Hearings Officer Packet - 05/27/1982 - Belknap 1640 HEARING OFFICER DECISION
-- 6/82 Belknap Industries
V 6-82
•
•
•
• BEFORE THE HEARINGS OFFICER
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR )
A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 17.09.030 OF ) No. ,s� 8
• THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ALLOW )
ASPHALT INSTEAD OF CONCRETE APPROACHES )
) V 6-82
TO A SITE LOCATED IN AN M-4 ZONE; )
Belknap Industries, Applicant, )
The above-entitled matter came before the Hearings
Officer at the regularly sLheduled meeting of May 27 , 1982,
at which time the applicant or its representative was not
present and the matter was continued to the regularly sche-
duled meeting of June 10 , 1982 , at which time testimony and
evidence was heard; and
The application was for a variance from the require-
ment of the subdivision ordinance, section 17 .09 .030 which
requires concrete approachestto allow the continued use of an
asphalt approach constructed in violation of the ordinance,
• property more specifically described as Tax Lots 700 and 800 ,
2S1 1DC, City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, and zoned
Jy1 M-4 , Industrial Park; and
The Hearings Officer conducted a public hearing on
June 10, 1Q82 , at which time testimony, evidence and the planning
department staff report were received; and
The Hearings Officer finds that the approach was con-
structed from asphalt as a time-saving and cost-saving measure
but that the property will be best served by a concrete approach
1
as originally required. The applicartwas unable to demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the Hearings Officer that the requirements
of the ordinance should be waived in this situation; in fact, it
was apparent that the applicant took unilateral action in an at-
tempt to save time and costs, deliberately ignoring the require-
ments which had previously been attached to its development. It
cannot now claim a basis for special treatment that its own
actions should be sanctioned because it would cost too much to
do it right; such a decision would open the ordinance to abuse
and after-the-fact applications for variances and waivers; and
The Hearings Officer adopts the Findings and Conclu-
sions contained within the staff report, a copy of which is
attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, and marked
"Exhibit A" ; therefore
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Variance 6-82 is
de ied.
DATED this day cf June, 1982.
HEARINGS OFFICER
eTh APPROVED:
:ETH BLOUNT
r
i3
Page 2 - V 6-82
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 2.2
CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER
May 27, 1982 - 7:00 P.M.
Durham Waste Treatment Plant
Corner of S.W. Hall and S.W. Durham
A. FACTS
1. General Information:
Case: Variance (V-6-82)
Request: The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from
Section 17.09.030 of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow
for asphalt approaches on the site. Section 17.09.030
reads as follows: Curbs, curb-cuts and driveway approaches.
Concrete vertical curbs, curb-cuts and driveway approaches
shall be constructed in accordanc,1 with standards specified
in this chapter and in Section 15.04.080, as adopted by the
city. Concrete curbs and driveway approaches shall be
installed in all new subdivisions. (Ord. 79-96 Exhibit A
(part) , 1979). See Attachment A.
Recommendation: Based on staff's review, applicable policies and
cn-site inspections, staff recommends that the
Hearings Officer deny the proposed variance.
Applicant: Belknap Industries
7455 S.W. Tech Center Dr.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Location: The subject property is generally located on the north
side of S.W. Tech Center Drive, just west of S.W. 72nd
Avenue. (Washington County Tax Map 2S1 IDC, lots 700 & 800)
Lot Area: 5.004 acres
Present Zoning Designation: M-4 (Industrial Park)
Public Notices Mailed: Notices were mailed to twenty-six (26) sur-
rounding property owners. At the time this
report was written no written comment had
been received.
NPO Comment: NPO #5 is currently inactive.
2. Previous Action:
On May 11, 1981 the Planning Director approved a subdivision (S-8-81)
Tigard Business Park. The subdivision also created Tech Center Drive.
On June 30, 1981 the Planning Director approved a Site Design Review
(SDR-14-81) for the proposed manufacturing structure. The construction
documents submitted to the City by the applicant showed concrete
approaches as required in Section 17.09.030.
