Hearings Officer Packet - 06/09/1983 - Thatcher 6
h
1640 HEARING OFFICER DECISION
^
6/83 Thatcher, Dorwin —'
V 3-83
.f'
ri
F
a
•
I
a
•
0
BEFORE THE HEARINGS OFFICER
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
FOR A VARIANCE OF THE 20 ' SIDE ) No.
YARD SETBACK ON A CORNER LOT IN )
AN R-7 ZONE; Do'-win Thatcher, ) V 3-83
;applicant.
This matter came before the i'earings Officer at the
regularly scheduled meeting of June 9 , 1983 , at 7 : 00 P.M. in
the conference room of the Durham Tree .:ment Plant, in Tigard,
Oregon, at which time testimony, evidence and the Planning
Department' s staff report were received; and
d
The Hearings Officer finds that no variance shall be
granted by the Hearings Officer unless it can be shown that all
of the following conditions exist:
1. Exceptional or extraordinary conditions applying to
the property that do not apply generally to other prol;erticc in
the same zone or vicinity, which conditions are a result of lot
size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the
applicant has no control.
2. The variance is necessary for the preservation of a
property right of the applicant substantially the same as is pos-
sessed by owners of othcr property in the same zone or vicinity;
3. The authorization of the variance shall not be materially
detrimental to the purposes of this title, be injurious to property
in the zone or vicinity in which the property is located, or be other-
_ wise detrimental to the objective of any city development plan or.
policy;
Page 1 - V 3-83
• 4. The variance requested is the minimum variance from
r the provisions and standards of this title which will alleviate
. the hardship. (Ord. 70-32 , Section 240-2 , 1970) ; and
The Hearings Officer finds that the applicant meets those
conditions of Section 18 . 76 . 020 of the Tigard Municipal Code as
follows:
The subject property is a corner zone backing onto a golf
course. When the subdivision was platted, the applicant' s lot was
virtually identical to the other lots along the golf course. However ,
that platting configuration did not take into consideration the larger
side yard setbacks required for a corner lot, which thereby reduced
the useable building space of the subject lot, to a long, narrow
. building site. Because of the location of the subject lot and its
p.:oximity to the golf course, the Hearings Officer finds that the
usual orientation of homes backing onto a golf ccurse is to orient
the majority of the living space to the view afforded by the golf
course. The applicant' s lot therefore has exceptional or extra-
ordinary conditions that do not apply generally to other corner lots
in the same subdivision.
'\� The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property
right of the applicant substantially the same as is possessed by
owners of other property in the same zone or vicinity. The other
lots in this subdivision which back onto the golf course contain
large homes of over 3, 000 sq. ft. each, and are generally oriented
to the view afforded by the golf course. The applicant wlshes to
build a larger home than can be presently constructed on a long,
• /
Page 2 - V 3-8?
narrow lot, in keeping with the building done by his neighbors.
Therefore, a variance from the side yard setback is necessary to
allow him to build a larger home oriented to take advantage of his
view property.
The authorization of the variance shall not be materially
detrimental to the purposes of this title, be injurious to the
property in the same zone or vicinity in which the property is
located, pr be otherwise detrimental to the objective of any city
development plan or policy. By allowing the applicant a variance,
he may construct a larger home more in keeping with the neighboring
homes. The larger home shall compliment the property in the same
zone or vicinity rather than be injurious to it, which a smaller
• home might be. Further, the vision clearance area for the corner
will not be affected by the development of thr house, even with the
variance.
The variance requested is the minimum variance from the pro-
visions and standards of this title which will alleviate the hardship.
The applicant is requesting a variance of only 8 ' , which will enable
him to satisfy the development proposed by the architectural plans
he commissioned; therefore
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
V 3-83 is approved.
DATED this 20th day of June, 1983.
HEARINGS OFFICER
APPROVED:
-77i
--
BETA MASON
Page 3 - V 3-83
CITY OF TIGA RD
WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION
1. The final decision was filed by ' HEARINGS OFFICER
Concerning V 3-83 on June 20th , 1933
Case Number Date
2. Name of Owner: Dorwin D. Thatcher
3. Name of Applicant: Dorwin D. T<<atcher.
Address 15085 S.W. 89th Place City Tigard State Or.
4. Location of Property:
Address 9815 S.W. Kimberly Drive.
Legal Description 2SI ICU tax lot 10100 —
5. Nature of Application: Variance to the 20 ft. side yard set back.
6. Action: 5.56(-1 Approval as requested
L Approval with conditions
I I Denial
7. Notice: *Notice was published in the newspaper & was mailed to:
[ XX1 The applicant & owners
Owners of record within the required distance
The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization
XXI
f XXf Affected governmental agencies
•
*if there are questions regarding the names of the persons or agencies who
received notice, this information is available at the Planning Department.
8. Final Decision:
The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of condition can be
obtained from the Planning Director, City of Tigard, City Hall, 12755 SW
Ash, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
11111. In the case of a decision on an application for a variance, the applicant
must acknowledge this form and return it to the City of Tigard, Planning
Director, before any building permits will be issued or engineering approval
given.
