Hearings Officer Packet - 03/28/19947. W.
0 0
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the
appropriate sign-up sheet(s).
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should
be scheduled for Planning Commission meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the
meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 356 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications
Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing
impairments; and
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to
allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m.
on the Wednesday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed
above.
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
r ' +i
CITY OF TIGARD
HEARINGS OFFICER
MARCH 28, 1994
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC HEARING
•
2.1 SUBDIVISION SUB 94-0002 KREICK/FOUR D LOCATION: 9185 SW Durham
Road (WCTM 2S1 11 DC, tax lot 7400). The applicant requests Subdivision
Preliminary Plat approval to divide one parcel of approximately 0.65 acres into four
lots between 5,070 and 6,824 square feet in size. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1,
8.1.1, and 8.1.3; Community Development Code Chapters 18.52, 18.88, 18.92,
18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.114, 18.150, 18.160, and 18.164. ZONE: R-7
(Residential, 7 units/acre) The R-7 zoning designation allows single-family
detached residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment homes,
farming, manufactured homes, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory
structures among other uses.
2.2 CONDITIONAL USE CUP 94-0002 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT MIS 94-0006
AMERISUITES/PRIME HOSPITALITY LOCATION: 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway
(WCTM 2S1 12DD, tax lot 1400 and 2S1 12DA, tax lot 500). To build a six story
hotel on a 2.8 acre site. The applicant has proposed a 79,200 square foot hotel
to provide transient lodging service with a limited food and beverage service.
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters
18.68,18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108,18.114,18.116, 18.120, 18.130, and
18.164. ZONE: I-P (industrial Park) The I-P district is to provide areas which
combine light manufacturing, office, and complimentary related commercial uses.
3. OTHER BUSINESS
4. ADJOURNMENT
0
a E C E I PPMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC.
CAQR 2 11994
ITV OF TIGARD
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal
Notice TT 7828
The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Mon-
Legal Notice Advertising day, March 28. 1294, at 7:00 P.M., at Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall,
City of Tigard '
13125 SGT Hall Blvd.
'Tigard,Oregon 97223 '
0
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss.
13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written
❑ Tearsheet Notice testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted
in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal
❑ Duplicate Affidav Code, and rules and procedures of the Hearings Officer. Failure to raise an
issue in person or by letter precludes an appeal, and failure to specify the
criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan
at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that
criterion. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division
at 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 6394171.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
I, Kathy Snyder
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of theT-Lgard-Tua, at in Times
a newspaper or general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Tiaard in the
aforesaid county and state; tha the
Sub 94-0002 Kreick~Four D
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for ONE Successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
March 17,1994
SUBDIVISION SUB 94-0002 KREICKIFOUR D
LOCATION: 9185 S.W. Durham Road (WCTM 2S 1 I IDC, tax lot 74CO).
The applicant requests Subdivision Preliminary Plat approval to divide
one parcel of approximately 0.65 acres into four lots between 5,070 and
6,824 square feet in size. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Com-
prehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and
8.1.3; Community Development Code Chapters 18.52, 18.88, 18.92,
18.100, and 18.164. ZONE: R-7
(Residential, 7 unitslacre). The R-7 zoning designation allows single-
family detached residential units, public support facilities, residential
treatment homes, farming, manufactured homes, home occupations, tem-
porary uses, and accessory structures among other uses.
CONDITIONAL USE CUP 94-0002
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT MIS 94-0006
AMERISUITES(PRIME HOSPITALITY
LOCATION: 15115 S.W. Sequoia Parkway (WCTM 2S 1 12DD, tax lot
1400 and 2S 112DA, tax lot 500). To build a six story hotel on a 2.8 acre
site. The applicant has proposed a 79,200 square foot hotel to provide
transient lodging service with a limited food and beverage service. AP-
PLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chap-
ters 18.68,18.98,18.100,18.102,18.106,18.108,18.114,18.116,18.120,
18.130, and 18.164. ZONE: I-P (Industrial Park). The I-P district is to
Subscribed and sworn to be r me thiQ 17th day of Marcb provide areas which combine tight manufacturing, office, and complemen-
tary related commercial uses.
