The URL can be used to link to this page

NCU 1-75 - 8900 SW COMMERCIAL •.. /y��,,1� a+1/. �•y......t:.w,AM:c OtweYrr7.i...I,N•,••"+.'rawal4•.-+►...•.,__...—r+w•Ira.•w._•r.-+-••r+- _.ar•nwa....»•..«..a..w..-..,..-.r..,,...................... «+ .....«•»,.. �b��' !r ..rt,.,,. .ar..r•_,'•M++wm ,•asw.�._aar+r-.,..r»..w«.._._. ...—..�..w•r•r..•r•.�•w...a•.s+�•-,.».a.. ..rn.•—.'.` .. ....-. _. ... .. _ ' _..--....--.r-�,.r.,r��► I�,J/'" '-r .�...«...-..... .., .-. .v.._...- .....�.._.._-..•e^_�.-��.,..�' +._-_.w...r,.. ..", / .11 �. ... •.•' - ..r,.. ..w,.•--..,...._._.r. -�..�. ...,rt. __ _ _ __...�..;__...._....�.._.w +.._... M ._ •.•+._. .....vim.•-..n. . .......__�- - �• � �" rwww. .+r—. -_.�. � - ...._. ..�'�..r .war► ,�w� �,r rw• ----.,a..�r•--�. ,r.r � +� .....•..-_..._.»._. �:,'`, _ i ,� •�*� .rr.wr�r.+w..a w.n rw.�. •-...+.+.rrw.. r..wr -•...r..�r.Mrw .rwr.,. •.�.wr.r.�+ , N r AA ....-....._......,._...—....-.___, _...,.. ... _....,.. w••nl.u..q•MR•+•.».N►, .a y,•po,,. ...- w.. f.. n... �r4•Mr•a•+wy„r..•r....,..w:.•.✓•.r'ti.«_...�'r_+sr+..•..•+�. .o,.. nowr +n .�,..�w..+.., ..•..�r•rr...,.rrw. .w.w••.r.r•«.a.�sr..r.w,v.r+_...,.ww•.a-'• �...•......�...... .. ._=.._..��`� � . . _ ._ _ .. .. ., _... ... .. .... ...�.,..__. � } ,. .. 1 L ) 17. _ AV ty dip ap dr Is A54 ` 5 ` I � �•i% .. i r q i 0 0 S 4-t . Roof'��t. 9 ,;,l LOADING a Dix: k, Ey H0oil • !�� I P � \•�, ^`L '�' �`,'�'� ,�� 5�. ,�, � L� �• �yam' ''. \ '.�� LIQUD PRODLIC `710N 48 I -Ilk PLOT PLr�NN ,� � J ' �+A ♦ ,♦ �`. � •'t �\ •., � \ 1� `�, �,til, � ,�� . f ...ice”` , � ti� ,�ti .,'` 4••. �'�•\i �•�4�'t .` .•` �, .. ,y 'ti �'`• •��•' � - _ _�•�+ aa► •...�.. .». ..._.__ � .ryn..��., __. ...a. ... ...� � `• � `.� ,� �, ,,,,, .._. ....,..�....,.,r+rr�....w..wr....++...,•a.YO+.wwr•.�w+.,r..w..w.....+..r-..-....•r.,...... _.....w�.•.•_..,,_,. f •-......�� - ' r .w..rrr...a.waa�r ...fir...,. .r+.► t t � 1 1 i1 l' � f • y 0 - �_....._w...._r-.••..w...••.....•w.._,.....r•._•..........,..r..•+.w...+......,..•�,.�..-....._w+.,-.-.»,.•wr•-..._..r.. w...,._r. .«..,w..+-..••r•+r.►+r+r_... ^�1•�,.M ~,i�y�l.hr..'.� .. ........_, lO�, / .._-....�.•-.•+••r+.�»..r..-., _�...__ .._...-.«. .».rr.•,...•....,......-.._,..�.........._..w..,�._ j .. .__ -._ .- - ._......�«....».... ... .. _.. _...._.-,...r.w...,r.......r•..w. { •r...._.,.an. .... _a•... ._.... ._. ....._,..........._.+ ..+. y/� � � --+w........--.... ....._.-.._.. ..._.....,...-.. ,...•... ._ .,.� ,.•+f•..r►w..,.:_...r.-,._.-.�._ .•..- ..�,,..._._..�....+«.w,.,.ww.w..rtrww...+.•...+,+.•.w�...._.ar. .,....w... r.,..+ . ,,,�.�y-,,,,.�,."._.._,,..a.,+. _rt•.-_..,, -•i.wrw-rr...+._...•r•+..+•rw..,.w+.{+•�.•.+..,wr ar+.a•+r.rw.,rr .. 41r,-ter_.r.._r..,_.w•.,-wM_.1Y.r• •.-a I•. M,.-_,.r. .,•M.,•_...•r♦ Yur.. ,ya.'- .,w.r.ltiw...,,�•�•„+I•r_.nr,rwn�, IGARD T G�, L: 0N ..ti. NG It4r � r."3t H. A. M C 1-4 LL 5 �3C��'` �?�E :{ rj ON . 1 . I1 � 1IrI1 � t �llt � li111I111 ' IIr �1 � 1 � II1I1 � 1 � t � 1 � 111I111 , I �1 � I � I � I � IIIt1I1 � tIII1 �I � lIt � lll � lll � 11 , 1It � I11 � 1I1� 1 � 1 � 1I111I1 � 1I1 � I� IIlIr11I111 ' rllllll ' 11111 ` IIr111I111111111r1 3 12 10 1lrtlll � l � tli ' lirlirl 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 II NOTE : IF THIS MICROFILMED DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE , IT IS DUE TO THF QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL 4-{a- —I "'i-_�. ••�.,� —_ `, �• s DRAWING. CIE 62 92 12 92 S2 *2 CZ _Z2 IZ 02 61 81- - LI 91 SI til E. I ZI 11 01 6 9 1 9 S 1► E Z 1 ►!111111�1t1111111I11rt1tii11t11111111�111r�llll�llll�lllr{Ir11�t11111111�11�1it1i1►11t�111111111,1111111,1I1lli�lililil+1�1111�1111�1111�IIIII1111{111111111NI,In1111111�ilillllllillll.Ii111Illilllflll1111�1111II�I�iI�t111�1111�1111�1111011i1I111J11Ii11111111111�b011�1!!�1111��1il1lIIIII1111 MICROFILM SERVICE CO. MAY01991Commercial Microtilming, Processing & Supplies - r -- Portland, OR. Seattle, WA. i � r 1 1 i a• ^ r! ti •R i M • n r 1 it r f ,t f 44 e dt • ; r ' -4W, 4 F , , .a_r.r.., w_nn...�._..�.�.�y9,�,�.y...r.y,...i.Y,yl.w'�••NM4•u/.y��•`•.a_.+A•r.Mw�.•M•...nyn• �• ' , • • • ' QA�r' �� f v+.,........a.•.a+•«..r....�..w+-•1.-••...��..+.+.n•sr+.+...•wM....w.w...w.r...awryw.aur•..n�..•.«...w-....•.�.:..ww _�.� � y •.` ` �' 4NEW CONSTR �.)C -fl" FION v ,,1� .� �a'� �� rl � 'tr` fr'� � � R`�T � •��►.!! '>�'^V � r: I •+' j ¢ T , /I � ei ,/'' r' � �• 1 f r/ � � 1 w or WAREHOUSE U). 0 AN SALES Of •. - ) � ,,/ •/-r• / � rrj �,�, !r � , � ., •i' a 1� "�'+' w r' f...w .r�' l � r� .. .. } / j s r I N Icr Jl f r•♦ ,/r s �:' ! r /• .• r�' .�}�f a �►+ ,+.- - r'nr [� (�/ [� a i , '. !/• tit •..•. ��.-.. to Rc►L i .�L) . r'1 ""► ', �•r d, '{ tf�•r '/,"'' F '' // 'rr.,r.,j ......mow.- r i r "�'�'. /• +.... r • ww..u.e.•f. 1"i 1" •..._•--.....r. 64-4 ^'+..+..rw�•awe...w. �../ r '_ �r� bar rar..�...�..r+w�,r r� -�� ....._.......... _ __..- ._ _ _M .a_...._._� t t. SOUTHEAST ELEVATION i ELEVAJ ION 1. EOUIP,y-MJ 'NT, S ''CaptA,� 9� f AP' s-1 �" �: � �" ., w 7 r i •�;. •� '"j( T 10 IN mak•i'i}, �'. _ - '� l�. F I r - ! R. `�~.�i ? rte" �` . e"N.••,� ,{..�' Y".Fry' r � • - - P .. - ,. .... '.. ..-! .l� r I...+ Irt '�. ''.,. FMa+MwF..^•'�•rlYh•'.W/.++.+•aq....w.....�•..•r►MM..",.w.,...� , J. as +� -)� ,i•.R M'LI � ` "� � -' __._. �.+....+•..�.�wr►.�.w�•.�.r.-..."^r....r....r..�.......anr.w�.rAr , �. ...•:�1 •..��NI`a4K+, �'..�' >�.�. .s^1lrIr41'�...:.7fC7�d•..wfirA.G ...a..lY•� �?.� +t•+rel. � .: F�Mawr^�+Ngvew.n�:v. ,•.._.._ �...�... -. '-+� _�MI 'I�l*1f: `rr'r*-.r«n - - _.. - ,u: _ t t t► 1 1 I i l t t i t t l t t t ,t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I� 11 1 I 1 1 t 1 1 1 I t i 1 1 1 1 1 i l t I t •I l i t 1 1 1 1 t l l t l I t r I t 11 111 I l t t l t t t I t T l l t t I t t t I t I t t t t t t , •- --�-.