STAFF REPORT
V 6-82
Page 2
3. Vicinity Information:
The surrounding land uses are as ,follows:
The areas to the north of the site have bee:*: developed for single-
family residential uses and office uses and are designated as Suburban
Low Denisty and Commercial Professional.
The acreas to the west, south and east have been developed for a
variety of industrial uses, and ar.2 designated as Light and Heavy
Industrial and Industrial Park.
4. Site Information:
Currently, there is a 48,500 square foc.t manufacturing structure and
approximately 32 parking spates on the sit!. The existing approaches
'acre recently constructed with asphalt.
B. APPLICABLE PLANNING POLICIES
1. LCDC Goals and Guidelines :
a. Citizen Involvement - Goal #1 - The intent of this goal is to
insure the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases
of the planning process. Notice was mailed to all property owners
within 250 feet of the site giving the time and date of the Public
Hearing. A Public Notice was published in the Oregonian and Tigard
Times. No notice was sent to NPO #5 because that organization is
currently inactive .
b. Land Use Planning - Goal #2 - All applicable LCDC goals and policies,
NPO #5 policies and Tigard Municipal Code sections were considered
in review of this application.
2. Section 17.10.020 - Findings required for approving variance:
a. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
property which are unusual and peculiar to the lands or development
of the project involved as compared to other lands similarly sit-
uated;
b. That the variance sought is necessary and the minimum required for
the preservation and protection of a substantial property interest
of the petitioner to the degree that extraordinary hardship would
result from strict compliance to the particular subdivision, major
or minor partitioning involved;
c. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare, but will be consistent therewith
and shall not be injurious to the rights to other property owners
in the near vicinity nor constitute a departure from or be in vio-
lation of the comprehensive plan of the city;
STAFF RE?ORT
V 6-82
Page .;
d. That the applicant's proposal for variance in a subdivision or major
or minor land partitioning conforms to and is consistent with all
other regulatory requirements of this title and Title 18 of this
code, that adequate provision is made for traffic circulation,
recreation, open spaces and similar factors, and that variance sought
has been considered by other public agencies concerned with fire
protection, sewer, water and other utilities , as well as environmental
factors, and the written comments of sr,h regulatory bou.ies as
applicable is submitted as part of the record. (Ord. 79-96 Exhibit
A(part), 1979) .
3. Staff Analysis:
a. There are no special circumstances that affect the subject site
u at would create a need to construct asphalt approaches rather
than the requires: concrete approaches, compared to other similar
lands in same area. The required concrete approaches would continue
a regulation of uniformity and functirn (concerning approaches)
throughout the industrial areas within Tigard.
b. The variance sought is not the minimum variance necessary to preserve
a property. The applicant was fully informed as to the requirements
for approach construction. (These requirements were denoted on the
construction plans submitted by the applicant. ) Yet the applicant
constructed asphalt approaches anyway. See Attachment B.
c. Staff believes that the variance would be detrimental to the public
health, safety s,_ welfare. The existing asphalt approaches, due to
the lack of structual reinforcement, will eventually be damaged
by stress (large trucks) and degradation (gas and oil) .
Concre'e approaches are steel reinforced and can tolerate additional
stress. Because of the grade changes at approaches (usually the
grade increases from street to property) more stress is placed on
the pavement, than in other asphaltic paved areas.
Additionally, the approach is within the public right-of-way, thus,
creating more liabilities for the City if approach construction is
substandard.
d. The remaining por_ions of the development have conformed or exceed the
requirements stated in the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances.
SUMMARY:
Based on staff's review, the applicant's proposed variance does not meet the
applicable planning and subdivision ordinances.
CCL
Prepared by _I La ir- 4 • Approved
Je emy C urso le Frank A. Currie
A,sociat Planner Planning Director
I
CITY OF TI ARD A
ILYr
WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON ,
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Title 18
Case No.
