Resolution No. 91-26 r � -
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 91-OL"
A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE
APPROVAL (SUB 90-0007, VAR 90-0011) REQUESTED BY WAVERLY
CONSTRUCTION (AASE OTTO-PROPERTY OWNER) . THE SUBJECT PROPERTY Is
LOCATED AT 14200 SW 97TH AVENUE (WCTM 2S1 BA, tax lots 100, 106,
and 107) .
WHEREAS, the applicant requested subdivision and variance approval
for a 2.4 acre site located at 14200 SW 97th Avenue;
WHEREAS, the Tigard Community Development Division recommended j
denial of the proposal through its staff report to the Planning
Commission;
WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the above
application and received public testimony at its regular meeting of
January 8, 1991, and the Commission approved the proposed
subdivision preliminary plat for a ten lot subdivision as well as
a variance to allow two lots to have less than the minimum required
street frontage of 25 feet and a variance to allow a street
intersection of 65 feet on a collector street whereas a minimum
offset of 300 feet is required; and
WHEREAS, Neighborhood Planning Organization 6 appealed the Planning
Commission's approval of the above dascrbed requests; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council heard the above applications on
appeal at the Council's regular meetings of March 26, 1991 and
April 23, 1991.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
Section l: The proposal is not consistent with all of the
relevant criteria as noted and described in the
attached findings (Exhibit "All).
Section 2: The City Council overturns the Planning
Commission's approval of the Subdivision and
Variance requests.
Section 3: The Council, therefore, ORDERS that the above-
referenced request be DENIED. The council FURTHER
ORDERS that the Community Development Director and
the City Recorder send a copy of the Final Order as
a Notice of Final Decision to the parties in this
case.
RESOLUTION NO. 9-G Co
Page 1
PASSED: This day of , 199
yor - Cjty of Tigard
AT/TEST.
City Recorder - City o£ Tig .d
br/JO:Res-BP.jo
I
q!
RESOLUTION NO. 9-6- aLO
Page 2
i
EXHIBIT A
AGENDA ITEM
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1991 - 7:30 P.M.
TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL
13125 SW BALL BLVD.
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
A. FACTS
1. General Information
CASE: Subdivision SUB 90-0007, Variance VAR 90-0011,
Miscellaneous MIS 90-0020
REQUEST: 1) Preliminary plat review of a proposal to subdivide three
parcels totaling 2.4 acres into 10 lots ranging in size from
7500 to 10,400 square feet.
2) A Variance is requested to allow two of the proposed lots
to have less than the required 25 feet public street frontage
for lots created through the subdivision process (Cornmurity
Development Code Section 18.164.060.B).
3) A Variance is also requested to allow a local street
intersection offset of approximately 65 feet along a collector
street whereas Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.E
states that in no case shall the staggering of street
intersections along collector streets create offsets of less
than 300 feet.
4) Lot Line Adjustment approval is necessary to allow a 15 by
145 foot strip in the northeastern corner of the subject
property to possibly be added to one of the adjacent parcels.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre)
APPLICANT: Waverly Construction.
31835 SW Country View Drive
Wilsonville, OR 97070
AGENT: Burton Engineering
302 Tigard Plaza
Tigard, OR 97223
OWNER: Aase B. Otto
14200 SW 97th Avenue
Tigard, Oregon 97224
LOCATION: 97224 SW 97th Avenue. East side of SW 97th Avenue,
approximately 400 feet south of SW McDonald Street
(WCTM2S1 11BA, Tax Lots, 100, 106, 107).
2. Background Information
On November 6, 1980, the Tigard Planning Commission reviewed a subdivision
proposal to divide the parcels into ten lots. The proposed subdivision
lots would have received access.from a new east/west street on the northern.
i.. STAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION Page 1
a�
edge of the parcel, a new segment of SW Mountainview Lane along the
t' p, e--rty'n southern edge, and one parcel having direct access to SW 97th
Avenue. The proposal was approved by the Commission, but the plat was
never recorded with Washington County. That approval has expired.
On July 10, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal to divide the
subject parcels into nine lots; six lots receiving access from a proposed
three lots from a north/south public road
northjaouth private road and
along the eastern edge of the property. A new section of SW Mountainview
Lane was proposed to connect these two roads to SW 97th Avenue_ No
variances were involved in this application. The Commission continued the
hearing on this proposal in order to allow the applicant and staff to
reconsider the subdivision's design after hearing testimony on the proposal
from the applicant, owner, and neighbors_ The current proposal by the
applicant is in response to the continuance.