-._•=._ter �\ �t, � � I � � i � � � if1 � 1l � a ' � � I � ► � � � Iri � � rlrll`► i � � � i' � � � l � I � � II � I � I � � � I � i � i � � � Il � I � I � IIt � lI1 � � IlItI � � I �,, 5 6 7 8 9 1}0 _ I I 12 NOTE : IF THIS HIS MICROFILMED - DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE , IT IS DUE TO ' THF QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING, QE 6i 8Z LZ 9Z S2 b2 E2 ZZ 1? OZ 6t 91 Ll 91 SI 11p EI ZI 11 01 6 9 L 9 S b E Z 1 i►I��littltittNitttltttt��till�titl�tiii�litl�IIIIIIItIIItIt�lttl�Itlt�titlhii��itl�rtIIII11�tiIlllilll111lItiIIfIIIIIli�1�1111IIIItltlll�lllIIIIIIIlIIII1111�lIItI1111IIIttIIIIIIIllII111111iI1I1111I1111IIIiI�IlIl�1�UII�IIItIttIt�IIIIIIIIIIIItI��lll�ll�111�11!ll�lll�lUl�llU �N11 � y 4 ' MICROFILM SERVICE CO. it Yi 24 Commercial Microfilming, Procossing & Suppllee A 1991 Portland, OR. Saattls, WA. 400 EARMCRAF'T CHEMICALS -- Non Conforming Use (MCU 1-75) 8900 SW Commercial 8/12/75 September 3, 1975 Mr. Craig Eagleson Farmcraft Chemicals 8900 S. W. Commercial St. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Reference: File No. NCU 1-75, Dear Mr. Eagleson: Please be advised that -the Tigard Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of September 19, 1975, considered your request to expand a non-conforming; warehouse building in a C-3M zone, and your submission was approved, subject to Design Review Board review and approval. Please do not hesitate to call this office at 639-4171 if you have questions or need a.dditionRI inforrnation. `,incereiy, Jerald Me Powell, Assoc. AIP Associate Plenner f' JMP:pt r w d TIGARD PLANNING COMMIS 7N AGENDA August 19, 1975 - 7:30 p.m. Twality Junior High School - Lecture Room 14650 S. W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. MINUTES: July 22, 1975 (study session); August 5, 1975 (regular meeting) 4. COMMUNICATIONS 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 ZONE CHANGE ZC 9-75 (Charnberlain) An amendment to the zoning map of the City of Tigard, initiated by the Tigard Planning Commission, reclassifying certain lands owned by Joseph Chamberlain and Arrow Heating Co. on SW Walnut St. , from R-15 to R-7, Single Family Residential; lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the Lake Terrace Subdivision. 5.2 NON-CONFORMING USE NCU 1-75 (Farmcraft Chemicals) A request by Farmcraft, Inc. to expand a non-conforming warehouse building in the C- 3M zone at 8900 SW Commercial Street. 5.3 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 7.OA 4-75 (Genera]_ Provisions, regarding conditional use status) 6. SUBDIVISIONS: Muttley's Addition (south o; SW Tigard St. ) A proposal by Herb Morissette, Builders, to subdivide four existing lots south of SW Tigard St. and directly west of SW 113th. 7. PRELIMINARY PLAN AND PROGRAII 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 72n, Ave. and Hunziker St. 8. OTHER BUSINESS 9. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSIC1N AUGUST 19, 1915 TWALITY JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called 'to order at 8.-40 P.M. by Chairman Hartman. 2 . ROLL CALL: Members present were Hartman, Hanson, Nicoli, Smelseh and W.akem. Staff present, Powell. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of July 22 & August 5 approved as submi,-ted. 1+. COMMUNICATIONS: Chairman Hartman read a letter from Dr. Jack W. Letch to the Tigard Planning Commission referring to the hearing on the Neighborhood Planning Organization #3 Plan. (Letter, attached) . PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 'Lone Change ZC 9-75 (Chamberlain) An amendment to the zoning map of the City of Tigard, initiated by the Tigard Planning Commission, reclassifying certain lands owned by Joseph Chamberlain and Arrow Heating Company on S.W. Walnut Street, from R-15 to R-7, Single Family Residential; Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the Lake Terrace Subdivision. A. Staff Report: Staff Report was read by Powell. B. Public Testimony Mr. Chamberlain testified in his own behalf. Mr. Fieber, a neighborhood resident, queried Chamberlain about his intent to resubdi'•ide. Mr. Chamberlain jrlicated that resubdivision would not be neressar•y . Chairman Hartman asked Mr. Chamberlain abo,at lot sizes. Mr. Chamberlain reponded that they ran from 8,000 sgiare feet to 9500 square feet. Mrs. Utz asked Mr. Chamberlain abou t his build duplexes. Mr. Chamberlain responded that he did not now intend to build duplexes on the lots but had deci,�ed to buill single family homes Instead. C. Staff Recommendation . Staff recommended approval., D. Commission Discussion and Action Motion for approval (Hanson) qw--�r,de (Nicaai ) . Discussicn Ly the t,jmuiission centered in conformance with the Comprerensive Plan and the question of spot zoning. It was determined by the Commission that this would not be spot zoning and that the requested zoning did conform with the Comprehensive Plan. Question was called (Smelser) Motion to appy°ove carried (unanimously) . 5.2 Non-Conforming Use NCU 1-75 (Farmcraft Chemicals) An amendment to the Tigard Zoning Ordinance of 1970 clarifying the rights of certain land owners with respect to properties, the use of which has become characterized as a conditional use after the date of commencement of such use. A. Staff Report The staff report was read by Powell. Chairman Hartman asked staff if the squart footage indicated on the plans in the Commission's possession was accurate saying that the 1300 square foot mentioned in the staff report seemed in error. Discussion resealed that the squere footage of the addition should be 1710 square feet for a 14% increase in size. Staff amended the staff report accordingly. B. Public Testimony . Mr. Eagleson testified in his own behalf. C. Staff Recommendation . Staff Recommended approvel subject to des'gn review approval. D. Commission Discussion and Action Motion to approve the applicant's request (Hanson), with staff recommended condition. Seconded (Smeller) Question (Wakem) Motion to approve was carried (unar.ii.mously) . 