-ve B�.i�ey amen.dment (Hansan) a Seconded by Nicolia l ° i o Motion to amend Han�on mation (H�rtman) to include a request � of the City Attorney that he cla�ify the wo.r.ding in the �ro- posed ordinance to identify wheth�r the rights of the proper- ty owner to cont�.nue developing or �edevel.op his site are those in the zone previously held or in the new zoneo �, , Second�d (Hans�n) PAGE 3' - PC MINUTES -� Augu�t 199 1975 __.. _ . , � 1..�. �an � . � �, _ o Nicoli �:ndical��:d r,i.s �.gr°eement with the amendmente �No vote wa� ne��.x�y due to appr°oval o.� the previous �` mot�.on's propan�n�U�) o o Qu�stion c.�lled on the motion. as amendedo o Motion p�.�sed 3 �,o ,2 (W�.kem and Smelser uoting no) e , e Hansen askeci th� �hai�°m�n to requ�st a memorandum from �the st�,�'� �x�lain.�ng why �t �took so long fo�° this or- ' dinance amendm�n.t to get from City Council to the Planning CommLSSion, , Sta�f indi.cated that the memor�andum would be available at the next Planning Commis�ion meetingo 6o SUBDIV3SIONS � � 6e1 (As indi�ated on �the agenda9 this matter had been withdrawn b the a .lican`t, to be �esubmitted for the n�xt Planning Y I�P . Commission meet�.ng) o � � 7, PRELIMINARY FLAN AND PROG�iNI REV'IEWm (Westridge Park, SW 72nd and Hunziker) � A �equest f'o� conc�p� �evi�w of the preliminary plan and � program �or � p�°o�o�ed �ommeraial and residential planned d�velopment a� SW 72nd and Hunziker Sto y , Don John�ong ��°ch�.te�t fo�° the development, asked to be recognized by the Ch.airman before the st�ff report was r�ado Mro Johnson ��'�erec� a �tatement tha�t the appl�.cant hacl reconsider°ed his development plan and that the p�.an ; submitted tc� sta�� w�s now voido Mro Johnson went on to s�y that �th�y felt th�t �townhouses or° a similar mediutn density� rnultipl� d��elopment would be in the be�tter publ.i� a..n�tc�°��t and woul.d con.�ti.tute a b�t�ter d�vel.op- ment o� th.e �ite o Motion to �ab�.e �ch� it�m un.t�.�. Mro John�on. and Mro Smith � resubmit�ted °��i:� d��r�l.apm�n.t pl�n (Har�man) o o Seconded (Wa:kem) o o Motion a�,p�°oved u.n�.nimous:Ly o 8. OTHER BUSINESS a ' o Chai:rman Ha��tman �x°ought up the to�ic o� d.u�l�xas �n. R-�7 lo°�sa H� r�zques�ted tha�t the �taf.�' look i.n�r� de�v�lopmen�t o� an inc�°��.aed lo•t �i.ze requi�r°eznent �or duplexes in. �ing1� ��m?ly �esid?n�tial �oneso L�t sizes of 10,000 �qa .�to i�n an R�7 zoney �O,U00 �c�e ft. in �.n C FC Min.utes -� �ugu�t 19� �-9'�5 �° p�� + �� _ .,... _. ._Lx'...._... �:� . � � , .... . . ., � ., .. � .. .... ,..e. _. ...... _��_ .. ....�..._. ,..�. �.... .-� .._.� , u.._.._. __.. ..._...,.�y..._ ... . , � t �.:-,. ��'/ . ' . R-15 zone and 309�00 sqo fto in an R-30 zone w�re suggeated. �, A percentage increa�e in site size for all residen�ta.a1 zones wa�s also suggest�d as an alternativee �. , �t was pointed nut by staff that while this would help in the scale of a duplex to its� neighborhood, f.requently duplexes ar�e �ited on lots that are undesirable for single tamily development and are °there�'ore especially undesirable for� two �amily deve�o�men�o In staff's � • experience� the real p�^oblem is freque11tly poor sub- �`' . dividing pr�ctice and layouta ��,I . Further discus�ion dealt with the difficulties that ' may be encountered by a builder in a poorly designed � subdivision and of what futu.re Planning Commission i� policies may be with respect to these problemso q. AUJOURNMENT: 10:30 pomo � � PC Minutes - August 19� 1975 - p�ga 5 �.. ��,, PUBLIC TEST�MONY Fred Anderson � ,August 19, 1975 Planning Comm�.s�ion Me�ting Item 5 0 3 - Zoning Ox�dinan�e Arn�ndm�n�t ZOA 4-75 '�Th� pre-existing outright permitted use rendered conditional in the � sense that the map or text was ch�nged continues as an outright per- mit�Led usee Now the que�tion is -�-� is it an outright permitted use in the pre-existing zon.e or i� it �n out�°lght use in the new zonee My opinion is that it is an outright pe�mitted use in the old zone, as of the old zone9 �nd I '1.1 tell you whyn I think we are talking here about what the courts �.a�re called a vested righte And I point to the leading case of Omegon �a11ed �1�.ckamas County va Holmes; - What I term in the vernacular, th� chicken foundry casee In that case, some people who were in the �h�.cken processing business bought a very large tract of land in the un�ncorporated area of Clackamas County, in about 1965, The�e dates �re a�rproximatee They built a road into ito They d.ug a well and went for water much greater than what you would need for pastureo 'They did a number of other things in furtherance of their� original int�ntion which they proved to establ.ish a chicken p�oces�ing plant on this 1and, They spent between 30 and 40 thou�and dol.la�°� on thes� imp�°o�rements o Seven years later they went to the County to g�t �. bui�ding p�rmit, but the County re- fused them on the grounds °that in the interim the land had been zoned incompatibly with their° objec�tiv�o Sn other words9 what they want to � . do is not a permitted u�e, `Th�y g�ou�°ed thei�° �ootings for their building, nonetheles�, on 1eg�� ad��°i��o A r��training order was served on th��n, r�straining th�m ��om ��°oa��ding by the Circuit Courte The matter went to trz.alo The Ci�°cuit C:ou�°t h�ld against them. St went to th$ �ourt of App��lso �h� �ou�°t o� A�peal�, as I recall, went against th�mo It went to tr� Supr°�m� Courto The Supreme Court reversed on the grounds that, whi�h I think a�e of some interest here, inasmuch as they had spent considr��°ab1.a money fo�° th� purpose of using this land for a u�e tha#; vr�.� ou-��°�gY�� a�.tho�ized when �they bought the lar�d and did these im��°o�ring �t�:ps e �."r�y h�d accompli�hed a vested right anci they had a �°ight to clo �.t �;.:�d �ontinue to do it ai�.d operate their plant, const•ruct theiy pldnt9 �ua�.�. tY�e�r plant �nd use it an�. they dide They did tho�e things; the Cour�t uph�ld th.e�..r r°ight to do ite ; Now let's ana�ogize between f;hat �nd th� ��.taat�on he��e In. 'I'igard ; we have two aspects of thi.� m�ztt�:�e bo�� o� wha�ch hav� bcen worked i quite recentlyo I am re�lly here a.n �eha�f o� Gr�at w��tern Chema.cal ; Corporation, whose lan.d� betwe�en th,e two x�ailroads ou°t here -t:�wa��d � Progress had been dev�lop��, lanci�c�ped, Th�y spent scm�th�.ng o�v�e.r j a million dollar�o They ha�re an a�e� y�t to b� devElop2do In. other words, they are pr.ogr°�ssi��ly de��.cpding their l�ar�do Now the NP� #2 purported to change thz.� a1.��.��%r�.ti,or� of. �hi.� �.and from M-3 to M-4e Their use by �h�.t maneu�r�.r is d�.