The URL can be used to link to this page

SUB1998-00014 D ick Bewersdorff - Ventura Estates questi- Page 1 Sat) q�- �ooi�{ From: Dick Bewersdorff To: Jfrewing @teleport.com Date: 3/30/2005 9:30:16 AM Subject: Ventura Estates question John: Jim Hendryx passed your email along for current planning to review. We have reviewed this with Jim and will attempt to answer your questions. First, Gary Pagenstecher has been working on the tree removal issues on Ventura Estates. He has talked with the developer a couple of times. The developer has not completed an accounting of the trees and, as a result, we are still withholding building permits per Brad Kilby's investigation. Ventura Estates is a subdivision submitted in 1998. The Development Code indicates that in this type of cul de sac case, the City may require a pathway. It is not mandatory. The City required the pathway because there was the possibility of a future connection. The developer was willing to provide for a pathway that can, ultimately, be connected to Ventura Drive. The developer provided for the pathway through the property over which he had control. As is true in many cases, the property belonging to the applicant did not extend to the next street (Ventura Drive). Unfortunately, when Washington County approved the Washington Square Estates plat in 1973, they allowed what is sometimes called a "spite strip" along Ventura Drive. This is a small plat strip that remains platted to Washington Square Estates that was apparently meant to preclude access to Ventura Drive. Hence the need for a cul de sac on Ventura Estates. As a result, the developer provided the pathway along Tract A which dead ends into Lot 27 of Washington Square Estates. To make a connection to Ventura Drive would require purchase or condemnation of an easement or pathway section across Lot 27 to Ventura Drive. The developer of Ventura Estates provided a connection across the property he controlled. Completion of the pathway has not been programed into any capital improvements program at this point. That would require the Engineering Department to negotiate to see if purchase was possible and then if it was possible, to add it to the CIP. Dick Bewersdorff CC: Gary Pagenstecher; Gus Duenas; Jerree Gaynor; Jim Hendryx i July 9, 2004 John Frewing CITY OF TIGARD 7110 SW Lola Lane OREGON Tigard, OR 97223 Dear John: First of all, thank you for your patience in receiving my response. I understand that you are not satisfied with past staff responses to your questions regarding Ventura Estates. The City Council was previously copied with those responses. Staff has investigated the issues you have raised over the last several months. While we apparently are not in agreement on the results of the review, the City has placed a parcel tag on remaining northern parcels until it is demonstrated that all tree protection measures are in place and those measures have been reviewed by the City arborist. Until this is demonstrated, further building permits will not be issued. The developer is also on notice that it must be demonstrated that the project is in compliance with the approved tree plan. If the development is found to be out of compliance, it will be necessary to either amend the approved tree plan though a Type II process, mitigate according to previous approvals, or be subject to fines. Ventura Estates had previously contacted the City about taking out trees that were scheduled to be saved. They were told they would have to go back through the Type II process. We have not heard from them since Brad Kilby's last conversation with them. You have raised several issues in your letter. These will be taken into consideration as we proceed with this matter. Please be advised that we will continue to review this matter as time allows. I do not have the resources to assign someone to investigate all of your questions immediately. Your letter also included a request for Director's Interpretations. An Interpretation is a formal request that can require considerable research and time to answer. Please be advised that each interpretation request must be accompanied with the proper fee and separate request. The fee for each one of your six requests is $488 each. I am assuming that is not what you are requesting, given the fact that your requests are not accompanied by the appropriate fee. Sincerely, 4t JAMES N.P. HENDRYX Director of Community Development c: Bill Monahan City Council SUB98 -00014 Land use file 2004 correspondence file I: \cdadm \jerree \jim \general \John Frewing_Ventura Estates.doc 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772 February 5, 2004 Wingate Corporation CITY OF TIGARD Attn: Barry Desbiens 15840 South Pope Lane OREGON Oregon City, OR 97045 RE: Ventura Estates Subdivision in Tigard Dear Barry: I am writing for two reasons. First, I want to recap our discussion on the tree protection for the remaining lots in the Ventura Estates Subdivision (SUB98 - 0014)(PDR98- 00013) and (VAR98- 0006). It is my understanding that you will call me to verify tree protection on each individual lot prior to constructing on that lot. The tree protection measures must be placed according to your arborists approved tree plan. I have tagged all of the remaining lots in our permit tracking system to ensure that the permit techs are aware of this requirement. In order to expedite your building permit issuance, you will need to notify me that the tree protection is in place, the City arborist will inspect it, and if he approves it I will release the permit. While I appreciate that you are trying to save trees on a lot specific basis, I cannot permit you to remove the trees that were slated for preservation on the plan without prior approval. That brings me to my second point, on January 29 the City Arborist and I visited the site to view the mitigation and to investigate the trees on lot 11 that were slated for preservation but ultimately removed. Two of the trees #'s 2390 and 2391 were below 12 inches and therefore not required to be mitigated for, but tree # 2067 was slated for preservation, and was removed without prior approval. With regard to the mitigation, your mitigation plan for the two trees removed on lot #6 called for 16 inches of vine maple and a 4 inch white pine. The vine maple did not equate to 16 inches, and the white pine was only credited two inches. Therefore, you will need to plant an additional 14 inches for the trees that were removed on lot #6, and an additional 16 inches for tree #2067 that was removed on lot #11. Please provide me with a planting plan for the additional 30 inches within the next two weeks. If you have any questions, contact me at (503)718 -2434. Sin rely, ,' Brad Kilby Associate Planner CC: Dick Bewersdorff, Land Use File SUB98 -0014 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772 EXHIBIT A 130 DAYS - 5/31 /99 CITY OF TIGARD - Community (Development ShapingA Better Community CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Case Numbers: SUBDIVISION (SUB)98-0014/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 98-0013 VARIANCE (VAR) 99-0006 Case Name: VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Names of Owners: Helen L. Wegener and Fred Neuman Names of Applicants: lw Yip Barry Desbiens Rep.: Ken Sandblast Address of Applicants: Ashwood Homes, Inc. Wingate Corporation Land Solutions 8760 SW Pacer Drive 15840 S. Pope Lane PO Box 38 Beaverton. OR 97008-6915 Oregon City. OR 97045 Clackamas. OR 97015 Address of Property: The subject parcels are located on the south sicle of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 70t" Avenue. Tax Map/Lot Nos.: WCTM 1 S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. Request: ➢ At the April 19, 1999 Planning Commission Public Hearing, the Commission APPROVED a request for Subdivision and Planned Development Review approval for a 22-lot detached single- family residential Planned Development Subdivision. The applicant is also requesting a Variance to the maximum length to allow a cul-de-sac in excess of 200 feet. There is natural area that is proposed to be preserved in a tract area within the subdivision. Zone: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.370, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Action: ➢ ❑ Approval as requested 1E Approval with Conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: Owners of record within the required distance 0 Affected governmental agencies The affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator 9 The applicant and owner(s) The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Final Decision:% L THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON APRIL 21, 1999 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON MAY 6, 1999. Appeal: The decision of the Review Authority is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.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 the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 P.M. ON MAY 5, 1999. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER. NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 120 DAYS = 5/31/99 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION ' CITY OF TIGARD FINAL ORDER NO 99-02 PC Community0evelopment Shaping A(Better Community A FFINAL ORDER APPROVING A LAND USE APPLICATION FOR A 22-LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION AND A VARIANCE. THE COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THIS APPLICATION ON APRIL 19, 1999. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BASED THEIR DECISION ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER. SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION CASES: Subdivision SUB 98-0014 Planned Development Review PDR 98-0013 Variance VAR 99-0006 The applicant has requested approval of 22-lot Planned Development Subdivision. There is a natural area that is proposed to be preserved in a tract area within the subdivision. A variance to the maximum length to allow a cul-de-sac in excess of 200 feet. APPLICANT: Ivy Yip APPLICANT: Barry Desbiens Ashwood Homes, Inc Wingate Corporation 8760 SW Pacer Drive 15840 S. Pope Lane Beaverton, OR 97008-6915 Oregon City, OR 97045 OWNER: Helen L. Wegener OWNER: Fred Neuman 580 NW Alpine Terrace 19730 SE Semple Road Portland, OR 97210 Clackamas, OR 97015 APPICANT'S Ken Sandblast Land Solutions REP.: PO Box 38 Clackamas, OR 97015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low-density residential home sites. LOCATION: The subject parcels are located on the south side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 70th Avenue; WCTM 1S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Subdivision/Planned Development meets the applicable approval criteria of the Tigard Community Development Code and that the proposal will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City. The Planning Commission, therefore, APPROVES the request subject to the following recommended conditions of approval: NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 1 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: (Unless otherwise noted,'the staff contact shall be Brian Rager, Engineering Department (503) 639-4171.) 1. Submit a plan that shows street trees will be provided including the species and proposed spacing in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 2. Submit a plan that shows typical building footprint and the location of trees proposed to be retained and removed. The revised plan must clearly show the tree numbers. If trees outside the typical building footprint are proposed to be removed, an explanation as to why the particular tree must be removed will be required. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 3. Submit a tree removal plan that clearly shows the number and location of existing trees and trees proposed to be removed. If the number of trees proposed to be removed exceeds 25%, the applicant must submit a tree mitigation plan to be approved by the Planning Division. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 4. Submit a revised plan that shows the inside and outside radius for the cul-de-sac will be in accordance with the Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue standards. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 5. Submit a plan that shows how each individual lot can be landscaped to insure that the total 20% landscaping requirement will be satisfied. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 6. Submit confirmation from Washington County that the proposed subdivision name is not duplicative or submit confirmation of a revised subdivision name approved by Washington County. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 7. Submit a detail of the proposed pedestrian connection to S.W. Ventura Drive to show how it can be. extended without impacting the drainage area. If it is not possible to extend a pedestrian connection in this area without an impact, the applicant must show a pedestrian connection between lots 7and 8 on the final plat. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 8. Revise the plat so that all frontages will have 25 feet of frontage on a public or private street. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Department. 9. Submit confirmation from Division of State Lands and US Army Corp of Engineers that no permits are required if there is any alteration, including grading, within the drainage area or the 25-foot buffer. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 10. Prior to approval of the final plat, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Six (6) 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. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION t _ 11. Asa part 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, LLC; etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 12. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park 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 application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 13. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee in the amount of $660. 14. The applicant shall construct a concrete sidewalk along the south side of SW Ventura Drive. The applicant shall hire an arborist to assist in the design of the sidewalk to insure the safety of trees is not compromised. The City will be flexible with the width and location of the sidewalk based on the arborist's recommendation. 15. The applicant shall provide "No Parking" signs on one side of SW 70th Avenue (Place) along the segment where the curb-to-curb width is only 28 feet. 16. The applicant shall name the north/south cul-de-sac "SW 70th Place". 17. The proposed raised median/island in SW 70th Avenue (Place) shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to construction. 18. Full-width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic 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. 19. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private street will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from it. 20. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private street. The CC&R's shall obligate the private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the street. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) prior to approval of the final plat. 21. The pavement and rock section of the proposed private street shall meet the City's public street standard for a local residential street. r 22. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) for the proposed public water work prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 0 0 23. The applicant shall construct the public sanitary sewer line proposed along the north boundaries of Lots 13 through 16 of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe. A manhole shall be provided at the end of this pipe run as shown on the preliminary plan. 24. The applicant shall extend the proposed storm drainage line in SW Locust Street to the eastern boundary of the site. 25. The applicant shall construct a private storm drainage line along the northern boundaries of Lots 13 through 16. This line shall be owned and maintained by the owners of Lots 13 through 16 and shall be constructed of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe. 26. The applicant shall provide an on-site detention facility, designed to meet the Unified Sewage Agency Design and Construction Standards. A final design and calculation package shall be submitted to the Engineering Department as a part of the public improvement plan review. 27. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) as a part of the public improvement plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract to the City of Tigard on the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance . shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 28. The applicant shall provide a maintenance access road to the facility and any drainage structures within the facility to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. The access road shall be paved and a minimum of 15 feet wide. 29. 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." 30. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of 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 Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). 31. The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the 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. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 32., The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. 33. The design engineer shall 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. 34. 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. 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; and D. Once the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer's signature. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 35. Prior to issuance of building permits on lots 5-8, a geotechnical report must be submitted and received. 36. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the subdivision/partition plat. 37. 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) any off'-site street and/or utility improvements are completely finished, and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. 38. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) mylars, and 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable. Note- if the public improvement drawings were hand-drawn, then a diskette is not required. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE: AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST: NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5 OF 26 SUB 98-0014%PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 18.430.080 Improvement Agreement: Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by' the City, the Subdivider shall: ♦ Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and ♦ 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 provide 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: ♦ An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; ♦ A surety bond executed by 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 ♦ 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. 18.430.100 Filing and Recording: Within 60 days of 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 Application Submission Requirements: Three copies of the subdivision plat prepared by a land 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. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 6 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION STREET CENTERLINE MONUNTENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: Centerline Monumentation In accordance 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: ♦ All centerline-centerline intersection points; ♦ All cul-de-sac center points; and ♦ Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. Monument Boxes Required Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 18.810 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: 18.810.120 Utilities All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.810.130 Cash or Bond Required All improvements installed by the 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 Installation Prerequisite No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefor have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.810.180 Notice to City Required Work shall not begin until the City.has been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 18.810.200 Engineer's Certification The land divider's 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's improvements or any portion thereof for operation.and maintenance. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE'VALID'FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE' OF THIS FINAL ORDER. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: City records do not indicate any previous development approvals have been granted for this property. Vicinity Information: The site is located south of SW Ventura Drive at the western terminius of SW Locust Street and the northern terminius of SW 70th Avenue. The site is surrounded on all sides by property zoned R-4.5. Site Information and Proposal Description: The site is 5.15 acres in size and is currently vacant with the exception. of several accessory structures. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low Density Residential use and the zoning for the site is R-4.5. Topography ranges between 10-20% with less than 10% in the southeast and greater than 25% in the northwest where the tract area is proposed. The Tract area is identified as having Sensitive Lands with steep slopes and a drainageway, however, that applicant has not proposed any alterations in these areas. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 19, 1999 TO HEAR TESTIMONY REGARDING THE PROPOSED SUBDIVSION. AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATED AND VOTED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN THIS REPORT AND BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE TESTIMONY PROVIDED AT THE HEARING. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Impact Studv: Section 18.390.050 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify.the effect of development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks 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 y users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests=the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. 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 findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. Any required street improvements to certain collector or higher volume streets 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-Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 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 $189. The total TIF for an attached, single-family dwelling is $1,899. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION . ! ' 6 Because the local streets extending through the development are needed to serve the development and to meet the standards of the code, they are inherently proportional to the development. The applicant is being required to construct half-street improvements along SW Ventura. The Engineering Department has estimated the cost of half-street improvements to be approximately $200 per lineal foot. Assuming a cost of $200 per linear foot, it is estimated that the total cost of the half-street improvements for SW Ventura is $38,000 (190 feet x $200). Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $41,778 ($1,899 x 22 dwelling units). Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $130,437 ($41,778 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact, is considered an unmitigated impact. Since the TIF paid is $41,778, the unmitigated impact can be valued at $88,659. Given the estimated cost of the half street improvement and the unmitigated impact, the half street improvement on Ventura meets the rough proportionality test related to the impact of the development. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT The applicant has requested a Planned Development (PD) overlay zone change for the subject property. The PD overlay requires developers to follow the Planned Development process for any proposal on affected sites. The Planned Development chapter provides for flexibility in development design and allows deviation from certain standards of the base zone. The following paragraphs address compliance with the applicable base zone standards and with the specific Approval Standards under Section 18.350.100. The Planned Development Process: Section 18.350.020 states that there are three elements to the planned development approval process, as follows: ♦ The approval of the planned development overlay zone; ♦ The approval of the planned development concept plan; and ♦ The approval of the detailed development plan. The applicant has requested the Planned Development to allow flexibility in lot sizes in order to preserve the natural area in the northwestern portion of the site and. The applicant is requesting approval of all three elements for the Planned Development as part of this application, therefore, the applicant is complying with the process set forth for Planned Developments. Applicability of the Base Zone Development Standards: Section 18.350.070 requires compliance to specific development standards: The provisions of the base zone are applicable as follows: Lot dimensional standards: The minimum lot size, lot depth and lot width standards shall not apply except as related to the density computation under Chapter 18.715; Density is discussed further in this report. Site coverage: The site coverage provisions of the base zone shall apply; There is no maximum lot coverage standard in the R-4.5 zone, therefore, this standard does not apply Building height: The building height provisions shall not apply; and NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 9 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Structure setback provisions: Front yard and rear yard setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall be the same as that required by the base zone unless otherwise provided by Chapter 18.360; The side yard setback provisions shall not apply except that all detached structures shall meet the" Uniform Building Code requirements for fire walls; and Front yard and rear yard setback requirements in the base zone setback shall not apply to structures on the interior of the project except that: (1) A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure which opens facing a street; (2) A minimum front yard setback of eight feet. is required for any garage opening for an attached single-family dwelling facing a private street as long as the required off-street parking spaces are provided The individual lots will be reviewed for compliance with these setbacks during the building permit phase. Other provisions of the base zone: All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except as modified by this chapter. Any additional provisions of the base zone are discussed within the body of this report or will be reviewed during the building permit phase. FINDING: Because the provisions of the base zone either do not apply in a Planned Development or will be required to comply during the building plan review, the applicability of the base zone development standards have been satisfied. SPECIFIC PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL STANDARDS Section 18.350.100.13 requires that the Commission make findings that the following criteria are satisfied when approving or approving with conditions, or the criteria are not satisfied when denying an application: All provisions of the land division provisions, Chapter 18.410, 18.420 and 18.430 shall be met. The provisions of Chapter 18.430, Subdivision are addressed further within this report. The provisions of Chapters 18.410, Lot Line Adjustments and 18.420, Partitions are not applicable to this proposal. Except as noted, the provisions of the following chapters shall be utilized as guidelines. A planned development need not meet these requirements where a development plan provides alternative designs and methods, if acceptable to the Commission, that promote the purpose of this section Density Computations and Limitations: Chapter 18.715 implements the Comprehensive Plan by establishing the criteria for determining the number of dwelling units permitted. The number of allowable dwelling units is based on the net development area. The net area is the remaining parcel area after exclusion of sensitive lands and land dedicated for public 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. The gross acreage of the site is 5.15 acres. The net site acreage is 3.8 acres (165,528 square feet) after deduction for public and private streets, slopes greater than 25% and drainageways. The maximum density, therefore, is 22.07 lots and the minimum is 17 lots. The applicant is proposing 22 lots. FINDING: Because the applicant has proposed 22 lots and 22 lots are the maximum permitted based on the net acreage of the site, this standard.has been satisfied. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 10 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Visual Clearance Areas: Chapter 18.795 applies to all development and requires that clear 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 permanent 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 phase. 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. Landscaping and Screening_ Chapter 18.745 contains landscaping provisions for new development. Section 18.745.100 requires that street trees be 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: ♦ 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 sized trees (25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; and ♦ Large trees (over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart; The applicant has not submitted a plan that shows street trees will be planted, therefore, staff can not determine if this standard is met. Staff finds it feasible for this. standard to be met if the applicant submits a revised plan that shows street trees will be planted, the type and proposed spacing. Section 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. Therefore, this section does not apply. FINDING: Because the applicant has not submitted a plan that shows street trees, staff can not make a finding that the landscaping and screening standards have been met. If the applicant submits a plan that shows street trees will be provided and shows the species and proposed spacing in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C, this standard will be satisfied. CONDITION: Submit a plan that shows street trees will be provided and shows the species and proposed spacing will be in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements: 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 garages on the individual lots. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 11 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINDING: 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, therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Access Egress and Circulation: 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-wife accessway. The access' and. egress into the site itself is discussed later in this report 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 access and egress into the site itself is discussed later in this report and access to individual lots will be reviewed during the building permit phase, this standard has been satisfied. Signs: Chapter 18.780 provides provisions for signs. The applicant has not indicated a sign will be provided. If signs are proposed, a sign permit will be required and may be obtained from the City Development Services Department. FINDING.: Because signs will be reviewed if desired through a separate permit application, this standard has been satisfied. IN ADDITION, THE FOLLOWING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA SHALL BE MET: The development does not involve a multi-family or non-residential use therefore, the following additional review criteria do not apply and will not be discussed in this report: Private Outdoor Area: Multi-Family Use, Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Multi-Family Use, Privacy and noise. The following have been discussed previously in this report and will not be addressed in this' section: Signs, and Parking. Relationship To The Natural And Physical Environment: The streets, buildings and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography, and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible; Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to slumping and sliding; There shall be adequate distance between on-site buildings and other on-site and off-site buildings, on adjoining properties to provide for adequate light and air circulation and for fire protection; The structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where. possible; and Trees preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. The site has been laid out to avoid the natural drainage at the northwest corner of the site and steep slopes. The applicant has submitted a geotechincal report that indicates the northern lots may be prone to instability if adequate measures are not taken during construction. The geotechnical report is based on a slightly different plan, therefore, the lot numbers referred to in the report differ from those on the plan. The lots identified in the report generally correspond with lots 5-8 on the proposed plan. The geotechnical report outlines recommendations for the northern lots. It appears feasible based on the geotechnical report that, if proper measures are taken, these lots can be safely developed. The Building Division will require compliance with geotechnical review standards during the building review on the individual lots, however, staff strongly recommends a condition requiring a geotechnical report be required for lots 5-8 prior to issuance of building permits. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 12 OF 26 SUB 9&0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 990006 - VENTURA.ESTATES SUBDIVISION The project will be reviewed for compliance with applicable setbacks at the time of building permit. plan review which will insure that adequate light and air circulation is provided. All structures will be required to meet UBC standards for fire separation. The applicant has submitted a tree report which generally identifies the trees that are proposed to be removed and retained. The tree report does not identify the location of trees to be retained and removed. Given the size of the lots and street configuration, staff can assume that the trees within the proposed rights-of-way and toward the front of the lots will be removed. Given the slope and potential for ground instability at the northern portion of the site, staff encourages as many trees as possible be retained. In order to evaluate if the trees proposed to be removed are in a location that makes sense, staff must see a plan that clearly identifies all of the trees by number and shows the trees to be removed versus retained. In addition, staff needs to see a plan that shows the typical building footprint for each lot to determine if perhaps, some trees towards the rear of the lots could be retained. The actual mitigation evaluation of trees to be removed is discussed further in this report. FINDING: Because the plans do not provide enough detail for staff to confirm that trees will be preserved to the greatest extent possible and the geotechnical report indicates that the northern lots may be prone to instability if proper measures are not taken, staff can not confirm that the Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment standards have been met. If the applicant complies with the conditions specified below, staff can determine that the standards are satisfied. CONDITIONS: Submit a plan that shows typical building footprint and the location of trees proposed to be retained and removed. The revised plan must clearly show the tree numbers. If trees outside the typical building footprint are proposed to be removed, an explanation as to why he particular tree must be removed will be required. Prior to issuance of building permits on lots 5-8, a geotechnical report must be submitted to the City for review. Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining Uses: Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses (for example, between. single- family and multiple-family residential, and residential, and commercial). The proposed land use is single-family detached residential. 'The Buffering and Screening Matrix (Section 18.745.1) does not require buffering or screening for proposed single-family detached uses. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix, the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under Chapter 18.745. As noted above, the Buffering and Screening Matrix does not require buffering or screening for proposed single-family detached uses. Therefore, a determination of the adequacy and extent of required buffers is not applicable to this proposal. On-site screening from view from adjoining propert ies of such things as service areas, storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: (a) What needs to be screened; (b) the direction from which it is needed; and (c) whether the screening needs to be year-round. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 13 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION The proposed use is a single-family residential Subdivision/Planned Development. The applicant has not proposed any service areas, storage areas, parking lots or rooftop mechanical devices or other features that would require screening. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. FINDING: Because the site is single-family abutting single-family, the buffering and screening standards do not apply. Access and Circulation: The number of-allowed access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.705. Access and Circulation is addressed elsewhere in this report. All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. One hammerhead turnaround is proposed at the end of the private street which meets the TVF&R dimensional standards by providing a 90-foot by 20-foot turning area with a 25-foot turning radius. The applicant has proposed a one-way cul-de-sac in order to reduce the amount of grading on the topography, however, the outside radius does not appear to meet the required 45-foot outside turning radius. The required radius provided in the plans includes part of what.appears to be a sidewalk. The street widths and patterns are discussed in more detail further in this report. Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways if such facilities are shown on an adopted plan. The City of Tigard Pedestrian/Bike Path Map located in the Comprehensive Plan does not identify a proposed path in this area. FINDING: Because the plan does not show the outside turning radius of the cul-de-sac meets the 45-foot standard, the Access and Circulation standards have not been met. If the applicant submits a plan that shows the radius for the cul-de-sac will be in accordance with the TVF&R standards, the Access and Circulation standards will be met. CONDITION: Submit a revised plan that shows the inside and outside radius of the cul-de-sac will be in accordance with the TVF&R standards. Landscaping and Open Space: Residential Development. In addition, a minimum of 20 percent of the site shall be landscaped. As noted earlier, the gross site area of the proposed project is 5.17 acres. The landscaped portion of the project must, therefore, be a minimum of 1.03 acres (20 percent). The applicant has not provided calculations describing what portion of the site will be landscaped. Because the proposed tract will be .36 acres, there is a remaining .67 acres, or 29,185.2 square feet remaining to be landscaped. While it is anticipated that this landscaping can be provided on individual lots, because there is no minimum landscaped area and the setback standards do not apply, staff can not confirm that this standard will be met without more information. Staff proposes that the applicant be required to submit a typical building footprint plan or some other method that shows the remaining 29,185.2 square feet of required landscaping will be provided. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 14 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINDING: Because the applicant has not provided detail on how the 20% landscaping requirement will be met, staff can not determine that this standard has been satisfied. If the applicant submits a plan that shows how each individual lot can be landscaped to insure that the total 20% landscaping requirement will be satisfied, staff can find that this standard has been met. CONDITION: Submit a plan that shows how each individual lot will be landscaped to insure that the total 20% landscaping requirement will be satisfied. Public Transit: Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on: ♦ The location of other transit facilities in the area; and ♦ The size and type of the proposed development; Based on staff review of the Tri-Met bus line map, there is no bus line along *the frontage of this development. Therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: Because there is no bus line abutting this site, the Public Transit standard does not apply. Drainage: All drainage provisions shall be laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.810 and the criteria in the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan. The Engineering Department has reviewed this application and addressed the project's compliance with the City's storm water drainage standards. See comments under Public Facility Concerns. FINDING: Because drainage will be discussed and conditioned if necessary further in this report, this standard has been satisfied. Floodplain Dedication: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan: According to the adopted FEMA floodplain maps, the project site does not fall within the 100-year floodplain, therefore, this criterion does not apply. FINDING: Because the site does not fall within the 100-year floodplain, this standard does not apply. LAND DIVISION: SUBDIVISION (18.430) Approval Standards - Preliminary Plat: The proposed preliminary plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations The proposed project complies with the Comprehensive Plan's Low Density Residential designation for the subject property because it complies with the applicable provisions of the Community Development Code which implements the plan. Compliance with the majority of specific regulations and standards have been addressed previously within this report under the planned development review section. Several sections, not listed as approval criteria for Planned Developments, are applicable to Subdivisions. These Chapters are listed under ADDITIONAL SECTIONS APPLICABLE TO SUBDIVSIONS. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 15 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION The applicant has not provided evidence that the proposed subdivision name has been reserved. Prior to final plat, approval from Washington County must be provided to insure that the name is not - duplicative. The Streets and roads are laid out so as to conform 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 further in this report. 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 report under Public Facilities Concerns. FINDING: Because the applicant has not provided evidence of the plat name being reserved at Washington County, staff can not confirm that all of the preliminary plat approval standards have been addressed. If the applicant submits confirmation from Washington County that the proposed subdivision name is not duplicative or submits a revised subdivision name approved by Washington County, this standard will be satisfied. All other preliminary plat approval standards have either been met outright or are conditioned as discussed later in this report. CONDITION: Submit confirmation from Washington County that the proposed subdivision name is not duplicative or submit confirmation of a revised subdivision name approved by Washington County. ADDITIONAL SECTIONS APPLICABLE TO SUBDIVSIONS. Tree Removal: Chapter 18.790 requires mitigation of trees over 12" diameter at breast height (dbh) removed as part of the development of the site. The applicant's tree report states that there are 196 trees on the site which have diameters greater than 12 inches. The tree report does not total the trees to be removed or the trees that are considered hazardous and must be removed. The applicant states that greater than 75% of the trees will be retained, however, staff has no way of confirming this. In addition, the tree report does not identify the location of trees referred to in the report. In order for staff to determine that the proposal complies with the tree mitigation requirement, the applicant must submit a plan that specifies the total inches of trees to be removed and a program for mitigation in compliance with Section 18.790.030.B. It is feasible for this standard to be met if the applicant complies with the recommended condition of approval. Please note, that while the applicant may comply with the tree removal section of the code by providing this additional information, as discussed previously in this report, the applicant may be required to retain additional trees in order to comply with the Planned Development Criteria. The revised plan must show consistency with the conditions related to tree preservation. FINDING: Because the applicant has not submitted a tree report that clearly shows the location and number of existing trees over 12 inches caliper being removed, staff can not confirm that more than 75% of the existing trees will be retained. If the applicant submits a plan that clearly shows the number and location of existing trees and trees proposed to be removed, staff can determine if the standard has been satisfied. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 16 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION CONDITION: Submit a tree removal plan that clearly shows the number and location of existing trees and trees proposed to be removed. If the number of trees proposed to be removed exceeds 25%, the applicant must submit a tree mitigation plan to be approved by the .Planning Division. 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-as necessary later in this report under Public Facility Concerns. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030(E) requires a local street to have a minimum 50-foot right-of-way and 32-foot paved section between curbs and sidewalks. The applicant's plans show the right-of-way will be 50 feet with 32 feet of pavement. This'standard 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 give 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 adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. The subject site abuts large lots that could be redeveloped in the future. The applicant has shown on their plans how SW Locust Street will be extended within and east of the site. The applicant has not proposed the cul-de-sac be extended further to the east due to topography. 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 reconfigure 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 is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. The applicant's plans show SW Locust Street and SW 70th Street extending through the site. There are no other streets abutting the development which can be extended through the development site. Cul-De-Sacs: Section 18.810.030(K) requires that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental or topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation: NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 17 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION ♦ All cul-de-sac shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other than circular, shall be approved by the City Engineer; and ♦ The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured along the centerline of the roadway from the near side of the intersecting street to the farthest point of the cul-de-sac. ♦ If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the City. There will not be more than 20 houses taking access from the cul-de-sac. The applicant has proposed a cul-de-sac in excess of 200 feet. The applicant submitted supplemental information to request a variance to the cul-de-sac length. The cul-de-sac adjustment criteria are reviewed further in this report. Staff is recommending approval of the variance. With the Variance, the cul-de-sac length will be greater than 300 feet, therefore, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street is required. The applicant has indicated that a pedestrian access will be available to SW Ventura Drive via the open space tract, however, staff has great concerns that construction of such an access will impact the drainageway. Staff is not opposed to this, but would like additional detail in order to approve such a connection. If this location is not acceptable to the City, an alternate location within the water easement between lots 7 and 8 which would also be a logical location for a pedestrian path from the cul-de-sac bulb to SW Ventura Drive. 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 15 percent for distances of no greater than 250 feet. The street grades are discussed under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Curbs, Curb Cuts, Ramps, and Driveway Approaches: Section 18.810.030(N) requires the following: Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with standards specified in this Chapter and Tigard Municipal Code Section 15.04.080, and: ♦ Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except ♦ Where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval; and ♦ Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to City configuration standards. The applicant has indicated that the project will comply with all City construction standards and material specifications with respect to curbs, curb cuts, ramps and driveway approaches. The conditions of approval and the public improvement plan review process will insure that these standards are met. These criteria are discussed and conditioned, if necessary, further in this report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Block Designs - Section 18.810.040(A) states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed 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: NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 18 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Block 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: ♦ 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. ♦ For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. The development will aid in the formation of blocks, however, due to existing street patterns and topographic constraints, the blocks formed by the streets through this development will continue to exceed 1,800 feet. Because the block length requirement is precluded from being met, in part due to topographic constraints, this standard is found not to apply. Block Lengths: Section 18.810.040(B)(2) states that when block lengths greater than 600 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. The intersection of SW 70th Avenue and the future intersection of SW 69th Avenue is less than 600 feet. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. 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-4.5 zoning district for single-family detached development is 7,500 square feet. Only Lot 8 is larger than 1.5 times the minimum lot size. However, the lot depth of this lot does not exceed 2.5 times the average lot width. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley. As shown on the Preliminary Site Plan, all proposed lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public streets with the exceptions of Lot 20 which only has 20 feet of frontage and Lot 9, which only has 22 feet of frontage. Because this is processed as a Planned Development, the Planning Commission could determine that this standard need not apply. Because slight adjustments could be made, however, which would enable the standards to be met, staff recommends that the applicant be required to submit a revised plan that shows all lots will comply with the lot frontage standard. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all residential streets. The applicant is proposing to construct sidewalks to City standards on all public streets. Therefore, this criterion is met. Sanitary Sewers: Section 18.810.090 requires sanitary sewer service. The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicant's materials, including the Preliminary Utilities Plan. Sanitary sewer is discussed later in this report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. 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. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 19 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Storm drainage is discussed later in this report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Based on the analysis therein, storm water drainage provisions will be provided as required and that this criterion is either satisfied outright or will be met upon compliance with the applicable conditions of approval. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the applicant has not met all of the Street and Utiiity Improvement Standards. Staff finds is feasible for the standards to be met if the applicant complies with the conditions specified below. CONDITIONS: Submit a detail of the proposed pedestrian connection to SW Ventura Drive to show how it can be extended without impacting the drainage area. If it is not possible to extend a pedestrian connection in this area without an impact, the applicant must show a pedestrian connection between Lots 7and 8 on the final plat. ♦ Revise the plat so that all frontages will have 25 feet of frontage on a public or private street. Subdivision Adjustment - Maximum length of a Cul-de-sac: Community Development Code Section 18.370.020C.9 allows the Director to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the street improvement requirements based on findings that the following criterion is satisfied: Strict application of the standard will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or existing mature trees. The applicant has submitted a response to the variance criteria which indicates that a connection to SW Ventura Drive was considered originally, however, due to the slope and the natural drainageway at the northwestern portion of the site, it was determined that a connection was not feasible. In addition, due to street spacing standards, the street could not be extended to SW Ventura Drive at a point further east. The applicant has stated that the street was not proposed to extend to the east due to the location of an existing house on the property to the east of the site. The applicant has not submitted an existing conditions plan showing the location of structures on and off-site for staff to confirm this statement. In addition to attempting to protect the slope and drainage area, the applicant has indicated that the cul-de- sac will enable a greater number of trees to be retained. As discussed previously within this report, the tree plan does not clearly indicate the trees that will be retained, so staff can not confirm this fact either. Compliance with the previous conditions of approval, however, will insure that as many trees as possible are retained. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards. If the street were extended to SW Ventura Drive within this subdivision, the proposal would exceed the slope requirement, result in substandard street spacing and result in additional loss of trees not to mention the potential impacts to the existing drainageway. The proposed street layout will still provide ingress and egress into the subdivision via SW Locust Street and provides for streets of adequate size to enable emergency vehicles access to the properties. In addition, future street connections will provide up to 2 additional points of access. As will be discussed, the proposal does not fully comply with dimensional standards for access and circulation, however, conditions have been recommended that will insure all these standards are satisfied. As conditioned, granting of the variance to allow a 390-foot cul-de-sac will not be detrimental to the public or injurious to the rights of other properties. Granting the variance for the length of the cul-de-sac would allow the length to be 180 feet longer than the development code allows. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 20 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Allowing a length slightly greater than the standard does not interfere with the rights of adjoining property in any way. Surrounding properties have the ability to continue to use their property as they currently exist or to potentially develop the properties, whether or not the City grants the variance. FINDING: Because the applicant has submitted evidence that the potential impacts of not allowing the variance exceed the impacts of permitting this variance, and that no adverse impact on public life or property will result from the approval of this variance, Staff finds that the approval criteria have been satisfied. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: The City Engineering Department has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Streets: Tigard Development Code (TDC) 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved 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 Ventura Drive and is at the present terminus of SW Locust Street. SW 70th Avenue is also located to the south of this site. SW Ventura Drive This roadway is classified as a local residential street on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. This roadway classification requires a right-of-way (ROW) width of 50 feet. At present, there is approximately 50 feet of ROW adjacent to this site, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. Therefore, no additional dedications are necessary Ventura Drive is currently paved but not constructed to full City standards. In order for this street to current City standard, the applicant should construct a half-street improvement along this roadway as apart of the project. This improvement is roughly proportionate to the impact from this development, as shown by the impact analysis within the Planning Department Section of this report. SW Locust Street This roadway is also a local residential street with a 32-foot curb-to-curb section and a 50-foot ROW. The preliminary plan shows that the applicant will extend this street into this project to help provide access to the proposed lots. The street width dimensions will match the existing widths. SW 70th Avenue This roadway is also a local residential street that has not been fully dedicated and improved up to the south boundary of the site. The applicant has proposed to construct the portion of this roadway through the site in alignment with the existing ROW and improvements to the south. But until the properties to the south redevelop to where ROW and street improvements can be required, there will be a gap between the existing improvements to the south and the proposed new improvements. The applicant is proposing to terminate this roadway as a cul-de-sac near the north end of the site. A 90-degree bend is proposed toward the end of the street and from there to the end of the bulb the ROW and paved widths will decrease to 46 feet and 28 feet respectively. Because this segment of roadway will only serve a few lots, these widths are acceptable provided the applicant installs "No Parking" signs on one side of the roadway along that segment. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 21 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION The preliminary plan indicates what appears to be a raised median in SW 70th Avenue in the narrower: segment and in the cul-de-sac bulb. It was not clear in the applicant's materials why this is shown, and such a median is not a standard feature in a public street. Staff does not believe this median is. - necessary and would increase City maintenance costs in the future if it were installed. Therefore, the applicant should not be allowed to construct this median in the public street. If the variance to the cul-de-sac length standard is granted, then the street name for this roadway should be "SW 70th Place". The variance request will be discussed next. Variance for Cul-de-sac Length The applicant has asked for a variance to TDC 18.810.030(K), which states that a cul-de-sac shall not be longer than 200 feet. The applicant's plan would result in a cul-de-sac (SW 70th Avenue) of approximately 390 feet in length. TDC 18.370 provides the criteria for granting a variance and the Planning Department will address this issue in greater detail in their section of this decision. The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicant's findings for why the variance should be granted. The applicant states that the variance should be granted for the following reasons: 1. The topography in the north/south direction is in excess of 18 which would yield a street with a grade of approximately 18%, thereby in violation of City standards (15% maximum grade). 