Name of Applicant: BELKNAP INDUSTRIES
Legal Description: Lot 1, TECH CENT. BUSINESS PARK
Assessor Map It 2511DC _ Tax Lot No. 4500
•
TO FILE FOR A VARIANCE YOU WILL NEED TO:
x 1. Complete a "General Application Form".
x 2. Complete this form entitled "Variance Application Form".
_e 3. Attach a copy of a legal description of your property showing that
you have access to a public road or a copy of an assessor's map y
showing that your property abuts a public road.
x 4. Thirteen (13) copies of the County Tax Map or other survey map
showing the location of the property (copies of tax maps may be
purchased from the city) .
x 5. Seven (7) copies and one (1 ) F.M.T.* or photo copy reduct:on 8}"x11"
of each page of a site plan, drawn to scale, showing the arrangement
of ,,he proposed development, and any adjacent existing buildings,
streets, utility poles, drainage ways, floodplains and sewer or water
mains attached .
x 6. Thirteen copies of the "Written Narrative" in support of your
application.
*A P.M.T. is a photographic reduction of an original drawing.
IT IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED THAT THE APPLICANT ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING & SPEAK
IN SUPPORT OF YOUR APPLICATION & BE PREPARED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WHICH ARISE.
Notice of Final Decision will be sent to the applicant or the applicant's
agent. The Notice of Decision must he signed by the applicant or the applicant's
agent and returned to the Tigard Fiannii;g Director within 10 days. No building
permits or engineering approvals will be issued unless the signed acknowledgment
is returned within the t:me limit.
WRITTEN NARRATIVE
You have the burden of proving that, each of the following conditions are met
before the hearings body can consider granting your request. You must show
that:
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary conditions applying to your property
that do not apply generally to other properties in the came zone or vicinity,
which conditions are a result of lot size or shape, topography, or other
circumstances over which you have no control. Please describe the conditions
which apply to your property. The topographyof the lot is a steep (> lO%)
slope to the South. The street slopes significantly to the West. Vehicles entering
the site must turn off a down slope onto another downslope resulting in reverse
super. The danger is best mitigated by a warped entry apron to get vehicles partially
righted. Only A.C. paving allows adjustment of grades to help alleviate the problem.
Also, the utilities were not complete when this site was paved. At the last minute
the utilities were completed and made it possible to pave to the curb. Had that
not been accomplished, there would have been a small strip of mud between the paved
lot and the street causing problems with both.TMe approaches were dug out, rocked
i
and p.ved to preve the problem last winter. It ld be a terrible waste
to cut good A.C. paving and base, to replace with concrete at this time.
2. This variance request is necessary for the preservation of a property
right of the applicant which is substantially the same as is possessed by owners
of other property in the same zone or vicinity. Please describe.
All other existing driveways in this area are paved with A.C.
3. The granting of this request will carry out the purposes of the zoning
ordinance as follows:
A. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the policy
of promoting the most appropriate use of land because:
Land use is not affected.
B. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the conser-
vation and stabilization of the property values in the area be":ause:
Has no affect on property value.
•
C. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the provision
of fire protection in the area because:
Has no affect on fire protection except that it will aid fire trucks
entering the site. (Better contoure_i driveways.)
D. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the provision
of adequate open space for light and air between structures because:
Has no affect.
E. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the flow of
traffic in the area -- it will not cause or increase congestion because:
It will aid vehicles turning into the site, thus reducing congestion
on the street.
F. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to development
pattern in the area and will not lead to undue concentrations of
population because:
Has no affect.
G. The granting of this variarize will not be detrimental to the provision
of community utilities and facilities such as water, sewerage, electrical
distribution, transportation, schools, parks and other public requirement
because:
Has rio affect.
H. This request will not be injurious to other property in the zone in
which this property is located or in the vicinity of this property because:
Has no affect.
4. The granting of this request will not be injurious to other property in the
zone in which this property is located or in the vicinity of this property
because:
Has no affect.