�ined in �th.;; M-4 �:� � cori- ditional use categox�y and th�y h�-��e �;h:is� millian o,� mo�°e do;il,ars � investedo Now, if they were ��o �sk �°o� a cond�..tz.onal use for chemi-� � , , �... �. cals and so fo�°th 9 e�r��:�y�ody p d be up in a�m�e Cert�inly r�ot going to let that happen, Now 1et's take the other ca�e, x°p�;�r�Lly the �rtCity Council saw fit to change many of the categories o:� uses out- - right alon,g Pacific Highway west from outright to conditional. There again rnany of the uses that they changed are "in being�' restaurants. Here again are ve�ted r.ights and by the narrow view, if the narrow view were compatible he�°e9 these uses would be precluded except upon an application to the I'l�nriing Commission. Now, of cnurse, planners seem to think that there is nothing to getting a conditional use per�mit when you want onee I have observed both in this room and elsewhe�°e that conditional use is granted like other things are granted, depending upon how much public pressure, how much the outcry is �nd how the politics are, rather tYian by the merits. So it is a real threat to an owner confronted 'wit,h th,is situation. My thinking has been and is that this matter before you now is aligned with this right theory a� much as anything else, Now yo�u could say, but what about changing something to the extent that it's a non-con- forming useo In other words, you change the zone so that use is not permitted there at all, Conditional re�.evance: You got a non-con- forming use i:n theory; In practice, as in the Holmes case, you do not. You have vested right to continue that useo It'�� non-conforming you might sayo You call i�t what you want toe My point is: there is a right to continue the thing you had in. mind in the first place -- develoP that prop�rtyo I think you have to k�ep the thing in proper perspectivee . I recommend that this wording (indicating Bailey's wor�ding) or simi],ar � wording be adopted by City Council by ordinance as a pr°t of the 1970 zoning ordinance of Tig�ard in order to save the City a lot of money �nd not get involved in arguments about this thinge Because I think on the Holmes case the City is vulnerabl.e if it doesn't adopt tYiis view. I could suggest some other wording, but I don't want to con- � fuse the situatione I agree with Jerry that perhaps expanding it with the optional - additional phraseology might be going some distance, but certainly his basic phraseology here is well justified under th�� circumstances. " (Jerry) I You sugg�sted -that �th� �a.ght� of the landowne:� unde�:� �.is p:�evic�us zoning be retaineda Do you mean to include the :rights t�:, setbacks, ! land coverage, p�rking �paae requirementsae � ? I (Fred) I If T understand you., you are asking me on the poin� �t�at i.� ther� be a difference betwe�n those elements within a �re�vioua zane an� a n.ew zone where you find a piece of property, which el.emcnts apply'? (Jerry) (� I am asking if you are suggesting that all cf �h� a°!;�tr°a�butes ��' the previous zone be broi�gh-t forward with the permissiUn .�'o.r the use as page 2 - public testimon�r - pc meeting 8/19/75 , � - _ �.. `-, an outrigh°t u��o • .-£ (Fred) Yes, T would'°s�.y �thi�s that keep�.ng the matte�° in proper per5pe.ctive, where a person h.�,d a g�.ec� of lan.d and had star^'tEd to carry o�ut a certain ob je�ta�v�fl one that they c�xn prove� and °that nb jective daes not comport wi�th �th� s�tb��k� of a new zone that th�y may be put in; � and �ailure to comport wi�th th�t would def�at their° �.�°ight to the use ; of the land. to attain th.�i�° objective9 I say the setback� mu�t yielde '� If that be not so, how could Holme� have built a chicken roundry at �•aZl? Some mor°e impo�°�t�nt, muc:h mcr� impor°tant elements yieldeda The element of contrav�ning the who'l.e zoning ph�.lasphyo Now I would go one step �urther. and say tl��t wher� the setback and ather e�leme��s are compatible with the o'bject�.ve9 I would s�y oth�r°wiseo So I say that you have °�o ke�ep th�se things in pe�°sp�ctive e Does that an.swer your° question? . (Jerry) Doesn't your sugge�tiari give the awner o:� such a pi�c� of l�and superior rights to de��lop th�.t 1.and than �.s Gommon to other°� in tha�t zone? (Fred) That is, not d��elop�d? � (Jerry) � Develop�d or und�velap�d �� I�t gi�e� it a p��.�,�.��s� �e�; o� rights that , inhere only becau�e� o� p�°�viou� u�e, ��al or° antic�p�.t�do (Fred) Yes, but what b��tter s��on i� �th�re than �th� man w�o has alr�ac�.y dedi- � cated his lif�tim� �and his we�lth to ite We ��.�re ta k�ep in mi.nd that , there i� a con��titution in thi� cour�t�°y to� that say� no manqs property shall be taken ifa�."thout just compen.satian� That .i� pa.r+ o.f th� same , regimen and zon;3:ng ha� come as close �;o be arl a�°bi�crary go�,re�r.°nment as thert is, but it is �uppos�d to be to tha ben��"it o� �verybc�dyo Yet there ar�e limit�.�tions to it and this �� one �� h.�mo An,� th�,� i.s not � 3u�t. G��e.gono You will fin.d th� v��t�d right t'n��o�y °�:� w.�de,spre�d ovei^ the countryP: but you have to �e�t certai� guide:Line�o Now, in our context here, I con�ider (�'ha.s r��,u��t) a� j��a.s��..�"i.ed by the vested right more than anyth�ng elseo� (Jerry) Would you say that the v��ted r�.ght �theory 9 th.� rlata��n th�.t y ou a?^e advancing, is una��re��al7.y accept�d land us� l�w� �,r,. �Js��g�n.? (Fred) _ No,t universally, I don't think they h��tr� tn.at �.n �.��.a��o ' � (Jerry) Universal in �regon page 3 - pub7.ic' tes�tim��ny - pc me�ting 8/�,.�/i'� � � �. � �. � (Fred) Well, I would �ay t�.�t th� Ho�.m�s c�.�e �.� the �.�.�;r �.n Or°zgono You � only have one Supreme Cour°+o (Jer�°y) The notion �t:hat a "righ�;" under� z�na.ng ��; a ��r�icular paint in t�:tne is a vested �°ight at a �utur°e po�.nt ?n tim� is 'the law? �' ;, (F�ed) Yes o I think th� Holme� case i� v��°y much a1�.1�,�e in �h� way wc zon.e o (Jerry) No, I a�k�d i� the v�sted �°ig�.ts '�heoryo a o (F`red) It i� no�t a theo�°y P Would you allow 'th�.t th� Su��°eme Cau�°t ca�e is ` the law in O�egon? ' (Jerry) Wait a minute! You called it a vested s�ight theory! (Fred) Sure, 'but it is th2 lawo The law i� what th� Sup��me Court s�ys i� the lawo Until the c�s� is x�e��d, it �s the 1�wo A,� much as if you �i had .read i.t in th.e 1975 ��'�i•�� o.f th.z 1.egislati�r� inactments o �'a I! (Don �:r°om C�°est�riew) not come her� to s eak but tr�s.� �r•ou�ed my curiosityo T woul.d � I did � � �.ike to know in a hypo th�ti c al �i tua�tion wh�.t wou�.d hap�ien if a property owner° "A" owned � pa:��vel o� g�°ound an.d ��t �bout impro�°a.ng it fo�° a junk yar�d and �..�operty owne�° "B" ��t about �.m�'roving (lets � assume both th�se hy�ioth�tir�al dev�lopment situ�tion� we?