TT7828 -Publish March 17, 1994.
Notary Piggic for Oregon - -
MY COLA"AIC;tON FXPlRF.S MAY 15.1997
My Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT
e
T I
O
G S O
•
R D H
G
F F
E A R I N
E R
I
NOTICE:
ALL PERSONS DESIRING
TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM
MUST SIGN THEIR NAME AND
NOTE THEIR ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET. (Pleas
e PRINT)
AGENDA ITEM: 17-/
CASE NUMBER (S) :
5U8 9 4/- O o o Z
OWNER/APPLICANT: rcX--01LG` Ktz
ctL%G ~¢ov~e
Cor.tsr~a.a cRPa.~
LOCATION:
11 8.s 5vv
D iz.elA)'-N Rae~V
1NP9--NUMBE
R: IV4 / C 17-
c
DATE OF HEARING:
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME,
ADDRESS, AND INCLUD
E YOUR ZIP CODE
FAVOR
OPPOSE
Name
Name
Address
1
I Address
Name
Name
Address
I Address
Name
Name
Address
Address
Name
Name
Address
I Address
Name
Name
Address
I Address
Name
Name
Address
Address
Name
Name
Address
Address
Name
Name
Address
Address
Name
Name
Address
+
I
Address
L,.a.
O NIL
h;,~pg~n~o~C~fgn.up$
T I G - A R D H E A R I N G S O F F I CE R
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME AND
NOTE THEIR ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET. (Please PRINT)
AGENDA ITEM: 17. Z CASE NUMBBER($) : CUP q-~-ooo?-
OWNER/APPLICANT: /-wcip-.t. Z 9y Ass". / Rx"M /~m3~i yet+`ty es~w.
LOCATION : 5w SF-(10014 pdQqz-p<W day
Npe- NUMB DATE OF HEARING:
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE
FAVOR OPPOSE
Name L94 -7- Name
Address Address
)064'-60" OdL CF77,'-3/
Name Name
Address I Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address I Address
Name Name
Address I Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
0 0
BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
In the matter of an application by Four "D" Construction ) FINAL ORDER
for approval of a preliminary plat for a 4-lot land )
division for 0.65 acres in the R-7 zone at ) SUB 94-0002
9185 SW Durham Road in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Kreick Meadow)
1. FINDINGS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AND HEARING
1. The hearings officer hereby adopts and incorporates herein the findings of the
Tigard Community Development Department Staff Report dated March 28, 1994 (the "Staff
Report"), including the summary, findings about the site and surroundings, applicable
approval standards, NPO and agency comments, and evaluation of the request.
2. The hearings officer conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the
application on March 28, 1994. The following testimony was offered at the hearing in
relevant part.
a. City planner Victor Adonri summarized the Staff Report. He noted that
Tigard Community Development Code ("CDC") section 18.100 requires permanent fencing
abutting the proposed private street serving the proposed lots, but does not require fencing
around the subdivision generally. Staff recommended the applicant construct a fence
around the site during construction, but did not recommend permanent fencing except
abutting the private drive.
b. Dale DeHarpport testified for the applicant. He accepted the Staff Report
generally, but disputed the need for a construction or permanent fence around the site. He
argued there already is a fence along the east side of the site, and that another fence should
not be required there. He argued a fence at the northwest comer of the site would violate
the vision clearance requirements in CDC section 18.102. Mr. DeHarpport introduced a
document entitled "City of Tigard Fence and Wall Requirements" in support of this
argument. He argued a fence, photinia hedge, and arborvitae hedge exist along most of the
west side of the site, and that a fence along those portions of the site would be duplicative.
