The Oregon Land Use Board Of Appeals agrees with the attorney representing the anti-Walmart group in Clatsop County. Warrenton can't break it's own codes.
There were several issues brought forth at the planning commission level during public hearings about the permit to build the new superstore in the Warrenton Business park. Wisely, the planning commission decided to hear all comments at the hearing whether those objections applied directly to the land use permit or not when the hearing was opened late last year.
The process was interesting to watch but there was never any doubt that ultimately the majority of the planning commissioners would buy into the findings staff brought forward. Warrenton generally has the reputation of being development friendly and the final decisions made by the planning commission bore testimony to just how far that body was willing to err on the side of new business coming into the area rather than insisting on a strict interpretation of city code. The City Commission erred in not being sufficiently clear about whether or not they had adopted the findings of the planning commission by using language in city code that would allow the city fathers to "make the planning commission decision their own" and refuse to hold a public hearing on the matter.
It is interesting to note that city staff had suggested early on that a hearings officer be employed to hear the matter bypassing the planning commission entirely. That idea was rejected.
LUBA, in their final decision to remand the matter back to the city, clearly felt that Warrenton's planner had not made a correct interpretation of the city codes regarding a requirement to provide a set number of bike racks per parking space and declaring the requirement to include the correct number of bike racks in the plan a "hardship" on Walmart saying that given the nature of the business it would be unlikely that people would ride bikes to the store in great numbers therefore the number of bike racks required would "waste" space and resources and therefore a hardship they are not creating themselves. LUBA says the finding was inadequate and did not prove a hardship at all.
In another matter related to the plan it was found that the developer did not have the proper fill permit required to fill wetlands on the site when city code requires that the permit be "in-hand" when the permit application is filed. The city planner had recommended that acquiring the permit be made a condition of approval. In other words, the city would not allow the project to move forward unless Walmart had that permit approved before any construction could begin and with that condition the planning commission could then approve the plan without actually having the permit yet. The developer for Walmart had testified that
They would prefer to have city approval of their plan before going to the time and expense of getting that fill permit. LUBA disagreed with the city planner's recommendation citing Warrenton's own code that does not allow for that particular conditional approval.
Then there was the clear violation of code involving the placement of the store loading docks. The code says that a store building placed on 101 may not locate those loading docks facing the highway. Pretty clear.
The developer argued that the while its true the loading dock and disposal equipment would be located on the rear of the store which faces the highway the dock would actually face a wall that would be built between the loading dock and the highway saying this would mean the wall would face the highway not the loading docks. LUBA didn't buy that argument either. At the time of the hearing the planning commissioners were not in love with that wall which one member said made the store look more like a prison than a retail establishment. The deloper responded by saying they would plant more trees to hide the wall.
I don't think I've ever seen a single Walmart store anywhere that was designed to be hidden. Makes me wonder what kind of sign they are thinking of putting up to greet visitors traveling the highway. But I digress.
So if Walmart wants to build on the Warrenton site they will have to come up with an alternative plan which staff indicates would require the entire permitting process to start anew.
It will be interesting to see how the developer will wriggle out of this. I'm sure they will try.
There were several issues brought forth at the planning commission level during public hearings about the permit to build the new superstore in the Warrenton Business park. Wisely, the planning commission decided to hear all comments at the hearing whether those objections applied directly to the land use permit or not when the hearing was opened late last year.
The process was interesting to watch but there was never any doubt that ultimately the majority of the planning commissioners would buy into the findings staff brought forward. Warrenton generally has the reputation of being development friendly and the final decisions made by the planning commission bore testimony to just how far that body was willing to err on the side of new business coming into the area rather than insisting on a strict interpretation of city code. The City Commission erred in not being sufficiently clear about whether or not they had adopted the findings of the planning commission by using language in city code that would allow the city fathers to "make the planning commission decision their own" and refuse to hold a public hearing on the matter.
It is interesting to note that city staff had suggested early on that a hearings officer be employed to hear the matter bypassing the planning commission entirely. That idea was rejected.
LUBA, in their final decision to remand the matter back to the city, clearly felt that Warrenton's planner had not made a correct interpretation of the city codes regarding a requirement to provide a set number of bike racks per parking space and declaring the requirement to include the correct number of bike racks in the plan a "hardship" on Walmart saying that given the nature of the business it would be unlikely that people would ride bikes to the store in great numbers therefore the number of bike racks required would "waste" space and resources and therefore a hardship they are not creating themselves. LUBA says the finding was inadequate and did not prove a hardship at all.
In another matter related to the plan it was found that the developer did not have the proper fill permit required to fill wetlands on the site when city code requires that the permit be "in-hand" when the permit application is filed. The city planner had recommended that acquiring the permit be made a condition of approval. In other words, the city would not allow the project to move forward unless Walmart had that permit approved before any construction could begin and with that condition the planning commission could then approve the plan without actually having the permit yet. The developer for Walmart had testified that
They would prefer to have city approval of their plan before going to the time and expense of getting that fill permit. LUBA disagreed with the city planner's recommendation citing Warrenton's own code that does not allow for that particular conditional approval.
Then there was the clear violation of code involving the placement of the store loading docks. The code says that a store building placed on 101 may not locate those loading docks facing the highway. Pretty clear.
The developer argued that the while its true the loading dock and disposal equipment would be located on the rear of the store which faces the highway the dock would actually face a wall that would be built between the loading dock and the highway saying this would mean the wall would face the highway not the loading docks. LUBA didn't buy that argument either. At the time of the hearing the planning commissioners were not in love with that wall which one member said made the store look more like a prison than a retail establishment. The deloper responded by saying they would plant more trees to hide the wall.
I don't think I've ever seen a single Walmart store anywhere that was designed to be hidden. Makes me wonder what kind of sign they are thinking of putting up to greet visitors traveling the highway. But I digress.
So if Walmart wants to build on the Warrenton site they will have to come up with an alternative plan which staff indicates would require the entire permitting process to start anew.
It will be interesting to see how the developer will wriggle out of this. I'm sure they will try.