08/03/1991 - Packet AGENDA
NPO #3 MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1991 - 7:00 P.M.
TIGARD CITY HALL
13125 S. W. HALL BLVD.
TIGARD, OREGON
NOTE: WE WILL HAVE A JOINT MEETING WITH NPO #7 REGARDING THE
FOLLOWING ITEMS:
Joint Meeting with NPO #7- RV Storage - Proposal to eliminate Section 18.96.060 of the
Tigard Municipal Code.
Joint Meeting with NPO #7 - Fence Requirements
SUB 91-0012 - Paul Miller - Applicant requests subdivision approval to divide an
approximately 4.97 acre site into 28 parcels ranging between approximately 5,000 and
12,630 square feet each.
ZONE: R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre)
LOCATION: 13735 SW Walnut Street (WCTM 2S1 413D, tax lot 400), and 13735 SW Fern
Street (WCTM 2S1 41313, tax lot 1500)
Adjourn to conference room for continuation of NPO #3 items.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: PORTER BISHOP FROUDE GARNER
HANSEN _ MORTENSEN ROOT SMITH
3. Approve Minutes from July 2, 1991 meeting.
4. ZCA 91-0016 - Brajavich Annexation - Applicant requests one parcel consisting of
0.36 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County
R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre) to City of Tigard R-7 (Residential, 7 units per
acre).
ZONE: Washington County R-6.
LOCATION: 13440 SW Howard Drive (WCTM 2S1 03CA, tax lot 1700).
6. Review Notices of Decision received
7. Other Business - Mt. Highlands Subdivision
8. Adjournment
TO ENSURE A QUORUM TO CONDUCT BUSINESS, PLEASE CALL LIZ NEWTON
AT 639-4171, EXTENSION 308 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND
h� a
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: NPO's
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: July 19, 1991
SUBJECT: Request for NPO comment on fence requirements
The City Council requested that staff review fence requirements
especially with regard to front yards. The attached memo was
discussed by the Council on July 16 . -The Council and staff are
requesting that the NPO's consider the City's fence requirements
prior to staff forwarding a proposed ordinance through the public
hearing process. There was some feeling by Council that fences
should be allowed in all front yard subject to vision clearance
requirements.
It would be appreciated if the NPO's give consideration to existing
fence requirements and determine whether they would like to see
them modified.
There are a number of- basic options:
o retain the existing requirements (See Exhibit "I" of
attached memo)
o ___ modify the existing__fence requirements to allow fences in
the front yards along major streets (arterial and major
and minor collectors) subject to vision clearance
requirements
o modify the existing fence requirements to allow fences in
all front yards subject to vision clearance requirements
o make other modifications
Please forward NPO comments to Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner.
The draft ordinance attached to the July 5 memo includes a version
which allows front yard fences on major streets. Thank you for
your assistance.
r
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator
FROM: Ed Murphy, Director of Community Development
DATE: July 5, 1991
SUBJECT: Fence Requirements
OVERVIEW
Summary: Development Code regulations restrict fences and walls in
a required front yard to three feet in height. Height and location
are also controlled in other yards. (See Exhibit "I" 18. 100.090
Setbacks for Fences or Walls)
Policy Implications: Should the City allow people to construct
higher fences in front yards and how would that affect the public
interest?
Financial Impact: There would be negligible financial impact
through the reduction of variance applications and fees.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City's fence
regulations be revised to allow fences up to eight feet in height
in the front yard adjacent arterial and major and minor collector
streets except where clear vision- requirements must be met. In
addition, it is proposed that the clear vision requirements
(18.102) be modified to restrict fences where topography limits
vision. The fence regulations should also be changed to eliminate
the requirement for a two-foot fence for corner side yard fences.
(See Exhibit "II" Proposed Ordinance)
ANALYSIS
Background
Recent questions regarding when and where fences can be built have
been discussed by the City Council. The Council requested that the
Development Code provisions regarding fences be reviewed. The
development code requirements pertaining to fences are covered
under Chapter 18.100.090 and are attached as an exhibit to this
memo.