5.3 Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZOA 4-75 Concerning condition?1 use sta+us .,f a previr-u31�r per.rritte.j ,_ise after a zone change. PAGE 2 - PC MINUTES - AUGUST 19, 1975 Amendment to the ga rd Z-,, 4..n.g O rdi.n&nc e of - 'U clarifying the rights of certain ia.r_d cwr_ers wi-ch regara to properties, use of which has become characterized. as a conditional use after the date of commencement of such use. A. Staff Report The staff r°equest-d. the Planning Commission disregard the printed staff report and substituted a verbal staff report clarifying the proposed ordinance as proposed by Mr. Bailey, the City Attorney. B. Public Testimomyr (See verbatim transcript attached) C. Staff Recommendation Based on the finding that the public 's right to respond in betterment of a previous error or oversight in zoning o1 to respond to a change in circumstances in the neighborhood require that the City be able to exercise, through its police power, a change in site controls on not only future development but on expansion of existing development and based on the finding that the rights of no one owner of land within a particular zone ought to be superior to the rights of any other owner in the same zone ,- Staff recommends approval o:' the proposed zDning ordinance amendment z.s worded by Mr. Bailey with the clear intent to making said permitted use a p,--mitted use under the development restrictions of the new zone or code not the old zone or code. D. Commission Discussion and Action It was suggested that the ..matter be tabled pending further discussion in a study session (Smeller and Wakem) � Chairman Hartman inii;..Ftted that he felt that the Bailey version of the ordine-noe may be too restrictive that the modifi.ation suggested by Mr. Anderson may be nrerly permisal e. Wakem moved to table„ Motion died for lack of se-ond. Motion to approve Bailey amendment �Nsnson) . Seconded by Nic.oli� Motion to amend Hanson motion (Hartman) tc incslu:lp- a of the City Attorney that lie clarify the -lr. l ng j .- tflf� pi posed ordinance to identify whether the rights or thepry:E�er ty owner to continue developing or rel,?velop his site ar those in the zone pr evl^usly held -r it Seconded (Han.,�n) PAGE 3 - iC MINUTES - August 19 1975 Nicoli indicated his agreement with the amendment. (No vote was necessary due to approval of the previous motion' s proponents) . Question called on the motion as amended. Motion passed 3 to 2 (Wakem and Smelser voting no) . Hansen asked the Chairman to request a memorandum from the staff explaining why it took so long for this or- dinance amendment to get from City Council to the Planning Commission, Staff indicated that the memorandum would be available at the next Planning Commission meeting. 6. SUBDIVISIONS 6.1 (Asappli , to b the be forthei�extPlanning ageha nda, withdrawn by thee app Commission meeting) , 7. PRELIMINARY PLAN AND PROGRAM REVTEW. (Westridge Park, SW 72nd and Hunziker) . A request for concept review of the preliminary plan and program for a proposed commercial and residential planned development at SW 72nd and Hunziker St, Don Johnson, architect for the development, asked to be recognized by the Chairman before the staff report was read, Mr� Johnson cffered a statement that the applicant had reconsidered his development plan and that the plan submitted to staff was now void. Mr. Johnson went on to say that they felt that townhouses or a similar medium density multiple deveaopment would be in the better, public interest anri would constitute a better deve.LoP- ment of the ij to, Motion to table the item anti- Por. Johnsc,: and Mr. Smith resubmitted their develcpment plan (Hammen) . Seconded (Wakem) . Motion approved unanimously. 8. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Ha:tman brought up the topic Of :011P.,.-Xc 21S 0"I R-7 lots, He requested that the staff 1c:K development of an .increased lot ? duplexes in single i:am ly resid.!ntia'.. s- f t. in an R-�7 Zone of 10,000 sq , PC Minutes - AuT_1 } 19, 191-5 - pag R-15 zone and 30,000 sq. ft. in an R-30 zone were suggested. A percentage increase in site size for all residential zones was also suggested as an alternative. 7t was pointed out by staff that while this would help in the scale of a duplex to its neighborhood, frequently duplexes are sited on lots that are undesirable for single family development and are therefore especially undesirable for two family development. In staff's experience, the real problem is frequently poor sub- dividing practice and layout. Further discussion dealt with the difficulties that may be encountered by a builder in a poorly designed subdivision and of what future Planning Commission policies may be with respect to these problems. 9. ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 p.,m. PC Minutes - August 19. 1975 - page 5 r PUBLIC TESTIMON`,' Fred Anderson August 19, 1975 Manning Commission Meeting Item 5 3 - Zoning Ordinan.e Amendment ZOA 4-75 "The pre-existing outright permitted use rendered conditional in the sense that the map or text was changed continues as an outright per- mitted use. Now the question is -- is it an outright permitted use in the pre-existing zone or is it an outright use in the new zone. My opinion is that .it is an outright permitted use in the old zone, as of the old zone, and I 'll tell you why, I think we are talking here about what the courts have called a vested right. Arid I point to the leading case of Oregon called Clackamas County v . Holmes; What I term in the vernacular, the chicken foundry case, In that case, some people who were in the chicken processing business bought a very large tract of land in the unincorporated area of Clackamas County, in about 1965. These dates are approximate. They built a road into it, They dug a well and went for water much greater than what you would need for pasture. They did a number of other things in furtherance of their original intention which they proved to establish a chicken processing plant on this land, They spent between 30 and 40 thousand dollars on these improvements , Seven years later they went to the County to get a building permit, but the County re- fused them on the grounds that in the interim the land had been zoned incompatibly with their objective, In other