5. The granting of this request will not be detrimental to the objections
of the city's comprehensive plan. Plea3 . describe how this proposal complies
with the comprehensive plan.
Has no affect.
G. The variance requested is the minimum variance from the provisions of the
zoning ordinance which alleviate the hardship. This condition require: the
applicant to look at the applicable zoning ordinance standards, and to explain
why this is the minimum variance that can be requested. Paving on the lot is
with Asphalt Concrete, same as the street. The walk is on the opposite side of
the street. Generally accepted paving materials for approaches are either asphalt
or concrete. Concrete becomes the only logical choice when si..ewalks are involved.
There are no choices other than contrete or asphalt. In this case the asphalt
paving is in place and to tear it out will result in a lower quality end product
to t:ic loss of the city and the owners.
1
1 .
. I
/ / ; it • ! / ' .1 , i / I ,' . ,' :/
�-- I / I
I i �11,7 i �i . � • � • sl i
14i / / •
. , /- ,6, if / ./
, qiiltif .1 . /L-- ,;. L , .7 , „, 7._: // 1 , , /.
.f IT W / I'' II f'.• / / ./ y/' / • Et_-1 .
t ity i,,, I - ,
, ,0 1 ,,' c 1 I , / , ,..., .
i,,,.11 ,.., y
,1. 11,t , i, . ,....., i; , ,L. , i.i. ,, . , ,, t
ii ,lii
- : / iiiiiv, 4i- 1 .,, / lt, , i .
11PI ,I b i ;
wir we
rrWitir . ' ,
illi I1 i -a:. .
il11 i ;
%,
LK A' INDU8TRIE Dcl $/
• .115 MANUFACtURINQ PLANT FORTLANt),ORT'OON ♦� A��pp/RTl� I I.`,'
8ITE PLAN- GRAMM "" """"' ti'
, e
. • 1,
. • .. ,
tt,0
•
\ 1
Ta4-7,\••••••.,r7
. .
. ......__ —.2...-
.
. 1
4 .
/ ______ ...tt-- ---f j
. /
. ) / 1 ,
J .. r'
, / f' 1
/ li '
./
t :! .!,,,
•
1r)
\\. - --4 , ,---,.
t „, i
s ' , 1 ,
, , ,
i I , 1 i h J'
y...
I
•
M
1 / ®
1., 1. 0 /
fa I "1 t, 1
' I i 1 1
. ' it a•1 I
[ 1 '''' /11 II i i 1 I 1
, •••
• . •
i
: 1
li
%Pt
. •••. ,1 i ' i il•vt . 1 ''''. i \i't : . 1 ! C ' ....
i• .11 .
I ! I
•, • 9. 1 .. / i; .-
-
' . '''': ri It:. q t . . , 1 . • ILI :
:1) I • - I :
1 .1e4,11 A. I \ ! II:Z.... ....,:r.- a :
'1'.. . . I i
1 ___, . t '1' 1 1 I
•4 I:
3 1 • , ,
I,L,' 1 . t* II ‘. ' C'..) . • , ....,
. , i..
I t I. ., i ' 1 i! I 1;;: •
r
II . i .c, I , . 3 , 4 I I r.„ II I .•
o :
: .i1V1
M 1.. Ili
M
1 i. I• I
:
°
1 i 1
• ••4•1 .
lig ii
- illy, .,
i 1 1 11
lit
I II , . 1
t ,
.. . „
110
t ;III
—.... — -
i ,r ' r-BELKNAP INDUSTRIES
• ,L t• ...........---.... ...._, , I vole drio,jog.,....Jr, .1.,,,,,,, _,..,
> i,, MAT-..—"iiiimiCTUNINO PLANT -FoRIANECRITION -----....- ..1
ABOOCIATSS I I 1 I ,
-1.—=--...--=
1 •.