No other land use or development applications regarding these parcels have
been reviewed by the City.
3. VicInI-Y Information
The subject parcels are surrounded by other properties designated Low
Density Residential by the Comprehensive Plan. Properties to the north,
east, south and northwest are zoned R-4.5 and are developed with a
combination of recent single family residential development to the
northwest and older, large-lot single family residences to the north,
south, and east. SW He
untainview Lane dead ends approximately 145 feet
east of the southeastern corner of the subject properties.
4- Site Information and Proposal Description
The subject site consists of three tax lots comprising approximately 2.4
acres. A single Family residence Is
located on Tax Lot 100, approximately
140 feet. from SW 97thAvenue. Two outbuildings are also located on the
subject parcels. The parcels contain a combination of open grass covered
areae along with landscaping trees and several large fir trees The
properties slope to the northeast. l
The applicant proposes to.subdivide the site into ten lots as ilustrated
be
on the attached preliminary plat. The existing house is Intended
ro sed lots,tlots
retained. A Variance is requested to allow two of the proposed
2 and 5, to have less than the required 25 feet of public street frontage
for lots created through the subdivision review process (Community
Development Code Section 18.164_060.3). In addition, Lot Line Adjustment
approval is necessary to allow. a 15 by 145 foot strip in the far
northeastern corner of the subject property to possibly be added to oneo£
the adjacent parcels. Staff has added thisapproval request to this
application althoughthe applicant's preliminary plat and application do
not address the need for the adjustment or show this strip of land as part
of the subject property.
A Variance is also requested to allow a local street intersection offset
of approximately 65 feet along a collector street whereas Community
Development Code Section 18.164.030.E states that in no case shall the
staggering of street intersections along collector streets create of£aets
of less than 300 feet. The proposed location of SW Rhonda Street along the
ndary is offset approximately 65 feet south of the
properties northern bou
location of SW Elrose Street on the Opposite side of SW 97th Avenue_
The subdivision would be provided with public: street access by two public
streets to be developed on the southern and northern boundaries of the
site. The applicant proposes dedicating 35 feet of right-of-way on the
.. STAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 - WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION Page 2
61
south side of the property for an approximately 350 foot segment of SW
Mountainview Lane. An approximately 145 foot long gap would exist between
this section of SW Mountainview Lane and theexistinq section of the street
to the east. The applicant proposes constructing two-thirds street
improvements on Mountainview Lane consisting of a 26-foot wide road surface
with a standard 6-inch concrete curb and a 5 foot sidewalk on the northern
side of this street. The preliminary plat indicates a 25-foot wide right-
of-way dedication is intended for SW Rhonda Court on the property's north
side. The submittal shows a typical local street section for SW Rhonda
Court with two-thirds street improvements although it is not clear how this
would be constructed on the subject property without additional right-of-
way dedication. The typical street sections submitted with the preliminary
plat, as well as the plat itself, indicate that an additional 16 feet of
right-of-way dedication and 8 additional feet of pavement section is
anticipated to be provided through development of the adjacent parcels at
some point in the future.
Sanitary sewer service is proposed to be provided by extensions of the
existing sanitary sewer located along the east side of the project. This
existing sanitary sewer line was previously constructed through a local
improvement district. The property owner has been assessed for the future
development potential of the property for approximately nine years.
Storm drainage is proposed to be collected by a network of storm sewers
flowing to the east and north following the existing sanitary sewer
easements. The storm sewers would outfall into a drainageway approximately
150 feet northeast of the site. In addition, parcels abutting SW 97th
Avenue would be served by existing storm sewers in the street.
A Subdivision preliminary plat review request for the three parcels
immediately to the north has been made to divide the properties into 7 lots
(SUB 90-0013). That request also includes a Variance request to allow an
offset local street intersection with a collector street.
" 5. Agency and NPO comments
The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and offers the following
comments:
a. The site accesses to S.W. 97th Avenue, a major collector street. The
applicant is proposing two access points: 1) an extension of S.W.
Mountainview Lane, and 2) a new proposed road, S.W. Rhonda Court.
