The URL can be used to link to this page

Hearings Officer Packet - 06/18/2001C TY OF T GARD HEAR NGS OFF CER CITY OF TIGARD Community (Deve4ment JUNE 18,2001 - 7:00 PM Shaping A Better Community AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 ROSS DAYCARE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2001-00001 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested Conditional Use approval to operate a group home daycare for up to 12 children, from a single-family residence within a residential zone. LOCATION: 10548 SW Kent Street; WCTM 2S 115AA, Tax Lot 02200. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 1,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.390, 18.510, 18.105, 18.125, 18.145, 18.165, 18.195 and 18.810. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF TIGARD HEARING'S OFFICER PAGE 2 OF 2 6/18/2001 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA CITY OF TIGARD HEARING'S OFFICER JUNE 18, 2001 - 7:00 PM TOWN HALL TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OR 97223 [&--e Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item must sign-in on the appropriate sign-in sheets. PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Hearings Officer meetings by noon on the Friday prior to the meeting. Please call (503) 639-4171, Ext. 320 (voice) or (503) 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. To request such services, please notify the City of Tigard of your need(s) by 5:00 p.m., no less than one (1) week prior to the meeting date at the same phone numbers listed above so that we can make the appropriate arrangements. OVER FOR HEARING AGENDA ITEM(S) CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 1 OF 2 6/18/2001 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA 0 0 AGENDA ITEM NO. ko I ,Pepe,, nding on the numb&f people wishing to testify, the *rd Hearing's Officer may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Hearing's Officer may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Hearing's Officer to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO.: 2.1 DATE: JUNE 18, 2001 FILE NAME: ROSS DAYCARE CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2001-00001 APPLICANT: Gayla Ross OWNER: Jeffrey and Gayla Ross 9515 SW Elrose Street 10548 SW Kent Street Tigard, OR 91224 Tigard, OR 91224 REQUEST: The applicant has requested Conditional Use approval to operate a group home daycare for up to 12 children, from a single-family residence within a residential zone. LOCATION: 10548 SW Kent Street; WCTM 2SI15AA, Tax Lot 02200. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-43: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 1,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.390, 18.510, 18.105, 18.125, 18.145, 18.165, 18.195 and 18.810. `.PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR THE AGENDA ITEM INDICATED DIRECTLY ABOVE. ~►GENDA ITEM NO. 2.1 01E of aE: JUNE 18, 2001 ICI PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE Proponent - (Speaking in Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, lAddr(, Zipcg a o e No. 3 ~ Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and one No. p`~21 S w,GSctjl ct~1Z2~ -9(-- ID Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. G-c le Ac Kim= F 0 3'>-f SW /0'(14-& 7~JR f-7->-w Name, Address, Zip Code and Ph-one No. Ca.-~ I~ ~h (G S&>' ) 0,5-9 3 S (,j 4e 0 4-'r 1-1 a, 0"-dQ CYP 9 7 z Z Ll s°3 Name,~'Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 1o44-3swCor'/ Cu Nam ddre s, ip Code and PhonQ No. l(Cc~ ~Icc) Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 5w ~~;s fine- ,'Ils os2~ a d , 0P, q7?, Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 105lcl ScJ ~ ~-Sfi. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. pvsselt, G,0aP w f945K sw 146f- sY r- v1~rw-0, o02 <T72- 2q Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 6 ~fr~ 2 l j05L4Lk ~uJ "T-.'VA-T-3 i-0J ~ ~ s~ A►'A.fJ 0(2, cj -1 aL~) Nam pAd~d~reess, ip Code and Phone No. O403 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.1 (QE of ~ OE: JUNE 18.2001 ICI PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE Proponent - (Speaking in Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name,,, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. x/46 6. W, /00 -Ot /f -P, .sa3-292- z63rS 6 13 S tA/ Ke ot 7` ST N me, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. ^ 6 39_ygyName, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. ~0,LkVO- ~i S~12N' I O LA 3 2 SUS Kam' St 71Aa Y- d (D R 1) l 22y , NarrW, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. r Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. F Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. r Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. F Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. F Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. r Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503)684-0360 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Ball Blvd. • Tigard , Or- egon 9 7 2 2 3 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit Accounts Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, Kathy gnyrlpr being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard-Tua I at n Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti c 7a in the aforesaid county and state; that the Puhl 4 n HAari ncr/cTIP9nn1 -nnnn1 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for nr3.r successive and consecutive in the following issues: rSaV '31 .9001 Legal Notice TT 9892 OFFICIAL SEAL 1 SUZETTE I. CURRAN 1 NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 329400 } Q MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 28, 2003 Subscribed and sworn to before me this , 2 0 O 1 U Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT 0 0 The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Monday, June 18, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall Room, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, .Tigard, Oregon 97223. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.390 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Hearings Officer. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker and all parties an opportunity to respond to the issue 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 to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and copies can be provided at a reasonable cost. A copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing and can also be provided at a reasonable cost. Further information may be obtained from Mathew Scheidegger, Assistant Planner in the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by callitig 503-639-4171. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT [CUP]2001-00001 > ROSS DAYCARE < REQUEST: The applicant has requested Conditional Use approval to operate a group home daycare for up to 12 children, from a single- family residence within a residential zone. LOCATION: 10548 SW Kent Street; WCTM 2S 115AA, Tax Lot 02200. ZONE: R-4.5: Low- Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.795, and 18.810. r I ~TUK TT9892 - Publish May 31, 2001. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD Community Development ShapingA Better Community PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY. JUNE 18.2001 AT 7:00 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2001-00001 FILE TITLE: ROSS DAYCARE APPLICANT: Gayla Ross OWNERS: Jeffrey and Gayla Ross 9515 SW Elrose Street 10548 SW Kent Street Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 REQUEST: The applicant has requested Conditional Use approval to operate a group home daycare for up to 12 children, from a single-family residence within a residential zone. LOCATION: 10548 SW Kent Street; WCTM 2S115AA, Tax Lot 02200. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.795 and 18.810. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.390 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 320 (VOICE) OR (503) 684- 2772 (TDD 'TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE HEARINGS OFFICER MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER .MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATIOASS THAN SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) 'DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ORS 197.763(6). INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AN OPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25~) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25G) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER MATHEW SCHEIDEGGER AT (503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. ~0®0 Y 1 C17 VICINITY MAP DURHAM RD DURF'IAM RD 1 1A / I V / U N Ff QQK C C E CUP2001-00001 ROSS DAYCARE City offipM tlep «..K M dwbmwl. 6w.u. Pw.en. ~ ,I,]3 SW MM &N rab. oa nun I mp.a..' wH,l, p.N w u. ~L~~ TUA~-P` m RIVER BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by Gayla Ross for a ) FINAL ORDER conditional use permit for a "group home daycare" ) in the R-4.5 zone at 10548 SW Kent Street ) CUP 2001-00001 in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Ross Day Care) A. SUMMARY 1. Gayla Ross, (the "applicant"), requests approval of a conditional use permit ("CUP") for a "group home daycare" in the R-4.5 zone at 10548 SW Kent Street; also known as tax lot 02200, WCTM 2S 115AA (the "site"). The site is developed with a two- story home with a double car garage and driveway. The applicant does not reside in the home. A third party occupies the home and works in the daycare center. There is a roughly 6-foot high board-on-board fence around the side and rear yards of the home. The applicant has operated a daycare center for 12 children on the site without a permit; this application is made to obtain the permit required for the use. The applicant reduces traffic impacts of the use by shuttling some children from her home at 9515 SW Elrose Street and by having other children arrive by bus. The use operates 7:30 AM to 6 PM weekdays. 2. At the public hearing in this matter, City staff recommended conditional approval. The applicant accepted the recommended conditions and responded to public testimony. Twelve neighbors testified orally against the conditional use permit. Some of these and other witnesses also testified in writing. The hearings officer closed the record at the end of the public hearing and took the matter under advisement. The principal disputed issues in this case include the following: a. Whether the site is large enough to meet the needs of the use, to accommodate the impacts of the use and to comply with site design review standards; and b. Whether Kent Street is adequate to serve the proposed use. 3. The hearings officer concludes the applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof that the CUP complies with Tigard Community Development Code ("CDC") 18.330.030.A(1), (2) and (6). Therefore the hearings officer denies the CUP, based on the findings and conclusions included and incorporated herein. B. BASIC FACTS The hearings officer incorporates by reference the findings about the site and surroundings in the Staff Report dated June 8, 2001 (the Staff Report), except to the extent inconsistent with this final order. C. