SUB1999-00002 Decision - MEYERS FARM
DECISION
P e ~ I r tM.~i. t ~t,
$ °a~^TI RB'rCS W i S E A `day?■ ~E t„
a d „ T Dk q,'. ¢ 'G 'e ¢'w % f.q, ,qs. 1
CITY OF
„S B NISI (SUB) TwGaR~a "
Cori
~ `~~:3szrcCoprnent
Slra . rtctterzmr~zutrty
EYE S :IF. S"11.11113DIVISION,
120 DAYS 10/19199
SECTION 1. APPLICATION SUMMARY
"URBAN SERVICE AREA"
FILE NAME: MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
CASES: Subdivision SUB 1999-00002
Adjustment VAR 1999-00016
The applicant has requested approval to divide 3 lots totaling 18.89 acres into 119
lots. The applicant has also requested a temporary adjustment to the front yard
setback for the lots identified as lots 91 and 102.
APPLICANT: Claremont Properties Dev. LLC
Contact Person: Tom Weber
P.O. Box 91010
Portland, Oregon 97291
APPLICANT'S Bill McMonag[e Lamoine Eiler
REPS Harris-McMonagle Associates Lamoine Eiler Design
12555 SW Hall Boulevard 2336 SW Osage, Suite 603
Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, Oregon 97205
VNERS: Fay Meyers Francisco and Flordeliza irlandez
16010 SW Bull Mountain Road 16190 SW Bull Mountain Road
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential, R-7.
ZONING
DESIGNATION: R-7.
LOCATION: The subject site is located at 16010 and 16190 SW Bull Mountain Road; WCTM
2S10800, Tax Lots 2300, 2304 and 2305.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.390, 18.370, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705,
18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810.
SECTION 11, DECISION
itlce_ is hereby given that the 'City of, Tigard Community Development Director's designee has
IPPROVED.the above request subject to'-certain conditions of apProyal. The-.findings and' conclusion
a , , whichth e 'decision iii based are mated Pin Section V of this °C1ec`Isian "
on"
NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 1 OF 26
SUB 1999-000021VAR 199MOO16 - ME'YERS FARM SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
77-77777-77
'OkI OR TO C+CaMMENI tl ANY tJ►NwI "1 41MPRCIVFMENT ,w CL.id NC GRADIN!S, Xfb` '
N
C 1y) ~ y} ~Y T (/yj / 1 "/y' (A N ~jj ~+/a}T (}~~j A # AT1 ,
w i u'.:ugP bl ANI~/~V R $ I~~~' # ti~~ ~V ~~'V WiN V,„HIV V ■ W 3J,A, Il I'L# H,~ d ' ' , M
r r J Ly.,~Y 4
e•
tl
n r,.
I „
HAL lws rVATISF t
Submit to the Planning Division (Julia Hajduk, +639-4171, ext. 407) for review and approval:
1. Prior to Final Plat, either plant the proposed on-site tree mitigation or submit a bond for the
trees to be planted on site. Submit a deed restriction for the mitigation trees prohibiting
removal unless they pose an immediate hazard to life or property or are dead br diseased.
Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and
approval:
2. Prior to commencing on-site improvements, a public improvement permit and compliance
agreement is required for this project. Seven (7) sets of detailed public improvement plans and
profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering
Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division
and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements, Public improvement plans shall
conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall
and the City's web page (www.cLtiaard.or.us)_
3. As a art of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided
with the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity
who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement (if one is required) and providing
the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a
corporation, limited partnership, L.LC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is
incorporated and rovide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate
information to the engineering Department will delay processing of project documents.
4. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by t
City Engineer. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No constructio.,
vehicles or equipment will be permitted to ark on the adjoining residential public streets.
Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the
construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this applicatibn, and shall include the
vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project.
5. Any necessary off-site utility easements shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and
shall be submitted to and accepted by the City prior to construction.
6. The applicant's construction plans shall indicate that they will construct a half-street improvement
along the frontage of SW Bull Mountain Road. The improvements adjacent to this site.shall
include:
A. City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 22 feet;
B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of
pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage;
C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed;
D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or
subsurface runoff;
E. 6 foot concrete sidewalk;
F. street trees behind the sidewalk spaced per TDC requirements;
C. street striping;
H. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer;
1. underground utilities;
J. street signs; and
K. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Bull Mountain Road in
a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department,
7, Full width street improvements, includingg traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrc
sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, aspriaitic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm
drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the interior subdivision
streets. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards.
NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 2 OF 26
SUB 1999-00002NAR 199MOO16 - MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
8. A rofle of SW Bull Mountain Road shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the
subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade.
9. Profiles of all streets to be stubbed to site boundaries shall be re uired, extendin 300 feet
beyond the site boundary, showing the existing grade and proposed future grade if the street
were to be extended.
10. The construction plans shall indicate "No Parking" signs on one side; of the 28-foot-wide streets
proposed.
11. The street shown as Street "A" on the preliminary plan shall be named "S 161sT Avenue".
12. The construction plans shall show that SW 161st Avenue will be stubbed to the south boundary of
the site, as shown on the preliminary plan. In addition, the applicant shall provide a physical
connection between the existing access roadway to the south of this site and the end of the street .
stub. A temporary asphalt pavement driveway entrance shall be provided at the end of the stub
street to provide an entrance to the realiggned private access roadwa . The design engineer shall
work with the Engineering Department to produce a signaZe plan for the end of the stub street
that will clearly delineate the ending of the public street and e beginning of the private roadway.
13. Once the Wlic streets in this development are constructed and approved by the City, the
applicant sphysically close off the existing private access roadway entrances at Bull Mountain
Road, SW Dekalb Street and the south boundary of this site. It may be necessary to reroute the
private access through this site while the streets are being constructed. The applicant shall
ensure that the property owners to the south have uninterrupted access to their properties.
14. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed public improvement
construction drawings and shall be reviewed and a~~p~ proved by the City's Water Department, as a
part of the Engineering Dopar ment plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system
costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the public improvement
plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public waterlines.
The public sanitary and storm sewer plans for this project shall be reviewed and approved by
USA prior to construction.
16. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan
shall conform to 'Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance
Handbook, February 1994."
17. A final grading plan shall be submitted showin the existing and proposed contours. The plan
shall detail the provisions for surface drainage o the lots, and show that they will be "pad" graded
to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineenng
Department. The plan shall incorporate the recommendations from the geotechnical report and
shall be consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the. Uniform Building Code
(UBC).
18. The recommendations of the geotechnical report shall be incorporated into the final grading plan..
A final construction supervision report shall be filed with the Engineering Department prior to
issuance of building permits.
19. The ap licant shall obtain a 1209-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS
468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act.
20. The design engineer shall indicate, on the grading plan, which lens will have natural slopes
between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This
information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be
necessary when the lots develop,
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF-THE FINAL. PLAT THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MUST BE MET
NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 3 OF 26
SUB 1999-WO02/VAR 1999-00016 - MEYERS r"P;RM SUBDIVISION
Submit to the Planning Division (Julia Hajduk, 639-4171, ext. 407) for review and approval:
21. Submit a revised plan that shows the average lot width for all lots, including lot 19 and 20 will
be no less than b0 feet.
22. Revise the plat so that lot 11 has at least 25 feet of frontage.
Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and
approval:
23. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee in the amount of
$3,570.
24. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW Bull Mountain
Road to increase the right-of-way to 33 feet from the centerline. This dedication shall be shown
on the face of the final plat.
25. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements:
A. Submit for City review three paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor
licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative.
B. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by
the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard.
C. The right-of-way dedication for SW Bull Mountain Road shall be made on the final plat.
D. NOTE: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive a
letter from the City Engineering Department indicating: 1) that the City has reviewed the
final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor, and 2) that the applicant
has either completed any public improvements associated with the project; or has at least
obtained the necessary public improvement permit from the City to complete the work.
E. Once the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the fin,..
plat for City Engineer's signature.
26. The final plat shall indicate a wider public utility easement (PUE) than the typical 8-foot easement
to account for the planting of the street trees outside of the right-of-way.
27. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Bull Mountain Road
underground as a art of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu ofi undergroundin . The fee
shall be calculates[ by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50
per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $17,463 and it shall be paid prior to
approval of the final plat.
THE FOLLOWld+1
Pd2it7R To THE ALL BE SATISFIED
GCQISSUANCE,
OF ;BUILDING PERMITS-
Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and
approval:
28. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the
subdivision/partition plat.
29. Prior to issuance of any building permits within the subdivision, the public improvements shall be
deemed substantially complete by the City Engineer. Substantial completion shall be when: 1)
all utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities, 2) all local
residential streets have at least one lift of asphalt, 3) an off-site street and/or utility improvements
are completely finished, and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be energized.
,OF THE SECT,
LI QNS OF THE
APPLICANT SHOULD -BE A AR
ADDITIQNCO. , THE
'COMMUNITY DEVELOPM THIS CSNAT AN EXCLUSIVEFOLLOWING
,
NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE A OF 26
SUB 1999-00002NAR 1999-00016 - MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
18.430.080 Improvement Agreement:
Beforr City a proval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by
the City, the subdivider shall:
Execrate and file an agreement with the City Engineer spec'Ifying the period within which all
required Improvements and repairs shall be completed; and
2. Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified,
the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider.
The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may
also rprovide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under
specific conditions therein stated in the contract.