The second access point, S.W. Rhonda Court, does not satisfy
Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.G.1 which requires that
streets making ^T^ intersections with collectors have a minimum of
300 feet of separation.
The Engineering Division has also been requested by the Planning
Department to make comments on another proposed subdivision,
SUB 90-0013, which is located adjacent to and to the north ofthis
proposed subdivision. The common point of interest between the
proposed subdivisions would be the proposed access road, S.W. Rhonda
Court, which would provide access to both subdivisions from S.W. 97th
Avenue. Both subdivision applications require consideration of a
variance to the intersection spacing standard. The applicant for SUB
90-0013 has submitted a narrative addressing the approval criteria
for a variance to Community Development code Section 18.164.030.6.1.
. The City Council directed the Engineering Department to review
options for future development of the area bounded by McDonald
.Street, 93rd Avenue, Inez Street, and 97th Avenue. Several
conceptual plans (see attachments) —ere prepared by the staff. All
STAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 - WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION Page 3
30
��
of the options meet the requirement of 300 feet of separation for "T"
intersections, and appear tnd
. provide adequatehbood- Our ioint ic circulation
(pla(planning _
adequate emergency access to the re'g• tions indicates that
and Engineering) review of these conceptual op
buildable lots can be developed, in compliance with the Community
Development Code.
If this subdivision is developed prior to redevelopment of the
surrounding area, it will 3A be necessary
sof right hof-waypasndhalve f developer
to provide a minimum of
improvements to include a minimum of 24 feet of street surface for
SW Rhonda Court. Based on any of the. street alignments options that
the staff has reviewed, there would be no additional burden on this
developer, and he may be able to recoup a portion of his investment
under the new Tigard Municipal Code, chapter 13.08.
If this subdivision is developed along with SUB 90-0013 and
using any oneof the options proposed by staff there would be no
additional burden on either of the applicants. In fact, there may
be a savings to the applicants if they pursue the options as provided
in Chapter 13.08 of the Tigard Municipal code.
Therefore, we conclude that a workable street system, with the
extension of S.W. Mountainview bane as proposed by the applicant, can
be developed for the area that would not require any variances-
b. Sanitary sewer service is available from an existing 8^ line on the
east and west sides and portions of the north and south property
li.nes. The
local :improvement existing
sanitary n the early 1980 a.sewer lines were onstructed through
c. The applicant is proposing to run the storm drainage system into the
existing.creek that is north of the property- This may still be
accomplished and is not dependent upon the street/lot lay out_
d. The Engir•earang Departmentrecommends denial of the submitted
preliminary plat and proposed variance to the Community Development
Code Section 18.164.030.4.E because of the substandard street
ety problems that could create.
intersection and the traffic oaf
The Building Di�ision has reviewed the
£orsal a the d sting has hone musttthat ba
plan showing the location of
submitted (i.e., water lines, sewer lines, rain drains, septic tanks and
drainfields). If any of these utilities. will cross the proposed new
he existing
property lines, easements will be required. Raindrainsfor the Building
house shall discharge to an approved location. In addition, e Building
for
Division has commented that private storm drain lines must be provided
lots 4 through S.
Tigard School District No. 23J has noted concerns with its ability to
maintain the current level of educational programs and school facilities
as the result of rapid growth throughout the district. The at Templeton
enrollment from the proposed development is 3 students When combined -
Elementaryand 2 students at Twality JuniorHigh School.
with other
proposed development projects, the total projected enrollment
,
lities' design capacities. Further, the District
increase exceeds the faci
cannot guarantee that the new schools which are to open in 1992 will have
:if the rate
the design capacity to serve all Of homepro
buyers should pm
a tadvised that
th
of growth increases. prospective
students mayhave to be bused to other schools Or placed in portable
classrooms.
4
STAFF REPORT -• SOB 90-0007 - WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION
page 4
The Metropolitan Area Communications Company (cable television) requests
thatit be contacted by the developer prior to construction regarding cable
inat allation.
NPO #6 has reviewed the proposed subdivision and has recommended denial of
the proposed variance.to create two flag lets with insufficient road
frontage because the NPO is concerned that the proposed flag lots are
inconsistent with the development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood.
The Tualatin valley Fire and Rescue District, Tigard Water District, PGE,
and GTE have reviewed the proposal and have offered no comments or
objections.