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS The applicable approval standards are listed on the face of the Staff Report and in Section V of the Staff Report. The hearings officer finds those listed standards are the correct standards for this application. It was not alleged that other standards apply. D. HEARING AND RECORD 1. Hearings Officer Larry Epstein (the "hearings officer") received testimony at the public hearing about this application on June 18, 2001. All exhibits and records of CUP 2001-00001 Hearings Officer Final Order (Ross Day Care) Page 1 • • testimony are filed with the Tigard Department of Community Development. The hearings officer made the statement required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex pane contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. The hearings officer disclosed that he visited the site before the hearing, and invited witnesses to question him about his observations. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of the testimony offered at the public hearing in this matter. 2. City planner Matt Scheidegger summarized the Staff Report and defined "group home daycare". He noted the use is permitted outright if the operator of the daycare center also occupies the home. A CUP is required where the operator does not reside in the home. 3. Gayla Ross testified for the applicant. She explained the circumstances leading to the application. She began operating the day care center in May, 2000. She was not aware a CUP was required for it. She described her ongoing efforts to find a better site for the day care center. She argued children at the day care center are from the area, and the center provides a service to those children and their parents. 4. Twelve persons testified orally against the proposed use: Bob Sellers, Lorraine Hyde, Carol and Keith Dickson, Ellen Olson, K.O. Erickson, Lydia and Mannie Mills, Linda Day, Russell Gordon Fiddes, Gary Belair and Angie Shepard. Most of the witnesses expressed similar concerns, including the following: a. The proposed use is not or should not be permitted in a single family residential zone, because it is commercial in nature. b. The site is not suited for the proposed use, because it is too small to accommodate the impacts of the use on the site, particularly noise and privacy impacts. There also is not enough room on the site for vehicle maneuvering associated with the use. c. Kent Street cannot serve the proposed use safely, because that street already carries too much traffic. E. DISCUSSION 1. Some neighbors argued the use should not be permitted, because it is a commercial activity. Based on the CDC, the hearings officer disagrees. CDC 18.130.020.B(5)(b) defines the proposed use is a Day Care Group Home.1 A day care group home is permitted in the R4.5 zone (and in all residential zones) as a matter of law if it complies with the applicable approval standards for such a use. See Table 18.510.1. a. The hearings officer finds a day care center provides a service for the children cared for and for their parents. But that is not relevant to the applicable approval criteria. The use must comply with applicable standards to be approved. If the CUP is denied, that service will not be available. Although unfortunate, it does not change the standards or the decision. 1 CDC 18.130.020 defines Day Care Group Home to mean the following: Day care facility in which care is provided in the home of the caregiver, with or without compensation, for 7-12 children. It is subject to certification by the Children's Services Division. CUP 2001-00001 Hearings Officer Final Order (Ross Day Care) Page 2 0 2. The approval criteria for a CUP are in CDC 18.330.030.A.2 The hearings officer is persuaded by the findings in the Staff Report that the application complies with the standards in CDC 18.330.030.A(3)-(5), and the hearings officer adopts as his own the findings regarding those subsections in the Staff Report. In addition the hearings officer adopts the following findings. a. There is a dispute about whether the CUP complies with CDC 18.330.030.A(3), because of the impact of the CUP on Kent Street. The hearings officer finds that Kent Street can accommodate the small incremental increase in traffic as a result of the proposed conditional use, provided it is operated as described by the applicant to generate roughly eleven average daily trips on Kent Street (e.g., by relying on car pooling and bus transport). The street is improved consistent with its classification. b. The hearings officer is not persuaded that traffic associated with the use will cause the volume of traffic on the street to exceed its capacity, based on its classification, or will cause affected intersections to operate at a substandard level of service, or will cause other hazards. There is sufficient parking on-site to comply with applicable parking standards and to avoid excessive on-street parking, provided the garage is available to store the vehicles of the resident(s) of the home. c. Testimony by lay people about their experiences and perceptions of traffic and parking on the street is not substantial evidence that the road is congested or unsafe. That does not mean the road is a playground; it is not. It is a public street. It is intended to carry traffic volume in excess of existing volumes. Residents are unlikely to perceive the impact of the CUP on the street given the low trip generation of the use. However any increase in traffic marginally increases the potential for accidents, and warrants greater attention by parents to instruct their children about safe behavior and to monitor their behavior accordingly. That does not mean public facilities (i.e., Kent Street) are not adequate to accommodate the use. 3. However the hearings officer is not persuaded that the applicant has sustained the burden of proof that the application complies with CDC 18.330.030.A(1), (2) or (6). a. The hearings officer finds the site is not large enough to meet the needs of the use for mitigation of the impacts of outdoor activities, and the applicant failed to show that the conditional use does or would comply with site design review standards. 2 CDC 18.330.030.A provides as follows: The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a conditional use or to enlarge or alter a conditional use based on findings of fact with respect to each of the following criteria: 1. The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; 2. The impacts of the proposed use of the site can be accommodated considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features; 3. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal; 4. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter; 5. The applicable requirements of 18.330.050; and 6. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, if applicable, are met. CUP 2001-00001 Hearings Officer Final Order (Ross Day Care) Page 3 b. Two of the principal impacts of the proposed use are the loss of privacy resulting from views between the site and adjoining properties and the noise of children playing in the rear yard of the property. The rear yard is relatively small. The fence on three sides of the rear yard (and connecting to the house on the fourth side) provides some visual buffer, but, based on the hearings officer's inspection of the site and the photographs introduced by neighbors, that fence does not obstruct views of surrounding yards. Although some vegetation exists on the periphery of the yard, it is not sufficient to maintain the privacy of surrounding homes. The vegetation and fence do not perceptibly reduce noise levels. There is not enough room in the rear yard of the site to substantially increase vegetation, even if that was proposed, which it is not. Therefore the applicant failed to show she will buffer the outdoor play area from surrounding homes. The site is too small to achieve this, and it is situated with respect to surrounding properties such that the absence of more substantial fencing, vegetation or other features will result in significant unmitigated privacy and noise impacts, due to the relatively large concentration on children at the CUP site (compared to the typical family size in the city) and the small area of the yard. c. The hearings officer finds that the application is subject to the Landscaping and Screening standards in CDC 18.745,3 because a CUP is development.4 Although the site will continue to be used for a residential purpose, and a buffer is not required between single family homes, the site also will be used for a day care center. Although minimum buffer requirements in Table 18.745.1 are ambiguous as they relate to this application, the hearings officer is persuaded by the context of the table that a buffer is required in this case.5 The hearings officer construes the table in this case to require the 3 CDC 18.745.020 provides as follows: The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, remodeling of existing structures where the landscaping is nonconforming (Section 18.760.040C), and to a change of use which results in the need for increased on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. 