words, what they want to do is not a permitted .isf.,, They poured their footings for their building, nonetheless, on lagan ad,;ice. A restraining order was served on them, restraining them from proceeding by the Circuit Court, The matter went to trial. The Circuit Court held against them. It went to the Court of Appeal.,, The Court of Appeals, as I recall, went against them, It went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed on the grounds that, which I think are of some interest here, ismuch as they had spent consi&-fable money fcr the purpose of using this land for a use that was out- grit authcr.ized when they bot:gh+ the land and did these improving sty psi 11hr-y had acc. Dmpl.i.shed a 'rested right and they had a right to d.a -'. +* and :ont i nue to - - 4t. ai�(' ape rate their plant, construct their plant, 1.0 1.d their p'lan4 and Ise it ar.d they did, They did those things; the Court upheld t�.air right tc do it� Now let's analogize between that and the si.t iat; )r. re~p. Ir: Tigard we have two aspects of this matter, both of which have been Aorked quite recently. I am really here in behalf a' Grea* -: * =r . 71-1emioal Corporation, whose land-- between the two railroads ,F: -�iafd Progress :iad been develcl ,d, lar:;_,s.- aped, They sper• _.. • 179r a million dollar---. They have an area yet -to he aetie :i:: ,i-her words, they are progressi,,,ely developdirng their lar - , ii.:�v, *lie NF(' #2 purported to change this class if+ cation of this i_and rrrcn M-; to M-4. Their use by that maneuver is defined in t�.=, M--14 as a rc �- ditiona.l use category and they havi? this mill i -la ,- more d invested, Now, if they wet Gals and so forth, everybody Id be up in arms. Certainly Y..,. 7 rining to let that happen. New let's take the other case, re:,,-.n-ly the City Council saw fit to change many of the categories of uses out- right along Pacific Highway west from outright to conditional. There again many of the uses that they changed are "in being" restaurants. Fere again are vested rights and by the narrow view, if the narrow v .ew were compatible here, these uses would be precluded except upon an application to the Planning Commission. Now, of course, planners seem to think that there is nothing to getting a conditional use permit when you want one. I have observed both in this room and elsewhere that conditional use is granted like other things are granted, depending upon how much public press ire, how much the outcry is and how the politics are, rather than by tho merits. So it is a real threat to an owner confronted with this situation. My thinking has been and is that this matter before you now is aligned with this right theory as much as anything else. Now you could say, but what about changing something to the extent that it's a noncon- forming use. In other words, you change the zone so that use is not permitted there at all, Conditional relevance: You got a non-con- forming use in theory; In practice, as in the Holmes case, you do not. You have vested right to continue that use, It's non-conforming you might say. You call it what you want to,. My point is : there is a right to continue the thing you had in mind in the first place develop that property. I think you have to keep the thing in proper perspective. I recommend that this wording (indicating Bailey's wording) or similar wording be adopted by City Council by ordinance as a prt of the 1970 zoning ordinance of Tigard in order to save the City a lot of money and not get involved in arguments about this thing, Because I think on the Holmes case the City is vulnerable if it doesn't adopt this view, I could suggest some other wording, but I don' t want to con- fuse the situation. I agree with Jerry that perhaps expanding it with the o,)tional additional phraseology might be going some distanc ?, his basic phraseology here is well justi fi-i .i !Ie" (Jerry) You suggested that the rights of the lsnlown,� zoning be retained. iso you mean to include land coverage, parking space requirements. — '? (Fred) If I understand you, you are asking me ',n the t: difference between those elements within a pr94.; ru: - - where you find a piece of property, which elemx:.:ts a � J (Jerry) I am asking if you are suggesLing Lliat a:'.2 ` ^^ ^ �`• `r"+ = previous zone be brought forward with the 118a as page 2 - public test.imory - pc meeting an outright use. (Fred) Yes, I would say this, that keeping the matter in proper perspective, where a person had a piece of land and had started to carry out a certain objective, one that they can prove; and that objective does not comport with the setbacks of a new zone that they may be put in; and failure to comport with that would defeat their right to the use of the land to attain their objective, I say the setbacks must yield. If that be not so, hcw could Holmes have built a chicken foundry at all? Some more important, much more important elements yielded. The element of contravening the whole zoning philcsphya Now I would go one step further and say that where the setback and other eleme".ts are compatible with the objective, I would say otherwise. So I say that you have to keep these things in perspectives Does that answer your question? (Jerry) Doesn't your suggestion give the owner of such a piece of land superior rights to develop that land than is common to others in that zone? (Fred) That is, not de,,clofed? (Jerry) Developed or, undeveloped -- It gives it a peculiar set of rights that inhere only because of pre-✓ious use, real or anticipated. (Fred) Yes, but what better reason is there then the mar, who has already dedi- cated his lifetime land his wealth to it. We rave to keep in mind that there is a constitution in this country too that says no man's property shall be taken Vithout just compensation. That is pari t�,F game regimen and zoning has come as close to be ar.. arbiri-ar1 there is, but it is supposed to be to the benefit n - there are limitations to it and this i.s one of ' ~ � tL ' 43 S ,just Oregon . You will