18.430.090 Bond:
As required by Section 18.430.080, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of
performance supported by one of the following:
1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in
the State of Oregon;
2. A surety bond executed b a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of
Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it
may be terminated; or
3. Cash.
The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a
registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance
assurance.
The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first
secured written authorization from the City.
'q.430.100 Filing and _Recording:
.thin 60 days ai the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for
signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92.
Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded
final plat.
18.430.070 Final Plat A lication Submission Requirements:
Three copies of the subdivision plat prepared by a and surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and
necessary data or narrative.
The subdivision plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard.
STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Centerline Monumentation
In aiccordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92,060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and
roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement.
The following centerline monuments shall be set:
1. All centerline-centerline intersection points;
2. All cul-de-sac center paints, and
3. Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's).
All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement.
moment Boxes Rea ulr d
.)nument boxes con ormin to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points,
cul-de-sac center paints, and curve points.
The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade.
NOTICE of DECISION PAGE 5 OF 26
SUB 1999-00002WR 1999-00016 - MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
i
18 810 Stregt lit lift' Improvement Standards.
18 810120 Utilities
All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communloation, lighting and cal%'-
television services acid related facilities shall be placed under round, except for surface-mount
transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter caltinets which may be placed above
ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at
50,000 volts or above.
18.810 180 Cash or Bond Re ui ed
All improvements installed by he subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a
period of one-year following acceptance by the City.
Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the
improvements as set by the City Engineer.
The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18,810.180.
18.810.150 Instalintion Prerequisite
No land divisi6n improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs,
lighting or other requirements small be undertaken except after the plans therefor have been approved
by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued.
18.810.180 Notice to CWhe MM~,
notified in advance.
Work shall not begin uns been
If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified.
18.810.200 Engineer's Certification
The land dividers engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all
improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and
construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to the City acceptance of the subdivision
improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance.
THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS
FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
SECTION Ili BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Site History
City records do not indicate any previous development approvals have been granted for these
properties.
Site In ormation nn- F~ro osal Description:
the site consists of three parcels that will be combined to farm a single subdivision. The Meyer
0 roperty, Tax Lot 2300, is 14.01 acres in size. The Erlandez property, consisting of Tax Lot 2304 and
305, is 4.88 acres in size. Combined, these parcels will form the Meyer's Farm subdivision, with a
total area of 18.89 acres of lard.
The site slo es from a high point of 449 feet of elevation in the southeastern comer of the property to a
low point ofp'346 feet on the western boundary. The rade varies across the property from /6 to 15%
slope, with the steepest grades occurring in the sou hwestern third of the site. The site is currently
occupied by two exlstlnc homes. The house and garage can the Meyer property occup an area defined
by Lots 91 and 102 of the Meyer's Farm subdivision. Thee applicant has proposed that these structures
will remain in place as long as Mrs. Meyyer chooses to live on the property. At the point in time that Mrs.
Meyer is no longer living in the house, tl'e structures will be removed and two new homes will be built on
these two lots. The applicant has indicated that the Erlandez family plans to continue living in the
home, but in order to accommodate the lotting ppattern that is being proposed in the development plai
the house will be moved a short distance to Lot 60 of the Meyer's Farm subdivision.
NO 1 ICE OF DECISION PAGE 6 of 26
SUB 1999-000021VAR 1999-00016 - ME`fERS FARM SUBDIVISION
The Meyer's Farm site does not lie within any significant natural resource areas as identified by the
Bull Mountain Community Plan. The geotechnica report that has been submitted with this application
confirms that there are no areas of unstable ground on the site and the terrain does not exceed
slopes of 25%.
I k
icinity Information'
The northern boundary of the site abuts SW Bull Mountain Road, which has been designated a major
collector street. The Pleasant View subdivision forms the eastern boundary of the site. The southern
propert line abuts the urban growth boundary, with single-family housin on large lots directly to the
south. The western boundary abuts the Stanley property, which is zoned R-7 and currently occupied
by an orchard.
SECTION IV COMMENTS FROM PRQPERTY OW IERS WITHIN 500 FEET'
The Tigard Development Code requires that property owners within 500 feet of the subject site be
notified of the proposal and be given the opportunity to provide written comments prior to a decision
being made. Staff received several comments that are summarized below. A summary of the
comment or concern is stated in bold and the Staff response to each comment follows. Copies of the
letters submitted are in the public record and are available for review at the City.
Lots Abutting Pleasant View I
Many people wrote regarding the lots abutting the Pleasant View Subdivision. People thought
the lofts should be larger than 7,500 square feet for nei hbarhood aesthetics (to act its buffer)
People also felt that having larger lots would allow for Scar garages which in turn would allow
adequate off-street parking for a safer passage of traffic.
The City does not have the authority to require lots larger than that required by the code. In addition,
the City does not have design criteria to require homes to provide 3-car garages. There are minimum.
parking standards that require all single-family residences to provide for of-street parking spaces.
The developer has indicated 2-car garages will be provided as well as 20 feet from the face of the
,rage to the street. This is more than can be required by the development code.
Dekalb Street;
There was concern raised that only one direct access from the new subdivision to Bull
Mountain will result in traffic increases on Dekalb and that most traffic will go through
Pleasant View as an easy way out of the Meyers Farm Subdivision. Some people asked that
Dekalb be blocked until home construction is complete to eliminate construction traffic on
Dekalb. Others asked that spud humps be installed between Meyers Farm and Pleasant View
to mitigate the increase in traffic due to the proposed connection.
Traffic 'increases on Dekalb are discussed in this decision under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS,
page 20. In addition, construction traffic will be regulated and will not be permitted to take access
from Dekalb Street.
An individual indicated that "in a March 8, 1991 Interaggency Memorandum from USA, USA
stated that there was some concern as to the impacts to downstream parcels. They stated
this may result in a loss of density can the Pleasant View subdivision. Pleasant View was
developed at :a density of approximately 2 units per acre. The applicant needs to demonstrate
actir~g downstream parcels. Have things
that they can develop this, project without im1,991.
changed downstream to address this concern in This memo was written in 1991 at which time the density was R-6. The possible reduction in density
referred to in the memo would have been as a result of the size of water quality (WO) facility require
Staff can not determine from this memo if the writer had any idea how the facility would afrect densityy
however, it appears they were acknowledging that the resulting loss of square footage from lots couid
have resulted in a lass of density. The applicant in the Meyers Farm Subdivision has provided a
water quality and detention facility which is of adequate size to serve this development.
concern was raised that the intersection of Dekalb and "A„ Street should be realigned so
,aat it intersects at a 90-degree angle instead of being offset as proposed.
NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 7 of 26 j
SUB 1999-000021VAR 1999-00016 - MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
A skew angle (interior) at an intersection of no less than 75 degrees is permitted. Engineering Staff
did not indicate concern with the angle proposed, however, it will be reviewed and enforced during
construction plan review.
Construction Traffic.
One person indicated that they would like the hours of construction limited to 7:00 am to 6:Ou
p.m. with no construction on Sundays. There was concern about the construction traffic
Increasing existing problems on Bull Mountain. One person stated that lar a vehicles adding
to the existing problems on Bull Mountain would violate 18.705.030, ectiori G. They
suggested as an alternative that construction traffic be routed to Bull Mountain via Beef Bend,
which world avoid passage through the curves and allow a simple right turn into the
subdivision instead of having to make a left turn. This idea was supported by the Washington
County's S'heriff's Office.
Construction traffic will be approved as part of the public permit process. The Development Review
Engineer has indicated that traffic will be required to access Bull Mountain Road from Beef Bend.
The Tigard Munici al Cade and Public Improvement Design Standards limits on the hours of
construction, from lam-9pm or darkness, Monday-Friday and from 8am-9pm on Saturdays. In
addition, no collector lane closures shall occur between 7 am and 9 am or between 3:30 p.m. and
6:00 p.m.
Grading Before Final Construction Plans Are Approved:
A, few people indicated that they do not think it is a goad idea to allow this because of the
uncertainty of how City Staff and the developer have stated the easement will be addressed.
They also state that, while the developper has indicated they will make any necessary
revisions, they may put pressure on the City to limit changes and to resist changes that will
cause increased financial burden.
Staff shares manyy of these concerns and, therefore, is not approving the grading at this time as
requested. The Gity may consider allowing grading after a detailed plan has been submitted and
reviewed and a roved by the Engineering Department. This is discussed is detail under PUBLIC
FACILITY CONCON3 further in this decision.
Future Street Pattern.
Concern that, as shown on the future street plan, Dekalb Street will connect to 15 ir► will result
in Dekalb being a minor collector. Streets should be designed to direct traffic to collectors
and then to arterials rather than funneling traffic through neighborhoods.
The applicant is required to submit a future street plan to show that their development will not
preclude future development. This does not mean that all future development must occur in
accordance with this conceptual plan. Any new subdivision will be reviewed for compliance with all
applicable development code standards when it is submitted, which will include evaluation of street
connections.
Water Pressure:
Many people raised issues with the water pressure, stating that they had recently seen a
decrease in water pressure in their own homes.
Staff contacted the Water Department to inquire about the water pressure issue. It appears that the
water ressure had been reduced due to a pressure regulator being incorrectly set. This problem has
been fixed. The water department has not indicated a problem in providng water of adequate
pressure to this development.