2. There is a substantial drainageway along the northern boundary, which should not be disturbed to extend a northerly connection of SW 70th Avenue. 3. There is a "linear section of 25% plus topography approximately 160 feet in length running north/south along the subject site's northeasterly boundary that prevents a local street from being constructed as a through street connection. This topographic constraint, when combined with the location of the existing residence on the adjoining parcel to the east, necessitates a cul-de-sac design for the proposed extension of SW 70th Avenue." (Taken from a letter from the applicant's engineer, dated March 17, 1999). 4. The cuts and fills near the eastern boundary would result in excessive impacts to the natural drainage area. Staff agrees with the first two points, but was initially less agreeable to Points #3 and #4. While the applicant's grading plan does indicate a "drainage" adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site that does appear to run in a northerly direction at a grade of approximately 25%, the easterly extension of the local street would be crossing this drainage, not following it. In addition, the existing house that is east of this site, while not shown on the applicant's plan, appears to be located such that an easterly extension of this roadway could be aligned in such a way that there would not be a'conflict. Staff based this finding on a review of City aerial photos and topographic maps that show the house location in relation to this site. Staff talked with the engineer on March 18, 1999, and received additional written information concerning Points #3 and #4 dated March 19, 1999. If a street were extended toward the eastern boundary of the site, several complications would occur. First, the cross slope increases in grade from approximately 5% just prior to the proposed bulb, to approximately 23% near the eastern boundary. With cross slopes this extreme, the cuts above and the fills below the street would be excessive, and in order for the applicant to meet the Tigard standards for cross slopes outside the roadbed area, retaining walls would be required or extensive upslope and downslope grading to meet minimum grading requirements. These measures would preclude access into the lots abutting the street. Second, the excessive cuts and fills would result in a significant disturbance of the steeper- sloped area and the trees within that area. The applicant would like to avoid these impacts. Based upon the additional information provided by the applicant, and further review by Staff, it is our recommendation that the variance to the cul-de-sac length standard be granted. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 22 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Proposed Private Street • • The plan proposes that Lots 18, 19 and 20 be served from a private street. TMC 18.810.030(S) limits the number of lots to be served from a private street to a total of six (6). Therefore, the proposed plan will meet this standard. Section 18.810.030(S) also indicates that the applicant shall ensure the continued maintenance of private streets by establishing a homeowners association. It is recommended that the applicant place a :statement on the face of the final plat indicating the private street will be owned and maintained by the properties that will be served by it. In addition, the applicant should record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) along with the final plat that will clarify how the private property owners are -to maintain the private street. These CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of the final plat. The City's public improvement design standards require private streets to have a pavement section equal to a public local street. The applicant will need to provide this type of pavement section. Traffic Engineer's Findings Lancaster Engineering submitted a traffic analysis letter, dated October 13, 1998, which addresses the project impacts onto the adjacent street system. The letter states that this site will generate approximately 16 new trips during the AM peak hour and approximately 22 trips during the PM peak hour. These trips will be split directionally and the net impact to SW 72 d Avenue during the AM peak hour will be approximately 13%, and the impact to SW Locust Street west of SW 72nd Avenue during the AM peak hour will be approximately 6%. During the PM peak hour, the impact will be approximately 3% on SW 72nd Avenue and approximately 8% on SW Locust Street west of SW 72nd Avenue. These impacts are small and will likely not be noticed by drivers in the area. Therefore, no additional offsite traffic mitigation is necessary. Water: This site will be served from the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD). There are existing water lines in SW Ventura Drive,-SW 70th Avenue and SW Locust Street. The applicant's plans show that these existing water lines will be extended (looped) through the site. The applicant will need to obtain plan approval from TVWD, as a part of the City's review of the public improvement plans. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer line in SW 70th Avenue that extends northerly through this site to SW Ventura Drive and beyond. The applicant's preliminary utility plan shows that this line will be used to serve all of the lots in this site. The plan shows a short extension of a public sewer line in SW Ventura Drive to serve a few of the northerly lots. The plan proposes a public sewer extension from SW 70th Avenue easterly between two blocks of lots. Typically, the City avoids locating public lines in back or side yards. because of the difficulty in accessing the lines in case of a breakage. This sewer line would only be approximately 300 feet in length, however, which could be easily cleaned with the City's sewer cleaning equipment from the manhole in SW 70th Avenue. There is still a concern that this line could be vulnerable to breakage due to future fence construction along the common property line or other excavations typical in back yards of single-family dwellings. However, the City could accept a line in this location if it were constructed of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe.. These two pipe materials are very strong and would be essentially "bullet proof' against excavations in the back yards. Therefore, the City would have little worry about future breakage. Staff recommends the sewer line location be approved provided the applicant construct this line of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe. Storm Drainage: The storm water from this site will be conveyed to the northwest corner of the site where it will be treated and released into a natural drainage channel that crosses SW Ventura Drive. The applicant submitted a downstream analysis that indicates that there should not be negative impacts to the downstream system from the additional storm water from this site. However, the City and USA recently completed a basin study of Fanno Creek. A resulting finding of that study indicated that all developments within the City must now provide onsite detention facilities. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide an onsite detention facility in addition to the proposed water quality facility. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 23 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION The applicant's plan indicates a new storm line to be extended in SW Locust Street through the site. However, the line is shown to stop short of the eastern boundary. Since it is unknown exactly how' the street will be extended in the future and the needs for storm drainage on the adjacent property,. - the applicant should extend the public line to the eastern boundary (TDC 18.810.100). The applicant's plan does not show how Lots 13 through 16 will be accommodated with storm drainage facilities. Staff would assume that since the applicant is proposing to extend a public sanitary sewer line along the northern boundary of these lots, then a storm line would also be appropriate. A storm drainage line serving these four lots would not need to be a public line, but could remain a private facility to be owned and maintained by the owners of Lots 13 through 16. Staff would recommend that the applicant be required to construct this line of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe, to avoid future problems as was mentioned in the Sanitary Sewer section of this report. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations 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 plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. As was stated previously, the applicant is proposing to provide a vegetated swale at the northwest corner of the site. The applicant shall provide a maintenance access road to the facility and any drainage structures within the facility to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. The access road shall be paved and a minimum of 15 feet wide. Prior to the City accepting this facility as a public facility, the developer shall maintain it for a minimum of three years after construction is completed. The pond shall be placed in a tract and conveyed to the City on the final plat. The developer will be required to submit annual reports to the City which show what maintenance operations were conducted on the facility for that year. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall. all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 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 water system 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) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the 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 plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots that are to be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 24 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION The applicant will also be required to provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC; for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report will need to be incorporated into the final grading plan and a final construction supervision report must be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. The.applicant did submit a report from their geotechnical engineer, and there were come concerns about a few of the lot locations. However, Staff believes that if the applicant follows the recommendation given by the geotechnical engineer, then it is feasible to construct these lots in a safe manned. 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. 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). For parcels within the USB, an addressing fee in the amount of $30 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to approval of the final plat. For this project, the addressing fee will be $660 (22 lots X $30/address = $660). FINDING: Based on the information provided from Engineering, the applicant's plan does not fully comply with all of the Street and Utility Improvement standards. If the applicant complies with the Conditions 10 through 37 specified at the beginning of this report, then staff can determine that the standards have been met. SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Tigard Police Department has reviewed this proposal and offered no comments or objections. The Tigard Building Division has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: (1) No Parking signs and curb markings on one side of street less than 36 feet; (2).fire truck access to within 150 feet of most remote exterior walls of buildings on lots 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11; (3) Provide cul-de- sac with turning radius inside of 25 feet and outside of 45 feet (UFC 902.2.2.3); (4) Provide fire access road way not less than 20 feet wide (UFC 902.2.1); (5) Provide fire hydrant at the corner of Tract A and SW Locust and entry to the hammer head drive and Locust; (6) provide storm drain lateral system to lots 5, 14, 15, 16, 2, 3 ,4 and 8. The City of Tigard Operations Department has reviewed the proposal and raised the following concerns: (1) At the time individual lots are developed for the Building Envelopes, with as much slope as the site has, it creates the need for cut and fill type of grading which can be more disruptive to the root systems and vegetation. (2) What is the time that the tree retention ratio is calculated? This needs to be addressed. It is stated that a retention greater than 75% of healthy trees greater than 12 inches on site will be provided, providing satisfaction of Section 18.790.030. Staff response: The issues raised are valid and should be addressed through the revised tree report showing the typical building envelopes. The mitigation requirements include all trees to be removed on individual lots for the placement of structures. The revised tree plan must also take into account grading required for the building footprints. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 25 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION The City of Tigard Operations Utility Manager has reviewed the proposal and offered the following- comments: Question if the Tract "A" area is proposed to be public. If the tract area is not public, an easement is needed along the storm line between the 70th Avenue extension and SW Ventura Drive... Questions are also raised regarding the need for an additional catch basin. These comments are addressed under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS discussed previously in this report. SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS The Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County has reviewed this proposal and has offered comments which have been incorporated into the body of this report. The Oregon Division of State Lands has reviewed the proposal offered the following comments: A small drainageway on the property may be jurisdictional which would require a DSL permit if impacted through development.. If under 50 cubic yard of material is altered, filled or removed a permit would not be required. The US Army Corps of Engineers has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: Based on the drawing submitted by Scoles and Associates, it appears that the turn in 70th (adjacent to Tract A and lot 5) may effect the drainage by grading at the source. A permit would be required if there is any grading within'the drainage. Staff response: A condition will be attached requiring permit approval from the US Army Corps of Engineers and DSL if there is any alteration proposed for the drainage or the 25-foot buffer area. The Tualatin.Valley Water District has reviewed the proposed and offered the following comments: We have reviewed the proposal and are not opposed to it. Please have Developer's engineer contact us to discuss layout of the water system before submitting plans for review and approval. Note that some revisions are in order to meet District requirements. Portland General Electric and GTE have reviewed this application and have offered no comments or objections. SECTION VII. CONCLUSION It is further ordered that the applicant and the parties to these proceedings be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This 19th day of April, 1999 by the City of Tigard Planning Commission. (Signature box below) Mark Padgett, Planning Commission Vice President iAcurpln\julia\sub\Ventura Final Order.doc NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 26 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION • \ W A S I N G T G 6 0 U R E E 6 T A T E 6 ~ ~ TL 2200 TL 2000- t 100 - TL 7000 TL 2"0_- TL 2700 I T - ' L S.W. VENTUR_A DRIVE f. TL 7000 I• / 1 ' Z TL 000 I 7,901 sf. 7,QSI sl• 7,131 sr. f ( l+ 11.319 It. f rl,u7s~ 1 ' sc~ a / ' w • it 3 1 TRACT S'A' wj?m le O 10 ( I 0200 .Q a.al s~ a 1• t 11 P93L Sf. Q TA- not i 1 r 17 4 )9! u 3070 S!. , 2 TL TWO Ti- 7200 Aim sr. 1 Ai•. w # 1 1 i t M1« IS 14 18 1s I O!♦ y/ 48171r. 4330 sf. = 4351 if 4331 Sf. L-, s~ z i~ E « M r~ (19SIf. g' L,.i ' a~rrl z y------------------- u la.ar 4w z I@ < --'---S.W. LOCUST STREET ---a-- - 1 Q. 1.' to ~ b i Ty run.maa Io0a1r 21 ~ a i i i ~ 1 ~0 22 7171 If. 7,2n if. ,9 S•1Jlsr ~ 4719Sf. ! I ~ ~ 1 1 Q ' • y TL 701 M M 1 1 I TL 0000 TL 7000 1 I 1 TL 702 ; rODe7A+fA.CW' at, 1 1 1 < 1 qi0'm 1 ooMOerr 1 1 1 1 ; , a~«ur ■ 1 20 y 12 i 12 LL 1 ; i= 7390 Sf. -,'a 4090 sf. 7.130 s!. 1 1 1 `l I l 1 ~ ( TL aa0 I I 1 O 1 1 TL 0000 i I TL O00 TL MOO W ' T1 000 1 I 1 I T.L io2 ( ' 1 1 1 1 T1. 1002 1 I z -0 1 711 j I~ ~ > ~ v TL 7400 a I I 1 TL WOO I I 1 1 1 ~ j y I ~ I j l II ~ ~ CASE NO[Sl & CASE NWE[Sl: Hill, SITE PLAN SUB 98-0014 VENTURA PDR 98-0013 ESTATES EMIBIT MAP N VAR 99-0007 SUBDIVISION RHAny • • GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM ELMWOOD ST LOLA LN PJ ALFRED VICINITY MAP ST 6 EED SUB 98-0014 SARA PDR 98-0013 LN URA VAR 99-0001 FF Z VE NTU RA ~ DR J ESTATES SUBDIVISION (2) SUBJEC URA VENTURA PARCELS R w Q L LOCUST ST w Q N w MAPLELEAF Q o too 200 300 400 500 Feet ST X 1'- 378 feet Iz- L OAK ST w w City of Tigard. OAK ST Q a Information on this MP is for general location only and = should be verified with the DeveloMmInt Services Division. F- (p 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard. OR 87223 j (503) 63114171 Q httpJA~.cl.tigardOr.us Community Development Plot date: Feb 1, 1999; C:Unagic\MAGIC02.APR • John Stewart II(Page o 10061 SW 71" Place Tigard, OR 97223 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR 99-0006 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Henry B. Neuman NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC 10200 SW 70th Avenue BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Tigard, OR 97223 iAcurpln\setup\labels\sdr 99-0003 PC Final Order.lbs R. Joe Kasten Sherman Case 9885 SW Ventura Court 7108 SW Locust Street Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Mark Jones Guy and Kathleen Tanz 7123 SW Locust Street 7081 SW Locust Street Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 C. I. Smith Ivy Yip 7130 SW Locust Street Ashwood Homes Inc. Tigard, OR 97223 8760 SW Pacer Drive Beaverton, OR 97008-6915 James Hills Barry Desbiens 10205 SW 701h Avenue Wingate Corporation Tigard, OR 97223 15840 S. Pope Lane Oregon City, OR 97045 William Price Ken Sandblast 9645 SW Ventura Court Land Solutions Tigard, OR 97223 PO Box 38 Clackamas, OR 97015 Christopher J. Rohde Helen L. Wegener 10275 SW 69th Avenue 580 NW Alpine Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97201 Dianne Kostur Fred Neuman 9865 SW Ventura Court 19730 SE Semple Road Tigard, OR 97223 Clackamas, OR 97015 Sande Maciariello Rick and Patricia Boler 7063 SW Locust Street 7090 SW Locust Street Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION' CITY OF TIGARD OREGON NOTICE: PEOPLE WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET. AGENDA ITEM Page of DATE OF HEARING: Y /if / CASE NUMBER(S): ~ue Gip-D vl 1pole c ?'e- 6013 - O p L OWNER/APPLICANT: C es ~t i / d LOCATION: Sw U"rA- Drive, PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND ZIP CODE PROPONENT (For the proposal) OPPONENT (Against the proposal) (Print Name/AddressMp & Affiliation) ((Print Name/Address/Lip A on) Name: -S1 A-►~ Name: Address: 105 Lk S T Iii C-e Address: city: r State: Zi : 7 2 Z 3 Qw: State: Zip: u ~ M•~ Name: dress: o Z o e S • V AVZ5R1qt<- Address: City: 67A--D State6fe&r Zin: 1-7-2:z3 City: /-State: ef>y, zip: r yfl/ z~-9z7 Name: t -t Name: aM l Address: Gc 61 S Address: C72ID U) 0-14 Ci State: zip: city: State: o6Z Zip: 3 c 2 Name: Name: &J" Address: S i~l tURA Address: City: ni A State: D2 Zip: 9 72231 City:Tt~ Al J~ State: aC Zia: 7 7~ A 3 Name: Address: Address: /0 Z 7T 56J h City: L' State: ~CC- Zip: l 7Z 23 City: 26 State: Zip: ~ 7Z23 0 TIGARD 0 PLANNING COMMISSION' CITY OF TIGARD OREGON NOTICE: PEOPLE WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET. AGENDA ITEM 1f: ( Page? of ATE OF HEARING: -1 1(9 1 7 CASE NUMBER(S): LJ f r00( FJ %~(Il-~ C,( I -D 00 OWNER/APPLICANT: F V CNZalw cf ~ Sue 6 (06,( LOCATION: 2t ea III PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND ZIP CODE PROPONENT (For the proposal) OPPONENT (Against the proposal) (Print Name/Address0p & Affiliation) (Print Name/Address0p & Affiliation) Name: Name: L)l Cd sl np he kwe Address: Address: qN( SkO OC-0 ~ Vira_ c City: State: Zip: City: Ti GGtAd State: Or Zip: e(7aa3 Name: Name: S A rid ~lr~ C 1 w.r 1 tC~ Address: Address: -10(R 3 a"-) LoLtiS'r s--~ City: State: Zip: City: 1 i 5~ t State: C7(L Zip: 9 7 QLa-3 Name: Name: C5_4_ Address: Address: (C9 rJhh~L(n~ L-6 u,5 C~ City: State: Zip: City: 1 , 4 ate` State: V Zip: 11 2 2 3 L cab ~,;eE Name: Name: 6= o -f A U Address: Address: 70 U Aw 4pC0SE b9 ~ City: State: Zip: City: r&Aj3 State: r Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City: State: Zip: City: State: Zip: AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CITY OFTIGARD Community rDevefoprneut S1iapirzgf7 (Better Corti murtity ST,4TL OE OUGON ) County of Washington )ss. City of TWard ) I, (Patricia L. Lunsford, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am an Administrative SpeciaCut II for the City ofTWard, Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: (Check Appropriate Box(s) Beim) ❑ NOTICE OF PENDING LAND USE APPLICATION FOR: L~7 ❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File NoJName Reference) ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: ❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File NoJName Reference) ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: E:~ i ❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File NoJName Reference) (Date of Public Hearing) ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ❑ Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard City Council D NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC FOR: E~? SUB 98-00141FOR 98-00131VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUB.1 4/19/99 ❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File NoJName Reference) (Date of Public Hearing) ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer Q Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard City Council H NOTICE • (Type/Kind of Notice) FOR: d I (File NoJName Reference) (Date of Public Hearing, If applicable) A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE/NOTICE OF DECISION/NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER/OTHER NOTICEIS] of which is attached, marke Exhibit T, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit'B" on the 21" day of April, 199"a d deposited in the United States Mail on the 21" day of April, 1999, postage prepaid. r-96-n-tbatt t repared Of o~ Subscribed and sworn/affirmed befo me on the day of 19 OFFICIAL SEAL DIANE M JELDERKS NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON NOTARY PUBLIC-OF COMMISSION NO.046142 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07.1999 My Commission Emir r: _il 20 DAYS = 5/31 /99 CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development SfiapingA (Better Community CITY OF TIGARD WasFiington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Case Numbers: SUBDIVISION (SUB)98-0014/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 98-0013 VARIANCE (VAR) 99-0006 Case Name: VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Names of Owners: Helen L. Wegener and Fred Neuman Names of Applicants: Ivy Yip Barry Desbiens Rep.: Ken Sandblast Address of Applicants: Ashwood Homes, Inc. Wingate Corporation Land Solutions 8760 SW Pacer Drive 15840 S. Pope Lane PO Box 38 Beaverton. OR 97008-6915 Oregon City. OR 97045 Clackamas. OR 97015 Address of Property: The subject parcels are located on the south side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 70t' Avenue. Tax Map/Lot Nos.: WCTM 1 S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. Re ues : ➢ At the April 19, 1999 Planning Commission Public Hearing, the Commission APPROVED a request for Subdivision and Planned Development Review approval for a 22-lot detached single- family residential Planned Development Subdivision. The applicant is also requesting a Variance to the maximum length to allow a cul-de-sac in excess of 200 feet. There is natural area that is proposed to be preserved in a tract area within the subdivision. Zone: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.370, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Action: ➢ ❑ Approval as requested 0 Approval with Conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: 0 Owners of record within the required distance O Affected governmental agencies 0 The affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator 0 The applicant and owner(s) The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Final Decision:% L THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON APRIL 21, 1999 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON MAY 6, 1999. Appeal: The decision of the Review Authority is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.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 the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. FLE- THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS'3:30 P.M. ON MAY 5, 1999. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 120 DAYS = 5/31/99 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF TIOARD~ FINAL ORDER NO 99-02 PC Community(Devekpment Sfigping ABetter Community A FINAL ORDER APPROVING A LAND USE APPLICATION FOR A 22-LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION AND A VARIANCE. THE COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THIS APPLICATION ON APRIL 19, 1999. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BASED THEIR DECISION ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER. SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION CASES: Subdivision SUB 98-0014 Planned Development Review PDR 98-0013 Variance VAR 99-0006 The applicant has requested approval of 22-lot Planned Development Subdivision. There is a natural area that is proposed to be preserved in a tract area within the subdivision. A variance to the maximum length to allow a cul-de-sac in excess of 200 feet. APPLICANT: Ivy Yip APPLICANT: Barry Desbiens Ashwood Homes, Inc Wingate Corporation' 8760 SW Pacer Drive 15840 S. Pope Lane Beaverton, OR 97008-6915 Oregon City, OR 97045 OWNER: Helen L. Wegener OWNER: Fred Neuman 580 NW Alpine Terrace 19730 SE Semple Road Portland, OR 97210 Clackamas, OR 97015 APPICANT'S Ken Sandblast Land Solutions REP.: PO Box 38 Clackamas, OR, 97015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low-density residential home sites. LOCATION: The subject parcels are located on the south side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 70tI' Avenue; WCTM 1S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810: SECTION II. PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION The Planning Commission 'finds that the proposed Subdivision/Planned Development meets the applicable approval criteria of the Tigard Community 'Development Code and that the proposal will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City. The Planning Commission, therefore, APPROVES the request subject to the following recommended conditions of approval: NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 1 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98 0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT,41-!E'FOLLOWING CONDITIONS- SHALL BE SATISFIED; (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Brian Rager, Engineering Department (503) 639-4171.) 1. Submit a plan that shows street trees will be provided including the species and proposed spacing in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 2. Submit a plan that shows typical building footprint and the location of trees proposed to be retained and removed. The revised plan must clearly show the tree numbers. If trees outside the typical building footprint are proposed to be removed, an explanation as to why the particular tree must be removed will be required. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 3. Submit a tree removal plan that clearly shows the number and location of existing trees and trees proposed to be removed. If the number of trees proposed to be removed exceeds 25%, the applicant must submit a tree mitigation plan to be approved by the Planning Division. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 4. Submit a revised plan that shows the inside and outside radius for the cul-de-sac will be in accordance with the Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue standards. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 5. Submit a plan that shows how each individual lot can be landscaped to insure that the total 20% landscaping requirement will be satisfied. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 6. Submit confirmation from Washington County that the proposed subdivision name is not duplicative or submit confirmation of a revised'subdivision name approved by Washington County. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 7. Submit a detail of the proposed pedestrian connection-to S.W. Ventura Drive to show how it can be. extended without impacting the drainage area. If it is not possible to extend a pedestrian connection in this area without an impact, the applicant must show a pedestrian connection between lots land 8 on the final plat. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 8. Revise the plat so that all frontages will have 25 feet of frontage on a public or private street. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Department. 9. Submit confirmation from Division of State Lands and US Army Corp of Engineers that no permits are required if there is any alteration, including grading, within the drainage area or the 25-foot buffer. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 10. Prior to approval of the final plat, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Six (6) 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. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. W02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 11.- As a part 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, LLC; etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 12. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park 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 application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 13. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee in the amount of $660. 14. The applicant shall construct a concrete sidewalk along the south side of SW Ventura Drive. The applicant shall hire an arborist to assist in the design of the sidewalk to insure the safety of trees is not compromised. The City will be flexible with the width -and location of the sidewalk based on the arborist's recommendation. 15. The applicant shall provide "No Parking" signs on one side of SW 70'h Avenue (Place) along the segment where the curb-to-curb width is only 28 feet. 16. The applicant shall name the north/south cul-de-sac "SW 70th Place". 17. The proposed raised median/island in SW 70tI' Avenue (Place) shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to construction. 18. Full-width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic 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. 19. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private street will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from it. 20. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a. maintenance plan and agreement for the.proposed private street. The CC&R's shall obligate the private property owners. within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the street. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) prior to approval of the final plat. 21. The pavement and rock section of the proposed private street shall meet the City's public street standard for a local residential street. 22. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) for the proposed public water work prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3 OF 26 SUB 98-00141PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 23. The applicant shall construct the public sanitary sewer line proposed along the north boundaries of Lots 13 through 16 of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe. A manhole shall be provided at the end of this pipe run as shown on the preliminary plan. 24. The applicant shall extend the proposed storm drainage line in SW Locust Street to the eastern boundary of the site. 25. The applicant shall construct a private storm drainage line along the northern boundaries of Lots 13 through 16. This line shall be owned and maintained by the owners of Lots 13 through 16 and shall be constructed of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe. 26. The applicant shall provide an on-site detention facility, designed to meet the Unified Sewage Agency Design and Construction Standards. A final design and calculation package shall be submitted to the Engineering Department as a part of the public improvement plan review. 27. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) as a part of the public improvement plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract to the City of Tigard on the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 28. The applicant shall provide a maintenance access road to the facility and any drainage structures within the facility to accommodate City maintenance Vehicles. The access road shall be paved and a minimum of 15 feet wide. 29. 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." 30. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of 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 Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). 31. The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the 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. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 32. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. 33. The design engineer shall 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. 34. 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. 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; and D. Once the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer's signature. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 35. Prior to issuance of building permits on lots 5-8, a geotec:hnical report must be submitted and received. 36.' Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the subdivision/partition plat. 37. 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) any off-site street and/or utility improvements are completely finished, and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. 38. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) mylars, and 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable. Note: if the public improvement drawings were hand-drawn, then a diskette is not required. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST: NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 18.430.080 Improvement Agreement: Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: ♦ Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all . required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and ♦ 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 provide 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: ♦ An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; ♦ A surety bond executed by 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 ♦ 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. 18.430.100 Filing and Recording: Within 60 days of 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 Application Submission Requirements: Three copies of the subdivision plat prepared by a land 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. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 6 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: Centerline Monumentation In accordance 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: ♦ All centerline-centerline intersection points; ♦ All cul-de-sac center points; and ♦ Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. Monument Boxes Required Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 18.810 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: 18.810.120 Utilities All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.810.130 Cash or Bond Required All improvements installed by the 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 Installation Prerequisite No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefor have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.810.180 Notice to City Required Work shall not begin until the City.has been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 OF 26 SUB 98-00141PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 18.810.200 Engineer's Certification The land divider's 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's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS FINAL ORDER. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: City records do not indicate any previous development approvals have been granted for this property. Vicinity Information: The site is located south of SW Ventura Drive at the western terminius of SW Locust Street and the northern terminius of SW 70th Avenue. The site is surrounded on all sides by property zoned R-4.5. Site Information and Proposal Description: The site is 5.15 acres in size and is currently vacant with the exception of several accessory structures. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low Density Residential use and the zoning for the site is R-4.5. Topography ranges between 10-20% with less than 10% in the southeast and greater than 25% in the northwest where the tract area is proposed. The Tract area is identified as having Sensitive Lands with steep slopes and a drainageway, however, that applicant has not proposed any alterations in these areas. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 19, 1999 TO HEAR TESTIMONY REGARDING THE PROPOSED SUBDIVSION. AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATED AND VOTED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN THIS REPORT AND BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE TESTIMONY PROVIDED AT THE HEARING. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Impact Study: Section 18.390.050 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks 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 property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests:the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. 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 findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. Any required street improvements to certain collector or higher volume streets 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-Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 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 $189. The total TIF for an attached, single-family dwelling is $1,899. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Because the local streets extending through the development are needed to serve the development and to meet the standards of the code, they are inherently proportional to the development. The applicant is being required to construct half-street improvements along SW Ventura. The Engineering Department has estimated the cost of half-street improvements to be approximately $200 per lineal foot. Assuming a cost of $200 per linear foot, it is estimated that the total cost of the half-street improvements for SW Ventura is $38,000 (190 feet x $200). Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $41,778 ($1,899 x 22 dwelling units). Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $130,437 ($41,778 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact, is considered an unmitigated impact. Since the TIF paid is $41,778, the unmitigated impact can be valued at $88,659. Given the estimated cost of the half street improvement and the unmitigated impact, the half street improvement on Ventura meets the rough proportionality test related to the impact of the development. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT The applicant has requested a Planned Development (PD) overlay zone change for the subject property. The PD overlay requires developers to follow the Planned Development process for any proposal on affected sites. The Planned Development chapter provides for flexibility in development design and allows deviation from certain standards of the base zone. The following paragraphs address compliance with the applicable base zone standards and with the specific Approval Standards under Section 18.350.100. The Planned Development Process: Section 18.350.020 states that there are three elements to the planned development approval process, as follows: ♦ The approval of the planned development overlay zone; ♦ The approval of the planned development concept plan; and ♦ The approval of the detailed development plan. The applicant has requested the Planned Development to allow flexibility in lot sizes in order to preserve the natural area in the northwestern portion of the site and. The applicant is requesting approval of all three elements for the Planned Development as part of this application, therefore, the applicant is complying with the process set forth for Planned Developments. Applicability of the Base Zone Development Standards: Section 18.350.070 requires compliance to specific development standards: The provisions of the base zone are applicable as follows: Lot dimensional standards: The minimum lot size, lot depth and lot width standards shall not apply except as related to the density computation under Chapter 18.715; Density is discussed further in this report. Site coverage: The site coverage provisions of the base zone shall apply; There is no maximum lot coverage standard in the R-4.5 zone, therefore, this standard does not apply Building height: The building height provisions shall not apply; and NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 9 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Structure setback provisions: Front yard and rear yard setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall be the same as that required by the base zone unless otherwise provided by Chapter 18.360; The side yard setback provisions shall not apply except that all detached structures shall meet the Uniform Building Code requirements for fire walls; and Front yard and rear yard setback requirements in the base zone setback shall not apply to structures on the interior of the project except that: (1) A. minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure which opens facing a street; (2) A minimum front yard setback of eight feet is required for any garage opening for an attached single-family dwelling facing a private street as long as the required off-street parking spaces are provided The individual lots will be reviewed for compliance with these setbacks during the building permit phase. Other provisions of the base zone: All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except as modified by this chapter. Any additional provisions of the base zone are discussed within the body of this report or will be reviewed during the building permit phase. FINDING: Because the provisions of the base zone either do not apply in a Planned Development or will be required to comply during the building plan review, the applicability of the base zone development standards have been satisfied. SPECIFIC PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL STANDARDS Section 18.350.100.6 requires that the Commission make findings that the following criteria are satisfied when approving or approving with conditions, or the criteria are not satisfied when denying an application: All provisions of the land division provisions, Chapter 18.410, 18.420 and 18.430 shall be met. The provisions of Chapter 18.430, Subdivision are addressed further within this report. The provisions of Chapters 18.410, Lot Line Adjustments and 18.420, Partitions are not applicable to this proposal. Except as noted, the provisions of the following chapters shall be utilized as guidelines. A planned development need not meet these requirements where a development plan provides alternative designs and methods, if acceptable to the Commission, that promote the purpose of this section Density Computations and Limitations: Chapter 18.715 implements the Comprehensive Plan by establishing the criteria for determining the number of dwelling units permitted. The number of allowable dwelling units is based on the net development area. The net area is the remaining parcel area after exclusion of sensitive lands and land dedicated for public 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. The gross acreage of the site is 5.15 acres. The net site acreage is 3.8 acres (165,528 square feet) after deduction for public and private streets, slopes greater than 25% and drainageways. The maximum density, therefore, is 22.07 lots and the minimum is 17 lots. The applicant is proposing 22 lots. FINDING: Because. the applicant has proposed 22 lots and 22 lots are the maximum permitted based on the net acreage of the site, this standard has been satisfied. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 10 OF 26 SUB 98-00141PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Visual Clearance Areas: Chapter 18.795 applies to all development and `requires that clear 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 permanent 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 phase. 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. Landscaping and Screening: Chapter 18.745 contains landscaping provisions for new development. Section 18.745.100 requires that street trees be 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.C contains specific standards for spacing of street trees as follows: ♦ 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 sized trees (25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; and ♦ Large trees (over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart; The applicant has not submitted .a plan that shows street trees will be planted, therefore, staff can not determine if this standard is met. Staff finds it feasible for this. standard to be met if the applicant submits a revised plan that shows street trees will be planted, the type and proposed spacing. Section 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. Therefore, this section does not apply. FINDING: Because the applicant has not submitted a plan that shows street trees, staff can not make a finding that the landscaping and screening standards have been met. If the applicant submits a plan that shows street trees will be provided and shows the species and proposed spacing in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C, this standard will be satisfied. CONDITION: Submit a plan that shows street trees will be provided and shows the species and proposed spacing will be in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements: 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 garages on the individual lots. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 11 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINDING: 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, therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Access Egress and Circulation: 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 access and egress into the site itself is discussed later in this report 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 access and egress into the site itself is discussed later in this report and access to individual lots will be reviewed during the building permit phase, this standard has been satisfied. Signs: Chapter 18.780 provides provisions for signs. The applicant has not indicated a sign will be provided. If signs are proposed, a sign permit will be required and may be obtained from the City Development Services Department. FINDING: Because signs will be reviewed if desired through a separate permit application, this standard has been satisfied. IN ADDITION, THE FOLLOWING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA SHALL BE MET: The development does not involve a multi-family or non-residential use therefore, the following additional review criteria do not apply and will not be discussed in this report: Private Outdoor Area: Multi-Family Use, Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Multi-Family Use, Privacy and noise. The following have been discussed previously in this report and will not be addressed in this section: Signs, and Parking. Relationship To The Natural And Physical Environment: The streets, buildings and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography, and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible; Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to slumping and sliding; There shall be adequate distance between on-site buildings and other on-site and off-site buildings on adjoining properties to provide for adequate light and air circulation and for fire protection; The structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where. possible; and Trees preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. The site has been laid out to avoid the natural drainage at the northwest corner of the site and steep slopes. The applicant has submitted a geotechincal report that indicates the northern lots may be prone to instability if adequate measures are not taken during construction. The geotechnical report is based on a slightly different plan, therefore, the lot numbers referred to in the report differ from those on the plan. The lots identified in the report generally correspond with lots 5-8 on the proposed plan. The geotechnical report outlines recommendations for the northern lots. It appears feasible based on the geotechnical report that, if proper measures are taken, these lots can be safely developed. The Building Division will require compliance with geotechnical review standards during the building review on the individual lots, however, staff strongly recommends a condition requiring a geotechnical report be required for lots 5-8 prior to issuance of building permits. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 12 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA.ESTATES SUBDIVISION The project will be reviewed for compliance with applicable setbacks at the time of building permit plan review which will insure that adequate light and air circulation is provided. All structures will be required to meet UBC standards for fire separation. The applicant has submitted a tree report which generally identifies the trees that are proposed to be removed and retained. The tree report does not identify the location of trees to be retained and removed. Given the size of the lots and street configuration, staff can assume that the trees within the proposed rights-of-way and toward the front of the lots will be removed. Given the slope and potential for ground instability at the northern portion of the site, staff encourages as many trees as possible be retained. In order to evaluate if the trees proposed to be removed are in a location that makes sense, staff must see a plan that clearly identifies all of the trees by number and shows the trees to be removed versus retained. In addition, staff needs to see a plan that shows the typical building footprint for each lot to determine if perhaps, some trees towards the rear of the lots could be retained. The actual mitigation evaluation of trees to be removed is discussed further in. this report. FINDING: Because the plans do not provide enough detail for staff to confirm that trees will be preserved to the greatest extent possible and the geotechnical report indicates that the northern lots may be prone to instability if proper measures are not taken, staff can not confirm that the Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment standards have been met. If the applicant complies with the conditions specified below, staff can determine that the standards are satisfied. CONDITIONS: Submit a plan that shows typical building footprint and the location of trees proposed to be retained and removed. The revised plan must clearly show the tree numbers. If trees outside the typical building footprint are proposed to be removed, an explanation as to why the particular tree must be removed will be required. Prior to issuance of building permits on lots 5-8, a geotechnical report must be submitted to the City for review. Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining Uses: Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses (for example, between single- family and multiple-family residential, and residential, and commercial). The proposed land use is single-family detached residential. The Buffering and Screening Matrix (Section 18.745.1) does not require buffering or screening for proposed single-family detached uses. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix, the following factors shall be considered. in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under Chapter 18.745. As noted above, the Buffering and Screening Matrix does not require buffering or screening for proposed single-family detached uses. Therefore, a determination of the adequacy and extent of required buffers is not applicable to this proposal. On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such things as service areas, storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: (a) What needs to be screened; (b) the direction from which it is needed; and (c) whether the screening needs to be year-round. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 13 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 1 The proposed use is a'single-family residential Subdivision/Planned Development. The applicant has not proposed any service areas, storage areas, parking lots or rooftop mechanical devices or other features that would require screening. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. FINDING: Because the site is single-family abutting single-family, the buffering and screening standards do not apply. Access and Circulation: The number of allowed access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.705. Access and Circulation is addressed elsewhere in this report. All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. One hammerhead turnaround is proposed at the end of the private street which meets the TVF&R dimensional standards by providing a 90-foot by 20-foot turning area with a 25-foot turning radius. The applicant has proposed a one-way cul-de-sac in order to reduce the amount of grading on the topography, however, the outside radius does not appear to meet the required 45-foot outside turning radius. The required radius provided in the plans includes part of what.appears to be a sidewalk. The street widths and patterns are discussed in more detail further in this report. Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways if such facilities are shown on an adopted plan. The City of Tigard Pedestrian/Bike Path Map located in the Comprehensive Plan does not identify a proposed path in this area. FINDING: Because the plan does not show the outside turning radius of the cul-de-sac meets the 45-foot standard, the Access and Circulation standards have not been met. If the applicant submits a plan that shows the radius for -the cul-de-sac will be in accordance with the TVF&R standards, the Access and Circulation standards will be met. CONDITION: Submit a revised plan that shows the inside and outside radius of the cul-de-sac will be in accordance with the TVF&R standards. Landscaping and Open Space: Residential Development. In addition, a minimum of 20 percent of the site shall be landscaped. As noted earlier, the gross site area of the proposed project is 5.17 acres. The landscaped portion of the project must, therefore, be a minimum of 1.03 acres (20 percent). The applicant has not provided calculations describing what portion of the site will be landscaped. Because the proposed tract will be .36 acres, there is a remaining .67 acres, or 29,185.2 square feet remaining to be landscaped. While it is anticipated that this landscaping can be provided on individual lots, because there is no minimum landscaped area and the setback standards do not apply, staff can not confirm that this standard will be met without more information. Staff proposes that the applicant be required to submit a typical building footprint plan or some other method that shows the remaining 29,185.2 square feet of required landscaping will be provided. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 14 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINDING: Because the app 1- nt has not provided detail on how the 20% landscaping requirement will be met, staff can not determine that this standard has been satisfied. If the applicant submits a plan that shows how each individual lot can be landscaped to insure that the total 20% landscaping requirement will be satisfied, staff can find that this standard has been met. CONDITION: Submit a plan that shows how each individual lot will be landscaped to insure that the total 20% landscaping requirement will be satisfied. Public Transit: Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on: ♦ The location of other transit facilities in the area; and ♦ The size and type of the proposed development; Based on staff review of the Tri-Met bus line map, there is no bus line along the frontage of this development. Therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: Because there is no bus line abutting this site, the Public Transit standard does not apply. Drainage: All drainage provisions shall be laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.810 and the criteria in the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan. The Engineering Department has reviewed this application and addressed the project's compliance with the City's storm water drainage standards. See comments under Public Facility Concerns. FINDING: Because drainage will be discussed and conditioned if necessary further in this report, this standard has been satisfied. Floodplain Dedication: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan: According to the adopted FEMA floodplain maps, the project site does not fall within the 100-year floodplain, therefore, this criterion does not apply. FINDING: Because the site does not fall within the 100-year floodplain, this standard does not apply. LAND DIVISION: SUBDIVISION (18.430) Approval Standards - Preliminary Plat: The proposed preliminary plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations The proposed project complies with the Comprehensive Plan's Low Density Residential designation for the subject property because it complies with the applicable. provisions of the Community Development Code which implements the plan. Compliance with the majority of specific regulations and standards have been addressed previously within this report under the planned development review section. Several sections, not listed as approval criteria for Planned Developments, are applicable to Subdivisions. These Chapters are listed under ADDITIONAL SECTIONS APPLICABLE TO SUBDIVSIONS. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 15 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 1 The applicant has not provided evidence that the proposed subdivision name has been reserved. Prior to final plat, approval from Washington County must be provided to insure that the name is not duplicative. The Streets and roads are laid out so as to conform 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 further in this report. 