find the vested right tn=nr� over the country, but you have to meet certai:: gui 7 our context here, I consider (this request) as right more than anything else, (Jerry) Would you say that the vested right theory , tl:e advancing, is universally accepted land us- (Fred) Not tuAversally, I don't think they have that =n .: (Jerry) Universal in Or-gon page 3 - pub1.i c ny - pc meeting; 8%19 i (Fred) Well, I would say that the Holmes case is the law in Oregon. Yr- only ronly have one Supreme Court. (Jerry) The notion that a "right" under zoning at a particular point in time is a vested right at a future point in time is the law? (Fred) Yes. I think the Holmes case is very much alike ic: the way we zone. (Jerry) No, I asked if the vested rights theory, , , (Fred) It is not a theory! Would you allow that the Supreme Court case is the law in Oregon? (Jerry) Wait a minute ! You called it a vested right theory ! (Fred) Sure, but it is the law, The law is what the Supreme Court says is the law. Until the case is reversed, it is the law. As much as if you had read it in the 1975 version of the legislative inactments. (Don from Crestview) I did not come here to speak, but this aroused my curiosity, I would like to know in a hypothetical situation what would happen if a property owner "A" owned a parcel of ground and set about impro-,,ir_g it for a junk yard and property owner "B" set about improving (Lets assume both these hypothetical development situations were permitted under the existing zone) the adjoining pi ec e of prcorer t:ir for re; i- dential use, neither one knowing what the at some point in time these sites become z,-)ned res : -; - �• =J r•'z- - that this man had spent some money to develop a ji.:, going to give him a vested right to go ahead ,rith h.i �, Fr( L"e, "I so than the guy who poured some money in his f,)r hip res, How would that shake down in your :Finion. (Fred) Well, I see them as comparable, We have jun.c side. Nobody can close them down because m.>>t non-conforming. So I would sav the term junk vernacular, It is a deprecating tr:~m and so',Pc- c w: Again, looking at the thing from the standpoir, _,i L - :i, can conceive of a situation whera the so-callP ' a vested right and I think . , (Don) What about the person who had 11it an equal -:ir page 4 - public to- aim^ny - p,: mee l irng 8/'10 development for a residential p,.2rpose? (Fred) I think that is true too. I think he could have a vested right. (Hartman) The existence of a junk yard would p:eciude the existence of the resi- dential area and make it legis desirable. But still the fact that the junk yard was there and was a permitted use when it was established would mean that it would be allowed to continue as a permitted use as long as it remained in business, If it went out of business and remained out of business for a set length of time, it could not be re-established. (Smelser) I think the situation that the staff is trying to address here is where property has been developed or is intended to be developed for a specific use -- does that mean that forever more, regardless of change of zone, that property can continue -to expand for that intended use? (Jerry) It seems to me that the application cf the ,,ested rights principle in this particular issue that is before the Planning Commission almost precludes the public 's right to better � ! evious errors, oversights ox even changes in circumstances which the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon has specifically said must be recognized (by subsequent actions) . (Fred) I don't feel that there is anything alien between the Holmes case and anything the court has said since, In fart. the Holmes case only came down in '74, And if I am not wrong, it probably followed Fasano. Fasano came down in 173 , (Hartman) I would like to hear, what this . (Fred) Well, I am hesitant b?cause I hope gra jec tive be attai ned. Hl-�w you ge t t- ,c read to you what I have here: Whenever a previously outright fermi - relegated to the conditional use gic r zone or, another zone all wholly -,r pb- erties then in outright use status in retain all the incidents of pre-exis*i '. f.ication applicable to such pr-perty " expand, alter, --harige thea• - existing u�r i, .:•�:��e. page 5 - public to:: timony I have; another one Property wholly or partially developed and in use in any zone for any outright permitted purpose for that zone when such use purpose is reclassified in the same zone or a different zone to a conditional category shall retain all use rights previously available to such property under its outright use category pre-existing the reclassification so long as such pre-existing use continues including the right to expand., alter, or change the extent of area or use of such pre-existing use purpose. Now, I think that all I have done there is maybe use more zonin, jargon than perhaps Joe Bailey did . I would rather sere you reg- i-nend � his because Council has copies. It is already submitted in writing. My purpose is to get the job done and not to argue about the words. I felt or thought that maybe the Planning Staff would find fault with Joe 's wording, so I had an alternative to offer. (Hartman) I am not sure that I am completely clear on everything that the pro- posed ordinance implies. Where this ordinance states "the owner of the land shall have all of the rights he would have had hal the use remained a permitted use in the new zone" . That seems to me to be ambiguous on these matters of setbacks and landscare� There is r difference between "had the use remained a permitted use in thr new zone" or "had the land remained under the previous zoning" , and that seems to me to be the crux of the matter right there. (Fred) Well, I discussed the staff's proposal here with Dick Bolen, a didn't discuss it with Jerry. And I think that there is ambigu.i tv in the proposed change, If you intend that the property rezone-, would have all the elements of outright zoning in the new zone, thr* 'r !ght so severely restrict the