School Overcrowding:
Many people were concerned that this development (with 119 homes) would add to the
overcrowding in schools..
While this is an understandable concern; the Cityy can not prohibit development due to school
overcrowding without a moratorium being declared. Moratoriums are regulated b state law and must
be limited in duration for the period of time needed to correct the problem. In addition, state law doe
not permit requiring developers to pay for increased capacity in schools. In any event, the Schoc
district provided the applicant with a service provider letter prior to submittal of the application that
indicates there will be adequate capacity to accommodate new students.
NOTICE OF DECISION PACE 8 OF 26
SUB 1998-00002/VAR 1999-00016 - MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
9
Need For Greenspace;
Many people were concerned that this development is not proposing greenpace. They were
concerned that with the small lots and "high" density, greenspaces are necessary because
the lack of open space forces children to play in the street.
J begin with; an Rr7 zone is not high density and is actualI classified on the lower-end of medium
density. In addition, there are many homes constructed in Tigard, as well as the Metropolitan area,
on lots the pro osed size or smaller and do not have greenspaces associated with the development.
In any event, there are no provisions in the cede to require a subdivision to provide green spaces or
open space. Citizens are encouraged to participate in the City Council process and the Citizen
Involvement Team {ClT} process w~lere they can have an opportunity to comment on City policy
when it is bein reviewed. Please note, that this development can only be reviewed under the
standards in effect at this time. Even it policy were to Change, Staff can not require a development
currently under review to comply with standards adopted after the application has been submitted.
The City has a park and open space program. It is, however, limited. Prioritization of projects and
park acquisition are addressed through the parks plan.
Possible Increase In Crime Due To The Crowding, No Fencing In Pleasant View And Lack Of
Police Protection:
While this concern. may be valid, there are no provisions for Staff to deny an application for a
Subdivision based on the potential for increased crime. There are also no standards that allow Staff
to require fencing between two single-family developments.
Easement Road:
There was quite a bit of concern about traffic conflicts with the existing easement road and
concern about the existing amount of traffic on the easement road. Several people asked that
it be eliminated as a condition of approval. Others asked that Dekalb not be extended
between the Pleasant View Subdivision and the proposed subdivision which would eliminate
traffic conflicts in that area. One individual questioned if there was a legal issue of a street
crossing an existing easement without permission from the easement holders.
off agrees that the existing easement road may create unsafe traffic conflicts and are, therefor:, w
e„ quiring the easement to be closed with access to the easement users provided from Street "°A"
This is discussed' in detail under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Staff can not require the easement
to be vacated, however, because that is beyond the control of the applicant. It is highly
recommended, however, that the easement be officially vacated.
Many people were concerned about the lack of a buffer between the existing homes and the
new subdivision because they felt they would lose privacy.
Staff can not require buffering or screening between two single-family residential uses. Although no
landscape buffer is required, the applicant is pproposing to build a 6 -foot cedar fence and plant
mitigation trees alone the enure property boundary between the Meyers Farm subdivision and the
Pleasant View subdivision. The applicant is also proposing to plant trees along the southern and
western boundary of the subdivision. These trees will help act as a visual buffer. There was concern
that the proposed trees would not remain after the homes were purchased, however, because these
trees are meetin mitigation requirements, deed restrictions will be required that prohibits the removal
of these trees uness they pose an immediate hazard to life or property or are dead or diseased.
One individual indicated they want power poles and utility lines buried within the project and
those located on the eastern boundary of the property.
All utility lines within the project area will be required to be buried. Staff can not enforce the
underg roundincg of lines on the eastern boundary,line because it is not a public street, however, this is
strongly encouraged.
There was a concern about noise pollution caused by lawn mowers and loud music and air
pollution caused by Bar-B-Q,, too many wood staves, cars, dryer vents, furnace vents,
replaces.
NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 9 OF 26
SUB 199MOO021VAR 1999-00016 - MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
i
Staff can not deny an application because of the threat that pollution will occur, especiall when the
concerns cited were typical of any residence (single-family or multi-family). The Tigard Municipal
Code has provisions that regulate nuisances such as noise. If problems arise as a part of this or any
subdivision, property owners may contact the Code Compliance Specialist.
Traffic:
Mang people were concerned about increased traffic in Pleasant View, on 161st and Bull
Mountain. There was a concern that people already speed, which will make increased traffic
evert more dangerous. They were concerned that an increase in traffic and commute time will
impact livability for existing residents. Several people stated that gull Mountain Road was not
designed to accommodate this amount of traffic. One individual cited Chapter 10.705.030,
Section G regarding inadequate or hazardous access, stating that increased traffic will result
in increasing existing hazardous traffic conditions which would constitute a clear and present
danger to the public.
Traffic issues are discussed in detail under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS on ppage 20 of this
decision. The Code citation referred to is for access (meaning driveway access). The development
is not proposing access that is unsafe because all lots will come out onto local streets and the access
into the development is via a public street at an acceptable location. The director has, however, used
this standard to require the access to the existing easement to be closed because it was determined
by the City Engineer to be unsafe.
Safety of Bull Mountain (curves):
Many people raised concerns about the safety of Bull Mountain Road, especially, at the
intersection with oshalk Road. They pointed out existing characteristics such as it being
narrow without any turn lanes, no sidewalks, steep roads, poor visibility and the speed limit as
contributing to unsafe conditions. Some would like to see turn lanes for both exiting and
entering the new development so that there is no build-up at this area. They state that
because there are no sidewalks, it is not possible to safely walk and bicycle outside the
neighborhood. An individual indicated that Bull Mountain is already so busy it is hard for
ethers to pull out of driveways and streets. Another asked that the project be delayed until
Beef Bend construction is complete and the speed limit along Bull mountain is reduced to :
mph.
These concerns are addressed in detail under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS.
Several people raised issue with the possible reduction in property values as a result of this
subdivision being approved.
Staff can not deny a subdivision based on the potential to decrease property valuers of existing
parcels. The existing homes were built under the R-6 zone and the developer chose to build larger
lots than required. All future development should not (and can not) be required to conform to
development that was built at a lower density than permitted in the zone.
Compatibility With Existing Homes:
Many people were concerned about compatibility with existing neighborhoods.. One comment
stated that the proposal had a "cookie-cutter" feeI rather than individually planned and designed
homes. Several referred to Pleasant View as a good example of mixing old development and
new development. One person wrote "The development plan resented appears as a very
uninspired warehouse approach to building a neighborhood. This does not by any means
compliment the Pleasant View development or the area of Bull Mountain. I this the general
approach by you to make the entire Tigard to lvok'like the 99W trashway?" Others want
convents and restrictions (CC&Rs) similar to Pleasant View.
This area has been zoned R-6 since at least 1983. In talking with a Staff member at Washington
County, 20-50 years a o the area did have a much larger lot requirement because the homes were
on septic and larger lots were required. Since that time, sanitary sewer has become available to the
area and the zone has changed to allow smaller lots. This area is inside the Urban Growth Boundary
which means it will be developed at urban densities; The Pleasant View Subdivision was constructed
when the market demand was different and the price of land was lower. In addition, when th
subdivision was approved, there was no minimum densit}1 required. Pleasant View Subdivision wou,
not be approved today because the standards hive chianged. The City of Tigard does not have
design standards for single-family residences, therefore, as long as the proposal meets the
standards, we can not control the look of the subdivision or require CC&Rs that regulate the took of a
development.
NO*flCE OF DECISION PAGE 10 OF 26
SUB 1999-000021VAR 1999-00016-MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
i
1
One person was concerned that the proposed stone wall will ruin the neighborhood feel.
While Staff does not disagree that walls around subdivisions 'detract from an overall community feel,
they are permitted and commonly found in residential developments. The applicant will be required to
qet ppermats for the wall, however, them; is no delis n requirement for the type of material used. The
pplicant indicated that they are I roposin~ this wall to reduce the impacts and increase the livability
the lots that will be abutting Bul lUlountafn Road.
Some want the City to re uire trees to be planted in the neighborhood.
Street trees are required to be planted and the applicant has proposed to plant trees along the
boundaries of the subdivision to mitigate for tree removal.
Zoning:
Many people raised issues with the density allowed. They state that the maximum density is
not compatible with existing homes along Bull Mountain. They are concerned that the density
proposed will threaten their quality of life and environmental health. One individual states that
the "new zoning, high-density" housing regulation is overwhelming to those who "chose a
better life style for our families". Several people expressed the desire to have the City require
the lowest number of homes permitted by Metro and want the density reduced, especially
along the line adjacent to the Pleasant View Subdivision. One person states: "This type of
high density is better suited for a metropolitan area where one can wally to the grocery stare
and coffee shop, or jump on the bus to o across town".. One person indicated concern with
the "level of homeowner attracted to a lower income high-density housing pro'ect". There
were also questions about allowing this type of development trend to take place on Bull
mountain without the resources to support it.
The zoning on Bull Mountain was adopted by Washington County. The zoningg has been in affect
since at least 1983. This is not a NEW zone or density, it is the density in effect for many ears. The
only thing that has changed is that developers now must build a minimum density ,10% of the
maximum density), whereas, that was- not required bofore. The minimum density requirement is in
response to a Metre mandate that allcities show how they would accommodate projected growth.