He argued existing problems of trespass (see below) will be resolved when the site is
developed. He requested that recommended condition of approval 13 be construed to allow
existing trees along the Durham Road frontage to count as street trees.
c. Mary Stow owns property west of the site (lot 616). She expressed
concern about use of the site for a residential treatment home. The hearings officer
responded that such a concern is not relevant to the approval criteria for a subdivision. A
residential treatment home is a use permitted by the existing zoning. Ms. Stow also
testified in favor of a fence along the west side of the site where such a fence does not
already exist.
d. Doug Balsillie testified for himself and Gene and Eileen Freeman. He
requested that the applicant remove apple and filbert trees situated near the property line.
He expressed concern about trespass across the site from Oakmeadow Lane to Durham
Road by students on their way to and from Tigard High School, stating that such trespass
has been a problem. He urged the hearings officer to require the applicant to install a fence
around the site to deter such trespass.
e. Arthur Denker owns the property west of the site (lot 615). He argued
in favor of a fence where the site abuts Summerfield. He testified the arborvitae hedge on
Page I Hearings Officer Final Order
SUB 94-0002 (Kreick Meadows)
0 0
his property is not dense enough to protect his property from adverse impacts of trespass
and development on the subject site.
3. At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearings officer held open the record for
seven calendar days after the hearing to receive additional evidence. During that time, the
following written evidence was introduced into the record, and has been considered by the
hearings officer:
a. A letter received April 1, 1994 from A. G. Denker to Victor Adonri
arguing in favor of a fence around the site where it adjoins Summerfield. Among other
testimony, Mr. Denker stated such a fence would be 12 feet from Oakmeadow Lane and
would impaur sight distance, if at all, no more than existing vegetation on adjoining lots in
Summerfield. He argued that the fence is needed to protect the privacy and certain aesthetic
features of homes in Summerplace.
b. A letter dated April 1, 1994 from Beverly Swink of the Summerfield
Civic Association to the hearings officer arguing in favor of a fence around the site where it
adjoins Summerfield.
c. A letter dated April 4, 1994 from John Benneth to the hearings officer,
raising concerns that notice of the March 28 hearing was not mailed to the Summerfield
Civic Association and arguing in favor of a fence around the site where it adjoins
Summerfield.
d. A letter dated April 4, 1994 from Neil Jeremiah to Victor Adonri arguing
in favor of a fence around the site where it adjoins Summerfield and to protect certain trees,
together with attachments, including a January 14, 1994 letter from Four "D" to Eugene
and Eileen Freeman, letters dated January, 1994 from the Freeman and letters dated
February 23, 1994 from the Freemans, Martha Ironsides, the Denkers, and Mary Stow to
the Planning Commission with conems and recommendations regarding the subdivision.
II. SITE VISIT
After the hearing, the hearings officer visited the site. The hearings officer
observed the substantial conifer and deciduous trees and shrubs on the Durham Road
frontage of the property. The hearings officer observed the potential pedestrian route
across the site from Durham Road to Oakmeadow Lane. The hearings officer observed the
landscaping at the northwest corner of the site and along the west edge of the site and the
fences on the east and west edges of portions of the site. The hearings officer observed the
sight distance from the driveways for lots 615 and 614 in Summerfield and the visual
characteristics of Oakmeadow Lane. The hearings officer observed the lack of buffering
between the site and the home north of the site (lot 614). The hearings officer observed the
character of the homes in Summerfield in the vicinity of the site, particularly the relatively
small lot sizes, relatively large homes, extensive front yard landscaping, and common
architectural themes and features of those homes.
III_ DISCUSSION
1. City staff recommended approval of the application subject to conditions in the
Staff Report. The hearings officer finds that the staff report generally contains all the
applicable standards for the application and findings showing the application complies with
those standards. Those findings are not disputed in large part. To the extent the findings
are not disputed, the hearings officer adopts them as his own in support of a decision to
Page 2 Hearings Officer Final Order
SUB 94-0002 (Kreick Meadows)
approve the subdivision subject to the conditions recommended in the Staff Report except
as expressly provided otherwise below.