�e p�rmitted � under the exis�ting zone) the �d.joini�ng piece o� p�°��e�ty �or re.si- l dential use 9 nei�he�.ro one knowin� what �the oth�� ^.�� 'r.:ad in min�l, I� ; ` at some poin•t in �time thzsE �it�s b�r.om� z�.rl�d r��.� ��:�t7.a7.; th� �a�=t ' that this man had spent �ome money to de��lop a j�.�rYr: y�.'�"d -°� a�� t��a� �� going to give him a �r�sted right to go ahead with ��_� �r�o;je.^r an.y mo��e � so �than th� guy who ;�c�u��d som� mon.�e,y i,n hi� �;�N11'�F']Y/0'�,�, �� :�ry �e;�danc.,ee .� H�w would that �hak� down i.n. you�L ��:�i�z.on o (�'red) Well, I �ee them as comp��ab�E o W� Y!�•�� junk y��°n� �.:L:�. �'�r�.� tn- � ��,�:ay j side o Nobody c�n clos� t�.em down b��au�e ma.s t c f' t�?r�m ;v��e ;�� E.µ�r i ,�:i•nr� ! non-con�ormin�o So :I woul.d �ay �thz �te�°m junk y�:�°d S�, oi �c�u�r�� tri� vernacul�ro :It i� a d�p�°�c�.t�ng �t�;r��m �.n.d ��,.me c�` T:r,sm ci��,.� �..t� Again, looking �.�� the thing :f:r°om th� stand�o-?ra�t oz �:r�c�pe�^�t;y ��.�:ht�.� :C can con�2ive o� a ��tu�•tion whe�e the �o�ral.l��. ,junk y'��°d wou�,.d h�.v� a vested right and I think� oo � (Don) What about the p�x�son who h�d. put an �qua'1 �mc�unt of mc>z�.ey i.ri�tr� a page 4 -� public °te��imc�ny � p� mee-"in.g 8 f�.9/75 � _ : � �. � dev�elopment for a �°esidenta.�.l pur�o�e? �- (Fred) ' I think that i,� t:�tze too 0 2 th.ink he could h��re �. ��ested �°ight e (Hartman) . I The existenc� o.� a junk y�.�°d would ��ec�..ude the exi�t�nce of the resi- ' ' dential area �nd make it les� desirableo But still the �act that tYae junk yard was there �nd wa,� � pe;r9mit�t�d use when it w�.� established would mean that it woul_d be �1lowed ta continue as a pe�°mitted use as long as zt remained in bu�ines�a S� it went :out o� business and remained out of bu�ine��s �or� a ��t length of time, it could not be re-ESt�blishedo (Smelser) I think the �i�tu.ation that the sta.f� is trying to addz�e�� here is where property has been de�relo�ed or is intended to be developed �or a specific use -- does that mean that �oreves° mare, �egardless of change of zone, that prope�°ty can continue to expand fox° that intended use? (Jerry) - It seem�s to me that �th� �pplic.ation o�° th� �rested r°ights principle in this particular� i�su� �that is ��o�e �th2 F�lanni.ng Cr�mmissio�. almost preclud�s �the p�zblic P s right to bett�r� p�ev�inu.s ��ors, oversights or in circum��t�nce� whi.�h the Su reme �our°t. of the State of even chan es P a g ` �_. Oregon has sp�cifically s�id must be �ecogr�iz�d (by subs�quent actions) . (Fred) I don't �eel that �the;�� .s �.nythzng alien 'be�twe�n th� Holmes case and anything the cou�°t ha� said �inceo In �act% the Holmes case only cam� i down in '74o And if I am not wzroong� it probably followed Fasanoe Fasano came down in '730 (Hartman) I would like to hea�° wh.�t altern.��te wo�din.g you h�.�r� N�opos�d for thiso (Fred) Well, T am hesitan�t b�L>aus� I hope th�.�t you s:��:camn��nc; t'ria� th� ob- jective be atta�.nedo Haw you get t��t�� .5 �e�Y:�� sECOC�da.;w,y�a I411 read to you wh�t T h�.�re her�o ° Wher��rer a p�eviou�ly ou�trigh�t p�rmi.�tv�. use c�t�gory a.� relegated to the conditional use gr�ou��ing i.n tne sarr�: zone or another° zone all wholly o� p«r°�tidlly :�.e�rclo�ped �:r�op- erties then in outx°ight use �tatus in a,ny sucra zone shd:Ll retain all �the inc�.d�nts of. pre-�exi.sting out�igYa� 7a.�a rv�.assi- fication �pp�.icable to �uch ��perty ?nr.;ludirig ��he �ight to expand, alt�r9 ch�n.�� the ��t�nt c�f as�°ea o�° use �o� sizr.h pre- � existing u�e p�a.-.t po�e o page 5 � public t�s`timony -� �� meetang 8��.9�'�5 .... .. . ......_ _...,:... ... ..�... . . .. ..... .._...... ......... .. ,.... . .. ..,:.,.... , ,._.. ....... . ... ...... ..;._. . ..... ... ...:.. .�.�i . . . . . . . . . . . � � � ,�j.. � �. . �..:�� . �....�'�� . I h�v� �,noth�r ar3.�� Pr�oper°ty wholly a� ��.��°`ti�,�1y developed and in u.se � in dny zone �or �ny out;�ight permitted pu�pos� :�or° � that zone wh�n suc�: u�� pur�ose is rec1�.��if��d in r th:e s�me zone a�° a d�.��ex�ent z�ne to a candition�.l � c�t�go�y shall �etain. a11 use �°ights pr�eviou�l.y � available to �uch p�°operty under its outr°igh•t use � categor°y pre-Exis�ting the �°eclas�ification so long l. as such pr°e-existing u.se continues inc7_uding the i right to exp�.nd, alt�r�, or change the extent o� �.�ea � �; o�° u�e of such p��e-�xi�ting use pu�pose o i �, Now, I think that all T h�v� don.� there is maybe use mo�°e zonin� ;, jargon than perhaps Joe $�.iley dido I would rather see you r�e�:��inmend {; his because Council has Gopie�o It i:� alre�.dy submitted in w�°a.tin�o {, My purpose is to get the j�b done and not to argue about th� wo:r�dso � I felt or thought that maybe the Pl�nning Staf� would �ind f�ul�t ith Joe 's wording, so T had an al.ternative to of�era � W , �� . a� A (Ha�tman) ' S'; I am riot sur°e that I �.m �ompl.ete�y r,le�r on ever°yth.ing tha� the p•r°o- '., posed ordinance implies o Whe�� hi.� ordinance �t�te� "the oti�rn.e�° of ; the land shall have a11 of th� �ight� he w�u�d h�.ve �iad h�.d tYie u�e 1; remained a permitted use in the new zonz" o That �eem� to me �to b� �; ambiguous on the�e matt��°s o� setbac:ks and 1an.d�c�.pe o There �.� � ;; -- c�if�'erence between "had the us�_�°emained a permitted u.s� in the new , � zone" or "had the land remained under the revious zonin�" , dnd that seems to me to be the crux of the mat�ter .r�ght ther°e o (Fred) We11, I discussed th�; sta�'�°� �x�oposa�. h��°e with Dick Boleno I didn't dis�u�s it with Je�.�°�r°yo And T �hink th�t the�� .� ��b�-gu�'�� ; in the pr°oposed �h�nge o I.� you iri�tend th�.t the p�°ope�ty �°ezon�cl wou�.d �� have all th�; elements o� ou�t�°ight zoraing in the new zone 9 th�t mi.ght so severely re�t�°a�t the �wr?�:� thr��t he cou.�dn'�� tzsz i�; �o� :r� : �� .:�.r_�t�nd�d �; purpose o I am suggesting to yc�u �h�.t the ��r�7��:�° a�p!�a�ch °`.� r '.� :Li �; to permit °th�� what I Gho�e 't� �a�.l �lem�r��i�� f�1:�. ��`�� e� ± , a��g z��n�9 �; to remain applicable to the pr°op�.r°�ty _-- �. p�'�p��•t�% �� 1 � -` `�� partially cie�reloped �or � gi�r��n �on�t�nuou�, �u�osu �--� ��,'� ,;,_, ?ea� ;..�. necessari�y zoned for° any use �that it might �,��.�� b�?r:� us�� 1�y�° tx�' �a`�'� �; down the sca�.e 20 or° 30 u�es --� l�ut �o:r th�,�t� ��xi.:;�;�.n� r��.i �� f� r (Hartnnan) � For the pre�existing pux°po�e it will xvemain. in t�.E p:r°��-��X'_,��•' =.. -r1:` ' in effecto � ! (Fred) o I We11, yes, it will remain in. the ps�e-�exi�ting znn.� �o:� ��:� :��'�- .° - �`'.