Development occurring far below the permitted density {Pleasant view is.an example) was one of the
reasons Metro required all titles to incorporate a metthod for providing for pprojec ed growth. By
veloping lots consistent with,the density permitted in the zone, it allows otYlers to have a "better
.estyle" for their families by providing a balance of high, medium and low density developments thus
providing housing for a variety of income levels instead of simply low-income and high-income. As
stated previously, R-7 is not considered a high density development and has been successfully built
in Tigard as we.l as other cities in the area. B accommodating density within the urban boundary,
productive farm land and greenspaces are maintained.
Sanitary Sewer Pumps:
One individual stated that they wanted the applicant to pay the full cost of any new sewer
pump station Instead of their ~pproportionate .share. They indicate that the pumps work fine
now and they should not have to pay anything (in taxes) for an upgrade.
The sanitary sewer is discussed in detail under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. A jurisdiction can
not require a developer to pay more than their fair share for improvements involved in a development
as we were told in the US Supreme court case of City of Tigard vs. Dolan.
SECTION V APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
lmr3act Study: ;Section 18.390.050 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to
ythe effect of development on public facilities and services. The study shall address,
quantif
at a minimum, the transportation system including bikeways, the drainage system, the parrs
system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. 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 propert users. In situations
where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests,the
,plicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication,
provide evidence that supports the conclusion that the real property dedication
requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts; of the development.
NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE i OF 26
SUB 1999-00002-/VAR 1999-00016 - MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
Section 18.390.050 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public
of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findinggs which support the
conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly-
oughly proportional to the
impact the proposed development will have on the public.
The applicant has prepared a detailed impact study that indicates the followincl services are available
to serve the proposed subdivision: Sanitary Sewer System, Storm Water System, Water System,
Traffic System, Police Services, Fire Services, Schools, Electrical Services, Natural Gas Services and
Telephone Service. The various service providers responded to the applicant's request for comments
indicatingg necessary improvements. The application incorporates necessary improvements to insure
the development is adequately served.
Any re uired street: irn~a rovements to certain collector or hi her volume struts and the Washington
County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures that are required at the time of development,
Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Bo Expansion/Dolan
II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 2 percent of the traffic impact of new
development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Presently, the TIF for each trip that is
generated is $169. The total TIF for an attached, single-family dwelling is $1,899.
The internal streets within the subdivision are needed to allow the subdivision to develop and the
need for streets is created by the subdivision. Because the need for the internal streets is created by
the development, the impacfi of the development is roughly proportional to the cast of dedication and
construction of the internal streets. The applicant is proposing to dedicate 3 feet of right-of-way along
SW Bull Mountain Road and to make half-street improvements. The estimated cost o half-street
improvements along Bull mountain is $127,000 (635 feet x $2010) and the estimated value of 3 foot
dedication is $5,715 (1,905 square feet x $3 per square foot )Upon completion of this developpment,
the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF''s of approximately $225,981 ($1,899 x
1'19 dwelling units). Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 2 percent of the impact on
ma'ar street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact
is-91706.190 ($225,981 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact, is
considered an unmitigated impact. Since the TIF paid is $225,981, the unmitigated impact can br--
valued at $480,209, Given that the, estimated cost of the dedication and half-street improvements
$132,715 the requirement to make these improvements meets the rough proportionality test related ~v
the impact of the development.
LAND DIVISION: SUBDIVISION (18.4301)
A roval Standards - Preliminary Plat:
T
We pr
cposed preliminary plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other
applicable ordinances and regulations
The proposed project complies with the Comprehensive Plan's Medium Density Residential designation
for the subject ropey because it complies with the applicable provisions of the Community
Development Code which im lement the plan. Compliance with the majority of specific regulations and
standards will be addressed fuurther within this decision.
The proposed at name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of
ORS Chapter 9Y."
The applicant has provided evidence that the proposed subdivision name has been reserved with
Washington County, thus insuring that the name is not duplicative.
The Streets and roads are laid out so as to conforrn to the plats of subdivisions and maps of
major partitions or subdivisions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general
direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify
the street or road pattern.
Street layout is discussed in more detail, and conditioned if necessary, further in this decision.
An explanation has been provided for all common improvements.
The applicant has provided an explanation for all common improvements as required and, therefore,
satisfied this criterion. Specific details of the proposed improvements are discussed later in this decision
under Public Facilities Concerns.
NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 12 of 26
SUB 1999-00002JVAR 1999-00016 - MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the proposal meets, or will be conditioned to meet further In
this decision, the preliminary plat approval standards for subdivisions.
RLi division General Provisions:
. Liture re-division. When subdividing tracts into large lots the Approval Authority shall
require that the lots be of such size and shape as to facilitate future re-division in accordance
with the requirements of the zoning district and this title.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 18.89-acre site into 119 lots ranging in size from 4,138
square feet to 9,815 square feet. The applicant is proposing to keep lots 91 and 102 as one lot at this
time due to an agreement with Mrs. Meyer, the resident of the existing house. At the time Mrs. Meyer
is no Ion er living in her house, the house and garage will be torn down and the parcel will be
partitioneJl into the two lots and new houses will be built on the lots. The applicant's plan confirms
that this lot can be divided in the future to provide 2 subdivision lots that meet the density of the
over-all subdivision. Because the lot size will be less than 10,000 square feet, the applicant will need
to refer to this subdivision approval to verify that a lot less than the minimum 5,000 square feet will be
permitted at the time of partition.
FINDING: Because the applicant's plans show that the one lost large enough to be re-divided can
be partitioned in the future, this standard has been satisfied.
Lot size averaging:
Section 13.430.020.D states Lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot
size allowed in the underlying zoning district as long as the average lot area for all lots is not
less than allowed by the unerlying zoning district. No lot created under this provision shall
be less than 80°f of the minimum lot size allowed in the underlying zoning district.
The applicant has proposed averaging of the lot sizes. The minimum lot size in the r-7 zone is 5,000
square feet. Under lot averaging, the 80% standard would allow lots as small as 4,000 square feet a
Inng as the average lot size for the entire subdivision is at least 5,000 square feet. The smallest lot
'posed for the Meyer's Farm subdivision is 4,138 square feet in size. The average lot size for the
s 19 lofts proposed for this subdivision is approximately 5,197 square feet.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the subdivision complies with the lot size averaging
c(teria.
Phased development:
The Approval Authority may approve 'a time schedule for developing a subdivision in phases,
but in no case shall the actual construction time period for any phase be greater than two years
without reapplying for a preliminary plat;
The criteria for approving a phased site development review proposal are: a.)The public facilities
shall be scheduled to be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase to ensure
provision of public facilities prior to building occupancy; b.) The development and occupancy of
any phase shall not be dependent on the use of temporary public facilities: For purposes of this
subsection, a temporary ublic facility is an interim facility not constructed to the applicable City
or district standard; and The phased development shall not result in requiring the City or other
property owners to construct public facilities that were required as a part of the approval of the
preliminary plat.
The application for phased development approval shall be reviewed concurrently with the
preliminary plat application and the decision may be appealed in the same manner as the
preliminary plat.
The applicant has proposed to build the subdivision in three phases. The phases have been shown on
the Preliminary Plat and preliminary construction drawings that were submitted with the application.
Phase One consists of 39 lots; with 35 lots in Phase Two and 46 lots in Phase Three. The applicant
intends to begin construction on the second phase of development within two years of the
nmencement of construction in Phase One, with the third..ptease of developpment commencing two
ors later. The applicant has indicated, however, that Phase ►wo and Phase Three may be developed
out of sequence in response to market concerns and development considerations and it is also possible
that the entire project may be built in one phase. Regardless of the actual sequencing, public facilities
will be constructed by the applicant in conjunction with or prior to each phase to ensure provision of
NOTICE of DECISION PAGE 13 OF 26
i
SUB 199MOO021VAR 1999-00016 - MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
facilities prior to building occupancy in that phase. Development will not be 'dependent on the use of
temporary public facilities. The engineering permitting process will insure that the phased development
criteria are met.
FINDING: Becausd the applicant has stated in the narrative how they will meet the VsL
development criteria and because the Engineering permit process will insure t the
phased development standards are met, the proposal to develop this subdivision in
three phases is approved.
TIGARD DEVELOMENT CODE SECTIONS APPLICABLE TO ,SUBDIV:SiONS.
Variances and Adjustments M.370),;,
18.370.020.C.l. Adjustments to development standards within subdivisions (Chapter 18.430).
The Director shall consider the application for adjustment at the same time he/she considers
the preliminary plat. An adjustment may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied
provided the director finds:
There are sppecial circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and
peculiar to tl~e land as compared to other lands similarly situated;
The applicant i requesting a temporary development adjustment that would apply to the front yard
setback of the existing house on the Meyer property. The a plicant is requesting a temporary
development adjustment to accommodate a 4-inch reduction in the front yard setback for this home.
In agreements hat the applicant has reached with Mrs. Meyer, she will continue to reside in the
house until she dies or until she decides to move to another residence. At that time, the house and
arage will be torn down and this temporary development adjustment voided. The lot identified as lot
I and 162 would be partitioned and new houses will be built on the two lots that were occupied by
the house and garage. All new construction will have to meet all of the development standards of the
R-7 district, including the front yard setback of 15 feet.