No other comments have been received.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The applicable criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies
2.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1., 7.4.4, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, and 3.4.1 and Community
Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.92, 18.134, 18.150, 18.160, 18.162, and
18.164.
The Planning staff concludes the proposal is not consistent with all
applicable Plan policies and Code criteria based upon the findings noted
below:
1. Policy 2_1.1 is satisfied because Neighborhood Planning Organization
16 and surrounding property owners were given notice of the public
hearing on the subdivision proposal providing them an opportunity to
comment on the proposal.
- 2, Policies 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and 7.4.4 can be satisfied because assurance
of the extension of sewer, water, and storm drainage facilities to
serve the development will be required prior to approval.of the final
plat. Sanitary and storm sewers presently exist on the eastern
.portion of the property. A water line and storm sewer are located
within SW 97th Avenue abutting the property_ The applicant has
indicated that these facilities will be extended within the
subdivision in conformance with City standards. The Engineering
Division has indicated that the preliminary plans for providing these
utilities appear adequate. Detailed public improvement plans will
need to be approved prior to recording the plat.
3. Policy 6.1.1 call for the provision of a safe and efficient street
system which will accommodate present and future needs. The proposed
street plan for the subdivision partially satisfies this policy
because the development would provide for improvement of theexisting
right-of-way for SW 97th Avenue with sidewalk and streetlights and
would provides the minimum necessary interim pavement widths and
associated improvements for the extension of SW Mountainview Lane
along the south side of the proposed development'. The proposed
Mountainview Lane extension would improve: opportunities for.
redevelopment of the adjacent parcels to the hast and south without.
placing an undue burden on the future developers of those parcels
with regard to completion of street improvements. The proposed
southern street would align with SW Mountainview Lane 145 feet to the
east and therefore would further the city's goal of providing for a
local street connection between the neighborhood to the east and SW
97th Avenue. A sign has been posted at the present western terminus
of SW Mountainview, Lane for some time noting that future extension
of the street has been contemplated by the City of Tigard.
STAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 - WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION Page 5
3a
®®�-W-_NiiiVzR_- M
9 COW ---� 9�
However, the preliminary plat Is net consistent with Policy 8.1.1
with regard to the location of the propo.=ed Rhonda Court/SW 97th
Avenue intorsection with respect to the location of SW Elrose Street
on the opposite side of SW 97th Avenue. Community Development Code
Section 18.164.030.0 states that in no case shall the staggering of
street intersections along collector streets create offsets of less
than 300 feet. This standard is intended to avoid traffic safety
problems due to awkward vehicular turning movements from the opposing
intersections. The applicant requests a Variance to allow a local
street intersection offset of approximately 65 feet on a collector
street for the proposed alignment. Section 18.160.120.5 of the code
contains criteria for approval of a variance to a Code requirement
that is being reviewed as part of a subdivision application.
This application does not address these Variance criteria. The
applicant's statement accompanying the application for subdivision
SOB 90-0013 for the parcels to the north does, however, address the
variance criteria for the proposed location of the SW Rhonda Court
intersection. Because the issue is the same for both proposed
subdivisions, those comments are considered with respect to the
subdivision application on the Otto property.
Mr. Marlin DeHaas, the engineer for the proposed subdivision to the
north on the Lautt property, has provided responses to each of the
variance criteria for the requested variance. Staff has provided
comments in response to Mr. DeHaas' comments with regard to the
requested variance.
Criterion 1
There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property
which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands
similarly situated.
DeHaas' Response:
A. climinary plat configuration for Lautt's Terrace, Grandview
Acres (Templeton Estates) and Solarcrest, (which includes SW
Elrose Street) were planned jointly with owners and the City
In the 1980-1981period to accommodate and support the LID for
97th Avenue and the McDonald Sewer LID. The proposed locations
of Elrose Street (Janzen) and Rhonda Court were established as
a part of the LID projects (see sanitary sewer as-built plans)
and are the same as proposed by thio application. Sewers were
constructed and assessments levied based upon this same
proposed alignment. Owners were encouraged by the City to
accept such configurations to facilitate the LID and the usual
assessment procedures.