�'t�n�'• i establi.shed use o �, � public tes�timony - p�.g� � °� pc mPeting 8/19/'�� , „ li. _ _ _ _ i I ' ' � ,_ I �.:� �._ � , N � F (Hartman) r �w And that seem� to m� °tY�e poi.nt th�t is not cle�s° i� t�.e w�.y �h�s i,s ;, written �°ight h��ea Th� w�y �thi� o:�°di�.�nce �.s w�°i,tt�n i�t; ��6ms to me th�t it rema�n,� � pe:�mLttrYd u�,; in �h.� n.ew zon� and w�ha.t you a.re � saying i.� �hat it ��?ould �°�m�:i_�. � ��°m�.��t�d u�e s.n �t'he pr��'ious zone J a�cor°ding to th� t ule� o� ��1�.� �:c`��,�zou� zon�o � (Fred) � Thi� is what I �:m �u.gg��ti�go (Hartm�n) Which i� quite a di.��er�nt �re��1e o�° �°i.;�ho (Craig E�gleson) '' If I understand this co�°rectl,y9 this (o�dinance) doe�nyt �or^bid a f; chemical company from expanding it� busin�ss op�:�a�tion; howev�er, it €; can't exp�in:d its bu�ine�� p'�°�mise� bas�d upon th� code o�' 20 ye��°s �i ago o I�t will be all.ow�d to �xpand unde� a c;on.dytiona�. u�e permit ;'; according to today'� �od�S under wh:�ch the bui�ding wil�. h�.�r� to ;; confo�m to a:�°chitec�ttz�°a1. d�;�i�n.9 :l.�nd�c�.ping and �o �ortha �'hi.� doesn't me�n that the com��.n.y wi�a� no�; be ab�l.e to cont�.nue in. business o �.i.ght? (Hartm�n) t' � (Under. the �ropo�ed amendment f o ��.�m��roa.�t Chem�c�.l.s would be allowed �; to expand thei� building wi�thou�t the �0 �e�cent li,mit�.tion o ��t would : be all�wed to expand as though it were a pe;�mitt�cl �a5e in the zon� ;' it is in .r°ight now9 but would �til� h.�ve �o con�a�m �to whateve� �et- back and landsc�ping �°u:L�s a�°e �mbodied in. tne new zoningo l�n't � that co:��°ect, J�r°�y? Whex°�� the way M;�o Ande�°son ��es at, it �hould ''` be set up so that he would b� �,our�d �y �'_�� tr�ck, ru12� �nc). so on ,;: of the pr^e�ious zone ra-L-h2� t�an o� th� zon� h� �.s �.n nowo ,! �; ,, (Fr�d) ;' 4 Well, I didn Y�t �x�c�cly ��.y °tr��;� �n �T�:�a��y 9 ti ry:��c�fi �rK�rr�::�i�.v��;,:. -�r; ”: ��.:i.� that wher�e �dhex°ing to th� ��.t��.�~�.�5 c,�,r� oth�r° ��GAr��_+:,:s ,� �'�� >�r�� a� ` changed would inte�:fe:�� wi.�t;h o:r� woU.�.d �.��t ;��.i{�'r, a._�'-�nt��n�; �..� �`:}�.e � owner� may prove, th�n I ��.y ��h� �� ,b�,<:k.s '�.a�r� a-„ f� _, , � r,,-� ,-.,_. i;he,y ' are comp�.tiblc (with ��che i.n°��icled u,��1 � ��.�r_ t::��y ��.oa7. , +� � ;,�r,dl�da i! But what we a�� ba,�ically ta�.k.L.n.g aba��a�t �� o�w t�«.s� �m�.�i.r.,:.;��, ��ut •t�i�: i.; bas3.c useo I think you've got °co .1�2e� �,� m.�.��d th� 'k�a�ic• �1�� : .�zo � can the pro��-x°ty owne� ua� th�z� ��°op�r�°�ty :�o� � pu:t�°p�:,s�: �� a°c " �arl � pro�t'e, and Z �ay r°,p o�'�,, �� . �a�� oy: his o�,P�.;�t��.l �,Vi.a.rio Y�� cr, 4-� `a bui�d Rome in a da o You dori o t �v_i:id a �.,�n� fic �^;om � ' a�:�^ -� ' ��t;��-�!�. �` y p .�._. H� objec�,ive in a dayo If 9 in t�.c �:�o�p�� o� bu.�.'.�di.ng or� �:±a�;r..�, '�,�.:° r, � prq��'ess of th� building `�he t;ity chang�s yts �°tz��es� �::��'�� nll.;,-t 1:�,� �;. some protec�tiono Fo.r in�tance, I could be bui.l.ding m�;� ^c�_��;� ��r.�.r� h�=�ve }�' the rafters up for a 2 sto�y �nd ,you al1 0� a �u.dd�r� cl.�:::i�� 1 �^dr.�,. o�z:Ly hav�e a single story ther�a 5�:�: what I m.��rio Sa�•�= �.�.�ao �`k ,, � �r' �� page 7 � publ.ic �te�ti.mUr<y � �s�: mL�t:i,ng 8/�:.�y/'75 �; �� g� �, �:. � �� . _ ,.,._.,- ' � � (Hartman) I don't think that �s r�aching too far because�`'�`igard does have rules against a 3 story house. � (Fred) I onl,y have 2 in my case. ' (Hartman) ', Yes, I know, but the analogy is there; at a point in time in the past I� Tigard changed its rule to disallow three story houses. (Fred) If the three story had the rafters up. . o (Hartm�n) � They would be enti�led to finish it, but the guy that bought the lot next door couldn't build a three story house. (Crai� Eagleson) I have seen iricidents where some guy has sat out on a corner of a street with a �.ittle grocery store on an acre of lando Through the y�ars built up around him are beautiful residential homes. And a11 of a sudden he, thinks he has a good thing there so he decides to build a superma�rket which, as anybody can see, woul.d not be in the right locat�.on for a supermarket. But if 2 understand Mr. I�nderson'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. C (Fred) You misunders�tand. T did not say that. (Hartman) � I don't think that would be unless he had, as time went alon�9 co!�.-� ' tinued adding to his store, making it larger an.d altering i�to ; (Craig) � i His intentions were: he was in business and he want�d to e�r.�:a�ido �. (Fred) � ,� No, now wai�t a� rninute. You're en rafting upon the wh,al� the;�lo�y a new element: was this intention �and intentions are measur�d by extra words) , was this intentian a harbored intention �nd gi-cr:n effect by plans at the time he started a grocery storeo (Craig) , Yes, because.he purchased an acre of ground or 5 acres o.r wha.�k;��v�e:r, �. page 8 - p�}blic testimony - pc meeting 8/19/75 � .,,... .. _ - , . (�red) .,,w �,.. ; � Make it fiY� acres �hd T Gould buy the superma�.�et theory. All these thi��s are sub�ec�t to the �acts that pertain to �hem. You cha�ge these � facts end you are changir�g the theology. In the �hicken case you rememtrer tMe fa�ts - and they are established facts. The couxts so �' found that they ha�d done this, this and this in a con�inu3ng chain of events to accomplish that. O.K. Now many businesses, like you said, would be �the same way. They don't �u�st �om� into being. Let's take Washington Square. They are still building, aren't they? That is all under one own�r�hip, isni� it? Yes, it i,s, and sq they have a laid ou�t plan which is given effect yeax by year over 10, 20, 30 � years. Now you s�w off the thing in �the middle. That is what Z am talking about. Public Hearing Closed, , � . page 9 - public testimony - pc meeting 8/19/75 � C .� _ _ _ _ _ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that public hear�ings will be held by the i P�anning C'ommission of the City of Tigard in the Twality Junior High School Lecture Room, 14650 S. W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon. Said hearings will occur on August 19, 1975, at 7:30 p.m� and will concern the following: o 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 Heati.ng Company on SW Walnut St. , from R-15 to R-7, Single Family Residential; lots �., 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17 and lII of the Lake Terrace Subdivision. o An amendment to the Tigard Zoning Ordinance of 1970, clarifying the rights of certain land owners with regard to properties, th� use of which has become clzaracterized as a conditional use after the date of the commencement of such use. o A request by Farmcraft, Inc. to expand a non-conforming warehouse building in the C-3M zone at 8900 SW Commercial Street. Al1 persons havirig an interst in these matters are invited to attend and be heard. � ; 1`{S � � . � . � � � ��ft!,�At F . ^ .. � � � �•,' � � � ��.