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 report under Public Facilities Concerns. FINDING: Because the applicant has not provided evidence of the plat name being reserved at Washington County, staff can not confirm that all of the preliminary plat approval standards have been addressed. If the applicant submits confirmation from Washington County that the proposed subdivision name is not duplicative or submits a revised subdivision name approved by Washington County, this standard will be satisfied. All other preliminary plat approval standards have either been met outright or are conditioned as discussed later in this report. CONDITION: Submit confirmation from Washington County that the proposed subdivision name is not duplicative or submit confirmation of a revised subdivision name approved by Washington County. ADDITIONAL SECTIONS APPLICABLE TO SUBDIVSIONS. Tree Removal: Chapter 18.790 requires mitigation of trees over 12" diameter at breast height (dbh) removed as part of the development of the site. The applicant's tree report states that there are 196 trees on the site which have diameters greater than 12 inches. The tree report does not total the trees to be removed or the trees that are considered hazardous and must be removed. The applicant states that greater than 75% of the trees will be retained, however, staff has no way of confirming this. In addition, the tree report does not identify the location of trees referred to in the report. In order for staff to determine that the proposal complies with the tree mitigation requirement, the applicant must submit a plan that specifies the total inches of trees to be removed and a program for mitigation in compliance with Section 18.790.030.B. It.is feasible for this standard to be met if the applicant complies with the recommended condition of approval. Please note, that while the applicant may comply with the tree removal section of the code by providing this additional information, as discussed previously in this report, the applicant may be required to retain additional trees in order to comply with the Planned Development Criteria. The revised plan must show consistency with the conditions related to tree preservation. FINDING: Because the applicant has not submitted a tree report that clearly shows the location and number of existing trees over 12 inches caliper being removed, staff can not confirm that more than 75% of the existing trees will be retained. If the applicant submits a plan that clearly shows the number and location of existing trees and trees proposed to be removed, staff can determine if the standard has been satisfied. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 16 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION . • CONDITION: Submit a tree removal plan that clearly shows the number and location of existing trees and trees proposed to be removed. If the number of trees proposed to be removed exceeds 25%, the applicant must submit a tree mitigation plan to be approved by the Planning Division. 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 as necessary later in this report under Public Facility Concerns. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030(E) requires a local street to have a minimum 50-foot right-of-way and 32-foot paved section between curbs and sidewalks. The applicant's plans show the right-of-way will be 50 feet with 32 feet of pavement. This standard 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 give 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 adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. The subject site abuts large lots that could be redeveloped in the future. The applicant has shown on their plans how SW Locust Street will be extended within and east of the site. The applicant has not proposed the cul-de-sac be extended further to the east due to topography. 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 reconfigure 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 is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. The applicant's plans show SW Locust Street and SW 70th Street extending through the site. There are no other streets abutting the development which can be extended through the development site. Cul-De-Sacs: Section 18.810.030(K) requires that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental or topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation: NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 17 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION • ♦ All cul-de-sac shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other than circular, shall be approved by the City Engineer; and ♦ The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured along the centerline of the roadway from the near side of the intersecting street to the farthest point of the cul-de-sac. ♦ If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the City. There will not be more than 20 houses taking access from the cul-de-sac. The applicant has proposed a cul-de-sac in excess of 200 feet. The applicant submitted supplemental information to request a variance to the cul-de-sac length. The cul-de-sac adjustment criteria are reviewed further in this report. Staff is recommending approval of the variance. With the Variance, the cul-de-sac length will be greater than 300 feet, therefore, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street is required. The applicant has indicated that a pedestrian access will be available to SW Ventura Drive via the open space tract, however, staff has great concerns that construction of such an access will impact the drainageway. Staff is not opposed to this, but would like additional detail in order to approve such a connection. If this location is not acceptable to the City, an alternate location within the water easement between lots 7 and 8 which would also be a logical location for a pedestrian path from the cul-de-sac bulb to SW Ventura Drive. 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 15 percent for distances of no greater than 250 feet. The street grades are discussed under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Curbs, Curb Cuts, Ramps, and Driveway Approaches: Section 18.810.030(N) requires the following: Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with standards specified in this Chapter and Tigard Municipal Code Section 15.04.080, and: ♦ Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except ♦ Where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval; and ♦ Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to City configuration standards. The applicant has indicated that the project will comply with. all City construction standards and material specifications with respect to curbs, curb cuts, ramps and driveway approaches. The conditions of approval and the public improvement plan review process will insure that these standards are met. These criteria are discussed and conditioned, if necessary, further in this report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Block Designs - Section 18.810.040(A) states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed 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: NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 18 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Block 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: ♦ 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. ♦ For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. The development will aid in the formation of blocks, however, due to existing street patterns and topographic constraints, the blocks formed by the streets through this development will continue to exceed 1,800 feet. Because the block length requirement is precluded from being met, in part due to topographic constraints, this standard is found not to apply. Block Lengths: Section 18.810.040(B)(2) states that when block lengths greater than 600 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. The intersection of SW 70th Avenue and the future intersection of SW 69th Avenue is less than 600 feet. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. 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-4.5 zoning district for single-family detached development is 7,500 square feet. Only Lot 8 is larger than 1.5 times the minimum lot size. However, the lot depth of this lot does not exceed 2.5 times the average lot width. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(B) requires that lots. have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley. As shown on the Preliminary Site Plan, all proposed lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public streets with the exceptions of Lot 20 which only has 20 feet of frontage and Lot 9, which only has 22 feet of frontage. Because this is processed as a Planned Development, the Planning Commission could determine that this standard need not apply. Because slight adjustments could be made, however, which would enable the standards to be, met, staff recommends that the applicant be required to submit a revised plan that shows all lots will comply with the lot frontage standard. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all residential streets. The applicant is proposing to construct sidewalks to City standards on all public streets. Therefore, this criterion is met. Sanitary Sewers: Section 18.810.090 requires sanitary sewer service. The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicant's materials, including the Preliminary Utilities Plan. Sanitary sewer is discussed later in this report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. 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. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 19 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Storm drainage is discussed later in this report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Based on the analysis therein, storm water drainage provisions will be provided as required and that this criterion is either satisfied outright or will be met upon compliance with the applicable conditions of approval. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the applicant has not met all of the Street and Utility Improvement Standards. Staff finds is feasible for the standards to be met if the applicant complies with the conditions specified below. CONDITIONS: ♦ Submit a detail of the proposed pedestrian connection to SW Ventura Drive to show how it can be extended without impacting the drainage area. If it is not possible to extend a pedestrian connection in this area without an impact, the applicant must show a pedestrian connection between Lots land 8 on the final plat. ♦ Revise the plat so that all frontages will have 25 feet of frontage on a public or private street. Subdivision Adjustment - Maximum length of a Cul-de-sac: Community Development Code Section 18.370.020C.9 allows the Director to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the street improvement requirements based on findings that the following criterion is satisfied: Strict application of the standard will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or existing mature trees. The applicant has submitted a response to the variance criteria which indicates that a connection to SW Ventura Drive was considered originally, however, due to the slope and the natural drainageway at the northwestern portion of the site, it was determined that a connection was not feasible. In addition, due to street spacing standards, the street could not be extended to SW Ventura Drive at a point further east. The applicant has stated that the street was not proposed to extend to the east due to the location of an existing house on the property to the east of the site. The applicant has not submitted an existing conditions plan showing the location of structures on and off-site for staff to confirm this statement. In addition to attempting to protect the slope and drainage area, the applicant has indicated that the cul-de- sac will enable a greater number of trees to be retained. As discussed previously within this report, the tree plan does not clearly indicate the trees that will be retained, so staff can not confirm this fact either. Compliance with the previous conditions of approval, however, will insure that as many trees as possible are retained. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards. If the street were extended to SW Ventura Drive within this subdivision, the proposal would exceed the slope requirement, result in substandard street spacing and result in additional loss of trees not to mention the potential impacts to the existing drainageway. The proposed street layout will still provide ingress and egress into the subdivision via SW Locust Street and provides for streets of adequate size to enable emergency vehicles access to the properties. In addition, future street connections will provide up to 2 additional points of access. As will be discussed, the proposal does not fully comply with dimensional standards for access and circulation, however, conditions have been recommended that will insure all these standards are satisfied. As conditioned, granting of the variance to allow a 390-foot cul-de-sac will not be detrimental to the public or injurious to the rights of other properties. Granting the variance for the length of the cul-de-sac would allow the length to be 180 feet longer than the development code allows. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 20 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Allowing a length slightly greater than the standard does not interfere with the rights of adjoining property in any way. Surrounding properties have the ability to continue to use their property as they currently exist or to potentially develop the properties, whether or not the City grants the variance. FINDING: Because the applicant has submitted evidence that the potential impacts of not allowing the variance exceed the impacts of permitting this variance, and that no adverse impact on public life or property will result from the approval of this variance, Staff finds that the approval criteria have been satisfied. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: The City Engineering Department has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Streets: Tigard Development Code (TDC) 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved 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 Ventura Drive and is at the present terminus of SW Locust Street. SW 70th Avenue is also located to the south of this site. SW Ventura Drive This roadway is classified as a local residential street on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. This roadway classification requires a right-of-way (ROW) width of 50 feet. At present, there is approximately 50 feet of ROW adjacent to this site, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. Therefore, no additional dedications are necessary Ventura Drive is currently paved but not constructed to full City standards: In order for this street to current City standard, the applicant should construct a half-street improvement along this roadway as a part of the project. This improvement is roughly proportionate to the impact from this development, as shown by the impact analysis within the Planning Department Section of this report. SW Locust Street This roadway is also a local residential street with a 32-foot curb-to-curb section and a 50-foot ROW. The preliminary plan shows that the applicant will extend this street into this project to help provide access to the proposed lots. The street width dimensions will match the existing widths. SW 70th Avenue This roadway is also a local residential street that has not been fully dedicated and improved up to the south boundary of the site. The applicant has proposed to construct the portion of this roadway through the site in alignment with the existing ROW and improvements to the south. But until the properties to the south redevelop to where ROW and street improvements can be required, there will be a gap between the existing improvements to the south and the proposed new improvements. The applicant is proposing to terminate this roadway as a cul-de-sac near the north end of the site. A 90-degree bend is proposed toward the end of the street and from there to the end of the bulb the ROW and paved widths will decrease to 46 feet and 28 feet respectively. Because this segment of roadway will only serve a few lots, these widths are acceptable provided the applicant installs "No Parking" signs on one side of the roadway along that segment. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 21 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION The preliminary plan indicates what appears to be a raised median in SW, 70th Avenue in the narrower segment and in the cul-de-sac bulb. It was not clear in the applicant's materials why this is shown, and such a median is not a standard feature in a public street. Staff does not believe this median is necessary and would increase City maintenance costs in the future if it were installed. Therefore, the applicant should not be allowed to construct this median in the public street. If the variance to the cul-de-sac length standard is granted, then the street name for this roadway should be "SW 70th Place". The variance request will be discussed next. Variance for Cul-de-sac Length The applicant has asked for a variance to TDC 18.810.030(K), which states that a cul-de-sac shall not be longer than 200 feet. The applicant's plan would result in a cul-de-sac (SW 70th Avenue) of approximately 390 feet in length. TDC 18.370 provides the criteria for granting a variance and the Planning Department will address this issue in greater detail in their section of this decision. The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicant's findings for why the variance should be granted. The applicant states that the variance should be granted for the following reasons: 1. The topography in the north/south direction is in excess of 18 which would yield a street with a grade of approximately 18%, thereby in violation of City standards (15% maximum grade). 2. There is a substantial drainageway along the northern boundary, which should not be disturbed to extend a northerly connection of SW 70th Avenue. 3. There is a "linear section of 25% plus topography approximately 160 feet in length running north/south along the subject site's northeasterly boundary that prevents a local street from being constructed as a through street connection. This topographic constraint, when combined with the location of the existing residence on the adjoining parcel to the east, necessitates a cul-de-sac design for the proposed extension of SW 70th Avenue." (Taken from a letter from the applicant's engineer, dated March 17, 1999). 4. The cuts and fills near the eastern boundary would result in excessive impacts to the natural drainage area. Staff agrees with the first two points, but was initially less agreeable to Points #3 and #4.. While the applicant's grading plan does indicate a "drainage" adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site that does appear to run in a northerly direction at a grade of approximately 25%, the easterly extension of the local street would be crossing this drainage, not following it. In addition, the existing house that is east of this site, while not shown on the applicant's plan, appears to be located such that an easterly extension of this roadway could be aligned in such a way that there would not be a conflict. Staff based this finding on a review of City aerial photos and topographic maps that show the house location in relation to this site. Staff talked with the engineer on March 18, 1999, and received additional written information concerning Points #3 and #4 dated March 19, 1999. If a street were extended toward the eastern boundary of the site, several complications would occur. First, the cross slope increases in grade from approximately 5% just prior to the proposed bulb, to approximately 23% near the eastern boundary. With cross slopes this extreme, the cuts above and the fills below the street would be excessive, and in order for the applicant to meet the Tigard standards for cross slopes outside the roadbed area, retaining walls would be required or extensive upslope and downslope grading to meet minimum grading requirements. These measures would preclude access into the lots abutting the street. Second, the excessive cuts and fills would result in a significant disturbance of the steeper- sloped area and the trees within that area. The applicant would like to avoid these impacts. Based upon the additional information provided by the applicant, and further review by Staff, it is our recommendation that the variance to the cul-de-sac length standard be granted. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 22 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Proposed Private Street The plan proposes that Lots 18, 19 and 20 be served from a private street. TMC 18.810.030(S) limits the number of lots to be served from a private street to a total of six (6). Therefore, the proposed plan will meet this standard. Section 18.810.030(S) also indicates that the applicant shall ensure the continued maintenance of private streets by establishing a homeowners association. It is recommended that the applicant place a statement on the face of the final plat indicating the private street will be owned and maintained by the properties that will be served by it. In addition, the applicant should record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) along with the final plat that will clarify how the private property owners are to maintain the private street. These CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of the final plat. The City's public improvement design standards require private streets to have a pavement section equal to a public local street. The applicant will need to provide this type of pavement section. Traffic Engineer's Findings Lancaster Engineering submitted a traffic analysis letter, dated October 13, 1998, which addresses the project impacts onto the adjacent street system. The letter states that this site will generate approximately 16 new trips during the AM peak hour and approximately 22 trips during the PM peak hour. These trips will be split directionally and the net impact to SW 72 d Avenue during the AM peak hour will be approximately 13%, and the impact to SW Locust Street west of SW 72nd Avenue during the AM peak hour will be approximately 6%. During the PM peak hour, the impact will be approximately 3% on SW 72nd Avenue and approximately 8% on SW Locust Street west of SW 72nd Avenue. These impacts are small and will likely not be noticed by drivers in the area. Therefore, no additional offsite traffic mitigation is necessary. Water: This site will be served from the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD). There are existing water lines in SW Ventura Drive, SW 70th Avenue and SW Locust Street. The applicant's plans show that these existing water lines will be extended (looped) through the site. The applicant will need to obtain plan approval from TVWD, as a part of the City's review of the public improvement plans. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer line in SW 70th Avenue that extends northerly through this site to SW Ventura Drive and beyond. The applicant's preliminary utility plan shows that this line will be used to serve all of the lots in this site. The plan shows a short extension of a public sewer line in SW Ventura Drive to serve a few of the northerly lots. The plan proposes a public sewer extension from SW 70th Avenue easterly between two blocks of lots. Typically, the City avoids locating public lines in back or side yards because of the difficulty in accessing the lines in case of a breakage. This sewer line would only be approximately 300 feet in length, however, which could be easily cleaned with the City's sewer cleaning equipment from the manhole in SW 70th Avenue. There is still a concern that this line could be vulnerable to breakage due to future fence construction along the common property line or other excavations typical in back yards of single-family dwellings. However, the City could accept a line in this location if it were constructed of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe. These two pipe materials are very strong and would be essentially "bullet proof' against excavations in the back yards. Therefore, the City would have little worry about future breakage. Staff recommends the sewer line location be approved provided the applicant construct this line of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe. Storm Drainage: The storm water from this site will be conveyed to the northwest corner of the site where it will be treated and released into a natural drainage channel that crosses SW Ventura Drive. The applicant submitted a downstream analysis that indicates that there should not be negative impacts to the downstream system from the additional storm water from this site. However, the City and USA recently completed a basin study of Fanno Creek. A resulting finding of that study indicated that all developments within the City must now provide onsite detention facilities. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide an onsite detention facility in addition to the proposed water quality facility. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 23 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION The applicant's plan indicates a new storm line to be extended in SW Locust Street through the site. However, the line is shown to stop short of the eastern boundary. Since it is unknown exactly how the street will be extended in the future and the needs for storm drainage on the adjacent property, the applicant should extend the public line to the eastern boundary (TDC 18.810.100). The applicant's plan does not show how Lots 13 through 16 will be accommodated with storm drainage facilities. Staff would assume that since the applicant is proposing to extend a public sanitary sewer line along the northern boundary of these lots, then a storm line would also be appropriate. A storm drainage line serving these four lots would not need to be a public line, but could remain a private facility to be owned and maintained by the owners of Lots 13 through 16. Staff would recommend that the applicant be required to construct this line of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe, to avoid future problems as was mentioned in the Sanitary Sewer section of this report. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations 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 plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. As was stated previously, the applicant is proposing to provide a vegetated swale at the northwest corner of the site. The applicant shall provide a maintenance access road to the facility and any drainage structures within the facility to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. The access road shall be paved and a minimum of 15 feet wide. Prior to the City accepting this facility as a public facility, the developer shall maintain it for a minimum of three years after construction is completed. The pond shall be placed in a tract and conveyed to the City on the final plat. The developer will be required to submit annual reports to the City which show what maintenance operations were conducted on the facility for that year. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 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 water system 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) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the 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 plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots that are to be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 24 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION The applicant will also be required to provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC; for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report will need to be incorporated into the final grading plan and a final construction supervision report must be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant did submit a report from their geotechnical engineer, and there were come concerns about a few of the lot locations. However, Staff believes that if the applicant follows the recommendation given by the geotechnical engineer, then it is feasible to construct these lots in a safe manned. 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. 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). For parcels within the USB, an addressing fee in the amount of $30 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to approval of the final plat. For this project, the addressing fee will be $660 (22 lots X $30/address = $660). FINDING: Based on the information provided from Engineering, the applicant's plan does not fully comply with all of the Street and Utility Improvement standards. If the applicant complies with the Conditions 10 through 37 specified at the beginning of this report, then staff can determine that the standards have been met. SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Tigard Police Department has reviewed this proposal and offered no comments or objections. The Tigard Building Division has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: (1) No Parking signs and curb markings on one side of street less than 36 feet; (2) fire truck access to within 150 feet of most remote exterior walls of buildings on lots 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11; (3) Provide cul-de- sac with turning radius inside of 25 feet and outside of 45 feet (UFC 902.2.2.3); (4) Provide fire access road way not less than 20 feet wide (UFC 902.2.1); (5) Provide fire hydrant at the corner of Tract A and SW Locust and entry to the hammer head drive and Locust; (6) provide storm drain lateral system to lots 5, 14, 15, 16, 27 3 ,4 and 8. The City of Tigard Operations Department has reviewed the proposal and raised the following concerns: (1) At the time individual lots are developed for the Building Envelopes, with as much slope as the site has, it creates the need for cut and fill type of grading which can be more disruptive to the root systems and vegetation. (2) What is the time that the tree retention ratio is calculated? This needs to be addressed. It is stated that a retention greater than 75% of healthy trees greater than 12 inches on site will be provided, providing satisfaction of Section 18.790.030. Staff response: The issues raised are valid and should be addressed through the revised tree report showing the typical building envelopes. The mitigation requirements include all trees to be removed on individual lots for the placement of structures. The revised tree plan must also take into account grading required for the building footprints. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 25 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION The City of Tigard Operations Utility Manager has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: Question if the Tract "A" area is proposed to be public. If the tract area is not public, an easement is needed along the storm line between the 70th Avenue extension and SW Ventura Drive. Questions are also raised regarding the need for an additional catch basin. These comments are addressed under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS discussed previously in this report. SECTION Vl. AGENCY COMMENTS The Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County has reviewed this proposal and has offered comments which have been incorporated into the body of this report. The Oregon Division of State Lands has reviewed the proposal offered the following comments: A small drainageway on the property may be jurisdictional which would require a DSL permit if impacted through development.. If under 50 cubic yard of material is altered, filled or removed a permit would not be required. The US Army Corps of Engineers has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: Based on the drawing submitted by Scoles and Associates, it appears that the turn in 70th (adjacent to Tract A and lot 5) may effect the drainage by grading at the source. A permit would be required if there is any grading within the drainage. Staff response: A condition will be attached requiring permit approval from the US Army Corps of Engineers and DSL if there is any alteration proposed for the drainage or the 25-foot buffer area. The Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed the proposed and offered the following comments: We have reviewed the proposal and are not opposed to it. Please have Developer's engineer contact us to discuss layout of the water system before submitting plans for review and approval. Note that some revisions are in order to meet District requirements. Portland General Electric and GTE have reviewed this application and have offered no comments or objections. SECTION VII. CONCLUSION It is further ordered that the applicant and the parties to these proceedings be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This 19t`' day of April, 1999 by the City of Tigard Planning Commission. (Signature box below) Mark Padgett, Planning Commission Vice President iAcurpln\julia\sub\Ventura Final Order.doc NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 99-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 26 OF 26 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR 99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION WA8 INGTO SOU RE ESTATES Ti 2200 Tl 2200 • ` ` TL 9,00 TL 2000 TL 2000 Tl 2700 S.W._VEN_TURA DRIVE _ T1 )000 ! J i s -2 T.L 000 s ),el11 Sr. = sasr sr. >:ul Sr.~ / o i ~ aT- ! ' Z II o CA V♦ = i 4lielu. rtJ17u I 1 2cc'~I` TRACT 'A' p it p i e 1 ~ 10 Ta.7700 Q S19)Sr. a 1' 12 11 7.2JeS~ Q 1 47e1 u 4070 S! . 1 < IM TA. 7200 iY 3Ji5 S~ ~ a• 1a ; Tl 7W0 Z mac. Wy ~ / 1' 1 N >a 14 is is I 4e17 S~ 4 t50 sr. = 4331 if. 4J51 if. Z a ' ru 1.mm larv r> 41st tf. ,ur wa ! Z - -u- 4 1----- LOCUST STREET ---a-- - a.. Z 2 Y.241 sr. 22 )..771 t.l. I 1 I7 4.211 Sr • 4729 Sr. 11. G 1 a 0 y ' TA. 701 u « . i 1 TL 0000 Tl 7000 j - , ! I 1 1 T1 702 ; IOMIbROttIW~ 1' IT 1 1 _T 1 pi0°m ! OO Aliaorr 1 1 1 , < 1 1 w..ur i , f ! 20 >n . 18 ~ 1 ; I = 7390 S< Z 4160 u 1.150 i!. C 1 1 VA- 0100 T.L not 1 , TA. 000 TA. $400 ' (T.L 202 I Z ( . 1 1 1 TA. W42 1 1 H 1 TA. 7100 1 1 a 1 I 1 I ( TA. 1100 i I 1 1 I ' 1 ~j 1 1 1 ~ yS I CASE NOM 81 CASE NAME[SI: SITE PLAN SUB 98-0014 VENTURA PDR 98-0013 ESTATES EXHIBIT MAP N 11R 99-0007 SUBDIVISION SHAny F--T I CITY of TIGARD GEOOR~G HIC INFORMATION SYSTEM ELMWOOD ST LOLA LN J ALFRED VICINITY MAP ST ju 9 P BABA SUB 98-0014 PDR 98-0013 LN IUR+ VAR 99-0001 Z DR VENTURA cT J ESTATES SUBDIVISION (2) SUBJEC TURA VENTURA PARCELS R w a L LOCUST ST w L N w > Q MAPLELEAF ¢ 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet ST Mc 1'= 378 feet ~O L OAK ST w w City of Tigard = Information on this map is for general location only and OAK ST ¢ ¢ ah0UW be verified vAth the Development Services Division. r to 13125 SW Hag Blvd I~ Tigard. OR 87223 (503) 6394171 ¢ httpJtwww.ci.tigard.Or.ua Community Development Plot date: Feb 1, 1999; C:\magic\MAGIC02.APR fF Z xx < x:Zp 6 : TES \ S.W. VENTUR.A. AVENI f N , a N~~' Nom.e i NAM n I wrw 46 ee w 83 es s om.e " ar a s I~ ' aeve~. ~bwaa~mwi N.,m+ 7etIDM lO e7 6 N M A er®M 5 M 7 Ncmw, ' Ln - ruml co N N 44 8.. 46 ,rem+ e+ ,e \ sa eramw, io ,n m ~ieQ araom 7D'D@M 1 ,1'®M 1 ~ TRACT 'A' I 9 e, 311 mm I rrno, 49 - 2 '4c- 4c. tr-le ,.f0 ) 4 430 r ,roow, 46 r . 10 0 - 12 00 11 to , s i 40 ,r r,mu 8 5 70 Imo' 3 i ,ree I 50 lK- I I " , arcmm 13 15 00 00 16 00 Lo 14 Lo co I J i 60 I I 2 I ~ i sS SS Ss ~ ~ 50 I I - )CUST ST. I _ _ _ I-- - i ou 59 55 17 I i 551 22 21 I I I I ' I I ?0 TL. 702 T. L. 701 i i 99 99 99 I I 20 19 18 1 OPEN SPACE & TREE REMOVAL FIGURES i Lo to to I A ',L NET SITE AREA: 3.8 ACRES i BUILDING ENVELOPE AREA: 1.68 ACRES I ON-S1 TE OPEN SPA CE.- 2.12 ACRES (559 OF NET SITE AREA) I NET TREE INCHES >12" DIAMETER = 2911 TO TA L TREE INCHES REMOVED = 680 (2Jq OF NET TREE INCHES) T. T . 14(1(1 SITE ANALYSIS e'l LAND SOLUTIONS, Inc. SCALE.- 1"=50' TREE REMOVAL, OPEN SPACE & BUILDING ENVELOPES PLANNING PERMITS PROJECT MANAGEMENT P.O. BOX 38 TEL: 503-722-8585 DATE DEC. 1998 VENTURA ESTATES P.D. SUBDMS/ON 9140 S .E. St. HELENS ST. FAX.' 503-722-8555 PROJECT 4237 CLACKAMAS, OR 97015 LANDSOLUTJONSCOM do, r i CITY Of TIOARD Community (Development Sha ingABetterCommuni IE' LAND USE PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION 11 120 DAYS = 5/31/99 FILE NOS.: SUBDIVISION [SUB) 98-0014 P N D DEVELOP M~ENT REVIEW (PDRI 98-006 13 0 ~ VMGC C ) " TITLE: VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION APPLICANT'S APPLICANT: Ivy Yip APPLICANT: Barry Desbiens REP.: Ken Sandblast Ashwood Homes, Inc. Wingate Corporation Land Solutions 8760 SW Pacer Drive 15840 S. Pope Lane PO Box 38 Beaverton, OR 97008-6915 Oregon City, OR 97045 Clackamas, OR 97015 (503) 626-2119 (503) 657-3300 (503) 722-8585 OWNERS: Helen L. Wegener Fred Neuman 580 NW Alpine Terrace 19730 SE Semple Road Portland, OR 97210 Clackamas, OR 97015 (503) 223-9453 (503) 658-5915 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Subdivision and Planned Development Review approval for a 22-lot detached single-family residential Planned Development Subdivision. There is natural area that is proposed to be reserved in a tract area within the subdivisi i 1. T5q ~~Sp 'i~ 1 c,ma' 1~,~, yp aP- v~ ~urn LOCATION: The subject parcels rued on the south side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 701h Avenue; 1 S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN QESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. CIT AREA: East CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request DECISION MAKING BODY: DATE COMMENTS DUE: TUESDAY - MARCH 2. 1999 HEARINGS OFFICER [MONJ DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 1:00 PM M PLANNING COMMISSION [MONJ DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 5,1999 TIME: 7:30PM CITY COUNCIL [TUESJ DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 1:30 PM COMPONENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION VICINITY MAP M LANDSCAPE PLAN NARRATIVE K SITE PLAN K TREE PLAN K ARCHITECTURAL PLAN TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY K ARBORIST REPORT M OTHER. M STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Hajduk. Associate Planner SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL Pi.ANNED •DEVEL.Oi-iVtENT APPLICATION CITY OF 71GARb 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX.' (503) 6847297 GENER L (INFORMATION PRE-APP. HELD WITH: DATE OF PRE-APP,: Property Address/Location(s): yer+hr.- 1 aKl S.W. 70 FOR SY,p►FF USE OILY ' 'w Tax Map & Tax Lot #(s): 15 -.1 W -1% R'A " - . • • • Qd/~. . Tax Ldt'S (00( 9 700 S- Site Size: S• 15 AL. Oth Case er No.( s se): No.(s): PDP, I g-60 /3 Property Owner/Deed Holder(s)' Receipt No.: 9S-3//Sa xAddress_! Z 24LW"~ Phone:.:Z3 Vq53 Application Accepted By: •,~7oi /c/ . lap: Date: '/R? /5=F'$ Da t e r-,M; ;;A° ^ a , ' Applicant': L-18N15 sot_uri&N5 14EN_ SA0b8r_*ST y~ Oe"temtin pl A,: ?.o. Vox 343 ed Ta Be Corp 5f. + ~ y y.. city: .r.ietr:*::s:~,.":a`;! '.:.St<•t~i;►::r:';..•Y~": «:i~;"4=•;,., i•.:..•''. Address: . gi'Vo 5.2 -.4% Nclcor5 7Phone: 7 22 ^ OS- 8-5- ;.,~;.,••v; • C6cy-4r..s o ]g= Zip: 970/ Cqi ip.Pliiit6e Designation: . yi"Q.i•"y~t..f,`'Idya:%'u'~yrwiMx1. ~•''yC~'. ' rdyYy"~`::vc~,'''i'X.~%t. ° When the owner and the applicant are different people1 the applicant I,tl ,*~',w,A ' ti1N VM"K" .1•'r„I:i •I` must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written CITArea: ' ` authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner with written ' authorization. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space aer: ai~uw t%MdpklvhhastamVda.doe provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property request permission to REQUIRED SUBMaIAL ELEMENT create a Planned Development consisting of (please be specific): 22- 17. e+kckeA Sin61c Qoi;(y V Application Elements Submitted: Q.eSilar►Jn'e,, I LatS tat oPtN Sps•Ce Application Form Tr,-,c.~- , MKS 004V -1 nrca 0' Owners SignaturelWritten Authorization ff" Title Transfer Instrument or Deed R b J ~E1 DreS~ on Sub~ce Sr~e. C) i_tefPlotPlan (811,-x 11•) A0tj 2 (t of copies based on pre-app check Ust) ❑ pplicant's Statement 6w Ly I PR (C of copies based on pre-app check Ust) ❑ Filing Fee (Detailed) $ 610.00 (Conceptuaq $2,170.00 1 • I 1 Llst any VARIANCE OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: . APPLICANTS: To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the EF.QUIED SUBMITTAL m FMENTS as described on the front of this application In the "Required Submittal Elements" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sh-.ets can be obtained, upon request, for all types of land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: ; • The above Mgt;est does not violate -any deed restrictions that may be attached to or Imeesed ugg the subject pro2cd3c. • If the application is granted. The applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the temms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • AA of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued. based on this application, may be revoked if It is bund that any such statements are false- The applicant has read the entire contents of the application. Including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements fbr approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of gh owner of the subject property. DATED this _1 day of 19-LL Ownees Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature 2 LAND SOLUTIONS, Inc. 9140 S.E. St. Helens Sty et Clackamas, OR 97015 Planning • Permits • Project Management Tel: 503-722-8585 Fax: 503-722-8555 www.landsolutions.com March 17, 1999 Ms. Julia Powell Hajduk City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: File No. SUB 98-00141PDR 98-0013 - Ventura Estates Subdivision Application Dear Ms. Powell Hajduk: As per your request, this letter is submitted to supplement the previously submitted application materials involving the turnaround variance and the possibility of providing a street connection to Ventura Street through the subject site. As included within previously submitted materials, the variance for cul-de-sac length is a combined result of the existing boundary configuration of the subject site, the surrounding existing development and street network, and the twenty five percent plus topography on and adjacent to the subject site. With regards to the topography, there is a linear section of twenty five percent plus topography approximately 160 feet in length running north/south along the subject site's northeasterly boundary that prevents a local street: from being constructed as a through street connection. This topographic constraint, when combined with the location of the existing residence on the adjoining parcel to the east, necessitates a cul-de-sac design for the proposed extension of S.W. 70th Avenue. As an alternative, connecting S.W. 70th Avenue to S.W. Ventura Drive was explored during the initial plat design, pre-application and neighborhood meeting stages of this application. A review of the topography across the northern boundary area of the site, which is where the street connection to S.W. Ventura Drive would be constructed, reveals an average slope in excess of eighteen percent, a natural drainageway and a substantial percentage of the total trees located on the site. When City of Tigard design standards involving maximum vertical grade for local streets (15%) and required local street centerline offset distances (125') are combined with the existing reverse curve design of S.W. Ventura Drive along the north boundary of the subject site, the one-way, cul-de-sac design proposed through this application was determined to be the best alternative. Design consideration was also given to both the impacts upon a substantial number of additional trees and public opposition expressed during the neighborhood meeting to a through street connection to S.W. Ventura Drive. This subdivision application is proposed as a planned development due to the desire of the applicant to minimize impacts to both the steeper sloped areas and numerous trees located on the site. Granting of the requested variance will allow construction of a cul-de-sac for the extension of S.W. 70th Avenue to best minimize impacts of subdividing the subject site at its allowable density. Providing Profitable and Creative Land Development Solutions i Ms. Julia Powell Hajduk Page 2 Please include this letter within the record for the above referenced file number. If you have any questions or require additional information, I may be contacted at 722-8585. Sincerely, ~'A -ljlbl Kenneth L. Sandblast cc: Wingate Homes Ashwood Homes KL S: c:Vrojecls%4237Wari enceltr. doc 1\I i CITY OF TIGARD February 1, 1999 OREGON Ken Sandblast Land Solutions PO Box 38 9140 SE St. Helens Street Clackamas, OR 97015 RE: Notice of Complete Submittal - SUB 98-00141PDR 98-0013 Ventura Estates Subdivision Dear Mr. Sandblast: Staff has received the addendum packet to your original submittal for the 22 lot planned development subdivision near Ventura Street and SW 70tH Avenue; WCTM 1 S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. After reviewing this additional information, Staff has deemed your application complete and will schedule the proposal for review before the Planning Commission on April 5, 1999. Please feel free to contact me concerning this information, or if you have any questions at (503) 639-4171 x407. Sincerely, Julia Powell Hajduk Associate Planner iAcurp1n\ju1ia\ventura2.acc c: SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013 Land-use file 1998 Planning correspondence file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 CITY OF TIGARD December 30, 1998 OREGON Ken Sandblast Land Solutions PO Box 38 9140 SE St. Helens Street Clackamas, OR 97015 RE: Notice of Incomplete Submittal - SUB 98-00141PDR 98-0013 - Ventura Estates Dear Mr. Sandblast: Staff has completed a preliminary review of the application materials submitted for the 22 lot planned development subdivision near Ventura Street and SW 70th Avenue; WCTM 1 S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. The following information is required before staff can consider your application complete and begin review: 1. Submit minutes of the neighborhood meetings and affidavits of posting and mailing said notice. 2. Revise the narrative to utilize new code sections and numbers.' The new Code went into effect on 11/26/98. The application was submitted after the new code became effective and will, therefore, be reviewed in accordance with the standards of the new code. In addition, the following changes need to be made in response to the current code provisions: • A variance application is necessary for cul-de-sac lengths in excess of 200 feet (instead of 400 feet as permitted in the old code) or the application must be revised so that the cul-de-sac does not exceed 200 feet; • In accordance with the new code, it is the applicant's responsibility to include two sets of pre-stamped and pre-addressed envelopes for all property owners of record within 500 feet of the development site as specified in Section 18.390.040C. The records of the Washington County Department of Assessment and Taxation are the official records for determining ownership. The applicant shall demonstrate that the most current assessment records have been used to produce the notice list"; and • Provide more detail in the narrative on how the lot and block provisions are met. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Page 1 of 2 1 3. Provide 24 copies of all submittal items including: • Wetland memo; • Traffic memo; • Geotechnical report; • Preliminary storm sewer and downstream analysis; and • Tree plan/report. 4. Submit "Figure 1" referenced in the wetland memo. The memo from the wetland scientist refers to a "figure 1" which shows the approximate location of the intermittent drainage and small tributary. We must have this figure to insure that the information provided on your plans is consistent with the wetland scientists mapping. 5. Provide additional information for the Tree Plan. Indicate which trees are hazardous and must be removed versus the trees that must be removed due to the development. Please have the arborist indicate what the. red X and the strike-throughs represent on the table attached to the tree report. Once the required information has been submitted, staff will deem the application complete, schedule the Public Hearing and begin the review process. Please feel free to contact me concerning this information or if you have any questions at (503) 639-4171 x407. Sincerely, ulia Powell Hajdu~ Associate Planner hcurpin~ uliaWentura.acc c: SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013 Land use file 1998 Planning correspondence file 12/30/98 Ken Sandblast, Land Solutions Page 2 of 2 Re: SUB 98-14/PDR 98-13 Incompleteness Letter Sent By: URSULA CULLISON; 245 9164; Jan-2~ 9 4:18PM; Page 1 Ceti 91(f Columbia Realty URSULA I. CULLISON Direct (503) 244-8072 Direct Fax (503) 245-9164 http: / /www.realtor.com/-`Portland/UrsulaC-Lillison e-mail: ursula@hevanet.rom DATE: January 29, 1999 FAX TO: Julia, City of Tigard Planning Dept. FAX NUMBER: 684-7297 SUBJECT: 1S136AA 00601 & 700 - Ventura Subdivision TOTAL FAXED PAGES INCLUDING THIS ONE: 1 If not all pages are received, please call (503) 244-8072. Thank you. The owners are: Helen L. Wegener 580 NW Alpine Terrace Portland, OR 97210 Phone 223-9453 Fred Neuman 19730 SE Semple Road Clackamas, OR 97015 Phone 658-5915 The buyers are: Ashwood Homes Inc. Ivy Yip 8760 SW Pacer Drive Beaverton, OR 97008 Phone 626-2119 Barry Desbiens Wingate Corporation 15840 S Pope Lane Oregon City, OR 97045 Phone 657-3300 i Chicago Title I i Prepared for Ursula Cullison Property Profile CENTURY 21 COLUMBIA REALTY Prepared by: 9020 SW WASHINGTON SQ. DR.#100 FELIS PORTLAND, OR 97223 01/26/1999 Fax: 503-671-0121 Date Prepared ; i i i 1S136AA 601& 700 Re:I t ~ f6~ Profile prepared by j~ Chicago Title Insurance Company 10001 S.E. Sunnyside Road Clackamas, OR 97015 Customer Service: (503) 786-3940 , Main Office: (503) 653-7300 Early Bird: (503) 786-3940 Fax. (503) 653-7833 i This title information has been furnished, without charge, in conformance with the guidelines approved by the State of Oregon Insurance l Commissioner. This information is limited to record, provided by The Assessment & Taxation Departments of Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington Counties. The Insurance Division cautions intermediaries that this service is designed to benefit the ultimate insureds indiscriminate use only benefiting intermediaries will not be permitted. Said services may be discontinued. No liability is assumed for any errors in this report. Chicago Title 10001 SUNNYSiDEROAD CLACKAMAS, OR 97015 Customer Service PHONE: (503) 786-3940 ' FAX: (503) 653-7833 MEMORANDUM TO: URSULA CULLISON DATE: I-26-99 FROM: CUSTOMER SERVICE C/C: FELIS SUBJECT: I HAVE SENT YOU THE MOST RECENT UPDATE OF THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES AROUND THE PROPERTY 1S136AA 601 & 700 AT THIS TIME. THIS INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO ME BY METROSCAN TRANSAMERICA INTELLITECH. IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUES- TIONS PLEASE GIVE ME A CALL. THANK-YOU FELIS CIIIAL TITLE INSURANCE CONPANY 10001 SE Sunnyside Road Clackamas, OR 97015 ® Phone (503) 786-3940 Fax (503) 653-7833 =METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Washington (OR) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Reference Parcel # : 1S136AA 00601 Parcel Number : R0277578 RTSQ: 01W -01S -36 -NE Owner : Wegener Helen L CoOwner : Neuman Roland F Co-S Site Address : *No Site Address* Mail Address : 580 NW Alpine Ter Portland Or 97210 Telephone Owner: 503-223-9453 Tenant: SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred Loan Amount Document # :81032667 Lender Sale Price Loan Type Deed Type Interest Rate % Owned Vesting Type ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Market Land : $266,200 Exempt Amount Market Structure Exempt Type Market Other % Improved Market Total : $266,200 Levy Code :02381 98-99 Taxes : $1,608.74 School Dist Assessed Total : $104,880 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid Class Code Census : Tract: Block: NbrhdCd :413EV MillRate Sub/Plat Land Use : 1902 Vacant,Residential,Potential Devel Legal : ACRES 2.75 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms Lot Acres : 2.75 Year Built Bathrooms Lot SgFt : 119,790 EffYearBlt Heat Method : BsmFin SF : Floor Cover Pool Bsm UnfinSF : Foundation Appliances BsmLowSF Roof Shape Dishwasher Bldg SgFt Roof Mad Hood Fan IstFlrSgFt InteriorMat Deck UpperFlSF Paving Mad Garage Type : Porch SgFt Const Type Garage SF Attic SgFt Ext Finish Deck SgFt The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable. But Is Not Guaranteed. CHI(*O TITLE INSURANCE CO~A 10001 SE Sunnyside Road Clackamas, OR 97015 ® Phone (503) 786-3940 Fax (503) 653-7833 =METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Washington (OR) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION] Reference Parcel # : 1S136AA 00700 Parcel Number : R0277587 RTSQ: 01W -01S -36 -NE Owner : Wegener Helen L CoOwner : Neuman Roland F Co-S Site Address : *No Site Address* Mail Address :580 NW Alpine Ter Portland Or 97210 Telephone Owner: 503-223-9453 Tenant: SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred : 03/28/94 Loan Amount Document # :29070 Lender Sale Price Loan Type Deed Type Interest Rate % Owned Vesting Type ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Market Land : $232,320 Exempt Amount Market Structure Exempt Type Market Other % Improved Market Total : $232,320 Levy Code :02381 98-99 Taxes :$1,404.14 School Dist Assessed Total : $91,540 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid Class Code Census : Tract: Block: NbrhdCd :4BEV MillRate Sub/Plat Land Use : 1902 Vacant,Residential,Potential Devel Legal : ACRES 2.40 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms Lot Acres : 2.40 Year Built Bathrooms Lot SgFt : 104,544 EffYearBlt Heat Method : BsmFin SF Floor Cover Pool BsmUnfinSF : Foundation Appliances BsmLowSF Roof Shape Dishwasher Bldg SgFt Roof Mad Hood Fan IstFlrSgFt InteriorMat Deck UpperFlSF Paving Mad Garage Type : Porch SgFt Const Type Garage SF Attic SgFt Ext Finish Deck SgFt The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. - - - - - - - - &W. $ VENTURA DRIVE NOAU~ VA 81-17 I' Nawvomou ED loss 'Is*,% t00 F 2w I NORTH INF THOMAS STOTT DLC q1c 7600 700 $ 601 400 301 201 2800 .62AC.~\~ O 240AC I 275 AG 48?Aa $ 22KACI 6.62 AC. 6 . gt QP4,~ ~ I I e • \g Y N 3000 2 7700 $ R 8 . .26AC. s9ls s9"51irE I ~;tr 3100 n R 9 7100 7200 ~ w a 3• DD 0 5 - 6 . to (CS 12943) 1' p to N ~ ID 95' 65• Iamm v S.W.200*RL000ST S Rb 11 = p, 94,93 W3 3400 6900 7000 IS 12 d A / NIt23 999.44'E 4 N , 23 81 - - - m 13 SEE MAP N % 702 1'I 701 • 3 c g: 35 nes IS 136AB swn sas .25X mans 129.52 \ « I 8 $ Ixo 6800 i~ - I I w 300 W e 0 3600 0 14 i .21X..A 0499 0 2 S N w w ZiF N 70 -i W !l.50 - i I 114M AL n 600 1400 W j 3700 140 POINT 1005 1002 .56 AC. .JAG 302 ~2 303 s 15 I«.a0 .17AC W .25AQ o 22A% R .2441~ G nss ' Ne9•n Is w Iss.so ~ 3800 ~ w~ 7400 75 W 120 eC $ 16~ . 1-1m mimmmxwmm=- ,~'I.~• .56Ae. Y 12ae 'O w ; 1000 ° 1500 I 2100 I g.17AG Q a I 3900 " a $ 1 17 OK s' 1990-O~o 8 n aas•aYC $ 6 LL1 4000 ';•s : 1001 MAPLE s .22AG 9u I40 18 STREET I2s.s4 _ - ed 1201 $ 4100 ?y / b 7500 1007 ,43 AG 9 2000 - 19 u% 202 o 9.nAe. T- 0 0e 2 19 3 99.54 si• c K9c COL 1:9.71 rWnT ti R r 1600 ° 2 des ,p 6461 nsn 75 1 7s Y Ii $ •5 4.1 4200 0'0 802 900 1100 I 20 4500 w 13 AC .264r. 2SAt" w as LL, Nw:l = y N 11202 1300 116ts w -1800 1900 iyq d $ o _ s R 1.22 AG 24AC 1700 3► _ i 4300 1 0 26 $ 4 C $ 3 21 ~/3~ 4400 0 = vI fV~ I 9nTIAL N 22 1*0 5d J41 3S cd 95' a 173.3 206 M 0•Kw 0.. S.W. OAK I S 125D000300 OS125DD05301 O S 125DD05400 SENN ERNEST E ELDA H ALLEN JAMES & KATHLEEN DIETZ THOMAS PATRICK & CYNTHIA 9750 SW 74TH AVE 9810 SW VENTURA CT 9840 SW VENTURA CT PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 125DD05700 I S 125DD04500 1 S 125DD05600 - ORIAN BRENDA M KEEVER MOJDEH B SODERQUIST DAVID R & PAMELA E 9880 SW VENTURA CT 9795 SW VENTURA CT 9870 SW VENTURA CT TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 r I S 125DD05500 I S 125DD04400 1 S 125DD04300 MCLELLARN ROBERT W/PALMIRA B OLIVERA EDWARD F JR & ANNA F TR AUSE HOLLY M & 9860 SW VENTURA CT 105 BUENA VISTA AVE 9815 SW VENTURA CT TIGARD OR 97223 GILROY CA 95020 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 125DD04100 I S 125DD04200 25DD 10100 CARTER KAY AND DENNIS E CARTER DENNIS E AND KAY W WA G SNQ~ UARE ESTATES 9835 SW VENTURA COURT 9835 SW VENTURA CT LOT TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 125DD03600 1 S 125DD03700 I S125DD04000 KASTEN SHEILAH SUE SIGLIN TR SHREVE THOMAS A & MARY B WILLIAMS JAMES B AND 9885 SW VENTURA CT 9875 SW VENTURA COURT 9845 SW VENTURA COURT nGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 IS125DD03800 IS125DD03900 IS125DC01500 KOSTUR CHARLES J & DIANNE M STOIANTSCHEWSKY SPASS O & BENSON CAROL A 9865 SW VENTURA CT 9855 SW VENTURA CT 7145 SW VENTURA TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 125DC01600 1 S 125DC01700 1 S 125DC01800 WHITFORD ROBERT W & ELEANOR A MANKJN LOIS C MORSE WILLIAM J & LOURENE J & 7125 SW VENTURA DR 7105 SW VENTURA DR 7085 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 125DCO 1900 I S 125DC02000 I S 125DC02100 MCELWAIN JAMES D/JANET K BONHAM JOHN G & JOYCE M MORRE STEPHEN E JR & RHONDA L 7065 SW VENTURA DR 7045 SW VENTURA DR 7025 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 125DD00800 i S 125DC02200 I S125DD02200 WIENEKE M[ARILYNN A MONROE JAMES E MORRISON JOHN T & SANDRA S 6755 SW VENTURA PL 7005 SW VENTURA DR 6965 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 125DD02300 I S 125DD02400 I S 125DD02500 STELLAR SHERYL A & ROBERT DALE QUERIN PHILLIP C & TARI L BOYER THOMAS L & BARBARA J 17755 SW 131ST AVE 6925 SW VENTURA AVE 6905 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 • 1 S 125DD02600 •1 S 125DD02700 •1 S 125DD02800 ATTIA FARAG A & PEGGY C BUT CHUC VAN & LIEM DUY ROSS CAROL 6885 SW VENTURA DR 6115 NE FREMONT 6845 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97213 TIGARD OR 97223 IS125DD02900 IS125DD03000 IS125DC02900 LANGVIN MICHAEL J & SCHOCK CARL F & MICHELLE K JOHNSTON MICHAEL R & MARY 6825 VENTURA DR 6805 SW VENTURA DR ELLEN TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 7160 SW VENTURA DR ' TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 125DC02800 1 S 125DC02700 1 S 125DC02600 SHERMAN PATRICK J CRAWFORD TERRY N & MARGARET LITMER ROBERT H & LAURIE J 7130 SW VENTURA DR K 7080 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97223 7100 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 125DC02500 1 S 125DC02400 1 S 125DD01800 GENTRY DIANE Y BROWN RONALD & GORRETTA FRANK H & 7050 SW VENTURA DRIVE 7020 SW VENTURA DR 6760 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 125DC04700 1 S 125DD 10100 1 S 136AB00200 JOHNSTON MICHAEL R & MARY WASHINGTON SQUARE ESTATES NEWELL JERI JUNE ELLEN LOT OWNERS / 10060 SW 72ND 7160 SW VENTURA DR 0 R~cz e PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 «p ce 1 S 136ABO3700 1 S 136ABO3 800 1 S 136AA07600 SILCOX RICHARD L & BECKY A WINGER ERIC A & MELISSA J DEL ROSARIO DANILO E AND 10005 SW 71ST PL 10008 SW 71ST PL 7025 SW LOCUST ST PORTLAND OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 136AA00700 1 S 136AA00601 1 S 136AA00400 WEGENER HELEN L & WEGENER HELEN L & MCGUIRE JAMES E 580 NW ALPfNE TER 580 NW ALPINE TER 6909 SW OAK ST PORTLAND OR 97210 PORTLAND OR 97210 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 136AA00301 1 S 136AA00201 1 S 136ABO3701 WEBER LESTER C JR & STATE OF OREGON SANDER LEO ROBERT 3434 ARBOR DR P O BOX 14350 10031 SW 71ST WEST LINN OR 97068 SALEM OR 97309 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 136ABO3900 I S 136AB00201 I S 136AA07700 SCHULTZ DONALD A & LINDA L NEWELL JERI JUNE LEE REYNOLD GEORGE 10034 SW 71ST PL 10060 SW 72ND AVE 7047 SW LOCUST ST TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 136ABO3600 I S 136ABO4000 1 S 136ABO4100 STEWART JOHN M & KAREN S OLSEN STEPHEN & DANNER BENJAMIN F & DONNA E 10061 SW 71ST PLACE 10066 SW 71ST PL 10088 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 136AA07800 1 S 136ABO3500 1 S 136AB00101 BOSNAR MARAJAN & NENITA AND MCDANIEL DIANE J & LUSK SANDRA G 2058 SE SPRUCE ST 10097 SW 71ST PL 7105 SW LOCUST ST PORTLAND OR 97214 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 136AA07100 I S 136AA07200 I S 136AB00301 TANZ GUY H AND MACIARIELLO JAMES P JONES MARK S & DANACIA M 7081 SW LOCUST 7063 SW LOCUST ST 7123 SW LOCUST ST TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 136ABO4200 1 S 136ABO3400 I S 136ABO 1703 HUGHES SANDRA K TRUSTEE THORPE RICHARD L AND LONGFELLOW THOMAS NEIL & 7119 SW LOCUST ST 5606 SW CALIFORNIA 11750 NE LAUREN LN TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97219 NEWBERG OR 97132 I S 136ABO 1701 1 S 136ABO 1601 I S 136ABO 1602 SMITH CLAUDE I AND CASE SHERMAN L & MARY E WORF ROGER WILLIAM & 7130 SW LOCUST ST 7108 SW LOCUST ST 11935 SW BURNETT LN PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 BEAVERTON OR 97008 1 S 136ABO 1600 1 S 136AA06900 1 S 136AA07000 WORF ROGER WILLIAM & BOLER RICKY D & PATRICIA R WELLE KLAUS & VERA A 11935 SW BURNETT LN 7090 SW LOCUST ST 7072 SW LOCUST BEAVERTON OR 97008 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 136AA06800 1 S 136AA00701 I S 136ABO 1704 MURALT MICHAEL P & K VIBERLY A NEUMAN HENRY B TRUSTEE BROCK NEAL ROBERT 7054 SW LOCUST ST 10200 SW 70TH AVE 6140 STATE HWY 214 NE TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97223 GERVAIS OR 97026 1 S 136AA00702 1 S 136AA00300 1 S 136ABO 1700 HILLS JAMES R & MARIANNE C AUSE DAVID H/MEGAN M MCBRIDE ALBERT N 10205 SW 70TH AVE 10241 SW 69T14 10230 SW 72ND TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97223 1 S 136AB01900 1 S 136AA01005 1 S 136AA00600 O'HALLORAN JOHN JOSEPH GOSS MARNELL K PILLERS LAURITZ P/JUNE M & 7113 SW MAPLELEAF 10255 SW 70TH 10285 SW 77TH PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97223 I S 136AA01400 I S 136ABO2100 1 S 136AA00302 SARVAY JAMES A & CARMENZA M FREETH JULIANNA FREDERIKA & QUINN MICHAEL P & JEAN L PO BOX 4017 7111 SW MAPLELEAF 10275 SW 69TH AVE BEAVERTON OR 97005 PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 136AA01002 1 S 136AA00303 1 S 136AA07400 WEGENER HELEN L & WEBER LESTER C JR & HOWARD LLOYD F & MARIA H 19730 SE SEMPLE RD 3434 ARBOR DR 9389 OCHOCO CT CLACKAMAS OR 97015 WEST LINN OR 97068 TUALATIN OR 97062 !IS136AB01800 OIS136AB01801 • IS136AA01000 • SITIEL DELORES L BTTZ CHARLES D TAM YIK CHEUNG & CHUNG MING. 