B. Lautt filed an original preliminary plat application for this
same configuration on 5/2/81 for approval of an 8-lot
subdivision on 2.58 acres in an R-7 .zone. Staff conditions
were applied and Lautt acknowledged same on 5/22/81. The final
action staff report was dated 6/26/81. Based upon this
approval, Lautt proceeded with the final plat board. Because
of the state of the economy in 1981, the final plat for this
" project, along with numerous others, were not timely filed, and
.approvals expired. At any rate, the record shows that the
currently proposed configuration was approved by the City in
1981.
C. SW 97th is not a new street and development patterns of the
intersecting streets have been pretty much determined. The
STAFF.REPORT - SUB 90-0007 - WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION Page 6.
33
major accessesfrom Twality Junior High are separated from
t Murdock street and Pembrook Street by approximately So feet and
270 feet respectively. While it is reasonable to ray^,;ira the
300 foo+= cz terion for new major collector streets, it is
already
lel to retroactively apply the standard to a street
already having a development pattern, which causes a g
t
difficuly in conforming. reat
D. The use of the major collector designation for 97th is quite
marginal in that it is only approximately 2,000 feet long, has
a T^ intersection at McDonald Street, and ends at a sharp
curve at Murdock_ Street.
Staff Response=
Staff agrees that the prior actions of the Planning Commission in
approving the Lautt and Templeton Estates subdivisions and the local
Improvement district are certainly special circumstances which have
affected these properties. However, we do not find that these past
circumstances need to dictate what happens today. Although the
design submitted by the applicant, and the applicant for SUB 90-0013
work well in relation to the existing sewers, the applicants for
these subdivision proposals have not shown that these are the only
designs, or the best designs, which will work for division of these
Properties with respect to more than just the locations of exiat;i,-,g
sewers.
The applicant for SUB 90-0007, in fact, has previously submitted a
Preliminary plat for review by the Planning Commission which also
works well with respect to the existing sanitary and storm sewer
locations. This previous plat does not require any of the requested
variances involved in the present subdivision approval requests_ it
appears to staff: that the applicant for SUB 90-0013 should have
Include consideration of this previous proposal for the Otto property
and determined whether or not that arrangement could work for the
Lautt property. The Engineering Division has re
layouts of the Otto and Lauttg ro Prepared conceptual
north/south public street a peideo that would include a
on the east side a the Otto property. eit
-
appears that the same number of lots could be created using a cul-de-
sac bending westward onto the Lautt property as are presently being
requested. The approximate locations of the lots could utilize the
same existing sanitary sewer lateral T's as the proposal before the
commi
ssion.
Staff rejects DeElaas' assertion that because SW 97th is not a new
street, development. standards related to the collector street status
should not apply. we fail to see why it would aot be reasonable to
apply the standard in this area, since the parceis on.the east side
Of SW 97th are all under-developed and likely will see redevelopment
in the future years. There is:pa significant amount of area that may
be redeveloped so the City is not really faced with an in-fill
situation where limited area may necessitate designs that.may not be
fully consistent with good development design practice. Since tha
applicant's enginaerconcedes that it is reasonable to require the
300 foot access offset.criterion for development along new major
collector streets,. the applicant'a engineer, seems to concur that this
is aea£ety-based standard. Staff feels that safety is just as much
of an issue on an existing collector street as it would be on a new
collector street_ We fail to understand DeHaas' argument.
Although SW 97th Avenue is unusual for a major collector street in
that it i-rc ` et t
ly short and terminates aa "T" intersection a
\ STAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 -vVVAVERLv CONSTRUCTION
Page 7
JLI
P-01
one end, and a curve on the other, the street does carry a
substantial amount of traffic, especially during the school year.
The street certainly functions as a collector street despite these
unusual physical characteristics. Unless impractical, all City
standards r IaLcd ro safety should be strictly upheld in the review
or developments affecting traffic on the street.
Criterion 2:
The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the
subdivision.
DeHaas' Response:
A. The sanitary sewers were designed and constructed to serve the
currently proposed lots and street configuration.
B. The proposed Rhonda Court, location best serves both the
proposed Lautt's Terrace and Grandview Subdivisions.
C. Existing access easements through the Lautt tract to individual
properties to the east fall within the proposed Rhonda Court
location.