�.e. . � . T'1� . � . . . .. � � . . . . . �:i' . . .. �. � . r S7.'AFF REPORT Tigard Planning Commission � Zone Chan,ge ZC 9-`75 (Chamberlain.) Agenda Item 5.1 August 19, 1975 A�p1 i c ant City of 'Tigard , � Applicant's Reg,.uest � to amend` the zoning map of the City of Tigard to reclassify certain lands owned by JosePh Chamberlain and Arrow Heatin� Co, on S. W. Walnut from R-15 to R-7, Sing7.e Family Resi- den:tial, lots l, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the Lake Terrace Subdivision Staff Findin�s l. The Planning Commission initiated proceedings on this matter at their August 5, 1975, meeting in order that the various facts pertaining to this case aou�.d be given a public hearing. 2. On September 18, 1973, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use request by Arrow Heating to allow 8 dup�.ex �° dwelling units in, the R-15 zone. Condition #3 of this approval states, "All lots f�r duplexes shall cover a �,; minimum land area of 8,000 square feet. " Based upon this approval, the applicant subdivided his property (Lake Terrace Subdivision) creating 8 duplex lots averaging 8,000 sq. ft. each and singl.e family lo-ts, all mePting the 15,000 sq. ft, standard af the R-15 zone. The sub- division has 'been impraved and provided streets and utilities. One single family dwelling has been constructed on a 15,000 sq. ft. lot. After the subdivision was platted, the sewer moratorium went into effect and permits were not available for rental housing. Following the lifting of the sewer moratorium, financing became scarce due to the economic slowdown: This combination of events has prevented Mr. Chamberlain from developing the duplex portion of Lake Terrace according to ith the reaent im rovement 'in economic con- schedule. W p ditions, Mr. Chamberlain contacted this office concerning renewing his conditional use permit or acquiring bui3ding - permits for single family dwe�lings. He was inforrned that the 8,000 sq. ft. Iots were sut�standard for houses in the R-15 zone and only duplexes were possible, provided the conditional use permit were� to be renewed by the Planning Commission. � , , __.. ,, , ; __ _ �. , . ; . . _ t . � . . • � � . . . °�, .. . . . . � . . � �. � . �� :� � ��Y�:. � � , �; r; The staff referred this matter to the city attorney (his �, � � response is attached) . Summarizing the city attorney's � lega� opinion, it appears that the original Planning I' C�mmission action., which permitted 8,000 sq. ft. ].ots in an R-7.5 zone, was 1ega��.y incorrect and only two option,s !; exist to rectify this pro�l�m: -'' I l. Rezone the subject 8,000 sq. ft, lots to R-7, ; thereby providing them with conforming zoning; or : 2. Resubdivide the duplex �ots aggregating the eight 8,000 sq. ft, lots into four 16,000 sq. ft. �' 1ots. 3. The Comprehensive Plan (Tigard Community Plan) specifies this � area for Urban Low D�nsity Residential Development at a i� maximum density of 4 dwelling uni�;s per acre. The proposed �+, R-7 zone does conform with this planned density. � 4. Lands to the west are zoned R-7 and the Bellwood Sub- division, which lies to the west, is developed at this R-7 density. To the north is the R-15 portion of Lake Terrace and lands to the east and south are in Washington County and zoned RU-4 (R-7) . i �i 5. The subject sites have been provided with utility services � � , and eaeh lot has access to a public street. Staff Recommendatio�. � r To be advised at the close of the pli�la_c hearing � � � r � � �� : � � J . . . . . . ��t . . . . . � �.a,ii � I . .. � .. ��..r� . . � . . . . .. � . �I'. i I . . . � . . . . � . .� II .1! � - , , PC Staf.f_ Report - 8/19/75 -- page 2 - item 5.1 . , .. ,. . . , .�- , _. _. � . � , , ;: � ,,. , . __ . , _. . . � �� .: . , -;�, , . , � �^ ° � . ; ° � �- � . :� e Char� � � � = N � � � � � �: 9 °° . I .. ' � �� a �i �� ' 20 ' ICS. No. 10,953) 6�Qp :'. I .75 Ac. � ts'xo"wr _ ' ; � . � �, i,70 w7' N � # y�� — _ ' � � ' � n � � • . . ; �c�.�cT � . . � e , s ass, , o p ;� .� " ze ;I :7Q ��2 --- ' I. . N PON � S`M•�OR .r„�'�,1•�.9?..> '' 'i zs zd'wL ' xo ♦ ' 36O�eT 670Q ,. �O W ( � / .T5 AG (C.S. No�E � ,es . .. � � . � 13 - .� �p�� . � _. 8. ,. i7i.. ,C n °_ j W � ' BS f�i - � �83. ��Q� 96 70 � , oµ �� ; e� 5 �B p�t�� I°23�20"W a o . m ►� . 6900�`� 00 __ �` .37 Ac. , � o . , 6800 ' � n ��' 12 . _ � ./6 AC. ^ {iii � f . � , � . ' 109J 9 'I �� 1 ' ,, . / i S 87° 39�E L , l6S' . 'rye� . �, � ��----.-._..,_ 7000 xs7 7��I;: jzg5 ! " � / :e�i�� t .3r c r .29�f - - .. , • ; � _ ., ' , • • - . A � ��' . . .: ` � #� �� o , o ,, „o ';, � , '. o '. ^' �i, t 5�� y ►F'�` � � ' ' �. i = : No 6g �.' I :M dC`�,•' s�". �0 55 � �'°�'' . � s .. � �rw�` �� N� t ". f 1t�'� � . , ( � �t • • . �� . 1 c `•i. �w , �� 3 � � � � ; � • ,p9 W � r�:,;; . + t '� .• 5 .1 �o �� • i:::�s••r: s �T° � . ......... A� � . o o , . � �� .. ' ;1�' 06t�a0 V� ��O p , • . � ;: `. • t�.. � `y0 2 � ..37AC. (C.5 • ; � 1� �. .� .r6�4U0 ' ,�"� �o ' S � � _ � � `i �� .. 'o E� �o� * �, ''m .39 Ac. �°o �' o, 2; .� , y � ", .� ti A�Z�� `�• � 0 OI •r � N. N 0 . . � �•. 1 J N� � .: . . � �t..�• �/\�6 ^ � ali l� j .�/f � � � 3 � E, , 83 � ' 1G� � `s o r! : '' ��s b , ' I � g9. � , .4 ;.;• , 500 a N (C.S 9 � � � e '�, ..: �... ...,� a 6 ' ./��QC � J N�89°2 E F • :}:. . 1 . '' . , � > .. J N 88°21�E � �. BS.B2 33.92 2a� h E� � S 6Z • 133.2S � :.y M . N B9°5�1 W w 6�0 . ;:e� �J� (C.S. No. 91621 Q .42 A� a o 700 " (�.5. No.° '9088) o � .�i�id: L i C. c k �` - .V� s '.�i/��'' . a0 '}, N 89°S.. ` _ . 0 6i0.66 _ _.—__ ��v �i! ^+� J N S 89°5�'E � -f�� 89' S��f 385.05 ��/%�" � �,,,,'�� 900 00 tC.s.; ,:f� . a 26 .95 Ac. �' � ' 4 Ac . , ' r+w coR � (C.5. Na �2,0901 ( iO 305/�10 3 _r / . 1 rv •� ' � 38 j.06 _, A 5 B9° Sj� SS�� E (C,S. NO• �2�IO)o � 31 �� • o I�t,;t�,�r.�;� � ^- .34 ,4�. '" - o n O N O� ..2 � . ' . . 82�.9 rJ � 0 381.05 N B9° SI�'W 5 B9 5�� W 5 89°SI�W 357 4 � iso wEST 3a $5 £AS� � CAST �Bd [A$T , E ` — — _— -.- ' , — i N 99 SI� � � � ! : M„�-..._ �. . � ..