Issues
Staff discussion identified various issues relative to fences:
o The code requires a two foot setback for any fence abutting- a
street side yard. (Engineering staff has indicated that this
was probably required because of easements but, in reality,
they have found no need for the requirement) Fences built
according to this requirement also tend to leave unmaintained
strips adjacent to streets.
o There are sometimes clear vision problems at an intersection
near the crest of a hill. These are compounded by the
construction of even a fence as short as three feet.
o Fences are allowed along rear lot lines abutting a street while
they are not allowed along the front lot lines abutting a
street. In this case, it is possible to have a situation with
a row of six to eight foot rear yard fences along a street,
then no fences higher than three feet, and then another row of .
six to eight foot rear yard fences along the same street.
o Fences over three feet in height cannot be built without a
variance in defined front yards . This has proven to be a
hardship in individual situations along busy streets.
o Fences are not allowed in the right-of-way. Any work in the
right-of-way requires an engineering department permit.
Public Interest
The question of what is in the public interest in regard to fence
requirement needs to be asked.
The purposes for fences range from decoration, . privacy, and
protection to the definition of boundaries. Fences heights have
been traditionally been controlled for aesthetic purposes and to
allow visibility for police patrol. Fences heights on side and
rear yards have been controlled for the purpose of maintaining
light and air.
Brick, rock and cement walls along front property lines were rather
common many years ago., Clear vision areas at street and driveway
intersections are important safety considerations. Control of
fences for safety purposes is a logical public interest.
Some cities, such as Tualatin, do not have fence requirements for
single family dwellings. The .Tualatin Planning Director has
indicated their city has not encountered any problems without the
requirements.
Any construction in the right-of-way is reserved for public
purposes. Any activity in the right-of-way needs to be controlled
so that it does not interfere with a public purpose. Activity in
the right-of-way, what can occur there and the permit process for
those activities are separate issues not addressed in this report.
In reality, it appears that the majority of issues relating to
fences in Tigard have been because the city controls the location
and height, not because the public has requested the control. It
is also true that hedges are not controlled and there are many
instances in the city where they serve the same purpose and
function as a fence where a fence is not allowed.
Alternatives
o Change the development code to allow fences in all yards to a
height up to eight feet excluding clear vision areas. This
approach would leave the choice up to the property owner.
Clear vision requirements would make front yard fences unlikely
in many cases because of the requirements relative to
driveways.
o Allow fences to a height up to eight feet in the front yard
along all streets listed on the Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Map as Arterials, Major Collectors or Minor
Collectors, subject again to clear vision requirements. This
approach would continue to control aesthetics in most
residential areas but would also allow fences or walls to be
constructed where traffic, noise and privacy considerations
could be more of a problem.
o Retain the existing code provisions. This would indicate that
the present requirements are consistent with the city and
community needs and philosophy.
Conclusion
Because of the clear vision requirements at driveways, many would
choose not to build a front yard fence. The major risk in the
proposed approach is a long row of front yard fences or individual
front yard fences that may not be aesthetically pleasing. The
Development Code should be changed to allow fences or walls to be
constructed higher than three feet in height in front yards along
major streets.
Suggested Procedure:
1. Discuss concepts with the City Council for general policy
guidance.
2. Assuming the Council wishes to see some changes in the current
ordinance, direct staff to submit a proposed change to the
Development Code to the NPO's and Planning Commission.
3. Return to the City Council with proposed amendments based on
the recommendations of the NPO's and P.C.
Exhibit "I"
18 . 100.090 Setbacks for Fences or Walls
A. No fence or wall shall be constructed which exceeds the
standards in Subsection 18. 100.090.B. except when the
approval authority, as a condition of approval, allows
that a fence or wall be constructed to a height greater
than otherwise permitted in order to mitigate against
potential adverse effects.