Staff Response:
Although the sanitary sewers were designed and constructed to serve
the proposed lot and street configurations, the applicants have not
submitted any evidence that these facilities would not function well
with another subdivision layout_ The Engineering Department's
conceptual plan illustrates how the existing sanitary sewers could
serve lots off of a cul-de-sac coming from the southeast without
requiring any variances. In addition, the applications have not
addressed the possibility.of locating the Rhonda Court/SW 97th Avenue
intersection directly across from SW Elrose Street. Although such
an intersection would require a southward curve to Rhonda Court, and
possibly some difficult to utilize area to the south of the
intersection, this alignment would seem to be able to serve the same
'lumber of lots as is currently proposed for the Lautt property. This
area could be combined with a future lot to be developed as part of
the Otto subdivision to the south. Existing access easements through
the Lautt tract to properties to the east could be served by an
alignment of SW Rhonda Court directly across from Elrose Terrace or j
from a street to be developed along the eastern side of the Otto
property as previously proposed to the Commission in Ju*ie, 1990. We
fail to understand the DeHaas argument with regard to how the
proposed alignment is necessary to serve these properties to the
east_
Criterion 3-
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, and welfare, or injurious to.the rights of other
owners of property-
DeHaas, response:
A_ The proposed Rhonda Court location best accommodates rights of
the owners of Lautt's Terrace and Grandview Acres in providing
reasonable and attractive access to subdivision lots. It also
accommodates prior access rights for individual properties to
the east,
', STAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 WAVERLY CONSTRDCTION Page 8
®�
B. As 97th Avenue is a through street, both Rhonda Court and
El rose Street will be controlled by stop signs.
Staff Response:
Staff fails to see how the proposed location of Rhonda Court offset
from SW Elrose Terrace provides any more attractive or reasonable
access to the proposed subdivisions as the alternatives of aligning
Rhonda Court with the Elrose Street intersection or following the
previously submitted design for the Otto property and extending a
street northward to the Otto property. in addition, as described
above, these alternatives would not seem to negatively impact access
rights for individual properties to the east in any manner.
Both Rhonda Court and Elrose Street will be controlled by stop signal
as DeHaas notes. However, the primary traffic safety issue related
o the proposed intersection offset is the turning movements that
will be necessary from these intersections, no matter whether the
intersections are signed or not.
Criterion 4:
The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which
would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this
title.
DeHaas' Response:
A. As related here and before, street alignments were planned and
approved jointly by the City and owner in this area in the
1980-1981 period. Development has occurred and property has
been assessed based on these street alignments.. The owner has
relied upon this earlier planning and it is not practical to
undo what has been done. Such undoing would place an
extraordinary hardship upon the applicant.
S. In fact: it is impossible: for Lautt to meet .this criterion
within his property.
Staff Response-
Staff fails to see why it is not practical to undo the designwork
that has been done. Staff, and the applicant's engineer for the
.proposal on the Otto property, have already revised some of that
design work in the submittal and review of the earlier preliminary
plat for that property. The Engineering Department has done further
work showing how.a street could be developed an the Lautt property
utilizing the existing storm sewer and sanitary sewer. This work has
shown that other development options.exist for these properties. The
only hardship that staff is aware Of is the possible cost of revising
the plat and public improvement plans that may have been developed
In response to the earlier approvals. Although this would require
afinancial outlay by the applicants, it is not unreasonable to
expect this of an applicant who has let subdivision approval lapse
for in excess of eight years.
In closing this analysis, staff does not find that the applicants
have met the burden of providing substantial evidence that requiring
strict compliancewith the requirements of Code Section 18.164.030.G
would cause an undue hardship to the applicants. Staff believes that
evidence shows that other subdivision designs could utilize existing
STAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 - WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION Page 9
_-__.. ... ... .
ANN M
N
uff
public facilities in place on the properties- These other designs
r.. could alleviate
potentialtraffic hazards that could result from an
offset intersection as p Po
4. Policy 8.1.3 requires that adequate right-of-way and street
Improvements be provided for streets abutting
orwitn a lopersis
development. If deficiencies exist, the prospective these minimum
responsible £or providing facilities that meet
standards. As noted above, the proposed street system is not
consistent with City standards. A revised preliminary plat and
street layout are therefore necessary. The requirements of this
policy cannot be satisfied if the proposed improvements are: not
consistent with City standards.