4 CDC 18.120.030.A(56) defines the term "development" to mean the following in relevant part" [A] material change in the use or appearance of a structure or land... 5 For instance, CDC 18.745.050.A.1 provides in relevant part: It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution at a development site... CDC 18.745.050.B.4 provides as follows in relevant part: The minimum improvements within a buffer area. shall consist of combinations for landscaping and screening as specified in Table 18.745.1. In addition, improvements shall meet the following specifications: a. At least one row of trees shall be planted. They shall have a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet in height above grade for deciduous trees and a minimum height of five feet high for evergreen trees at the time of planting. Spacing for trees shall be as follows: (1) Small or narrow-stature trees, under 25 feet tall or less than 16 feet wide at maturity shall be spaced no further than 15 feet apart; (2) Medium-sized trees between 25 feet to 40 feet tall and with 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; CUP 2001-00001 - Hearings Officer Final Order (Ross Day Care) Page 4 0 0 buffer that is required when a neighborhood commercial use adjoins a single family use (i.e., a Type C buffer requiring 6 to 10 feet of buffer width depending on whether a hedge, fence or fence is provided for screening), because the proposed use is first permitted outright in a neighborhood commercial zone. That width is not proposed, nor is it practicable herebecause of the small size of the yard. The applicant also does not propose or provide living ground cover in the remainder of the buffer width, as required by code. d. The hearings officer expressly rejects the findings in the Staff Report that the fence and existing vegetation on the periphery of the rear yard adequately buffer the use of the back yard by up to twelve children in the day care center. The photographs in the record clearly show the existing vegetation around the rear yard of the site and on adjoining properties generally is small and/or is scattered so that it does not even begin to create an opaque visual barrier around the rear yard. 4. The hearings officer appreciates that parents of the children cared for at the site have come to rely on the day care center. They did not know and had no reason to inquire whether the city issued a permit for the use. Like the neighbors, the children and their parents have no responsibility for the existing situation. Although the use is illegal, the hearings officer finds it does not pose an imminent threat to the public health and safety. It is an, inconvenience or. a nuisance to neighbors abutting the rear yard, based on the foregoing findings. For what it is worth, the hearings officer encourages the city to undertake enforcement of this decision with equal courtesy to the applicant, the day care children and parents, and the neighbors, so the matter is resolved in a timely manner, but without undue disruption. The applicant may want to consider occupying the site as her home until the da care center is relocated or taking other steps to remedy the violation and/or to reduce the adverse impact of the use until it is relocated elsewhere. F. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings and discussion provided or incorporated in this final order, the hearings officer concludes that the proposed conditional use permit does not and cannot comply with the applicable criteria and standards of the Community Development Code. Therefore the hearings officer should deny the application. G. DECISION In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the Staff Report and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the hearings officer hereby denies CUP 2001-00001 (Ross Day Care). 2001.. Z this 264 Earingser Larry Ep ei - City of Tigard (3) Large trees, over 40 feat tall and with more than 35 feet wide branching at maturity, shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart. b. In addition, at least 10 five-gallon shrubs or 20 one-gallon shrubs shall be planted for each 1,000 square feet of required buffer area; c. The remaining area shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover. CUP 2001-00001 Hearings Officer Final Order (Ross Day Care) Page 5 "EXHIBIT A" PARTIES OF RECORD, (Written Public Testimony received at the hearing) '7:30 • 7:30- q:oo q:oo - q:45 q:45-1o:oo 10-10..30 10:30 - 11 ~DO •4 11:00- 1130 11:30-12:00 12-: DO Z : 00 o pW preschoo l 8reak-fas4- and -Free choice Ccente~-s) Pre sch o o j Circle Ti ,~n E_ 4rf A cfe vi fy (H-wnds- oh) A:M. sna.ck 11 Preschool wrap-u-p lclean-ixp o u fsid e Tl*rn e or Free choice LU,N C H o wts i clk Tl nr e QWie+ Tim e, or F-ree Choice 2-:00 - 3:0C) P M . sh aCk 0-,k1 d- QLkUf 4ch vl -Hes (Puzz(es, colOrin , efc) 0 0 A -Fier school chi /otreh arrive. :00 3.15 snack :15 ° q . o D A Gfi'Yl ~-y or la a tzs oo - Cv: 00 free, choice or 0U;- side 7-1,m o-00 close. Preschool V .r us- OX-Alol-, 6ZY2-,, f7W (0' Ct- hcw.' tQ- 0 J9u~ exj- vu • h, cirmp no vNNau.kvvuN VLcl~hWm^ at oryovII*jl- }ihu..'(wo c~Wu Q1wWrt.n Uv~e., kw Wo4vu Okb ~►O.U~ C~c lb•~0am Qk`d J~l7k++'Y~ ow%us. VzW~ Gi VC09%vto'DWtirt'J&t dat Yu Prc OOpr.. O46\on\ vo~ axdSkrm QN. kk~W ~wr Cl4tir(~ 0.wta.IC pJ.,. ~.O,Y~'~Y~ fn kWU *%XLX Owp 0. Vw.k 0 P4J "DO al ta A~ 'Lbvw.v~x ~ ,~e~~ ~ \ou , Qrd CxwAa wk*aL br.u.o b~~tt J,a.,.,,~ awt..aC. K~brcr sloopyy% vj\,u~r1ak and sittev, LomuVe%q 5YNd F4%4 pr44 SAW taw wb'kv 5tkn01 C5vp\ 'fib-SU'\oo\ '00-KZ wLU.~iA1 VON-t ~o ckuW,.y, w.ayt obwnun. clo..y~ - becc.w 5aca/ax~ wrd I~ru~b,1 p,pio MN" dOdn vw-xr+ool dove t►,nd. OU g,,av,.rw.A • ram wound tv oa\ax+d r• • ~,3p - orc-~.~ ~ Crow. (sc^~ TcGFYty a ~orC \ taR MEN" 800- nwYv~o-r.toa~aNV a,Rjwx,~5e~:, aaCameran l eoa~ q,.Do - lww, (.Staca+er) f Ardi Lbw4ftr) 1 tmhgr S%W - 3~s ~s (A; 50KVLV Ourhd, ~ "AfflAx 3:00- va"S., 1 t.:AIL ~ ~rn~h~ut ~ O~rY~ C&~an GIs ~ - C+ng~c Una emose ►ea~►►~ t era. 616 Ir- JLF;7ern e:rrd. Cori Grtic car atcxa me 6130, f~y~i^, ~11a ~aard► t3tc1l~ tint ~av~c.Ya~ oft tar lp~ l~'.oo- S~a~,',n~ cwr~es hrxr~e f~.oo- Ors car p'~cxs tup w,,.~er (o:oo- Goss 5 GaxS c~r~ re ne~8~r,~oorhocd ~v c~rc~p Gr~~~d~re~n o'~ k~~ c 3~aop~rn . 1'lalr ivvcludiwgAML bus . 9WY? dYWt lv*0`1'Nt Y*10j(%kntMnOd to V%CXOwp UK%WxM o-bicx SIWVV"%. V vYO-1V557V~ Y ~iJ by 1 Zap 1 O *q 0' 5 1 1---- - Deck. r viouse c Apex. 2400 sq f a' 111 "ve, to' i 1 M i` Awl l ~ t t q5' 1 SS' scale r. gyp. Keni ek N March 6, 2001 10543 SW River Dr Tigard OR 97224 (503) 684-4994 Planning Dept City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard OR 97223 ATTN: Diane Park • Enclosed is a copy of our letter to Jeff and Gayla Ross in response to their letter of February 23 (a copy of which is also enclosed) in which they propose the opening of a day care center at 10548 SW Kent St in Tigard. We oppose this day care center because the back yard adjoins our back yard, and even at the present time when children play in the back yard, the noise is extremely loud and bothersome to us. We bought our home in 1993 because of the quiet, peaceful neighborhood. Had a day care center been next door at that time, we would not have purchased the home. In the future we may want to sell our home, and are concerned that a day care in that location may adversely affect the resale value of our home. Please keep us informed of any future hearings on this proposal as we want to have an opportunity to express our concerns. Thank you. Since Y, C D. Keith and Carol Dickson ems, Encls (2) RECENED MAR 7 2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r' JEFF AND GA YLA ROSS 9515 SW Elrose Street . Tigard, OR 97223 February 23, 2001 RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Dear Interested Party: We are the owners of the property located at 10548 SW Kent Street in Tigard, Oregon. We are considering proposing a small group home day care at this location. This day care allows up to 12 children between the ages of 2-12 years old. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permit, we would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: FRIDAY, MARCH 9, 2001 7:00 PM 9515 SW ELROSE STREET Tigard, Oregon Please notice this will be an informal meeting on preliminary plans..T_ti&se plans may be altered prior to submission of the application to the City. We look forward to more specifically discussing this proposal with you.. Please call 503- 684-8173 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jeff and Gayla Ross r 9 March 6, 2001 10543 SW River Dr Tigard OR 97224 (503) 6844994 Jeff and Gayla Ross 9515 SW Elrose St Tigard OR 97223 RE: Condition Use Permit at 10548 SW Kent St, Tigard We received your letter dated February 23, 2001 concerning a proposed group day care at 10548 SW Kent St. Our back yard adjoins your back yard at the SE comer. We have noticed noise from children in your yard playing at various times, yelling and screaming as they play. We assumed it was a family living there with children. The noise is very loud as though it were in our own yard, as the distance is only 30 ft or so from us. This impacts negatively the enjoyment of our own home and we would strongly object to a day care at that address. We. do not .think that a commercial business should be_ located in the midst of a residential neighborhood when it impacts residents adversely. We value peace and quiet as we are home during the day. We and other neighbors are retired. • Thank you. for notifying. us. about this. Due. to a. prior.committment we., cannot attend the meeting Friday, March 9. Sincerely, Keith and C ckson ti Mannie & Lydia Mills 10526 SW Kent St. Tigard, OR 97224 March 12, 2001 Planning Department City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Conditional Use Permit for Group Child Care Home We are writing in regards to the application by Jeff and Gayla Ross for a Conditional Use Permit to run a daycare from their rental home at 10548 SW Kent Street. Living right next door, we are very concerned about this permit. The Ross's have been running this daycare since last spring. Being that the home is a rental, and turnover has been quite high before this daycare moved in, we figured that the daycare would soon be gone. However, now that the Ross's are applying for a permit, that they could only tell us would be permanent, we have to step forward. We moved into this neighborhood four years ago, and into the city of Tigard because we had heard that this was a wonderful area to live. However, now we are having second thoughts. Had we known we would be living next to a business, we never would have bought this home. And a business is what the house next door has become! The Ross's supposedly have someone living there, but they are rarely there, nor do they keep up the appearance of the home. We are gravely concerned about the value of our home, and the overall property values in the neighborhood. How many people are going to want to buy a home, in this neighborhood, right next door to a business, especially a daycare business? Another concern we have is the high volume of traffic that occurs Monday through Friday at this daycare, especially in the morning and late afternoon, as parents drop-off and pick up their children. With a lack of parking already, and being right next-door, we constantly have cars parking and pulling away from the curb in front of our house. It reminds us of a convenience store. It's not just our house either; all of the neighbors in close proximity are affected. We are especially concerned about the children who live in the neighborhood who play across and down the street. The increased traffic flow is dangerous to them. A final concern is that of the noise level. Since this daycare has moved in, the noise volume is astounding. On nice days, when we would like to have our doors and windows open, we have to keep them closed due to the noise next door. We realize that children make noise when they play, but having