Signature of Applicant or Applicant's Agent Date
-over-
t
•
9. Appeal: An appeal [17] has been filed ) ifl has not been filed.
Note: Any party Lo the decision may appeal this decision in accordance
with Section 18.84.'?60, which provides that a written appeal may
be filed within fourteen days after notice is given and sent.
Notice is given on June 21 , 1983 , therefore the deadline
for filing of an appeal is July 6, 1983
10. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard
Planning Department, 639-4171 .
l �
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 2.1
CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER
June 9, 1983 - 7:00 P.M.
Durham Waste Treatment Plant
Corner of SW Hall and SW Durham
A. FACTS
1. General Information
CASE: Variance (V 3-83) Dorwin Thatcher NPO # 6
REQUEST: For a varialice from Section 18.20.080 of the Zoning Code to
allow for a 12 1/2 feet side yard on a corner lot. Section
18.20.060 (3) reads as follows :
18.20.080 Setback R-7 or R-10 Zone. Except a:; may
otherwise be provided in Section 18. 12. 100, the setbacks in
an R-7 or R-'_9 zone shall be as follows:
(3) On corner lots the setback shall be twenty feet on
each side facing a street other than an alley;
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on staff's review, applicable policies and field inspections,
staff recommends that the Hearings Officer deny the proposed.
APPL1CAN7 : Dorwin D. Thatcher OWNER: Same
15085 S.W. 89th Place
Tigard, Or. 97223
LOCATION: 9815 SW Kimberly Drive (Wash Co. Tax Map 2S1 11CD tax
lot 10100)
LOT AREA: 10,545 square feet (approximate)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low
fZONING DESIGNATION: R-7
PUBLIC NOTICES: Notices were mailed to 22 surrounding property
owners. At the time this report was written, no
written comments had been received.
f NPO COMMENT: NPU # 6 has not offered any written comments on
this application.
BACKGROUND/PREVIgUS ACTION: None
AREA CHARACTERISTICS: The property to the north and east is
designated medium density on the
comprehensive plan, zoned R-5PD. The
property to the south and west is designated
low on the Comprehensive plan, zoned R-7.
The Summerfield Golf Course is north of the
site, the Tigard Church of God to the east
across SW 98th. The land to the south and
west is developed as single family
residences.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The subject site is a vacant lot in a
developed subdivision. All public
facilities and improvements have been
constructed with the exception of sidewalks.
B. APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES:
2. 1.1 The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program
and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity
to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
Notices were sent to all property owners within 250 feet of the
application. A notice was published in the Tigard Times on May r,
31, 1983. In addition, NPO # 6 has been notified of the
application.
2.1.3 The City shall ensure that information on land use planning
issued is available in an understandable form for all interested
citizens.
All interested parties are given, at a minimum, 10 days to
respond in writing to the application and request under
consideration and are encouraged to do sc. Th€ planning .taff
is available to address any specific questions concerning the
application or the application process.
C. APPLICABLE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE PROVISIONS:
18. 76.020 Granting - Conditions. No variance shall he granted by the
Hearings Officer unless it can be shown that all of the following
conditions exist :
1. Exceptional or extraordinary conditions applying to the property that
do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or
vicinity, which conditions are a result of lot size or shape,
topography, or other circumstances over which the applicant has no
control.
2. The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right of
the applicant substantially the same as is possessed by owners of
other property in the same zone or vicinity ;
3. The authorization of the variance shall not be materially detrimental
to the purposes of this title, be injurious to property in the zone
or vicinity in which the property is located, or be otherwise
detrimental to the objective of any city development plan or policy ;
STAFF REPORT V 3-83 Page 2
( t
4. The variance requested is the minimum variance from the provisions
and standards of this title which will alleviate the hardship. (ord.
70-32 Section 240-7, 1970).
D. STAFF ANALYSIS:
1. The extraordinary conditions in this case are of the applicants own
doing and not a result of physical features cr size of the lot. The
lot is larger than required in the R-7 zone. It appears as though
the applicant could choose a house plan better suited to the lot or
build the home he desire on a different lot.
2. The applicant is not being denied any property rights. The smaller
setbacks in Summerfield are allowed as a result of the Planned
Development designation and approvals under the PD process. The
applicant 's property is part of an approved subdivision which is
subject to different approval standards than Summerfield. However,
the applicant enjoys the same rights as others building in the same
:vbdi.vision or any other R-7 subdivision approved in conformance with
R-7 standards and subdivision regulations.
3. The authorization of the variance could be detrimental to the zoning
code in that the zoning code clearly outlines specific dimensional
requirements related to setbacks in all residential zones. The
setback requirements should be respected or the ordinance should be
amended if different setback requirements are deemed more
appropriate. Issuance of this variance, however, would not violate
visual clearance requirements.
4. The variance requested is the minimum to allow the applicant to build
the home proposed, however, a different orientation of that home or
construction of a different home may eliminate the need for a
variance.
E. SUMMARY:
Based on staff's review the proposed variance does not meet the conditions
required for granting a variance, staff recommends denin. .
PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY:
Ati
Eli e A. New on liam A. Monahan
As iate Planner Director of Planning and Development