The adjustment is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision,
The a plicant has desigred the subdivision to accommodate ultimate build-out. This included havir,
larger pthan required lofts along the pproperty line abutting the Pleasant View Subdivision. Given the
desire to maximize the deth of the lets adjacent to the Pleasant View subdivision and to maintain the
right-of-way width of 161' Avenue, this temporary adjustment is the most reasonable alternative to
insure that the subdivision is desi ned properly and the most efficiently. This temporary development
adjustment is in compliance with all of the approval criteria contained within the Code. A 4-inch
reduction in the front yard setback is the smallest adjustment that can be made to the setback.
standard and still accommodate the lot depths on the opposite side of the street and the width of the
street right-of-way
The granting of the adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare
or injurious to the rights of other owners of property, and
This temporary reduction will not impede emergency access to the site, especially since the street
right-of--way of 46 feet will be maintained in this area.
The adjustment is necessarry 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.
Strict compliance with the setback standards in this case would require realignment of the road and
create smaller, narrower lots ad acent to the Pleasant View Subdivision. Because this adjustment
request is for a limited amount ofd time, it would be less desirable to require a re-design to comply with
the setback for a house that will be removed in the future.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the subdivision variance criteria are satisfied and the
temporary variance is approved.
NOTICE of DECISION PACE 14 OF 26
SUB 1999-000021VAR 1999-00016- ME=YERS FARM SUBDIVISION
Residential Zoning Districts (18.510)
Purpose
Preserve neighborhood livability. One of the major purposes of the regulations governing
svelopment in residential zoning districts is to protect the livability of existing and future
esidential neighborhoods, by encouraging primarily residential development with compatible
non-residential development schools, churches, parks and recreation facilities, day care
centers, neighborhood commercial uses and ether services at appropriate locations and at
an appropriate scale.
Encourage construction of affordable housing. Another purpose of these regulations is to
create the environment in which construction of a full range of owner-occupied and rental
housing at affordable prices is encouraged. This can he accomplished by providing
residential zoning districts of varying densities and developing flexible design and
development standards to encourage innovation and reduce housing costs.
R-7; Medium-Density Residential District (18.510.020j~ The R-7 zoning district is designed to
accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without
accessory residential units, at a minimum Iot size of 00ti square feet, and duplexes, at a
minimurn lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and :subdivisions are also
permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally.
The R-7 zoning district has the following dimensional requirements:
STANDARD R-7
Minimum Lot Size
- Detached unit 5,000 sq. ft.
Duplexes 10,000 sq.ft.
- Attached unit 1 5,000 s .ft.
verago Minimum of Width
- Detached unit lots 50 ft.
- Duplex lots 50 ft.
- Attached unit lots 40 ft.
Maximum Lot Coverage 80% [21
Minimum e ac s
- Front yard 15 ft.
- Side facing street on
corner through iota 10 ft.
- Side yard 5 ft.
- Dear yard 15 ft.
- Side or rear yard abutting more
restrictive zoning district 0 ft.
- Distance between property line
and front of garage 20 ft.'
Maximum 35 ft.
inimum Landscape Requirement
[1] simple-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.
The proposed lots range in size from 4,138 square feet to 9,815 square feet. Based on the lot averaging
standards of Section 18.430.020.D, lot sizes can be reduced to a minimum of 4,000 square feet as tong
as the average lot size for the entire subdivision is at least 5,000 square feet. The smallest lot proposed
for the Meyees Farm subdivision is 4,138 in size. The average lot size for the 110 lots proposed for this
subdivision is 5,107 square feet. All of the proposed lints meet the minimum lot size and averaQin
requirements of the Code. All lots with the exception of lots 19 and 20 meet the minimum Iat width
reg~irements. Based on the dimensions provided on the plan, the minimum lot width between these 2
s is 49 feet, one foot short of the minimum. The applicant will be required to comply with the setbacks,
,icght and lot coverage/landscape requirements during the building permit review {process for the homes
on individual lots. This is not a planned development, therefore, there will be no flexibility in the
setbacks. Based on the lot dimensions, Staff= finds it feasible that the required setbacks can be met.
NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 15 OF 26
SUB 1999-000021VAR 1999-00016 - MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the residential zoning district dimensional standards are
not fully satisfied, however, the standards can be met if the applicant complies with the
condition listed below.
CONDITION: Submit a revised Ian that shows the average lot width for all lots, including lot 1 a.
20 will be no less than 50 feet.
Access, Egress and Circulation (18.705). Chapter 18.705 establishes standards and
regulations for safe and efficient vehicle access and egress on a site and for general
circulation within the site. Table 18.705.1 states that the minimum vehicular access and
egress for single-family dwelling units on individual lots shall be one, 10-foot paved driveway
within a 15-foot-wide accessway. The minimum access width for 3-6 dwelling units is 20 feet
with 20 feet of pavement.
The access and egress into the site itself is discussed later in this decision under Street and Utility
Standards and PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Access to individual lots will be reviewed for
compliance during the building permit phase.
FINDING: Because the access to individual lots will be reviewed as part of the building permit
process and access to the site is addressed and conditioned, if necessary, further in this
decision, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have been satisfied.
Density Comoutations and Limitations: Chapter 13.715 implements the Comprehensive Plan
b r the criteria for determining the number of dwelling units permitted. The number
of allowable dwellingg units is teased on the net development area. The net area i the remaining
parcel area after exclusion of sensitive lands and land dedicated forpublic roads or parks. The
net area is then divided by the minimum lot size permitted by the zoning district to determine the
number of dwelling units that may be developed on a site.
Based on the formulas in Chapter 18.715 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code, the
maxilrum and minimum number of units permitted on the site are based on the net iTevelopable area
subtractin sensitive land areas, land dedicated to public parks, land dedicated for public right-of -W
and land for private streets from the total site area. Of the total site area, 4.69 acres will be dedicate.
to public street right-of-way and 14.20 acres will be retained for lot development. This results in a
maximum of 123 lots and a minimum of 98 lots. The applicant°s proposal to build 119 lots for single-
family detached homes meets the maximum and minimum density requirements in an R-7 zone.
FINDING: Because the applicant has proposed 119 lots and 123 lots are the maximum permitted
based on the net acreage of the site, this standard has been satisfied.
Landscaping and Screening (18.745 Chapter 18.745 contains landscaping provisions for new
development Section 18.745 100 requires that street trees b planted in conjunction with all
development that fronts a street or driveway more than 100 feet long ,A proposed planting list
must be submitted for review by the Director since certain trees can damage utilities, streets and
sidewalks or cause personal injury.
Section 18.745.040.0 contains specific standards for spacing of street trees as follows:
e Small or narrow stature trees (under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching) shall
be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart;
+ Medium sizedirees (25-feet to 40 feet tall 16 feet to 5 feet wide branching) shall be
spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; ana
♦ Large trees (aver 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no
greater than 40 feet apart,
The applicant's narrative indicates that a street tree ppIan will be submitted which will indicate the type,
size and location of the proposed street trees with the final construction drawings for each phase of
development. They have indicated that in general, street trees will be spaced 0' to 40' apart, with a
tree located at each property corner abutting the street right-of-way and an additional tree placed
along the front property line and the side yard property line where applicable. The exact location f,
these street trees will be determined after utility boxes, utility trenches, lighting standards are,
driveways have been located and will be shown on the plot plan that will be submitted with the
construction drawings required for bullding permit review. They have stated that tree planting will be
the responsibility o the homebuilder, with the completion of the task tied to the issuance of the
NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 16 OF 26
SUB 1999-000021VAR 1999-00016 - MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
certificate of occu ~ancy. This may be passible, however, the applicant will be required to provide a
bond for the planting of street trees and the construction plans must show the type and spacing of
street trees to be planted. The City can not defer street tree planting to the building permit phase for
aach lot without a bond for the planting prior to final plat approval.
,3ection 18.745.050 contains the provisions and requirements for buffering and screening.
The Buffering and Screening Matrix (Section 18.745.1) does not require buffering or screening when
a single-family detached residential use is proposed adjacent to existing detached single-family
dwellings. The Meyer's Farm site is surrounded by detached singgle-family homes and undeveloped
Farcels with R-7 zoning. Therefore, this section does not apply. 1-lowever, the applicant is proposingg
o build a 6-foot tall masonry wall along the property line abutting W Bull Mountain Road. AlthougFi
no landscape buffer is required, the applicant is proposing to build a 6-foot cedar fence and plant
trees alone the entire property boundary between the .Meyer's Farm subdivision and the Pleasant
View subdivision. The applicant is also proposing to plant trees along the southern boundary of the
subdivision.
FINDING: Because no bufifering and screening is required when a single-family development
abuts a single-family development, this standard does not apply.
Off-street parking and loading reclirernents 18.765)_ Chapter 18.765, Table 18.765.2 requires
that single-family residences be' provided with one (1) off-street parking space for each
dwelling unit.
The applicant has stated that this standard will be satisfied with the future driveways and residential
ggarages on the individual lots. In addition, the a plicant has indicated that most homes built in this
typpe of subdivision have a two-car garage and a driveway that will accommodate at least two
additional cars. The buildin permit review will re wire that the applicant show off-street parking
spaces. The code requires 2 feet from the property fine to the face of a garage which will insure that
at least one car can park off the street, outside of any garage.
iNDING: Because each individual home will be reviewed for compliance with this standard during
the building permit phase and it is feasible that this standard will be met by providing
driveways and garages, this standard has been satisfied.
Tree Removal:
Chapter 18.790 re uires mitigation of trees over 12" diameter at breast height (dbh) removed
as part of the development o the site.