__�._ � � �° � ^C- / r5� • `S�' \-.. •' `6�„ ...r- ♦ � �+ • MEMORANDUM ' • TO: Tigard Planning Departmeiit FROM: Joe D. Bailey AATE: July 16; 1975 RE: Lake Terrace 5ubdivision; Conditianal Use Application The owner of the subject property has applied for a renewal of a conditional use permit which expired some timE ago. The , original conditional use permit was approved in �September of 1973. It permittecl the construction of a number of duplexes in an R-15 zone. Apparently at the time of the application for the conditional use permit all of the owner's property was in one large lot. Thereafter the owner filed a preliminary plat ,subdividing the 1ot into ten 15,000 square foot building sites for single family residences and eight 8,000 square foot duplex buil�ing sites. That proposal was apparently finally approved on November 6, 1973. The approval ot building sites of 8,Od0 square feet for duplexes in an R-15 zone was an error. B" The Tigard 'Loning Ordinance does not permit the development �� of duplexes on 8 ,000 square foot lots in R-15 zones. The relevant language, upan which the approval was apparently based, �s as follows: . . "18.20. 020 Conditional uses. In an R-7, R--15 or R•-30 zone, the following uses and their accessory uses may be permitted as conclitional uses when in accordance with chaPters 18e72 and 1g. 84 : � (1) Duplex residential, with a minimum lot size of 8 ,000 .square feet: one duplex per lat; * * *" 18. 20. 030 provides that in an R-7 zone the minimum lot area ^hall be 7,500 square feet. 18.20. 040 provides that in an R-15 zone the minimum lot area sha11 be 15,000 square feet. 18. 20. 020 does not permit the reduction in size of a lot in an R-15 zone. Tt � only says that, in an R-7 zone, the applicant must have more than . I, the 7,500 square feet otherwise required in order to build a � duplex on it. � � I Under this set of circumstances it is my opinion that the applica- � tion for renewal of the conditional use permit should be denied. i i i � ' i � • i _ _ . ._ .. _ ... _ _ ,.._ . . __ ... ' �. __ _ ..i , . , , - - ' . r , . . i � � � ��.�. � � � � . . . Tigard Planng Department July 16, 1975 Page Two . If the owner intends to build cluplexes on 8, 000 square foot � l.ots in this subdivision he mu�t get a zone change to R-7 or or to some other classification which would permit the devlop- ment of duplexes ar he must secure an alteration. of the subdivision plat to bring the size of the lots up to 15,000 square feet. . ��'� ' � �,,, � ,. ,_........ . ._... �...,_ . .:_ .._ _ ...�. _. .. :_ . ._ _.,.._�,. �.,..�..t..., . ,�...� _ -�;;�� . _ _ : _ d��,. � , � � r � �..; . . � � � . � ��: ,�,'�. � ��- . �. STAFF REPORT � Tigard Planning Commission '� �,^; _ August 19, 1975 �. Non-Conforming Use NC�J 1-75 (Farmcraft Chemicals) Agenda Item 5.2 A'fppl ican�; Craig Eagleson (Farmcraft Ghemicals) Applicant's Request Approval of a non-conforming use expansion for property �,ocated at 8900 S. W. Commercial St. , comprising .55 acr�s . witk�in a C-3M General Commercial. Main St. , zone. (tax map i � 2S1 2AA, tax lot 4700) . Applicant's Proposal � To construct an addition to an existing non-conforming use, in this cas�, a warehouse in a General Commercial Nlain St. zone. Stafi' Findings 1�. The appl.icant currently own,s and operates an existing chemical wai^ehouse an the subject site and is requesting to construct �: �, an addit�_onal 13�0 sq. ft. of building floor are�,. The � applicant states the additional area is needed bec�use "the economic need to utilize all available space is imperative because of �the high land value and property tax obligation. " ' 2. Section 18.58.030, Tigard Municipal. Code, states tha°t, "Following the procedures set forth in Sections 18.84.0�0 and 18.84.020, the Planning Commission may authorize the alteration of a non-conforming use or structure subject to the following limitations: '�A non-conforming use may be permitted to decrease or en.large up to twenty percent in floor area or in those cases not invol_ving structure�, up ta ten percent in land area as exist.i�:g on August 24, 1970. " 3. The app�ican.t's existing building comprises 12,510 sq. ft. of floor area. He proposes to construct a 1,390 sq. f�. chemical �torage addition to the existing structure. This would. not exceed the allowable 20%, �mounting t� an 11� expansion. 4. Adjacent land use consists of a vacant lot to the south, commercial. and professional businesses, as well as the Tualatin Rura� Fire Dept. and Tigard Water District office � to the east; a vacant lot being used for parking to th� north and the Sou-thern Pacific railroad tracks to the west. , The site is zoned C-3M, General Commercial Main Street, as : .� ' , _ ,_ . . . _� � �� roposed by the N.P.O. #1 Plan for the Ash Avenue�-Downtown �, ArEa and rezoned by Orc�inance 75-35. 5. N.PRO. #1 Plan for the Ash Aver�ue-Downtawn Area sta-�eN that, ��t� improve successfully ,the viability of downtown as a retail: cor�mercial and comrnunity c;ent�r for �he citizens of Tigard. . .the existing �rend �owa�ds industrial developmen.t must be ha�ted. " In order ta accom�lish "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 btzi.lc�ing may be enhanced by the proposed addition. The propo�ed new con- struction will s'erve to create a flat uniform plane along the side of the south wall. , , ' 7. In the staff!s judgment, no rnaterial adverse zff:ects to adjacent prop�rties will occur if the applicant is allowed to Expand his existing chemical: warehouse facil.ity as reque�ted. ` ; ; �� i � ; i � , � : . . � .�...:g � . � � . . :.:�j � � . . � .. ��. �N . . � . ��.�:�I • � 3 ii � � � �� , ; � � ' } � ; i �. ; � `;� � PC Sta�f; Report - 8/19./75 - item 5..2 - page 2 � ��: ;� � � �� . �, ;: �., � �.., �i. F1�CTORS TH�1T MA�{E BU'LI,DING EXPANS�QN NECESSARY �� Farmcraft, Inc. is one of only two full-li�ne esti.eide dust P ble�ading facilit3es remaining in Oregon. Therefore T submi� th�t � it is in the public intereet to expand thi� faai�ity. Fruit, nut �nd vegetable growers throughout the North enc� af the Willamette Yalley depen�l on Farmcreft, Inc. services for crop pro�teetion materials. The Tigard warehou�e and b].ending facility serv�� thr�e � other salee ou�l�ts of the company, at Hillaboro, Gresham and Dundee. Thus i�ts location ir� Tigard is central to the are� served. Farmer�s need thi.� manufacturing and di�tributing service to insure the cont�.nu�d production of uninfeeted food. It is a publi� service v�.tal �o �;he local food supply. Th� aize, can�truction and appe�arence of the bu3iding are compatible with surrounding structure� and uses. A vacant lot �ep- �ra�es the �'arme�aft Chemioals build�.n� from the Pxa�.ri� l�arket an . the S. W. sid� of C�mmercial. Anothsr �r�oarat lat sep�rates it from th� Tigard Auto Body Shop in the oppoeite direction. pn er�gin�er;ing �.: off�.c� �nd beauty shop are aerose the stseet, as well as a plumbin� �hop, T. V. r�pa3r shop and the Just�.ce of the Peace�c� affice. The Tigard water District office and �ualatin Rural Fire Hall are aero�s the str�et �o the Southeast. � The p�eoposed conetructian �.