5. Chapter 18.50 of the Code is satiafied because the sizes of the
proposed lots are consistent with the 7500 square foot minimum lot
size standard of the R-4.5 zone. All proposed lots should be able
nce with setback and
coverageustandards of the n In nzone awithout requiring varian es.� site
The proposed Lot Line Adjustment would allow the possible transfer
of a 15 by 145 foot section of existing tax lot 106 to either of the
adjacent parcels, tax lots 109 or 1100. Such an adjustment would
Increase setbacks for existing structures and would increase the size
Of either of these other parcels. Either adjustment would allow
these lots to remain in conformance with the min:L°um lot also be
size and
dimensional requirements of the R-4.5 =oneandteria (Community
uld
consistent with the Lot Line Adjustment appoval
cr-IDevelopment Code Section 18.162.060). if an agreement is not reached
by the applicant with either of the adjacent props the Scn irswior
transfer of this strip of land to an adjacent parcel, P
need to be included in proposed lot 1_ Because of the configuration
of this strip of land; it is not clear what purpose would be served
by attaching the strip to lot 1. The strip. would likely be a
maintenance burden for the owner of lot 1. Staff strongly recommends
that this strip of land be transferred to an adjacent parcel rather
than being attached to lot I-
6- chapter 18.92 is satisfied because the proposed density is consistent
with Code requirements. The area of the proposed subdivision
provides an opportunity for approximately 11 dwelling zne nits if
developed to the full density opportunity of the R-4.5
7. Chapter 18.150 requires that the number of trees over six inches in
diameter that are removed during the course of construction be
minimized. The proposed development's streets, utilities, and
residences will require the removal of a significant number of trees.
However, the number of trees removed should and can be minimized.
The staff recommends that trees over six inches in diameter be
removed only to construct utilities, streets and residences. Plans
ev
for tree staff through an appli appliand cion must,ation a treee r cuttingWpermied t the Planning
the is
B. Chapter 18_160 is partially satisfied because
lic :olep Plane andlaCode
consistent with t'.he majority of the app
requirements that relate to this type of request_ The plat name is
not duplicative of other recorded plats. However, as elaborated upon
elsewhere in this report, staff finds that the proposed alignment of
SW Rhonda Court relative to SW Elrose Street on the opposite side of
SW 97th Avenue is a substandard design and could pose a traffic
hazard on a collector street. The applicant has not shown thatthere
is no other practical design for the subdivision that could avoid the
J.. Page 10
� t STAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 - WAVERL3C CONSTRUCTION
f
B
�- substandard intersection design and still utilize the existing
sanitary sewer. The applicants primary argument for the variance
therefore appears to be that the City has to live by previous
approvals that have expired. Code Section 18.160.040, however, sets
a limit on the approval period for an approved subdivision plan. One
of the purposes of this time limit is to allow the City to revisit
the conditions related to a development proposal if that proposal has
not been constructed. This allows the City to revisit previously
reviewed proposals and require amendments that address changes in
circumstances or changes in City policies, and to better respond to
the situations affecting a proposed development. Staff urges the
Commission to recognize that the earlier Commission approval of a
plan for development of this property would not have provided for as
good a development plan as possible and would also not have been
consistent with the City's road improvement standards_ Staff
recommends denial of uhe requested subdivision variance.
9. Chapter 18.162 is satisfied because the recommended Lot Line
Adjustment would be consistent with the approval criteria for a Lot
Line Adjustment as described in 5 above.
10. Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Standards) is only partially
satisfied by the preliminary plat submittal. The proposal would
adequately provide storm drainage and sanitary sewer facilities. The
typical street section and plan view of the proposed street
demonstrate compliance with the majority of the street design
standards of Chapter 18.162. However, the proposed 16ca1 street
Intersection with SW 97th Avenue is not consistent with Community
Development Code Section 18.164.030.6.1 whish specifies a minimum
center line separation of 300 feet when it is necessary that
Intersecting streets form staggered intersections and the staff does
not find that the applicant has satisfactorily shown that this
- -requirement should be varied.
In addition, proposed lots 2 and 5 do not contain 25 feet of frontage
along a street as required by Community Development code
18.164.060.B. The applicant has not submitted an argument in favor
Of this variance. Cnce again, the preliminary plat copies the
earlier 1980 plat submittal which also did not specifically address
this issue. The applicant apparently is .again relying upon the
Precedent of the earlier approval as justification of the present
request. It is unclearwhether the minimum street requirement was
- in effect in 1980 and therefore whether the earlier submittal would
have been considered substandard in this respect.