owner that he couldn't; asp - purposee I am suggesting to yc,u that the prspe:. ar,l:• -a<:� to permit the, what I chose to call elements to remain applicable to the property -- a prr:,_a:• :, a ` partially developed for a giNren ontinuous, purpos- - necessarily zoned for any use that it might ' a,+e be-., down the scale 20 or 30 uses -- but for tra` pre-e-,, . �*-. . (Hartman) For the pre-existing purpose it will remain in the in effect (Fred) Well, yes, it, will remain in the pre-existing zone established use, public testitnony - page 6 - pc meeting 8/19,' "" (Hartman) And that seems to me the point that is not clear i� the way this is written : ight teres The way this ordinance .is written it seems to me that it remains a permitted use in the new zone and what you are saying is that it should remainpermitted use in the previous zone a,: cordi.ng to the rules of the -1 • ious zone, (Fred) Tti1is io what I am suggesting, (Hartman) Which is quit: a different kettle of fish, (Craig Eagleson) if I under�;ta.nd this correctly, this (ordinance) doesn't forbid a chemical company from expanding its business operation; however, it can' t expand its business premises based upon the code of 20 years ago- It will be allowed to expand under a conditional use permit according to today's code, under which the building will have to conform to architectural design, landscaping and so forth, This doesn' t mean that the company will not be able to continue in business , Right? (Hartman) (Under t"e proposed amendment; , Fa-m: -,-aft Chemicals would be allowed to expand their building without the r-0 percent limitation. It would be allowed to expand as though it were a permitted use in the zone it is in right now, but would Ltill have to conform to whatever set- back and landscaping rules are embodied in the new zoning, Isn't that correct, Jerry? Whereas the way Mr, Anderson sees it, it should be set up so that he would be :.:;und by the setback rules and :)n of the previous zone rather than of the zone he is in now, (Fred) Well , I didn' t exactly say tr '. ;n -.. , y - �j _ that where adhering to the changed would interfere with ovrvul � ta + (-)wner may prove, then I say th= are comlatib.le (with the interial i But what we are basically taik.' rig ab t basic use. I think you've got to keep i i. '7 can the Lroperty owner use that p- oiler ty pro ,e, and I say rove, a- a part o'f his c'•- 3..1 build Rome in a day . You don' t '--)ui ld a p—==,; )b jec tive in a day. If, in the E roc ess of 'r_,-; progress of the building the 'ity changes :,t-- some ,tssome protection For instance, I could be 1-mi th rafters up for c 2 story and you all cf a ., + h ivN a single story there., Sc what I Mear, i� = 1,agra - - public te;t�..iony (Hartman) I don't think that is reaching 'too far because Tigard does have rvies against a 3 story house. (Fred) I only have 2 in my case. (Hartman) Yes, I know, but the analogy is there; at a point in time in the past Tigard changed its rule to disallow three story houses (Fred) If the three story had the rafters up-- (Hartman) They would be en`itled to finish it, but the guy that bought the lot next door couldn' t build a three story house. (Craig Eagleson) I have seen incidents where some guy has sat ou: on a corner of a street with a little grocery store on an acre of land . Through the years built up around him are beautiful residential homes. And all of a sudden he thinks he has a good thing there so he decides to build a supermarket which, as anybody can see. would not be in the right location for a supermarket., But if I understand Mr,, Anderson's proposal, he would be allowed to go ahead and build a supermarket there because he has been -in business there as a grocery stores (Fred) You miounderstand� I did not say that. (Hartman) I don't think that would oe unless he had , tinued adding to his store, making it large. a. ,,:r,nt- (Craig) His intentions were: he was in business and he War. (Fr-A) No, now wait a, minute I'nu're en rafting up,.)r; new element: was this intention and interkticn ars , � - extra words) , was this intention a harbored in`.��",.. effect by plans at the time he started a grc,e•y Sto—C . (Craig) Yes, because he purchased an acre of ground or a 'ri� Y N: page 8 - public testimcry - p- meeting 8/1.9%i (Fred) Make it five acres and I could buy the supermarket theory. All these things ars subject to the facts that pertain to them. You change these facts and you. are changing the theology. In the chicken case you remember ache facts - and they are ez;tablished facts. The courts so found that they had done this, this and this in a continuing chain of events to accomplish that. O.K. Now many businesses, like you said, would be the same way. They don't ,,fust come into being. Let's take Washington Square. They are still building, aren't they? That is all under one ownership, isnit i'6? Yes, it is, and so they have a laid out plan which is given effect year by year over .10, 20, 30 years. Now you saw off the thing in the middle. That is what I am talking about. Public Hearing Closed. page q - public testimony - pc meeting 8/19/75 1. STAFF REPORT Tigard Planning Commission August 19, 1975 Non-Conforming Use NCU 1-75 (Farmcraft Chemicals) Agenda Item 5.2 Applicant Craig Eagleson (Farmcraft Chemicals) Applicant 's Request Approval of a non-conforming use expansion for property located at 8900 S. W. Commercial St. , comprising .55 acres within a C-3M, General. Commercial Main St. , Ione. (tax map 2S1 2AA, tax lot 4700) . .Applicant's Proposal To construct an addition to an existing non-conforming use, in this case, a warehouse in a General Commercial Main St. zone. Staff Findings 1'. The applicant currently owns and operates an existing chemical warehouse on the subject site and is requesting to construct an additional 1390 sq. ft. of building floor area. The applicant states the additional area is needed because "the economic need to utilize all available space is imperative because of the high land value and property tax obligation. " 2. Section 18.68.030, Tigard Municipal Code, sta-'Les that, "Following the procedures set forth in Sections 18.84.010 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 enlarge up to twenty percent in floor area or in those cases not involving structures, up to ten percent in land area as existing on August 24, 1970. " 3. The applicant's existing building comprises 12,510 sq. ft. of floor area. He proposes to construct a 1,390 sq. ft. chemical story e addition to the existingstructure. This would not exceed the allowable 20%, amounting to an 11% expansion. 