The applicant has stated in the narrative that the walnut orchard comprises the only significant
existing vegetation on the Meyer's Farm site. It is the applicant's intention to remove the orchard to
accommodate site grading, the installation of proposed infrastructure and to create pads for future
homes.
A certified arborist has conducted an assessment of the trees on the site of the Met'er's Farm
subdivision. There are thirty-three trees with diameters larger than twelve inches which have been
field measured and flagged with chartreuse ribbon for identification. The total caliper inches of the
trees above 12 inches is 589. Of these, 128 inches are on trees considered in poor condition or
dead. Based on the assessment of the certified arborist, there are 466 diameter inches of trees that
need to be mitigated. The applicant has included in the subdivision proposal a mitigation an
showing trees will be planted- on the eastern, northern and southern boundaries of the property.
These frees will be 3-inch caliper trees spaced approximately 80 feet on center. None of the existing
trees are.proposed to be retained.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Tree Removal standards will be met, if the applicant
complies with the conditions listed below.
CONDITION: Prior to Final Plat, submit a band for proposed on-site tree mitigation or pplant the
proposed mitigation trees on-site. A deed restriction must be recorded prohibiting the
removal of trees planted to meet the mitigation requirement unless they pose an
immediate hazard to life or property or are dead.
i
NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 17 OF 26
SUB 1999-000021VAR 1999-00016 - MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
i
Vision clearance: Chapter 18.795 applies to all development and requires that dear vision
area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways
and at the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A visual clearance area shall
contain no vehicle hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, signs, or temporary or permane~
obstruction exceeding three feet in height.
The applicant has not proposed any structures or vegetation in the vision clearance area. All
structures to be located on individual lots will be reviewed for compliance with the vision clearance
standards during the building permit phaso. Staff did a quick evaluation of the lots to determine how
the vision clearance would affect the buildability of these lots. The vision clearance area will not
affect the buildability of these lots.
FINDING: Because no structures are currently proposed in the vision clearance area and all future
buildings will be reviewed for compliance during the building permit phase, this standard
has been satisfied.
Street And Utility Improvements Standards:
Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private
facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are
addressed below:
Improvements: Section 18.810.030(A) requires streets within and adjoining a development to
be dedicated and improved based on the classification of the street.
Dedication requirements and improvement standards are addressed and conditioned a necessary
later in this decision under Public Facility Concerns.
Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030(E) requires a residential local
street to have a 42-50 right-of-way width and 24-32-f6ot paved section between curbs and
sidewalks.
The applicant's plans show the right-of way widths will be between 42 feet and 4 feet. This standa°
is discussed in more detail under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS.
Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030(F) states that a future street plan
shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the
boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to
dive access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to
the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of
the street. These street stubs to ad`oining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sac since
they are intended to continue as rough streets at such time as the adjoining property is
developed.
The applicant has submitted a future street plan that shows how the properties to the west can be
served, as well as the property to the south if it is ever included in the Urban Growth Boundary.
Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18,810.030(G) requires all local streets which abut a
development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not
precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict
adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it
is not possible to redesign, or reconfiggure the street pattern to provide required extensions. In
the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not
sufficient to show that a street connection i not possible. The applicant must show why the
constraint precludes some reasonable street connection.
This standard is met because SW Dekalb Street, which stubs to the property, will be extended into
the development area.
Grades And Curves: Section 18.810.030{M} requires that grades shall not exceed 12 percent on
local streets, except that local residential streets may have segments with grades up to a
percent for distances of no greater than 250 feet.
The street grades are discussed under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS.
NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 18 of 26
SUB 1999-000021VAR 1999-00096 MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
i
Block Designs - Section 18.810.040(A) states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be
deli.qned with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated,
consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and
recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. Specifically:
lock Sizes: Section 18.810.040(B)(1) states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall
not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except:
o Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of
water or, pre-existing development or;
♦ For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or
railroads.
4 For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent
access.
The blocks created within the subdivision do not have lengths greater than 1,800 feet, therefore, this
standard is satisfied.
Block Lengths:, Section 18.810.04%Bg2) states that when block lengths greater than 600 feet are
permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall a provided through the block.
The block lengths created within the subdivision do not exceed 600 feet.
Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.810.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times
the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the
applicable zoning district.
The minimum lot size of the R-7 zoning district{is 5,000 square feet. Lots 60, 113 and the combined
lot 91 and 102 are greater than 1.5 times the minimum lot size. None of these lots have a lot depth
greater than 2.5 times the average lot width.
Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(8) requires that lots have at least 2 feet of frontage on public
private streets, other than an allley.
As shown on the Preliminary Site Plan, all proposed lots have at least 25 feet of frontage with the
exception of lot 11. This lot is a flag lot which is not permitted in a Subdivision unless it has 25 feet of
frontage. The applicant must revise the plat so that this lot has 25 feet of frontage, thus meeting this
standard.
Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all residential streets.
The applicant is proposing to construct 5-foot-wide sidewalks to City standards on all public streets.
There f(ore, this criterion is met.
Sanitary Sewers: Section 18.810.090 requires sanitary sewer service.
The En ineering Division has reviewed the applicant's materials, including the Preliminaryry Utilities
Plan. Sanitary sewer i discussed later in this decision under PUBLIC FACILITY CO CFRNS.
Based on the analysis therein, the sanitary sewer service will be provided as required and this
criterion is either satisfied outright or will be met upon compliance with the applicable conditions of
approval.
Storm Drainage: Section 18.810.100 requires adequate provisions for storm water runoff and
dedication of easements for storm drainage facilities.
Storm drainage is discussed later in this decision under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Based on
the analysis therein, storm water drainage provisions will be provided as re aired and that this
criterion is either satisfied outright or will be met upon compliance with the applicable conditions of
approval.
VYING: Based on the analysis above, the applicant has not met all of the Street and Utility
Improvement Standards. Staff finds it feasible for the standards to be met if the
applicant complies with the conditions specified below.
CONDITION: Revise the plat so that lot 11 has at least 25 feet of frontage.
NO11CE OF DECISION PAGE 19 OF 26
SUB 1999-000021VAR 1999-00016 - MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS:
The City Engineering Division has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following
comments:
Streets:
TDC 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improvea
in accordance with the TDC standards.
TDC 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an
existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC.
This site lies adjacent to SW Bull Mountain Road, a major collector, and at the west end of S
Dekalb Street, a local residential street.
Traffic Study Findings
A traffic impact studyy, dated April 23, 1999, was pre ared by Kittelson & Associates. A follow-up
letter, dated June 23, 1909, was also submitted by ittelson. The impact study studied four key
intersections in the vicinity;
SW Bull Mountain Road/SW 150th Avenue
• SW Bull Mountain Road/SW Roshak Road
SW Bull Mountain Road/SW 151st Avenue
SW Bull Mountain Road/SW Beef Bend Road.
All study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) under 1999 existing
conditions with the exception of SW Bull Mountain Road/SW Beef Bend Road, which currently operates
at LOS "F" during both the AM and PM weekday peak periods. This intersection is currently being
redesigned to improve the existing capacity and safety deficiencies. The County is planning to
construct the improvements at this intersection in 2000 as part of the Beef Bend/Elsner/5cholls-
Sherwood (BESS) improvement project.
The proposed subdivision will add approximately 1,150 new daily trips to the system, with approximate
90 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and approximately trips occurring during the PM peg...
hour. Under Year 2004 background and total traffic conditions, which include pro ected trips from this
development, afi studyy intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service. Tis assumes the Bull
Mountain Road/Beef Bend Road intersection improvements have been completed.
Kittelson reviewed left turn lane warrants at the proposed itersection of "Street A" at Bull Mountain
Road (current intersection of Bull Mountain Road and 161s Avenue). Warrants for a left turn lane
were not met and therefore can not be required.
S"afefyy Concerns
The traffic study reviewed traffic accident data collected by Washington County and the County's
Safety Priority Index System ("SPIS° , which fla s any intersections that are prone to traffic accidents.
The only intersection in this area that is listed on the "SPIS" is the intersection of Bull Mountain
Road/Beef Bend Road. As was mentioned above, the County is currently redesigning this
intersection to address the problems there. Under the County's program, if a development increases
the approach volume to a `SPIS" intersection by 10% or more, the developper may incur the cost of
correcting the deficiency. This project will contribute approximately 1.2% to the intersection at Bull
Mountain Read/Beef Bend Road; therefore, the applicant will not be required to contribute funds to
this intersection.
Bull Mountain Road ".S" Curves of Ro hak Road
Although this intersection is not listed on tho "SPIS", there have been concerns raised byy citizens
adjacent to this development that the intersection is unsafe. Staff would concur that this intersection
is problematic, in that the travel lanes are narrow and the curves are substandard. However, the
accident data available indicate that very few accidents occur at this location. Only one r9ortd
accident occurred between 1995 and 1997. No accident data was available for 1900. It is quite
possible that the reason the accident rate is low is because motorists are forced to slow down and
take extra care when proceeding through the intersection. The current level of service at tlh
intersection is "B". The City plans to focus attention on this intersection in the next few years to try k,
develop reasonable solutions for improvement.
NOTICE OF I)ECISlON
PAGE 20 OF 26
SUB 1999-000021V AR 1999-00016 - MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
Local Street Volumes
Another concern raised by neigghbors of this proposed development is with regard to local street
volumes and the impact pro ected from this develo~meet. Specifically, the residents who use SW
Dekalb Street are concerned) about this street~ppotential) carrying more traffic than a local residential
Beet should carry, In Kittelson's follow-up lettar, dated June 23, 1999, they reported that the street
.arrently carries approximately 115 vehicles per day between SW Rask Terrace and SW Dozier Way.