B. Fences or wails:
1. May not exceed three feet in height in a required
front yard or six feet on a corner side yard or
eight feet in all other locations and, in all cases,
shall meet vision clearance area requirements
(Chapter 18. 102) ;
2. Are permitted outright in side yards or rear yards
to a height of six feet;
3. Located in a side or rear yard and which are between
six feet and eight feet in height shall be subject
to building permit approval;
4. Located in -the front yard or corner side yard and
which exceed the height limitation shall comply with
the setback requirements for structures set forth in
the applicable zone; or
5. Located within a corner side shall be no closer than
two feet from the property line, and shall satisfy
visual clearance requirements. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 85-
14; Ord. 83-52)
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 91-
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING
TO FENCE REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 18. 100.090 AND CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENTS,
SECTION 18. 102 . 020.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community
Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of
the Code; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the staff
recommendation at a public hearing on July , 1991 and voted to recommend
approval of the amendment to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a publid hearing on August , 1991 to consider
the amendment.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Community Developemt Code shall be amended as shown in Exhibit
"A" . Language to be added is UNDERLINED. Language to be deleted
is shown in [BRACKETS] .
Section 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the
Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By, vote of all Council members present after
being read by number and title only, this day of
, 1991.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: This day of , 1991.
Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
ORDINANCE No. 91-
Page 1
EXHIBIT "A"
18. 100 .090 Setbacks for Fences or Walls
A. No fence or wall shall be constructed which exceeds the
standards in Subsection 18. 100. 090.B. except when the
approval authority, as a condition of approval, allows
that a fence or wall be constructed to a height greater
than otherwise permitted in order to mitigate against
potential adverse effects.
B. Fences or walls:
1. May not exceed three feet in height in a required
front yard along local streets or [six feet on a
corner side yard or] eight feet in all other
locations and, in all cases, shall meet vision
clearance area requirements ( Chapter 18. 102) ;
2. [Are permitted outright in side yards or rear yards
to a height of six feet; ] Are permitted up to
eight feet in height in front yards adjacent to any
designated arterial, mayor collector or minor
collector street and, in all cases, shall meet
vision clearance area requirements ( Chapter
18. 102) ; Permission shall be subiect to
administrative review of the location of the fence
or wall.
3. [Located in a side or rear yard and which are
between six feet and eight feet in height shall be
subject to building permit approval; ] All fences
or walls greater than six feet in height shall be
subject to building permit approval.
- - - - --- -----[4.----Located---in—the--front--yard or corner-- side-:yard--and
which exceed the height limitation shall comply
with the setback requirements for structures set
forth in the applicable zone; or]
[5. Located within a corner side shall be no closer
than two feet from the property line, and shall
satisfy visual clearance requirements. (Ord. 89-
06; Ord. 85-14; Ord. 83-52) ]
18. 102.020 Visual Clearance: Required
C. Where topography or vertical curve conditions can
contribute to the obstruction of clear vision areas at a
street or driveway intersection, hedges, plantings,
fences, wall, wall structures and temporary or permanent
obstructions shall be further reduced in height or
eliminated to comply with the required clear vision area
• • July 1.0, 1991
Np0 ` 3 had a joint meeting July 2, 1991 with NPO 7 to hear a presentation on
the proposed Trans.cortation Plan Amendment to be presented to the City by NPO ;16
including changes in S,, Naeve Rd. , S,r 109th and aproposal for neva extensions
from ST-, Royalty Plk ay at Hwy. 99 and a neva Sattler St. extension. `v';e al_so
heard presentation on "I-B Development proposal for development of the western 20
acres of the 40 acres of the former 3echtold property, with a subdivision proposa-
for 52 single family lots �,<ith the entrance on S7�17 132nd off Walnut St. I`YO ,r5
has been working with the City on a new -V storage policy including allo�,Ting
parsing in the front cards of residential lots. Ron Bunch of the City and
Craig Hopkins of 17.20 z`5 presented this ordinance. There is an opportunity for
input to the City at this time on this item.
NFO went into their separate meeting at 8: 15 p.ni4 Those in attancance were
Porter, Bishop, Froude, Garner, (Hansen excl Mortensen, (Smith went home ill) ,
and Root not present. The -minutes of the last meeting were approved.