2. Recommended condition of approval 13 requires the applicant to install at least
four street trees along the SW Durham Road frontage of the site. The site contains more
than four substantial trees on or abutting the right of way next to Durham Road. The
applicant requests that the hearings officer recognize those trees are adequate to fulfill the
requirement of condition 13. The hearings officer finds that the existing trees along the
right of way can fulfill the requirements for street trees in CDC sections 18.100.030
through 18.100.040. CDC section 18.100.040.A authorizes existing trees to be used as
street trees if no cutting or filling will take place within the drip line of the trees. Because
the lot containing the trees already is developed with a home and full frontage
improvements, it is unlikely that cutting and filling will take place within the drip line of the
trees. Therefore, those trees can count as street trees. If the applicant removes the existing
trees, then replacement trees should be installed consistent with CDC section 18.100.050.
3. The principal disputed issue in this case is whether the CDC requires the
applicant to install a fence around the subject site where it adjoins the Summerfield
development to comply with the applicable standards.
a. CDC section 18.100.130 (Figure 1) describes when one use is required
to provide a buffer to protect another use. That section does not require a buffer where a
single family detached dwelling in an R7 zone is proposed to adjoin existing single family
detached dwellings. CDC section 18.100.130 does not require the applicant to provide a
fence where the site abuts Summerfield.
b. A preliminary plat is required to comply with the Compreheniive Plan
policies. The Comprehensive Plan policies do not require the applicant to fence the site.
c. Several witnesses argued the applicant should be required to fence the
site, because the applicant agreed to do so in informal meeting(s) with members of the
community. However, the CDC does not require the applicant to abide by such a prior
agreement assuming it was made.
d. CDC section 18.100.110 requires the applicant to install a fence or
buffer along outside edge of the proposed private street. The applicant argues an existing
five-foot tall wood fence along that property line already fulfills that requirement. The
CDC does not clearly address the issue.
(1) CDC section 18.100.070.B provides in relevant part that "[t]he
owner of each proposed development is responsible for the installation and effective
maintenance of buffering and screening..." Because the fence along the private drive is a
required screen, the hearings officer finds CDC section 18.100.070.B requires the
applicant to install it.
(2) Where an adequate fence already exists, the hearings officer
finds CDC section 18.100.070.13 does not require an additional parallel fence to be built,
because its purpose is filled by the existing fence. The existing fence along a portion of the
east property line is adequate, because it is opaque and five feet high; therefore, it screens
the adjoining property from vehicles in the driveway.
(3) Required landscaping should be provided on the site, enforced
by a plan submitted to and approved by the City. The applicant (or an association of
purchasers of lots in the subdivision) should be required to install a fence along the drive if
Page 3 Hearings Officer Final Order
SUB 94-0002 (Kreick Meadows)
and where the existing fence on the abutting property is removed. A condition to this effect
is warranted.
e. The applicant argues CDC 18.102 prohibits a fence at the northwest
corner of the site where it touches Oakmeadow Lane, because a fence there would obstruct
the visual clearance area of the driveways east and west of that point.
(1) CDC section 18.102.020.A provides that "a visual clearance
area shall be maintained on the corners of... a driveway providing access to a public or
private street." CDC section 18.102.020.13 prohibits fences or landscaping exceeding three
feet in height in a clear vision area.
(2) CDC section 18.102.050 defines how to compute the visual
clearance area for the intersection of a non-arterial street (such as Oakmeadow Lane) and a
driveway tat 614 and 615 Summerfield). In words, it is described as follows:
[T]he triangular area whose base extends 30 feet along the street
right of way line in both directions from the centerline of the
[driveway] at the front setback line of a single family residence.