� ib �ine with a lon� �e�m �l��n to finish the building and prnvide additional warehouse $pace when needed. A present warehouee client (Ths Occidsntal Chemical Co. ) needs more space than is now available. The Balcam Induatrie�� Tno. has sta�ed a poeitive intent to lease chem3cal starage ,�pace w?:��n availabl�. The presen� shop whieh ie to be elimina�ed, is a tempc►rary addition built some 15 years ago. I�s low ceiling and r.00f �upport poste meke it unsuitable gor current etarage n�eds. The ,roo�3.�ng has cracked and mue� be replaced before winter. It would be �ietter to reze thie old part and create new e,nd valuab�.e atorage space. The aQOnomio need to uti.lize all available epaoe is imperat�,ve becau�e of the high land value and property tax obligation. �, The propoeed conetruction ig in the public in��reet for aea�thetic reaeone. Moat af the building i� concrete bloek or eimi].ar1y painteil m�tal clad frame, with the eacep�3on of the unsigh�ly low-�roofed shop _. � _.._,;,_. ._.. ., .. ._ .. ._,.... . ... ...✓.:::':.:..1 �-�:'. ' � . � . . . .. .:. , . . . . � ...�....:..r.:.� �...�......,_.�_:L.�.+....�.ii....,n. _.�.. ...�..... a.�. ...�.�.,:.�.s��..ui..... -.�... ..,....i�,..�..u__v.��...r..�...... �«�r'�:au:.i.�_..."�t:i...._�-..no-'......_ur`�..:r. �.+u, w �....:.�:.,: ..�..<.......e .... . .. w+ia.�,Yn ... �......u.�.-V1i4:1Y_ ..�.. � � � �Ru � . ' �. .. . . �.:: � . �l � . and waXled-�a�'f drum-etorage yard. A unifortnly high �traigk�t wall � a� pxapb�ed, along �he entire �3de of �he building would be much bgticer lcaok�,�ag. !C�ie additio�al l�ndecap�ng needed to confarm will fu•rther en- h�n�e t�is appearance o�` the praperty and upgrad� the Commera�.a1 S�ree� di�tri�t. ' , �� . , �;!'�'� , �� ,;. ,- � . STAFF REPDRT � ��"'� Tigard Planning Commission � I � August 19, 1975 ' Agenda Item 5.3 Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZOA 4-75 (Amendment to Chapter 18.12, General Provisions, regarding conditional use status) . Applicant City of Tigard Applicant's Request The City Council directed the City Attorney, Joe Bailey, to , draft an amendment to the zoning ordinance which would stipu- �ate the rights of property owners who, as a resu�.t of a zone change (map or text) , have the status of their exis�;irig i use chan.gPd from an outright permitted use to a conditional ,,' use. The attached ordinance draft is Mr. Bailey's response. Staff Findings l. Mr. Bailey's proposed zc�ning ordinance amendment is inten.ded to insure that an existing permitted use retains all the rights of a permitted use, in spite of a zone c�ange (map or text) which places it in the conditional use category. ti+Thile the intention is to maintain the existing u.se on an E �_ equal basis with other outright permitted uses, the planning ' staff is concerned that the language sugges-ted goes beyond makiri.g the status �f the affected uses equal and actua�ly bestows rights upon these properties which their counter-� parts (other permitted uses in the zone) would not have. For .instance, the language suggested statES, "T�ie owner of �uch land shall have all of th.� ri hts he would have had, �, had the use remained a 'permitted use � s � . " Sta f is con- cerned that this wording could be construed �o entitle a developed (or partially developed) piece of property to all of the rights of permitted uses a�n the old zone, rather than the new zone as intentioned. Staff suggests this problem could be rectified by changin� the wording to read, the owner of such land shall have all of the rights of 'permitted uses ' in the amended zonin� classification, in.cludin�, but not limited to, the ri�ht to expand or contract the use of the property, or alter any structures. The additional wording provided for consicleration by the attorney states, "or to chan�e the use to ariY other use which was a permitted use at the time of the comm�ncement or creation of the permitted use. " This addition the staff finds unacceptable because it go�s ev�en further toward granting exclusive rights to the subject properties -- rights which will not be shared by other properties in the zone. �, Staff Recommendation To bP advised after the close of public hearing �F � j,..V�� d � � �a. DRAFT �� ' . . CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANC;E N0. 75- AN ORDINI�NCE AMENDT�TG THE CITY OF TIGARD ZON3i�G URDINANCE OF 1970, CLARIFYING TH� RTGH�':� OF CERTAIN LAND C:WNERS FITTH REGARD � TO PROPERTIES, THE UsE �>F �aHICH HA� BECOME CHARACTERIZED AS A CONDITIONAL USE AFTER THE DATE OF THE COMMENCEMENT OE SUCH USE. `� THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOI,LOWS: � Section 1: The zoning oxdinances of �the_City of Tigard creating the various land-use zones describe uses which are ' permitted in each zane, and, in a. number of instances, also describe � uses which are to be permitted as "conditional uses" within each zone. Section 2 : The Council. finds that the zoning ordinances of the city of Tigard do not describe, with su.f_ficient clarity, the rights of the owner of a parcel of l�nd which, at the time of � development or at the commencement of its use, confarms in that develapment ox use to the provisions of the applicabl� zoning classification, •being ciassified as a � "permitted use° ; °whichyZand is thereafter affected by a change in a zoning ordinance -rendering � the existing use permissible within that zone only as a "condi�tional use. " Section 3 : In order to make clear what rights the ownQr of land such as that described at section 2 �bove shall have, the following language is hereby added ta �h� city of Tigard zoning ordinance of 1y70, where it shall agpear in the T�.gard Municipal Cc�c�P as tlze 5ection followinq 18. 72. 030, the Codi.fication of Ordinance 72-52, section 5, 1972 and Ordinance 7�-32, section 23-3, 1970: When a use is once established in s�:xch a way as to be a permitted use, and not a conditional us� an�l not a nonconforming use, •and thereafter a change in the zoning ,,N"`�� classification of the land, ar a chang� in the cit� of ,,,,,,r Tigard zoning ordinance of 197U, renders �he formerly , /,�, �r�� permitted use a conditional use, the ownc�r Qf such land �� shall have all of the rights he would have had, had the .r''' use remained a 'permitted us�, ' incluc�ing� but not limited , to �xpand or contract the use of the property, or alter any structures. To the Council.: ' � Tl�e following language �ou1d be added after the ward � "structure" : ' or to change the use to any other u�e which was a permitted use at the time of the commencement or �� creation of the permittecl us�e. � �� , �^ - � ��"� ' �"��'k�"-��`"^' ° � ,� �.