'P 'O BOX 230092 7175 SW MAPLELEAF ST 10285 SW 70TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97281 PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 136AA01500 1 S 136AA02100 1 S 136AA01001 LUKE_DORF WEBER LESTER C JR & COCHRAN CLAUDIA J 10313 SW 69TH 3434 ARBOR DR 10330 SW 70TH AVE TIGARD OR 97223 WEST LINN OR 97068 TIGARD OR 97223 ' I S 136AA01007 1 S 136AA01201 1 S 136AB05000 BALSIGER JAMES M & SARVAY JAMES A & CARMENZA M SMITH JERALD L AND LAURIE P 10335 SW 70TH PO BOX 4017 7134 SW MAPLELEAF CT TIGARD OR 97223 BEAVERTON OR 97005 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 136AA02000 1 S 136AA07500 1 S 136AB04900 SARIOGLU ESTER S i ERZELMAIER HANS D & PATRICIA INMAN DAVID S & CHERYL F 10340 SW 69TH 10288 SW 71ST AVE 5100 SW MACADAM AVE #270 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97201 IS136AA01200 IS136AA01600 IS136AA00802 PILLERS LAURITZ P/JUNE M & AUSE DAVID H SCHUBERT HELEN 10285 SW 77TH 10241 SW 69TH 10350 SW 71ST AVE PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 IS136AA00900 1S136AA0I100 1S136AB04800 FULLER DONALD D TAYLOR EWING R III & GAY MICHAEL J & CARRIE L 7015 SW OAK 7005 SW OAK ST 7103 SW MAPLELEAF CT TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 136AA01202 I S 136AA01300 I S 136AA01800 MCLAUGHLIN RICHARD D & SARVEY JAMES A & CARMENZA M WILLIAMS TRUMAN D & CARRIE P 6915 SW OAK ST BY NIKE INC ONE SW BOWERMAN 6817 SW OAK TIGARD OR 97223 DR TIGARD OR 97223 BEAVERTON OR 97005 1 S 136AA01900 1 S 136AA00801 1 S 136AA01700 VAN BIBBER STEVEN P COLOMA DALE A & CHARLOTTE K SACKS KRISTIN S & WAYNE 6807 SW OAK ST 10380 SW 71ST AVE 6901 SW OAK TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 136AD02100 1S 136AD02000 1 S 136AD01900 CEARLEY MICHAEL D COLLINS LEROY B & MARY LOUISE BRAUER ROBERT K JR 7010 SW OAK ST PO BOX 1477 5150 NW NEAKAHNIE AVE #48 TIGARD OR 97223 FAIRVIEW OR 97024 PORTLAND OR 97229 1 S 136AD01901 MILLER OVIE A TRUSTEE 6910 SW OAK PORTLAND OR 97223 • = M E T R O S C A N P R O P E R T Y P R O F I L E- Washington County k#kkk1,##############*~r+k#*##'k*'Ir'A'A}'w}1y####**k~'A##}}ii*##***Ari►**k1r*********R*iriri►*#k * ~r ~r,ea■.~..■raaan=ma==a= * OWNERSHIP INFORMATION y, a=aem.=aaa=o=aaaaaaa= * Reference Parcel #:15136AA 00601 * Parcel Number :R0277578 TRSQ:01S-01W-36-NE NE * Owner :SPRAGUE IDA SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE # k * CoOwner * Site Address :*NC SITE ADDRESS* * Mail Address :10270 SW 70TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97223 # Telephone :Owner 503-244-2437 Tenant * ___~=.:=~a-..=c.=o=aaa=as=aa=a * SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION # Transferred: Loan Amount * Document # :81032667 Lender * Sale Price = Loan Type * Deed Type Interest Rate: * Owned Vesting Type : # .=sons=_===m===a=.===ma===a=aa * * ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION * Land :$242,000 Exempt Amount: * Structure Exempt Type * Other % Improved * Total :$242,000 Levy, Code :02381 * 97-98Taxes:$1,567.97 School Dist :TIGARD * PROPERTY DESCRIPTION } =c==cc-case=aaa=sass * * Map Grid: Class Code: * Census :Tract Block * NbrhdCd :4BEV MillRate :15.2720 * Sub/Plat: * Land Use:1902 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL,POTENTIAL DEVEL * Legal :ACRES 2.75 * # * PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS * Bedrooms Lot Acres :2.75 Year Built : * Bathrooms Lot SgFt :119,790 EffYearBlt : * Heat Method: BsmFin SF : Floor Cover: * Pool Bsm1JnfinSF: Foundation : * Appliances : BsmLowSF Roof Shape : * Dishwasher : Bldg SgFt : Roof Matl * Hood Fan 1stFlrSgFt: InteriorMat: * Deck UpperFlSF : Paving Matl: Garage Type: Porch SgFt: Const Type : * Garage SF Attic SgFt: Ext Finish : # Deck SgFt ##**##k+Y#*#*##Ark*****ir####!r##!e*###~r##t*###R#k#i1####*4#}irlk##iA}#*A#Vr####+Mi.L**i*i►# The Infcrmation Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. ' ,xutl` o6 "r w...... h' No W AiL A) EN 8Y i71L. rI'ME::I:IYr6:.1 6tF'; ,jUef r lur In. , vr,•-d, ndn.n h .....Ilrrr OW. 91, d... hrF hr dre,d. J,w,,.,i n. .«•J r«f , i .r' 'I•,., ~TS31 _ ix mri, ':rQSax Unr1•Qr Orcl.arataan ..'rvt ati-a-1 h3.:'19t. li 13,41 1 htrrandrer callyd *-frr, ■t4 an . Irentri.:wit-. vn: w-aru• an: .r; .I~n• w) W rh..! I, o.,- n,J r.,.d.r•rly nlfh f1.r brr.mrnfs, hend,ufrvn►. asst appur Mrw,.•►. fMrt/1.M r. n-6.qInd "r In ,•rn wry •FI+I-,r..,nu.~ u,wrrd .,w- f'•nll!:Y y. y ' d N;Lgh.t ngf;N! sr.ae •r Urrdc n, dr- r,j..l If, WW Beginning at tho Hortncabt t:r,:lcr of ::vc.•1 ion It,, TVwntthiz, 1 South. 1tooll! i Pfeatr wil]amotte Ml•ridijn; th••nctr North 81• 4A' W"%t ,St,nq tho Nurtn lino of 91id 5CCtL0n, :0.9.B4 tr:rt to an ir+.-n pals which i:+ the tlue p13MI of U(^q%nrlnq of thv tract t:arc•:n t:[ :cr:bc•r.; 1l:/rnr'I• "rtutt'. 0'` t3'1' host b18.IJ fr'r-t• MOM Ulf 1egR. to thc! Nuri tit, Ir.t c't,r ntIr r[ ;t'..1t ! riot conveyed ro J.tmr.tc M. 11orry. et It'c, by •trt••! rt-s-4•r:l+vi Wily 211, 1 ,';R, in p•I.n4 4G11, Pagr k i t 217, rv•,•rl ArrJ,rdn; tnrnro Nmth 1;11. 4'. W-.r. .11.nn't t!Lr Nr+rt.h line of said t, T..:t,.u r, fr,Irr e,r Ii,r,n, t„ ! r r, rt r•r.., ••.t t•- -d• ,"'t .t, r rr. r-t Off, by def!d revordr.'a ILJnL` 14. 1'14H r in 'dr.• , 1'.L•1•• . :~Ct .l _Or'ar : + ht•!,Ca Rot (.h A° 0'1' l;n't hl^n•; sail. Lint- a:'t. :r••t, M.'J" r•s Inns, to nn iron pipe ' *1110: i:[ in th•• Nt•rth 1tnt1 :if th' .'1 :un 1i rh+:, t'. S.a~th 87• f at 4y' 1%imt .100 fret to tho tr.yt• '1^t rf ur,lt:•t1th,. t:Xt43-i1Nt, 11~,•wt::VER, any pnrtt+'In t.hurr.rF 'yii'1 vit`:1:, Ir~Itrl., : t:v_tlty N::Jt; :r hl•,hmAyl. ' f., Il n "bit !u tl.441 rfrr Mow .u^h: N%- ,:url •J.rf:: rr ,I; .1 L...rur. h, , ._.r- .rrul ....rq: I[rrlvr►. fir fr,r drW :.f rtlm ,•,rt•alrrrL..n pnrd nA Nu. rrrrr+:r r. It'd •n h rne• nr J: J:. rr• I. y ranffrr In TMt. ' 11ur, , rr. Ih, rui; .unn.drrerr..n .•nn.r.l. ..t .r. r:u•l. - ,uh a nr -Jorr. r•r ..dr.. -.-s -,r 1W.Im ad Whrr'h is 61 rM I nvd.rerh:n (rt.lrNtr wh,ch ,I-" rn. -I• 1 irM .•nr.w. M..«nrti ,..•d.:+ .I/,..r.y[n d4 .Aw•nf d.l.,wf B.. DRS .Jgrn1 . In tuh•rrUrr4 !h» grrd and who" IJ.• .was, iI ■I r, Vu.rr,, A:, -Ivp4a -i. 1.:s- N,« p: n.l .r:,dr/i gralnrmirmat f r'hdlljp'- •tmil ln•,rtph,d h, n,.,kr thrrrn.rvurt• b!rr,J .,prh, puff!. r... •r .unr.,......rni r,. j h, W%tJr,• Who -W fh4 jrnnn.a he- rcr.+,ed I,u• Inviut,rnr rh,• 6th da..d AuCj, t 81; i It .f ..tlprlfale Rrannn, if ha. I nu•rd t1, nA,,w n• tti .Inl d .d+•,r i hr Ir• •r. r.• r1u;. t,.!hLwijvd thomfo DY 1 nrdrr ,d it- h,.srd it drrn fr.r,. t ,rArf: uF (IMP IWO. cis, UA rimv J w r.w•,,. d ~Inq,.ir.,w ;M. Jr Aug 6 81 J• r.rwor.. ref:.r,f told tn. h-hol Onto on irtoi. rn.errur .f.r..v,I ,M .1r••. .w,wJ h r,. npn,.,vr r.:... .w rq. rr L.., d.r w ,h.r f►. Arta.. It Irrr arlm J.,vi 1 Fruxt r.• J.r ..w FAIN fhf 1.rA, ..Y. . • r,w Nr•n.v, .n1t w~,...•J-,.fwr IM l..r.yv,:.l ,rHIrY ..J .!.d 1J., v.f I:' Ir. I!', I,r•(...w rv.r w n rHr arJ, •w.• -.rr now a by hf. t1 +«L«a.. r r 1 Jr.J, 1 ! .wn•.., . I'M ....J Ond -.It m r.. t,.:r . , .r•J ...r•e.,t... w•'.nq of in I.w.d IV d--4. "a !aJ~ Iru.• row.. r•..... 4.tr.A •...J .w r..ar,N h' r .Y VVJft F on' "W J•.d. 1/y,'~. TIw• w Rapew/ JJf,o,N. h. u.- R..hrr /1,1•tfe hw t+rr... Jrr, fYTnu+gn •Lar,~b=3L n~ M, ,..nM[ialfnl rl/,.. Vern .ktm ^tglt itA ft of t'glemm .~sliL 'ti1y ! ` 10J7t) S. i1. 70th I i'~',~Q4 7 Vy:. I/~ ttette l/iu'te1 ~)S •1l i,hh~ - , bhttfl john rzym'., r'1.latllli r-_7Z n s+.g N•OMttr, rmrrn of Co.. Fwd 00 0 60 frndy *WA yl+. \ WIN— cl, ^',••i5;;~ •~r!• r'rsotw,rarl M carry ..A •swr.w pd~>: :.'t? • w... • ~ ° M'r .tprrw IN ir+.rar,N ~ ..r;,;:;k 1~: + M...._.~- .l IlnftfP tpfltlfJttuLL tMrtrt. r i', .r+':Y'• VtmLnil It. Rror~ld+:c :•t..:,.~1 t O has[ 24+XA -.:v. ' 7 tuol'Clan+c!. S~• ..•...91J25 ~``f!~,. ..n::~.,r '.5nrn .klfui Ttr>a ~ 7^~x~f1 MW MWI 22 PR It M E T R 0 S C A N P R O P E R T Y P R O F I L E- Washington County },r*++{+*++*+*,r+**+w*,r~e~**,►**~*w+t**++*x+*,t+*+++wv.*****+.+~►+++*t*,►+**te+r,t*tt**,t*,r*,t** * } aSa==aaaaaa=aaasr r } OWNERSHIP INFORMATION } a a r a a a a a a a c a a Q a a= a■■_ } Reference Parcel #:lS136AA 00700 * Parcel Number :R0277587 TRSQ:01S-01W-36-NE NE * Owner :SPRAGUE IDA A TRUSTEE * CoOwner * Site Address :*NO SITE ADDRESS* * Mail Address :10270 SW 70TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97223 * Telephone :Owner 503-244-2437 Tenant + * =eaa=aaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaacaa * * SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION ► ==aacaaarrr■rasr=aaa_.=aaa * * Transferred:03/28/94 Loan Amount * Document # :29070 Lander } Sale Price Loan Type * Deed Type Interest Rate: * $ Owned : Vesting Type s * ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFOR'ATION • * arrraarraae=a=na=caaease.ac==c * Land :$211,200 Exempt Amount: * Structure Exempt Type * Other % Improved * Total :$211,200 Levy Code :02381 * 97-98Taxes:$1,368.39 School Dist :TIGARD ► =acc===a==a~_xrrrrrr * * PROPERTY DESCRIPTION + Map Grid: Class Code: * Census :Tract Block * NbrhdCd :4BEV MillRate :15.2720 * Sub/Plat: * Land Use:1902 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL,POTENTIAL REVEL * Legal :ACRES 2.40 * * * * ccc=====a===aaasrrrmarrr * PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS * e=====ace=a=~==ccaa==-.ac • * Bedrooms Lot Acres :2.40 Year Built : * Bathrooms Lot SgFt :104,544 EffYearBlt : * Heat Method: BsmFin SF : Floor Cover: * Pool : BsmUnfinSF: Foundation : * Appliances : BsmLowSF Roof Shape : * Dishwasher : Bldg SgFt : Roof Matl * Hood Fan 1stFlrSgFt: InteriorMat: * Deck UpperFlSF : Paving Matl: * Garage Type: Porch SgFt: Censt Type : * Garage SF Attic SgFt: Ext Finish : * Deck SgFt *xt*fr***+ir**+,l+s*****~►}+r++#++i++iir#***,r*+r**~t~t**,t***,►#,t++,t**+k**yt**++*****+,►*+*** The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. (CORRBCtION DEED DARW= A= BALE DZZ0--&TATUTORT r= Individual Grantor ID;: A. FROST, now known as IDA A. SPRAGUE, Grantor, convoys to IDA A. SPRAGUE, Trustee, OA her SUCCESSOR, UNDER TEE ICA P.. SMGUE TRUST, UTA DATED 09-22-93 , Grantee, the following real property situated in k Washington Coarty, Oregon, to-grit: X' 718 DISCRIO22 19 RE IXT "A" ATTACRRD RxR~:; r[ R'•1 N (:'his is io correct the acme of the araator and the legal description in <<} that BAkv AXV BALE DEED dated 09-22-93, Pee Vo. 93078157, is Ksahialtoa County.) .rt~tj 40 ~A The true consideration for this conveyance is S one. `This Ka conveyance is for estate planning purposes only. s Dated. / R&l 1994. 4. 'N) IDA A. SPRAGUE, Fo erly known as: IDA A. FROST ~aF`'; P:'?y''11 r' THIS INSTRU!PNT WILL NOT aI+LC:7 USE OF TBP, PP.OP!!4T_ DE. ZRIBED IN THIS A: INSTRUMENT IN 9I4LLTIC:: 0? APPLICABLE LAND USE LtLWS AND RE3U7ATIONS. j~ t tP BEFORE SIG11I1TG OF ACC3PT_?:':o THIS INSTRUMENT, TEE PERSON ACQUIRING E-_' `',t; TITLE TO THC PROPERTY SHMIrD CBECK WITS THE APPROPRIATE CI-:Y OR COUNT? 1~ ` s o Y PLANNING DEv_A..T?SENT TO VZiRIFY A?Za USES. PT04..D USES. STATE OF ORECC'N, County of Vashingtcn) ss. TBE IDA A. SPRAGUE IRUS* ~.5 T Persorall appeared the above-named Ida A. SPracsuo and acknowledged the foregoing insteament to be her voluntary act and deed. + me: `Noca_-y Public .for Oregon ~ .r,'~ My Com1269i0A eF~; i,:,y,•;::., NOTARY PUBL tiewu taro" 't'0-`°° earcaxn ANTI 3ALS DEED _i ; Y: ~;.y~ • .,•~s IDA A. FA05^ new known as A A. SPRAGUE CTIANTCR moo: I']A A. SF AGUES TEUSTEE i uPR?iit'E TRUST [ s ; } +t TR IDA A. After recording _atura to: Ida AL. -1torp-mue T L0270 SW 7Cth PcrtjAnd, Oraa~n 977.23 _ i" ` until a change is requested, all tax statements shall sent to the to! lowing ad3:ess. No changg r '1 U, tj .Zs~ ,.w,,•r.'tiSr•LS ~yYS 1n.. q'_'. ~'`~r~('~ •F~,{ • Nt~~al 7 LLe'ry~ 1K ~'•a,,,,t.:~;,.'. y.w:.:.•.y .:~.v :!',d51- ~;t:y .`ti:. ~1"~' ,h. ' 3~ :v :17 N LAND SOLUTIONS, Inc. 9140 S.E. St. Helens Street 38 Clackamas, OR 97015 Planning . Permits • Project Management Tel: 503-722-8585 Fax: 503-722-8555 www.landsolutions.com January 19, 1999 Ms. Julia Powell Hajduk City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE. File No. SUB 98-00141PDR 98-0013 - Ventura Estates Subdivision Application Completeness Response Dear Ms. Hajduk: The enclosed addendum package is submitted to supplement the December 15, 1998, original application submittal documents for File No. SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013, a twenty two lot subdivision application. This letter and enclosed materials respond to the City of Tigard's December 30, 1998 letter requesting additional information in order to deem this file complete. Enclosed is information provided in response to all five items listed in the December 30, 1998 incompleteness letter. Included are: (i) affidavits of posting and mailing notices, (ii) a copy of Figure 1 referenced in the wetland report, (iii) additional copies of the various reports previously submitted, (iv) confirmation of the mailing labels source, and (v) an addendum narrative reflecting the reorganized city code, addressing the variance criteria involving the proposed cul- de-sac lengttl Also, I met with the consulting arborist on this project on Monday, January 12, 1999 to discuss the issues raised in Item 5 of the December 30, 1998 letter. By way of clarification, the two colors used in the tree report are used as follows: (i) the red x represents those trees which the arborist deemed hazardous or not viable in their existing state, and (ii) the strikethrough represents either a corrected diameter size or a tree of 12 inches or less not subject to tree removal mitigation requirements. Please review this addendum submittal package and schedule this application for a hearing date at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, I may be contacted at 722-8585. Sincerely c Kenneth L. Sandblast Enclosures cc: Wingate Homes Ashwood Homes KLS:c:\projects44237\compltnssltr.doc Providing Profitable and Creative Land Development Solutions r r ~ r r p-S 1` _ r r .ar f- r - = i L r _ r - _ f ~r r _ ~ - _j~, . w - _ I ~ r, .ter re ~ //(~I'~, y ~ . . • r ' - lye' - , ~ ' 'err-• ' ~ ~y~ ov ATERS aAC . ' OL URISDICTI~N AL W 25 ft. U 0 'r E5S~~Nrr rQ pp E`VLO1 AyV-E36-AA, 60 scale ,r AX LOT lsl /inch = 3t1 feet 'VV 0 0 10001 SUNNYSIDE ROAD (90 Chicago Title CLACKAMAS, OR 97015 Customer Service PHONE: 503 786-3940 FAX: (503) 653-7833 MEMORANDUM TO- URSULA CULLISON DATE: 4-22-98 FROM: CUSTOMER SERVICE C/C: FCLIS SUBJECT: I HAVE SENT YOU THE MOST RECENT UPDATE OF THE NAMTS & AD- DRESSES AROUND THE PROPERTY 1S136AA 601 & 700 AT THIS TIME. THIS INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO ME BY METROSCAN TRANSAMERICA INTELLITECH. IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUES- TIONS PLEASE GIVE ME A CALL. THANK-YOU FELIS I I I r - NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SIGN-IN SHEET WINGATE & ASHWOOD HOMES LOCUST STREET SUBDIVISION WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 26, 1998 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE EC. ,C- o Lc TM 22 S W V env u ~A - 1 l~ ~ rev T -no ~ cs ✓ 1Ld 7 ~2-/~3~ ~ Nvc~ /►!1o 2r4so•~ 6 96,r x4"1 76 P-9'16 Off/ het) (.civ-"- qs--6) q) S . W Vera wra Cf - 2.4G - 6 s z-7osy 4 6 6 Crutt G n~ 3 t.1 L -r- i r st S Z - 830-x` ~6 - 2 -3350 P.47TY &vLFJZ.. 7o `lo Sw C- acus-r 7 qu,,L49 ar i 'S er 54~ kr~, K Or- '1-' 0ar - P Aql Su EE&YIST IFID Jul AAFAITWAR U; AeD y ~o -S 3 010 KA-R r,- 9-k75-5-&J 4 YS e5- 's ~huclon uip, u(PS 20-0 Ven+uyu . Cyr C~ os~ ld ~y5 Sw CDR. 1 S =G? ,nl , 0 0 3 .51t) i D Z V_-- ~tal u l/~~N/~ r rfi 01' ve, r c Z Y r- 31,72 Sent By: URSULA CULLISON; 245 9164; Aug-28-98 9:25AM; Page 2/2 ~ - a Columbia Realty One Embassy Centre, Suite 100 9020 SW Washington Square DR Portland, Oregon 97223 URSULA I. CULLISON Agent Direct (503) 244-8072 Direct Fax (503) 245-9164 hII12://www.realtor.com/Portland/UrsulaCulligon e-mail: ursula@hevanet.com Re: Neighborhood Meeting on August 26,1998 at 7 PM at City Meeting Hall Many people were concerned and asked questions about the following: 1) Zoning and size of lots 2) What is a PUD 3) How do the homes and development look in a PUD 4) Grading of property 5) Grade along SW Ventura = 2 story drop, approx. 20% 6) Surface water and water run-off in general (Armory parking lot has lots of run-off) 7) What is a water detention pond and how does it work and affect SW Ventura 8) 25 foot set-back from current water pipe into NW track and how it affects properties 9) Access to new development of SW Locust only 10) Access through SW 70`h 11) Street through to Ventura 12) 1 foot wide strip owned by Washington Estate Homeowner Association between property to be developed and SW Ventura - impact? 13) Time frame of process and hearings 14) When does development start and dirt gets actually moved 15) Are streets private or are they public right-of-way, how wide 16) Width of SW Locust into subdivison; currently used for on-street parking and difficult to get through in one direction; possible speed-bumps 17) Concern about SW 69`h to go through to Pacific Highway with future development 18) How and where are trees mitigated 19) How will we get informed about progress on development 20) What happens to trees in NW track that are leaning and ready to fall over; erosion 21) Sizes and cost of houses 22) How deep is lot 4 and where would a house be built 23) Who do you work for 24) Where will fire hydrant be - N 4 COMPASS CORPORATION ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - PLANNING W e ♦ 0 S 6564 S.E. LAKE ROAD (503) 653-9093 MILWAUKIE, OREGON 97222 FAX (503) 653-9095 August 4, 1998 C(OPY Lauritz P. Pillers 10285 SW 77th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 RE. Neighborhood Meeting Notice for Wednesday, August 26, 1998 at 7.00 p. m Dear Ms. Pillers: As a representative for Wingate Homes, Inc., I would like to invite you to a Neighborhood Meeting being held: Wednesday August 26, 1998 7:00 p.m. Town Hall Meeting Room Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Wingate Homes is considering applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary land use approvals to construct a subdivision and we would like to meet with you to discuss the proposal in more detail. This meeting will be an opportunity to obtain information on this project at the preliminary plan stage. Please note that these preliminary plans may be altered prior to submittal of a complete application package to the City of Tigard. The property being considered for single family residential development is approximately five acres of land located on the south side of Ventura Drive and north of Oak Street between 69th and 71" Avenues at the terminus of S.W. Locust Street and S.W. 701' Avenue. If you are unable to attend the scheduled meeting and would like information or have any questions prior to the meeting, I may be contacted at 653-9093. 00, Sincerely, neth L. Sandblast KLS: N:\CLER\FINAL\Working\08-98\wingate.doc AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE WITHIN SEVEN (7 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE SIGN POSTING, RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO: City 13125 SW HO Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 1, ~2Sc~~,c~ ~uCrCtSo/~ do affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed Z-2. L o affecting the land located at (state the approximate location(s) ti if no address(s) and/or tax lot(s) currently and registered) . /S /W 3( PR -71- 6 did on the day of 19 r-72 personally post notice indicating that the site maybe proposed for a vas/ ~ 4 ~ c a /~ppfkation, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. The sign was posted at C ~/c (state location you posted notice on property) Signature (in the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COh1PLETEiNOTARIZD Subscribed and swamlaftirmed before me on the 1 day of .S~~ . 19 OFFI& . SEAL DEBBIE R. ADAMS G NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 310788 NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON MY COMMISSION t7CPIRES MAR. 22, 2002 My Commission Expires: (applicant, please complete information below for proper placemenc with proposed projecz) V - N I rA:ME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED RAMIE:-ve-Kf"n 5 5- o,aeL K a 1 I TYPE OF PROPOSED D LOPIEN-T: 27- L°f' flaa A eve N _ I ame of 3pplicant/Owner. KJ so/v D'vf 14e.✓ Sg dh 1 v.. I ?.ddress or General Location of Subject Property 1 acv-3~ nom{ `T I --f- -7 Sub}•ecc Property Tax Map(s) and Lot T(s): -'----J IFFIDAVIT OF MAILIN11 STATE OF OREGON ) ) SS. City of Tigard ) 1 , 14ik ie, being duly sworn, depose and say that on 6nv-k 'A 1998 I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list, a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (or near) Vew 4w& Sf. P, 5 s~U 7c+4` ( S - t w 34 *-A ) T.1.. (901 4 Z o c a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at C14cVkt4tc-s e0- with postage prepaid thereon. Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE,NOTARIZE) Subscribed and swom/ajiirmed before me on the Q day of 3v -r L-&~Jzy , 19 q EAL- AMSKI C~'L REGON C P ' (2 NO. 3`10788 elm AR. 22, 2002 NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON My Commission ex pires:--~._02~ (.applicant. ?lease complete information below for proper placemenz with proposed proje=) N?,:ti1E OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED NAIKE E TYPE OF PROPOSED DEV-E1,0P'•4SEN'T: -.Z 1 IP gksgnej 4 P D~ Su~► ~wi s~'►~ I Name of 4plic=n Owaer. Lam-1 So taKWu S - VAy% Sa,kd 41& S 1- ~ Address or Geaeral I.acadon of Subject roper-,r. I - /S _ /W - 3G I+/Q - T. L. / l ?m a L ubject P.ope=:/ Ta_ Map(s) and Lot_(s). - - n:wgv+ban erg .rs - ashington County # ' S n the Web C+u* bh~. t7 a r I ~y iyl RY g It. 1*40-01 t n R l~, t ~ -fir 30} r nt yap YSTER ENGINEERING Traffiig October 13, 1998 Ken Sandblast Land Solutions, Inc. PO Box 38 9140 SE St. Helens Street Clackamas, OR 97015 Dear Mr. Sandblast: As you requested, we have conducted a preliminary analysis of the proposed Locust Street Subdivision in Tigard. I understand that the subdivision would include 22 single-family houses. The subdivision will be located on the east terminus of Locust Street. A manual traffic count was made in October, 1998, at the intersection of Locust Street and 'SW 72"d Avenue. The count was made during the peak traffic periods from 7 to 9 AM and from 4 to 6 PM. It was found that the peak hours occur from 7:25 to 8:25 AM and from 4:55 to 5:55 PM. As expected, the peak traffic flow on Locust east of 72nd Avenue was westbound during the morning peak hour and eastbound during the evening peak hour. There are 20 vehicles on Locust during the morning peak hour and 28 during the evening peak hour. To estimate the number of trips that would be generated by the 22 houses on Locust Street, trip rates from TRIP GENERATION, 6`h Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, was used. The rates used were for ITE land-use category 210, Single-Family Detached Housing. Based on these rates, it is estimate that the new houses will generate an additional 16 trips during the morning peak hour, of which 4 will be entering the site and 12 will be exiting. During the evening peak hour there will be an additional 22 trips generated, 14 entering and 8 exiting the site. Not all of the trips generated by the Locust Street subdivision will be traveling in the same direction on Locust Street after 72"d Avenue. If it is assumed that the trips from the subdivision are distributed directionally in proportion to the existing directional split of traffic on Locust at 72nd Avenue, then about 69 percent of the site trips will travel on 72"d Avenue, and about 31 percent will travel on Locust west of 72"' Avenue during the morning peak hour. This means that about 15 trips will be added to Union Station, Suite 206 • 800 N.W. 6th Avenue • Portland, OR 97209 • Phone (503) 248-0313 • FAX (503) 248-9251 s • LANCASTER ENGINEERING Ken Sandblast October 13, 1998 Page 2 72nd Avenue in the morning peak hour, an increase of about 13 percent, and about 5 trips will be added to Locust Street west of 72nd Avenue, an increase of 6 percent. In the evening peak, the traffic on 72nd Avenue would be increased by 7 trips, or about 3 percent. The traffic on Locust Street west of 72"d Avenue would be increased by 15 trips, or 8 percent. These increases are so small that they would not be noticeable by other drivers and are unlikely to result in a measurable impact on traffic conditions. In fact, the increase is less than the normal day-to-day variation in traffic volumes that would be expected on these streets. In summary, although the subdivision will increase traffic on Locust Street and 72nd Avenues, the increase is very small and will not result in any significant impact to traffic congestion. If you have any questions regarding this preliminary analysis, please let me know. Yours truly David C. Cram Senior Engineering Technician ' PS OC Co ILAETS ASSES 5011. WATER IAN S WETLANDS SCIENTISTS October 2, 1998 I Ken Sandblast Compass Corporation 6564 S.E. Lake Road Milwaukie, OR 97222 Dear Ken, At your request, Scoles Associates, ' Inc. visited a future residential site located south of S.W. Ventura Drive, east of S.W. Locust Street, north of S.W. 70th Street, and west of S.W. 66th Street, in Tigard, Washington County, Oregon (tax map 1S1W-E36-AA, tax lots 601, 700). The purpose of the July 24, 1998 site visit was to identify possible jurisdictional wetlands and/or jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and State of Oregon. The site visit lasted about an hour and included a walking tour of the entire subject property. A second visit was conducted on September 17, 1998 to further investigate another suspect area located in the northeastern corner of the site. Although the vast majority of the property consists of hillside lacking any wetland or other drainage features, the extreme northwest corner contains a jurisdictional intermittent drainage. This drainage enters the site via a small-diameter culvert that originates on adjacent private property to the south and west. The water source was not investigated, but it likely includes seasonal runoff and ground water discharge that becomes intermittent during late summer and early fall months. The drainage dissects the northwest corner of the site before entering a culvert under S.W. Ventura Drive and eventually into the Fanno Creek drainage system that terminates at the Tualatin River. Onsite, the drainage is incised, often 6 to 9 feet deep, and has unvegetated, scoured bottom that is 2 to 4 feet wide (presumably due to the flashy, seasonal flow). This drainage also has a small tributary or spur that is approximately 30 feet long, 5 to 7 feet incised, and captures runoff for a very small portion of the subject property. This second feature also has an unvegetated, scoured bottom that is 1 to 2 feet wide. The intermittent drainage and small tributary have similar vegetation composition that contrasts the remainder of the property. For example, the vegetation near the bottom of the drainages and flanking the unvegetated channel consists of red alder, vine maple, Himalayan blackberry, field horsetail, lady fern, smartweed, velvetgrass, sword-fern, and barnyard grass. In contrast, the hillside areas beyond the bottom of the drainages include western red cedar, red alder, Douglas-fir, vine maple, beaked hazelnut, osoberry, Himalayan blackberry, plus numerous moist forest forbs and grasses. The vegetation at the bottom of the channel has marginal wetland vegetation, while the upland areas lack wetland vegetation. i Post Office Box 3558 Sandblast K.. 981002 ltr SA-9980724 Portland. Ore. 97208 (503) 224-2811 Ken Sandblast October 2, 1998 Wetland Assessment for Tax Lots 601,700, IS 1 W-E36-AA Page 2 A small portion of a shallow swale crosses the northeastern corner of the development site; however, the majority of the swale is located on the adjacent property to the east. The swale is approximately 25 feet in length, 20 feet wide, and 8 feet in depth at its deepest point tapering to 1 to 2 feet deep were it terminates at'Ventura Road. The swale does not have a defined water channel and is hydrologically cutoff from upgradient runoff by a topographical high point that shed runoff away from the swale. The vegetation near the base of the swale consists of English ivy and Himalayan blackberry, where as the side slopes of the swale consists of English ivy, Himalayan blackberry, cascara, vine maple, red alder, horsetail, and sword-fern. Neither of these plant communities are indicative of wetland vegetation. Because this swale lacks a defined water channel and wetland vegetation, it would not be considered Waters of the U.S. or jurisdictional wetlands. While ,both -the-intermittent drainage and small tributary lack wetlands, they would still be considered jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. since they have a defined channel, and intermittent flowing water. Under local guidelines established by Unified Sewer Agency, a 25-foot setback is required on jurisdictional wetlands and Waters of the U.S. and the State of Oregon. The portion of the swale located in the northeastern corner of the site lacks a defined channel and wetland vegetation and would not be considered Waters of the U.S. or jurisdictional wetlands. Figure 1 shows the approximate location of these features and the setbacks for the intermittent drainage and small tributary. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this project. If further study is needed onsite please don't hesitate to call (503) 224-2811. Cordially yours, SCOLES ASSOCIATES, INC. Chris Mattson Wetland Scientist Sandblast K. 981002 1tr SA-980724 it) ; J-- 41. 1 % ~ • . ~ WATERS U JURlSD1CTIONAL SETBAC' 25-f t- r D A SSESSENT rOR T FjGUR WETL N 1S1W.E36-AA 60-19'700 AX L Scale 1 inch = 30 feet . rrcc INC v VENTURA ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION ADDENDUM NARRATIVE Submitted: January 19, 19v9 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NARRATIVE APPLICANT: Ashwood Homes 8760 SW Pacer Dr. Beaverton, OR 97008-6915 Wingate Homes 15840 s. Pope Lane Oregon City, OR 97045 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Ken Sandblast Land Solutions, Inc. P.O. Box 38 9140 S.E. St. Helens Street Clackamas, OR 97015 Tel: 722-8585 Fax: 722-8555 LOCATION: South side of S.W. Ventura Drive, at the termini of Locust Street and S.W. 701" LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Assessor's Map 1 S-1 W-36AA Tax Lots 601 and 700 SITE AREA: 5.15 Acres ZONING: R-4.5 APPROVAL CRITERIA: City of Tigard Municipal Code Title 18, Zoning APPLICANT'S REQUESTED APPROVAL: Preliminary Plat approval for the creation of a twenty two (22) lot Planned Development Subdivision. This addendum' narrative revises the originally submitted narrative to reflect the revised code sections and numbers adopted as of November 26, 1998. F I N D I N G S This application involves subdividing the subject site into a total of twenty two lots as a planned develepment. The subject site consists of Tax Lots 601 and 700 of T1 S-R1 W-36AA. The subject site is approximately 5.15 acres in size and the topography of the site ranges between 10 to 20 percent, with less than 10 percent slopes in the southeast and slopes greater than 25 percent in the northwest corner. This application is being proposed as a planned development so that the plat may be designed to: (i) avoid building on those portions of the subject site which exceed 25 percent slope and (ii) to minimize impacts to the existing trees located on the subject site. This narrative addendum reorganizes the originally submitted narrative to addresses the City of Tigard Zoning Code, as revised by November 26, 1998 amendments and editorial reorganization. CHAPTER 18.510 R-4.5: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED FINDING: In satisfaction of the applicable provisions of this chapter, this twenty two lot preliminary subdivision plat application will create single family detached residential lots, a permitted use in the R-4.5 district (Section 18.510.030). Single family detached residences may be constructed on the twenty two vacant parcels being created in satisfaction of the yard setback requirements and height limitations (Section 18.510.050). CHAPTER 18.350 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS PROPOSED FINDING: In satisfaction of Section 18.350.010, this twenty two lot preliminary subdivision plat is proposed as a planned development to efficiently utilize land while retaining the drainageway natural feature present on the subject site and minimizing impacts to the existing trees. Single family detached residential homes can be sited on each of the lots being created that satisfy the coverage, height and setback provisions of Section 18.350.060 and 18.350.070. CHAPTER 18.715 DENSITY COMPUTATIONS PROPOSED FINDING: As per the applicable provisions of this chapter, the density calculations for this twenty two lot preliminary subdivision plat application, as depicted on Exhibit A, are as follows: Gross Site Area 5.15 Ac. MINUS Public Rights-of-way (20%) 1.03 Ac. Private Streets 0.10 Ac. Slopes >25% 0.09 Ac. Drainageway 0.13 Ac. Net Site Area 3.80 Ac. Convert to Acres (x 43,560 S.F.) 165,528 S.F. DIVIDED BY R-4.5 Minimum Lot Area 7,500 S.F. Calculated Lots 22.07 Lots Ashwood Homes 8 Wingate Homes - Ventura Estates City of Tigard Preliminary Planned Development Subdivision Plat Application Page 1 Total Allowable Lots = Calculated Lots + Lot for Existing Residence = 22.07 + 0 = 22.07 = 22 The total of twenty two lots proposed through this application equals the allowable total for the subject site. There is no residential density transfer proposed through this application. CHAPTER 18.730 EXCEPTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PROPOSED FINDING: This application does not involve the provisions of this chapter. CHAPTER 18.745 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING PROPOSED FINDING: As per the provisions of 18.745.010 and 18.745.040, street trees will be provided through the construction of this planned development subdivision. Tentative street tree location in satisfaction of these provisions are depicted on Exhibit A, the preliminary planned development subdivision plat. Due to the fact that the type of existing surrounding development is the same as that proposed through this application, namely single family detached residences, the buffering and screening provisions from this chapter are not applicable to this application. The underlying R-4.5 setbacks will be applicable to homes constructed on lots around the perimeter of the subject site. CHAPTER 18.765 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED FINDING: As per the provisions of the 18.765.070(H), the single family detached residences involved in this. application are required to provide 1 off-street parking spaces for each dwelling. All twenty two of the lots proposed through this application will meet both of these provisions through the future driveways and garages located on each lot. CHAPTER 18.775 SENSITIVE LANDS PROPOSED FINDING: Section 18.775.010 defines land unsuitable for development due to its location within: (i) 100 year floodplains, (ii) natural drainageways (iii) wetlands or (iv) slope areas greater than or equal to 25 percent. A drainageway flows through the northwest corner of the subject site. There are no 100 year floodplains or wetlands located upon the subject site. The applicant retained Scoles and Associates, a professional wetlands consultant, to ascertain whether or not any wetland areas are present on the subject site. Exhibit C, previously submitted, is a memorandum from Scoles and Associates addressing their findings that there are no wetlands, but there is a drainageway present on the subject site which requires a twenty five foot buffer setback. Based upon topographic data gathered through surveying the subject site, there are slopes greater than or equal to twenty five percent located upon the subject site, see Exhibit A previously submitted. However, there is no building of any kind proposed within these areas of the subject site due to the fact that they are contained within a common open space tract located in the northwest corner of the site or a private conservation easement along the northeast boundary of the site. Therefore, Chapter 18.775 is not applicable to this application. CHAPTER 18.790 TREE REMOVAL PROPOSED FINDING: As depicted on Exhibit A, the preliminary planned development subdivision plat, there are trees located on the subject site which meet the six inch or greater caliper at four feet from ground level definition contained with this chapter. Therefore, a tree plan is required for this Ashwood Homes & Wingate Homes - Ventura Estates City of Tigard Preliminary Planned Development Subdivision Plat Application Page 2 s • application in accordance with the applicable provisions of this chapter. Exhibit D, previously submitted, is a tree plan for mitigation of trees greater than 12 inches in diameter being removed and preservation of the existing trees being retained by Mazany Arborculture Consultants. This application will retain greater than 75% of the healthy tree diameter inches greater than twelve inches on the subject site. In summary, this tree plan is provided in satisfaction of Section 18.790.030. CHAPTER 18.795 VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS PROPOSED FINDING: In satisfaction of the applicable provisions of this chapter, this twenty two lot planned development preliminary subdivision plat can be constructed to comply with the intersection visual clearance requirements for both the proposed private and public streets. CHAPTER 18.705 ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION PROPOSED FINDING: The vehicular access/egress requirements of this chapter, particularly 18.705.030(H), are satisfied by both the public streets and the one private street serving the twenty-two single family detached lots proposed through this application. CHAPTER 18.430 LAND DIVISION: SUBDIVISION PROPOSED FINDING: The administration and approval processes required through 18.430.030 will be satisfied through the City of Tigard's preliminary subdivision plat processing. In addition, being a planned development, this application is subject to the administrative and approval processes contained within Chapter 18.350. There is no land capable of further division under existing zoning located upon the subject site and therefore, no future phases are involved in this application. Exhibit A, the preliminary plat, was submitted in the original application package. As per the December 30, 1998 incompleteness letter, there is one variance requested by this application involving cul-de-sac length and the provisions of Chapter 18.370 are addressed herein below. CHAPTER 18.370 VARIANCE AND ADJUSTMENTS PROPOSED FINDING: The provisions of Section 18.810.030(K), cul-de-sac design, are applicable to this application given the proposed street design depicted on the previously submitted preliminary plat, Exhibit A. However, an adjustment is necessary to this section due to both the approximate 390 foot length of the proposed cul-de-sac. This variance is allowable through Section 18.430.060. As applicable to this application, the criteria for granting an adjustment from Section 18.810.030(K) are addressed as follows: Section 18.370.020(C)(1)(a) - The special circumstances or conditions affecting the subject site and necessitating this cul-de-sac variance are the existing boundary configuration of the subject site, the surrounding existing development pattern and street network, the twenty five percent plus topography on and adjacent to the subject site. When combined, these factors create unusual and peculiar conditions on the subject parcel which limit existing available access and restrict future access opportunities. Section 18.370.020(C)(1)(b) - The 190 foot variance to the 200 foot maximum cul-de- sac length standard is the minimum necessary for the proper design or function of this Ashwood Homes & Wingate Homes - Ventura Estates City of Tigard Preliminary Planned Development Subdivision Plat Application Page 3 • subdivision. As depicted on the previously submitted Exhibit A, a twenty two lot design can be created on the subject site in satisfaction of all applicable City of Tigard requirements and granting this variance will not cause a baseless reduction in density. In addition, the cul-de-sac length variance is necessary for the proper functioning of the street system while satisfying existing City of Tigard private street standards, particular related to the maximum number of lots accessing a private street being limited to six lots. Section 18.370.020(C)(1)(b) - Granting this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare nor injurious to the rights of other owners of property within the City of Tigard. Instead, this variance will provide for the construction of a fully improved public street ending in a standard cul-de-sac which will provide emergency vehicles with better access to the subject site while avoiding construction upon greater than twenty five percent slopes. Section 18.370.020(C)(1)(d) - Granting of this cul-de-sac variance is necessary to preserve the full development potential of the subject site in accordance with all applicable provisions of the City of Tigard zoning code. As listed in response to 18.370.020(C)(1)(a) herein above, the boundary configuration of the subject site, topography and the lack of existing and future street connections combine to create an extra ordinary hardship for this application which necessitates this cul-de-sac variance. CHAPTER 18.800 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS PROPOSED FINDING: In satisfaction of the applicable provisions of Section 18.810.030, the subdivision proposed through this application will take access from Locust Street, an existing public right-of-way, along the west boundary of the subject site. The provisions of this chapter, as applied to this application where addressed in detail in the originally submitted application narrative. As per Section 18.810.040, the block design of the preliminary plat takes into consideration the convenient access, circulation and contemplated use of the proposed lots as single family detached homes while recognizing the limitations imposed upon this subdivision by the topography and natural areas present. Pedestrian access will be available from internal streets to Ventura via the open space tract being created to protect the natural drainageway located on the site. Each lot satisfies the twenty five foot frontage and depth to width requirements of Section 18.810.060. There are no tracts capable of further redivision being created through this application. Ashwood Homes & Wingate Homes - Ventura Estates City of Tigard Preliminary Planned Development Subdivision Plat Application Page 4 VENTURA ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NARRATIVE Submitted: December 14, 1998 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NARRATIVE APPLICANT: Ashwood Homes 8760 SW Pacer Dr. Beaverton, OR 97008-6915 Wingate Homes 15840 s. Pope Lane Oregon City, OR 97045 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Ken Sandblast Land Solutions, Inc. P.O. Box 38 9140 S.E. St. Helens Street Clackamas, OR 97015 Tel: 722-8585 Fax: 722-8555 LOCATION: South side of S.W. Ventura Drive, at the termini of Locust Street and S.W. 70`". LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Assessor's Map 1 S-1 W-36AA Tax Lots 601 and 700 SITE AREA: 5.15 Acres ZONING: R-4.5 APPROVAL CRITERIA: City of Tigard Municipal Code Title 18, Zoning APPLICANT'S REQUESTED APPROVAL: Preliminary Plat approval for the creation of a twenty two (22) lot Planned Development Subdivision. This report will address the applicable standards and review criteria of the City of Tigard's Zoning Codes and Comprehensive Plan. i r TABLE OF CONTENTS Paqe City of Tigard Applicable Policies and Findings 1-4 Impact Study 4-5 Supplemental Maps, Illustrations and Exhibits Size Washington County Tax Assessor Map of Site 8.5" x 11" Exhibit A Preliminary Subdivision Plat (2 Copies) 8.5" x 11" (18 Copies) 24" x 36" Exhibit B - Traffic Impact Memorandum 8.5" x 11" Exhibit C - Wetland Delineation Memorandum 8.5" x 11" Exhibit D - Arborculture Tree Plan 8.5" x 11" Exhibit E - Preliminary Storm Sewer Calculations 8.5" x 11" And Downstream Analysis Exhibit F - Geotechnical Study 8.5" x 11" 0) ~/f ? L ✓ SEE MAP i IS 125DD S.W. g VENTURA DRIVE I' «pw-VECHIIE ACCESS STRIP 81.171 r /16 16~ t CaU s 3Fr7 VAC 7F NOR 200 ~ TN (LINE TM 1ss2s 400 301 201 wi9.2i13'tw~ 60l 8 7600 700 PARCEL III F 2.75 AC. 187AC. - 226AG1 6.61 63 AC 2,40 AG ~~r 1110 - j- 1.01 PARCEL I PARCEL ZI rte 2 3 c X S 7700 x _ r 39.13 26AC. s99.5a si 6 l 130 e 65 65 0 7100 7200 (CS 12,9431 m 5 6 \ /1 63' 6s' LOCUST STi f .-C.93 6493 6900 7000 / .1 P n W 3 N N VN1 ~3 8~ _3e9°1.1E 701 _ 20 160' ~ ~ ICAO 4 go 1 P g 34 AC. s e9.44 E _ j -1 ; t~• e 64.76 61.76 ,n O AC . F 120 3c 2 300 129.62 j N ° - =W 1 n ^ W 6800 a Z1 at;; n N B9°<Yw O 2 IM 93.30 W u too 7s _ -t -O0 - ~6W 1400 W-10 POINT .1005 w l0]2 .58 AC. .43 AC. ° 135.40 8 •17 C. W 25 AC. N119°2716 w 135.40 Z D 11 0_ CHICAGO 7400 7s W W $ .56Ac a I 'This plat is for ypul aid in 1000 ° locating your land with reference ° $ 1 Wa -17AC to streets and other parcets 5 'o 75 " While this plat is believed to N 199J-rJ-~-~- 2 1001 3 1190 4SE be Correct, the company assumes y ~ 93.50 _ p~ tC 115 no liability tar any toss 00CUMN 1201 R by reason of rehance thereon.' 4 o 129.94 V ' .43 AC. • - - Into. 7 500 1007 Q n - - c"IuAGO TITLE INSUnAwCE CpyPANY / . . 20 AC. I7Ac. O ; IR It WWI S E SUNNYME ROAD V L 0 h ' J 10 S 89°5-1'!6-f Xx COR. 63 C1 ACKAMACS. OPEG, 97015 129.71 FROST I S, O 13a.76 -7 •3 R 3 1100 6S « 802 900 ec 115 .1 Yy 7i • ij11"r' .Q r. .i 1' ;rcy%,f~ •R':Y t~".'•v: .1, ii vr.•'~ . tf,~t ',S j t ` . ~ i' 66'~ 86'• li IP"~11•, y'.. i~ r"'~~ 5,• i ~U7.2/,15'W,, 1200.001 •f''i fit" I.If'ri1~•ry:~r •I'. il.'..~~' - ,•'~'jr'r: .•1'•~~i 1't.. r t,tr~ :I'' {.t'~~r. ~ti -1~ ~ ' '•1=:1•'.... .i 'i• ii X11' , ..1 ~•ati. ,1~.~11~^.^crr.a,al„ ;t I,i ':~•,r.i., •,..t~ 'i, F I N D I N G S This application involves subdividing the subject site into a total of twenty two lots as a planned develepment. The subject site consists of Tax Lots 601 and 700 of T1 S-R1 W-36AA. In addition to the preliminary planned development subdivision plat application, this project also involves a tree removal/mitigation plan. The subject site is approximately 5.15 acres in size and the topography of the site ranges between 10 to 20 percent, with less than 10 percent slopes in the southeast and slopes greater than 25 percent in the northwest corner. This application is being proposed as a planned development so that the plat may be designed to: (i) avoid building on those portions of the subject site which exceed 25 percent slope and (ii) to minimize impacts to the existing trees located on the subject site. The single family detached lots being created range in size from approximately 5,070 S.F. to 11,519 S.F., with an average lot size of approximately 7,184 S.F.. These lots will be served via a fifty foot wide public right-of-way extension of S.W. Locust Street, with both a forty six wide public right-of-way street terminating in a cul-de-sac and a twenty five foot private drive providing internal site circulation. The follwing chapters and sections of the City of Tigard Zoning Code are applicable to this preliminary planned development subdivision plat application based upon: (i) existing conditions present upon and surrounding the subject site, (ii) requirements conveyed by Tigard staff during the pre-application meeting held for this project, (iii) a review of Chapter 18, and (iv) a neighborhood meeting held to discuss this proposal with interested parties prior to submission of this application: CHAPTER 98.50 R-4.5: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED FINDING: In satisfaction of the applicable provisions of this chapter, this twenty two lot preliminary subdivision plat application will create single family detached residential lots, a permitted use in the R-4.5 district (Section 18.50.030). Single family detached residences may be constructed on the twenty two vacant parcels being created in satisfaction of the yard setback requirements and height limitations (Section 18.50.050). CHAPTER 18.40 ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED FINDING: In satisfaction of Section 18.40.040, Residential Density Transfer, this twenty two lot preliminary planned development subdivision plat application will not exceed 125 percent of the allowed density in the adjacent existing residential areas. CHAPTER 18.80 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED FINDING: In satisfaction of Section 18.80.060, this twenty two lot preliminary subdivision plat is proposed as a planned development to efficiently utilize land while retaining the drainageway natural feature present on the subject site and minimizing impacts to the existing trees. Single family detached residential homes can be sited on each of the lots being created that satisfy the coverage, height and setback provisions of Section 18.80.080. Ashwood Homes 8 Wingate Homes - Ventura Estates City of Tigard Preliminary Planned Development Subdivision Plat Application Page 1 CHAPTER 18.84 SENSITIVE LANDS PROPOSED FINDING: Section 18.84.010 defines land unsuitable for development due to its location within: (i) 100 year floodplains, (ii) natural drainageways (iii) wetlands or (iv) slope areas greater than or equal to 25 percent. A drainageway flows through the northwest corner of the subject site. There are no 100 year floodplains or wetlands located upon the subject site. The applicant retained Scoles and Associates, a professional wetlands consultant, to ascertain whether or not any wetland areas are present on the subject site. Exhibit C is a memorandum from Scoles and Associates addressing their findings that there are no wetlands, but there is a drainageway present on the subject site which requires a twenty five foot buffer setback. Based upon topographic data gathered through surveying the subject site, there are slopes greater than or equal to twenty five percent located upon the subject site, see Exhibit A. However, there is no building of any kind proposed within these areas of the subject site due to the fact that they are contained within a common open space tract located in the northwest corner of the site or a private conservation easement along the northeast boundary of the site. Therefore, Chapter 18.84 is not applicable to this application. CHAPTER 18.88 SOLAR ACCESS REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED FINDING: As per the provisions of the 18.88.040(C), the basic design standard requirement for solar access is that 80 percent of the proposed lots have a north/south dimension of ninety feet or more and a front lot line oriented within 30 degrees of a true east/west axis. As depicted on Exhibit A, fourteen of the twenty two proposed lots involved in this application satisfy both of these criteria, or 64% of the lots. Section 18.88.040(E) provides for adjustments to the eighty percent design'standard if compliance would, amongst other factors, cause adverse impacts on density or increases in development costs. Both of these factors are applicable to the subject site due to the fact that compliance would cause a reduction in the proposed lots causing a loss of density and a corresponding increase in development costs. As per the provisions of Section 18.88.040(E)(1)(a), connection into the existing roadway pattern is required by this application which does not allow compliance with the eighty percent design standard. All future single family detached residences constructed on the subject site will be reviewed for solar balance point standards through the building permit process. CHAPTER 18.92 DENSITY COMPUTATIONS PROPOSED FINDING: As per the applicable provisions of this chapter, the density calculations for this twenty two lot preliminary subdivision plat application, as depicted on Exhibit A, are as follows: Gross Site Area 5.15 Ac. MINUS Public Rights-of-way (20%) 1.03 Ac. Private Streets 0.10 Ac. Slopes >25% 0.09 Ac. Drainageway 0.13 Ac. Net Site Area 3.80 Ac. Convert to Acres (x 43,560 S.F.) 165,528 S.F. DIVIDED BY R-4.5 Minimum Lot Area 7,500 S.F. Calculated Lots 22.07 Lots Total Allowable Lots = Calculated Lots + Lot for Existing Residence = 22.07 + 0 = 22.07 = 22 Ashwood Homes & Wingate Homes - Ventura Estates City of Tigard Preliminary Planned Development Subdivision Plat Application Page 2 The total of twenty two lots proposed through this application equals the allowable total for the subject site. There is no residential density transfer proposed through this application. CHAPTER 18.100 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING PROPOSED FINDING: As per the provisions of 18.100.030 and 18.100.035, street trees will be provided through the construction of this planned development subdivision. Tentative street tree location in satisfaction of these provisions are depicted on Exhibit A, the preliminary planned development subdivision plat. Due to the fact that the type of existing surrounding development is the same as that proposed through this application, namely single family detached residences, the buffering and screening provisions from this chapter are not applicable to this application. The underlying R-4.5 setbacks will be applicable to homes constructed on lots around the perimeter of the subject site. CHAPTER 18.102 VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS PROPOSED FINDING: In satisfaction of the applicable provisions of this chapter, this twenty two lot planned development preliminary subdivision plat can be constructed to comply with the intersection visual clearance requirements for both the proposed private and public streets. CHAPTER 18.106 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED FINDING: As per the provisions of the 18.106.030(A)(1), the single family detached residences involved in this application are required to provide 2 off-street parking spaces for each dwelling and, as per 18.106.020(H)(1), these spaces must be located on the same lot as the dwelling. All twenty two of the lots proposed through this application will meet both of these provisions through the future driveways and garages located on each lot. CHAPTER 18.150 TREE REMOVAL PROPOSED FINDING: As depicted on Exhibit A, the preliminary planned development subdivision plat, there are trees located on the subject site which meet the six inch or greater caliper at four feet from ground level definition contained with this chapter. Therefore, a tree plan is required for this application in accordance with the applicable provisions of this chapter. Exhibit D, included with this application submittal package, is a tree plan for mitigation of trees greater than 12 inches in diameter being removed and preservation of the existing trees being retained by Mazany Arborculture Consultants. This application will retain greater than 75% of the healthy tree diameter inches greater than twelve inches on the subject site. In summary, this tree plan is provided in satisfaction of Section 18.150.025 and meets the applicable provisions of Section 18.150.060. CHAPTER 18.160 LAND DIVISION: SUBDIVISION PROPOSED FINDING: The administration and approval processes required through 18.160.020 and 18.160.030 will be satisfied through the City of Tigard's preliminary subdivision plat processing. In addition, being a planned development, this application is subject to the administrative and approval processes contained within Chapter 18.80. There is no land capable of further division under existing zoning located upon the subject site and therefore, no future phases are involved in this application. The preliminary plat information required by 18.160.070 which is applicable to the subject site is included on Exhibit A, included with this application submittal package. There are no variances requested by this application to the provisions of Chapter 18.160. The Ashwood Homes & Wingate Homes - Ventura Estates City of Tigard Preliminary Planned Development Subdivision Plat Application Page 3 ' sections of this chapter involving final plat improvements, bonding, centerline monumentation and recording will be satisfied through the final plat processing upon preliminary plat approval of this application. CHAPTER 18.964 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS PROPOSED FINDING: In satisfaction of the applicable provisions of Section 18.164.030, the subdivision proposed through this application will take access from Locust Street, an existing public right-of-way, along the west boundary of the subject site. As depicted on Exhibit A, the preliminary planned development subdivision plat, development of the subject site will include both a fifty foot public right-of-way with thirty two feet of pavement and a forty six public street right-of-way with a minimum of twenty eight of pavement. The proposed public streets and the private street conform to the Section 18.164.030 provisions related to minimum widths, street grades, centerline curve radii, intersection spacing, intersection angles. The cul-de-sac proposed through this application is designed as a one way circular travel lane due to topography on this portion of the site. This design provides for safe and adequate vehicular access without the need for extensive fill and cut grading impacts. The design of the preliminary plat satisfies the lot and block provisions contained within Section 18.164.040 and Section 18.164.060. In satisfaction of 18.164.070, sidewalks will be constructed along both sides of the public street being created to serve the subject site. A preliminary utilities plan is included on Exhibit A depicting the locations of the sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer systems necessary to serve development of the subject site in accordance with Section 18.164.090 and Section 18.164.100. Utilities will be placed underground during construction of this development in satisfaction of Section 18.164.120. Exhibit E, included with this application submittal package, is the preliminary storm sewer system calculations and downstream analysis required by City of Tigard for preliminary subdivision plat applications. The provisions of Section 18.164.030(K), cul-de-sac design, are applicable to this application given the proposed street design depicted on Exhibit A. The length of the proposed street terminating in a cul-de-sac is approximately 380 feet in length which is less than the 400 foot maximum. IMPACT STUDY In satisfaction of the applicable provisions of 18.32.050(B)(5), this twenty two lot preliminary planned development subdivision plat application needs to address the effects of the proposed development on the transportation, drainage, water, and sewer systems serving the subject site. Impacts to and adequacy of the transportation and drainage systems are addressed through exhibits included with this application submittal package. Based upon information provided through the pre-application meeting, and subsequent discussions, with City of Tigard engineering staff, the existing water and sanitary sewer systems are adequate sized and have capacity available to serve a development of the size proposed. The identified transportation system improvements that will be required to be constructed by the applicant, primarily extension of Locust Street and internal local street construction, are acceptable as proportional to the traffic impact of this development. The drainage system improvements, including an internal storm sewer collection and water quality facility, are in accordance with existing city regulations and are acceptable as proportional to the drainage system impact of this development. The sanitary sewer and water system improvements depicted on Exhibit A Ashwood Homes & Wingate Homes - Ventura Estates City of Tigard Preliminary Planned Development Subdivision Plat Application Page 4 VENTURA ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NARRATIVE Submitted: Of/yy' December 14, 1998 ~s~ Ge_ 1 ~1 X 1?Aq*ef4hv4 C14hi T~ /q X99 y VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NARRATIVE APPLICANT: Ashwood Homes 8760 SW Pacer Dr. Beaverton, OR 97008-6915 Wingate Homes 15840 s. Pope Lane Oregon City, OR 97045 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Ken Sandblast Land Solutions, Inc. P.O. Box 38 9140 S.E. St. Helens Street Clackamas, OR 97015 Tel: 722-8585 Fax: 722-8555 LOCATION: South side of S.W. Ventura Drive, at the termini of Locust Street and S.W. 7e. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Assessor's Map 1 S-1 W-36AA Tax Lots 601 and 700 SITE AREA: 5.15 Acres ZONING: R-4.5 APPROVAL CRITERIA: City of Tigard Municipal Code Title 18, Zoning APPLICANT'S REQUESTED APPROVAL: Preliminary Plat approval for the creation of a twenty two (22) lot Planned Development Subdivision. This report will address the applicable standards and review criteria of the City of Tigard's Zoning Codes and Comprehensive Plan. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page City of Tigard Applicable Policies and Findings 1-4 Impact Study 4-5 Supplemental Maps, Illustrations and Exhibits Size Washington County Tax Assessor Map of Site 8.5" x 11" Exhibit A - Preliminary Subdivision Plat (2 Copies) 8.5" x 11" (18 Copies) 24" x 36" Exhibit B - Traffic Impact Memorandum 8.5" x 11" Exhibit C - Wetland Delineation Memorandum 8.5" x 11" Exhibit D - Arborculture Tree Plan 8.5" x 11" Exhibit E - Preliminary Storm Sewer Calculations 8.5" x 11" And Downstream Analysis Exhibit F - Geotechnical Study 8.5" x 11" (i) ~/J? L ~~f • SEE MAP • IS 1 25DD t g VENTURA DRIVE S.W. NpN-VECNIIE Aar STRIP _ 1~ 91.171 1 ( NORTH j LINE Tr. DAU S VAC 200 War z7 400 301 201 4 9-, 601 8 6.6~ N:71~ w~ - 226 AG 7600 1> 700 PARCEL IiI 18 2.75 Ac. 1.87AC. I .62 AC. 6\ 2.40 AG Q , d e0' _ 1 a0 1 ~ 160. - Y, '1 o 0 4 `-30 W- PARCEL I PARCEL 'II •o •=''c 2 0 $ 7700 = )1/- Q r a ~ see°sa'sa"E I % 130 65 65 _ n 7100 7200 • ° (CS 12,9431 m a it m N 5 6 - Q 6 s' 65' LOCUST STq 6~g3 6493 6900 7000 ` - '.m W S e4° 44 E o 3 4 S Iro _ 160' _ o 0 N t n 20 " I a- 701 g eq'4aE - z -102 34 AC. en ,44E as 64.76 64F G' .25 AC , o o~ F 300 ^ w v' is 0 124.52 j N -^W1 ° .21 X. 1 } a ° ~n 6H00 t/~ W' N B9°4!•W ' o -Ind 2 ted 93 so ? J 140 1400 -600 INlT14l 60 75 .58 AC. .43 AC. POINT 1005 toot 0 0 I55.40 0 .17 AG W .25 AC. N59127 W 135.4o Z :3 0 T n 1 $ I CHICAGO } 7400 7s W " ~r .56AC W I -This plat is for your aid in :0 1000 locating your land with relerence $ W°• t7AC. Z to streets and other parcels I '-O $ 75' ° While this plat is believed to N_ w s 199~J- S ,91.60 E be correct, the company assumes o 1001 no liability for any loss oocwring z Z` 1201 by reason of reltan-c~e~ibereon 0 . 43 AC. t / 129.94 u ^ ^ / 7500 1007 •~^'o - 1 - - CHKAGOT11lEwSUi►A►~CECAwP6Ml N . 20 A c. . I7Ac. 'n 12 It wool s E suwkysior. adAO / `L u ' r 0 a ? J CLACKAMaS.OQECn71 VOIS S qq* kit Cop. FROST 121.71 ` 75 _ 900 1 t 00 6c I es 802 r, 2s AC. P, AC / ' t 66~'~, w PI •A., '•f• .S'~ a•,I t ~ r,. }h ti p' • , .t,• `N89' 7 15 W 's 'I xi-)200:00,•;.: . •q"' fl'~ t.t' .v.~• '.f•[il°y~' Vii' t,:' •I, I'1,,,xf,,. „'1.. . i .1 .:7:. I ~1~ I A i..• ,1 M t l V 1 F I N D I N G S This application involves subdividing the subject site into a total of twenty two lots as a planned develepment. The subject site consists of Tax Lots 601 and 700 of T1 S-R1 W-36AA. In addition to the preliminary planned development subdivision plat application, this project also involves a tree removal/mitigation plan. The subject site is approximately 5.15 acres in size and the topography of the site ranges between 10 to 20 percent, with less than 10 percent slopes in the southeast and slopes greater than 25 percent in the northwest corner. This application is being proposed as a planned development so that the plat may be designed to: (i) avoid building on those portions of the subject site which exceed 25 percent slope and (ii) to minimize impacts to the existing trees located on the subject site. The single family detached lots being created range in size from approximately 5,070 S.F. to 11,519 S.F., with an average lot size of approximately 7,184 S.F.. These lots will be served via a fifty foot wide public right-of-way extension of S.W. Locust Street, with both a forty six wide public right-of-way street terminating in a cul-de-sac and a twenty five foot private drive providing internal site circulation. The follwing chapters and sections of the City of Tigard Zoning Code are applicable to this preliminary planned development subdivision plat application based upon: (i) existing conditions present upon and surrounding the subject site, (ii) requirements conveyed by Tigard staff during the pre-application meeting held for this project, (iii) a review of Chapter 18, and (iv) a neighborhood meeting held to discuss this proposal with interested parties prior to submission of this application: CHAPTER 18.50 R-4.5: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED FINDING: In satisfaction of the applicable provisions of this chapter, this twenty two lot preliminary subdivision plat application will create single family detached residential lots, a permitted use in the R-4.5 district (Section 18.50.030). Single family detached residences may be constructed on the twenty two vacant parcels being created in satisfaction of the yard setback requirements and height limitations (Section 18.50.050). CHAPTER 18.40 ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED FINDING: In satisfaction of Section 18.40.040, Residential Density Transfer, this twenty two lot preliminary planned development subdivision plat application will not exceed 125 percent of the allowed density in the adjacent existing residential areas. CHAPTER 18.80 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED FINDING: In satisfaction of Section 18.80.060, this twenty two lot preliminary subdivision plat is proposed as a planned development to efficiently utilize land while retaining the drainageway natural feature present on the subject site and minimizing impacts to the existing trees. Single family detached residential homes can be sited on each of the lots being created that satisfy the coverage, height and setback provisions of Section 18.80.080. Ashwood Homes & Wingate Homes - Ventura Estates City of Tigard Preliminary Planned Development Subdivision Plat Application Page 1 r CHAPTER 18.84 SENSITIVE LANDS PROPOSED FINDING: Section 18.84.010 defines land unsuitable for development due to its location within: (i) 100 year floodplains, (ii) natural drainageways (iii) wetlands or (iv) slope areas greater than or equal to 25 percent. A drainageway flows through the northwest corner of the subject site. There are no 100 year floodplains or wetlands located upon the subject site. The applicant retained Scoles and Associates, a professional wetlands consultant, to ascertain whether or not any wetland areas are present on the subject site. Exhibit C is a memorandum from Scoles and Associates addressing their findings that there are no wetlands, but there is a drainageway present on the subject site which requires a twenty five foot buffer setback. Based upon topographic data gathered through surveying the subject site, there are slopes greater than or equal to twenty five percent located upon the subject site, see Exhibit A. However, there is no building of any kind proposed within these areas of the subject site due to the fact that they are contained within a common open space tract located in the northwest corner of the site or a private conservation easement along the northeast boundary of the site. Therefore, Chapter 18.84 is not applicable to this application. CHAPTER 18.88 SOLAR ACCESS REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED FINDING: As per the provisions of the 18.88.040(C), the basic design standard requirement for solar access is that 80 percent of the proposed lots have a north/south dimension of ninety feet or more and a front lot line oriented within 30 degrees of a true east/west axis. As depicted on Exhibit A, fourteen of the twenty two proposed lots involved in this application satisfy both of these criteria, or 64% of the lots. Section 18.88.040(E) provides for adjustments to the eighty percent design standard if compliance would, amongst other factors, cause adverse impacts on density or increases in development costs. Both of these factors are applicable to the subject site due to the fact that compliance would cause a reduction in the proposed lots causing a loss of density and a corresponding increase in development costs. As per the provisions of Section 18.88.040(E)(1)(a), connection into the existing roadway pattern is required by this application which does not allow compliance with the eighty percent design standard. All future single family detached residences constructed on the subject site will be reviewed for solar balance point standards through the building permit process. CHAPTER 18.92 DENSITY COMPUTATIONS PROPOSED FINDING: As per the applicable provisions of this chapter, the density calculations for this twenty two lot preliminary subdivision plat application, as depicted on Exhibit A, are as follows: Gross Site Area 5.15 Ac. MINUS Public Rights-of-way (20%) 1.03 Ac. Private Streets 0.10 Ac. Slopes >25% 0.09 Ac. Drainageway 0.13 Ac. Net Site Area 3.80 Ac. Convert to Acres (x 43,560 S.F.) 165,528 S.F. DIVIDED BY R-4.5 Minimum Lot Area 7,500 S.F. Calculated Lots 22.07 Lots Total Allowable Lots = Calculated Lots + Lot for Existing Residence = 22.07 + 0 = 22.07 = 22 Ashwood Homes 8 Wingate Homes - Ventura Estates City of Tigard Preliminary Planned Development Subdivision Plat Application Page 2 The total of twenty two lots proposed through this application equals the allowable total for the subject site. There is no residential density transfer proposed through this application. CHAPTER 18.100 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING PROPOSED FINDING: As per the provisions of 18.100.030 and 18.100.035, street trees will be provided through the construction of this planned development subdivision. Tentative street tree location in satisfaction of these provisions are depicted on Exhibit A, the preliminary planned development subdivision plat. Due to the fact that the type of existing surrounding development is the same as that proposed through this application, namely single family detached residences, the buffering and screening provisions from this chapter are not applicable to this application. The underlying R-4.5 setbacks will be applicable to homes constructed on lots around the perimeter of the subject site. CHAPTER 18.102 VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS PROPOSED FINDING: In satisfaction of the applicable provisions of this chapter, this twenty two lot planned development preliminary subdivision plat can be constructed to comply with the intersection visual clearance requirements for both the proposed private and public streets. CHAPTER 18.106 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED FINDING: As per the provisions of the 18.106.030(A)(1), the single family detached residences involved in this application are required to provide 2 off-street parking spaces for each dwelling and, as per 18.106.020(H)(1), these spaces must be located on the same lot as the dwelling. All twenty two of the lots proposed through this application will meet both of these provisions through the future driveways and garages located on each lot. CHAPTER 18.150 TREE REMOVAL PROPOSED FINDING: As depicted on Exhibit A, the preliminary planned development subdivision plat, there are trees located on the subject site which meet the six inch or greater caliper at four feet from ground level definition contained with this chapter. Therefore, a tree plan is required for this application in accordance with the applicable provisions of this chapter. Exhibit D, included with this application submittal package, is a tree plan for mitigation of trees greater than 12 inches in diameter being removed and preservation of the existing trees being retained by Mazany Arborculture Consultants. This application will retain greater than 75% of the healthy tree diameter inches greater than twelve inches on the subject site. In summary, this tree plan is provided in satisfaction of Section 18.150.025 and meets the applicable provisions of Section 18.150.060. CHAPTER 18.160 LAND DIVISION: SUBDIVISION PROPOSED FINDING: The administration and approval processes required through 18.160.020 and 18.160.030 will be satisfied through the City of Tigard's preliminary subdivision plat processing. In addition, being a planned development, this application is subject to the administrative and approval processes contained within Chapter 18.80. There is no land capable of further division under existing zoning located upon the subject site and therefore, no future phases are involved in this application. The preliminary plat information required by 18.160.070 which is applicable to the subject site is included on Exhibit A, included with this application submittal package. There are no variances requested by this application to the provisions of Chapter 18.160. The Ashwood Homes & Wingate Homes - Ventura Estates City of Tigard Preliminary Planned Development Subdivision Plat Application Page 3 i sections of this chapter involving final plat improvements, bonding, centerline monumentation and recording will be satisfied through the final plat processing upon preliminary plat approval of this application. CHAPTER 18.164 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS PROPOSED FINDING: In satisfaction of the applicable provisions of Section 18.164.030, the subdivision proposed through this application will take access from Locust Street, an existing public right-of-way, along the west boundary of the subject site. As depicted on Exhibit A, the preliminary planned development subdivision plat, development of the subject site will include both a fifty foot public right-of-way with thirty two feet of pavement and a forty six public street right-of-way with a minimum of twenty eight of pavement. The proposed public streets and the private street conform to the Section 18.164.030 provisions related to minimum widths, street grades, centerline curve radii, intersection spacing, intersection angles. The cul-de-sac proposed through this application is designed as a one way circular travel lane due to topography on this portion of the site. This design provides for safe and adequate vehicular access without the need for extensive fill and cut grading impacts. The design of the preliminary plat satisfies the lot and block provisions contained within Section 18.164.040 and Section 18.164.060. In satisfaction of 18.164.070, sidewalks will be constructed along both sides of the public street being created to serve the subject site. A preliminary utilities plan is included on Exhibit A depicting the locations of the sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer systems necessary to serve development of the subject site in accordance with Section 18.164.090 and Section 18.164.100. Utilities will be placed underground during construction of this development in satisfaction of Section 18.164.120. Exhibit E, included with this application submittal package, is the preliminary storm sewer system calculations and downstream analysis required by City of Tigard for preliminary subdivision plat applications. The provisions of Section 18.164.030(K), cul-de-sac design, are applicable to this application given the proposed street design depicted on Exhibit A. The length of the proposed street terminating in a cul-de-sac is approximately 380 feet in length which is less than the 400 foot maximum. IMPACT STUDY In satisfaction of the applicable provisions of 18.32.050(8)(5), this twenty two lot preliminary planned development subdivision plat application needs to address the effects of the proposed development on the transportation, drainage, water, and sewer systems serving the subject site. Impacts to and adequacy of the transportation and drainage systems are addressed through exhibits included with this application submittal package. Based upon information provided through the pre-application meeting, and subsequent discussions, with City of Tigard engineering staff, the existing water and sanitary sewer systems are adequate sized and have capacity available to serve a development of the size proposed. The identified transportation system improvements that will be required to be constructed by the applicant, primarily extension of Locust Street and internal local street construction, are acceptable as proportional to the traffic impact of this development. The drainage system improvements, including an internal storm sewer collection and water quality facility, are in accordance with existing city regulations and are acceptable as proportional to the drainage system impact of this development. The sanitary sewer and water system improvements depicted on Exhibit A Ashwood Homes & Wingate Homes - Ventura Estates City of Tigard Preliminary Planned Development Subdivision Plat Application Page 4 which are necessary to serve the subject site are acceptable as proportional to the impacts of this development. The short term noise impacts of this development include construction noise generated during development of the site. While in the long term, the single family residential nature of this development will generate noise levels compatible with the surrounding existing single family neighborhoods. CONCLUSION Based upon compliance with all applicable review criteria as addressed herein above, the applicant requests the City of Tigard approve this application for a twenty two lot planned development subdivision. Ashwood Homes & Wingate Homes - Ventura Estates City of Tigard Preliminary Planned Development Subdivision Plat Application Page 5 STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS INCLUDING SITE AND DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS FOR VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION January 1999 Prepared by: Compass Engineering 6564 S.E. Lake Road Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 (503) 653-9093 Project No. 98-4237 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION STORM SYSTEM AND DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS Introduction: The proposed storm sewer system for this residential subdivision will consist of capturing roadway surface water run-off through a series of catch basins and directing the water through a main line storm pipe to the open space tract located at the northeast end of the project. The design for the storm sewer system will include provisions for the collection and conveyance of rooftop drain spout runoff into the main line storm pipe. The open space tract will have a water quality Swale. The water quality Swale will be designed to filter out phosphorous and other pollutants and will provide adequate runoff treatment prior to being discharged into the Ash Creek tributary. Storm Drainage to Tributary Upon conveyance of the surface water runoff to the northeast end of the subject site, the treatment storm flow will pass through a water quality Swale located in the open space tract and subsequently discharge into a 12" culvert. The storm runoff' flows through the culvert into a storm system in Ventura Avenue. A 12" pipe extends in a northwesterly direction from the culvert approximately 100 feet at an approximate slope of 8% to a storm manhole in Ventura Ave. The storm flow then turns to the west for approximately 125 feet at an approximate slope of 5% to another storm manhole. A catch basin from Ventura Avenue also connects to this manhole. The storm flow then discharges through a 12" pipe into a waterway which is a tributary to Ash Creek. The undeveloped storm runoff flows for the subdivision are 1.67 cfs for a 25 year, 24 hour storm and 2.17 cfs for a 100-yr, 24 hour storm. The developed 24 hour storm runoff flows for the site are 3.07 cfs for the 25 year, 24 hour storm and 3.70 cfs for the 100 year, (see attached stormwater calculations report). The increase in flow is 1.40 cfs for the 25 year, 24 hour storm and 1.53 cfs for the 100 year, 24 hour storm. The 12" ~ pipes in Ventura Avenue at 5% slope provide a flow capacity of 8 cfs. Currently, the only flow to the pipe system is approximately 500 feet of street (15,000 s.£) and approximately 10 homes (100,000 sf) as well as the undeveloped site (5 acres). The above area is equal to approximately 7.6 acres. Assuming the same conditions as the Ventura Estates subdivision, a calculated flow of 4.6 cfs for a 25 year, 24 hour storm and 5.5 cfs for a 100 year, 24 hour storm would be expected. The increased flows from the developed subdivision would increase the flows in the pipes to 6.0 cfs and 7.03 cfs for the 25-year, 24 hour and 100-year, 24 hour storms, respectively. These flows are still less than the flow provided (8 cfs). Therefore, the 12" ~ pipes in Ventura Avenue are adequate. Tributary to 1/4 Mile Downstream: The tributary joins Ash Creek at approximately SW Hall Boulevard and SW Landau in Metzger County Park. The tributary is constrained at SW 80`h Avenue, just north of SW Landau St. by two culverts. The primary culvert is a newer 60" ~ CMP pipe. The secondary culvert is 48" ~ CMP and is half-filled with silt. The 60" ~ pipe has a slope of approximately 2.5%. The 48" ~ pipe slope was difficult to estimate, but a slope of 2% was assumed. These structures are side by side JAY/als January 1999 N:\CLER\FINAL\Schedu1es\4237 Storm System Analysis.doc with the stream flow directed towards the 60" ~ CMP pipe. The stream grade in this area is approximately 1.5%. SW 80`k' Avenue is approximately 1/2 mile downstream from the site. Due to fences and private property conflicts, it is difficult to analyze the tributary at the 1/4 mile downstream point. However, the culverts at SW 80'' Avenue, approximately 1/2 mile downstream from the site, provide an opportunity for an evaluation. Also, the tributary provides more storage and flow capacity than at 80"' Avenue culverts. The tributary upstream has a wider channel bottom, deeper channel depth (by several feet) and approximately the same channel slope. Therefore, the culverts will be used in the downstream analysis. The drainage basin area to the 1/2 mile downstream point is approximately 612 acres (see Figure 1). Assuming 66% pervious area and 33% impervious area, the 25-year, 24 hour storm runoff flow for this drainage area is 259 cfs. The 100 year, 24 hour storm runoff flow is 313 cfs. (See attached downstream analysis report). Using Manning's formula with a manning's "n" of 0.022 for corrugated metal pipe, a 48" ~ pipe flowing full with slope of 2% has a capacity of 120 cfs and a 60" ~ pipe flowing full has a capacity of 243 cfs. (See Civil Tools sheets attached). With both culverts operating in unison, there is adequate flow capacity for both the 25-year, 24 hour and the 100-year, 24 hour storm events. A discussion regarding the tributary channel should be included. The channel at SW 80"' Avenue has a bottom width of 6'±, top width of 8'±, and a depth of 4'±. The channel slope is approximately 1.5%. These channel parameters provide a flow capacity of 110 cfs. 110 cfs is significantly less than the flow of a 100 year storm. However, this tributary may overflow its banks into its floodplain. There does not appear to be any structures on either side of the tributary within this flood plain. Structures noted were visibly higher in elevation. To our knowledge, there is no identified floodplain per the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Summary: Based upon information obtained through a detailed survey of the subject site, field observations, an analysis of the Ash Creek tributary drainage basin from U.S.G.S. Beaverton and Lake Oswego quadrangle topographic maps, a downstream analysis for the Ash Creek tributary has been explored for this project. It appears that no adverse impacts will be caused as a result of the construction of this project. In looking at the total run-off volume from this site, we estimate that the project will contribute approximately 1% of the drainage volume at a point 1/2 mile downstream. Therefore, it is proposed that no detention will be provided for this development. Removal of silt from the 48" ~ culvert could be required by this project to assure a 100-year flood event will pass SW 80th. JAY/als January 1999 NACLL'RTINAL\Schedules\4237 Stonn System Analysis.doc I ' ~ 2 Srh)~o-~~- l (`SW~~A_A aL~ 3 ~J i- ~ ~l ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-J l I. - :ij,c?~4" / _ ~ - • •i~~~. ~-jam / - 1Z)~ , y ~o° ms • • • . • CULVERT AT 80th AVENUE m th - ~i - = ss . • ~ ,•I 1 o " 1/4 MILE DOWNSTREAM Q .viler 5 : '•~n• ( T . n ~ cc vF'~ j -1 i hl •t1w. ~ o l - 13 . I• a .s °T,~ R v f •t R ti j :t [ 71 2so r n~r1.116r," =1 3 7I r~ e_ :J'`~_z . _ • r_ rt 1 , ch • U ,ti .IT •.y{// • •u a - w. ~ "--J• ~ - g`• d 1 .d! • SITE - >I:. i, ~r ~~l - • ' G t'IGreeribu 1_.~ n• • r /ud'/, • r ` ;''1` aA;o y-_ r / 1 11 DRAINAGE DAWN . ill~;~~ :'I~ y~ j~~~.,,:_ log C ,t /QARD c~.'~`•~ L~,•N.- _I~ 'llx!i~_r•~~I. 2 i~~" 20\• Illr~i' •~I ♦ - Ili ~1 ; C Q~ / • _ . :.11' _ ..71 \ ~2 / / I 1 1 ~ . rL:~ ~ ` ~ _ \ -__.750-~, Project 1/2 Mile Downstream Runoff Contribution - - - 31I c d g oi- 5 Acres - - 1 • 8~j - So„ / I i v (2T,'= 612 Acres =0.82% ~C L• 9 ` ' e>•,~ is EC• ~ ~ P - , r, • ~ 1 •'t ~ Approximately 1% :True ` (yy Q 'i!!•''' t y ~r,L:++, r' Igo ui-~•s, , ~:~abse._ •ly\ ~ ~ ' ' i. • GC7; ;.'~'1• O • I G 14ELROSE r\` 1 ./iL ..~Il • I -i i Il/. d, sb:a.••.~~'•~~~~ 1~•(~tt_~`~~ • ~j ~I _ ~ \'A"-' \ ~ ~ 1 FIGURE 1 z^ \I 1 AM ► FARM \ \ • 1 1 /I t 1 1 AIRroRI. •7_~al / MAN-MADE CHANNELS VARIABLES LIST: Y - FLOW DEPTH B - CHANNEL BOTTOM WIDTH S - CHANNEL SLOPE Q - FLOWRATE M - CHANNEL SIDE SLOPE N - CHANNEL ROUGHNESS VARIABLE TO BE SOLVED (Y,Q,B,M,S OR N) ? Q Y (FT) ? 4 RESULTS B (FT) ? 6 M (FT/FT) ? 4 Q= 110.24 CFS S (FT/FT) ? 0.015 A= 88.00 SF N (FT-1/6) ? .25 P= 38.98 FT V= 1.25 FPS F= 0.15 SUB-CRITICAL FLOW G(jL.V ERTS AT 80" AVLNVE SEWER PIPES Enter up to 10 pipes. Enter <Return> only for flowrate and diameter to end. FLOWRATE DIAMETER FRICTION SLOPE VELOCITY (CFS) (IN) (FT^1/6) M (FPS) 243.33 60.00 0.0220 2.50 12.39 120.04 48.00 0.0220 2.00 9.55 l iCAPrO -A Am SEWER PIPES Enter up to 10 pipes. Enter <Return> only for flowrate and diameter to end. FLOWRATE DIAMETER FRICTION SLOPE VELOCITY (CFS) (IN) (FT-1/6) M (FPS) 3.70 12.00 0.0130 1.08 4.71 7.97 12.00 0.0130 5.00 10.14 Ci~i~ Tio LS 1t*jAA1Afj A) 4 S t-1,4 G i SAJ T S TABLE 3.3 Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n, for Pipe Flows Manning's n Type of Pipe Min. Max. Glass. brass, or copper 0.009 0.013 Smooth cement surface 0.010 0.013 Wood-stave 0.010 0.013 Vitrified sewer pipe 0.010 0.017 Cast-iron 0.011 0.015 Concrete, precast 0.011 0.015 Cement mortar surfaces 0.011 0.015 Common-clay drainage tile 0.011 0.017 Wrought iron 0.012 0.017 Brick with cement mortar 0.012 0.017 Riveted-steel 0.017 0.020 Cement rubble surfaces 0.017 0.030 Corrugated metal storm drain 0.020 0.024 A"RO M : Fvr~44 A Al *A Al Is W f/ydraa/ %c x. #Ao, /N97 r DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS FOR VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION FOR CITY OF TIGARD January 1999 Prepared by: Compass Engineering 6564 S.E. Lake Road Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 (503) 653-9093 Project No. 98-4237 Locust Street Subdivision Downstream Analysis Area drainage Ash Creek tributary: A = 612 acres APer = 408 acres (assumed) (0.666) AimP = 204 acres (assumed) (0.333) CN = 86 pervious CN = 98 impervious Time of Concentration: T, = L (shallow concentrated flow) 60V L = 8580' k = 10 (short grass) S = 0.085 v = 1040.085 - 2.9 ft/s t2 = 8580 - 493 ) min 60(2.9) Te = 49 min Peak Flows: 25 yr., 24 hr., QP = 259 cfs C:\4237_25.hyd 100 yr., 24 hr., QP = 313 cfs C:\4237_100.hyd (See computer printouts from King County) N:\CLER\FINAL\Schedules\4237 Downstream Analysis.doc 2 SBUH/SCS METHOD FOR COMPUTING RUNOFF HYDROGRAPH STORM OPTIONS: 1 - S.C.S. TYPE-lA 2 - 7-DAY DESIGN STORM 3 - STORM DATA FILE SPECIFY STORM OPTION: 1 S.C.S. TYPE-lA RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ENTER: FREQ(YEAR), DURATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES) 25,24,3.90 S.C.S. TYPE-lA DISTRIBUTION 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM 3.90" TOTAL PRECIP. ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 408,86,204,98,49 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN 612.0 408.0 86.0 204.0 98.0 49.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) 258.97 8.00 6294738 ENTER [d:][path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 4 2 3 7_2.5 . hyd SPECIFY: C - CONTINUE, N - NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP n STORM OPTIONS: 1 - S.C.S. TYPE-lA 2 - 7-DAY DESIGN STORM 3 - STORM DATA FILE SPECIFY STORM OPTION: 1 S.C.S. TYPE-lA RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ENTER: FREQ(YEAR), DURATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES) 100,24,4.50 S.C.S. TYPE-lA DISTRIBUTION 100-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM 4.50" TOTAL PRECIP. ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 408,86,204,98,49 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN 612.0 408.0 86.0 204.0 98.0 49.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) 313.09 7.83 7523879 ENTER [d:][path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 4237_100.hyd SPECIFY: C - CONTINUE, N - NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP s KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Surface Water Management Division HYDROGRAPH PROGRAMS Version 4.21B 1 - INFO ON THIS PROGRAM 2 - SBUHYD 3 - MODIFIED SBUHYD 4 - ROUTE 5 - ROUTE2 6 - ADDHYD 7 - BASEFLOW 8 - PLOTHYD 9 - DATA 10 - RDFAC 11 - RETURN TO DOS ENTER OPTION: 2 SBUH/SCS METHOD FOR COMPUTING RUNOFF HYDROGRAPH STORM OPTIONS: 1 - S.C.S. TYPE-lA 2 - 7-DAY DESIGN STORM 3 - STORM DATA FILE SPECIFY STORM OPTION: 1 S.C.S. TYPE-lA RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ENTER: FREQ(YEAR), DURATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES) 0,0,0 S.C.S. TYPE-lA DISTRIBUTION 0-YEAR 0-HOUR STORM .00" TOTAL PRECIP. STORMWATER CALCULATIONS AND WATER QUALITY SWALE DESIGN for VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION for CITY OF TIGARD January 1999 Prepared by: Compass Engineering 6564 5E Lake Road Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 (503) 653-9093 Project No.: 98-4237 JAY/als January 1999 NACLL'R\FlNA1_\Schcdulesk4237 Stone Calculations VENTURA ESTATES Obiective: Hydrographs for the 25 year-24 hour and 100 year-24 hour storms for the site are developed using the King County-Santa Barbara Unit Hydrograph Method. Peak flows for the developed and undeveloped areas are presented. Site Analvsis: Total Area: 224,300 s.f. = 5.15 acres Soil type: Cornelius Variant, Hydrologic Group: C (USGS Soil Survey for Washington County) Helvetia, Hydrologic Group: C Pre-developed: Curve number, pervious: 81 (wood or forest land) Curve number, impervious: 98 (King County Surface Water Design Manual) Developed: Curve number, pervious: 86 (lawn) Curve number, impervious: 98 Developed area: Pervious 84,180 ft2 = 3.22 acres Impervious = 1.93 acres PT clpitation: 2 yr, 24 hr - 2.50 in/hr (USA Handbook) 5 yr, 24 hr - 3.10 in/hr 10 yr, 24 hr - 3.45 in/hr 25 yr, 24 hr - 3.90 in/hr 50 yr, 24 hr - 4.20 in/hr 100 yr, 24 hr - 4.50 in/hr Time of concentration - pre-developed T1: L = 300' (sheet flow) S = 0.10 ft/ft ns = 0.40 (woods or forest with light underbrush) I = 2.5 in/hr TC _ (0.93 Lo.6 x no" )/(10.4 X 0.3) T1 = 0.93 Q000.6x 0.400.3)0.8 = 29.9 min (2.5)0.4 (0.10)0.3 JAY/als January 1999 NACLEMFINAUSchedules14237 Storm Calculatious.doc VENTURA ESTATES Page 2 T2: L = 307' (shallow concentrated flow) v = k4sa k = 5 (brushy ground with some trees) - King County Surface Design Manual s = 0.13 ft/ft v = 540.13 = 1.80 ft/s T2 = L = 307 = 2.8 min 60V 60(l.80) T3: L = 77' (Shallow Concentrated Flow) v = k4so k = 5 s = 0.143 ft/ft v = 540.143 = 1.89 ft/s T3 = 77 = 0.7 min 60(1.89) T4: L = 60' (channel flow) k = 10 (forested drainage cover with defined channel bed) s = 0.233 ft/ft v = 1040.233 = 4.83 ft/s T4 = 60 = 0.2 min 60(4.83) Te - TI+T2+T3+T4 =29.9+2.8+0.7+0.2= 33.6 min Time of concentration - developed TI: L = 210' (sheet flow) ns = 0.15 (lawn) s = 0.12 ft/ft I = 2.5 in/hr Ti = 0.93(2 100) 6 X (0.15)03 = 17.0 min (2.5)0.4(o.12 )0.3 T2: L = 78' (sheet flow) ns = 0.011 (pavement) s = 0.026 ft/ft I = 2.5 in/hr JAY/als Jwiuary 1999 N:\CLBIL\FINfV.\Schedules~4237 Storm Calculations.doe VENTURA ESTATES Page 3 T2 = 0.93 78)06 x (0.011)°3 = 6.8 min (2.5)0.4 (0.026)0.3 T3: L = 315' (pipe flow) k = 42 (pipe) so = 0.093 ft/ft v = k4s = 4210.093 = 12.8 ft/s L = 315 = 0.4 min 60V 60(12.8) T4: L = 45' (Channel flow - pipe) Ke = 42 S = 0.01 v = 4240.01 = 4.2 ft/s T4 = L = 45 = 0.2 min 60V 60(4.2) Te - 17.0+6.8+0.4+0.2 = 22.4 min Unit Hydrogr-ph Summary (see computer printout for details) Pre-developed: 25 yr, 24 hr, Qp = 1.67 cfs A:\4237_25u.hyd 100 yr, 24 hr, Qp = 2.17 cfs A:\4237_100u.hyd Developed: 25 yr, 24 hr, Qp = 3.07 cfs AA4237_25d.hyd 100 yr, 24 hr, Qp = 3.70 cfs A:\4237_100d.hyd JAY/als January 1999 NACLGRTINADSchedulesi4237 Storm Calculations.doe 120 SOIL SURVEY TABLE 13. Soil and [Absence of an entry indicates the feature is not a concern. See Glossary for descriptions of such Soil name and Hydro- Flooding logic map symbol group Frequency Duration Months Aloha: C None Amity : 2 C None Astoria : 3E, 3F B None Briedwell : 48, 5B, 5C, 5D B None Carlton: 613, 6C B None Cascade: 7B, 7C, 7D, 7E, 7F C None Chehalem : 8C C None Chehalis : 9, 10 B Common Brief Nov-Mar Cornelius: 11113,1 IIC,'IID, 111-2 ']IF: Cornelius part C None Kinton part C None -'Cornelius Variant: 12A, 12B, 12C C None Cove: 13, 14 D Common Brief Dec-Apr Dayton: 15 D None - Delena: 16C D None Goble: 176,17C,17D,17E,ISE.18F C None -Helvetia: 19B, 19C, 19D, 19E C None Hembre : 20E, 20F, 20G B None Hillsboro : 21A, 21B, 21C, 21D B None Huberly: 22 D None Jory: 23B, 23C, 23D, 23E, 23F C None Kilchis: '24G: Kilchis part C None Klickitat part B None 1~. '~I•~.:;i•Yt.,{rt '•~I: ;,Y.I:- ~1 ..11i t~ " ,r\ .~•','Lj~~i'f. 't)til~\'~1).,{, J \ it " ;1 'i ` jt.a,f,+ :.v `r: dr's7 :S: ;,k:ay e~:c ;.i• \ ~`+:ti1•~iyyd~y, r.:ry, ) - ,1. R''• 9•;~ il. ~j'• f•. } :f~,. •'f•'• f ,I'.',. :•}t. !1 J/..)+): -t...;, '1{. •S•Jf V. ;!1. :/'k )-f! •1 .v~, s~ -uL'~,"'„,n; ~%t' ,~~•,.4s,; d't i ~'?i';'j~;~~~. •3V}{:4. •{.'hS }LrS.'. 7,. .i'~_ 'fs 'r :`f'," ~ E;7. }.•.~i{iS`~`t), ~~;,4 ,t, a h.,:: •'~5;. r la. e~4~u~~•.e i.i.'•~~,, y ~ - 't'T'f 1•:~2.~. •~{,•f;~1 •.i~'r• z;~t,~~"~ it.s~:`.•:7rri~`" i~~ ~ t U .lTy. ~1"`-. 4.; 1 K' afi7 %t, ~ l}~`~~, .i'.i :~•..ti'~.. ;i~. •a• yi-.,;;~i.~5• ''~1~.'~a~• ;~i~~~11.' r•7 ~xi :r..r'?:~:~y},: ri u' y~ =x-if r1'-~ .'rn ~ ,1;, ''s• .•1•'.` '3>:. ,,^.-;!15„''. '~Ft. ~`v. y t •'S '•+r t t Cf'4Q '•;~i J Y7 r .y'S..r{.'' O ~%i•.;J~~y~{'r ~ .'Y r• y} I S - ~"I •i . i ' l•;•° s "IY+.. 7j, day =its O ~',l;.W1~.•~ ~s'•$"+n', , y,;`i~t.i ,I i. ;:a: ~,~,~pl~,'- • "f. ' )t~.~./'1• . tf'.'/:'2K~:I'~'i, .t. ~aijt!~. m 3 n a n I. 7. S.I I. I S. (Joins sheet 44) m n I~:~.IMUrlll I R ~ .11 .lY--"~ ~ f4 t _~t.i;~ r - Iq~ 7' c all ~ :r } .,~y' _ 1 ? d:It ( pk'` j)Y ) . _t °r, f'ri ti.. pl t.l+:.:g 1 i• sm 't.'.i.{r!.' ~~`-^i•.t: 1 ~•.:~,11' e.i"•,:. •gRR)f•'• •y;,ff/ )".l..lstr.['~:r 1~ •1' • J~ 't rfi'''f!, t s`. ;x;iq. ti`;.,°~~.•°t :li~~{~: ;t?.,r• S '~I~. 7r .=.e5rtt'~ ` `1 :~t'.~~.•r .•~{Si•,f• .cif rr•'~r .d{k•','. C•GO (hl(J FEE 1 guy WO t t t I (Joins sheet 38) n T, 1 S. • _ i ;;4.i'r., 'N ::'-j~.~,L~r• '1, ~ / y ~ .1 ; G ~ N f ' A(~l. ' ~ .•N 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~''r 1L 1 ~ ~ t * rl i - p3 N J ~r r t' J„~"R= Cl ~ i } , ' .A 1 t~ r~ • ' _ l ^ a. M" t ~ ° - 1N "t ~ `CJ~ ~ %~A~, .:A {~•'..y 1' 1:~' : n' ."fi..:: 755- rD - Y ,,;~;.'`i~ . i'"''• ...tir,lra ''!''MU1,~1,, UMAF~r~•~ s L s c _ 7uf,~a RS .:,f ? t,'jy.••, atf: ,t r ''t3 .:'J y ~f - _ :1'.~~'i~t:l •;p A••7't•;.~"-•,~~1 6 i~- i` )^1;.~"%~ t{~e,,,1~~! • ~ r f~'f J 1°e, 4 r; , 7'} I} 1. f 1 ' - i~J.,, j ' "toz p;l r. r ' P ^•r t tit n j,. , y. S ~`7;~b~. ~J,tyr..d., 'J4~ '~{.s~.(~a. "4 !~1~~.-. - it. E 11 \'.''~t, 4h i•,~1 •~!t{ ~ ~,~~7ii~!!''~ w~•,~ r', ' •1'~ i+F'•t: •~}4~ r•'~-~j ''i~i ) ,7slmorJEr - i SBUH/SCS METHOD FOR COMPUTING RUNOFF HYDROGRAPH STORM OPTIONS: 1 - S.C.S. TYPE-lA 2 - 7-DAY DESIGN STORM 3 - STORM DATA FILE SPECIFY STORM OPTION: ^C 2 SBUH/SCS METHOD FOR COMPUTING RUNOFF HYDROGRAPH STORM OPTIONS: 1 - S.C.S. TYPE-lA 2 - 7-DAY DESIGN STORM 3 - STORM DATA FILE SPECIFY STORM OPTION: 1 S.C.S. TYPE-lA RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ENTER: FREQ(YEAR), DURATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES) 25,24,3.9 S.C.S. TYPE-lA DISTRIBUTION 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM 3.90" TOTAL PRECIP. ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 5.15,81,0,98,33.6 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN 5.2 5.2 81.0 .0 98.0 33.6 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) 1.67 7.83 37847 ENTER [d:][path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: a:\4237_25u.hyd SPECIFY: C - CONTINUE, N - NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP n STORM OPTIONS: 1 - S.C.S. TYPE-lA 2 - 7-DAY DESIGN STORM 3 - STORM DATA FILE SPECIFY STORM OPTION: 1 S.C.S. TYPE-lA RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ENTER: FREQ(YEAR), DURATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES) ,25,24,3.9 S.C.S. TYPE-lA DISTRIBUTION 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM 3.90" TOTAL PRECIP. ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 1.92,86,2.93,98,22.4 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN 5.2 3.2 86.0 1.9 98.0 22.4 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) 3.07 7.83 54138 ENTER [d:][path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: a:\4237_25d.hyd SPECIFY: C - CONTINUE, N - NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP n STORM OPTIONS: 1 - S.C.S. TYPE-lA 2 - 7-DAY DESIGN STORM 3 - STORM DATA FILE SPECIFY STORM OPTION: 1 S.C.S. TYPE-lA RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ENTER: FREQ(YEAR), DURATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES) 100,24,4.50 S.C.S. TYPE-lA DISTRIBUTION 100-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM 4.50" TOTAL PRECIP. ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 5.15,81,0,98,33.6 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN 5.2 5.2 81.0 .0 98.0 33.6 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) 2.17 7.83 47341 ENTER [d:][path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: a:\4237100u.hyd SPECIFY: C - CONTINUE, N - NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP n STORM OPTIONS: l - S.C.S. TYPE-lA 2 - 7-DAY DESIGN STORM 3 - STORM DATA FILE SPECIFY STORM OPTION: 1 S.C.S. TYPE-lA RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ENTER: FREQ(YEAR), DURATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES) 100,24,4.50 S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION 100-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM 4.50" TOTAL PRECIP..********* ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 3.22,86,1.98,98,22.4 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN 5.2 3.2 86.0 1.9 98.0 22.4 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) 3.70 7.83 64688 ENTER [d:][path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: a:\4237100d.hyd SPECIFY: C - CONTINUE, N - NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP s KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Surface Water Management Division HYDROGRAPH PROGRAMS Version 4.21B 1 - INFO ON THIS PROGRAM 2 - SBUHYD 3 - MODIFIED SBUHYD 4 - ROUTE 5 - ROUTE2 6 - ADDHYD 7 - BASEFLOW 8 - PLOTHYD 9 - DATA 10 - RDFAC 11 - RETURN TO DOS LOCUST STREET SUBDIVISION Water Ounlitv Calculations Developed Site Impervious Area Streets: (900 ft)(29 ft) = 26,100 ft2 Dwelling Units: (22 lots) x (2,640 ft'/lot) = 58,080 tt' Total impervious area =84,180 1t' Water Quality Swale Flow entering the swale: Q into the swale computed fi•onl the runoff front 100 percent of the impervious surface of the proposed development during, a 036 inch in 4-11our storm event. Q = 0.36 in. x I how- x I foot x 84,180 Ft' = 0.175 cfs 4 hrs 3600 sec 12111 Proposed length of swale: 1 15 ft Bottom width: 4 ft Side slope: 4:1 Channel Slope: 0.01 ft/ft Channel roughness, n: 0.25 From Civil Tools "Man-Made Channels" print-out V = 0.20 ft/sec < maximum 0.9 ft/sec design velocity O.K. Y = 0.21 fit < maximum 0.5 ft design depth O.K. Resident time available= 115 ft x I min = 9.6 min > 111111111111n1 9.0 min. o.k. 0.20 ft/sec 60 sec .IAY/als Ihremh,:r 199,x N:\CL.GR\1'*INAL•Schedules 4237 Swim SvSlelll rilvsi..~l e • ~1.'frirZ QN~1-~ SWAL-E ' 0 MAN-MADE CHANNELS (-PYb M 6AVI L I °°LX, VARIABLES LIST: Y - FLOW DEPTH B - CHANNEL BOTTOM WIDTH S - CHANNEL SLOPE Q - FLOWRATE M - CHANNEL SIDE SLOPE N - CHANNEL ROUGHNESS VARIABLE TO BE SOLVED (Y,Q,B,M,S OR N) ? Y Q (CFS) ? 0.175 RESULTS B (FT) ? 4 M (FT/FT) ? 0.25 Y= 0.21 FT S (FT/FT) ? 0.01 A= 0.87 SF N (FT^1/6) ? 0.25 P= 4.44 FT V= 0.20 FPS F= 0.08 SUB-CRITICAL FLOW <Shift> <Prt Sc> print <Return> repeat <Space Bar> back to menu All 4' swat E Wh'fE2 Qu AL iT~ N.Ts. \ W A• t-,SOU t ap - iL afaa TL ab.-- TL aA0 ]y '~W C[ SITE TI. sr. - ml sr. r.0, sr. ! • I p is I ~ ~ r1Ala S/. ; i / 1 yp mmmay mw i { SUA4 nR 0 3 TRACT 'A' < k O e o I s LEGAL DISCRIPTION: "e SSr7Sr, ~~i p 11 >;aasr, I TAX LOTS 602 6 700 TL TTee s 47r,v. AMU TAS., RAW., 36AA r(o r n I $d WASHINGTON COUNTY rl rno TL 11O° ~T Sr. - i ~ AREA s 5.15 ACRES .Its. WqH , 1 v I a~ p t< IS < ~ ~ 41115!. 4510 v. ' 4.tl, S!. 4]!1 Sl. I fir. rj ' r.Sm T,m .arm Ilan IHm 1]rm I.1m ' 2 aMM-Ir w 4 0, • ~c - - - - sw. ToTN AvENUE 5 e- - ¢ a -'---Z' u. town n. i I•' - r- r C ``Ii (avrorraty-,ma rV ntv.n n 12 in If. D I9 4Sn Sr. n 47ID Sl. 7,m, Sr. I IV M'-]m t( i u.-lam 'amV:' ,wraTnwv-ran i mmV: ,o. rorr su-an« p7 ntrl-w.m rl a(m rL s°ao s ; { rL n, « I { 3 ti S _ D a 9 wtuv-,an I x .a-um rL Taa 1 y mM.~F„I i i R P tj S^ (•t72 t r an.mr ' - 20 aY, - 7.Sm Sr. = Y 4 ~ , .bo IL- 1~ I `•~I• I I TL a ' I ~ ~ O ~ aJ = _ ~ fld TL r ' tl Y - _ 1prm ITrm INm Mrm tt I . 1 H iL ,•m I I 8 4~ sr, lDQ6TP OPT T i ' I I 44 n.nn g i G~:d scut: - aa• noa¢prtu , ~ ag ,•m i I' nm ACCM ROAD so, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND STREET PLAN COMPASS CORPORATION ASHWOOD AND WINGATE LOCUST STREET SUBDIVISION r - av an rnv ,aw culmommUwo • •uaw"a . ft~lmnoo TIGARO, OREGON A \ ` W A 8 I N G T O e 0 U R[ F 9 7 A W A 8 I N O T O 9 0 U R E E 8 LA. TafwE avn.a-_---_-_-____-_-- _ I ran.. 1 / i j rHe . I / { { 7 I rl fee ,f` TL ue rL iH 1 I 1 r m j I~ m f P _ TRACT 'A' i 3 . 0 °I ra r,.. : n I u r,.e ~ ! R s ~ f TL rno rl Ta.e < I { I I Ta rfoe < ~ + I 1 I ~ u ,ne ~ e ♦ f 1 - - - - - - - - - - J m l 17 I I m f f/ 3 1 1 f{ 21 I = 10 ' I 1 la ,m i i i ' rl H00 r1 A00 3 1 I I I 1 u.e TL ne0 i a 1 1 1 TL of ; 1 I " ~ TL of y ' 1 ~ { 4 1 I 1 I so a w 1 I J1' I t ~ 1 TL .ea 1 ~ ~ ' I ra. rm a wee 1 ' ra s.a a .wo ' ~ I f~rL woo - I I to wf ' rl we. iL pH ' rl ,oo. ' 1 ra mof I I ' TL Iu. 1 1 I ppp~_ rl r.oe I 1~ I ly ~ I i 9 ra uee I ' 9-J' ' ' PRELIMINARY UTILITY AND GRADING PLAN COMPASS CORPORATION ASHW000 AND WINGATE LOCUST STREET SUBDIVISION 1/~2 ENOIN!lRINO . OURVEVINO . /LAWOMO w= TIOARD. OREOON r Tree Condition Review Locust Street Subdivision - Tigard Prepared for: Kenneth L. Sandblast Land Solutions, Inc. Planning - Permits - Project Management Post Office Box 38 9140 S.E. St. Helens Street Clackamas, Oregon 97015 Prepared by: Robert Mazany ASCA # 133, ACFE Consulting Arborist Robert Mazany and Associates Post Office Box 1305 Beaverton, Oregon 97075 G ~o~E~~ ~V laz~ ~ ~ssoeia.tEs 97ee and -fandsa4F, L?0njUftjn9 CS- VEV CZ MEMORANDUM TO: Kenneth L. Sandblast Land Solutions, Inc. FROM: Robert Mazany ASCA #133 Consulting Arborist DATE: September 26, 1998 RE: Tree Condition Review Locust Street Subdivision - Tigard I have completed my preliminary site review relative to a condition assessment of trees on the proposed Locust Street subdivision as requested. There are one hundred ninety-six (196) trees which have diameters greater than twelve (12) inches. These have been number tagged and flagged with chartreuse ribbon for identification. The following general comments and attached individual tree condition assessment reflects observations from site visits on September 24 and 25 with my associate, Jan Michael DeRuyter. Q enera l Observati onsKom_ments 1. The downslope (north) portion of the site is vegetated by a fairly dense stand of western Red Cedar interspersed with Douglas Fir, Alder and Maple. With the exception of those noted, the Cedar are in good condition. Due to the density of the sand, the Fir and Alder have high crowns and little lower branching. 2. The south and upper east portion of the site is mostly Douglas Fir with a number of Alder and a few Maple, Oak and Cherry. J (9. Eox 1305, jBEavEZtol2, t9 9on 97075 (503 6g6-oS97 3. The Alder with high crowns are susceptible to storm damage and should not be retained. The more free standing Alder are in poor condition with decay in wound areas or have other structural defects as noted. 4. Though the overall condition of the stand is fair to good, the specie which should be considered for retention are Cedar, Fir, Oak, Maple and Cherry. These are noted as good on the attached narrative. 5. The Cedar and Fir will best survive for the long term by being left in larger undisturbed stands rather than as individual specimens with some possible exceptions. The high crown Fir cannot be left free standing without pruning for windsail reduction. 6. Based on the information provided I have color-coded those trees which I believe can be retained in the current lot and site improvement configuration. I trust the information submitted will be sufficient for your needs at this time. Please contact me if further information is required or when I may be of further assistance on this project. Attachments Field Notes Color Coded Plan Tree Preservation/Protection Specifications Field Notes The attached color coded condition assessment documents observations during my site visits. The color coding has also been noted on the plan provided. 1. The green coding reflects those trees whose condition and/or location warrants consideration for retention. 2. The blue coded trees are those in poor to fair condition, whose location is within or in close proximity to proposed site improvements or lie within lot construction envelopes. 3. I would strongly recommend consideration be given to the northwest corner lot being retained as an open tract. 4. The removal of trees and thinning of the stand for construction will require a careful and cautious approach to minimize the potential for damage or trauma to trees to be retained. Therapeutic care will be required for windsail reduction and the re-introduction of soil nutrients in disturbed areas. 5. The attached narrative is submitted based on the information available at this time and will require additional consulting input prior to the start of any clearing or construction activity on this site. NOTE: There may be some trees in poor to fair condition which may be worked on and retained as residential wildlife habitat trees. This program is being successfully carried out in many areas of the northwest at the present time. v1 ti' ~ • TREE 6 PLANT PRESERVATION/PROTECTION PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 DESCRIPTION: A. General requirements: Preservation, protection, and trimming of existing trees and shrubs, and other vegetation indicated to remain. B. Definitions: 1. Consulting Arborist: A Consulting Arborist registered with the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA). 2. Certified Arborist: Certified by The International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). 1.02 PROJECT CONDITIONS: A. Make every effort to protect all trees, shrubs, ground cover and other vegetation existing on the Project site with the exception of that indicated to be removed. B. Meet local jurisdiction requirements for protection of existing trees and vegetation. C. Provide temporary fencing, barricades and guards as required to protect trees and other plants, which are to remain, from all damage. Erect prior to commencement of clearing and demolition work and remove only after all work potentially injurious to trees and other plants is complete. Fence shall be placed as far from trees as is practical, but in no instance closer than one foot behind required construction limits. Fence shall by 4' visibility plastic on steel posts placed no further than 6' apart extending no less than 4-1/2' above the ground, kept taut at all times. D. Protect all trees from stockpiling, material storage, vehicle parking and driving within the tree drip line or tree protection fence area. E. Protect all plant growth including root systems of trees and plants from: 1. Dumping of refuse. 2. Chemically injurious materials and liquids. 3. Noxious materials in solution caused by run-off.and spillage during mixing and placement of construction materials, and drainage from stored materials. 4. Continual puddling of running water. F. Restrict vehicular and foot traffic to prevent compaction of soil over root systems. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 MATERIALS: A. As indicated and required elsewhere in this Specification Section, and as may be recommended by Consulting Arborist. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 GENERAL: A. Protect root systems of existing trees, shrubs and ground covers from damage due to noxious materials in solution caused by run-off and spillage during mixing and placement of construction materials, and drainage from stored materials. B. Protect root systems from flooding, erosion, excessive wetting and drying resulting from de-watering and other operations. C. Protect all existing plant material to remain against unnecessary cutting, breaking and skinning of roots and branches, skinning or bruising of bark. D. Do not allow fires under and adjacent to trees or other plants which are to remain. E. Engage a Consulting Arborist to direct removal of branches from trees and large shrubs, which are to remain, if required to clear new construction and where indicated; and to direct tree root pruning and relocation work. F. Where directed by Consulting Arborist, extend pruning operations to restore natural shape of entire tree. G. Cut branches and roots with sharp pruning instruments. Do not break, chop or mutilate. H. Water trees and other vegetation which are to remain as necessary to maintain their health during the course of the work. Maintain a water schedule and document. 3.02 EXCAVATION AROUND TREES: A. Excavate within root zone of trees only where indicated and acceptable to the Consulting Arborist. B. Excavate around tree roots within tree root zone only under the direction of a Consulting, Arborist retained by the Contractor. C. Where trenching for utilities is required within root zones, tunnel under and around roots by hand digging. Do not cut main lateral support roots. Cut smaller roots which interfere with installation of new work; use sharp pruning tools. D. Where excavating for new construction is required within root zones of trees, hand excavate to minimize damage to root systems. Use narrow tine spading forks and comb soil to expose roots. Relocate roots in backfill areas whenever possible. If large, main lateral roots are encountered, expose beyond excavation limits as required to bend and relocate without breaking. E. If encountered immediately adjacent to location of new construction and relocation is not practical, cut roots approximately 6 inches back from new construction. F. Do not allow exposed roots to dry out before permanent backfill is placed; provide temporary earth cover, pack with wet peat moss or 4 layers of wet untreated burlap and temporarily support and protect from damage until permanently relocated and covered with backfill Water puddle backfill to eliminate voids and air pockets. G. All pruning shall be performed to ANSI A-300 Pruning standards by Oregon state registered tree care firms employing Certified Arborists. Other therapeutic care work shall be performed to National Arborist Association standards. 3.03 GRADING AND FILLING AROUND TREES: A. Maintain existing grade within root-zones of trees unless otherwise indicated or acceptable to The Consulting Arborist. B. Lowering Grades: Where existing grade is above new finish grade shown around trees, under direction of Consulting Arborist, carefully hand excavate within root zones to new grade. Cut roots exposed by excavation to approximately 3 inches below elevation of new finish grade. C. Raising Grades: Permitted only as acceptable to The Consulting Arborist. 3.04 REPAIR AND REMOVAL OF TREES: A. Retain a Consulting Arborist to direct tree repair work. Engage a Certified Arborist, acceptable to the Consulting Arborist, to perform tree repair work. Repair trees damaged by construction operations in a manner acceptable to the Consulting Arborist. Make repairs promptly after damage occurs to prevent progressive deterioration of damaged trees. B. Remove dead and damaged trees which are determined by the Consulting Arborist to be incapable of restoration to normal growth pattern. 3.05 REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF SHRUBS: A. Repair shrubs, and other vegetation damaged by construction operations in a manner acceptable to the Consulting Arborist. Make repairs promptly after damage occurs to prevent progressive deterioration of damaged plants. B. Remove and replace dead and damaged plants which are determined by the Consulting Arborist incapable of restoration to normal growth pattern. 1. Provide new shrubs of same size and species as those replaced or as otherwise acceptable to the Consulting Arborist. 2. Plant and maintain as acceptable to the Consulting Arborist. 3.06 HARDSCAPE INSTALLATION WITHIN TREE PROTECTION ZONES: A. Electrical conduit and irrigation main lines should be run under walkways, within stone or concrete subbase, and should not cut into native soil within the Tree Protection Zone (within the drip line). Drip irrigation shall be installed within the Tree Protection Zone. Lateral electrical lines to individual lights, should be installed as close to the soil surface as possible with short runs from the main conduit. B. Electrical fixtures, housing, and irrigation valves must be installed with care to avoid cutting roots. Digging must be minimal with excess dirt removed from the tree preservation area. Do not cut roots greater than 1" in diameter without the approval of the Consulting Arborist. Roots greater than 1" in diameter exposed during excavation must be cut squarely at the edge of the excavation with a sharp say or appropriate pruning tool. C. Install walkways as close to grade as possible to minimize excavation into the soil where large roots and areas of high root density exist. Backfill with loose dirt to the minimum depth necessary to achieve a natural look. Mulch if appropriate, as directed by the Consulting Arborist. 3.07 COMPENSATION TO OWNER FOR TREES: A. Contractor shall pay the Owner the value of existing trees to remain that died or were damaged and required removal because of the Contractor's failure to provide adequate protection and maintenance. B. Value of existing trees will be determined by the Consulting Arborist in accordance with the evaluation formula set forth in "The Council of Tree and Landscape Evaluation Guide for Plant Appraisers," Eighth Edition, 1992. C. Any wound or damage to a preserved tree constitutes partial injury. These include, but are not limited to: Any-cambium tissue damage. Unauthorized cutting, breaking or removing tree branches. Unauthorized cutting or damaging protected root zones. Soil compaction. Toxic run-off into tree preservation areas. D. Partial injury will be calculated by percentage of the total value of the damaged tree. E. The loss value penalty will include cost to the owner for loss appraisal by the Consulting Arborist plus the cost for necessary damage repair. PART 4 - PRE-CONSTRUCTION TREE CARE. 4.01 PRUNING AND STRUCTURAL SUPPORT: A. All trees designated to be retained within the project limits shall be pruned to ANSI A-300 Pruning Standards. with selective low limb removal, as directed and approved by the Consulting Arborist, where required for construction clearance. B. Structural support (cabling) will be required on specific trees as identified by the Consulting Arborist, to National Arborist Association Standards. C. All therapeutic care recommended will be directed, inspected and approved by the Consulting Arborist. PART 5 - POST-CONSTRUCTION TREE CARE 5.01 FERTILIZATION/AERATION A. Aeration as determined by the Consulting Arborist may be required in areas where construction compaction has occurred. B. Deep root liquid injection fertilizing of all trees retained within the project limits will be required following the completion of construction to National Arborist Association Standards. The timing of this fertilizing will be determined by the Consulting Arborist. Prepared by: Bob Mazany ASCA #133 Consulting Arborist Robert Mazany and Associates P.O. Box 1305 Beaverton, OR 97075 (503) 64 6-08 97 Reminte ROBERT MAZANY American Society of Consulting Arborists Registered Member # 133 American College of Forensic Examiners - Diplomate Status The resume of education, training and practical field experience listed as follows is in support of Robert Mazany's qualifications as a Consulting Arborist. ROBERT MAZANY & ASSOCIATES Beaverton, Oregon Principal 1988 to Present: Tree and landscape consulting services. TREE & LANDSCAPE CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD. Portland, Oregon Principal. 1984 to 1988: Arboricultural and Landscape Consultation and Contract Administration. TEKTRONIX, INC. Beaverton, Oregon Landscape and Grounds Maintenance Manager 1977 to 1985: All aspects of construction and maintenance of 600+ acres of industrial campus. ARBORICULTURE & LANDSCAPE CONSULTATION SERVICE Beaverton, Oregon elS f~-E ploloy6dConsultant, 1975 to 1977: Consulting projects in landscape construction and tree surgery. CITY OF EUGENE, DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION Eugene, Oregon Horticulture & Forestry Division Manager 1960 to 1975. TREE SURGERY & LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR (Texas). 1956 to 1960: All aspects of tree work and landscape design including installation. DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY 1948 to 1956: Ohio/Texas Line clearing, chemical brush control, tree surgery, and large tree moving. MAJOR CONSULTING PROJECTS COMPLETEDAN PROGRESS G City of Portland, Bureau of Parks - Pier Park - Plaza Blocks - City Hall. 0- Nike World Headquarters Campus - North Campus Expansion, Beaverton, Oregon. O Westside Corridor Light Rail - Portland to Hillsboro. O LDS Temple - Lake Oswego, Oregon. O Mentor graphics World Headquarters Campus - Wilsonville, Oregon. O Oregon Department of Transportation/Washington County - Road Improvement projects. 0 Neabeck Hill Development - Philomath, Oregon. C Metropolitan Service District - Washington Park Zoo Renovation/Expansion. O State of Oregon - State Capitol Grounds - Oregon State University - PERS Building. 0 Clackamas County/City of Wilsonville/Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District - Park Improvement Projects. 0 City of Beaverton - Road Improvements - Library. O Miscellaneous Construction Projects - Oregon and Washington. ROBERT MAZANY Page Two PRIMARY QUALIFIED EXPERIENCE AREAS 0 Tree Preservation/Protection Specification Preparation - Supervision - Monitoring. 