(3) The hearings officer cannot determine whether the visual
clearance area for lots 614 and 615 Summerfield would prohibit a fence at the northwest
corner of proposed lot 3, because the driveways on lots 614 and 615 are not identified on
any scaled drawing in the record. Assuming a 15-foot front yard setback (for lots 614 and
615), and given the location of the driveways in question, the hearings officer estimates
that a small portion of the northwest corner of proposed lot 3 may be in the visual clearance
area for lots 614 and 615. If that is true, then, unless a variance is granted, a fence on
proposed lot 3 would have to be angled at the northwest corner to avoid the visual clearance
area for lot 614 and 615. That could isolate a small area outside the fence. Access for
maintenance purposes should be allowed by means of a gate or other means if a fence is
built. The hearings officer observed vegetation on lots 614 and 615 may be in the visual
clearance area and may be higher than permitted there. That vegetation may need to be
trimmed to comply with the law.
L The hearings officer agrees with the applicant that the potential for
trespass across the site (from Oakmeadow Lane to Durham Road) is much less after
development of the site with or without a fence. The trespass situation occurs, in part,
because the property is not developed, and there is a clear line of sight from the driveway at
Durham Road to the corner at Oakmeadow Lane. When proposed lots 2 and 3 are
developed with homes, that line of sight will be obstructed, and it will not be apparent that
a pedestrian route may have existed in the past. Moreover, the hearings officer observed
little evidence on the ground, such as a well-worn pathway, that trespass across the
property occurs frequently, and observed that a particularly lethal rose bush planted at the
Oakmeadown Lane frontage and landscaping on lots 614 and 615 discourage trespass
through that point. It is possible that the new private drive (serving lots 2 through 4) will
provide a new pedestrian route that will allow trespassers to cross lot 3 to reach
Oakmeadow Lane, but the hearings officer finds that the potential for such trespass is low.
g. Residents of homes adjoining the site want to protect their privacy and
security by requiring the applicant to fence the site. A fence could help do so, particularly
along the northeast and north edges of the site where there is no existing landscaping or
other buffering on adjoining lots. Lots in Summerfield are relatively small, and homes are
situated toward the back and sides of the lots. Summerfield contains few if any school age
children; most residents are older adults. It is a planned unit development. These and other
Page 4 Hearings Officer Finn! Order
SUB 94-0002 (Kreick Meadows)
0 0
features makes Summerfield different from the proposed subdivision in ways obvious and
subtle. A fence could help preserve and protect those differences.
(1) Because uses on and adjoining the site are the same single
family detached dwellings CDC section 18.100 does not require the applicant to fence
the site.
(2) The hearings officer recognizes that the site and Summerfield
are designated as "established areas" on the City development district map. Regarding such
area, comprehensive plan policy 6.3.3 provides:
In all phases of the development approval process in a residential
"established area," a primary consideration of the City shall be to
preserve and enhance the character of the adjacent established areas.
(3) The hearings officer finds that the differences in character
between Summerfield and Kreick Meadows are sufficient to warrant a condition requiring
the applicant to install a minimum five-foot tall, sight-obscuring fence across the north edge
of the site and along the east edge of the site north of the driveway tract to comply with
policy 6.3.3.1 Without such a fence, the character of the established residential area in
Summerfteld will not be protected.
(4) The hearings officer further finds that such a fence is not
necessary to protect the character of the established residential area where a similar such
fence already exists (e.g., along the east side of lot 616) or where substantial landscaping
exists (e.g., along most of the east side of lot 615). There is a small portion of the east
edge of lot 615 (i.e., between the existing photinia and the arborvitae hedges) that is not
fenced or landscaped. To comply with policy 6.3.3, the hearings officer finds the applicant
should be required to provide a minimum five-foot tall, sight-obscuring fence in that area.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the above findings, and the conclusions in section VI of the Staff Report,
the applicant's request does or can comply with the applicable standards of the City of
Tigard Community Development Code and should be approved, subject to the conditions
of approval in the Staff Report with minor changes.