4. Adjacent land use consists of a vacant lot to the south, + commercial and professional businesses, as well as the Tualatin Rural Fire Dept. and Tigard Water District office to the east; a vacant lot being used foi- parking to the north and the Southern Pacific railroad tracks to the west. The site is oned C- 3M, General Commercial Main Street, as proposed by the N.P.O. #1 Plan .for the Ash Avenue-Downtown Area and rezoned 'by Ord:irnance 75-35. 5. N.P.O. #1 Plan fcr the Ash Avenue-Downtown Area states that, "to improve successfully the viability of downtown as a retail commercial and community center for the citizens of Tigard. . .the existing trend towards industrial development must be halted. " In order to acccmplish this N.P.O. #1 Plan objective, properties along Commercial St. previously zoned M-3 have now been rezoned to C-3M, General Commercial Main St. 6. The architectural design of the existing building may be enhanced by the proposed addition. The proposed new con- struction will serve to create a flat uniform plane along the side of the south wall. 7. In the staff ' s judgment, no material adverse effects to adjacent properties will occur if the applicant is allowed to expand h-Ls existing chemical warehouse facility as requested. PC Staff Report. - 8/19/75 - item 5.2 - page 2 FACTORS THAT M)&E BUILDING EXPANSION NECESSARY Farmcraft, Inc. is one of only two full-line pesticide dust blendirg facilities remaining in Oregon. Therefore I submit that it is in the public interest to expand this facility. Fruit, nut and vegetable growers throughout the North end of the Willamette Valley depend on Farmcraft, Inc. services for crop protection materials. The Tigard warehouse and blending facility serves three other sales outlets. of the company, at Hillsboro, Gresham and Dundee. Thus its location in Tigard is central to the area served. Farmers need this manufacturing and distributing se-vice to insure the continued production of uninfested food. It is a public service vital to the local food supply. The size, construction and appearence of the building are compatible with surrounding struc'—res and uses. A vacant lot sep- arates the Farmcraft Chemicals building from the Prairie Market on the S. W. side of Commercial. Another vacant lot separates it from the Tigard Auto Body Shop in the opposite direction. An engineering office and beauty chop are across the street, as well as a plumbing shop, T. V. repair shop and the Justice of the Peace's office. The Tigerd Water District office and Tualatin Rural Fire Hall are acrose the street to the Southeast. The proposed construction is in line with a long term plan to finish the building and provide additional warehouse space when needed. A present warehouse client (The Occidental Chemical Co. ) needs more space than is now available. The Balcem Industries, Inc. has stated a positive intens; to lease chemical storage space when available. The present shop which is to be eliminated, is a temporary addition built some 15 years ago. Its low ceiling and roof support posts make it unsuitable for current storage needs. The roofing has cracked and must be replaced before winter. It would be better to raze this old part and create new and valuable storage space. The economic need to utilize all available space is imperative because of the high land value and property tax obligation. The proposed construction is in the public interest for aesthetic reasons. Most of the building is concrete block or similarly painted metal clad frame, with the exception of th,e unsightly low-roofed chop r and walled-off drum-storage yard. A uniformly high straight wall as propo,.ed, along the entire aide of thebuilding would be much better looking. The additional landscaping needed to conform will further en- hance the appearance of the property and upgrade the Commercial Street district. I 1 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION RECEIVECD ..-. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING STATE OF OREGON, s AUG 19 1975 s CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING (COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, s COMMISSION Notice lis hereby ven that pubfie. t CITY OF TIGARD hearings will be herby the Planningg t Commission of the City of Tigard in th�3 1, -.-.--- _ ___._._slOSeph._SC1�iQ _..__-__-_____----.--•----._..___._ C-Twality Junior High School Lecturo �.Room,14650 S.W.97th Avenue,Tigard, Oregon. Sild"hearings will occur on being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Publisher .�.^.___�_.. August 19, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. and will Iw concern the following;.-".! of The Tt`ard Times, a newspaper of general circulation, as defined • An amendment to the Zoning Map { of the City-of Tigard, initiated by the 4 by ORS 193.010 and 193.02[, published at Tigard, in the aforesaid county and Tigard Planning Commission, reclassi- fying certain lands owned by Joseph state; that the legal notice, a printed copy of which Is hereto annexed, was pany on fain and Arrow Heating C t pany on SW Walnut St., from R-1, to ' R-7, Single Family Residential; lots 1, published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ._ .1............ successive and 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the take Terrace Subdivision. con,ec•itive weeks In Lie following issues . ..._..... ._..._ ._._.�.—.