ten to twelve screaming children playing in the backyard next door is almost deafening-so much for a quiet neighborhood. For these reasons, and many others, we are opposed to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for a Group Child Care Home. The bottom-line is that we want to live in a neighborhood, not a business district. We hope that the City will listen to our neighbors' and our concerns. Thank you. C* AJA_~ RECEIVED PLANNING Mannie and Lydia Mills PEAR 14 2001 CITY OF TiGARD 0 Meeting Minutes Date: March 9, 2001 RECEIVED PLANNING Regarding Conditional Use Permit 10548 SW Kent Street Tigard, OR 97224 Applicants: Jeff and Gayla Ross MAR 14 2001 WY OF TIGARD Attendants: Five neighbors that live on Kent Street, one neighbor that lives a street away, and an Owner of a rental house in the neighborhood. This meeting was held at the home of Jeff and Gayla Ross, 9515 SW Elrose Street, Tigard, OR 97223. As we entered the home Gayla is discussing the purpose of the meeting with an early arriver. For ease of reference, I will refer to Jeff and Gayla Ross as "they" and to the attendants as "we". The following items were the topics of discussion: • They explain that their plan-is to get the permit and then move to a day care center within 12 months. • When parking on the street was mentioned, they stated that their plan is to have the day care providers park in the garage during the day. • We pointed out that they had been operating a day care at this address for approximately 9 months, and asked why they were applying for a permit now? They noted that it was a requirement of their certification process. • We again pointed out that the additional traffic and limited parking was an issue to us. • The neighbor next door, on the east side, strongly complained about things being thrown in their yard. Toys, garbage, rocks and sticks are regularly littered in their backyard. The toys would be placed back over the fence, only to be thrown back the next day. The toys were left for days, only to have the kids break the fence and go through to retrieve some of the toys. The toys have been collected and returned to the front door of the day care, only to be thrown over the fence the next day. • The next-door neighbor described garbage from kids playing in front of the day care ends up in their yard. • They described a specific incident when garbage had been stacked against the shared fence in plastic bags. Animals had torn open the bags and drug diapers into their yard. The diapers were ripped apart and strewn about the side of their house. Debris is still stored on the side of the house, but garbage is stored in containers now. • We pointed out that there are many times during the day that kids are outside without supervision. • There are kids that are allowed to play in the front of the day care during the day. • We questioned the claim by the Ross's that they only plan to use the permit on a temporary basis. Why go to the expense and effort to make the changes to the house and obtain the permit if they really plan to leave within 12 months? $2,500 is a lot of money to spend for a "temporary" situation. We doubt if they would really move and spend another $2,500 at a different location within 9 to 12 months. • We bring up the additional traffic again. They say that they drop off some of the kids at the house every morning. They state that the parents pick up all of the kids in the evenings. This adds approximately 8 cars in the morning and 12 cars in the evening. We state that the road sees too much traffic before adding in the day care cars. This greatly concerns us. Many neighborhood kids play on our street during nice weather. • We ask if the parents of the day care kids have been notified of the disturbed neighbor across the street and to the west. This person has set himself on fire in the middle of the street and Life Flight had to come and airlift him to a hospital. He has held his wife captive in the home, barricaded himself in, and held the police at bay with high-powered guns. The SWAT Team had to storm the house to extract him. The neighbors were evacuated from their homes. A second incident required the Police to extract him from the house. He is now off of probation, walking the street again on a regular basis, and the Police have been to the house within the last few months. • We point out that the house is really run down. It is obviously a rental now. This is affecting our Property Values. The house needs maintenance, paint, etc. • We mention that the Renter seldom stays at the house. We see it as a place of business, not a home on our street. • They claim that a State Certifier encouraged them to open this house as a day care. After the Ross's moved into their new house and established the day care there, apparently their Certifier found out that they had a rental property and suggested that they set up a day care there also. • We asked about the duration of the Permit. They stated that even though they requested a short-term Permit, the City of Tigard told them that they would only issue them a Conditional Use Permit that would be permanent. • A "Group Child Care Home" is what they are applying for, but they say that they will not have over night stay. • A written description of the Permit they are applying for was requested, but not provided. • We stated that the traffic issue is a big concern. Eight to twelve cars twice a day are a problem. Drop offs in the morning is during Tigard High School student high traffic. • They noted that their plan is to have 12 kids throughout year. • They plan to take the kids to Cook Park in the summer. • They noted that they had made a commitment to the children that stay there and their parents. We noted that we have a commitment to our neighborhood. • One attendant said that having a day care on our street is an "imposition" to the residents of the street. 0 • One attendant had to leave and defended the Ross's for providing a necessary service. • One attendant noted that a "day care" kid had hit his child with a rock. These kids do not have a commitment to our street. These kids do not have same supervision by "Parents". • They stated that they have a sincere commitment to leave in 9 months. • The Day Care hours are 7:30 am to 6:00 pm, weekdays only. • They stated that the two kids that live in the house will be gone this summer and two others that attend the day care just left for five months. They say they are not soliciting more kids to take their place. • They stated that the appearance would be upgraded. • They want to please the neighbors. • Three other neighbors have called and given verbal comments about the day care. • They requested that we allow them the permit for the "limited" time of 9 to 12 months. • They stated that there are 6 to 8 weeks remaining in the permitting process at this point. • They are still looking for an alternate location. They would like to move the day care before obtaining this permit, if they can find a place for it. • Some of the parents receive subsistence for the day care costs. They target low- income parents. • Charge for one child full time is approximately $28 per day. Other rates apply to different situations. Depends on the child. • We noted that even if the Permit is approved, there is an appeal process through the City of Tigard. We also noted that this business is against our Homeowners' Covenants, and that we can fight this in court. As the meeting adjourned, the Ross's again stated that they are looking for an alternate location for the day care, and that they would only use this house for 9 to 12 months. Submitted by: Mannie L. Mills 10526 SW Kent Street Tigard, OR 97224 V Text Document.txt • March 6, 2001 Planning Dept CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Attention: Diane Park Enclosed is a copy of our letter to Jeff and Gayla Ross in regards to their request for a permit to open a day care at 10548 SW Kent St. We wish to state that we are very much opposed to this because of the impact of the noise and the increase of traffic in the area as parents drop their children off and pick them up later in the day. Also, with from 1 to 12 children, the ratio of adults to x amount of children would increase the number of cars parked on the street during the working lours for the employees to care for the children. We have noticed that there seem to be many little voices and "tears" coming from that yard at times but assumed they lived there or had playmates come to visit. We moved to this area over 2 years ago because of the lack of traffic and the quietness of the neighborhood and enjoy many of the children who live here because they are well behaved and respect property. Importing children into the area as a business is another matter and we feel it would be a negative effect on our home and the value of it down the line B we were to sell it when and 9 the time comes that we have to downsize due to our health. We are senior citizens and enjoy our yard and the peaceful area but things have a way of clanging as we age: one cannot predidl We will be in San Diego on Friday, March 9 and may not return early enough to attend the meeting regarding this matter so please submit this letter as our objection to the day care that has been proposed Thank you for this consideration and please keep us informed. Sincerely, p MIT Henry and Lorraine Hyde 10521 SW River Dr Tigard, OR 97224 503 • 624-0872. RECENED j MAR 0 2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOKIEWT Page 1 Neif ext Document (3).txt • 6 March 2001 Jeff and Gaylo Ross 9515 SW Elrose St Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Conditional Use Permit at 10548 SW Kent St, Tigard in response to your letter of 23 February 2001 concerning the above-captioned permit for a group day care, we wish to state that we are against this proposal in our neighborhood. We have noticed at times that there seem to be a great many little voices coming from that yard but assumed it was just the children lining at that address. We enjoy many of the children in the surrounding neighborhood but feel that importing" children to a day care facility would bring in more traffic and would be an unfavorable impact to this area. We believe that a commercial business should not be located in a residential neighborhood when it increases both noise and traffic above the normal. We are senior citizens and enjoy the peace and quietness of our home and, naturally, are home most of the time and sometimes nap in the afternoons. In warm weather our windows are open to our back yard and yours. Thank you for the notifying us in this regard and we will be unable to attend the Meeting on 9 March 2001. Sincerely, A 40 P 4~ Henry and Lorrain Hyde 10521 SW River Dr (503) 624-0872 Planning Dept City of Tigard .4044~ 47AA~ Page 1 12", 2001 John and Jackie May 10504 SW Kent Street Tigard, Oregon 97224 am writing with regard to a petition for a Day d by my neighbors Jeff and Gayla Ross. They occupy another home and this request is being behalf of the leasers of this property. ly property is two homes away from the Day Care, is, the amount of noise is at a level significantly an when our neighborhood was not the home of less. am concerned also of the increased traffic volume. i our street is already a "short-cut" for Tigard High udents in a hurry to get to classes and avoid the n on Durham Road, this license for Day Care -rease the cars by twelve EVERY morning and afternoon/evening. As the mother of a small child, t we need no additional cars on this regular basis. ,nother worry I have, is that since the renters have -r the house, their concern is with their business, the upkeep of the house. I am concerned that the ce of this home will reduce my own property ould I decide to move. ,nd lastly, and maybe most importantly I am ibout the safety of these children. Do their parents Lt the man just a few doors away is in trouble with e on a regular basis? Do they know that twice in years we have had Police attention due to this vidual with schizophrenia? First Life Flight n our street (This was the time he set himself end a neighbor had to "put him out"). The next l certainly more impacting, was just three years 1 he held his wife hostage with high-powered c guns. This time they evacuated our street. Do its of these prospective Day Care children know ;se events? If so, fine, but I would doubt that they n informed of him. or these reasons, I am opposed to this permit being realize that there is a need for such care for parents, but please not on our street. We bought e in hopes of becoming part of the neighborhood, usiness district. Sincerely, RECEIVED PLANNING r i R 1. 4 2001 Jo and Jackie May I "13A~~ WY OF Alvin A. Hieb 10530 SW Titan Ln RECEIVED PLANNING Tigard, OR 97224-4320 503-639-9757 (H): 503-639-8951(0) JUN 0 6 2001 CITY OF TIGARD June 5, 2001 CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2001-00001 ROSS DAYCARE On March 7, 2001, I wrote the attached letter to Jeff and Gayla Ross relative to them seeking a proposed conditional use permit for a "small group home day care" facility. I was concerned then and remain so even now about allowing this type of use within an R-4.5, Low Density Residential District of Tigard, Oregon. As the Notice points out, this request is for up to 12 children. I do not believe the zoning provides for such use and should not be granted because such an operation poses: -traffic problems -child safety and supervision problems Each of these concerns, along with others not related to safety, are discussed in the attached letter. Thank you for allowing to express my concerns about the requested conditional use permit. To make certain, I repeat that I am oonosed to the granting of such a conditional use hermit. I further request that this letter and that of the attached sent to Jeff and Gayla Ross be placed into the record. Thank you. Y ur truly, Alvin A. Hieb Alvin A. Hieb 10530 SW Titan Ln Tigard, OR 97224-4320 503-639-9757 (H): 503-639-8951(0) March 7, 2001 Jeff and Gayla Ross 9515 SW Elrose Street Tigard, OR 97223 Jeff and Gayla Ross: This is in reference to a proposed conditional use permit for a "small group home day care" facility letter of February 23, 2001. In that letter you announced a meeting at your place on Friday, March 9, 2001 at 7:00 p.m.. The purpose, I believe, is to obtain input from neighbors relative to the proposed facility for up to 12 children between the ages of two and 12 years old. This facility would be located at 10548 SW Kent Street, Tigard, OR 97224 Since this meeting is arranged at a very unusual day of the week Friday, which is a bad day to call a meeting and makes it very difficult for people to attend. I will not be able to attend. I do wish, however, to place my concerns into the record. I will share my letter with neighbors and will send a copy of this letter to the City of Tigard. I have concerns of such a facility being placed into the middle of a residential neighborhood for several reasons. First, is this a "small group home" or "small day care" facility? Big difference. "Small Group Home" infers that these children live there on a continual basis as part of some court appointed or other directed reason. Day care would infer that children arrive sometim around :5:30 a.m. and leave by 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.. T14 IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO MEANINGS. As neighbors on Kent Street and surrounding streets, I would be concerned over the use of those terms. What is the facility? Second, it appears that this is an absentee owner business. It appears that this is strictly a business and the owners/operators will not be living at that location, making it their home in conjunction with this proposed business. Unless this is also an occupied home by the owner/operator, I would be totally opposed to such an operation in the neighborhood, not withstanding the other concerns I have. Third, this facility poses traffic problems. We do not need the additional traffic that that operation will create on Kent Street, 104" Street, 108' Street, Titan Lane, and other surrounding streets used as ingress/egress to the facility. I'm sure the traffic generated by r this facility will exceed at least in excess of 30 additional vehicles a day on Kent Street and surrounding streets. This will pose traffic safety issues with neighborhood kids already LIVING on the street. Fourth, facility poses potential child safety and supervision problems. Are these children going to be allowed in the street to play (some of the time, all of the time, or none of the time)? Remembering that this facility creates increased traffic on Kent Street, any additional kids, up to 12, allowed to play in the street will create even greater traffic safety issues for all concerned. Another issue that arises is whether or not these kids, if allowed off the property, will be supervised constantly. I'm sure that Kent Street residents will be concerned about whether or not they have to do some "parenting" in addition to their own kids. I'm sure that there will be other concerns expressed by other individuals, but these were the first problems that popped up in any mind. While I do not live on Kent Street, I know that that street and Titan Ln. are very good family oriented neighborhood streets and there are numerous children, of all ages, living there. I, for one, would like to keep it that way. We are already faced with considerable amounts of traffic without the increased traffic your facility would pose. This traffic can only create additional hazards for children living on those streets. Thank you for allowing me to express my concerns. I know that you probably were hoping that everyone would be happy with your proposal, but I do have concerns about what it will do to the neighborhood. Yours truly, Original Signed Alvin A. Hieb CC: City of Tigard Alvin A. Hieb 10530 SW Titan Ln Tigard, OR 97224-4320 503-639-9757 (H): 503-639-8951(0) March 7, 2001 Jeff and Gayla Ross 9515 SW Elrose Street Tigard, OR 97223 Jeff and Gayla Ross: This is in reference to a proposed conditional use permit for a "small group home day care" facility letter of February 23, 2001. In that letter you announced a meeting at your place on Friday, March 9, 2001 at 7:00 p.m.. The purpose, I believe, is to obtain input from neighbors relative to the proposed facility for up to 12 children between the ages of two and 12 years old. This facility would be located at 10548 SW Kent Street, Tigard, OR 97224 Since this meeting is arranged at a very unusual day of the week Friday, which is a bad day to call a meeting and makes it very difficult for people to attend. I will not be able to attend. I do wish, however, to place my concerns into the record. I will share my letter with neighbors and will send a copy of this letter to the City of Tigard. I have concerns of such a facility being placed into the middle of a residential neighborhood for several reasons. First, is this a "small group home" or "small day care" facility? Big difference. "Small Group Home" infers that these children live there on a continual basis as part of some court appointed or other directed reason. Day care would infer that children arrive sometime around 6:30 a.m. and leave by 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO MEANINGS. As neighbors on Kent Street and surrounding streets, I would be concerned over the use of those terms. What is the facility? Second, it appears that this is an absentee owner business. It appears that this is strictly a business and the owners/operators will not be living at that location, making it their home in conjunction with this proposed business. Unless this is also an occupied home by the owner/operator, I would be totally opposed to such an operation in the neighborhood, not withstanding the other concerns I have. Third, this facility poses traffic problems. We do not need the additional traffic that that operation will create on Kent Street, 104"' Street, 108th Street, Titan Lane, and other surrounding streets used as ingress/egress to the facility. I'm sure the traffic generated by 9 • this facility will exceed at least in excess of 30 additional vehicles a day on Kent Street and surrounding streets. This will pose traffic safety issues with neighborhood kids already LIVING on the street. Fourth, facility poses potential child safety and supervision problems. Are these children going to be allowed in the street to play (some of the time, all of the time, or none of the time)? Remembering that this facility creates increased traffic on Kent Street, any additional kids, up to 12, allowed to play in the street will create even greater traffic safety issues for all concerned. Another issue that arises is whether or not these kids, if allowed off the property, will be supervised constantly. I'm sure that Kent Street residents will be concerned about whether or not they have to do some "parenting" in addition to their own kids. I'm sure that there will be other concerns expressed by other individuals, but these were the first problems that popped up in my mind. While I do not live on Kent Street, I know that that street and Titan Ln. are very good family oriented neighborhood streets and there are numerous children, of all ages, living there. I, for one, would like to keep it that way. We are already faced with considerable amounts of traffic without the increased traffic your facility would pose. This traffic can only create additional hazards for children living on those streets. Thank you for allowing me to express my concerns. I know that you probably were hoping that everyone would be happy with your proposal, but I do have concerns about what it will do to the neighborhood. Yours truly, Alviui A. Hieb CC: City of Tigard 11 P vz~~D7-cj S TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER MINUTES DATE: a Cam- al o~,- ia -ot .Attention Tigard Hearings Officer: Regarding the Conditional Use Permit.