V. ORDER
The applicant's request, SUB 94-0002 (Kreick Meadow), is hereby approved,
subject to the conditions in Section VI of the Staff Report, with the following amendments:
1. Condition of approval 4 is hereby amended to add the following:
The agreement shall require owners of properties in the subdivision
to maintain the on-site fences along the periphery of the site and to
build a minimum five-foot high opaque fence along the east edge of
the driveway tract if the existing fence on the west edge of the lot
east of the tract is removed.
' CDC 18.160.060.B authorizes the hearings officer to "attach such conditions as are necessary to carry out
the comprehensive plan and other applicable ordinances and regulations..."
Page S Hearings Officer Final Order
SUB 94-0002 (Kreick Meadows)
't . I - 0 0
2. Condition of approval 9 is hereby amended to read as follows:
The applicant also shall submit a plan to and receive approval of an
appropriate plan from the Planning Division for the following:
a. A minimum five-foot high opaque fence along the west,
north and east edges of the site to the extent such a fence or
vegetation of an equal height does not already exist in those areas.
At the northwest corner of lot 3, the fence shall not obstruct the
visual clearance area for lots 614 and 615.
b. Landscaping on the east edge of the driveway tract as
needed to comply with the CDC.
The applicant shall install the fences and landscaping on the plan
approved by the Planning Division before approval of the final plat
or shall guarantee installation pursuant to an improvement agreement
or equivalent security approved by the City.
3. Condition of approval 13 is hereby amended to add the following:
Existing trees along the Durham Road frontage can fulfill the
requirements for street trees if they are retained and protected
consistent with CDC section 18.100.040.A.
25th day of April, 1994.
Larry Eps -ACV
He ngs Officer
City of Ti&fir
Page 6 Hearings Officer Final Order
SUB 94-0002 (Kreick Meadows)
0 0
AGENDA ITEM 2-1
BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
Regarding an application by Four "D" Construction STAFF REPORT
Company for a subdivision consisting approximately SUB 94-0002
4.65 acres located at 9185 SW Durham Road.
I. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST
CASE: Subdivision SUB 94-0002
SUMMARY: The applicant requests Subdivision approval to divide a parcel consisting
of approximately 0.65 acres into four lots ranging in size from 5,070 square
feet to 6,824 square feet.
APPLICANT: Four "D" Construction OWNER: George Kreick
P.O Box 1577 9-185 SW Durham Rd.
Beaverton, OR 97075 Tigard, OR 97224
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre)
LOCATION: 9185 SW Durham Road (WCTM 2S1 11DC, tax lot 7400)
APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Chapters 18.52.050, 18.88, 18.92,
18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.114, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1,
4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions.
HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 94-0002 - Four "D" Construction Co. PAGE I
• 0
II. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
A.
B.
C.
D.
Site size and shape:
The subject parcel contains 0.65 acres.
relatively flat.
The site is rectangular in shape, and is
Site location:
The site is located on the north side of SW Durham Road, and south of SW Oak
Meadow Lane, adjacent to the Summerfield development.
ExistinLy uses and structures:
The subject parcel is developed with an existing single family residence. This
existing residence will be retained. There are a few evergreen trees located along
the southern property line, and a few shrubs, grass, and flowering plants located
on the interior of the site.
Surroundine land uses:
Properties to the north and west of the site are zoned for single family residential
development at a density of 7 units per acre, and are largely developed.
Properties to the south are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). Six
properties to the east are zoned R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre), all other
properties to the east are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). The whole
area is substantially developed. Tigard High School is located immediately south
of the proposed development.
HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 94-0002 - Four "D" Construction Co. PAGE 2
0 •
III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS
A.
Communitv Development Code:
Development Standards: Section 18.52 contains standards for the R-7 zone.