0 Site and Plan Review Related to Arboricultural Concerns. V Therapeutic Tree Care Specification Preparation and Inspection. C Tree Casualty Loss Evaluation. G Tree Risk Assessment - Hazard Tree Evaluation. O Expert Witness Court Testimony. TECHNICAL EDUCATION t7 Texas A & M University - Horticulture O Oregon State University - Horticulture and Forestry O University of Oregon - Horticulture and Landscape Architecture O National Arborist Association Educational Programs G American Society of Consuding Arborists technical meetings since 1974 O International Society of Arboriculture technical meetings since 1961 J Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture - Regional and annual technical meetings since 1961 0 Pacific Northwest Chapter technical meetings since 1980 O People to People International - Member of Landscape Horticulture Delegation to Mainland China - October 1985 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS 1978 - Present Professional Grounds Management Society 1974 - Present American Society of Consulting Arborists 1970 - Present American Forestry Association 1961 - Present International Society of Arboriculture 1980- 1989. Chapter Representative to International Society 1982- 1983 Pacific Northwest Chapter President (two terms, Founding Member 1980) 1998 Member by Invitation - Diplomate of the American College of Forensic Examiners GUEST SPEAKER AND/OR INSTRUCTOR G Pacific Northwest Chapter - Certification Review Board Member U International Society of Arboriculture - Western, PNW, Ohio, Atlantic and Texas Chapters Portland Civil Service Commission Arboriculture Interview Panel Member O Portland Department of Parks & Recreation - High Climber Training Oregon State University - Horticulture Classes and Short Courses C Clackamas Community College - Apprenticeship Training O Lane Community College - Horticulture and Forestry Classes O University of Oregon Landscape Architect Department O PCC (Rock Creek) - Horticulture/Arboriculture O Oregon State Extension Service Short Courses Additional project or reference information furnisher!; if required or requested /I~oTE:,vN~~ss4irttERwTSF/VoTRbTREF~4~~Z Goop co'vDTl',toA! . • 7'R ~'ES f~..tGH 1, I G H T ~p ~ ~v ~ [u .s ~o~ ~ ~ lveT t~E ~ EZ~4t~vG~ TR E G s NJGNL z 6Hr C-b IS N GR C gAl NAY 13E R F7'A rAl4- c pA JOB N0.423ok P9aro"~=l> LoT~4L.rG.VH07Nr +,VD SZ?G MPRvVCDK4-,vtS TREE TABLE 002 26" FIl2 t 2003 26" FIR c' 2004..18"FIR .2oe9 2006 8 Y 18".-FIR- WEI4 K coboHT YA-,VT S`TE/Y A T 2 IC I~1 ~~L F 008 -18" FIR ;010 12" FIR 2011 12" FIR f 2 0012 26" FIR 013 15" FIR 0-016 12" FIR 2017 12" FIR 2019 14" FIR 2021 X+8u FIR 21 " ~,Q T L=~GC O F P1QOl~DSET~ ~o.t D 11 2022*$ +!F FIR !8 1,2@6 i i2- --n m i Y- ~nc7 i7T~r.rr~1~~HC~F• 1-l+.rR (2053 36" FIR - -0 Ls )2062 15" FIR 1 E X c -4 FN T 066 24" FIRS . ? 7 16"4APLE,+66op wyrIt wkLL foRMC~ Ic Row", \20681118" FIR= -F,4r p- H.4,C HI GH CRowm- "o 4 ow~/Z• f3 R.6~ucyt~VG x2069 +4" MAPLE y #,q. S HTGH f3 v T L- C c. L Fo R H L; ~ C ~o w H $671 _-24".CED_ EkeFLL 6VT 1,2072x24"FIR- P&o {2 wr7H TRvArK fLU~l"~kES AuP D.TS7o~7ro.trS 2073 +9;'FIRJV FAX i2- nr S74> RTN0 vNr-S FAt7'o0Y To If 2076 4.2" FIR,iY,% poo Q- T R uN k R v PrveE o f ro ;o' Z077-18" FIR 2078 14" FIR 2079l*0MAPLE X 14" FIR- (;,,e owrfJG Al SZA*lE )gvcTe~dwN 2080 32" FIR i0081 24" CEDAR? (2082 ' 3.,'', li~4S It1 C X eR.uo PY ~uT /*IA r' 1eEfi~4rti~n ~09Y v ~ ~ FIRw)1X 7,F FI R ~y {20844)4"FIR,- FAXA- UMPEJeSTvRY T6 2683-PISX0R:r& 1 2D 8G 2085 18" MAPI.R r iy" rz" t_J P 209314"FIR'-JCfz~- VERY ref reH aKow>I 2094 24 CEDAR ~nac 2„ „ R! 2098 24„ FIR .I 00 0 2" CEDAR 101 36" CEDAR E-kGE• LLIFJVT 2102 14" MAPLE GdoD a PowA) G ree N U\Vc Sin ~r iau i~/ - 8~ ..(Ze~ Naar 1u = 0 0 2103 Jt24" ALDER3Foa R' PLFLAY I w 'cQ°wN wou16j p- HAVY A rmu 70 W Psr ,2105 24" CEDAR 2106020" FIR = )1,4:t R - H I6- H CA No p y '2107024" ALDER- FA Z I? 2108x26"FIR- ('I? ) i?ekCN roP AT No ~E6rgowTtt w;PAe 2109 20" CEDAR 2110*24"ALDER Poo R" j3Q°kj" rep wS7W i>CeAlfeVrhFiut 2111 V12" FIR po ce - rg uArg Rv PTV 2 t F)eo j4 )C' ?o TOP 2112)t14"ALDER- Pomp- PLFCA-Y r woo/jot 2113 X24" ALDE1,, - -42- R - IY PrA vY wrT 1+ Z V y 2114136" CEDAR - FAr R - UN c F ).s l CA-Ai r'G iV O e r H w k S'r 2115 ~ 18" ALDER- Pao FAr co bdtt rA )ALN r g.4VY I V W AW Z-4wydX0W ~ 2125 24" CEDAR t 2126 30" CEDAR '127 36" CEDAR 1 ,2129 30 CEDAR; - ~?130 12 CEDAT 2131 x36" CEDAR-7" F,4Z A - 8 R 2132 36" CEDAR, 2134 Y12". CEDAR D E.4P S M a- 6r `2135 36" CEDAR` ~~f36 36" CEDAR L,o GA 7-E •4 'r 130 770 e K P 12Aw - V ~ 1e 7 6.00 137 36" CEDA 2140 `24" CEDA9L FA Z A. i5 X ST o o T t= b r R U A19 47 / f' ,2141 15~" CEDAR' 2142 16" CEDAR ,2143 24" CEDAR,, 2144 ' 30" CEDAR 2146 3!' 18" FIR i FAT 2 V~ RY Hrrr)lf clod 2147W 12" FIR %2148 18" CEDAR `2149 36" CEDAR r-'1! P Y f o02 2151)/1-2"ALDERIS`- 7"Rvtik k vf'TvQr` A-7 /2 10 9, It 154 36" CEDAR' 2155 30" FIR' ;Xr 'Z R 2156 12" FIR 2157 12" CEDAR - 660P 0 M D FA r r- 10 le Y 7'0 z/ 6T ,2158 30" CEDAR '2159 24" FIR} - HX49N e,4 N Q PY 2160;C30" CEDAR'- mm/g_ Dr S To 12 T tD Yo ip w7-r,4 P A o /ucv,v «A Lje-4AITe VZ_V r A X2162 36" CEDAR ,x2163 36" CEDAR `2.164 24" CEDAR- 2165 26" CEDAR, ~ilu~M ~Ive _ ('11N -GNcHc'S 141 ~k _ 301 n P66. 24" CEDAR 21 67 24" CEDAR( ;2168 )(30" CEDARS P&O - FR E S H R Ao x rfu rap 47- Yo l '2169 15" CEDAR 2170 -43" CEDAR 2e PA2 n_ ,*AS /fit G N 6 Ra 1,rA) 2171 #i6" CEDAR, FAT /1- HIFA V Z tY RAivC It FjS„Alv,6 G F,4At c TO S u u)54 i,~-,z ,_,11 ATr r 014 SeurH ,2174, 12" MAPLE'/'/* Wt TH/VICF C kowN 76 38" FIR w #XTF PrA 2179)915"CEDAR PooR- tjEAt POCAY6P70P +TZo' 2181).39" ALDER 2yM. p. oa/t- 13 Ro IBC EN ivtk wZ-~ 4: 2182 )(20" CEDAR ) poo j? - f3 Re k CN w F A-m ro r, 2183,9 24" ALDER ! f?o o Q - H ,=.4vY 4. Eft iV Tv S av .)`R t"21'8 6 3 " CEDAR'- 2 1,87 24" CEDAR, :2188 18" ALDER- ~•bl'YL- I"-rC H CA-Ai o /OY '2189)(20" ALDER' paoQ -7RvAjk P-41YA&e,41' 4 X6447- P AT TGo'o F~Za4D B << ;2190x24"CEDAR"- POOP- TAI STOAT A'raP- rap 6F 96Ab. 3A-x1k 2191 X15" FIR POOR- n E CA Y Al r7'- H s G N G" NO P r 2192)t26" CEDAR - r-.4Zpl- A.r STvQ 71?D 7o p w;t TN to'L=/{-,k ;)'O/'( vAJ LoNl r) 193 24" CEDAR. 2194 18" CEDAR 2195 24" CEDAR 2197x26"CEDA I F~I~ ~ w~~K vtTt 57-6:,'L( 7-OP'~T Sep 2198 X30" CEDAR- FAZ K- f3 o Eu Top t Yo'- NC w 7-o /3 FA v Y'?o 67-4.v r X239_ 36" CEDAR- S't° WC-Q /~t a S w ST ar F T'IZuA/k .7~AO nll AT T~T^T+~ GzT G~'ILULIn [2251 30" CEDAR n254 40 CEDAR 2 2258 14" CHERRY J-2259Y 24" CEDAR 2 f3 R-~ k ~ Aj 1-o 1° S 2260 X24" CEDAR 2262 14" MAPLE/ `2263 42" CEDAR 12264 36" CEDAR X2265 12" CEDAR 2270 x 12" X 10" ALDER /--A :E R- w EA K S T EM vNlo N 24+ , 2 A T- i284-_ 24 CEDAR V If e, f ~l ✓e f ~O at1 146,ev = 3~ 286 15" FIR-,^ 1~~4T R 2287 14" CEDAR-, 2288 30"-CEDAR '2290 15" CEDAR,,- e r a f CQ E`E/l /;A.U e 2293 15"FIR` tftGrlf a~ LQowAI C~ 2294 14" CEDAR t2297 y 18 FIR - G1F c RowN Fb6-Lc oFCkl tk' 13,4N r ^ t t+ z k2298 18" ALDER', F.4 2 re 3299 18"_MAPLE 92300 14" ALDER FAI R- WEAR ~~Dan,t~u IVf frL/W kr )2 ~bGEoF 2301 15" ALDER ;Pied NOUN,(- E b I -PA-,u o v 612 t p Ft-k 2302 30'-CEDAR 12303 30" CEDAR ( 2305 24" CEDAR 2347 14" MAPLE 2348 14" FIR 349 14" FIR NZ C,ROWN 2350 30" CEDAR 2351 14" CEDAR, 2353 24" CEDAR 2354 24" FIR : - 2356 18" CEDAR 235.7. 3011_FIR. '2358x12" CED*- GQow rAj 6, rA.;7'4 Ic%NGE 2378 14"ALDER - FA-r 2- ~~~/`f GQowN 2383 14" CEDAR? 2384)(10" X 12" ALDER ~-4 7- R wL-h k STEM UivtoN 2386x 36" CEDAR po62 - I -A-de G F R)ec 9 N Td ON 47 30" Lit A T ill~.D - QQ lo" s2393 14"4#~fa- CA K 981, G E1C~Y~ LEA LrS T4 Wk S 7- ;2396 16" 11 2397 FIR,1 V,•3 rA T 12 - HS 6.,It e 12 csu~ N 2399 W4" CEDAR? Fk1 jZ_ 13 2.o k r N y a p Aj Fv r 2T POL 9 ro P MAY jk!F'wc-- 4,E 2400 15" CEDAR 7 2401 12" MAPLE (2404 Z4pf•s tg'` CEOA Sr CP1 a r 14" FIlt J-F ! # C ►2o w~l~ q~/wl~N "2405 Y18" ALDERi - #W pdt* . wFA)Z S J"E1~culV to N 47 wrnl - I>$'G¢ Y 2 yo y 2406 12" X 12" CEDAR 407 12" CEDAR gt Qt ta►Ke~ 2410 " ALDER /V rf - p0 o Q N'°T®NQ(A Lt Neff T„~Iuli~ _ n ~nl~ ~G~.~ O~ue ~(atK rj-71.7 (3 L-UlE J pxo-a 13Z 2411'18" ALDER ~06Q _ Lv E,E k S 7r L) N 3 G NS ,2414 -412" X 10" X 6" ALDER _i 2416 )t12" X 10" XJ8" MANE 2417 14" CEDAR 12421 14" ALDER '2422)(14"X 12"ALDF,R` POdP-- WEAK "f>0-i-X,UANr 4cr )3,4- L& ;423014" ALDER F* 7 R 2424 24' 21 " G Y E R R r ;2426)(18" GEDA.I~, - PA Z j. - )3 Rd Y-F.*j ro iP A-T Z S 242710" X 14" ALDERj• F49V 2- w P- At ev D 0 M t • .),4Ju T A713,,,t-If - NEAV Y L P,* Av 2429 R~ F- r R 1 S ``r1-N b ~S LD 7TUN [yoob 2432 24" OAK/' 2434)44-9'- FIR ~ F"~ t 2 • /'f~ G It C,4 N 0 .0 Y - S U 5,4 40- 1 e-w T C ROwA) b F CA r ?437~. X2439 28" CEDAR 2440 15" FIR 2441 12" FIR -2442 12" FIR i 2443 15" FIR _ i 2444 FI R 19 c- x Q y- 14 EA v Y 4 P At ;j Yo w 1= S r a v E K D~ IVF •4.t~A 44A 12445 48" FIR -2 ,,446 36" FIIR FA -1 v.r t V 13 ~ A,)U To S u t► r~ 2447 12" FIR- 2448 14" FIR 2449 40" FIR = Fki FA u S L Y Am L/~ L=1~ 7a Co a r'N 245Q 2" FER FAX R.- e4HN'OAJ wF,(k iZao T c ;Qownl (2452 12" FIR , 2453' 18" FIR PA Z R -1-E r& H C 4 -vd P Y X2454 $18 FIR 2455 12" X 12" X 8'"-BFI C If C%2(L y- F.~~ )Q- w L%Ac„ti co a0 HZ-N,¢ uT 47' 2456 15" FIR 2457 18" FIR _ '2459 x'12" X 14" ALDER 2460 24" X 18" CEDAR n + NA) G 6 7 ot f" 17 ITY-IFTIGARD''' . ,kPRE=QPPIICAT-181-CONFEREWtN6T0 m=WtarA opieft cv„r,;airtcy tie(opincit ".[Pre-Application Meeting:Notes'areValid for Sbr(6I.Monthsl, 5A*`terCom"`wifty RESIDENTIAL PRE-APP. MTG. DATE: ` -3 ZS STAFF AT PRE-APP.: Y~ 1) \ 13 A NO Z0 4 APPLICANT: AGENT: U R S y (-A C~ 1 ~~o N Phone:( l P110111118: 1 I z ti.ii- SOIL PROPERLY LOCATION: ADO&SS/GEN. LOCATION: TAX MAPFSI/LOT #IS]: 15 L 3~ A4\ - 60/, 700 NECESSARYAPPLICATION[Sl: y 3'F-)1\,j ysi a N li PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Z 3 101 `,SUIB a I\f If 1o N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: a C.I.T.ARFA: S. S7 FACILITATOR: PHONE: 15031 IMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot size:36 q. ft. Average lot width: ft. Maximum building height: eft. Setbacks: Front 00 ft. Side -.5- ft. Rear 1:S- ft. Comer 5' ft. from street. Maximum site coverage: / % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: % [Refer to Code Section 18. 50 ) # sEE ~D. ,p~visiaLS ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL QUIREMEN Inimum of rontage: 25 feet, Lots ro - t nt. The depth of all lots shall not exceed 21/2 times the average width, unless the parcel is less than 1'/2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. (Refer to Code Section 18.164.060 Lots) CITY OF TIGARD P"Pticadon Conference Notes Page 1 of 12 BsldetllApollctloa/Plnulol Milan Sutlos SPECIAL SETBACKS ` 0 ➢ Streets: feet from the centerline of ➢ Established areas: feet from ➢ Lower intensity zones: feet, along the site's boundary. ➢ Flag lot: Ten (10)-foot side yard setback. ➢ Zero lot line lots: Minimum ten (10)-foot separation between buildings. ➢ Multi-family residential building separation: [Refer to Code Section 18.96.0301 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES UP TO 528 SQUARE FEET in size may be permitted on lots less than 2.5 acres in size. Five (5)-foot minimum setback from side and rear lot lines. Accessory structure up to 1000 square feet on parcels of at least 2.5 acres in size. [See applicable zoning district setbacks for primary structuresJ SUBDIVISION PLAT NAME RESERVATIO r o subml Ing a Subdivision land use application with the City of Tigard, applicant's are REQUIRED to complete and file a subdivision plat naming request with the Washington County Surveyor's Office in order to obtain approval/reservation for any subdivision name. Applications will not be accepted as complete until the City receives the faxed confirmation of approval from the County of the Subdivision Name Reservation. [County Surveyors Office: 648-88841 FLAG LOT BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 1'/2 STORIES or 25 feet, whichever is less in most zones; 2'/2 stories, or 35 feet in R-7, R-12, R-25 or R-40 zones provided that the standards of Code Section 18.98.030[BI are satisfied. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CAL ULATION [See example below] e NET RESIDENTIAL UNITS allowed on a particular site may be calculated by dividing the net area of the developable land by the minimum number of square feet required per dwelling unit as specified by the applicable zoning designation. Net development area is calculated by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross site area: All sensitive lands areas including: ➢ Land within the 100 year floodplain; ➢ Slopes exceeding 25%; and ➢ Drainageways. Public right-of-way dedication. ➢ Single-family allocate 20% of gross acres for public facilities; and Multi-family allocate 15% of gross acres for public facilities. [Refer to Code Section 18.921 ExAMPLE OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATIONS: EXAMPLE: USING A ONE ACRE SITE IN THE R-12 ZONE (3,050 MINIMUM LOT SIZE) WITH NO DEDUCTION FOR SENSITIVE LANDS Single-Family Mu11148mlly 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 8,712 sq. ft. (20%a) for public right-of-way 6.534 sq. ft. (15%) for public right-of-wav NET, 34,848 square feet NET. 37,026 square feet 3.050 (minimum lot areal - 3.050 (minimum lot areal 11A Units Per Acre = 121 Units Per Acre The Development Code routibu mat the net site area exist for the nmd whole dwelling at& NO BOUNDING OP IS PERMITTED. CITY OF TIGARD Pre Pllcatloo Conference Notes Pape 2 of 12 Residential Appllcatlon ftlennlnpaMsleeSecnon LOCttS The perimeter of BLOCKS FORMED BY STREETS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,800 FEET measured along the right-of-way line except where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development. When block lengths greater than 600 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. [Refer to Code Section 18164,0401 S Cs -2 Z ~ RESID The ity of Tigard allows a RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TRANSFER OF UP TO 25% of the units that could herwise have been developed on sensitive lands areas listed in the density calculations that may be plied to the developable portion of the site. tRe to Code Section 18.92.0301. It is the res o ibili of the applicant for a residential development application to PROVIDE A DETAILED CALC TION FOR BOTH the permitted residential density and the requested density transfer. RESIDENTIAL D \the TION Regarllowed housing density in a zoning district, ANY PROPERTY WITHIN 100 FEET OF A D ESTABLISHED AREA SHALL NOT BE DEVELOPED AT A DENSITY GREA12 5% of the maximum Comprehensive Plan designation (not zoning) of the adjacensition area applies to any property which is a designated established area. The subjecsignated as an area. The sy is djoined by established/developinQ/areas to the north, south, east and west. AND EXTENSION OF STREETS FUTURE STREET TE ET PLAN shall: STRE ➢ Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other parcels within 200 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. ➢ Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 500 feet of the site. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed. [Refer to Code Section 18164.0301 D MENT SOLAR ACCESS REQUIREMENTS S ALL SUBDIVISIONS AND MINOR PARTITIONS ARE SUBJECT TO SOLAR ACCESS REQUIREMENTS. These requirements state that a minimum of 80% of all lots created must be oriented for solar accessibility. The basic standard, which determines solar accessibility, requires that 80% of total number of proposed lots: 7 Demonstrate a north-south dimension of at least 90 feet. ➢ Demonstrate a front lot line orientation within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis. CITY OF TIGAARD P"Pillcadon Conference Notes Page 3 of 12 80:11ootlot~polle~tloo/M~oolU OMsloo Soctloo 0 The total or partial exemption of a site from the solar access requnent may be approved for the following reasons: > East, west or north slopes steeper than 20%. > Off-site shade sources (structures, vegetation, topography). > On-site shade sources (vegetation). Adjustments allowing a reduction of the 80% solar lot design requirement may be made for the following reasons: > Reduced density or an increased cost of at least five (5)% due to either: b East, west or north slope greater than 10%. b Significant natural feature. b Existing road or lotting pattern. b Public easement or right-of-way. > Reduction in important development amenities. > Pre-existing shade (vegetation). PLEASE NOTE: Maps and text are required which are sufficient to show that the development complies with the solar design standards, or that specific lots should be exempted or adlusted out The following Items shall be included In the analysis: > The north-south lot dimension and front lot line orientation of each proposed lot. > Protected solar building lines and relevant building site restrictions, if applicable. > For the purpose of identifying trees related to exemption requests, a map showing existing trees which are at least 30 feet tall and over 6 inches diameter at a point 4 feet above grade shall be submitted. THIS MAP SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: b Height; b Diameter; b Species; and b Statement declaring that they are to be retained. > Copies of all private restrictions relating to solar access. The design characteristics of a developed solar-oriented lot are high levels of wintertime sun striking the south walls and roofs of the house, house orientation maximizing south window area, and a south-sloping roof area. To achieve this, one may utilize the following: > Protected Solar Building Line - The solar building line must: b be oriented to within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis; b provide a minimum distance of 70 feet from the middle of the lot to the south property line; b provide a minimum distance of 45 feet from the northernmost buildable boundary of the subject lot to the north property line. > Performance Options - There are two performance options which may be utilized as follows: b The house to be oriented within 30 degrees of an east-west axis and have at least 80% of the ground floor's south wall protected from shade. b At least 32% of the glass and 500 square feet of the roof area face south and be protected from shade. CRY Of TIURO P"Pflcatlon Conference Notes Pave 4 d 12 Residential yollcatie■/Nandas Division section PLEASE NOTE Regardless of the optiontsl used through the design of the Subdivision or Minor Land Partition, all one and two family, single-family residences are reviewed through the building permit process for compliance with Solar Balance Point standards. Please contact the Building Division for further Information regarding the Solar Balance Point standards and the options that are available related to building height and construction. PARIDN6 AND LREAS AND DRIVEWAYS MUST BE PAVED. ➢ Single family: Requires two (2) off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit. ➢ Multiple family: Requires 1.5 parking spaces per unit for 1 bedroom. (Multi-family - requires 2 parking spaces per unit for 1+ bedrooms.) Multi-family dwel units with more than 10 required spaces shall provide parking for the use of guests and shall con ' t of 15% of the total required parking. (Refer to ode Section 18.106.0301 NO MORE THA 40% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED AS COMPACT S \isable rking stalls shall be dimensioned as follows: ➢ Standard ace dimensions: 8 ft. 8 inches X 18 ft. ➢ Compact ace dimensions: 8 ft. X 15 ft. ➢ Handicapg: All parking areas shall provide appropriately located and dimension person parking spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spp vided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americanilitie Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking spl shal be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. BICYCLE RA BICYCL RACKS are required FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP TS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient loca ' s. Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided on the basis of one space for every fifteen (15) require hicular parking spaces. Minimum number of acc ses: Minimum access width: Maximum access width: Minimum pavement width: REQUIRED WAY LOCATION Within TTACHED HOUSING (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each residential fling SHALL BE CONNECTED BY WALKWAY TO THE VEHICULAR PARKING AREA, COMMO OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION FACILITIES. (::CLEAR ~aity The requires that CLEAR VISION AREAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THREE AND EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT AT ROAD/DRIVEWAY, ROAD/RAILROAD, AND ROAD/ROAD INTERSECTIONS. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification. (Refer to Code Section 181021 CRY Of TIURD P"plication Conference Notes Page 5 of 12 Residential ppllCIVIA/Nppplp! DIN=lop SSCUIR BUFFERING ANDS ENIN6 In order to in ase privacy and to either reduce or eliminate adverse noise or visual impacts between adjacent develo ents, especially between different land uses, the CITY REQUIRES LANDSCAPED BUFFER AREAS ONG CERTAIN SITE PERIMETERS. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of ' th. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and m also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences ay also be required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffe reas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information o equired buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Community Development Code. (Refer to Code Chapter 181001 The REQUIRED BUFFER WIDTHS which are ap 'cable to your proposal area are as follows: feet along north boundary. feet along east boundary. feet along south boundary. feet along west boundary. In addition, sight obscuring screening is required along STREET TREES STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS FRONTING ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six feet of the right-of-way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two inches when measured four feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A MINIMUM OF ONE T E FOR EVERY SEVEN PARKING SPACES MUST BE PLANTED in and around all parking areas in der to provide a vegetative canopy effect. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design fea res which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the u of landscaped berms, decorative walls, and raised planters. For detailed information on design requir ents for parking areas and accesses. (Refer to Code Chapters 18100,18.106 and 181081 TREE REMOVAL PLAN REQUIREMENT'S A TREE P FOR THE PLANTING, REMOVAL AND PROTECTION OF TREES prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, major partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal where possible. The TREE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE the following: ➢ Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; ➢ Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.150.070.D. according to the following standards: b Retainage of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees; b Retainage of from 25 to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070.D; CRY OF TIURD P"pllcaflon Conference Notes Page 6 of 12 Isildootld Ippllentlon/PUnolod Wslon Sutlon b Retainage of from 50 to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches iTt'caliper requires that 50% of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070.D; b Retainage of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation; ➢ Identification of -all trees which are proposed to be removed; and ➢ A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. Trees removed within the period of one (1) year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.150.070.D. [Refer to Code Section 18150.0251 MITIGATION REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to the following guidelines: A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. ➢ If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damages is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. ➢ If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property. ➢ The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. IN-LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. [Refer to Code Section 18150.010 (0) SIGNS SIGN PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGN in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for review before the Hearings Officer. SENSITIVE (ANDS e ode provides REGULATIONS FOR LANDS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT DUE TO AREAS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND AREAS, ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25%, OR ON UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will attempt to preliminarily identify sensitive lands areas at the pre-application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely identify sensitive lands areas, and their boundaries, is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting the definitions of sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans submitted with the development application. CRY Of TIGARD P"Pflcadon Conference Notes PIP 7 a 12 DoslaontlslAppllagon/flonnla DMslon Saga r Chapter 18.84 also provides regulations for the use, protection, oT modification of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS. [Refer to Code Chapter 18.841 STEEP SLOPES When STEEP SLOPES exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.84.040.B. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of 18.84.040.8.2 and 18.84.040.B.3. UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY [USA] BUFFER STANDARDS, RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE fR a 0196-44 Land DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a vegetated corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive area. Design Criteria: The VEGETATED CORRIDOR SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 25 FEET WIDE, measured horizontally, from the defined boundaries of the sensitive area, except where approval* has been granted by the Agency or City to reduce the width of a portion of the corridor. If approval is granted by the Agency or City to reduce the width of a portion of the vegetated corridor, then the surface water in this area shall be directed to an area of the vegetated corridor that is a minimum of 25 feet wide. The maximum allowable encroachment shall be 15 feet, except as allowed in Section 3.11.4. No more than 25% of the length of the vegetated corridor within the development or project site can be less than 25 feet in width. In any case, the average width of the vegetated corridor shall be a minimum of 25 feet. Restrictions in the Vegetate Corridor: NO structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, EXCEPT AS ALLOWED BELOW: A gravel walkway or bike path, not exceeding 8 feet in width. If the walkway or bike path is paved, then the vegetated corridor must be widened by the width to the path. A paved or gravel walkway or bike path may not be constructed closer than 10 feet from the boundary of the sensitive area, unless approved by the Agency or City. Walkways and bike paths shall be constructed so as to minimize disturbance to existing vegetation; and Water quality facilities may encroach into the vegetated corridor a maximum of 10 feet with the approval of the Agency or City. Location of Vegetated Corridor: IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATES MULTIPLE PARCELS OR LOTS intended for separate ownership, such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a separate tract, and shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit. [Refer to R a 0 96-44/USA Regulations - Chapter 3, Design for SWMI WATER RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT The WATER RESOURCES (WR) OVERLAY DISTRICT inriplements the policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and is intended to resolve conflicts between development and conservation of significant wetlands, streams and riparian corridors identified in the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory. Specifically, this chapter allows reasonable economic use of property while establishing clear and objective standards to: protect significant wetlands and streams; limit development in designated riparian corridors; maintain and enhance water quality; maximize flood CITY OF TIGARD P"PlIcatlon Conference Notes Page a of 12 Residential Appllcation/Plannlno Division Section storage capacity; preserve native plant cover; minimize streamban frosion; maintain and enhance fish and wildlife habitats; and conserve scenic, recreational and educational values of water resource areas. Safe Harbor: The WR OVERLAY DISTRICT ALSO MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 5 (Natural Resources) and the "safe harbor" provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 660, Division 23). These provisions require that "significant" wetlands and riparian corridors be mapped and protected. The Tualatin River, which is also a "fish-bearing stream," has an average annual flow of more than 1000 cfs. Maior Streams: Streams which are mapped as "FISH-BEARING STREAMS" by the Oregon Department of Forestry and have an average annual flow less than 1000 cubic feet per second (cfs). ➢ MAJOR STREAMS IN TIGARD INCLUDE FANNO CREEK, ASH CREEK (EXCEPT THE NORTH FORK AND OTHER TRIBUTARY CREEKS) AND BALL CREEK. Minor Streams: Streams which are NOT "FISH-BEARING STREAMS" according to Oregon Department of Forestry maps . Minor streams in Tigard include Summer Creek, Derry Dell Creek, Red Rock Creek, North Fork of Ash Creek and certain short tributaries of the Tualatin River. Riparian Setback Area: This AREA IS MEASURED HORIZONTALLY FROM AND PARALLEL TO MAJOR STREAM OR TUALATIN RIVER TOP-OF-BANKS, OR THE EDGE OF AN ASSOCIATED WETLAND, whichever is greater. The riparian setback is the same as the "riparian corridor boundary" in OAR 660-23- 090(1)(d). ➢ The standard Tualatin River riparian setback is 75 feet, unless modified in accordance with this chapter. ➢ The major streams riparian setback is 50 feet, unless modified in accordance with this chapter. ➢ Isolated wetlands and minor streams (including adjacent wetlands) have no riparian setback; however, a 25-foot "water quality buffer" is required under Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) standards adopted and administered by the City of Tigard. [Refer to Code Section 18.85.0101 Riparian Setback Reductions The DIRECTOR MAY APPROVE A SITE-SPECIFIC REDUCTION OF THE TUALATIN RIVER OR ANY MAJOR STREAM RIPARIAN SETBACK BY AS MUCH AS 50% to allow the placement of structures or impervious surfaces otherwise prohibited by this chapter, provided that equal or better protection for identified major stream resources is ensured through streambank restoration and/or enhancement of riparian vegetation in preserved portions of the riparian setback area. Eligibility for Riparian Setback in Disturbed Areas. To be ELIGIBLE FOR A RIPARIAN SETBACK REDUCTION, the applicant must demonstrate that the riparian corridor was substantially disturbed at the time this regulation was adopted. This determination must be based on the Vegetation Study required by Section 18.85.050.C that demonstrates all of the following: ➢ Native plant species currently cover less than 80% of the on-site riparian corridor area; ➢ The tree canopy currently covers less than 50% of the on-site riparian corridor and healthy trees have not been removed from the on-site riparian setback area for the last five years; ➢ That vegetation was not removed contrary to the provisions of Section 18.85.050 regulating removal of native plant species; CITY OF TIURD P"Pllcation Conference Notes Page 9 of 12 troddentialAppllcatl0p/Pltppln OMsloo Section ➢ That there will be no infringement into the 100-year floodplainn,and ➢ The average slope of the riparian area is not greater than 20%. [Refer to Code Section 18.851001 NARRATIV The APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings for all applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. Applicant should review code for applicable criteria. CODE SECTIONS Z18.80 x/18.92 X18.102 _ 18.116 18.150 _ 18.84 _ 18.96 -,"18.106 _ 18.120 ✓18.160 _ 18.85 18.98 _Z 18.108 _ 18.130 18.162 18.88 ✓ 18.100 _ 18.114 _ 18.134 18.164 6IMPACT epart of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to include impact study with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks 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 property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. [Refer to Code Chapter 18.32 Section.0501 WHEN A CONDITION OF APPROVAL REQUIRES TRANSFER TO THE PUBLIC OF AN INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. [Refer to Code Chapter 18.32 Section.2501 NEIGHBOR 001 D MEETING The APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 250 FEET AND THE APPROPRIATE CIT FACILITATOR of their proposal. A minimum of two (2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. "Note: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application. (Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout) UILDING PERMITS PLANS F R BUILDING AND OTHER RELATED PERMITS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW UNTIL A LAND USE APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. Final inspection approvals by the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of development approval. These pre-application notes do not include comments from the Building Division. For proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it is recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Appgcadon Conference Notes Page 16 of 12 Residential appl1c1tl01/R1110109 DIVISION Section RECYCUN Applican hokSecti ACT FRANCHISE HAULER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE SERVICING ILITY with Pride Disposal's vehicles. CONTACT PERSON: Lenny Hing with Pride Dis3) 625-6177. (Refer to C181161 ADDITIONAL CONCER NS OR COMMENTS: ?Rye fE G-riz EEr w i rz-r K I o-t:s ; Z Zs' 4-jl a 7,.l /&Z ® 'RZdy V00 DCbCUrJVet~7tA'TLO tJ ON e-,~SEMENTCS 67 TA_x- Fn ,n o,- SW - 1`3 O v 1Q O - -e Id Got. EE'T CQiv Ec. Ttv.~ ~ SCrJ VE~v ,~~4 , ~a~/~ /Gr~t1>ES . w e-cr ~ f1S -ram- \ ~ rv PSI--1-tP,n~' . Cl.9.e.tF..~ mar= e .mss ~w.~!~..~~a~,, s +~s ~-r~ vE i s ~~~tc..~ ntcx5saeu LF yx.e~ -4N,L,. U I NG11.1- V E lC l F AC,_- r,,5_,9 s-T 0-i J2! W10 I roc fl 40 6Q VACS k" A k P STAFF-7 CCrntCiLC^ T-CT by ieA A-,-9 I'le.,( 4r_j~ t 'LA-roe) 4.wl) et p-l 7,. •cr.r,s~s J G..- ('fret ~ t~1/ G&44 1'r3cs z PROCEDURE 7) to v~ r r I y~ G e r of f Administrative Staff Review. _ Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. _j.-ftblic hearing before the Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS All APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED BY A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF MEMBER of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned. Applications will NOT be accepted after 3:00 P.M. on Fridays or 4:30 on other week days. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 by 11 inches. One (1), 8%" x 11" map of a proposed project should be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. Application with unfolded maps shall not be accepted. The Planning Division and Engineering Division will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. The administrative decision or public hearing will typically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. A 10, to 20 day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard (7141 A basic flow chart which illustrates the review prod available from the Planning Division upon request. This pre-application conference and the notes of the conference are intended to inform the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. CITY OF TIURD P"Pllcadon Conference Notes Page 11 of 12 IssIdenllalAppllestlon/Rlenoloo oMslon SWen PLEASE NOTE: The conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects of good site planning that should apply to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required by the Code shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It Is recommended that a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submitting an application. ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE, (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). PREPARED BY: CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION - STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP. MEETING PHONE 15031639-4111 FAX: 1503) 684-1291 E-MAIL (staff's first name4ClAgard.0r.us h:Uogin\patty\masters\preapp-r.mst (Engineering section: preapp.eng) 5-Feb-98 CRY OF TIGARD Pro-ApPHNUOR Cmtler M Motes Page 12 d 12 ea:ldentlel polieatlnRlazolatl Wsloo Set:tlan „ I PRE4PPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES SECTION Q cltyofngarioregen ENGINEERING - Comrnuruty Development r shapirrna. Better Comm=ty PUBLIC FACILITIES. 45 I 3(v AA The purpose of the pre-application conference is to: (1.) Identify applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions. (2.) To provide City staff an opportunity to comment on specific concerns. (3.) To review the Land Use Application review process with the applicant and to identify who the final decision making authority shall be for the application. The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a projection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. Right-of-way dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public: (1.) To increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification right-of-way width as specified by the Community Development Code; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for: to 2-5 feet from centerline. 76 T6, to 570 _ feet!, ate4it~e. ( VY' 1 02. 4scR-~i,s to 5® feet T`? i 'line. Street improvements: (v~ I Z street improvements will be necessary along Svc Vt ,4 1 II R)U- street improvements will a necessary along Uc-,,~( s (krKA . S . ` I ✓c-, ( t~ Street improvements on V~~i dear Xkp,. shall include I Lo feet of pavement from centerline, plus the installation of curb and gutters, storm sewers, underground placement of utility wires (a fee may be collected if determined appropriate by the Engineering Department), a five-foot wide sidewalk (sidewalks may be required to be wider on arterials or major collector streets, or in the Central Business District), necessary street signs and traffic control devices, streetlights, and a two year streetlighting fee. I cl." - Sheet ' provements on 1mg. sz, ~ 5 shall include 3 Z feet of pavement fry cej#emm, plus the installation of Curb and gutters, storm sewers, underground placement of CITY OF n6AR0 Pre-Applicadon Conference Notes Page 1 at 5 Engineering Department Section by utility. wires (a fee *y be collected if determined appropr'~ the Engineering Department), a five-foot wide sidewalk (sidewalks may be required to be wider on arterials or major collector streets, or in the Central Business District), necessary street signs and traffic control devices, streetlights, and a two year streetlighting fee. Section 18.164.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code (TM re ires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed under ound or, t the election of the veloper, a fee in-lieu of undeVieet id. This requi ment is valid even if th utility lines are on the oppet from the site. the fee in-lieu is propo d, it is equal to $ 27.5lineal street frontage th t contains the overhea nes. There are existing ove ead utility lineto this site along SW Prior to applicant shall either place ese utilities underground, or pay fe ' -lieu described above. In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approval may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to execute a non-remonstrance agreement which waives the property owner's right to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district. The following street improvements may be eligible for such an agreement: 0 (2.) Pedestrianways/bikeways: Sanitary Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this pro erty is a(n) inch line which is located lic Tr V<>, -frh, , sVCC-, Fw,-,s r or✓2- The proposed development must be connected to a public sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to EyxGt,,P Pik a- Se,--g_ u ►,t6S ,►i W,A,5/ 5yxver S R T6►.~D •~2- ~t~65 "Try .4Q)~~-~ Uhl/~ ~c 3 naecE~.s . Water Supply: The ~~1 Vk{ Water District - Phone:(503) Ziy 51 1 provides public water service in the area of this site. The District should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your proposed development. CITY OF fl6ARD Pre-Apolicat on Conference Notes Page 2 of 5 Eogloeerrng Deportment SecUog Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (Contact: Gene Birchill, (503) 526-2469) provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. Storm Sewer Improvements: All proposed development within the City shall be designed such that storm water runoff is conveyed to an approved public drainage system. The applicant will be required to submit a proposed storm drainage plan for the site, and may be required to prepare a sub-basin drainage analysis to ensure that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed. A downstream analysis will also likely be necessary to determine if runoff from the proposed development will cause adverse impacts to the existing storm system downstream of the site. Uk.Ir-~M Af a g1S ~1N1~ X7 1 ~f~ Prt,.t -4au-- ( S~BM i~ 0t+ 5Ibpxji ACA A.►fl LK.61 AcIPULA-0-A. N c_fH i~ T► Drrcrt ~~~Fi as A V~Pn►.a~E~r.~f ~v~, Other Comments: All proposed sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems shall be designed such that City maintenance vehicles will have unobstructed access to critical manholes in the systems. Maintenance access roadways may be required if existing or proposed facilities are not otherwise readily accessible. S~ P(-r%u£5 .;~E AL-L, su s L>4 Tam R~JISt~.l APuca-g.,L \PtAos . c2T-e-t'6E 64.1-0 SA %4S 01= STLiS ( I PLP11 t/1c~..J 4 FIB STORM WATER QUALITY The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 91-47, as amended by R&O 91-75) which requires 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. The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing an on-site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determining whether or not the fee in-lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of new impervious surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall be $210. Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. It is anticipated that this project will require: ( Construction of an on-site water quality facility. ( ) Payment of the fee in-lieu. CITY Of TIGARD P"Plicatlon Conference Notes Page 3 of 5 Engineering Department Section TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES In 1990, Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee program collects fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation of the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based fee category. The TIF shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances, payment of the TIF may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of the payment until occupancy is permissible only when the TIF is greater than $5,000.00. PERMITS Engineering Department Permits: Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a permit from the Engineering Department. There are two types of permits issued by Engineering, as follows: Street Opening Permit (SOP). This permit covers relatively minor work in a public right-of-way or easement, such as sidewalk and driveway installation or repair, and service connections to main utility lines. This work may involve open trench work within the street. The permittee must submit a plan of the proposed work for review and approval. The cost of this type of permit is calculated as 4% of the cost of the work and is payable prior to issuance of the permit. In addition, the permittee will be required to post a bond or similar financial security for the work. Compliance Agreement (CAP). This permit covers more extensive work such as main utility line extensions, street improvements, etc. In subdivisions, this type of permit also covers all grading and private utility work. Plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted for review and approval. The cost of this permit is also calculated as 4% of the cost of the improvements, based on the design engineer's estimate, and is payable prior to issuance of the approved plan. The permittee will also be required to post a performance bond, or other such suitable security, and execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. Prior to City acceptance of any permitted work, and prior to release of work assurance bond(s), the work shall be deemed complete and satisfactory by the City in writing. The permittee is responsible for the work until such time written City acceptance of the work is posted. NOTE: If an Engineering Permit is required, the applicant must obtain that permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Division. Building Division Permits: The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Division. For a more detailed explanation of these permits, please contact the Development Services Counter at 503-639-4171, ext. 304. CITY OFTIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 5 Engineering Department secttoo Site Improvement Permit (SIT). This permit is genera issued for all new commercial, industrial and multi-family projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where lot grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation, grading and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading work in cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundation excavation material is not to be hauled from the site. Building Permit (BUP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multi-family buildings. It covers all work necessary for building construction, including sub-trades (excludes grading, etc.). This permit can not be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantially complete and a mylar copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the City. For a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required, and return a mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit. Other Permits. There are other special permits, such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for more information. GRADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISIONS All subdivision projects shall require a proposed grading plan prepared by the design engineer. The engineer will also be required to indicate which lots have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections will be required when the lots develop. The design engineer will also be required to shade all structural fill areas on the construction plans. In addition, each homebuilder will be required to submit a specific site and floor plan for each lot. The site plan shall include topographical contours and indicate the elevations of the comers of the lot. The builder shall also indicate the proposed elevations at the four comers of the building. PREPARED BY: ENGINEERING DEP TMENT STAFF Phone: 15031639-4111 Fax: 15031684-1291 hApa"asters\preapp. eng (Master section: preapp-r.mst) 18-Nov-97 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 5 Engineering iiepartment section CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST CITY 2 W1, Of TIOARD The items on the checklist below are required for the succesful completion of your application submission requirements. This checklist identifies what is required to be submitted with your application. This sheet MUST be returned and submitted with all other applicable materials at the time you submit your land use application. See your application for further explanation of these items or call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. Staff: wt(l 1 Aaj bTZ.ZA Date: 3-7-5-9? APPLICATION & RELATED DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE J MARKED ITEMS A) Application form (1 copy) 6) Owner's signature/written authorization o' C) Title transfer instrument/or grant deed d D) Applicant's statement No. of Copies 7-L4 I7 Filing Fee $ SEC -Fee. Sc hec(.~`e SITE-SPECIFIC,MAP(S)1PLAN(S) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE J MARKED ITEMS A) Site Information showine: No. of Copies 1. Vicinity map 2. Site size & dimensions d 3. Contour lines (2 ft at 0-10% or 5 ft for grades > 10%) 4. Drainage patterns, courses, and ponds 5. Locations of natural hazard areas including: ❑ (a) Floodplain areas ❑ (b) Slopes in excess of 25% o' (c) Unstable ground (d) Areas with high seasonal water table ❑ (e) Areas with severe soil erosion potential ❑ (f) Areas having severely weak foundation soils ❑ 6. Location of resource areas as shown on the Comprehensive I\,/tap Inventory including: ❑ (a) Wildlife habitats o (b) Wetlands ❑ 7. Other site features: (a) Rock outcroppings ❑ (b) Trees with 6" + caliper measured 4 feet from ground level tam 8. Location of existing structures and their uses 0--' 9. Location and type of on and off-site noise sources ❑ 10. Location of existing utilities and easements 11. Location of existing dedicated right-of-ways LAND USE APPLICATION J LIST PAGE I Of 5 B) Site Development Plan Indicating: No. of Copies Z 1. The proposed site and surrounding properties e~ 2. Contour line intervals 3. The location, dimensions and names of all: (a) Existing & platted streets & other public ways and easements on the site and on adjoining properties (b) Proposed streets or other public ways & easements on the site o/ (c) Alternative routes of dead end or proposed streets that require future extension 4. The location and dimension of: (a) Entrances and exits on the site ❑ (b) Parking and circulation areas ❑ (c) Loading and services area ❑ (d) Pedestrian and bicycle circulation ❑ (e) Outdoor common areas ❑ (f) Above ground utilities o 5. The location, dimensions & setback distances of ail: (a) Existing permanent structures, improvements, utilities, and easements which are located on the site and on adjacent property within 25 feet of the site G3' (b) Proposed structures, improvements, utilities and easements d on the site 6. Storm drainage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions cf 7. Sanitary sewer facilities d 8. The location areas to be landscaped r3~' 9. The location and type of outdoor lighting considering crime prevention techniques ❑ 10. The location of mailboxes ❑ 11. The location of all structures and their orientation ❑ 12. Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements ❑ C) Grading Plan Indicating: No. of Copies ZI4 The site development plan shall include a grading plan at the same scale as the site analysis drawings and shall contain the following information: 1. The location and extent to which grading will take place indicating: (a) General contour lines (b) Slope ratios (c) Soil stabilization proposal(s) o~ (d) Approximate time of year for the proposed site development 2. A statement from a registered engineer supported by data factual substantiating: (a) Subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering report (b) The validity of sanitary sewer and storm drainage service proposals t~ (c) That all problems will be mitigated and how they will be mitigated tam LANO USE APPUCATION / LIST PACE 2 OF 3 D) 'Archfitectural rawin s Indicatin No. of Copies The site develo %inicating proposal shall include: 1. Floor plathe square footage of all structures proposed site 2. Typical ewings of each structure E) Landscape Plan Indicatin: No. of Copies Z'-\ The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale of the site analysis plan or a larger scale if necessary and shall indicate: 1. Description of the irrigation system where applicable ❑ 2. Location and height of fences, buffers and screenings ❑ 3. Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and common open spaces ❑ 4. Location, type, size and species of existing and proposed plant materials 5. Landscape narrative which also addresses: (a) Soil conditions ❑ (b) Erosion control measures that will be used ❑ F) Sign Drawims: ° Sign drawings shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter 18.114 of the Code as part of the Site Development Review or prior to obtaining a Building Permit to construct a sign. G) Traffic Generation Estimate: ar"4 H) Preli -na Partition/Lot Line Adjustment May Indicatin : No. of Copies 1. Th owner of the subject parcel ❑ 2. The owner's authorized agent ❑ 3. The ap scale (20,50,100 or 200 feet-1) inch north arrow and date ❑ 4. Descr tion of parcel location and boundaries ° 5. Locatio , width and names of streets, easements and other public ways wi hin and adjacent to the parcel ❑ 6. Location f all permanent buildings on and within 25 feet of all property II es ° 7. Location a d width of all water courses ❑ 8. Location of ny trees within 6" or greater caliper at 4 feet above ground level ° 9. All slopes gre ter than 25% ° 10. Location of exi ting utilities and utility easements ❑ 11. For major land artition which creates a public street: (a) The propos d right-of-way location and width ❑ (b) A scaled cro -section of the proposed street plus any reserve strip ❑ 12. Any applicable dee restrictions ❑ 13. Evidence that land p ition will not preclude efficient future land division where applic le ❑ LAND USE APPLICATION / LIST PACE 3 Of S 0 1). Subdivision' Preliminary Plat Map and Data Indicating: *o, of Copies Z L 1. Scale equaling 30,50,100 or 200 feet to the inch and limited to one phase per sheet 2. The proposed name of the subdivision 3. Vicinity map showing property's relationship to arterial and / collector streets ~f 4. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of the owner, developer, engineer, surveyer and designer (as applicable) 5. Date of application Ell" 6. Boundary lines of tract to be subdivided 7. Names of adjacent subdivision or names of recorded owners of adjoining parcels of un-subdivided land r~ 8. Contour lines related to a City-established benchmark at 2-foot intervals for 0-10% grades greater than 10% 9. The purpose, location, type and size of all the following (within and. adjacent to the proposed subdivision): (a) Public and private right-of-ways and easements (b) Public and private sanitary and storm sewer lines (c) Domestic water mains including fire hydrants (d) Major power telephone transmission lines (50,000 volts or greater) o (e) Watercourses o (f) Deed reservations for parks, open spaces, pathways and other land encumbrances 0 10. Approximate plan and profiles of proposed sanitary and storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes indicated on the plans 11. Plan of the proposed water distribution system, showing pipe sizes and the location of valves and fire hydrants 12. Approximate centerline profiles showing the finished grade of all streets including street extensions for a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision 13. Scaled cross sections of proposed street right-of-way(s) 14. The location of all areas subject to inundation or storm water overflow 15. Location, width & direction of flow of all water courses & drainage-ways 16. The proposed lot configurations, approximate lot dimensions and lot numbers. Where lots are to be used for purposes other than residential, it shall be indicated upon such lots. 17. The location of all trees with a diameter 6 inches or greater measured at 4 feet above ground level, and the location of proposed tree plantings 1.8. The existing uses of the property, including the location of all structures and the present uses of the structures, and a statement of which structures are to remain after platting 19. Supplemental information including: (a) Proposed deed restrictions (if any) 13 (b) Proof of property ownership (c) A proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvements 20. Existing natural features including rock outcroppings, wetlands & marsh areas 21. If any of the foregoing information cannot practicably be shown on the preliminary plat, it shall be incorporated into a narrative and submitted with the application o ,f LINO USE APPLIG-kTION I LIST PAGE 4 OF 5 J) Solar Access Calculations: K) Other Information No. of Copies ❑ h:Vogin\oattylrnaste(sUcklist.mst may 23, 1995 LANO USE APPLICATION./ LIST PACE 5 OF 5 07/20/98 10:25 V503 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 0001 sus ACTIVITY REPORT sr~ TRANSMISSION OR T%/R% NO. 5057 CONNECTION TEL 5036539095 CONNECTION ID START TIME 07/20 10:10 USAGE TIME 14'27 PAGES 23 RESULT OH arc S M T W T F S 4 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 1 0 3 14 1 1 5 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 2 5 6 27 28 : mid: :u.....'alk.::.:. E,...:;.; 8:00 ifs and l~k bafae sclc~uilg...>..>..> 8:30 I.- me 0 9:00 9:30 »::::<:::>;;:««::::< u..: ar 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 , 5:00 5:30 6:00 1:25PM Wednesday, March 18, 1998 . K .a................. . August 31, 1998 Mr. Kenneth L. Sandblast Compass Corporation 6564 SE Lake Road Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 Subject: Proposed SW Locust Street Development, Tigard, Oregon Dear Mr. Sandblast. Thank you for your August 26, 1998, meeting held by Compass Corporation regarding Windgate Homes, Inc.'s, proposed SW Locust Street development. Subsequent to that meeting, the below-referenced residents would like to bring several issues to your attention regarding the proposed development. The width of SW Locust Street in front of our homes and at the point of access to the proposed development is 27 feet wide curb-to-curb, not 35 feet as indicated on your preliminary design plan. Since residents in our neighborhood make extensive use of on-street parking, this leaves anywhere between 12 to 15 feet of street available for vehicles to pass in front of our homes, and in all likelihood in the future for ingress and/or egress to the development site. The 12 to 15-foot width does not allow for two-way traffic. Since your proposed development will more than quadruple the amount of traffic in front of our respective residences, we believe that Compass Corporation needs to re-evaluate their proposed site development for the following reasons: 1) The available street width will result in an extreme amount of vehicle congestion in front of our residences 2) The available street width will limit emergency vehicle access to our residences, and also to the proposed development We believe that Compass Corporation needs to seriously consider additional site ingress and egress to the site. We propose that an additional access to SW Ventura Street immediately to the north of the proposed development is the most beneficial and efficient location. SW Ventura Street is much wider than our portion of SW Locust Street, and is better designed to take two-way traffic. A v Compass Issue Letter #1 Page 2 of 2 Proposed SW Locust Street Development August 31, 1998 Tigard, Oregon As a second issue, we believe that the map presented on August 26, 1998, was missing a number of 12-inch diameter trees on the western border of the proposed site development. We request that Compass Corporation re-evaluate this portion of the property for large trees. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact any of the below. Sincerely, Residents 7081 SW Locust Street U Guy Tanz Kathleen Tanz H (503) 452-8307 (503) 452-8307 W (503) 796-0717 Residents 7090 SW Locust Street Rick Boler Patricia Boler H (503) 246-3350 (503) 246-3350 W (360) 835-9589 (503) 768-3766 c: City of Tigard Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue L - ` AGREEMENT NOT TO FURTHER ENFORCE This agreement is between the City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation (City), and BJD Properties, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company (BJD). RECITALS A. City has evidence that three trees (identified as tree numbers 2104, 2154 and 2155 on the Tree Plan for the Ventura Estates subdivision, and hereinafter referred to as the Trees) were removed in violation of a tree plan binding on property owners. BJD is the owner of the property where the Trees were located. B. BJD does not admit liability, but is willing to pay all penalties and fees that would be imposed for removal of the Trees. C. Tigard is willing to accept payment of all penalties and fees and to forego any further enforcement, prosecution or claims related to the removal of the Trees. AGREEMENT 1. BJD shall pay Tigard a total of $20,570. That amount is based on the $500 civil penalty per tree ($1500 for the three trees), a payment of $8,070 for the value of the Trees, and $11,000 for a fee-in-lieu of replacement, based on $125 per caliper inch. 2. Tigard agrees not to take any further action against BJD or other present or future owners of the property relating to the removal of the Trees. Tigard agrees not to commence or prosecute any action in municipal court for a civil infraction and agrees not to commence any other proceedings in any forum for enforcement or collection of payment relating to removal of the Trees. CITY OF TIGARD Cam'` ~ . By: Its: BJD PROPERTIES, LLC Its: ~~~~✓~r Nq~i 30 2006 4:19PN WINGATE CORP 5036574646 p.1 BJD Properties, LLC PO Box 587 West Linn, OR 97068 Fax - 503-722-2140 Phone - 503-722-2140 Cell - 503-793-8894 Date: November 30, 2006 To: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner Company: City of Tigard Re: Trees - Ventura Estates Pages (including cover): 2 Gary, Here is the signed copy of the agreement and I am mailing the original to you today. Margie Schroeder talked to Gary Firestone and this is how they decided to get the documents to each other. Barry Desbiens _ Now 30 2006 4:19PM WINGATE CORP 5036574646 P.2 AGREEMENT NOT TO FURTHER ENFORCE This agreement is between the City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation (City), and BJD Properties, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company (BJD). RECITALS A. City has evidence that three trees (identified as tree numbers 2104, 2154 and 2155 on the Tree Plan for the Ventura Estates subdivision, and hereinafter referred to as the Trees) were removed in violation of a tree plan binding on property owners. BJD is the owner of the property where the Trees were located. B. BJD does not admit liability, but is willing to pay all penalties and fees that would be imposed for removal of the Trees. C. Tigard is willing to accept payment of all penalties and fees and to forego any further enforcement, prosecution or claims related to the removal of the Trees. AGREEMENT 1. BJD shall pay Tigard a total of $20,570. That amount is based on the $500 civil penalty per tree ($1500 for the three trees), a payment of $8,070 for the value of the Trees, and $11,000 for a fee-in-lieu of replacement, based on $125 per caliper inch. 2. Tigard agrees not to take any further action against BJD or other present or future owners of the property relating to the removal of the Trees. Tigard agrees not to commence or prosecute any action in municipal court for a civil infraction and agrees not to commence any other proceedings in any forum for enforcement or collection of payment relating to removal of the Trees. CITY OF TIGARD By:. Its: BJD PROPERTIES, LLC Its: 1'~ i c • B L A C K H E L T E R L 1 N E LLP A T T O R N E Y 5 A N 0 C O U N 5 E L O R 5 A T L A W MARGIE SCHROEDER E-mail: mcs@bhlaw.com November 29, 2006 File No. W502 VIA HAND-DELIVERY Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner Current Planning Division City of Tigard 13125 S. W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Reference: Ventura Estates Dear Mr. Pagenstecher: We represent BJD Properties, LLC ("BJD"), owner of the eight remaining developable lots within the Ventura Estates subdivision. It is our understanding that BJD must pay certain penalties for alleged violations of the City's tree ordinance. The purpose of this letter is to confirm the amount BJD must pay to remediate these violations. It is our understanding that three trees were removed without first obtaining prior approval for their removal. These trees are identified on the approved Tree Plan as tree numbers 2105, 2154, and 2155. Pursuant to Section 18.790.060(C) of the city of Tigard's Community Development Code ("CDC"), BJD agrees to do the following to resolve this matter: 1. Pay a $500 civil penalty for each tree; 2. Pay an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of the trees removed; and 3. Pay a fee-in-lieu of replacement for each tree. Wingate hired a certified arborist, Philip C. Hickey with Halstead's Arboriculture Consultants, Inc., to determine the estimated value of the trees removed. A copy of Mr. Hickey's November 6, 2006 report is attached.' The total value of the trees removed is $8,070. 'Pursuant to CDC Section 18.790.060(C)(2), Mr. Halstead used the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal in determining the value of these trees. 1900 FOX TOWER BOS BOUTMWEBT BROADWAY PORTLAND OREGON 97205-3359 TELEPHONE 503.224.5560 FACSIMILE 503.224.6148 WWW.BHLAW.COM Mr. Gary Pagenstecher November 29, 2006 - Page 2 According to Mr. Hickey's report, these trees total 88 caliper inches. Pursuant to CDC Section 18.790.060(E), a party may elect to compensate the City in lieu of tree replacement. In accordance therewith, BJD proposes paying $125 per caliper inch for these 88 inches, which amounts to $11,000. Based on the foregoing, enclosed for immediate deposit is a check for $20,570, along with a release for your signature. This amount represents $1,500 in civil penalties, an additional civil penalty of $8,070 representing the estimated value of the trees removed, and a fee-in-lieu of replacement at $125 per caliper inch totaling $11,000. Please let me know as soon as possible if this is an acceptable resolution. Very truly yours, e vO~ Margie Schroeder MES:Inn Enclosures cc w/encs: BJD Properties, LLC .110V U1 cuub J: Turn W 1 n I 1Z UUKr ,uJOO~o-to p- c 11/07/2086 13:35 5036,9165 HALSTEA0., PAGE 02/84 HALSTEAD'S ARBORICULTURE "9p rworve In the care n,~d CONSULTANTS, INC. pros°n+aHonoflroea" k`` DaviOHanetontd, Canautlant, B.S Mulp WNteemb, Consultant P.O. Sox 1102 & Tualson, OR 97062 (603) 246-13e3 November 6, 2006 WingaW Homes Attn: Mr. Barry Desbiens k P.O. BOX 289 West Linn, OR 97066 TEL.: (503) 6573300 FAX: (503) 722-2140 Refarence: Tree Assessment Leedom Lots $ & 9- Locust Street Subdivision, Tigard, Oregon Subject: Tree Appraisal far Trees Numbered 2165, 2154 & 2105 Mr_ Daeblens: At your request, l have inspected the fire numbered 2155 on Lot NO and trees numbered 2154 & 2105 on Lot 09 located within the Locust Street Sutxlivlsion, Tigard, Oregon, The purpose of the inspection was to oomplets a tree appraisal, assessing monetary values for all three existing tress. The appraisal was completed in accordance with the International Society of Arboriculture (18A) QLddh for Pfant Appraisal, 9" Edition authored by the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers. Appraisal values were calculated using the T(unk Formula Method based an the Cost Approach procedure for valuation. Observations andAppraissl Tree Number 2166 - Species: Douglas-fir (Pseudotsugs menzks4. Tree Measuremehts: The tree is apprmdmately 90 feet in overall height and has a tnu* diameter of 29 Inches measured at 54 Inches above ground along the center a* of the trunk. The canopy limb spread is approximately 30 feat In diameter as projected on the ground and the tree Is growing with a mild to rnoderabe leanlsweep to the southwest of approximately 5 degrees. Condition: Root system / root plate appears sound with no visible cracking. The trunk has a moderate dogleg defect vloible at 30 feet above ground. Scaffold branch spacing and structure Is average to poor for the species. l in the lower W of the canopy and shoLdd r be deadwood (2 inch diameter and pruned from tree. Overall amopy structure is moderate for the species- Health and Vigor: Vigor of tree is average for species - 6 Inches of growth can be seen on last year's growth (visual estimation). ii Foliage appears green and heeft with very few pockets of light browning and mild chlorosla. Insects and Disease: None visible. Site: The tree is located within a I email: hac®3pkhone.com www.haisteadMftrlouhure.cam CCs. 00611646 I . naV U f e-UUb J: lurrl W H I t 4uKr ~U~b allot P. 11/07/2806 13:35 5036916A HALWEEADS PAGE 03/04 Page 2 November 6, 2006 . Reference: Tree Asseeement Location: Lots 9 4 9 - Lbcust Street Subdivision, Tigard, Oregon Subject: Tree Appraisal for Trees Numbered 2155, 2154 8 2105 forestlurban interface setthV that Is now partially established as a planned development housing subdivision. The site has been maintained only as an urban forest and individual trees have not been professionally pruned and cared for in the past. VALUE: The calculated value of this tree using the Trunk Formula Method is $2,000.00. Tree Number 2154- Spades: westem red cedar (Thuja pNceta). Tree Measuremente. The tree Is approximately, 90 feet In overall helpht and has a trunk diameter of 36 inches messured at 54 Inches above ground along the center axis of the trunk. The canopy limb spread is approximately 36 feet in diameter as projected on the ground and the tree is growing upright with less then a 5 degres lean In any direction. Condition: Root system I root plate appears sound with no visible cracking. The trunk to straight and appears sound. Scaffold branch spacing and structure is average to good for the species. There is a moderate amount of major deadwood (2 Inch dameter and greater) in the lower half of the canopy and should be pruned from tree, overall canopy structure Is good for the spiecivo. Health and Vlgor Vigor of tree Is average for species - 4 to a Inches of growth can be seen on last year's growth (visual estimation). Foliage appears green surd hea4hy and canopy density Is good. Insects and Disease: None visible. SIW. The tree is burled within s foreethorban Interface sitting that is now partially established as a planned development housing subdivision. The site has been nointained only as an urban forest and individual trees have not been professionally pruned and cared for in the past. VALUE: `The calculated value of this Use using the Trunk Formula Method is $4,400.00, Tree Number 2105 - Species: western red cedar (Thaia pAcate). Tree Measurement's: The Iree is approximately 60 feet in overall height and has a trunk diameter of 23 Inches treasured e1;64 [riches above ground along the carnal axis of the trunk, The canopy Urnb spread is approximately 30 feet In diameter as projected on the ground and to tree is growing upright with less than a 6 degree ban In any direction. Condition: Root system 1 root plate appears sound with no visible crac ft. The hunk is straight, but does halve a codominant stem with a bark Irrdualon located at 30 feel above ground that needs a cable support system Installed to support b* weighting, Scaffold branch spacing and structure is average to poor for the specles, There is a moderato amount of major deadwood (2 inch dl imeter and greater) In the lower half of the canopy and should be pruned from tree. Overall Canopy struc lUM N average to poor forthe specws. Health and Vigor: Visor of tree is average for species - 4 to 6 Inches of grvwliti can be seen on last year's growth (visual eatirnation). ~ofiage appem green and heaHhy and canopy density is good. Insects and Disease: None visible. Sias: The tree Is located within a forestlurban IMarfaoe setting that is now partially established as a planned development housing subdivision. The site has been maintained only as an urban forest and individual trees have not been professionally pruned and cared for in the pact. VALUE: The calculated value of this tree using the Trunk Formula Method is $1,a70-W. IIUV u l GUUO J: larll w 1"1 I - I.URr 0000.7 ToTO "*T 11/07/2006 13:35 6036916 HALSTEADS PAGE 84/04 Page 3 November 6, 2006 Reference: Treq Assessment Location: Lots 8 8 9 - Locust Street Suhdivision, Tigard, Oregon Subject: Tree ApprohW for Trees Numbered 2155, 2154 & 2105 I ced#y that a# of the statements of fact In this appralsal are huv, complete, and oorract to the beat of my knowledge and belief, and that they are made In good faft PkQc Philip C. Hickey Project Consulting Arborist ISA Board CertMed MasterArbwW PN-16049 ISA Member I ISA FNW Mwrjber ASCA Member i i i Page 1 of 1 r ~ • • Gary Pagenstecher - Ventura Estates, Tree Removal From: "John Frewing" <jfrewing@teleport.com> To: "Gary Pagenstacher" <garyp@tigard-or.gov>, "Pat Leonard" <pvlnrd@comcast.net>, "Kathy Meads" <kadeliab@comcast.net> Date: 11/28/2006 5:30 PM Subject: Ventura Estates, Tree Removal CC: "Dick Bewersdorff' <DICK@tigard-or.gov>, "Tom Coffee" <Tomc@tigard-or.gov> Gary, Attached are three photos taken this afternoon at Ventura Estates. Thank you for returning my call upon hearing that tree removal was taking place. I appreciate learning that the original developer did settle with City of Tigard and cleared the Stop Work Order of at least a couple years back, and that apparently he was in the process of selling the remaining lots to a builder. I don't know if the sale has gone thru or who is responsible for the present tree removal. The first photo is taken looking west from SW 70th Ave, looking across Lot 2. You can see that two large trees (greater than 12" diameter) have been removed toward the north side of the lot. In looking at what I think I have (the approved tree plan), these trees do not show at all!! But I think the city code says that approval of the tree plan authorizes removal of the marked trees ONLY. So even if these trees did not show on the tree plan (an error itself), their removal seems unauthorized and subject to enforcement/fines, etc. The second photo is taken from the curb of Lot 9 looking due east. Two large trees have been removed very recently. From my tree plan, I cannot determine whether these trees might be #2111 and 2109 (20"cedar and 12" fir), which are permitted to be removed, or whether they are #2105 and 2106 (24"cedar and 20"fir), which are NOT to be removed. Of course I would appreciate knowing the city's judgment on this matter. The third photo is taken from the southeast part of Lot 9 looking north, down the steep hill. In this photo, one can see that heavy tracked equipment has been operated immediately adjacent to save trees and there is no tree protection fencing in place during this development activity and there is no erosion control covering (usually straw) where the heavy equipment has been operating. All these are violations of the development approval, including CWS standards re erosion. While visiting this site this afternoon after a phone call from a concerned neighbor, I spoke to a fellow who seemed to be the owner of the house on Lot 6. He said his wife had called him today, reporting the tree removal, and he tried to call Barry D., the original developer, but all the phone lines and email address were not in service. Of course this concerns me, and it reinforces my view that in Tigard the developers simply come in, do their damage and leave us citizens with a mess to live with, carrying little responsibility with themselves. It suggests the need for a much greater bond for construction approval, to be held by Tigard for several years after all deveeopment is completed, and to be returned only upon correction of all issues at a three year inspection by the city. Please let me know of city action on this matter. John Frewing file://C:\Documents and Settings\garyp.000\Local Settings\Temp\GW}0000l.HTM 11/29/2006 ,r Y J . i x~ x zx .:::x.ygxx . r.. by : x.. : r a <Vx A° nF 1 I I : ;:ra-:._ City of Tigard, Oregon • 13125 SWHall Blvd. • Tigard, OR 97223 44 M. November 20, 2006 r Margie Schroeder Black Helterline, LLP 1900 Fox Tower 805 SW Broadway Portland, OR 97205 Dear Ms. Schroeder: In your November 8, 2006 letter to the City, you asked us to confirm our position on illegal tree removal as it pertains to the interests of your client, BJD Properties, LLC, owner of the eight remaining developable lots within the Ventura Estates subdivision (SUB1998-00014). The approved Ventura Estates Tree Removal plan dated November 1998 remains the controlling document for the remaining parcels and runs with the land upon sale. If additional trees are removed for future development of dwellings on these lots, a Type III- PC review will be required. Removal of additional trees (which have not otherwise been deemed hazardous by a certified arborist) without land use review, is not permitted and will be considered a violation pursuant to 18.790.060.A. You identified six trees on Lots 8 and 9 that are the subject of your inquiry. You submitted an arborist report (Halstead, April 7, 2006) that identified three of the six trees as hazardous. The three remaining trees would be subject to fines pursuant to 18.790.060.C including a $500 civil penalty for each tree, fee-in-lieu of replacement at $125 per caliper inch DBH (no credit for prior planting), and an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed tree. Sincerely, l ct Gary Pag nstecher Associate Planner c: SUB98-00014 Land Use File is\curpln\gary\enforement\Ventura Estates Phone: 503.639.4171 . Fax: 503.684.7297 . www.6--ard-or.Qov • TTY RPl,,v• s0'14Rd X77) B L A C K H E L T E R L I N E LLP A T T0 R N E Y 9 A N D C D U N S E L D R 5 A T L A W MARGIE SCHROEDER DIRECTDIAL: 503417-2130 E-mail: nics@bhlaw.com Our File No. 13732 November 8, 2006 NOV 0 9 JbX06 VIA E-MAIL AND REGULAR MAIL CITY OF TlGAWD Dick Bewersdorff Planning Manager Current Planning Division City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Reference: Ventura Estates Dear Mr. Bewersdorff: We represent BJD Properties, LLC ("BJD"), owner of the eight remaining developable lots within the Ventura Estates subdivision. Daniel MacNaughton, Inc. is interested in purchasing these lots. It is our understanding that Dan MacNaughton recently met with you, Gary Pagenstecher and Matt Stein to discuss the removal of six trees on Lots 8 and 9. The purpose of this letter is to confirm the City's position that BJD may remove these trees in exchange for payment of mitigation costs for their removal and replacement. The subject trees are identified on the Ventura Estates Subdivision tree plan as tree numbers 2155, 2154, 206, 2105, 2104 and 2103. As Mr. MacNaughton explained to you, it appears that the surveyors misplaced these trees on the tree plan. As a result, development of these lots in conformity with existing homes in the subdivision is impossible absent their removal.1 1 Chapter 18.790 of the City of Tigard's Community Development Code ("CDC") contemplates the need for later exceptions to an approved tree plan. See Section 18.790.010(C) ("The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, streets utilities, and other needed or required improvements within the development."). 1900 FOX TOWER BO5 SOUTNWEBT BRDAD WAY PORTLAND OREOON 97205.3359 TELEPHONE 503.224.5560 FACBIMILE 503.224.6148 WWW.BNLAW.COM Dick Bewersdorff November 8, 2006 - Page 2 0(01 r"\In addition to the problems associated with their location, BJD's arborist has determined that trees 2103, 2104 and 2106 are hazardous. A copy of the arborist's April 7, 2006 report is attached that identifies these three trees as hazardous and specifies their defects. In accordance with CDC Chapter 18.790, BJD hereby proposes to pay the City mitigation fees for both the value of the trees to be removed and the cost of replacing these trees. BJD hired a certified arborist, Philip C. Hickey with Halstead's Arboriculture Consultants, Inc., to determine the estimated value of trees 2155, 2154 and 2105. A copy of Mr. Hickey's November 6, 2006 report is attached.2 The total value of the trees to be removed is $8,070. No value was assigned to trees 2103, 2104 and 2106, because they are hazardous. With regard to the replacement of these trees, it is our understanding that the CDC does not require the replacement of hazardous trees, therefore, replacement is required for only trees 2155, 2154 and 2105. Pursuant to CDC Section 18.790.060(D), replacement of these trees may be accomplished by planting trees that equal or exceed the estimated caliper inches of the trees i removed. According to Mr. Hickey's report, trees 2155, 2154, and 2105 total 88 caliper inches. As shown on the attached chart, a total of 223 caliper inches have been planted within the Ventura Estates Subdivision and 110 caliper inches have been removed. Fifty-nine inches of the 113 caliper inch surplus were used earlier this year to satisfy replacement requirements. BJD proposes to apply the remaining 54-inch surplus to its 88 required replacement inches. For the balance of 34 caliper inches, CDC Section 18.790.060(E) provides a party may elect to compensate the City in lieu of tree replacement. In accordance therewith, BJD proposes paying $12; per caliper inch.for these remaining 34 inches, which amounts to $4,250. d kt Ji~ w t -10rh t i° 0 Q Based on the foregoing, enclosed for immediate deposit is a check for $12,320 94 along with a release for your signature. Please let me know as soon as possible if this proposal is acceptable to the City. We would appreciate a response within 10 days of the date of this letter so that arrangements can be made for the removal of these trees and sale of these lots to Daniel MacNaughton, Inc. / 3 2 Pursuant to CDC Section 18.790.060(C)(2), Mr. Hickey used the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal in determining the value of these trees. ~ ~ a 01PP Dick Bewersdorff November 8, 2006 - Page3 If you have any questions or concerns regarding this proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Margi Schroeder MES:Inn Enclosures cc: BJD Properties, LLC Daniel MacNaughton, Inc. HAClient\B732\Corr\Bewersdorff 0Ldoc HALSTEPO'S S ARBORICULTURE S "pecialists in care and CONSULTANTS, INC. David Halstead, Consultant, B.S. Phillip Whitcomb, Consultant P.O. Box i 182 - Tualatin, OR 97062 (503) 245-1363 ► April 7, 2006 Windgate Homes Attn: Mr. Barry Desbiens P.O. Box 269 West Linn, OR 97068 TEL: (503) 657-3300 FAX: (503) 657-4646 Reference: Tree Evaluation Location: Lots 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, &12 - Locust Street Subdivision, Tigard, Oregon Subject: Tree Assessment Report With your approval, I have inspected the site and proposed site plan for the Locust ` Street Subdivision project located on SW Locust Street, Tigard, Oregon. PURPOSE The purpose of this inspection was to evaluate the preservation potential of requested trees that could potentially be affected by construction. This study was completed in accordance with the City of Tigard's Tree Inspection Criteria as detailed kid, in the City Tree Preservation Ordinance - Chapter 18.790. 1 have individually inspected, tagged, and numbered these specific trees utilizing i, existing tree numbers both in the field and in this report for easy identification. For each tree, I have included a "Tree Characteristics Guide" field report that will explain in detail the species, tree measurements, and health and structural conditions. TREE ASSESSMENT My inspection criteria included: tree species, canopy structure and development, l storm damage, insect and disease problems, overall structural integrity, root crown and root system development, wind throw potential, and construction trauma resistance. In addition, the tree trunk diameters were also measured at ground level I (DGL) in order to provide a more accurate reflection of tree trunk diameter where construction excavation occurs. Email: hac®spiritone.com www.halsteadsarboriculture.com CCBa 0068646 Page 2 of 4 April 7, 2006 Reference: Tree Evaluation Location: Lots 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, &12 - Locust Street Subdivision, Tigard, Oregon Subject: Tree Assessment Report TREE ASSESSMENT - continued There are a total of forty (40) specific trees located within the project boundaries that are identified for evaluation. Of these trees, there are twenty-three (23) trees that are identified as hazardous due to existing structural problems, wind throw potential and/or poor health. The remaining seventeen (17) trees are identified as preservable, provided they receive professional pruning and therapeutic care before, during, and after project construction activities. These trees are relatively healthy and structurally stable. Hazardous Trees: All of the following trees are listed as hazardous due to severe trunk and limb splitting, dead trunks and dead limbs, decay and wounds, and other structural problems that are un-repairable. If additional information is required concerning an individual trees health and structural condition, please refer to the attached "Tree Characteristics Guides" for individual trees. Hazardous trees are listed as follows: Lot 1 - Tree Number 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 & 2014 Lot 7 - Tree Number N/A Lot 8 - Tree Number 2147 & 2151 Lot 9 - Tree Number 2096, 2097, 2103, 2104 & 2106 Lot 10 - Tree Number 2072, 2073, 2074, 2091, 2092, 2093 & 2095 Lot 12 - Tree Number 2383A, 2383C & 2383D Preservable Trees: Trees that are preservable are as follows: Lot 1 - Tree Number 2012 & 2013 Lot 7 - Tree Number 2162, 2163 & 2171 Lot 8 - Tree Number 2148, 2149, 2152 & 2153 Lot 9 - Tree Number 2098, 2099, 2105, 2154 & 2155 Lot 10 -Tree Number 2076 Lot 12 - Tree Number 2383 & 23836 If these trees are to be preserved, it is our recommendation that they be preserved under the following Tree Care and Preservation guidelines. Page 3of4 April 7, 2006 Reference: Tree Evaluation Location: Lots 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, &12 - Locust Street Subdivision, Tigard, Oregon Subject:. Tree Assessment Report TREE CARE AND PRESERVATION MEETINGS: Before the site clearing and construction begins, a pre-construction tree preservation conference will be held on site with the general contractor in charge of tree removal, and/or in charge of heavy equipment, the resident Certified Arborist and those official representatives who have interest in the project. PURPOSE: The purpose of the on-site meeting will be to introduce all parties to the specifications and sensitivity needed in the protection and preservation of trees, their environment, and protected areas. PREPARATION / FENCING: It is critical that tree protection fencing be installed around all preserved trees before any construction/excavation work begins. Tree protection fencing helps to ensure that the root zones of preserved trees are not accidentally compacted or excavated. The fencing needs to be attached to 7-foot tall steel fence posts placed eight feet apart on center forming a protective line around the preserved trees. Fence posts need to be securely anchored in the soil to a depth of two feet. Once the fence has been established, it cannot be adjusted or removed without the consent of the Consulting Arborist. The fencing will need to be maintained throughout the entirety of the project. REMOVALS: Those trees that are structurally unsound, unhealthy, or removed within the preservation areas, will need to be removed under the direct supervision of the Consulting Arborist for this project. Tree removal will be done in such a way so as not to damage preserved trees and their root zones. Removal of these trees may require climbing the trees and taking them down in small pieces. Stumps of the removed trees, which are less than 15 feet from a preserved tree, will be ground-out using a stump grinder. Page 4 of 4 April 7, 2006 Reference: Tree Evaluation Location: Lots 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, &12 - Locust Street Subdivision, Tigard, Oregon Subject: Tree Assessment Report ROOT PRUNING: Excavation when using backhoe, trackhoe, or other mechanical device will be done facing the tree (perpendicular to the roots) rather than along side of the tree (across the roots). Furthermore before excavation begins, "Air Spade" bridging and tunneling will be considered; especially if tree roots are found to be in excess of 2 inches in diameter. THERAPEUTIC CARE: Therapeutic care is described as those treatments that will be needed to increase the preserved trees chances for survival. In order to accomplish this objective, the trees will have to be periodically inspected during the construction process by the project consulting arborist. Treatments are based on individual tree needs, their root zone, and structural condition and health. Factors will be taken into consideration, such as species, soil compaction, season in which construction is done, how much root zone will be affected by construction, losses of surrounding native plantings and loss or changes in surface and sub-surface water. The success of any tree preservation project is based on good communication between the General Contractor and the Consulting Arborist who will be on site and/or on call for the entire project. If I can be of further assistance and/or if more technical information is needed, please contact me immediately. Sincerely, e Philip C. Hickey, BS David W. Halstead, BS Certified Arborist PN-1604A Certified Arborist CA#059 ASCA JVJVV 1 -IV • V W 3 V V I\ 1 • IV v ~1 ~j//vVV V V ~ LVr 1•V111 r. V I~8tJi .7i f NIS ---cmmlc so We Too* 11 lod- LVALW6SPd: ~CUM DM*mosk ~CGQ=bM& v"O "'eo~onpic~rr wb~ev...meat~rahM:r.trot,ns.~~lrs.re4►nt.•.oda..r~►Ma~ SOW NNW" ' •y.%.~?.; ti. S. ' •n 11.E ism- . I.~~`•`~ difio~fNA~ a.~r.r timw~l• Dial iri~4s Y'iil '01~!!!~~~1.~ , 7YNprR~1101t~0elybfi~ •Xifj- 1p5 /1i1~p01~1~ i~1R'i4rldl/IK~111 !!~!E!!•'.;%' . io!M!!~'~ awal 1hl~art tot >~rdprlt 7-+eg=ar* !-Sf'Y . *E~~plr{+1Y~It sNIOYw1~-ssaure.o4~c •~;:r 'J- . ~ :D~'0• SIC °Wira~ro I~s p:gk;ail~be..+,wrM Daw~wdrw O*ft aaraum" Oawawin avm&.ft&.'•• ;=r' rs t.•:'••"%, _r ~ . • • '~"'fiL''r~r~.f~+ ~~f~ a~~m 'Qdrt6$:;~~iWt, • ~ P.;r Ow'Awi' Y;:N' ' ' )lipro~f~' Y K obwvmwo Y K aem t: j,• a ..a¢t ~i'•~ :a ors"'~~'• ••{"~~~`0~'.•aall~ :P'"k YS .tt • qpmr j07 77- ,yLa d_ ,I. 1y IF - W ~,17U I1 1 L 13 Too Clow Cum Helms • • ago tie p~oadC _,.,pln C#..r...~:Tapp° ~+r~ y +y ti rJ ;'t • 4io Trr ~e~ - • .1r~ '~rl1~•~~ *gNt~i --~~~F~ *~x9` OX& t y. wow now ago loop wool Nown saw W I ryGflTE CORP nov u-, zuub : z I PM try 2l crown cWw Dwimot Room Hodib Row *ago Maio waww. fit., ~ . .r i !Y • ~.Ii01w/ god UNMOOR swim 1Z` mppd ~uv+ owy, Wme Sam ago +.z:. OtrlneaMO!► .00 Ir III v It allow `"•-~fe~sb,p,a pawn ;p*!M'!!!`` • • 110V U/ euub O: i brrl W i llu" I C UuKr 0uJ0.7 I Y~tb F+. c 11/07/2086 13:35 5036916539 HALSTEAD6 • PAGE 02/04 HALSTEAD'S ARBORICULTURE "spesinthe care and preservation of trees" CONSULTANTS, INC. k` David Halstead. CcnsutlaN, B.S. vnlAip Whllccmb, Consultant P.O. Box 1102 • Tualatin, OR 970M All, (603) 245.1303 November 6, 2006 Wingate Homes Attn: Mr. Barry Desbiens P.O. Box 259 West Linn, OR 97068 TEL, (503) 657.3300 FAX: (503) 722-2140 Reference: Tree Assessment Location: Lacs 8 & 9 - Locust Street Subdivision, Tigard, Oregon _ Subject: Tree Appraisal for Trees Numbered 2156, 2154 & 2105 Mr. Deablens- At your request, I have inspected the hve numbered 2155 on Lot SO and trees numbered 2154 & 2105 on Lot 49 located within the Locust Street Subdivision, Tigard, Oregon. The purpose of the inspection was to oonnplete a tree appraisal, assessing monetary values for all three existing trees. The appraisal was completed in accordance with the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Gu le for Plant Approka/, 90'Edition authored by the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers. Appraisal values were calculated using the Thank Formula Method based on the Cost Approach procedure for valuation. Observations arld Appraisal 44, ( Tree Number 2165 - Species: Douglas-fir (Pseudbtsuga nreraimo. Tree Measurements: The tree Is approximately 90 feet in overall height and has a trunk diameter of 29 inches measured at 54 Inches above ground along the center ends of the trunk. The canopy limb spread is approximately 30 feet in diametw as projected on the ground and the tree is growing with a mild to moderate Iearftweep to the southwest of approximately 5 degrees. Condition: Root system / root plate appears sound with no visible sacking. The trunk has a moderate dogleg defect visible at 30 feet above ground. Scafpold branch spacing and structure Is average to poor for the species. There Is a large amount of major deadwood (2 inch diameter and greater) i in the lower half of the canopy and should be pruned from tree, overall canopy structure Is moderate for the species. Health and Vigor: Vigor of tree Is average for species - 6 Inches of growth can be seen on last year's growth (visual estimation), it Foliage appears green and healthy with very few pockets of light browning and mild chlorosls. Insects and Disease: None visible. Site: The tree is located within a Email: hat:®spirttone.com www.hWmeadsarboriculture.com CCS.0068646 IIOV U / Cuub J: lbrn W 111UN I t UUKr auyb574b'4b p. J 11/0712006 23:35 5036926539 HALWEAt>6 • PAGE 03/04 Page 2 November 6, 2006 . Reference: Tree Assessment Location: Lots 8 & 9 - Lbcttst Street Subdivision. Tigard, Oreggn SAW: Tree Appraisal for Trees Numbered 2155, 2154 a 2105 forestlurban Interface setting that is now partially established as a planned development housing subdivision. The site has been maintained only as an urban forest and individual trades have not been professionaNy pruned and cared far In the past. VALUE: The calculated value of this tree using the Trunk Formula Method Is $2,000.00. Tree Number 2154 - Species: western red cedar (Thuja p/rcceta). Tree Measuaremen1w The tree Is appmWinately 90 feet In overall height and has a trunk diameter of 36 inches measured at 54 inches above ground along the center axis of the trunk. The canopy limb spread is approximately 36 feet in diameter as projected on the ground and the tree is growing upright with less than a 5 degree lean in any direction. Condition: Root system / root plate appears sound with no visible cracking. The trunk is straight and appears sound- Scaffold branch spacing and structure is overage to good for the species. There is a moderate amount of major deadwood (2 Inch diameter and greater) In the lower half of the canopy and should be pnxned from tree. Overall campy structure is good for the specs. Health and Vigor Vigor of tree Is average for species - 4 to 6 inches of growth can be seen on last year's growth (visual estimation). Foliage appears green and healthy and canopy density is good. Insects and Disease, More visible. Site: The tree is located within a forestlurban Interface setting that Is now partially established as a planned development housing subdivision. The site has been maintained only as an urban forest and individual trees have not been professionally pruned and cared for in the past. VALUE: The calculated value of this tree using the Trunk Formula Method is $4,400.00. Tree Number 2105 - Species: western red cedar (Thuja plicate). Tree Measurements: The'tree is approximately 50 feet in overall height and has a trunk diameter of 23 inches measured at 54 Inches above ground along the center axis of the trunk. The canopy limb spread is approximately 30 feet in diameter as projected on the ground and the tree Is growing upright with less then a 6 degree ban in any direction. Condition: Root system / root plate appears sound with no visible cracking. The trek is straight, but does have a codominent stem with a bark inqusion located at 30 feel above ground that needs a cable support system Installed to support Imb weighting, Scaffold branch spacing and structure Is leverage to poor for the spe us, There is a moderates amount of major deadwood (2 inch diameter and greater) in the lower half of the canopy and should be pruned from tree. Overall canopy structure is average to poor for the species. Health and Vigor: Vigor of tree is average for species - 4 to 6 Inches of growth can be seen on last years growth (visual estimation). Foliage appears green and healthy and canopy density is good. Insects and Disease: None visible. Sited: The tree Is located within a forestfurban inteeface setting that is now partially established as a planned development housing subdivision. The site has been maintained only as an urban forest and individual trees have not been professionally pruned and cared for in the past. VALUE: The calculated value of this tree using the Trunk Formula Method is $1,870.00. IIUV U / GUUO J: 1.7r1'1 W 111"n 1 C UUKr auooo r'f0~0 11/07/2006 13:35 5036916539 HAL5TEADS PAGE 04/04 Page 3 November 6, 2005 Reference: Treq Assessment Location: Lots 6 & 9 -Locust Street Subdivision, Tigard, Oregon Subject: Tree Appraisal for Trees Numbered 2155, 2154 & 2105 I cedify that all of the statements of fact in this appralsal are true, Corn#Gts, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that they are made in gow fa6h. Slnoerely, Philip C. Hickey Project Consulting Arborist ISA Board Certllled MQSterArbodst PN-16049 ISA Member / ISA PNW Member ASCA Member Lot,Addroes Quanta 'inches incheslType _ Entry 1' 3 3'Oak Entry 1 2 2 Whke Pine M . Corrected letter Feb 5.2004 3 10005 SW 70th Pl - 2; , 3I 6 Colorado Blue §jxucej 3 10005 SW 701h Pt 2i 2 4 Vine Maple 4110009 SW 70th PI 2 2 4 Vine Maple 4 10009 SW 70th Pt _ 21_ _ 3 6l Cedar 4 100Q9 SW 70th PI 1 I 3 3 Alaskan cedar 5 10013 SW 70th PI i 1 3 3 Blue Alias Cedar • 5 10013 SW 701h PI 1 i . 2 2 MotMra Me 5110013 SW 70th PI 311 1.5 !1.5 Japanese Maples 5 10013 SW 70th PI 31 2 6 Western Red Cedar 510013 SW 70th PI 4 1 4 Vine Maple 610023 SW 70th Pi 3 2 6 Blue Atlas Cedai 6 10023 SW 70th PI 1 2, 2 Norway Maple 6 10023 SW 70th PI 2 1.5` 3 J neseW~ es _ 11 F10022 SW 70th PI , 21 2 4 No Maple t 11 10022 SW 70th PI 1; 2 2 Cedar Turnaround Island 3 2 6 Vine Maple Per letter dated March 26,2002 Turnaround Island 3 3 Lawson Cypress Per fetter dated March 26,2002 Turnaround Island 3 3 9 Western Red Cedar Per letter dated March 26,2002 13 6993 SW Locust 2 3 6 Betula (Shade trees 14 6979 SW Locust 3 ---73' 9 Lawson Cedars 14 6979 SW Locust 1= 3 3 Douglas Fir i 14 6979 SW Locust 2 1 2 Japanese Maples 14 6979 SW Locust 1 2 2 Spruce 1416979 SW Locust 1 2 2 W spnm. • 1516955 SW Locust 7 3 21 Western Red Cedar , Per letter dated March 26, 2002 15 6955 SW Locust 1 3 3 Canada Hemlock ,Per letter dated March 26, 2002 15 6955 SW Locust 11 3-1 3 ood ; Per letter dated March 26, 2002 15 6955 SW Locust 3 21 6 Vine Maple Per letter dated March 26, 2002 15 6955 SW Locust 31 2 6 Northern India Per letter dated March 26, 2002 15 6955 SW Locust 1; 3; 3 False Cypress Per letter dated March 26, 2002 15 605 SW Locust i 2 i 4 8 False Was ;Per fetter dated March 26.2002 16 6939 SW Locust 3 6: Norway Maple ~16 6939 SW Locust ~1' 2g J nose Maples 16 6939 SW Locust 2 3i 6Pines i 17 6930 SW Locust 2 2 4!Alaskan cedar 17.6930 SW Locust ► 1 ! • 2 2 Whke Pine i 17 6930 SW locust 2 2 4 Cedar 18 10240 SW McKenna PI 2 2 4 Pines 18 10240 SW "enna Pi 1 3 3 Red Bud Tree 18 10240 SW McKenna PI 2 1 2 Vme Maple _ Corrected per letter Feb 5.2004 18 10240 SW McKenna PI 2 2 4 Ja nese Ma ---L- 19110230 SW McKenna Pi 3 1 3 Vme Maple !C- per letter Feb. 2004 1910230 SW McKenna PI 2 2 4 Japa;Me Pines 2010225 SW McKenna PI 1 4 4 Alaskan cedar • 20 10225 SW McKenna Pi 2 2 4 Ja ese Maples_ 2010225 SW McKenna Pl 1 2.5 2.5, x 21 6970 SW Locust 2 2 4 Alorwa e 21 6970 SW Locust 2 1 2 Vine Maple r f ' TOTAL INCHES 223 • Trees Removed In Ventura Estates With Affirmation From The Cfty Of Tigard Date of Correspondence Lot # Tree # Size inches 19-Jut-01 18 2053 36 26-Mar-02 16 2080 32 74Dec-03 8 2193 24 7-Dec-03 S 2194 18 Total Inches 110 AWF July 9, 2004 John Frewing CITY OF TIGARD 7110 SW Lola Lane OREGON Tigard, OR 97223 Dear John: First of all, thank you for your patience in receiving my response. I understand that you are not satisfied with past staff responses to your questions regarding Ventura Estates. The City Council was previously copied with those responses. Staff has investigated the issues., you have raised over the. last several months. While we apparently are not in agreement on the results of the review, the City has placed a parcel tag on remaining northern parcels until it is demonstrated that all tree protection measures are in place and those measures have been reviewed by the City arborist. Until this is demonstrated, further building permits will not be issued. The developer is also on notice that it must be demonstrated that the project is in compliance with the approved tree plan. If the development is found to be out of compliance, it will be necessary to either amend the approved tree plan though a Type II process, mitigate according to previous approvals, or be subject to fines. Ventura Estates had previously contacted the City about taking out trees that were scheduled to be saved. They were told they would have to go back through the Type II process. We have not heard from them since Brad Kilby's last conversation with them. You have raised several issues in your letter. These will be taken into consideration as we proceed with this matter. Please be advised that we will continue to review this matter as time allows. I do not have the resources to assign someone to investigate all of your questions immediately. Your letter also included a request for Director's Interpretations. An Interpretation is a formal request that can require considerable research and time to answer. Please be advised that each interpretation request must be accompanied with the. proper fee and separate request. The fee for each one of your six requests is $488 each. I am assuming that is not what you are requesting, given the fact that your requests are not accompanied by the appropriate fee. Sincerely, JAMES N.P. HENDRYX Director of Community Development c: Bill Monahan City Council - SUB98-00014 Land use file 2004 correspondence file 1 :\cdadm\jerree\jim\general\John Frewing_Ventura Estates.doc 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 I a - IMF July 7, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Wingate Corporation Attn: Mr. Barry Desbiens 15840 S. Pope Lane Oregon City, OR 97045 Dear Mr. Desbiens: I am attaching a letter from a Mr. John Frewing regarding allegations of tree removal violations in the Ventura Estates Subdivision. To date, the City has tried to work with you to mitigate any apparent mistakes. However, since the allegations continue, we are requesting you to specifically address all individual allegations with documentation of trees that remain in comparison to what was approved with the Ventura Estates plan. This will require going back to your approved plans and documenting specifically how each tree was protected or mitigated including where each tree was or is located, and the type and size of mitigation trees. We understand this may require considerable effort but we see no way to resolve the complaints without it. It is hoped that we will be able to resolve all tree removal/damage issues. This would be preferable to fines and other penalties. Sincer Richard H. Bewersdorff Planning Manager iAcurpln\dick\lettersWentura Estates Trees.doc Enclosure c: Jim Hendryx SUB98-00014 Land Use File 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Mr Jim Hendryx, Director of Community Development G 3 eo+ City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Jim: This letter is a followup to a series of notes which I exchanged with Dick Bewersdorff beginning last November and extending through February of this year. The principal letters (there were a variety of telephone and email messages on the same subject) included my letter of 1/16, Dick's reply of 1/30, my followup letters of 2/9 and 2/19 and Dick's reply of 2/23. I sent a related letter to Matt Stine on 2/23. The subject of these exchanges is compliance with Tigard's Tree Removal Ordinance, TCDC 18.790 as applied to Ventura Estates, a subdivision at about Locust and SW 70a' in northeast Tigard. Some of the exchange involved Brad Kilby, who has left his employ with Tigard, and I need to know who is taking his place monitoring this subdivision progress and compliance with its approval. My initial concern was about Lot 6, which was completely denuded contrary to the approved tree plan in the Ventura Estates file. Brad and Dick apparently did view the site and concluded that there was illegal tree removal. I checked the resulting planting of mitigation trees (a total diameter of 42 inches was required for trees 2193 and 2194) and found it deficient. Brad and Dick agreed that the mitigation was deficient, although to a lesser degree and have indicated that they have informed the developer of the need for additional mitigation. I have not seen that notice nor any indication of new mitigation plantings. Two items remain outstanding regarding Lot 6: What penalty, including mitigation, is Tigard requiring for the other trees removed from Lot 6 without Tigard approval (trees 2262A, 2262B, 2191, 2192, 2195A, 2195B and 2190, all over 12 inches in diameter, and all noted as being in good condition before site development)? How does Tigard justify its position that `caliper size' means a measurement at 4-feet above ground for removed trees but a measurement at the base of the tree for replacement trees (I provided two rationales with reference to TCDC requirements for measuring both at 4-feet above ground in my letter of 2/9/04)? Dick, in his letter of 1/30, notes that it is not the practice of Tigard to measure the size of mitigation trees, so I question why Tigard should care at all regarding this standard. A second concern involved Lot 11, where the approved tree plan showed several trees to be saved and all but one were removed without city approval. Two items remain outstanding regarding Lot 11: How does Tigard justify its position that trees 2390 and 2391 (a 10" twinalder and 8" alder respectively) were legally removed when the developer's tree plan shows these as trees to be saved (their removal was in noncompliance with the tree plan, see TCDC 18.790.060.A.1.c)? Where are the 16 inches of replacement trees, which were required for the illegal removal of tree 2067, so that I might check to see that they exist? A third concern involved Lot 7, where on 2/9/04, I noted that of eleven trees to be saved, tree 2188, an 18"alder is gone, tree 2168, a 30' western red cedar has been killed, and there is evidence of heavy machinery operating within a foot of other save trees, bark of save trees has been grossly damaged, there are exposed root wads on the downhill side of save trees and there is no tree protection fencing around the trees, etc. Dick, in his most recent response of 2/23 does not acknowledge or respond to the problems of Lot 7, even though I asked for a verification of the loss and damage I reported. The nature of Dick's reply caused me to review other issues, which I had raised in my letters; Dick seems to pick and choose items to respond to rather than address each of the items which I raised. Hence, I am directing this letter to you. The several generic outstanding issues of Tigard enforcement of its tree code, which I have raised and heard no response, include: A What is the exact condition imposed on the developer for Tigard review/approval before buildink on additional lots in Ventura Estates? Brad told me (noted in my letter of 1/16) that he "asked the developer to call him for site review before work on any additional lots which have save trees marked on the tree plan". In Dick's letter of 2/23, he says the the city will "require the builder to establish tree protection according, to the approved tree plan prior to any permits being issued" - what permits remain to be issued? Finally, on Monday, in checking at City Hall for any additional correspondence in the file regarding this development, I was given a referred message from Dick that the developer has been told to apply for a modification of the tree plan before working on any additional lots of the subdivision. Which requirement is really in effect? What documentation of these requirements exists? When/how may I see a copy of same? B Does the developer have a mitigation plan at all? Dick, in his letter of 1/30, states that Brad compared the number of trees on the mitigation plan to the trees that were planted on the properties. Indeed, TCDC 18.790.030 calls for a mitigation plan, but the record shows no such item. There is a letter in the file outlining mitigation for the two trees (2193 and 2194) which were the original point of my concern, but no other mitigation commitment despite many other trees over 12" caliper being removed per the tree plan. When/how may I see a copy of the mitigation plan? C Are there any protection standards and methods in place for further work on this development? 1 noted above that I see no fencing in place as I drive by this site each day. When/how may I see a copy of these protection standards and methods? D Does the illegal tree removal done to date on this site change the mitigation requirements overall (ie does the percentage of trees > 12" diameter which are saved drop below 75 percent of the original live trees >12" diameter, thus triggering additional mitigation)? E Can a future homeowner indeed remove a tree marked as a save tree on the tree plan? TCDC 18.790.040.B states that a save tree "may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist.... The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director." Dick, in his letter of 1/30, asserts that "any owner within an approved subdivision could remove those trees once the lot is sold and the home is occupied." This interpretation affects the viability of mitigation trees planted on Lot 1 adjacent to a house yet to be built. At the current state of development, I would appreciate knowing when/how I might review the approved form of deed restriction. F How can Tigard not enforce the mandatory provisions of its TCDC regarding penalties for illegal removal of trees (TCDC 18.790.060)? Dick, in his letter of 1/30, states that the cost of pursuing the fine ($500 mentioned) is much greater ($700 in staff time) than the fine itself. In fact, the code requires much more that a fine of up to $500 it calls for remediation of any damage to include as a minimum replacement of a tree on an inch-for-inch basis and payment of an additional penalty in the amount of the estimated value of any unlawfully damaged or removed tree, In my letter of 2/23 to Matt Stine, I showed my estimated value of tree 2193 (24" cedar) illegally removed from Lot 6, using the approved valuation technique - it conservatively amounted to 119,200. I have not heard back on my request whether Tigard agrees with such valuation ath0iint, and would appreciate a reply as early as possible. G Why are not mitigation trees required to meet TCDC 18.120.030 (A) (140) and TCDC 18. 190,060.P.1 regarding size, species and placement? The mitigation trees offered by the devaloper-so far are not of the required size, not "of a substantially similar species" nor "of equivalent hatural resource value" nor placed "in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to ihaturity". Dick, in his 2/23 letter seems just plain not interested in enforcing the code. H In my letter of 2/9, because I found violations on the first three lots which I looked at, I asked the city to check the other 19 lots of Ventura Estates, to ensure that similar problems don't exist there as well. I have not heard any response to this request. I Dick's letter of 2/23 suggests that if I don't like how the code is worded or not worded, I should apply to amend the code. I would appreciate knowing how I can do this effectively, given his following note that "we simply do not have the time or staff to address many of the issues that you appear to believe are important." In Dick's letter of 2/23, he states that "we have previously provided an answer to how we interpret the code provision. We will not debate interpretations." Further on, he notes "the planting of mitigation trees will continue to follow the standards indicated in our letter." However, there is no official code interpretation in either Dick's 1/30 or 2/23 letter. At best, he notes that staff doesn't measure tree diameters and staff measures nursery trees at 6 inches and not at diameter breast height. I attach a formal request for a Director's Interpretation pursuant to TCDC 18.340. I hope to hear of your response to these outstanding questions and notifications regarding code violation in the coming days. Sincerely, John rewing 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223 jfrewing@a,teleport.com 503-245-5760 Attachment: Request for Director's Interpretation Cc Matt Stine Bill Monahan Dick Bewersdorff Mayor Dirksen REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION Pursuant to TCDC 18.340, I, John Frewing, request a Director's Interpretation of the following code provisions: A Does the definition of "tree" at 18.790.020.A.6 include the "tree" discussed at 18.790.060.D? If not, how is a different definition justified? B Does the phrase "caliper size" as used repeatedly in 18.790.060.D.3 mean the same thing when used repeatedly? Does the phrase "caliper size" as used in 18.790.060.D.3 mean the same thing as "caliper size" as used in 18.790.020.A.6? If not, how are different definitions justified? C Is a "tree plan" approved as part of a subdivision application a "condition of any City permit or development approval" (18.790.060.A.1.c)? If a "tree plan" calls for saving a tree with caliper size less than 12 inches, is such saved tree a requirement of the "tree plan"? D When calculating tree plan mitigation requirements for trees with caliper size > 12 inches (18.790.030.B.2), is the percentage of saved trees calculated by dividing saved trees > 12 inches by all trees > 12 inches existing before site work? E Does 18.790.060.C state mandatory remediation for illegal tree removal? F Does the deed restriction required by 18.790.040.13 require that a tree saved in accordance with a tree plan not be removed unless the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist? Does such deed restriction apply to subsequent owners of a lot? Is the deed restriction to be recorded at Washington County? J Frewing, June 23. ,2 04 B L A C K H E L T E R L I N E LLP A T T O R N E Y B A N D C D U N B E L O R S A T L A W MARGIE SCHROEDER E-mail: mes@blilaw.com June 13, 2006 File No. W502 VIA HAND-DELIVERY Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner Current Planning Division City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Reference: Ventura Estates Dear Mr. Pagenstecher: Enclosed is a copy of the fully executed Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims along with a check from Wingate Corporation in the agreed upon amount of $14,710. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, Am chroeder MES:ps Enclosure 1:'ICBent\Pd502\CorT',Pagenstcciler 02.doc cc w/enc: Wingate Corporation 1900 FOX TOWER BO5 BOUTMWEBT BROADWAY PORTLAND OREDON 97205-3359 TELEPHONE 503.224.5560 FACSIMILE 503.224.6148 WWW.BHLAW.COM SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS This Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims ("Release"), made this day of June, 2006, is entered into and binding between and among Wingate Corporation ("Wingate") and the City of Tigard (the "City"). WHEREAS, Wingate is the developer of the Ventura Estates Subdivision (the "Subdivision"), located in the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 36 Township 1 South Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, Tax Lots 7900 through 10000; and WHEREAS, the City alleged Wingate violated Community Development Code Chapter 18.790 (the "Tree Ordinance") by removing trees within the Subdivision without first obtaining prior approval from the City for their removal (the "Action"); and WHEREAS, each party denies liability to any other party; and WHEREAS, the outcome of the City's claims is uncertain and each party desires to settle all of the claims relating to the Action, including all claims asserted in or related to the Action, fully and finally without further risks, uncertainties, inconvenience and expense; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. CONSIDERATION IN CONSIDERATION of the Releases set forth below in Section 2, Wingate agrees to pay the City a $500 civil penalty, an additional civil penalty of $14,210 representing the estimated value of the trees removed, and allocate 113 caliper inches of surplus trees planted within the Subdivision to replace the trees that were removed; and AS FURTHER CONSIDERATION, the City and Wingate agree to execute this Release and release any and all claims, known or unknown, each may have against the other arising out of or relating to the Action. The releases are set forth in paragraph 2 below. 2. RELEASE 2.1 The City, for itself and its agents, authorized representatives, employees and officials, hereby fully and forever releases and discharges Wingate, its successors, predecessors, parent, assigns, agents, employees, officers, directors, insurers, authorized representatives, and all other affiliated persons, firms, or corporations, of and from any and all past, present and future claims, demands, obligations, causes of action, or damages of any kind, known and unknown, the basis for which now exists or may hereafter become manifest, arising out of any fact, event, act, or omission occurring at any time, through and including the date of execution of this Release, including fraud in inducing this Release, which are directly or indirectly related to the Action. Page 1 of 4-SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS 2.2 Wingate, for itself and its successors, predecessors, parent, assigns, agents, employees, officers, directors, insurers, authorized representatives, and all other affiliated persons, firms, or corporations, hereby fully and forever releases and discharges the City, its agents, authorized representatives, employees and officials, of and from any and all past, present and future claims, demands, obligations, causes of action, or damages of any kind, known and unknown, the basis for which now exists or may hereafter become manifest, arising out of any fact, event, act, or omission occurring at any time, through and including the date of execution of this Release, including fraud in inducing this Release, which are directly or indirectly related to the Action. 3. EXPRESS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, REPRESENTATIONS, AND WARRANTIES 3.1 The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that the Releases set forth above in Section 2 are a general release of the matters described above. In that context, the parties expressly waive and assume the risk of any and all claims for damages that exist as of this date, but of which they do not know or suspect to exist, whether through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence, or otherwise and which, if known, would materially affect their decision to enter into this Release. 3.2 The City further agrees to accept payment of the sums and allocation of the caliper inches specified herein as a complete compromise of matters involving disputed issues of law and fact. The City assumes the risk that the facts or law may be other than as it believes. 3.3 Each party expressly represents and warrants that it has relied upon its own knowledge of the facts and the advice of its own lawyer concerning the consequences of this Release; and that the signors of this Release are of legal age, legally competent to execute this Release, and have full authority to sign this Release. The parties further warrant that no promise or inducement has been offered, except as set forth herein; that this Release is executed without reliance upon any statement or representation by any other party conceming the nature and extent of damages or legal liability. 3.4 The parties represent and warrant that no other person or entity has any interest in the claims, demands, obligations, or causes of action referred to in this Release and that each party has the sole right and exclusive authority to execute this Release and receive the promises specified in it and that no party has sold, assigned, transferred, conveyed, or otherwise disposed of any of the claims, demands, obligations, or causes of action referred to in this Release. 3.5 The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that the purpose and effect of this Release is to fully and forever resolve all issues and claims as stated above and that no party will pursue the other for anything relating in any way to the claims being released. 3.6 The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that the terns of this Release are contractual in nature and not merely a recital. Page 2 of 4-SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS 4. NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY The parties to this Release agree that entering into this Release and the payment of the settlement amount is not an admission of liability by any party and that such liability is expressly denied. 5. ATTORNEY FEES Each party to this Release will bear all of that party's attorney fees and costs incurred to the date of this Agreement. 6. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT In the event of a material breach of this Release or other dispute regarding the enforcement or interpretation of this Release, the losing party shall pay attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred by the prevailing party. 7. GOVERNING LAW This Release shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of Oregon without regard to its principles of conflicts of laws. Because the parties and their respective counsel have reviewed, revised, and negotiated, or had the opportunity to review, revise, or negotiate the terms, conditions, and language of this Release, the rule of construction that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party does not apply. 8. INTEGRATION This Release contains.the entire agreement between and among the parties with regard to the matters set forth herein and is conclusive and binding upon and inures to the benefit of the executors, administrators, personal representatives, heirs, next of kin, children, successors, and assigns of each and all future purchasers of lots within the Subdivision from either Wingate or Barry Desbiens, Inc. 9. MODIFICATION This Release may not be amended or modified except in writing signed by all parties. 