�. ' An amendment to the Tigard Zon- ing Ordinance of 1970, clarifying the' rights of certain land owners with re- _ AUGUST. 14, 1975- .......... -.__....._ . -- rd to properties,the use of which has become characterized as a conditional. -- - - - - ------ use after the date of the commence- - (Sign re) rment of such use t:;; ' _;;:.,_ t •A requeStby Farmcraltt,1'nc.to ex• P and a non-conforming warehouse Subscribed and sµurn to befr18th,re me this - day of .._ building In the,C-3M zone��a}� Commercill StraeL.4-`�:ia . I ,. y August ........ 19_?5 All petsona having an Interest,la tthesehe heard.- Publish l,.. g . matters are invited to attend Mli No r M1t% c�lnunission expires . -- -�!�'•' .---.�... 19.�� i ZONE CHANGE - CONDITIONAL USE - VARIANCE - TEMPORARY USE - NON-CONFORMING USE REQUESTS APPLICATION File # 1/C L) /— 95 Fee Rec'd._ lo0,00 Tigard Planning Commission 639-4171 Receipt # J2 k 5 12420 SW Main St., Tigard, Oregon 97223 Date Recd. 9`; By PLEASE PRINT IN INK OR TYPE Action Requested Building Expansion for a Non-conforming Use Applicant's Name Craig Eagleson, d.b.a. Farmcraft Chemicals Phone 639-1151 Applicant's Address 8900 S.W. Commercial Ti and Oregon 97223 s rest (city) (state) z p Owner's Name Craig Eagleson Phone 639-1151 Owner's Address 5900 S.W. Commercial, Tigard, Oregon 97223 sree c y sae zip" Applicant is: Owner_x_ Contract Purchaser Developer Agent Other Owner Recognition of application: J signature o owner s Person responsible for application Craig Eagleson 8900 S.W. Commercial Tigard, Oregon 97223 gree c y sae (zip) PROPERTY INVOLVED: Tax Map # Tax Lot(s) 2S12AA 014700 02)74 Address 8900 S.W. Commercial Area 0.55 (acres) Existing Buildings (# and type) Concrete Block Warehouse & Blending Plant Current zoning C-3 Current Use Warehousing & Pesticide Applicant's Applicant's Blending. Proposed Zoning Proposed Use same use as for past 25years SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: A Title Report _"Fasano"Requirements Legal Description ` Vicinity Map _ Tax Map .�L Site Development Plan �_ Site Plan FACTORS THAT MAKE BUILDING EXPANSION NECESSARY Farmcraft, Inc. is one of only two full-line pesticide dust blending facilities remaining in Oregon. Therefore I submit that it is in the public interest to expand this facility. Fruit, nut and vegetable growers throughout the North end of the Willamette Valley depend on Farmcraft, Inc. services for crop protection materials. The Tigard warehouse and blending facility serves three other sales outlets. of the company, at Hillsboro, Gresham and Dundee. Thus its location in Tigard is central to the area served. Farmers need this manufacturing and distributing service to insure the continued production of uninfected food. It is a public service vital to the local food supply. The size, construction and appearence of the building are compatible with surrounding structures and uses. A vacant lot sep- arates the Farmcraft Chemicals building from the Prairie Market on the S. W. side of Commercial. Another vacant lot separates it from the Tigard Auto Body Shop iu the opposite direction. An engineering office and beauty shop are across the street, as well as a plumbing shop, T. V. repair shop and the Justice of the Peace's office. The Tigard Water District office and Tualatin Rural Fire Hall are across the street to the Southeast. The proposed conutruction is in 'Line with a long term plan to finish the building and provide additional warehouse space when needed. A present warehouse client (The Occidental Chemical Co. ) needs more space than is now available. The Bal-com Industries, Inc. has stated a positive intent to lease chemical storage space when available. The present shop which is to be eliminated, is a temporary addition built some 15 years ago. Its low ceiling and roof support posts make it unsuitable for current storage needs. The roofing has cracked and must be replaced before winter. It would be better to raze this old part and create new and valuable storage space. The economic need to utilize all available space is imperative because of the high land value and property tax obligation. The proposed construction is in the public interest for aesthetic reasons. Most of the building is concrete block or similarly paintea metal clad frame, with the exception of the unsightly low-roofed shop and walled-off drum-storage yard. A uniformly high straight wall as proposed, along the entire side of thebuilding would be much better looking. The additional landscaping needed to conform will further en- hance the appearance of the property and upgrade the Commercial Street district. ACCOUNT NUMEIP LEV,CVD! T.. I974 - 15 EEAE PROPERTY TAXEStllt7-4 UJ lod A CUU.-TY 1U4.19 Washington County Oregon ASSESSED VALUATIONSAwA;,h1N(j1UN CU lE,: .2u .StlH[6.5011.�.•I,� '.)1 ro.ruw 11.2 1-.1 . .1 r '.'s. DPTLJ CU1161 CVL LUtt 4t)IF t.uso«.e,l�n,.u-•..e.'IF."Q.NO -F;. LAND 17.bOU 15CtwUL. UtTjmtcqpIS d ..JT �PU9:i. Jd DEPARTMENT OF A SSESSMENT AND TAXATION INOyENt NTS ;)1#20UlItOU tiU NlF•itVyrECktZu A�7T lb.its iS0 N.FIRST AVENUE IMPROVE. owls, 11TUNLAt1N J1 Hf PU i,j7.34 NILLSEO RO,OR 1 )1 2] ...C>[5" TOTAL A#ESSEo u9.000 T P016 OF P`Ut<TLANU 1J.11 n.eeaol oClif uF T11EAk4 u4 IF Bb !IX EAE MIIION u to E l.,.ln NIO....t 1P598.U4 LFIULL-?—P LtIIAlU N r/,t%v kmF&T c►Itly.►LP,L.s o9UU `.,rr L,UMhr.kI.IAL i lumhtlu# UHLUUA d7tt3 CURRENT TAAES A ASSESWPIts PRIOR TO DISCOUNT 1•bid. 4, lu MAAt I rA,M[NI A t 1 t J•.,, .QUI,I •t�O'.'.9i:1. .t..,Ir No, r1 I./. i w' 10 MM[ IArMI Ni A 1)J AND RICIM I,wtc0uN1 or 7.9%IM, P,N9v Is nF I y �. to NAm .PAnu«t 1A� 44,1011ILMt,. DIScouNT OP 23.97.1—E,Noy I, .1. 1 1 1,17-t.Iju ADO W OF PRONAT/ 11I11I AND.ecuvt oawu,.•or `N/.94. .. 1 1 I J J V•k U DELINQUENT TAXES WAW.Att CNAWA F.TAR.ATM wlulsl IR Not mctuar Acuurs 0-1.C14 ou•nER FO COW u CNM.OT IM 11.11 .D � NS DUI DAtt UNIN PM AI !1 (11 I♦ PER M9NIN 01 IIAC,Ic1N TIITRI0l -_ ctw_.___ —1Ai1 —_Er COOL SII —last floe rd hJIFt 1951Nr NO,AI IgEETE LOt "CA IT- d!3leAA U41UU U4474 I Plotocopy of tax assessment showing ownership and valuation.