Ron Bunch was there to discuss and receive input on Hone Occupation ordinance.
:_artha 3ishop submitted some suggestions and comments in writing. Herman Porter
'rade the suggestion to allow a single em-ployee in a home occupation. This
ordinance has not been taken to the Plan �ommissi.on or -City Council yet and there
i st i 11_ ti 2e for suggestions or i Scuss_Dn with the s-taff.
��ans :7 �'vc.V�'�i1. �a '-ir"esen te� �` 1f_ V L LTJ uiun1:•_' 1 SU_ _-;) i1
THT-,' IA.i .S RESENT D ON THE TISSUE SHEET OVERLAY BY iNDY :-.`O LEY. OUB =:'OTIJ d
(1 -1 -�-' T T.--. 7A7 -rM T -(moi •\ r Jli-�T r{
I `T-1,TJ-') THESTIPUTATluN THAT THE ROYALTY FARK' n_ �, l�iO , l B�
T�7 m^,r.� TT,T ti^n m nrq Tn r
J J_', 1I'•1„ ;11i� �. D �1�T , ' NT OR ANY OTH �� DEV 'LOP:;iE1T T iAT
-TT "i^ ", 4JO_� Ty_" RO'TEI':"EFTS TO r' aEV_ ��D OR S lOoTr�) . IT ALSO INCLUDED, THE
.USTCOPIDITIOP? THAT S?'' i :EVE ROAD BE' CLOS D AT H` Y. 99 AND ALL T �Arr'IC ''tiILL E}'.IT AND
GR-ESS OId THE ITE':: S ROYALTY PARl;EAY XTIE SION, AND THAT THE TOAD'AY TH ROUGH
TRIAD DEVELOPMENT I UST OPEN AT THE NORTHERN LOCATION SO THERE IS A THROUGH ROUTE
F3O111 CANTERBURY HILL SOUTH TO FE'Y. 99 AT ROYALTY PARIL AY EXTENSION.
Regarding the ISI-B Development proposal NP0#3 VOTED UN ANIMKOUSLY TO REQUEST THAT
THIS FRCPOSAL BY DEFIED AND AINi DECISION FOR THIS LAND OR ANY LAPID WITHIN THE,
NORTHEST BULL MOUNTAIN TRANSPORTATION STUDY AREA NOT BE ALLOYED TO DEVELOP UNTIL
A ROAD ALIGNMENT II'ROM GAARDE STREET TO dALNUT STREET 3E MADE PART OF THE
TRANSPORTATION MAP OF THE CITY OF TIGARD.
NPO;13 FEELS IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOT TO ALLOT? DECISIONS
TO BE MADE ON DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS IN THIS AREA UNTIL THIS DECISION ON THE
ROAD ALIGNMENT IS COMPLETED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY. WE DO NOT FEEL THE
DEVELOPERS SHOULD .T AsaE COI4jr1UNITY DECISIONS THAT SHOULD BE MADE THROUGH THE.
PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS BY THE RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY TOGETHER WITH THE
CITY OF TIGARD.
Bill Gross of NPO fff7 requested that we have a joint meeting in August to talk
about Transportation issues common to both NPO areas.
Regarding the Parsons Annexation NPO#3 VOTED TO DENY THIS ANNEXATION PROPOSAL
BECAUSE IT IS NOT CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY OF TIGARD AND IS Sr.TTING A PRF ,";.DENT
IN ANNT=NG PROPERTY NOT CONTIGUOUS ON RITT,T, 1201INTATN_ THE AVAILABILITY OF THE
PUBLIC S!T_°rF.R TO THIS PROPERTY IS ALSO QUESTIONED, ANNEXATION POLICIES OF THE
CITY NEED TO BE CLARIFIED IN PIECE BY PIECE ANNEXATION NOT CONTIGUOUS .
hIartha Bishopreported about legislation passed in Salem that would n-3t require
a vote of the people on Urban Renewal 3istricts. She stated only 2 cities
require this vott� ;now, Tigard and Newberg. She will get a copy of the bill.
ieeting adjourned - submitted by Beverly FAoude, acting secetary.