Single family detached residential units are a permitted use in the zone, and must
comply with the following dimensional requirements:
Minimum lot size
Average lot width
Front setback
Garage setback
Interior sideyard setback
Comer sideyard setback
Rear setback
Maximum building height
5,000 square feet/unit
50
15 feet
20 feet
5 feet
10 feet
15 feet
35 feet
Solar Access: Section 18.88.040(C)(1) contains solar access standards for new
residential development. A lot meets the basic solar access lot standard if it has
a north-south dimension of 90 feet or more and has a front lot line that is
oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis. A subdivision complies with
the basic requirement if 80% or more of the newly created lots meet or exceed
this standard.
Densitv: Section 18.92.020 contains standards for density. The number of
dwelling units permitted is based on the net development area, excluding sensitive
land areas and land dedicated for public roads or parks, or for private roadways.
This land area is then divided by the minimum parcel size permitted by the zoning
district to determine the number of lots which may be created on a site.
Landscaning: Section 18.100 contains landscaping standards for new development.
The R-7 zoning district requires a minimum 20% landscape coverage for this site.
The applicant must comply with these requirements. The applicant must also
comply with the standards set forth in Section 18.100.035 which details the
requirements for street trees in a residential subdivision. The requirement states
that all development projects fronting on a public, private street, or a private
driveway more than 100 feet in length shall be required to plant street trees.
HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 94-0002 - Four "D" Construction Co. PAGE 3
Visual Clearance Areas: Section 18.102, requires that a clear vision area shall be
maintained on the comers of all property adjacent to intersecting rigbt-of-ways or
the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shall
contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, signs, or temporary or
permanent obstruction exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top of
the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that
trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches
below eight feet are removed. A visual clearance area is the triangular area
formed by measuring a 30 foot distance along the street right-of-way and the
driveway and then connecting these two 30 foot distance points with a straight
line.
Access. Egress. Circulation: Section 18.108.070 contains standards for single
family residential vehicular access. Private drives may provide access for a
maximum of six residences. A common private accessway which serves between
three to six residences must be a minimum of 30 feet wide with a minimum
pavement width of at least 24 feet, curbs and a walkway.
Tree Removal: Section 18.150.020(E) requires a permit for removal of trees
having a trunk 6 inches or more in diameter measured four feet above the ground
on undeveloped residential land. A permit for tree removal must comply with the
following criteria as specified in Section 18.150.030(A):
a. The trees are diseased, present a danger to property, or interfere
with utility service or traffic safety;
b. The trees have to be removed to construct proposed improvements
or to otherwise utilize the applicant's property in a reasonable
manner;
C. The trees are not needed to prevent erosion, instability, or drainage
problems;
d. The trees are not needed to protect nearby trees as windbreaks or
as a desirable balance between shade and open space;
e. The aesthetic character in the area will not be visually adversely
affected by the tree removal; and
HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 94-0002 - Four "D" Construction Co. PAGE 4
f. New vegetation planted by the applicant, if any, will replace the
aesthetic value of trees to be cut.
Subdivision Design: Section 18.160.060(A) contains standards for subdivision of
parcels into 4 or more lots. To be approved, a preliminary plat must comply with
the following criteria:
1. The proposal must comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the
applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and
regulations;
2. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must
otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92;
3. The streets and roads must be laid out so as to conform to the plats
of subdivisions and maps of partitions or subdivisions already
approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and
in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public
interest to modify the street or road pattern; and
4. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements.
Street and Utilitv improvements: Section 18.164 contains standards for streets and
utilities serving a subdivision:
1. Section 18.164.030(A) requires streets within and adjoining a
development to be dedicated and improved based on the
classification of the street.
2. Section 18.164.030(E) requires a local street to have a minimum 50-
foot right-of-way and 34-foot paved section between curbs and
sidewalks.
3. Section 18.164.060 prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5
times the lot width and requires that lots have at least 25 feet of
frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley.
4. Section 18.164.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all residential
streets.
HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 94-0002 - Four "D" Construction Co. PAGE 5