(CUP), 2001-00001,;R6ss Day Care Please excuse my lack.of attendance at this meeting. I feel very strongly about this application and. would appreciate it"if the ,.following were taken into consideration when evaluating this request:. 1) When this daycare initially opened, I contacted.the City of Tigard to check on the use of a:sign'i"n the front yard and the. regulations-regarding a daycare in' a residential rental home. The sign was promptly removed (due to,city•intervention I believe): -However, the person I spoke with.at the city stated the the city had no jurisdiction. regarding daycare facilities and that they were licensed by the state. I did contact the State.Case Worker and she informed my that there were no regulations which were being violated in this case. 2) This d.aycare is, I.feel, a real burden for our neighborhood. A rental home is enough of-an inconvenience for neighbors, especially immediate neighbors. However, when it is a daycare on top of a rental home, it becomes a burden for a potentially large group of neighbors. Rental homes are rarely kept up in the same manner as owner-occupied homes. In addition, the. male co-owner'of this house is disabled, resulting in•very ,little being done,by'the owners of the house. We all have to alter our lifestyle as our situation'•mandates. Owning a rental home when one cannot•keep it up oneself or pa y. for. it to be kept up is irresponsible, This house needs a paint job! 3) There has been a considerable increase in traffic-on this . stretch of 'Kent Street-due to this daycare.. There-are many small children on this street, and I would not.characterize~ the clientele of this daycare as the most responsible of drivers. In addition, all of the surrounding neighbors have dealt with "daycare" cars being parked in front of our houses. I have also witnessed clients parking out in front of the house and honking. 4) The noise from this house is excessive. :There is no way to keep so many children quiet. I live across the street- and over one and I regularly hear .the~noise when"I go out- side in front of my house.- This just plain goes over the, limit of what our homeowner rights should be!! There should be a:.limit of four children (in addition to those living with the homeowner) which can be taken i,n in a residential area, .THERE ARE EMPLOYEES COMING TO THIS DAYCARE!! THIS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. There should be zoning laws in place to protect neighboring homeowners from precisely, this'"situation. Please do not allow this "infringement on our neighborhood!! Than you for"considering the above, - Ellen Gullholm 10531 SW Kent St. (503) .620=4696 "EXHIBIT C" WRITTEN TESTIMONY (Applicant's materials and pertinent correspondence filed with Hearings Officer prior to Public Hearing.) i • Agenda Item: 2.1 Hearing Date: 6.18.2001 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING'S OFFICER CITY OFTIGARD Community (Development FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON S(apingA(Better Community 120 DAYS = 08/20/2001 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: ROSS DAYCARE FACILITY CASE NOS: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) CUP2001-00001 APPLICANT: Gayla Ross OWNER: Jeffrey & Gayla Ross 9515 SW Elrose Street 10548 SW Kent Street Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested Conditional Use approval to operate a group home daycare for up to 12 children, from a single-family residence within a residential zone. The applicant has one full time employee living at the residence. LOCATION: 10548 SW Kent Street; WCTM 2S115AA, Tax Lot 02200. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5; Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearings Officer find that the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and meets the Approval Standards for a Conditional Use. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL, subject to the following recommended Conditions of Approval: ROSS DAYCARE PAGE 1 OF 11 CUP2001-00001 6/18/2001 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: Submit to tfe Planning Division at ew S-cheidegger, 63a-4M, ext. 3-fMor review and approval: 1. Provide evidence that the proposed use complies with the Uniform Building Code Standards. 2. Someone must be living at the site at all times for it to qualify as a single-family dwelling and group home daycare facility. 3. Provide a 2 stall bicycle parking structure that is not within parking aisles, landscaping or pedestrian ways. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE HEARINGS OFFICERS REPORT. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Historv: Staff conducted a computer search for case history on the subject parcel and found no previous land use cases for this property. Vicinitv Information: The site is located on the south side of SW Kent Street and east of SW 108th Avenue. The property is zoned R-4.5 and is completely surrounded by property zoned R-4.5. Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant has requested Conditional Use approval to operate a group home daycare for up to 12 children, from a single-family residence within a residential zone. No new construction is imposed, and operation hours are limited from 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM. The applicant has been running the proposed daycare out of the subject site for 9 months before she was informed that she needed approval for the use. Concerns Raised by Nei hbors: Staff received 7 letters from neighbors addressing the same issues; noise and increased traffic. Staff Response: The proposed use is for a daycare with 7-12 children. Operation hours are from 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM According to the Tigard Municipal Code, noise decibel levels can reach up to 50 Dba during the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM The daycare closes at 6:00 PM allowing the decibel level to be reduced long before the cut-off time of 10:00 PM Other noise dampening features include the 6-foot-high wood fence that encompasses the entire rear yard. The fence is lined with large arborvitae on the east and west property lines and 3 mature trees at the south end of the property. Vehicle trips have increased with the opening of the daycare. However, the daycare has been operating for 9 months before the conditional use was applied for and the City did not receive any complaints. According to the City's Engineering Department, the proposed use will not create a significant impact on public facilities and traffic impact is minimal. Five (5) cars drive into the neighborhood to drop children off before 3:00 P.M. 'not including the school bus and six (6) cars drive into the neighborhood to pick-up children after 3:00 P.M. ROSS DAYCARE PAGE 2 OF 11 CUP2001-00001 6/18/2001 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 • SECTION IV. REPORT MAKING PROCEDURES, PERMITS AND USE Use Classification: Section 18.130.020. Lists the Use Categories. The applicant is proposing to use an existing single-family home as a commercial daycare. This use is classified as Group Home Daycare, which is listed as a Conditional Use in the R-4.5 zone. Summary Land Use Permits and Report Making Procedures: Chapters 18.310 and 18.390 The roposed use (Group Home Daycare) requires a Conditional Use permit which is a Type 111-H8 decision. Type III-HO procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that predominantly contain discretionary approval criteria. Type III-HO actions are decided by the Hearings Officer with appeals to the City Council. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA A summary of the applicable criteria in this case in the Chapter order in which they are addressed in this report are as follows: A. Specific Conditional Use Criteria General Approval Criteria) Additional Conditions of Approval) B. DDlicable Development Code Standards 18.705 "Access, Egress & Circulation) 18.745 Landscaping and Screening) 18.765 'Off-Street Parkin and Loading Requirements) 18.795 Nisual Clearance C. Street Utilitv and Improvement Standards D Impact Study SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 18.330.010.A states that the purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures under which a conditional use may be permitted, enlarged or altered if the site is appropriate and if other appropriate conditions of approval can be met. There are certain uses which due to the nature of the impacts on surrounding land uses and public facilities require a case-by-case review and analysis. Section 18.330.020.A states that a request for approval for a new conditional use shall be processed as a Type III-HO procedure, as regulated by Chapter 18.390.050 requirements in Chapter 18.330. General ADDroval Criteria for a Conditional Use: Section 18.330.030: The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; The size of the site is 5,511 square feet and is consistent with the Planned Development standards for the R-4.5 zoning district with a Planned Development overlay. The site is developed with a single-family home. The applicant's request is to run a group home daycare from the singe-family home with one employee living at the site. The site provides adequate area for the proposed use. The impacts of the proposed use of the site can be accommodated considering size, shape, location, topography and natural features; ROSS DAYCARE PAGE 3 OF 11 CUP2001-00001 6/18/2001 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER The site is developed with a 2,400 square foot single-family home with a 1,540 square foot back yard. The rear Ord is screened from adjoining properties with a 6-foot-high. wooden fence and arborvitae. Therefore, the site is suitable for the proposed daycare. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal; and All public facilities including streets, storm and sanitary sewers and water are pre-existing and have adequate capacity to serve the site. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter. The following table provides the dimensional standards in the R-4.5 zone, the additional dimensional requirements and approval standards for Group Home Daycare are specified in the Conditional Use Standards Section 18.330.050.B.19. TABLE 18.510.2 - (Cont'd.) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES STANDARD R-4.5 Conditional Existing Use Minimum Lot Size - Detached unit - Duplexes - Attached unit [11 Average Minimum Lot Width - Detached unit lots - Duplex lots - Attached unit lots Maximum Lot Coverage 7,500 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft. 10,000 sq.ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. 55 ft. 90 ft. 90 ft. Minimum Setbacks - Front yard - Side facing street on corner & through lots - Side yard - Rear yard - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district - Distance between property line and front of garage Maximum Height Minimum Landscape Requirement 20 ft. 20 ft. 45 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. - 5 ft. 5 ft. 5.4 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 28 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. - 30 ft. 1 30 ft. I 30 ft. [1] Single-family attached residential units permitted at one dwelling per lot with no more that five attached units in one grouping. [2] Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. Multiple-family dwelling unit Single-family dwelling unit The proposed use will occupy a pre-existing single-family home, which was constructed under the Dover Landing No. 2 subdivision. All lots within the subdivision equal an average lot size of 7,500 square feet and single-family homes were constructed according to standard setbacks of the R-4.5 zoning district. Building permits for all homes in the zone were required to meet height requirements. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapter of this Code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, if applicable, are met. ROSS DAYCARE PAGE 4 OF 11 CUP2001-00001 6/18/2001 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 9 • The applicable review criteria in this case include the following chapters of the Community Development Code: 18.330, Conditional Use; 18.390 Report Making Procedures; 18.510, Residential Zoning Districts, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; 18.765, Off-Street Parking; 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas. The development standards and requirements of these chapters are addressed below. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following chapters: 18.600, Community Plan Area Standards; 18.710, Accessory Residential Units; 18.715, Density Computations; 18.720, Design Compatibility Standards; 18.725, Environmental Performance Standards; 18.730, Exceptions to Development Standard; 18.740, Historic Overlay; 18.742, Home Occupations; 18.750, Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations; 18.760;, Nonconforming Situations; 18.780, Temporary Uses; 18.790, Tree Removal and 18.798, Wireless Communications Facilities. These chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. The use will comply with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is implemented by the Community Development Code. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan policies are, therefore, assured by satisfaction of the applicable development standards of the Development Code as addressed within this report. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the General Approval Criteria for a Conditional Use are satisfied. Additional Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use. Section 18.330.030.8 states that the Hearings Authority may impose conditions on the approval of a conditional use, which are found necessary to ensure the use is compatible with other uses in the vicinity, and that the impact of the proposed use on the surrounding uses and public facilities is minimized. These conditions may include, but are not limited to the following: Limiting the hours, days, place and/or manner of operation; The applicant has set hours of operation, which are 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM No additional condition is needed. Requiring design features which minimize environmental impacts such as noise, vibration, air pollution, glare, odor and/or dust; Based on the proposed use, noise could be a factor when children are present in the rear yard. However, the rear yard to be used is screened with a 6-foot-high wooden fence and is buffered with 5 arborvitae on the west side of the property and 4 arborvitae on the east side of the property. Three (3) large trees exist at the rear of the property. Any noise violations can be established througF Tigard Municipal Code section 7.40.130. Requiring additional setback areas, lot area, and/or lot depth or width; The plans provided show a 9-foot side yard setback on- the east property line and a 5.4-foot setback on the west side of the site. The side yards are the crucial areas of the site where children could potentially be bothersome to adjacent property owners due to noise. However, as described above, the daycare will only operate within strict. hours (7:30 AM to 6:00 PM) and both side yards have been screened with a 6-foot-high wooden fence and landscaping. Limiting the building height, size or lot coverage, and/or location on the site; The site is developed with an existing single-family home. The applicant could not add on to the structure without meeting setbacks associated with the base zone. Therefore, no additional condition is needed. ROSS DAYCARE PAGE 5 OF 11 CUP2001-00001 6/18/2001 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 9 • Designating the size, number, location and/or design of vehicle access points; The vehicle access point to the home is pre-existing in the form of a 25-foot driveway. Requiring street right-of-way to be dedicated and street(s) to be improved; Street and utilities are pre-existing and according to the Engineering Department, no conditions are necessary. Requiring landscaping, screening, drainage and/or surfacing of parking and loading areas; No additional landscaping is required with this project. The applicant has adequate landscaping, including a 6-foot-high fence to help buffer noise in the rear yard. Limiting the number, size, location, height and/or lighting of signs; Only one sign, approximately 1.5 square feet is allowed. No additional condition is needed. Limiting or setting standards for the location and/or intensity of outdoor lighting; The applicant has indicated that the group home daycare will operate no later than 6:00 P.M. No outdoor lighting has been proposed with this proposal. Therefore, no additional condition is needed. Requiring berms, screening or landscaping and the establishment of standards for their installation and maintenance; Buffering and screening is discussed further in this report. However, additional screening, above and beyond what is already required, is not necessary. Requiring and designating the size, height, location and/or materials for fences; The plans submitted by the applicant show a 6-foot-high good neighbor fence. No additional requirement is needed. Requiring the protection and preservation of existing trees, soils, vegetation, watercourses, habitat areas and/or drainage areas; No landscaping will be removed as a result of this report. Therefore, no protection and/or preservation are needed. Requiring the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain when land form alterations and development are allowed within the 100-year floodplain; and No 100-year floodplain is associated with this application. Therefore, no bicycle path can be conditioned. Requiring the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. No 100-year floodplain is associated with this application. C. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS Access. Earess and Circulation Chaster 18.705: Minimum Access Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Use: Section 18.705.030.1 provides the minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial uses: Table 18.705.3 indicates that the required access width for developments with more than 0-99 parking spaces is a 30-foot-wide access points with ROSS DAYCARE PAGE 6 OF 11 CUP2001-00001 6/18/2001 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • 24 feet of pavement. Vehicular access shall be provided to commercial or industrial uses, and shall be located to within 50 feet of the primary ground floor entrances; additional requirements for truck traffic may be placed as conditions of site development review. The proposed use is considered a commercial use within a residential zone. However, one of the owners employee's lives at the site. Therefore, the parcel can remain a single-family home and meet the access standards for a single-family residence ((1) 15-foot access with 10 feet of paving.). FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the access and egress standards are satisfied. Landscaaina and Screening - Chanter 18.745: Street trees: Section 18.745.040 states that all development projects fronting on a public street shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C Section 18.745.040.C required that street trees be spaced between 20 and 40 feet apart depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity (small, medium or large). Street trees are pre-existing as part of the Dover Landing Subdivision No. 2. Therefore, no additional street trees will be required. Buffering and Screening: Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter (Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). The owner of each proposed development is responsible for the installation and effective maintenance of buffering and screening. When different uses would be abuttin.g one another except for separation by a right-of-way, buffering, but not screening, shall be required as specified in the matrix; Because the site is occupied and maintained as a single-family dwelling, no buffering or screening is required. Screening - Special Provisions: Section 18.745.050.E requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the ndscape islands shall be three Q) feet wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. The proposed daycare does not include a parking lot. The applicant will be using the existing driveway for pick-up and drop-off of children, however, the site will be occupied and maintained by an employee. Therefore, the proposed site will remain a single-family residence and no parking lot will be required. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the access and egress standards are satisfied. Off-Street Parkina and Loadina (18.765): Disabled-Accessible Parking: All parking areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces for disabled persons as specified by the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and markedas required by these regulations. ROSS DAYCARE PAGE 7 OF 11 CUP2001-00001 6/18/2001 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • The proposed daycare will operate within a single-family home. Therefore, no parking areas will be required. The existing driveway will be used for picking-up and dropping-off children. The driveway is 25 feet in width, which exceeds standard ADA stall spacing. However, the applicant will be required to provide evidence that the proposed use complies with the Uniform Building Code Standards. Access Drives: With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; the number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030.P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. The proposed use will not change the site from a single-family residence based on the fact that an employee will be living in the home. Therefore, the site is excluded from the above standard. Parking Lot Striping: Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off-street parking requirements as contained in this Chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and all interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. The proposed site plan is considered exempt from parking lot striping because the structure being used for the proposed use is occupied by one of the employees. Therefore, the site is considered a single-family dwelling. Wheel Stops: Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. No walkways or interior landscaping is associated with this application. Wheel stops would only hinder the owner from using the garage as additional parking. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Space and Aisle Dimensions: Section 18.765.040.N states that: "except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2 the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: 8.5 feet x 18.5 feet for a standard space and 7.5 feet x 16.5 feet for a compact space; aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width. The proposed site is considered a single-family home. According to this chapter, single- family homes are exempt from parking lot striping. Therefore, this standard does not apply. ROSS DAYCARE PAGE 8 OF 11 CUP2001-00001 6/18/2001 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • i Bicycle Parking Location and Access: Section 18.7050 states bicyyle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances 01 structures; bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on-site buildings and/or the street. When the bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to located the parking area; and bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist to use stairs to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for parking on upper stories within a multi-story residential building. Parking for the proposed use has been based on a 1 classroom setting. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide a 2 stall bicycle parking structure that is not within parking aisles, landscaping or pedestrian ways. Bicycle Parking Design Requirements: Section 18.765050.C. The followin design. requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: The racks required or required bicycle parking spaces shall ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience. Provision of bicycle lockers for long-term (employee) parking is encouraged but not required; bicycle racks must be securely anchored o the ground, wall or other structure; bicycle parking spaces shall be at least 2'/Z feet by six feet long, and, when covered with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking, each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another-bicycle- required bicycle parking spaces may not be rented or leased except where required motor vehicle parking is rented or leased. At-cost or deposit fees for bicycle parking are exempt from this requirement; and areas set aside for required bicycle parking must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material, i.e., pavers asphalt, concrete or similar material. This surface must be designed to remain well drained. The applicant has not provided detail of the required bicycle parking rack, therefore, Staff can not determine if this standard has been met. If the applicant submits a detail of the bicycle rack, Staff will be able to review it to insure that the design complies with the standards of the Code. Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements: The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table 18.768.2 in Section 18.765.070.H. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. The applicant has been conditioned earlier in this report to provide a 2 stall bicycle parking structure. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.765.070.H states that the minimum and maximum parking shall be as required in Table 18.765.2. Table 18.765.2 states that the minimum off-street parking for a day care facility is 2.0 spaces per classroom. However, the proposed site is to remain a single-family dwelling based on one employee living at the site full time. Therefore, in order for the proposed use to remain in compliance with the off-street parking standards, the applicant will be conditioned to have someone living in the home at all times. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the off-street parking and loading standards have not been met. If the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the standards will be fully met. ROSS DAYCARE PAGE 9 OF 11 CUP2001-00001 6/18/2001 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • . • CONDITIONS: Provide evidence that the proposed use complies with the Uniform Building Code Standards. Someone must be living in the home at all times for it to qualify as a single-family dwelling and group home daycare facility. Provide a 2 stall bicycle parking structure that is not within parking aisles, landscaping or pedestrian ways. Visual Clearance Areas - Chaster 18.795: Section 18.795.020.A. states that the provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. Section 18.795.030.13. states that a clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measure 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. There are no proposed structures inside of the vision clearance area. The site plan indicates that there is a street tree on both sides of the driveway within the 30-foot clearance area. Based on a site visit conducted by staff the trees are trimmed in excess of 8 feet. Therefore, this criterion has been met. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the standards of Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas have been met. C. Street And Utility Improvements Standards - Chanter 18.810: Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. Engineerini Staff has evaluated the project and determined the proposed use will not create a significanimpact on public facilities. Traffic impact is minimum and the house being used is already er ved with public utilities. Therefore, no street and/or utility conditions are necessary. D. Impact Studv: Section 18.390.040.13.2.e states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. No street improvements or dedication of right-of-way are proposed or required with this application. Public utilities are pre-existing and according to the narrative, there is a maximum of 11 vehicle trips per day. Vehicle trips are calculated as 5 vehicles dropping of children before 3:00 P.M. and 6 vehicles picking up children after 3:00 P.M. The majority of the children are dropped off at the site by school bus and carpooling accounts for the low number of vehicle trips generated by the daycare. ROSS DAYCARE PAGE 10 OF 11 CUP2001-00001 6/18/2001 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comment: ♦ It does not appear that this use would create a significant impact on public facilities. Traffic impact is minimal and the house is already served with public utilities. The City of Tigard Long Range Planning Division has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. The City of Tigard Urban Forester/Operations Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: ♦ Any building or portion thereof used for daycare purposes for more than six persons must comply standards set forth in the Uniform Building Code. The City of Tigard Operations Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed the proposal and has no objections. NW Natural Gas Co. has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. Tualatin Valle Fire and Rescue, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, US Army Corps of Engineers, PGE, NW Natural Gas, TCI Cable, General Telephone, Tri-Met, and Quest were given the opportunity to review this proposal and submitted no comments or objections. PP,E~AREb B egger Assistant Planner C. APPROVED BY: Richard Bewersdorff/ J Planning Manager June 8. 2001 DATE June 8. 2001 DATE i:\curpln\mathew\cup\CUP2001-00001.doc ROSS DAYCARE CUP2001-00001 PAGE 11 OF 11 6/18/2001 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 CL! ® ~ DURHAM RD 0 ~AN I ^ I~ G g a W TITAI~(~~ w T z OVER CT I I I I I. DURHAM - . CITY of TIGA NOWNWENEdm GEOORARHIC 111ORMATION SYBTE4 W9040 f l 1 VICINITY MAP I J TvA~ R1 RD CUP200 I -00001 ,I ~ - ROSS DAYCARE i ~ C K 0 N 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet 1"- 398 feet City of Tigard information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 6394171 http:/hv-W.ci.tigard.or.us Plot date: Apr 23, 2001; C:1,nagicWIAGIC03.AP12 Community Development vv ViL)v y it I ZS ~0 V t r M ~avse AVPx 2400 1 d to 8 , i r i~ t ~ t i V t t AV 4 r 151!• mar GA~iD ~ OF in (ITY ssJrr PL-~ {Map is not to scale} CUP2001-00001 ROSS DAYCARE Z 0 Cl) 7 d Z OEM- z Q a Cl Q 0 E-- u. 0 aa~ C.) n-o Ct &-Cj y~ ',13D - ~ ' o c> Pm iv~ Vbbe ~c,~o rt~ ~ OL- na~ hav~ C',~, cu~f-s v~~''o 0 U+~e.-+ 0.S ~a~ • 9~ tame. wo~,xe he cu\axe no wlau',~J~ \*L &u\gjmh GA orycmx t~rnn.. tvto c~jwu ehwrtr. l~v~ w• +~w hams O.rb UWO u* W*IDWM O'Ir6 ~u.'Iwn ovw... warn 0A $:oovw+.'Darrirgv+.,. d&t6 Y~.~rc 3,000r% O~j~on I 'PmA.i ard5;hru\ 0J4 khw ~ur d440 6-wc-L4 UO kWU `Waa~ dap a w414 aOtjp Ta&XItOLn, Vow~.w~x~ I k 0u , Wrd UVLOA 04N~ v,.w bye o o.~ a,x c..K. gbacr 3'•co pv, vj,y~.,. w"a %tKv, Lu3mu,,c%&; Owed M:\41 px44 SaLat tcm► o bicr sc►rool. Cjr~ 'fb-SU'~oo\ 'W-~s wtwiA,t 4~k~ cY:6\"A.. vrosA abvhuu. do..,~ ~ 01 mw 45k~ orxk kxyva C~p io MWA dodo &LMVO Y~OUYVOI dove oan6 all 45AXwrNA '61~ 44--JL N dlt ago St tX~' ~~4►xv~~ ~ T~,nC~vG ~'D~~ ~~P~~ oard~Ax~vtxor~ 4r 00o►r) 1 cao►~ Ono and, Slow - a.w~ G ve~ 04 ~:0~ - p~a,r~,r, ~ t'aorn:~neb~c , orvd\ C.r~~~c.Yas~wQ3 t"Varon 41.00 - vwnoj~e. panda Case ~ t R eyd %ar't or►c LAC ~jt 30 - C~y~ , M~ 11~ ~c~►rd► t3~.1~ cent t~o~/ gicxj • c ovv-~Mb r* loom veou (o~.oo- Dal~~"a c~o"h''' h~txne. VW4 e%r Lg,%*Oo so C) Y\e. lie wo Goss. 15 ~%r'c' ~ ~~~3t7~Pvr+• ito &fop CYK%\60w T%b* a\ WOW. iv Q`u`-~ - t,~s vv YW5 1 28' 1 5' -.r S gypI low ~ up 4m 1 , r vAouse o APpx• 2400 s~ o} o tZr-o ~ t i ~ t Svc*ja%1 a 1 tf 4 1 f Kart N t 45' 1 #0 5S' scale 1M_ ID,