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
FILE NO:SUB 91-0012
FILE TITLE: MILLER
APPLICANT: PAUL MILLER OWNER: SAME
RT.5 BOX 62
SHERWOOD, OR 97140
REQUEST, ZONE, LOCATION: Applicant requests Subdivision approval
to divide an approximately 4.97 acre site into 28 parcels ranging
between approximately 5,000, and 12,630 -square feet each.
ZONE: R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre) LOCATION: 13735 SW Walnut
Street (WCTM 2S1 4BD, tax lot 400) , and 13735 SW Fern Street (WCTM
2S1 4BD, tax lot 1500)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential
NPO NO: 3 and 7
NPO CHAIRPERSON: Herman Porter / Cal Woolery
PHONE NUMBER: 639-0895 / 639-4297
CHECK ALL WHICH APPLY:
STAFF DECISION COMMENTS DUE BACK TO STAFF ON 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: TIME:7:30
X HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME:7:00
CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: TIME:7:30
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND ATTACHMENTS:
X VICINITY MAP LANDSCAPING PLAN
NARRATIVE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN
X SITE PLAN OTHER:
PREPARE FOR PLANNER APPROVAL:
X ADVERTISEMENT - TIGARD TIMES OREGONIAN
X NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS TO BE MAILED
LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATION
NOTICE TO DLCD - ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: 2 .1.1, 4.2 .1, 7 .1.2, 7 .2 .1, 7 .3 .1
7 .4.4, 8. 1. 1, 8. 1.3
CODE SECTION: 18.50, 18.88, 18.92, 18. 102, 18. 108
18. 114, 18.150, 18. 160, 18. 164
` � ; The C i t o f
S.W. HINDON
\ S.W. sc.)T
EI�TENSION
- -- - -_ SUB
91 -0012
3 PE ?t
n > m'
.W. WALNUT ST.
FER
i
t
M NORTH 9
N o goo
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
FILE NO. : ZCA 91-0016
FILE TITLE: BRAJAVICH ANNEXATION
APPLICANT: NICHOLAS & RIM BRAJAVICH OWNER: SAME
13440 SW HOWARD DRIVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
REQUEST: A request to annex one parcel consisting of 0.36 acres to the City of
Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units
per acre) to City of Tigard R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre). ZONE: Washington
County R-6. LOCATION: 13440 SW Howard Drive (WCTM 2S1 03CA, tax lot 1700).
LOCATION: 13440 SW Howard Drive (WCTM 2S1 03CA, tax lot 1700) .
NPO NO.: 3
NPO CHAIRPERSON: Herman Porter
PHONE NUMBER: 639-0895
CHECK ALL WHICH APPLY:
STAFF DECISION COMMENTS ARE DUE BACK TO STAFF ON 1990.
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: TIME:
HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME:
XX CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: 9/10/91 TIME: 7:30
ATTACHMENTS
XX VICINITY MAP LANDSCAPING PLAN
NARRATIVE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN
SITE PLAN OTHER
STAFF CONTACT: Victor Adonri - 639-4171
�Nc 64-ve- f e
nopcc- y
� �-n
�ccy' t -ncecb; -to be awwexecl
.
So- t_IL t Gee- cam hc
y
� con)ie,,tee,( to 'the Gi f v Se iLie r
Lot ci wcr)ctcre !� t
ti3 q qGLA__;a
Vf, Lve 6A- L ard t
l clel lJc( e-v\ )) alnd art-
cr�l�z b�� -{�,
CtU- it i S
t/-cn K
win
Mill
:, �,� moo
SON
wm —w
,w ig
No
♦ •� ��•,\� � moi, \�
. ♦�\
gmm�gigs
INS
NO MEN
1.11 In aw
mam
MEN
01 IS
OWN NNX,%
N NIXON
•rte`., `��-_�\�``�.Nom� ��`�
M,
n Nm gm
4 Now
`` own
MWN
`���`�
�\ 1
\mill`` ` 1 1