This volume was obtained from a 24-hour tube count conducted on Thursday, June 10, 1999.
Kittelson's letter indicates that the housing units in this development that could use the Dekalb Street-
to-Rask Terrace-to-Bull Mountain Road route would be the units that front SW Dekalb Street and
those that lie south of Dekalb Street. The total number of lots, therefore, that could use this route i
53. The traffic study indicates that approximate ly 90% of the traffic from this subdivision will travel to
and from the east aloec~ SW Bull Mountain load. Thus, 48 Tots (53 X 90°%~) could potentially use the
Dekalb Street rotate. Although the direct route along "Street A" to Bull Mountain Road is likely to be
the predominant choice for motorists, Kittelson assumed a 50/50 split to be. conservative. If 50% of
the 48 lots use the Dekalb Street route, then this would result in an increase in traffic of approximately
230 daily trips. Combined with the existing 115 daily trips measured in the field, the total volumes
could be approximately 345 daily trips, which is well under the City's upper limit of 1,500 daily trips on
a local residential street. Even if 100% of the 48 vehicles use the Dekalb Street route, the increase in
traffic would only be approximately 480 trips, bringincq the total volume to 595 daily trips, which is still
well under the upper limit. This would be an obvious impact to the neighbors ,alonet?~ SW Dekalb Street
who have been used to the lower traffic volumes, but would still .fall within arcceptable limits per City
standards.
SW Bull Mounfair Road
This roadway is classified as a major collector street and requires a nht-ofway (ROW) width of 33
feet from the centerline. At present, there is approximately 30 feet of R9W from centerline, according
to the most recent tax assessor's map. The applicant's plan indicates that they will dedicate the
additional ROW to meet standard.
SW Bull Mountain Road is currently paved, but not fully improved to meet City standards. In order to
;tigate the impact from this development, the applicant should construct ahalf-street improvement
. )ng the frontage of this site. The applicant's materials indicate that they propose to construct the
half-street improvement as a part of their project.
New Interior Streak
The ,applicant's plan indicates that they propose to construct several new public streets within this
development. Two of the streets, Street "A' and SW Dekalb Street will be constructed within a 46-
foot ROW and with a curb-to-curb width of 32 feet. The other streets in the development are
proposed to be constructed within a 42-foot ROW and with a 28-foot curb-to-curb width. Street "A°'
anc~ SW Dekalb Street will likely experience the highest volumes of traffic, so the 32-foot pavement
width is appropriate. The develo meet code allows for a narrower pavement width, provided the
anticipated average daily traffic FADT) does not exceed certain thresholds. A 28-foot street is
appropriate for a residential street that will not carry more than approximately 500 vehicles per day
{ADT). The streets proposed in this development with the 28-foot pavement width should experience
traffic volumes less than 500 ADT.
The roposed ROW widths of 42 feet and 46 feet are acceptable, as the street trees are allowed to
be gced within private propperty in accordance with TD 18.745.040.0. Staff recommends the
apant dedicate ar wider public utility easement (RUE) to account for the street trees.
Parkin'g must be restricted can any street narrower than 32 feet curb-to-curb. A 28-toot wide street i
restricted to parking on one side only. The applicant will be required to design the streets such that
one side is posted as "No Parking". The applicant must also bear the costs of Installing-these signs.
Since the street labeled as Street "A" aligns with SW 161't Avenue, the City will require that the name
"SW 161s Avenue" be used within this develo ment. The construction plans and final plat shall
reflect that this street will bear the name "SW 161 'Avenue".
i of the streets within this development appear to meet the City's requirements for gradient. The
taximum grade for a local residential street i 12%, but can be increased to a maximum of 15% for
distances of no more than 250 feet. There are portions of Streets "C", "D", "F°', "G" and Dekalb Street
that exceed the 12% maximum, but do not exceed the 250 foot maximum.
NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 21 of 26
SUB 199"00021VAR 1999-00016 - MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
6
The applicant's plan indicates that four of the east/west streets will be stubbed out to the west
boundary of the site for potential future extension if those parcels ever develop.
Existing Access F-asernent
There is an existing 20-foot wide access easement that straddles the boundary between this site al
the properties immediately to the east. The easement is currently being used by a proximately five
R property owners located south of this site. The easement provides direct access to TW Bull Mountain
oad. The ,applicant's proposed street plan will include a local residential street stub to the south
boundary of the site (Street "A", or SW 111't Avenue). Typically, a street stub is terminated with a
barricade and is not used to rovide access to undeveloped parcels. However, in this case Staff
recommends access be provided to the properties to the south in carder to eliminate the need for the
existing access road.
The existing access road is an unimproved, narrow dirt roadway. Neighbors to the cast have
registered complaints regarding dust and speed of drivers using the roadway. Staff has visited the
site and agrees that the current location and condition -of the access road is unsafe. In addition, the
intersection of SW 161't Avenue/5W Bull Mountain Road is only 175 feet to the west of the access
roadway. 18.810.030.6.1 of the City's Development Code (TDC) states that stag Bred intersections
alongg a collector or arterial shall not be designed so that jogs of less than 388 feet are created.
18A0.03Q.A.130 defines a "Street" as a public or private way that is created to provide ingress or
egress for persons to three or more lots, parcels or tracts of land. The City would consider the
existing dirt access road as a private "street" and therefore must consider the spacing along Bull
Mountain Road unacceptable.
If the access roadway were eliminated, then the next nearest intersection to SW 161 sc Avenue would
be SW Rask Terrace, which is approximately 540 feet away, and would therefore meet City
standards..
In summary, the existing access roadway is not safe for the public and does not meet spacingg
standards for streets along a collector roadway. Since the applicant will be extending Street "A" (SW
1615 Avenue) to the south boundary of the site, Staff recommends that the public street be
terminated such that access to the properties to the south can be accommodated. The applicaY
shall work with the property owner directly sleuth of this site to construct a reali nment of the acce,
roadway to match where Street "A" SW 161" Avenue) will meet the south boundary of the site. Once
the streets within this development are constructed and approved by the City, the applicant shall
close off the existing access road entrances at Bull Mountain Road, SW Dekalb Street and the south
boundary of this site. It will likely be necessary for the applicant to reroute the access roadway
through this site while the new streets are being constructed. The applicant must ensure that the
property owners to the south will have uninterrupted access to their properties at all times throughout
the construction process.
Since a standard City barricade will not be erected at the terminus of the publio street, the design
en ineer shall vfork with the Engineering Department to produce a si nage plan that will clearly
delineate where the public street ends and the private driveway begins. A temporary asphalt
driveway entrance shall be provided at the end of the stub street to help protect the end of the
pavement of the public street and to help control dirt and mud from tieing tracked onto the street from
the private roadway.
Water.
Public water for this area is provided by the City of Tigard. There are public waterlines in SW Bull
Mountain Road and in SW Oekalb Street that can and will be extended through this site. Final plans
for the water systern shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction.
Sanitary Sewer:
The sanitary sewer service in this area is provided by Unified Sewerage Agency (USA). The
applicant's plan indicates that the topogqraphyy of this site falls primarily to the west. The only public
sewer available to this site is from SW Dekalb Street. However, the depth of this line is not sufficient
to serve all portions of the site. The applicant is proposing an offsite public pump station to the west.
Most of the sewer lines in this site would flow toward the pump station, and then a pressure line will
be extended from the pump station to the existing sewer line in SW Dekalb Street. This concef
appears to be reasonable, but the applicant will need to obtain -final approvals from USA prior t,
construction. In addition, the applicant will need to obtain an offsite easement for the construction of
the purnp station.
9
NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 22 OF 26
SUB 1999-000021VAR 1999-00016 - MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
Storm Drainage:
Because the topography of this site falls to the west, the applicant is also proposing to construct an
offsite public water quality facility next to the proposed sanitary sewer pump station. The storm water
from this site would flow through the water quality facility then discharge to the west. USA also is
3ponsible for the surface water runoff management in this area and will need to dive final approval
.,jr the applicant's storm drainage system. USA may require the applicant to erform a downstream
analysis to determine it the additional runoff from this site will cause problems downstream. If there is
a potential problem downstream, USA may require the applicant to provide an on-site detention
facility.
Storm Water Quality:
The City has agree to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) re Fulations established by the
Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards adopted by Resolution and
Order No. 96-44) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall
be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water
runoff generated from newly created impervious :surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be
submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through
the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit fans and calculations to USA for a water
quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Ptandards. In addition, the applicarit shall
submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by USA prior to
construction.
Grading and Erosion Control:
USA Design and Construction Standards also regulates erosion control to reduce the amount of
sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface waters stem resulting from
development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates
erosion. Per USA regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City
review and approval prior to issuance of City permits.
The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) erasion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres o
I-nd. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from
City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit.
The applicant's design engineer will be required to prepare a final grading plan for review and approval.
The an shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots that are to be "pad" graded to insure
that the +drainagge is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineering Department. A
soils report shall be provided detailing the sail compaction requirements consistent with the requirements
of Appendix Chapter 3 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC).