� � `�. r � STAFF R�PORT , Tigard Planning Commis$ion �.*' , August 19, 1975 � d Agenda Item 7 ,� • Preliminary Plan & Program Concep� Review � of a proposed commercial and residential Planned Development. Westridge Park, to be developed by Richard C. Smith at S. W. 72nd Ave. and Hunziker Street. Staff Findings • 1. To staffs knowledge, efforts to develop �this� site- date.�from 1971 when:� . , ! a proposal to the county for A-2 ioni.ng was turned duwn. • . 2. The current propasal provides for fourteen (14) duplexes totaling twenty eight dwelling units plus a sma].l office buiLding on a single ' three and a half, (3�) acre site. , 3. Assuming that a reasonable allocation of �lar�d to the office building is 6,000 square feet, and the density allowable in this underlying . zone is l unit per 7500 square feet (net), the number of dwelling units-�allowable is 16.6.<:� �>> � �f 4. Cammercial. and .community service uses are allowable in a residential, planned development only when designed to serve the develo�ment of which they are a part. Community service. uses m�, if it is especially found desirable by the Planning Commission, serve the adjacent area. 5. The 'minimum site size for a Planned Development is 4 acres unless ` determined that a small.er site .is justified due to pxoblems af topography, sca in v�.i-tues or its existence as an isolated character land g ue P uni , ai 9 problem area. This site has been previously considered appropriate for , , a planned unit approac'h and that approach, as well as single family � development (R-7) were once. recommended to the applicant (Letter: + February' 18, 1971) hy the city. ' 6. Tigard cod�. speaks to the issue of minimum lot size and allows variance �I of lot size in a planned development. Staff has not determined ' - � � whether a developer can build such a project� without platting lots. It appears at this point that a duplex in an R-7 zone, even if a � Planned Development, musk. be on a single lot. 7. Vehicular access must be available to any residence in Tigard within 1 fifty (50) feet of the ground floor entrance.s. Walkways providing to several dwelling units shown exceed more than double this. . '� g. .No provision has been made-for Tecreation space: �� Staff feels that .this ._r. proposed project' is in fact a multi-fainil.y project: and should conform - � to section 18.48.040 ilealing' wi,th 'requir�d� open ,space and recreationf +•.>n. areas. • i V , r ,. ��a�� ' II �^_ . ' I 9. Parking xequirement for this projecC computed at '1� spaces per �I � dwelling unit and an estimated 9 spaces (4+2+3) would be 51 �,�, parking spaces, oT 6 more than provided. , . , .. I 10. The 20 foot roadway could be permitted under Tigard Planned ' I Development ordinance as a varianc� of the subdivision cade. . Howev$r ' staff uaould point out that any parking on the access drives as proposed would prevent emergency access and since the dxives are private, the city cannot �enforce parking restrictions. •. • 11. Pedestrian access through the project seems circuitaus and discontinuous j ` with respect to expected pedastrian circulation. • 12. Access point, on Hunziker or 72nd cannot be determtned from the : . _ . applicants presentatian. Staff cannot therefore �.valuate this aspect of the proposed Planned. Development . � � � ' 13. Topography and/or lay of� the land canno� be evaluated, nor can the � � relationship of the structures within the project to tk�ose outside ladjacent). _ � ' ' 14. Applicant's program submission addresses none of the required items. , - . , 15. Mixture of residentisl and commercial uses in one integrated pro,ject, . is, os. cail be, a highly,.effic3ent and beneficial aspect of planned I community de�elopment•.,.,•�In this �case�-� staff fa_ils. to• see the _, . � relationship'�of the two uses� excepting: a- potential• conflict..a.n� : . �,: mutual use of residential access and parking.' , -t ' . .,a.�� . • + ' r . � �,'C ��, ' �.�. , �a � : ' � � � . �. . � � . . � 3 , ry � , , � S W. ` - � ,,,� . . .. ` . � E� �.�. y�� ; . � � G,�,�� ,q�,� r��. APTS. F' � ��`� �� i �� . ' �� .. • � � (� � . . ' . � . �� r ' ' . 300 ' � , . � . �CITY • . (f�� _ � e �oa�� C�t::'�t`�Y"''lt i'l�7ii;ti:l��tt:Y�tt+iri:: i. �5t.:;}l i4 �:��.L..kt\g�i�•:�:+:�tt.t?'•. • � .l\�.}515:�.t5t5'�`.�'ti'S.. 155'.'. \5�� . „�� `+ �5��'k��1� �' �,A� �./ TIGARD CITY ll M1TS �� \ ., fi••.tt•,�4.�5 , ,ti ,: �E. ti ' � 'it+t�tA��1�y�.��...�,L�+S::\'ti t\.'�1�:. < <�'• �� ` .. � /!�� „�z� 4 5:•S::i�;::a11•�'••:t}'�\ �4� ,4\� F�' �� s.u•.}.t•�C�\t. � �i�t�a4tiy�5 1�t1��:\Lk��5,l`,�.��`�1��t `ltlt•��'i:5\ Ll E. . .. �� , C:':ak:i+�t��i��:}titt;5.;51,1�tiL«��`��t�'�i��.k1�` ' ��P��,/� �. , �:?�:'ki:.{.:..:::f.:'...:'�Y�t�•'1 �� "C:: ri tty� �4 t q.• U,C.��•i'.• ��• � �j�� . �ititi_.titE1"c•��`t5�`+,.tl�ttt�r�� •�'�•1 � .. ' � . ��'ti�t�:'��tl�..,"t�•�.•. ��. 5.. . � 4 . '�-��__ _.�� '•''"i��..�� f•�i,�+E.�`l'•�� :��`� � • _ 1: ¢1�,��• �'�. 5.:• �� 'i�\�\��` ' �' w,� . � •�5 :�,t . . {, } �.� ..i ..} �, \�+ ,� 5,.. � \ ��„ . �. , . r, . :S.'.1t�Y\�• .�.. . . .--4--. ;��t��.i:'��tit�� ,\1 rt��tit , �5�\��iy�tl,`�. � r. '•�:•�?�:.��l5b. •t\� 5.,��i 4•�'• �C,�'�•�2� t k . � "".�... �.� �� .�_.� ;ti1��\��t..t1��1�4`�'•�t••'•y•�ti•,•�•••t�••5y`'+1\1'iti�`��4�5�\1''�t� � . � .. ,..,:..:.. .,... `,��E::.:..,,,.:..: yr�. ; �• � :. \::'t 5'• ti•::. +�,`l+,4�• �. v.�y�`,�, ��1\�•. t��ti5�� 2�iii�:�:••.�'� ttt� '�:t ti t�:y5 \C t\�1 ` . . � � I ' • .t15. ��•5�'�l �• }.. 1 51�.� 1• � � :i::.t t l• ;.51;1\;• 1?��• t�;. • • C:��:•a;.5::;k. :•�::C;S.::H:i.yl''it�:••;: � i'�Ci t:�ki^::j5,:.'i�t � . �:. �}\:i}}i�+ti1k�;'.'yFy1;:�'l\;:°"ilLi'�t:t•ttt\i�«i'•?�:t�i+�kktqiEtii4;:i�iti1,4�4�'+;i}��'it ` '� . . . � 1 � . itt.7ti4�'t}ti::::•.y;Cyy;�yjt.�\•t5,•�t,•555t.�'�}}•'.;tii;:i•:4�:%t:;�`,•:'•'�{}Srt�;:;;;ii}i�::;:��l;tii'titi'�:;:: . � � r.;a:';..•tiy;..ya;55 t y t i tt t! + l t5 ��:{.}...k::':,....;t;.}. �. . . ' ' "•:::ii;}''Kb'ii':::.:; .,� i� �rip�tik}\:llrit�t� E2t1ti5�\\�;5�'t:�it:'�li;;:i•' A,� .. 3�, •'Sti:'�•:.'•:�".• 515�5� .5�tri.t;.�.:. �1 t. ti.l::'::.�� •t .• }.'•}:.:.•. � �'�t �..: }}. .j'y . ( ;,;ii,C..i•�t:C•:::.:.:.:::.::•.'•.•• .... .i.:.t.:.•...t.•t:.,.5•:::.....:...�.::is.4• 1�11 � 570 F' ;. ' �1�- ' �� 7 � . ;i � � S W. VARNS ST. � � � . � • � r !� .:, . a � � . � � J � . � CITY : W � � a 3 � � � � M � . � � � � _ � . . � i 1 � I � � . . __ ; � . . _-- .__ � _ ._ _ . � . . _ . . . . - . E, � . � � � 1 ' . I . . , i � '' +� � , � � � � � � SCALE I "= 200� : � � . .� _ _ . _ . .