6...../,qtr....m.1 F.r..j..).•
i 1 i i VIE PLAN
• lik
41, ,
{/ ..W'•••^••". 100 1• raaaIT u0 la)
,p•T�arD,0°[OOM
.a. •
>.,...
wo
/ INITIAL POINT
•#to• `~ Iv 1. c.1.► -14110 41. R
), "• , (
I
! Pow('R.u_iu• rile, aa.i.•,.., N. r
a�•It"•��a // Mt,~,�•r♦ / 8i hl/O 1•1�J�, �1I1dd� I �\�40 1 `d0 I�1 I ,i I 45 •' t o'•. ,, aa.' I
'`'.�• IN��o•� ti 00•1d h•'a -7TuJ41 I I I N•OI. 41.'"J
a .. 1•x.°1 / n..a. ° •a,.1• 3�i ,'`'+✓
0 al.i+ • .1 -I• ti...
• TECH CENTE.2 c3 u5 INE.SS PARK. ) h/° " (ie :",;:;,;
•leI V M I
4 i •
.. if
N r/ as
•] 4 / w Va' .4 .n1
LOT I 1..11 r, - I
217,962 LOT 2
5.004 AC. .•.3 304,118 4+ : ) ;
0 6.982 AC. •' In,
\N -
% " :• A
•. a/a...a•r•■.• I I('•
f• ;
`
•,./,. '• TRACT'8' •
ov . •��
• ORIVE _ ��"�
O �, •r•, • •a 1414.• N ' ---_'T A •�
9C1 +, .° L`•'i+'a•., ...': S.W. TECH CENTE1R .�.�•,a ..•••,...•4• _--4
�i(a' •;.� � .•.,M ..I.11.7:---V'-0r .= na.l. / 4•4 .• •ter • l
Tar ' C43 r• • �.e •.'• .11gI -t1i1 !v TRAC i 'C' ^au wa. 4/ !,�
` TRACT�A� aJ 611.63.40-111
�• a aaJ• 1'61/ 1• c•a•jew .
4.
43
\ 9/, 9p 1,,, \1' 1415 * 11.,. i�
BASIS OF BEARINGS_
♦ .QO .1 �• a.r-�:.'a..-..•. `�l•i i q v./ V./, 6 I.A a1 A t1 •Y•. P. .1• h 1
9 '� 1'
:.'....1.:^.7' aa. r Tu• +ouf.a �.i.. u C•r N• 440 '" . ny 6•.166
'\ Q 4 h♦4(..J 1 11 , a..N•J ati ea e'••;'6
/
.1
A-7(v\ r)
P
I
iI
II
R f -+ o
•... ‘1 .i C3 k.1,
r -,z , • rn Z
Im $ N Z n
P14 ,1 -74, ..zA X3
t • 5"z F/ -") = g :- '', °. p
,il • .r; -', 4 1 )4, r- .?
ti
3i 6
2 v m S m Z G m I rp r� z ,� G rn O yl
= S
rn-p ;' Iv 1� -4 r 4 R I° t2 co _ F
sZ 1F > 0 1 m Uip 7 N !1`rn i4N Z s
0 _ r (n SC n s r• m _ R 3
\� 33 4.6 § ° f- ! -r 6 R. .
� � -. )�,
TZ � •-t 1 i ' 4 ; D-L nt; ^ _ir r o
.
-111 i I� C. GP 0. -1. o r a1 r; I5ii yN•N f /
Si l- O ! rU+ II Zz-- 1 y
ill z
D m D r c z "' � r7` r
N 1 ➢ i ` m R r 4.-1+4 r A i 1 4 PK ; 4 A 11 --44 0 r i 13 P .. 1 0
Iv)6 ; ; 3
tun y IT Z
'l 3 6 Ft 5 Y i I-'. 1 3 ' 2
m
{Z m � � A U .. o T.
4
s . '4. 1, 2 - 1 t i i 1k\ g
1 Vf s -`1 . .;'
I 7 ii , g 1 r 2 IA! 8
2' -AfP J ~ o
i - z
•
;