The applicant was also required to provide a geotechnical report, per A pendix Chapter 3 of the UB+C,
for the proposed grading slope construction. A report, issued byy dated April 12, 1999, was
submitted with the applicant's materials. GRl noted that this site should be suitable for the proposed
development, but recommended that certain measures be followed with regard to the proposed cuts and
fills. The recommendations of the report will need to be incoorated into the final g
p orated plan and a
final construction supervision report by the geotechnical engineer must be fled with the Engineering
Department prior to issuance of building permits.
The design engineer shall also indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between
10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be
necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will, be necessary when the lots
develop.
Early Grading Approval Request
The applicant has also asked that the grading plan be approved by the City at this time so that they
can perform grading operations on the site yet this summer. They state that they would life to get the
site graded, roads cored and rock base installed before the fall and winter rams set in so they can
continue with construction of the subdivision during the winter months. If the City were to approve the
applicant's request, as proposed in the narrative, it would be contrary to standard procedures, which
quire the public improvement plans to be completely reviewed and approved by the City.
NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 23 of 26
SUB 1999-000021VAR 1999-00016 - MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
i
The applicant and their engineer have met with Staff to discuss this concept. Staff concurs with the
applicant that perforrning grading during summer months is preferable so as to avoid ma erosion
problems during the winner. However, Staff has some concerns with regard to approving t"or ~e grading
plan at this sta e of the process. First, the Ci does not have a process in place to where such
permit could be issued and inspected. The wilding Division does not issue grading permits
subdivisions and would rely upon the Engineering Department to help review the grading plan for
compliance with City standards.
In order for the Engineering Department to adequately review a subdivision grading plan, the public
improvement plans must be reviewed thoroughly in order to determine if the proposed grading is
acceptable. The applicant has asked that tie City consider the street profiles submitted in the
application as a means for approving the gradino plan. Although the street profiles determine most of
the required grading, the other underground utilities also play a part. Staff is not comfortable giving an
approval of the grading plan with this land use application and would only consider such an approval
once the public improvement plans have been completed and submitted for City review. Staff has
spoken with the design enggineer on several occasions concerning this concept and has committed to
investigate the formation or a new Engineering Department policy that would potentially allow for early
raaing on a subdivision. The design engineer has provided Staff with some helpful sug estions and
taff is currently working on such a policy but has not yet completed it. Staff is contacting other
jurisdictions who have either tried this concept or are currently using it. Ultimately, the City Engineer
must approve of the policy before it is implemented.
In summary, Staff does not recommend the proposed grading plan be approved for construction at this
time. Staff is committed to investigating the formation of a policy that would allow the applicant, or any
other subdivision developer, to begin grading prior to the public improvement plans being completely
approved by the Engineering Department.
Existing Overhead Utility Lines=
There are existing overhead utility lines along SW Bull Mountain Road. Section 18.810.120 of the
TMC requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the
election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of r.rndergrounding can be paid. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it
is equal to $27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage fhat contains the overhead lines. The frontar
along this site is 635 lineal feet; therefore, the fee would be $17,468.
Address Assignments:
The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and
within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee in the amount of $30 per address shall
be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City pprior to recording of the final plat. For this project, the
addressing fee will be $,3,570 (110 lots) $301address = $3,570).
FINDING: Based on the information provided from Engineering, the. applicant's plan does not fully
comply with all of the Street and Utility [mprovement standards. If the applicant
complies with the Conditions specified at the beginning of this decision, then Staff can
determine that the standards have been met.
SECTION Vi OTHER ST,4F COMMENTS
The Tigard Police Department has pviewed this proposal and provided the following comments:
concerns for street naming i.e..161' Avenue would appear to be able to continue as "Street A" in
Meyers Farm. I would defer to Kit Church to see if applicable and appropriate."
The Tigard Building Division has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following commentsf
(1) Clarify resign criteria in ~Geo-Report "foundation Support" means to required 16i-foot-wide
footings? (2) Provide fire hydrants throughout so no exterior wall of any building is more than 500
feet to a, fire hydrant.. (3) Place fire hydrants at each entrance from Bull Mountain Road and at SW
Dekalb entrance. (4) it does not appear that lots 90-86, 99 and 98 and 37-7 have positive U.F.
drainage to the street. Provide a storm system at rear of dots. (5) provide a drainage system for
future rock walls. (6) demolish buildings on lots 110, 111-65, 64, 61, and 60. (7 Lots 91 and 19')
can not be platted as two separate lots laecause of the house and garage. (8) Fire hydrant must be
service before combustible home construction materials are brought in site. (9) Easement to rip rap
outflow on Valve property.
NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 24 OF 26
SUB 199MOO021VAR 1999-00016 - METERS FARM SUBDIVISION
Staff Response: These comments are for informational purposes only. Contact the Building
Division for clarification of these comments.
The City of Tigard Operations Division has reviewed the proposal and has no objections.
ne City of Ti and Operations Utility Manager has reviewed the proposal and stated that, although
they have no oection, they will require a 12-inch water line to be extended from the existing 12-inch
water main i Dekalb treet to the west end of the project. A pressure reducing station will be
required on SW Dekalb Street between ?pleasant View and the proposed subdivision. Reduced
pressure principle device (backflow prevention) shall be rewired at USA pump station if water is
required. Change 8"x6" tee at Bull Mountain Road and 161" to 8" x8" cross. Gleveloper responsible
for costs associated with possible lowering of water lines to Bull Mountain Road due to half street
improvements.
SECTION VII. AGENCY" COMMENTS
Metro has had an opportunity to review the proposal and has provided the followin comments:
"While the design of the local street system is generally beyond the scope of the Regional
Transportation Plan, the acc~~grec~ ate effect of local street design impacts the effectiveness of the
regional system when local trave~i is restricted by a lack of connecting routes and local trips are forced
onto the regional network. If Street "F" remains as it is shown on the Site Plan, then we would
recommend that the future Street "G" permit connections to the Urban Reserve Area unless
topography, pre-existing development or environmental constraints prevent a full street extension."
The Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County has reviewed this proposal and has offered
comments which have been incorporated into the body of this decision. Permits will be required
through USA.
Portland General Electric, US West, GTE and TCI Cable, have reviewed this application and have
offered no comments or objections.
SECTION Viii. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION
Notice:
Notice was pasted at City Hall and mailed to
X The applicant and owners
X Owner of record within the required distance
X Affected government agencies
Final Decision:
THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON AUGUST 13, 1999 AND
EFFECTIVE ON AUGUST 28, 1999 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED.
Appq_al:
The Director's Decision i final on the date that it is mailed. Any part with standing as provided in
Section 18.390.040. .1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.39(~.040.G.2. of the
Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required
fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the Notice of Decision was
mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City
Nall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
NOTICE OF DEC[S(ON PAGE 25 OF 26
SUB 1999-00002NAR 199MO 16 - MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
4
Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be
confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the
comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may
submitted by any party' during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that rr,
be adopted from time to time by the appellate body.
THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 3:30 PM ON AUGUST 27, 1999.
Questions:
If yyou have any questions, gregon ease call the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125
SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, at (503) 639-4171.
` August
3. 1999
PREPARED BY: Julia Powell jduk DATE
Associate Planner
August 13. 1999
APPROVED BY: Richard Bewersdo DATE
Planning Manager
i.lcurplnljuiialsubWeyers Farm.doc
NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 26 OF 26
SUB 1C-93-000021VAR 1999-00016 - MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION
aeaorer:rwlc I~w soawarlaw soar Es+,:.
I I ti
VICINITY AP
17 (tom URBAN SERVICE AREA
SUB 1999-00002
5;,= J z I BAR 1999-000016
Q Y~ ~J v ~n~~"et ~
SW. COLONY Ft. A (rE}'"'~{ j ai ~ I "(j1
x I SUBDIVISION
TAX LOTS
:7 LU
I
` a 400 800 Fast
1"- 591 foot
I
I Ci-ry o Tigard
intrimw6on an this map is for general location only and
• should be verified %fth the Development Services Division,
131:5 SW Nail Blvd
Sig -n OR p
~I ,1~~! l u;l CLti.et.US
Community Development Plot date. Jun 22,1999; C.tmagiWAGIC03.APR
.-qW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD _
! c7'*,•it - Y' 1 1 x a w.. i x I x . w ~ « I I - cmwna.mo
4 y
_ va 1( t
xM
r r rr . x
1. j
1
to tj
i v C a u~i ~ x`u~~ a ng tr,~ a u~ t "+'t$ 9 a c stilt ~c s,g P - ' "
I t - w
E II
0
co s I
iaa~~_i~_s I a g nso a r, E--r-
z r r x. w r F ry
E-
I I t I 1 ~
i I 1 ~ t ~ a ~
I d 1 I 1
Z
SW LSE L ST IEE'` - I CL
f I S a i t Y ~°1Y .r a« t o a rigg f 3S r E.6, t
a W& Q a 02 tiur/
0
r
- . L_ a "R`t(._,.._..::h..-._ i . _ •_..__,.~_._,-.,--~r ill I Za L
I 4 # I -t' . ~ a ~Q t-•+ yes ci` ~g v, a x` ~x a
t 1 I t;l ~ ;.t t :i;A. ~ agrh`g~ `.i ash r'-....+ 44kn x A~ ~ *C mgt
I ep
I I ! S `a 44d a w~ii t I
aw~~
U1101lN SER IC! AREA
SITE RAN t SUB 1999-00002
~
EXHIBIT MAP MR 1999-00016
MEYER'S FARM
ma is not to scale SUBDIVISION