Staff does not find that the request satisfiesthe subdivision
variance approval criteria ofCode Section 18.160.120.B. The
Preliminary plat reviewed by the Commission in June of 1990
illustrated how the property could be developed without requiring
approval of this sort of variance. That by itself demonstrates that
the request does not satisfy the approval criteria because there is
no extraordinary hardship that would result from compliance with the
minimum frontage standard or that the requested variance is necessary
for the proper functioning of the subdivision.
The request would create two fla, lots. Flag lots are typically
viewed as undesirable in land development. Flag lots are more
typically a last resort design for difficult to develop in-fill
projects. This proposal clearly illustrates some of the possible
undesirable effects of flag lots. The existing residences on
proposed lot 5 and on tax lot 1100 to the east both face to the west
towards 97th Avenue. Assuming that these houses remain as is, the
t
STAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION Page 11
M
fronts of these houses will face the rear or sides Of the lots to the-
w at.
hewat. In addition, the front of any house to be built on proposed
loet 5 will face the rear of proposed lot 4. Also, both lots may be
difficult to locate from the street since homes built on the lots
would likely not be readily visible from SW Rhonda Court.
Additionally, the entire development pattern of the proposed
subdivision is unusual in that it includes eight lots fronting on
three different streets as well as the two flag lots that would be
somewhat buried behind the others. This pattern does not appear
conducive to the development of a neighborhood identity. Such a
pattern certainly is not good development practice, especially when
a viable option exists as was shown in June. The earlier submittal
was far superior in that it avoided the negative effects of the
requested variances, did not have any driveways on SW 97th Avenue -
a collector street, and faced houses towards each other in a way that
would seem to contribute to a neighborhood feeling. Staff recommends
that the Commission deny the requested variances and direct the
applicant to retry this earlier approach to development of the
property.
C. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division recommends denial of the submitted preliminary plat
for Subdivision SUB 90-0007 primarily because of the submittals dependence
on a substandard street intersection in the northwestern corner of the site
for access to five of the proposed lots. As noted above, staff has
substantial concerns with traffic safety related to the proposed
intersection offset and therefore recommends denial of the proposed
variance to Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.4.E for both the
subject application and Subdivision application SUB 90-0013_ In addition,
staff recommends denial of the proposed variance to allow the proposed flag
lots, lots 2 and 5, to have less than tris minimum 25 feet of frontage on
a street for the reasons described above. Because no application or
p
'_min-aif t .-
loline adjustcnt map were submitted with the application
ackpackage and because the need for the adjustment arises from the subdiv?cion
request which is recommended to be denied, staff also recommends denialof
the Lot Line Adjustment portion of this application.
Staff recommends that the Planning commission recommend that the applicant
refile a preliminary plat the same as or similar to the preliminary plat
reviewed by the Commission on June 5, 1990. Such a submittal should be
required to be a new application rather than a continuance to this
application. This is suggested so that the Commission can make a final
decision denying the current proposal in order to clearly reject the
development approach taken with this application and Subdivision. SUB 90-
0013 as well as to afford an opportunity for apossible appeal on these
decisions. It is recommended to the applicant for SUB 90-0007 that the
city council be approached about a partial fee waiver for the second
application since a substantial amount of the typical..staff time required
for review of a subdivisioi. application will not be necessary if the
proposal is not substantially changed from the plan reviewed in June, 1990.
Staff notes that modifications to the earlier proposal could possibly
Include the addition of tenth lot-
71 /D/D Je ffer APPROVED BY: Keith LIclen
/ A ate Planner Senior Planner
STAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION Page 12
i
--
o�
U �J ti — x .a. i �. �. �. In -_-- •.�
q i
z c o
w
� H
yo
y � a
j o
J ^
y J
WAM
--------------
1 � fieri s � I 1j
a L
0 4 �
---------------
4
4 � �
A \/
CD
i-2� y 07
lid �...
�
41" �
co
LU
vl - tit ,VZ.1t7v0S _ �
ry. b
Q Q
L C>!;; t
rl
W
ISL
In
C-1-to O �
V � l
V-N
v
.� \'• _ .00• A9'6L gyp- �
V4 _