10. SAVING CLAUSE If any provision of this Release, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Release, or the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby. Page 3 of 4-SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS 11. COUNTERPARTS This Release may be executed in one or more counterparts, including facsimile counterparts, and all so executed shall constitute one agreement, binding on all the parties hereto, even though all parties are not signatories to the original or the same counterpart. Any counterpart of this Release, which has attached to it separate signature pages, which altogether contain the signatures of all parties, shall for all purposes be deemed a fully executed instrument. EXECUTED as of the date and year first above written. THE CITY OF TIGARD APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: BY: ZLre~2 1 , OSB No.,F7ZZ/ Its: rFlsyirW~ tof Attorneys for the City of Tigard Date: Date: WINGATE CORPORATION APPROVED AS TO FORM: n V 0q v By: v By: I•c~~ -lu argar t . Schroeder, OSB No. 02574 /72 O ~ Its: r- M f Attorneys for' Wingate Corporation Date: Date: ~ 3ZO l2 Page 4 of 4-SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS F . February 5, 2004 Wingate Corporation CITY OF TIGARD Attn: Barry Desbiens 15840 South Pope Lane OREGON Oregon City, OR 97045 RE: Ventura Estates Subdivision in Tigard Dear Barry: I am writing for two reasons. First, I want to recap our discussion on the tree protection for the remaining lots in the Ventura Estates Subdivision (SUB98- 0014)(PDR98-00013) and (VAR98-0006). It is my understanding that you will call me to verify tree protection on each individual lot prior to constructing on that lot. The tree protection measures must be placed according to your arborists approved tree plan. I have tagged all of the remaining lots in our permit tracking system to ensure that the permit techs are aware of this requirement. In order to expedite your building permit issuance, you will need to notify me that the tree protection is in place, the City arborist will. inspect it, and if he approves it I will release the permit. While I appreciate that you are trying to save trees on a lot specific basis, I cannot permit you to remove the trees that were slated for preservation on the plan without prior approval. That brings me to my second point, on January 29th the City Arborist and I visited the site to view the mitigation and to investigate the trees on lot 11 that were T c~ slated for preservation but ultimately removed. Two of the trees #'s 2390 and 2391 were below 12 inches and therefore not required to be mitigated for, but tree # 2067 was slated for preservation, and was removed without prior approval. With regard to the mitigation, your mitigation plan for the two trees removed on lot #6 called for 16 inches of vine maple and a 4 inch white pine. The vine maple did not equate to 16 inches, and the white pine was only credited two inches. Therefore, you will need to plant an additional 14 inches for the trees that were removed on lot #6, and an additional 16 inches for tree #2067 that was removed on lot #11. Please provide me with a planting plan for the additional 30 inches within the next two weeks. If you have any questions, contact me at (503)718-2434. Sin rely, Brad Kilby Associate Planner CC: Dick Bewersdorff, Land Use File SUB98-0014 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 January 30, 2004 John Frewing CITY OF TIGARD 7110 SW Lola Lane OREGON Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Tree removal at Ventura Estates Dear Mr. Frewing: I am writing in response to your letter dated January 20, 2004. 1 apologize for the delayed response, but project review work takes precedence and staff is very busy at this time of year. Brad did indeed visit the site and stop work. He also checked to ensure that the mitigation trees were planted. According to Brad, he did not measure the trees, and frankly I would not expect him to. Yesterday morning, Brad, Matt, and I visited the site, and the only observable problem was with the White Pine at the entrance, and the Vine Maples. I have instructed Brad to notify the developer that he will need to increase the amount of mitigation that he has planted by 18 inches. Simply stated, there is not enough staff time or resources in every development project to measure each and every tree that is planted for mitigation. Brad compared the number of trees on the mitigation plan to the trees that were planted on the properties. Even the City Arborist does not normally measure tree plantings because of the time involved. Because we do not measure every tree, staff has to rely on their professional judgment as to whether or not the intent of the law was upheld. Although Brad did not measure the trees, it should be noted that he did check with the City Arborist to ensure that trees are measured at the base as opposed to at four feet high as you would suggest. There are no standards in the development code that require mitigation efforts to be measured at four feet high. Matt Stine also indicated that nursery trees are measured at 6 inches and not at diameter breast height according to ANSI standards. The City Arborist has indicated that younger trees adapt to new environments more readily than older or larger trees. In fact, they grow faster. Are there additional measures that we can take to ensure that the developer plants what they say they are going to? Certainly, and internally we struggle with issues like this every day. As you may already know, we do not regulate tree removal on individual lots unless development has been proposed for the lot. Unfortunately, this means that any owner within an approved subdivision could remove those trees once the lot is sold and the home is occupied. While I agree with you that the ornamental trees may or may not provide the same resource value, that standard is not as clear and objective as you may think. A lot of what gets planted is 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 dictated by what nursery stock is available at the time, and what choices the new homeowner makes. If the home owner has no say in what is planted on their lot, then they will be more likely to remove the tree. However, if the mitigation trees are planted to the owners' satisfaction, then they are more inclined to retain the mitigated tree. This is one reason we are flexible with the species allowed to be planted. While some may not appreciate the planting of Vine Maples, for example, it was a species that originally grew on site and was removed. Two of the trees that you have referenced on lot #11 are not over 12 inches, and therefore were not required to be saved. The third tree is of concern to me, and I have instructed Brad to investigate. If the tree was illegally removed, we will require additional mitigation. In reply to your question about the specific language in the TDC regarding a fine, we have never been instructed to be punitive, and quite simply the cost of pursuing that fine far outweighs the benefit of attaining the mitigation at inch for inch. It costs roughly $700 to take a land use case before the judge in staff time alone. Even with a $500 fine, we would never recover the cost. Therefore, Tigard has always required inch for inch mitigation for illegal tree removal, and more often than not has stopped work. We have consistently gained compliance by this means, and until we are instructed to do otherwise, we will continue that. It is not a matter of selectively applying the code, rather, it is about enforcing the codes to meet the standards and purpose of the approval criterion. Fortunately, the City has the benefit of working with the citizens and developers to work towards positive solutions. There are and always will be rare exceptions to this cooperation, but City staff is reasonably well trained despite the limited training resources and time. Finally, while I understand that you maybe frustrated, I encourage you to take part in recommending workable solutions. John, as I have previously indicated, your participation is welcome, and my staff and I look forward to working with you. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (503) 639-4171 ext. 2432 and make an appointment to meet with me. Sincerely, 4 r Dick Bewersdorff Planning Manager CC: City Council, Bill Monahan, and Jim Hendryx Mr Dick Bewersdorf RECEIVED PLANNING January 16, 2004 Manager, Current Planning Tigard City Hall JAN 2 0 2004 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 QtI TI *RD Dear Dick: Golly, it pains me to have to write this letter. I find that without constant pushing, the City of Tigard just doesn't enforce its own ordinances and rules. I ask that you review the situation described below, act to enforce the Tigard ordinances and rules and inform me of the extent of your actions. In late November, I called you to complain about Ventura Estates, Lot 6, where the number of save trees (per tree plan) had gone from 20 to 8 and all of a sudden there were NO trees left on this lot. You told me that Brad Kilby would investigate and get back to me. Brad called me several days later and told me that indeed, it appeared that the removal of all the trees on this lot were illegal and discussions and enforcement with the developer (Wingate) were beginning. I asked to know the results but heard nothing. On Wednesday, 1/14, I happened by the site and noted that another lot, Lot 11, was being excavated (the development is on a reasonably steep hill above South Fork Ash Creek). Upon driving closer, I saw that the equipment operator was piling dirt against what appeared to be a save tree on Lot 11. I soon called Tigard, trying for Matt Stine, then refered to others, but left a note stating the situation and asking for investigation. On Thursday, Brad Kilby called me to say two things: 1) the tree on Lot 11 I was concerned about was not to be saved per the tree plan, even though it had not been yet cut down, and there was only one tree on the back corner of that lot to be saved and 2) the resolution of the illegal removal of trees on Lot 6 was that the developer had planted an equivalent diameter of (smaller) trees as mitigation. He said he had visited the site, observed the `mitigation' trees and asked the developer to call him for site review before work on any additional lots which have save trees marked on the tree plan. I asked if there was to be an associated penalty and Brad said, unfortunately, no. Today I revisited the development to see if I could find the `mitigation' trees. There were to be 42 inches (diameter at 4 feet above ground) of new trees planted to make up for the 24 inch and 18 inch western red cedar trees illegally removed. In fact, I measured only 18.125 inches of diameter total for the 14 `mitigation' trees. Did Brad really visit the site? How could he be so far off in evaluating the diameter of the `mitigation' trees? As I measured the trees their diameters were as follows: Location Type of tree Quan ty Total Diameter Subdiv entry Oak 1 1.75 Subdiv entry White pine (3) 1 1.875 10240 McKenna Limber pine (2) 2 1.75 10240 McKenna Eastern Redbud 1 2 10240 McKenna Vine Maple(1) 1 1.5 10230 McKenna Vine Maple 3 4.5 10230 McKenna Jap. White Pine 2 2.5 10225 McKenna Yellow Cedar 1 1.25 10225 McKenna Japanese Maple 2 1 Total 14 trees 18.125 inches (1) These bushes of vine maple consist of maybe 6 shoots, each with a diameter of .25 inch at 4 feet elevation and I have combined them for a total of 1.5 inch for each bush, but in the Tigard library, I found books on tree measurement which say that the standard is to only measure the largest shoot. Hence, I have overestimated the size of these items. (2) These items, like others of these `mitigation' trees are planted within a foot or so of the house and thus will not be able to grow to their full size without disturbing the foundation of the house. (3) This tree is forked about a foot above the ground, making it a very poor specimen. As with the vine maple, I added the diameter of the two forks rather than use only the largest stem. So my complaint for the Lot 6 illegal cutting seemed to be that the diameter equivalency rule had not been met for the `mitigation' trees. Please confirm the diameter measurements at 4 foot elevation which I made (some are on private property). I then went to City Hall and reviewed the file for Ventura Estates. My first disappointment was that there was no evidence that city staff had approved the changes to the tree plan for Lot 6 which had been proposed after the development was approved. The developer's letter was there, saying that some additional trees should be removed because of damage (construction damage?), but no evidence of city review or approval. Please ask your staff to enter in the record city action on such items. My second observation on reviewing the Ventura Estates tree plan was that on Lot 11, it showed that either one or three significant trees were to be saved: #2390, a 10 inch alder, #2391, an 8 inch alder, #2067, a 16 inch maple and #(illegible) depending on which version of the tree plan in the planning file one consults. NONE of these trees appear in fact to exist on Lot 11 today! So again, did Brad visit the site? Did he compare site conditions against the tree plan? Why didn't he enforce the tree plan? Finally, I visited the Tigard City Library to review TDC 18.790.060 regarding illegal removal of trees. When evidence of illegal tree removal is found, it calls for the city to take one or more actions: request owner to show that removal was permitted, initiate a hearing on revocation of any permit which had 18.790 as a criterion of approval, issue a stop work order, issue a citation, or take other action allowed by law. Brad did say that he asked the site workers to halt work for one day until he visited the site with the developer, but such stop work was then lifted. The TDC goes on to say that if illegal tree removal is found, the city SHALL impose a civil penalty of up to $500 in addition to requiring damaged to be repaired (per subsection D) and impose an additional civil penalty necessary to match the value of the tree illegally removed (Intl Soc of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal). None of this has been done - it is a nondiscretionary requirement of the code. Finally, the rules for `mitigation' trees are several: they shall be of a `substantially similar species', or if this is not possible, they shall be of species with `equivalent natural resource value', the caliper of `mitigation' trees shall add to the caliper of the removed tree, `mitigation' trees shall only be planted elsewhere if it cannot viably be located on the affected property, and the planting of `mitigation' trees shall allow for growth to maturity. The planting of `mitigation' trees for the loss on Lot 6 do not meet these replacement standards. The replacement items are not `trees' as defined in the TDC at 18.120.030 (A) (140) - a standing woody plant, or group of such, having a trunk which is two inches or more in caliper size when measured four feet from the ground. The exotic varieties provided as `mitigation' are not substantially similar to the lost trees, do not provide the same natural resource value as native trees, eg they do not and will never provide the same canopy cover as the removed trees nor do they provide any age diversity as represented by the removed trees, and are not on the affected Lot 6, where the soil is the same as at the McKenna site and they would buffer the three story house from Ventura Drive below. As ornamentals, they will not provide the habitat of the tall trees lost. For the tree(s) lost on Lot 11, there are NO `mitigation' trees - this second illegal removal of trees in a short time by the same developer should incur more serious penalties. Do you train your staff to read the TDC rules? Why do they not enforce them? Are they being properly motivated and supervised? Have you ever visited a site for enforcement of the tree ordinance and shown them how it should be done? The overarching question, and one which makes Tigard citizens upset, is `why does it take citizen action to enforce our clear city rules'? We all want Tigard to be better, but our government seems to get in the way rather than perform their role. There seems to be direction from management at City of Tigard to only do the absolute minimum unless it is directed by you leaders. Please tell your staff that Tigard citizens want the tree ordinance to be enforced and motivate them to do so. If citizens must sue to obtain compliance with city codes, please tell me whom we should be suing and in what court. I look forward to your reply. Sincerely, John rewing, 7110 SW ola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223 jfrewinrteleport.com Cc Bill Monahan Craig Dirksen Tigard Tree Board, c/o Matt Stine Barbara Sherman HALSTEAPS ARBORICULTURE "Specialists i the care and preservation of trees" CONSULTANTS, INC. David Halstead, Consultant, B.S. Phillip Whitcomb, Consultant ® P.O. Box 1182 a Tualatin, OR 97062 (503) 245-1383 December 30, 2003 Wingate Development and Construction d ATTN.: Mr. Barry Desbiens 15840 S Pope Lane Oregon City, OR 97045 s Ph 503.657.3300 Fx 503.657.4646 Reference: Tree Assessment for Proposed Development Location: Lot Number Seven o ° Subject: Tree Survey and Mitigation Report With your approval, I have inspected Lot Number Seven located on the north side of the "70th Avenue Turn Around" and south of Ventura Avenue. The purpose of the inspection was to evaluate all of the existing trees as listed on the site plan, "Ventura Estates Subdivision, Tigard Oregon", dated November 1998 a v. that are not marked for removal. The trees marked for preservation are as follows: Tree Number 2162: Listed as a 110-foot tall, 36-inch diameter at 4.5 feet above ground Western Red Cedar tree. The structure and health rating is 70 percent. The tree is located between Lot Six and Seven and will be seven feet east of the proposed hardscape construction and five feet east of the necessary excavation for the hardscape. The tree will not survive the forthcoming construction and i needs to be removed and mitigated before construction begins. I Tree Number 2165: Listed as a 110-foot tall, 26-inch diameter at 4.5 feet above ground Western Red Cedar tree. The tree is located between Lot Six and Seven fifteen feet south of Ventura Avenue. The trees' health is 60 percent and the structure is 70 percent. The tree will be preserved and protected during ' construction. Tree Number 2171: Listed as a 110-foot tall, 36-inch diameter at 4.5 feet above ground Western Red Cedar tree. The health rating is 50 percent and the I structure rating is 70 percent. The tree is located three feet south of the buffer zone and within the hardscape construction zone. The tree will not survive the forthcoming construction and needs to be removed and mitigated before construction begins. Email: hac®spiritone.com www.halsteadsarboriculture.com CCB# 0068646 Page 2 December 30, 2003 Reference: Tree Assessment for Proposed Development Location: Lot Number Seven Subject: Tree Survey and Mitigation Report Tree Number 2165-66-67-68-70, 2186: All the trees are Western Red Cedar trees ranging in size from 24 to 36 inches at 4.5 feet above ground. The trees are in an area running west to east from 15 to 20 feet south of Ventura Avenue. All of the trees health is rated at 40 percent and their structure is rated at 70 percent. The health rating is due to severe stress caused by unknown circumstance long before the Wingate project started. The trees are located in the buffer zone and will be preserved and protected during construction. Tree Number 2185: Listed as a 50-foot tall, 10-inch diameter at 4.5 feet above ground Douglas-fir tree. Tree health is rated at 40 percent and the structure at 30 percent. The tree is overcrowded, leaning towards the south and is being up- rooted by the larger cedar trees. The tree needs to be removed before construction takes place. Tree Number 2187: Listed as a 24 inch Western Red Cedar tree. The tree is a 40-foot tall stump and needs to be removed before construction. There are also three 8 to 10 inch in diameter at 4.5 feet above ground Oregon Big Leaf Maple trees that over hang Ventura Avenue that are up-rooting, leaning towards the north with extremely poor structure that needs to be removed. TREE CARE AND PRESERVATION Because of the number of trees to be preserved, the particular situation of where the trees are growing, the species of the trees, and the proposed construction, there must be a Certified Arborist on-site and/or on-call for the entire project; especially during any excavating near the preserved trees. In this way, decisions can be made in the field that are only speculations in this writing. - OK- ko (,eroJE Per MftTr Li -ad-oy HALSTEA S ARBORICULTURE "Specialists in the care and preservation of trees" CONSULTANTS, INC. 0 David Halstead, Consultant, B.S. Phillip Whitcomb, Consultant P.O. Box 1182 -Tualatin, OR 97062 (503) 245-1383 December 30, 2003 d Wingate Development and Construction ATTN.: Mr. Barry Desbiens 15840 S Pope Lane Oregon City, OR 97045 a Ph 503.657.3300 Fx 503.657.4646 Reference: Tree Assessment for Proposed Development Location: Lot Number Two Subject: Tree Survey and Mitigation Report With your approval, I have inspected Lot Number Two located on the corner of 70'h Avenue and Locust Street. The purpose of the inspection was to evaluate all of the existing trees as listed on the site plan, "Ventura Estates Subdivision, a Tigard Oregon", dated November 1998 that are not marked for removal. The only tree marked for preservation is a 14-inch in diameter Seedling Cherry tree (referred on the aforementioned site plan as Tree Number 2444 and called an alder tree). The Cherry tree is located in the southwest comer of the property, 18 feet north of Locust Street and 6 feet east of the property line. The Cherry tree is codominant at 30 feet above ground, leans towards the southwest by 30 percent and is up-rooting. There are also signs of Brown i Blossom Blight (BBB). The tree is hazardous and has a large target area and needs to be removed immediately. Sincerely, David Hal 11 stead BS CA l0k, -1'O rev►'`°,Je Pe, (Y~ATr d Li-~-Oq Email: hac@spiritone.com www.halsteadsarboriculture.com CCB# 0068646 Page 3 December 30, 2003 Reference: Tree Assessment for Proposed Development Location: Lot Number Seven Subject: Tree Survey and Mitigation Report PREPARATION / FENCING: We have found through several years of tree preservation that a Tree Protection Area is the first, and most important, procedure of tree preservation. Creating a protection area is as easy as installing and maintaining protective fencing to form a "no-entry" barrier around the preserved trees so that the root zone of the preserved trees will not be compacted or damaged by needless excavation. THERAPEUTIC CARE: Therapeutic care is described as those treatments that will be needed to increase the preserved trees chances for survival. REMOVALS: Those trees that are structurally unsound, unhealthy, or removed through mitigation within the preservation areas, will need to be removed only under the direct supervision of the Consulting Arborist on-call for this project. Tree removal will be done in such a way so as to not damage preserved trees and their root zones. Removal of these trees may require climbing the trees and taking them down in small pieces. Stumps of the removed trees, which are less than 15 feet from a preserved tree, will be groundout using a stump grinder. Once construction is complete, all preserved trees will need to be evaluated for construction trauma and any traumatized trees will need prescribed therapeutic care. 9YZI David Halstead BS, CA Wingate Corporation 15840 South Pope Lane Oregon City, Or. 97045 Phonc - 657-3300 Fax 657-4646 Datc: December 7, 2003 To: Brad Kilby Fax: Company: City of Tigard Rc: Tree Mitigation for Ventura Estates From: Barry Desbiens Pagcs (including cover): 2 .Brad, Here is the tree mitigation report you wanted for the two trees that were removed on lot 6. If you have any questions, please call our office at 503-657-3300. Thanks, Barry Desbicns Wingate Homes Z/ l abed •`nt1LS~ l l CO-0-080 °9V9ti L99 cos .`S3110H no-Lsm 31bJNIM :Ae ;ueg Wingate Corporation Tree Mitigation for Ventura Estates December 7, 2003 Trees Removed Lot 5 #2194 18" Cedar #2193 24" Cedar Total Inches 42" Trees Replaced Location Type of Tree Quantity Size - feet Size-inches Total Inches Entry of subdiv Quercus C)A K 1 2.5 2.5 Entry of subdiv Pinus strobus Lik-4-o Q e 1 8 to rJ 4. 6.5 10240 McKenna PI Pinus flaxilis l_: ,,beI P N ~2 5 to 8 4" 10.5 10240 McKenna PI Cercis canadensis r-'stern ?-I 1 13_ 13.5 10240 McKenna PI Acer circinatum rAgq t e 1 8 to 10 4 17.5 10230 McKenna PI Acer circinatum 3 8 to 9 1, 29.5 10230 McKenna PI Pinus parviflora SapQn~e 2 6 to 7 4,, 33.5 10225 McKenna PI Chamaecyperis nootkatensis 1 8 to 9 4 37.5 10225 McKenna PI ( . 2 6 to 7 4 41.5 omZA Total inches 41.5 ~,,eQ..ese C~P~sS ~n~le ve a6ed `WdLS:II EO-B-oa❑ `9b9V L59 609 •`S3NOH wisno 3.I.t/ONTM :AR 1uaS Oct 09 03 08:27a P-1 EE S ER DMDEV DD OCT 0 9 2003 W TIARD y .f G~l w /1cLV ae FE S EERING IRE~~~ DAI E: October 8, 2003 TO: Wingate Homes 15840 S. Pope L:i. Oregon City, OR 1)704-3 (503) 657-3300 ATT v: Barry Desbien RE: Lot #6' Ventura l;~ta;es Per our request, I viewed :hc two Western Reel Cedars located in the back yard of that resid ;nce. Both of these trees hnve back loll on the up hill side as well as large roots being torn off on lower side of tree. Both of these trees alrc~idv show evidence of decline, browning and loss of needles. Western Red Cedars are -,.•ncraliv not tolerant to oradc chances and root damage. It wo Ad be.my recommendation that these trees be removed before landscaping. If I c in be of further assisl,!ncc ur you have any Lluestions, please feel free to call (503) 260 1673. Resp :ctfully, Rich,, rd Gillum XD . P.O. B~ x 308, FoWew, Oregon 97024, OR 503/465-2133, WA 360/750-4837, Fox 503/665-8730, CCB#105165 N COMPASS ENGINEERING ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - PLANNING 6u~~, W ?6)E 503/653-9093 6564 SE Lake Road FAX 503/653-9095 S Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 e-mail: compass@northwest.com April 13, 2000 RECEIVED APR 13 2000 Ms. Julia Hajduk City of Tigard COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE. Ventura Estates (SUB 98-0014 / PDR 98-0013 / VAR 99-0006) Tree Preservation and Removal Dear Ms. Hajduk: Enclosed for your review are four sketches (Exhibit B through Exhibit E) showing a proposed modification to the approved tree plan for the Ventura Estates project. At this time, Compass Engineering has been staking the clearing limits and the Contractor has proceeded with construction. In marking the trees to be removed or saved, our Inspector has found trees that were not tagged in the field, or were tagged and not shown on the plan. In addition, there are trees that need to be removed because of conflict with the proposed utility layout or being disturbed with the removal of adjacent trees. I have listed the proposed additional tree preservation and removal in Exhibit A of this transmittal. Please let us know if this modification is acceptable so the Contractor can complete the required clearing for this project. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact our office. Sincerely, Todd R. Knepper, P.E. TRK/slw \\COMPASS_1\VOL1_t\CLER\FINAL\Working\04-00\4237 Apr 12.doc Enclosure Copy: Bart' Desbiens, Wingate Corporation Ivy Yip, Ashwood Homes, Inc. Matthew Harrell, City of Tigard VENTURA ESTATES Modification to Tree Plan April 12, 2000 REMOVE SAVE -Existing trees shown on the approved plan to Existing trees found that were not shown on remain but need to be removed the approved plan and will be saved 2252 - 6" Alder Lot 12 (No Tag) - 12" Cedar 2261 - 8" Cedar Lot 12 (No Tag) - 17" Cedar 2269 - 10" Alder Lot 12 (No Tag) - 12" Cedar 2281 - 12" Alder 2195A - 24" Cedar 2282 - 10" Alder 2262A - 12" Maple 2412 - 8" Alder 22628 - 17" Alder 2446 - 36" Fir 2262C - 14" Maple Existing tree found that was not shown on Existing trees shown to be removed on the the approved plan but needs to be removed approved plan but will now be saved Lot 12 (No Tag) - 18" Cedar 2004 - 18" Fir 2007 - 10" Maple 2238 - 8" Alder 2239 - 40" Cedar Tree shown on plan to be removed but did not exist 2156 - 12" Fir EXHIBIT-A \\COMPASS_1\VOL1 1\CLER\FINAL\Notes\4237 Mod to tree plan.doc 2495 Il \ i 20 I I ~ I 6,165 S.F.2452 2451 i \ 2453 I1 2454 2449 24,45 2447 I \ 1 I \ \ 1 i I 2444 f 446 • 36' IR et ~ REMOVE tai 4 2443 2442 /2441 2440 / 2022 -AN I I ~ I 2006 I \ • `ip~p`~ 1 tips I ~ 'Lp ~g 6 i \~I i do ^p~ I ~ . I I I 5,251 S.F. zoo; iQ: FIR oPAV~E]►IENT ~ i SAVE I _ ' C I n / 2007 i 2004 TL 701 ~ij I ~ N-2013 //I\2014 I ' EXISTING ACCESS✓ I \ EASEMENT FOR THE `7-BENEFIT OF TL 1701 0 o p EXHIBIT B ~ pp N ! ~ Ttt M 1 L :Si. a ~ I j s i 2417 I ~ - 2418 - - F 2416 t2 2375 o:°q 2386 23' X I l \ 2' CEDAR 2383 TAG / C \1. ~-Nism C 0 TAO 0 TAG--/ SAVE I ti~ \ I \1 yep 5~~ 2425 120 CEDAR TAG I \1 / SAVE / 379 / I I 2 \ 2380 \ \ / / I 2381 5,362 S 1 ' \ I 2426, ■ 2 \ i cc '2427 6,974 S.F. I 2391 co N ~ - N VI/ 00 ° 2390 1. - / 2392 c ~ 2459 , EXHIBIT C 458 \ I X11 1 / /I 2172 2146 2173 \ \ 2162 21 47\\ 7-~\ I \ 2148 50 S. \ F. / \ ~f /2161 159 \ 2149 / 2160 ` 2151 - 2152 158 2153 2157 j 2112 DOES NOT I, ti 1 ! EXIST 21 ss 12" ALDER - co till 2106 / \1 \V \ N 1 / 2105 o ~ j - I Cl LU / 11,367 S.F. b / o'b bit D "YX/ \ ` a~ 2244 \ 2239. 40- CEDAR _ - _ 2238. B- ALDER a X~ 21 4 2257 I 2193 \ aj' /I 2190 2192/ 1/t I f - - 2191 / I 2253 2258 249 CEDAR \ m 2252 / REMOVE I 2182 \ \II~ 2195 2254 I1aVE ALDER 2262C 1 I 00 \I/ \ - \ MAPLE 83 I SAVE 2196 i \ / 2280 2260 \1 I / \:1 2279 %5 21976 / \ Y~ 2259 81 \8 024 S.F. / 2 ~191 S.F. 2 p' 1 2278 ~Y62a \ 2198 / 277 , ZZ~ SAVE % ~ = 76 2265 8- CEUNi \ I EIMOVE 62A \I 2259 SA MAPLE 74 1 G- ALDERk, 1 \I /2264 REM \ \ / / 2267 I \ 1/ 2263 \ 2266 1 / 2268 2272 / - I co 2271 / .00 0 2270 ~ 8 ALDER i~ ° \ \ 2415 2374 zo 2413/ \ \ 2417 ; ~ - - - ~~!f 2418 I . 2414 / \ EXHIBIT E 0089-2002 11:40 FROM:HALSTEADS ARBO CONS 503-848-7627 TO:503 657 4646 P. 002/005 HALSTEAD'S ARBORICULTURE 'Specialists in the care and preservation of trees' CONSULTANTS, INC. David Halstead, Consultant, B.S. Phillip Whitcomb, Consultant ♦ 6107 $W Murray Blvd. #156 • Beaverton, OR 97008 K (503)245.1383 August 9, 2002 ATTN.: Mr. Barry Desbiens 15840 S Pope Lane Oregon City, OR 97045 i Fx 503.657.4646 Reference: Tree Assessment for Proposed Development Location: Lots Numbered 5 and 6 at 72"4 Avenue and Locust Street Subject: Tree Survey Report r, With your approval, I have inspected the site and the trees for the proposed project located at 72nd Avenue and Locust Street, Tigard, Oregon. The purpose of this inspection was to identify and evaluate all of the existing trees located on Lots Five and Six. We have tagged and numbered the trees, on Lots Five and Six both in the field, on the site plan and within this report for easy identification. In addition we have identified hazardous trees (HAZTREE) on adjoining lots that will jeopardize the safety of Lots Five and Six. Only the last three digits of the numbers will be used. This report includes a total of 19 trees located within Lot boundaries of Lots Five and Six including 2 trees on the southeast comer of "Tract A" that are hazardous to the safety of Lot Number Five. In addition, there is one tree' on Lot Seven that is dead and poses a threat to Lot Number Six. The numbers are188, 190, 192, 193, 194,195, 195A, 247, 255, 256, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 262A, 2628, 262C, 270 and 271 Individual Tree Inspection: Trees are identified by abbreviations: Alder (ALD), Western Red Cedar (WRC), Wild Cherry (CHRY) and Oregon Big Leaf Maple (MPL). Measurements of the trees were taken at a trunk height of 4.5 feet (dia. @ 4.5), I diameter at ground level (DGL), overall height (HGT) and trunk/limb spread (LM13 Spd). I.f Email: hac®spiritone.com www.haisteadsarbo4oulture.com COeu 0060646 2002 11:40 FROM:HALSTEADS ARBO CONS 503-848-7627 TO:503 657 4646 P. 005/005 I - i a PL~ ` •1I I 223, 319 22491 ~ _ 2191 I ?149 'r I ` 2192 I ~?2!? ! ~1 /I ~I 719~A' 2182 11121e1/'izs• 2262C 1 r 11 ' 2196 r• 7201~_;r• ~ ~ ~ +-~Zd,! I ~ 2260 1.- ~ `~l ~ ~ ~ 's 21a 2706 ?7{ 2191 116 4 ~a,1 225 2462 -1 ;11 '1 1 2263 % 416 2764 226 2266 ti > > 227t ► % f l... 000 12 - I 2411 =.ls 1 2371 2610"y" =417 r 244, 77. ~ a" I •211 ~ ~ ~ X11 07! •S 1 ~ . sars Y r J 00 *ft 2406 r 1 1 J 1 . • 104 1 ` 12' ~ 1d r ti ~2` 1? t c(DMt 24 • ~1; sew Z1 I \ 11 /113• clam 'I -?37 II % r a4371 t ! i3a 1 I I ~.7135 11.~•~ 1 1 23,12 I -low March 5, 2002 Wingate Corporation CITY OF TIGARD Attn: Barry or Scott Desbiens 15840 S. Pope Lane OREGON Oregon City, OR 97045 RE: Ventura Estates SUB 98-0014 and PDR 98-0013 Dear Barry: In response to the conversation we had last Friday, here are the answers that I have come up with to your questions. 1. The Planned Development overlay was requested in your application to overcome slope and tree retention issues. Typically, Planned Developments are requested when a developer knows exactly what product he is going to build and the exact dimensions needed to accommodate that product. I discovered in the narrative that was prepared for the development that no setback variations were requested. 2. You have requested permits on 7 of 22 parcels, and of the permits that were reviewed and issued the contractor complied with the setbacks of the underlying zone with the exceptions of Lot 3,20,17,and lot 13. Subject to what I am discussing now, some of these would have been eligible for adjustments and could have subsequently happened. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. 3. As for the remaining parcels, I have talked with my supervisor, and we have come to the conclusion that in this PD, the City will allow a contractor to seek adjustments to the setbacks on the remaining lots compliant with and subject to the standards in the Tigard Development Code regardless of their location in the subdivision. 4. If you wanted to receive adjustments over and beyond what is allowed within the Tigard Development Code, you will need to go back through the Planned Development/Subdivision process and include those property owners that have purchased lots within the subdivision. Again, I apologize for any inconvenience that may have been caused on behalf of our staff over the course of your construction on this project. If I may be of any further assistance, please contact me at (503)-639-4171 ext. 388. Sincerely, za6/ * Brad Kilby Associate Planner C: File and Bldg. Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 RECEIVED PLANNING Wingate Corporation 15840 South Pope Lane J U L 2 0 2001 Oregon City, Or. 97045 Phone • 657-3300 CITY OF TIGARD Fax 657-4646 Date: duly 19, 2001 To: Kevin Young Fax: 503-684-7297 Company: City of Tigard Re: Tree Plan - Ventura Estates From: Barry Dcsbiens Pages (including cover): 1 Kevin, This is an updated schedule of the tree removal plan that I talked to you about. The trees that t requested to be removed on 6-29-2000 never were removed, as we have decided to try to change the plan on that lot in order to maintain the trees. That would put the percentage back to 40/180=22.2%. The tree that will come down is tree #2053 which is located on lot #18 and that will put the percentage at 41/180-22.7% which leaves 77.3% of the trees remaining. Please insert this into our file for future reference if needed. 't'hank you, Barry Desbiens Wingate Corporation G/G a6ed .`WdLE:8 Lo-OZ-Tnf •`9V9V L99 E05 `OOZE 18Nasel dH :A9 ;uaS 10-2002 11:40 FROM:HALSTEADS ARBO CONS 503-848-7627 TO:503 657 4646 P. 003/005 Page 2 August 9, 2002 Reference: Tree Assessment for Proposed Development Location: Lots Numbered 5 and 6 at 72 no Avenue and Locust Street Subject: Tree Survey Report In addition, the trees' health (HLT) and structure (STR) was rated on a scale of 10 through 100; one hundred being perfect and twenty percent and less as being hazardous. Any tree marked hazardous (HAZTREE) needs to be dealt with immediately. All trees below the structural rating of 60 percent and those in bold type require structural pruning. The lower the percentage the more urgent the care. Cabling and pruning would include such things as repair of storm damage, reduction of wind sail, reducing heavy weight from weak limbs and trunks, removal of deadwood, heavy ivy, severe disease and insect infested wood where possible. The location of the following trees are indicated by the. lot number. TR# Species Dia 4.5' DGL HGT LMB SPD HLT% STR% LOC 188 ALD 160 19" 70' 25' 00 20 Lot #7 Haztree 190 WRC 23" 29" 20' 15' 30 10 Lot #6 Haztree 192 WRC 29" 43" 65' 30' 20 20 Lot #6 Haztree 193 WRC 25" 31" 90' 40' 50 60 Lot #6 Preserve - 194 WRC 18' 28' 80' 40' 50 60 Lot #6 Preserve q- WRC 28" 45' 85' 30' 70 60 Lot #6 Preserve 5A WRC 27' 44" 60' 20' 50 20 Lot #6 Haztree 262B WRC 21" 34' 40' 15' 10 10 L-ot#6 Haztree 247 Ald 11' 12' 65' 25' 60 30 Lot #5 Preserve 255 Chy 12' 18' 70' 35' 50 60 Lot #5 Preserve 256 Ald 12' 16" 65' 25' 50 60 Lot #5 Preserve 258 WRC 31' 48' 85' 35' 70 60 Lot #5 In Hardscape 259 WRC 7.5" 14" 45' 15' 30 10 Lot #6 Haztree 280 Chy 14' 19' 90' 35' 50 40 Lot #5 Haztree This cherry tree Is located within the protection of surrounding hazardous trees. Once the hazardous trees have been removed the cherry tree will be top heavy, subject to wind throw and blow down. We have marked the tree as hazardous. 261 WRC 11" 14' 13' 00' 00 00 Lot #5 Haztree 282 MPL 14" 19" 85' 40' S0 40 Lot #5 Located In hardscape with the same problems as Tree Numbered 260. VL'kM--2002 11:40 FROM:HALSTEADS ARBO CONS 503-848-7627 TO:503 657 4646 P. 004/005 Page 3 August 9, 2002 Reference: Tree Assessment for Proposed Development Location: Lots Numbered 5 and 6 at 72nd Avenue and Locust Street Subject: Tree Survey Report TR# Species W4.5' DGL HGT LMB SPD HLT% STR% LOC 262A MPL 14' 18" 85' 30' 5o 20 Lot 05 Haztree 262C MPL is" 181. 70' 45' 40 10 Lot #5 Haztree 270 ALD 7.5" 09" 26' 10' 20 40 Lot #5 Haztree 271 ALD 10" 12" 75' 15' 20 60 Lot #5 Haztree There are only two trees within the Lot Five and Six; Numbered 195 and 258 that are in very good condition both health and structure. The remaining trees in the aforementioned list are hazardous and/or outside of the hardscape. We have taken several pictures (enclosed) and have field note regarding the trees in case additional information is required. If I can be of further assistance or additional technical information is required please call. Sincerely, D viid Halstead B CA, ASCA 11/08/2000 08:45 503-653-9093 COMPASS ENGINENG PAGE 01 COMPASS ENGINEERING PLANNING ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - W E 503/653-9093 6564 SE Lake Road FAX 503/653-9095 S Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 e-mail: compass@northwest.com RECEIVED PLANNING NOV 2 9 2000 November 8, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD Ms. Julia Hajduk Via Facsimile: 503-684-7297 City of Tigard Planning 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Ventura Estates Subdivision r (Sub)_ 98.6642 Dear Ms. Hajduk: As per our recent phone conversation i have enclosed a modification to the lot line between Tract A and Lot 4. We propose shifting this line to the north to enlarge Lot 4. 1 have shown the 25' buffer and the location of the bike path for your use. If this change is acceptable to you we will change the plat accordingly. Please give me a call at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, ~ooj~s Michael A. Rademacher, P.L.S. MARgr \\COMPASS-1\VOLt 1\CLER\Working\11-00\4237 Ventura EstateMovember 8.doc Enclosure 11/08/2000 08:45 503-653-9093 COMPASS ENGINEERING PAGE 02 UVU. IVU. _ 81-041824 11780' JF-~~ 81.71' 1203.75' - ~ 89.99' ]AID 2" BRASS DISC 18' PUBLIC PEDESMIAN I 114 CORNER, NLW ACCESS EASEMENT i I BOOK, 9 PAGE 140 I 55 J4, S RI 4, I 8, 025 SO. FT. o 25 TRACT "A ; I SEE NOTE 3, q 36 c~ (OPEN SPACE) i ` ( I SHEET 2 z 1995 N 13,754 S0. FT. ; 15' EXIS77NG CO SV~~ oA°o SEE PLA T RES1R/ 77ON i I I -•P S. S E. © 27 NOTE 7, SHEET ; 2.5 ~ L=5.65' 7 L=t 1.1,77.32, CEL 2 L,12 JN PLAT 74 N89'49'39 °W 609 52.53' i Owl p ~a a1~ u, 570'3 r 21.7 IRON ROD ' 50 90 ' L= L=.34.70 6W PLAS77C CAP ~P ~ 7F•RSON 4 L =12 00' i U 8' P U. 0 7,726 SO. FT. (TYPIC, o J m ~EL 1 a 1c N PLAT o ^ 6,974S 074 N89 49 J9"W , co , a 89.99' , ; g I 19 o iN L=j05' z 3 3 - LAND SOLUTIONS Inc. P.O.Box38 9140 S.E. St. Helens Street Clackamas, OR 97140 Planning . Permits Project Management Tel: (503) 722-8585 Fax: (503) 722-8555 www.landsolutions.com RECEIVED PLANNING September 26, 2000 Ms. Julia Powell Hajduk OCT 0 2 2000 City of Tigard CITY OFTIGM 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: File No. SUB 98-0014 - Ventura Estates Dear Ms. Hajduk: As requested by Compass Engineering, I am providing you this letter to address the density calculations to satisfy conditions for the above referenced final plat approval process. The final density calculations based upon the surveyed final boundary/plat and approved construction plans are as follows: Gross Site Area 5.05 Ac. MINUS Public Rights-of-Way 1.01 Ac. Private Rights-of-Way 0.10 Ac. Slopes > 25%. 0.07 Ac. Drainage Area 0.12 Ac. Net Site Area 3.75 Ac. Divided by R-4.5 Density 7,500 S.F./Lot Site Lots Sub-Total 21.78 Lot PLUS Density Transfer Units Slopes > 25% 0.07 Ac. Drainage Area 0.12 Ac. Sub-Total . 0.19 Ac. Divided by R4.5 Density 7,500 S.F./Lot Site Lots Sub-Total 1.10 Lots 25% Transfer Ratio 0.28 Lots Total Density Transfer Lots 0.28 Lots Total Allowable Lots for Subject Site = 22.06 If you have any questions or need additional information, I may be contacted at 503-722-8585. Sincer I , Kenneth L. Sandblast cc: Mr. Todd Knepper, Compass Engineering Providing Profitable and Creative Land Development Solutions. FROM LAND_50LUTIONS, Inc. / PHONE NO. : 15037228555 Sep. 28 2000 10:44AM P1 0 • LAND SOLUTIONS, Inc. 9140 S.E. St. Hel.Oens Street Clackamas, OR 97015 Planning • Permits • Project Management Tel: 503-722-8585 Fax: 503-722-0555 www.landsolutions.com NAME: Julia Haiduk DATE: 09/28/00 FIRM: City of Tigard TIME: 11:30 a.m.- PTIMNE. 639=4171 Number of Pages: 2 (Including this Cover Sheet) FAX: 684-7297 Originals to Follow Via: X U.S. Mail Originals Not FedEx/UPS Being Sent Delivery MESSAGE: FROM LAND-SOLUTIONS, Inc. • PHONE NO. : 15037228555 • Sep. 28 2000 10:44AM P2 LAND SOLUTIONS, Inc. 9140 S.E. St Helens Street Clackamas, OR 97140 Planning • Permits • Project Management Tel: (503) 722-8585 Fax. (503) 722-8s55 www.landsolutionv,.com September 26, 2000 Ms. Julia Powell Hajduk City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: File No. SUB 98-0014 - Ventura Estates Dear Ms. Hajduk: As requested by Compass Engineering, I am providing you this letter to address the density calculations to satisfy conditions for the above referenced final plat approval process. The final density calculations based upon the surveyed final boundary/plat and approved construction plans are as follows: Gross Site Area 5.05 Ac. MINUS Public Rights-of-Way 1.01 Ac. Private Rights-of-Way 0.10 Ac. Slopes > 25%. 0.07 Ac. Drainage Area 0.12 Ac. Net Site Area 3.75 Ac. Divided by R-4.5 Density 7,500 S.F./Lot Site Lots Sub-Total 21.78 Lot PLUS Density Transfer Units Slopes > 25% 0.07 Ac. Drainage Area 0.12 Ac. Sub-Total 0.19 Ac. Divided by R-4.5 Density 7,500 S.F./Lot Site Lots Sub-Total 1.10 Lots 25% Transfer Ratio 0.28 Lots Total Density Transfer Lots 0.28 Lots Total Allowable Lots for Subject Site = 22.06 If you have any questions or need additional information, I may be contacted at 503-722-8585. Since I , . 1 Kenneth L. Sandblast cc: Mr. Todd Knepper, Compass Engineering Providing Profitable and Creative Land Development Solutions. Sent By: URSULA CULLISON; 503 521 1186; Sep-20-00 5:30PM; Page 1 Gknml-- e o Columbia Realty A I. CULLIS Direc 3) Sal" 8S Direct Fax (503 5'z / " g6 http://www.realtor.com/Portland/UrsulaCulhson e-mail: ursula@hevanet.com DATE: September 20, 2000 FAX Tom- jut'-A, City of Tigard Planning Dept. FAX NUMBER: 684-7297 SUBJECT: Ventura Subdivision TOTAL FAXED PAGES INCLUDING THIS ONE: 1 if not all pages are received, please call (503) 244-8072. Thank you. Hi Julia, Sorry, but I forgot to ask you about the setbacks on a corner lot, e. g. lots 1, 17, 21 and 22. Lots 17 and 21: If the front set back would be considered to be on SW Locust, setback for garages with 20 feet for lots 17 and 21, the setbacks would be 5 feet and the rear yard would be flexible. How wide would be the set back on the side fronting McKenna Place? 1 f 6,1N,1,1L 0ex Q1__ 45 1,/e/r Lots 1 and 22: These lots have the smaller side on SW 70', so that would be considered the front, garage set back 20 feet. The South property lines would be the exterior perimeter but would be the side yard with 5 feet set back. Lot 22 would have the rear yard on the interior, bordering with sideyard of lot 21, so it would be 5 feet setback. Lot 1 would have the back yard on the a terior perimeter and it would. be 15 feet on the west property line. How wide is the set back for both of /e~C~~j~e these lots on SW Locust Street? Would you please, as soon as possible, call me, email or fax me, whatever is simpler? Thank YOU 46 Sent By: URSULA CULLISON; • 503 521 1186; Sep-21-00 10:28AM; Page 1 s Columbia Realty URSULA I. CULLISON Direct (503) 244--80727-- s -2 Direct Fax (503) ~5=9-fi4 ht!p://www.realtor.com/Portland/UrsulaCullison e-mail: ursula@hevanet.com DATE: September 20, 2000 FAX TO: Julia, City of Tigard Planning Dept. FAX NUMBER: 684-7297 SUBJECT: Ventura Subdivision TOTAL FAXED PAGES INCLUDING THIS ONE: 1 If not all pages are received, please call (503) 244-80T2. Thank you. Hi Julia, Sorry, but I forgot to ask you about the setbacks on a corner lot, e. g. lots 1, 17, 21 and 22. Lots 17 and 21: Tf the front set back would be considered to be on SW Locust, setback for garages with 20 feet for lots 17 and 21, the setbacks would be 5 feet and the rear yard would be flexible. How wide would be the set back on the side fronting McKenna Place? Lots 1 and 22: These lots have the smaller side on SW 70", so that would be considered the front, garage set back 20 feet. The South property lines would be the exterior perimeter but would be the side yard with 5 feet set back. Lot 22 would have the rear yard on the interior, bordering with sideyard of lot 21, so it would be 5 feet setback. Lot 1 would have the back yard on the ecterior perimeter and it would be 15 feet on the west property line. How wide is the set back for both of these lots on SW Locust Street? Would you please, as soon as possible, call me, email or fax me, whatever is simpler? Thank you. N COMPASS ENGINEERING ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - PLANNING 6z~ 1 w E 503/653-9093 6564 SE Lake Road FAX 503/653-9095 S Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 e-mail: compass@northwest.com May 17, 2000 RECEIVED PLANNING Ms. Julia Hajduk MAY 1 $ City of Tigard 2000 13125 SW Hall Blvd. CITY Tigard, Oregon 97223 OF TIGARD RE: Ventura Estates (SUB 98-00141PDR 98-00131VAR 99-006) Dear Ms. Hajduk: Enclosed for your files for the Ventura Estates project are the following: 1. Tree plan which shows the proposed street trees. 2. Copy of confirmation from Washington County approving the subdivision name "Ventura Estates". 3. Copy of the pedestrian path details showing how the path can be extended to SE Ventura Drive without impacting the drainage area. In regards to the Conditions of Approval Item No. 5, the Builder will need to submit a plan under separate cover that shows how each individual lot can be landscaped to insure the 20% landscape requirement. Also, as per Condition No. 8, all lots will have 25 feet of frontage on a public or private street. In particular, Lot 20 will be revised to meet this condition. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact our office. Sincerely, Todd R. Knepper, P.E. TRK/slw N:\CLER\FINAL\Working\05-00\4237 May 17.doc Enclosure Copy: Barry Desbiens Ivy Yip APR-q 99 15:26 FROM:WASH CO SURVEYOR 503-681-2909 TO:503 653 9093 PAGE:01/01 04/15/1999 10:27 503-6!093 COMPASS ENGINEEW PAGE 01 WASHINGTON COUNTY LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION SURVEYOR'S OFFICE RECEIVED PLANNING _~DKVXNZQ.X IPXJkT MAXOMMAY 1 g 2000 I request that the Washington County Surveyor9s(6TffceF TIGARD reserve the following subdivision name: PROPOSED NAME OF SUBDIVISION: \/6*4T4jg_#, t1AY~s MAP AND TAX LOT NUMBER: Tco S6 A%#- CITY JURISDICTION (Which CItyT) G` '11D OR COUNTY JURISDICTION: tg0PAu•brVN 4P. SURVEYOR'S NAME: toHPAsS gNs 1~.cwA.L iA . RAoar~c•~+~•~. OWNER'S NAME: ~ • ~t¢NS I understand that if the name is not used within two years, it will be automatically canceled. Name of person reserving name: ~'~'"~pt1''~ 131= 4-049 Address: tAdO4 Telephone number{,5.•yl y4s."qs Fax numb®r 'tra.g 1 Signature: Date: /8 Name approved Washington County Surveyor's Office Post-it' Fax Now 7671 Date 4-~B _9ryAq► T MWC (.q 04M 4CMEr . Rom LJNLW eCU 7_r0 t'.01r1 Pi0 5S 155 North First Avenue, Suite 350-15 Hi71 r,').'02". Co. iv*SN. co. PhonC u PhO"a" b81 ^ ~(08~ F:ISHAR!D1SURVMWPSHARSSUBNAMQ.DOC Fax A (v S3 - 9095 Fax • WAHINGTON COUr*Y LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION SURVEYOR'S OFFICE 8Z7$1[3Y%rXSION PLA~X N•~MING I request that the Washington County Surveyor's Office reserve the following subdivision name: PROPOSED NAME OF SUBDIVISION: ~E{.ITV ~ r`s~T~S MAP AND TAX LOT NUMBER: Taac- ter- tin ► 7ac~ ►I--IW- 36 AA. CITY JURISDICTION (Which City?) OR COUNTY JURISDICTION: aw ~-6taN Cp, SURVEYOR'S NAME: ~t-~@ASS FN~~..c~.rCo OWNER'S NAME: B • D55 3r-CNS I understand that if the name is not used within two years, it will be automatically canceled. Name of person reserving name: µtc-"afi~- N• Address: [.5(64 sC Telephone number-CS4) LS3 rca93 Fax number. 5e 53 -q(345 Signature: VkA"-Q-& L Date:' (r-. "Q Name approved Washington County Surveyor's Office 155 North First Avenue, Suite 350-15 Hillsboro, OR 97123 Fax: 681-2909 F:\SHARED\SURVEY\WPSHARE\SUBNAME.DOC l + - - _ PROPOSED FUTURE LOCA770N. - - -OFPEDESMAN'PA7H" TRACT 'A' Fit i 5 (Pei~ PRC, STA. 14+47.52 2T LT 6 ! r ! ~ ' ! t = STA. 3+15.17 CURB-i PEDESTRIAN PATH ` PT STA. 14+27.5 17' LT I 2 /y" A. C. ON , =STA. 3+38.36, C{1lRB-1 SECEIVEC PLANNING 4" OF 34 "-0° GRAVEL (s ; PC. STA 14+06.15 1 x 'L T i I OR 4° OF CONCRETE = 3+59.72 CURB-1 1 AY 18 2ppp t PER ORW. 166 -'CON IRACTOR TO INSTALL PARKING' 9GN C" I-~~~~® PRC, STA. 13+98.39, 18.74' LT I 1 CITY OF i = STA 3+68.81, CURB-1 7 , , ~ W IEDUN r / CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL ADA RAMP 1 in' e C2 • 8 ! 927't. SIDEWALK TO BE r n RP, , CONSTRUCTED M ! CS 2 ^ N © C19 • BY CONTRACTOR ! ! - } I PRC, STA. 13+42.36, 16.95' T I = STA. 4+62.44, CURB-1 C11 PC t3+ A \ ( MAILBOx ausTER LOCA710N B° CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL COI~IRACIOR~ NO PARKING" SIGN "C° y ~o ! NO PARKING t II ! Z i } PC, STA. 13+29.53, 14' LT JRACTOA ! ! li 13 00 I N PARKING I = STA. 4+77.53, CURB-1 ! ! _ ! ! 1 4 _ - - i 14', W ' I PRC, STA 14+47E 23'f23 = STA 0 90.35, C l ' STA 14127.52 1' 12 PC = STA. 0+67.16, CURL PT = 12+52.84 ! ! -T PT STA 13+ 9.06 a CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL ! i , - - STA. 0+3943, CURE r.L 72C0 NO PARKING" SIGN "C" ' ! s i 4 ( t r 4---- -PC, STA. 13+35.69, 14'r P ! C4 I I = STA. 0+00.0I7, CURB- ] 3 RC?,cos 4 ; B t t j - - 2 131 PT STA. 11+50.65 14' LT r ! ; 00 CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL 2" N1DE (OURA-STRIPE 120 MILS DICK OR E a CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL COMBINATION t a r I i STOP AND STREET NAME AND "NO PARKING" SIGN A" , J C3 , PC, STA. 11+50.65, 14' T I I a p' ' t i PC, STA. 10+61.00, 16' LT ! pC = 11+59.65 START CONSTRUCTION PT, STA. 11+39.00, 16' LT i i STA. 10+00.00, Will r MATCH TO EXISTING PAVEMENT ' I i - ...._i_ S.W. LOCUST ST. +11 t: U SIA-11+41.00, 16' RT a 3-FOOT HIGH KEYSTONE WALL j ( 2 i ! °o STA 11+09.65 701N AVE (E6 I } , 2 i STA 11+00.00, t LOCUST ST. nc PC, STA. 10+59.00. 16' RT IRACTOR TO INSTALL COMB1NA11 f i I PT, STA. 10+68.65, 16' LT ! 16j~, ' ; STOP AND STREET NAME SIGN r ! 5 ~ 25 APC, STA. 10+68.65, 16' RT i EXISTING P WER TO BE RELOCATED. I SEE a C CAL PLANS FOR _ i ! ; 10' MIN. 6" CLASS "C AC -OR - 3" CLASS "C AC ON 8" OF 3/4"-0 2% SLOPE TO STREAM COMPACT & STERILISE SUBGRADE FABRIC MAINTENANCE ACCESS 5' MIN. 2 1/2" A.C. 4" OF P.C.C. ON 4 OF 3/4"-0 2% SLOPE TO STREET DUE, 4" A.C. FABRIC PEDESTRIAN PATH OR BIKEWAY NOTES: i NAX 1. CONCRETE SHALL BE 3000 P.S.I. AT 8 DAYS, 6 SAC MIX, SLUMP RANGE OF 1 1/2"-3- 2. CONCRETE PANELS SHALL BE SQUARE, 3/4" DEEP SCRIBES AT JOINTS 5 FEET APART, EDGED ON 4 SIDES AND HAVE A LIGHT BROOM FINISH. RAVEL 3. FABRIC TO BE A WOVEN GEOTEXTILE (AMOCO 2006) OR APPROVED EQUAL. -WO LIFTS 4. COMPACT AND STERILIZE SUBGRADE. JF B° COURSE YO LIFTS APPROVED Sr. NO SCALE M.,EQa1c DEaARr►oa Us'nm DUEMAINTENENCE ACCESS OR owc. No. 17145 &W. IMIL 8YD. "G"L f, OFEWN 97=3 VOICL- 930-4171 MARCH 1998 PEDESTRIAN/BIKE PATH C(TY OF TIGARD 'D3 6D~'~' 166 APPROVAL WE 'LIFT TO BE : I TYS 'CEPTMCE NO N)AY. 0 No q EN 90% PARKING PARKING [PARKING e 1 I STM MH 1-1 ~ k STA. 1+00.00, STU 1 } STA. 0+00.00, STM 2 PVT. STM STM OUTFACE STA. 0+70.00, STM i - e 5 CY CLASS 200 RIPRAP - - _ TRACT ~p~.;~, _ ~ -~-•--5 100 LF 6"0 STM j t'- i STM 1 e t ®STA.0+40 4x6" TEE ST 5 LF 4"0 RD 4 Q ( STM CB 2-1 I 5 `n f N r CURB STA. O+ 7.51. TC. 270.40 RIM: 269.78 I ° WATER QUALITY SWALE 1E. IN 26736 ! ! SEE SECTION A zO, , 1£. IN 267.56, 41"0 IE. OUT267.16 ! $ = 3 SUMP. 265.66 2-FOOT DROP WITH I C.Y. C i 13.00 LF 12"0 STM_ , S=1T31~_ CLASS 50 RIPRAP \ r ~F Iii y .11 .41 STM OUTFALL R - ~ IR I STA. 0+50.00, STM 3 - 5 CY CLASS 200 RIPRAP \ 1 ~ ,fib i STM MH 1-2, CONTROL ! i STA. 2+20.35, STM I ' A -OUT C STA 1.+00.00, STM 3 20 LF ! = STREET STA. 13+66.04, 21.92'L T - - - - I _ ! 7: STM CB 2-. E \ Q :STREET STA. STM CB 2-3 r , N , TC. 274.85 t CURB STA. I STA. 2+73 4+59.56, CURB-1 ! a :RIM. 274.25 TC. 273.47 12"x4" TEE p r1E IN 270.5: ! RIM: 272.87 ( 22 LF 4°0 Rtj I? 00 I ;IE. OUT 270. IE OUT 270.87 r r I rSUMP: 269. - SUMP: 269.37 STM 1 ! ( 135.97 LF 12' i 32.07 LF 12°0 STM ` 4 - - N ® S=1.007- 12 - - ; - * U MH 1-3 ! 1 - - V - STA. 3+43.35, STM 1 ! j --:400 LF 6"0 `i STA. 0+00.00, STM 4 I ° 1 = STREET STA. 12+54.99, 7.00' LT i ! n =7 f STA. 3+33 1_® STA. 0+- ! 12'x4" TEE I 1 J 4x6" TE t i , 3 22 LF 4°0 RD 15 LF 4" ! STM C8 5-1 2 STA. 3+93 STM C8 STREET STA. 10+02.00, 15' LT 12"x4" TEE V ` i 00 STREET S" TC. 297.44 ! i 31 LF 4"0 RD TC. 299.0` RIM: 296.84 STM MH 1-4 RIM: 298. - I IE OUT 294.34 IE. OUT 25 SUMP: 292.84 ( STA. 4+85.47, STM 1 + 1 , I STA. 0+00.00. STM 5 SUMP: 29 13.34 LF 12"0 STM 13.00 LF i 0 S=6.979 • -STREET STA. 11+06.00, 2' LT ! r ® S=15.9= ! I - LOCUST ST. i I I L` r WATE 1 Sri/ MH 5-1 ! - STREET STA. 11+11.65, 6' RT LOWER I UNDER STO' STA. 1+01.00, STM 5 ( - 70TH AVE. = STREET STA. 10+_05.00, 2' LT -Nds o W o EXIST. 6-0 W TER 12 w X34.00 LF 101.00 LF "0 STMT + - --h - - - f-- - - - ao S.W. LOCUST ST. i 112"0 STM Y~xtit _ I _STM CB 5-2 v i i II STREET STA. 10+02.00, 15' LT I I 1 i rr 707 Ad STM 5 , - 4 ► ! c Jam. i~ \ WAS INGTO SOU RE ESTATES Tl !]00 \ TL 2100- iL 1109 - TL 7000 TA. 9000-- TL 2►00 S.W. VENTUR_A DRIVE / - 71' Y lei ; Y.-'T-----~---- I TL 7900 7 TL i00 ' ~ x gaol u. = rasl sr. rul tr.% ~ .i 11.30 Sr Z /r' J q s j I e4 ♦I'll = 411.0JU. I~n7sr V♦ 3 ' TRACT 'A' meow ILIX o 4 1 10 Q .117 sr. 4 1't 11 7.1.1.0 Sr I I Q • TA. 7709 I ; ' 4 )al SL. 31070 S!. j 1 7 ~ 1 1 2 n. - Y as_ Y• Y TL J'109 T1. Tioo FY Sr. ( 1 I tit•~w4 jr 1 I ' u $4 Is Is t 4.0I7 tf. 4Sf0 S/. } 4.731 Sr. 'KnI Sr. t~ 4 , j - su «ae a0 .cva a W ' u.a leocl r-I Z ~r - - i------------ u u.1ax se• , Z d• 10 --S.W. LOCUST STREET ---a-- - - - a- z 1 22 Y 21 7a~! Sr ' ' , I 1 3 7.321 Sl. I 1 1 S!. 1 1 1 10 43.1J S!, 7" 1~ 1 1 ~ • . y I 11- 701 Y « I 1 I 1 V 1 1 TL 9000 TL T000 I If 1 1 TL 702 ; 1c4t10+ila~tla ~ ' 1 1 , t , ~ a0a «us I 1 20 11 is / f i 7.Sa0 If. * 3 4160 S! 7.130 Sr. U . ;IIs 1 11 0 I - TL 2eo I I la -ICS ~y._ 1 L W 1 1L 0100 TL 000 TL 6400 1 I TL 202 ( ~ 1 TL 7700 1 j TA- 0002 1 , TL 7100 i I I 1 1 TL Y00 I ON I III 131 -l III II ~I; 1 , ; 1 CASE NOW & CASE NAME(S): 1 SITE PLAN SUB 98-0014 VENTURA ~ VAR 99-0001 ESTATES - SUBDIVISION FJ(HIBIT MAP N 04/24/00 12:15 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 9001 m ACTIVITY REPORT ~c TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO. 5763 CONNECTION TEL 6719524 CONNECTION ID START TIME 04/24 12:14 USAGE TIME 00'42 PAGES 1 . RESULT OK Post-It'" brpnd fax transmittal memo 7 1 of pages ► . From TO Co co. ~ W A■ IN a To S O U RE E MY A T E S Dep • oe ~J F # Ti1ie° TL 9404 Ti aseo V. sae Tl ales FaKM~ _ ' S.W. Y~NTURA DRIVE n6o If .1 ■ _ 1 7 YL iaa taa sr YAW If. WISE j ~ ■ 1 j ,r }17 xr• h a / 4 I Y ")CIA, If. 1117 SE I # I 1l1AGi •A' ~ ~ on" • p { 1 ~~/y O l i r I I ac... ei+ Ti ■700 3070 S< i Y i (Ji, 1l. 1 1 { i _ I Tl Ma ;3 S.]I7 u if I 1 Tl 7"a 1 1 1 4r K 1■ ?f I >iwo + t~17i~ aW ~ abI SJ. uJI Sr M 1 I r 1 ~l 1 e4 wdm iII4 • (fu Sf Lu _ - a .W. LOCUST STREET ? - y - t a I 1 1 y 1 1 _ T 'na 1.771 Sr ~Hi~ 1 3 7 [0ASr [77Yi1. i i 1 p e • H j TL 701 ~ I Tl 7pee I r 1 1 1 e~ TL ew° ' st 700 ; mobf7wc7a ~ 1 i 1 1 fPa I M til°Oi~ ~ 1 < 1 ~ ~ ~ as 1t Ta I 1 UL 1 I~ nio sr - 3 t+60 Sf ),,JO S< 1 1 1 . ; ~1I , 1 1 I ; O 1 J11, 1 ~ r 1 ii 7N° ~ 1 1 i W ' Ti eeea 1 Yl ~a•e ii "M 1 Yt 794 1 = 1 Ti loo. i } ; TL fOAt 1 1 1 1 I ~y M CITY OF TIOARD Community (Development Sha ingA Better Community l5 i.A r LANDK SE PROPOSALDESCR10T10N { 120 DAYS = 5/31/99 FILE NOS.: SUBDIVISION [SUB] 98-0014 P N D DEVELOPMENT REVIEW [PDR] 98-0013 ~MGE l V ~ 919 FILE TITLE: VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION APPLICANT'S APPLICANT: Ivy Yip APPLICANT: Barry Desbiens REP.: Ken Sandblast Ashwood Homes, Inc. Wingate Corporation Land Solutions 8760 SW Pacer Drive 15840 S. Pope Lane PO Box 38 Beaverton, OR 97008-6915 Oregon City, OR 97045 Clackamas, OR 97015 (503) 626-2119 (503) 657-3300 (503) 722-8585 OWNERS: Helen L. Wegener Fred Neuman 580 NW Alpine Terrace 19730 SE Semple Road Portland, OR 97210 Clackamas, OR 97015 (503) 223-9453 (503) 658-5915 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Subdivision and Planned Development Review approval for a 22-lot detached single-family residential Planned Development Subdivision. There is natural area that is proposed to be reserved in a tract ea within the subdivisl !1 T Sc{ 64 u Coted U,-c.mavlftlwm l-~y i ~ LOCATION: The subject arcels re on the south side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 70'hAvenue; 1S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW / A. CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. CIT AREA: East . CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request DECISION MAKING BODY: DATE COMMENTS DUE: TUESDAY - MARCH 2, 1999 HEARINGS OFFICER IMONJ DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 1:00 PM X PLANNING COMMISSION IMONJ DATE OF HEARING: APRIL5,1999 TIME: 7:30PM CITY COUNCIL ITUESJ DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 1:30 PM COMPONENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION VICINITY MAP X LANDSCAPE PLAN NARRATIVE X SITE PLAN X TREE PLAN X ARCHITECTURAL PLAN TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY X ARBORIST REPORT X OTHER A STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Hajduk. Associate Planner SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013 VENTURA.ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL CITY of TIGARD GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM ELMWOOD ST LOtA UN PJ ALFRED V 1 C 1 N ITY MAP ST 6 SUB 98-0014 Alm L PDR 98-0013 LN "`A VAR 99-0001 E DR VE NTU RA or ESTATES SUBDIVISION (2) SUBJEC TURA VENTURA PARCELS R w a L LOCUST ST w . _ Q N w w > > Q Q 0 100 200 300 100 500 Feet MAPLELEAF S7 = V- 376 feet f- L OAK ST w w City of Tigard • Q Q Information on this map is for general location only and A ST = should be verified Wth the Development Services Division. (D 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard. OR 97223 f ; CD (503) 63" 171 Q httpJh~.ci.t gard.or.us Plot date: Feb 1, 1999; C:\magic\MAGIC02.APR Community Development s 04/24/00 11:50 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 0001 ACTIVITY REPORTm TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO. 5761 CONNECTION TEL 6719524 CONNECTION ID START TIME 04/24 11:48 USAGE TIME 01'22 PAGES 2 RESULT OK PnSt-It^' brand fax transmittal memo of pages . z1CA/1 tDep. FeOm / Co. CITY Of 11GAR0 tronz=m ty ovw4mm -7 P ne Sid '.A Odur Community Fay # ~ F # 120 DAYS = 5/31/99 FILE NOS.: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 98-0014 P N D DEVELOPMENT REVIEW [POW 8-0013b C VARY FILE TITLE: VENTURA ESTATES SURDMSION APPLICANT'S APPLICANT: Ivy Yip APPLICANT: Barry Desbiens REP.: Ken Sandblast Ashwood Homes, Inc. Wingate Corporation Land Solutions 8760 SW Pacer Drive 15840 S. Pope Lane PO Box 38 Beaverton, OR 97008-6915 Oregon City, OR 97045 Clackamas, OR 97015 (503) 626-2119 (503) 657-3300 (503) 722-8585 OWNERS: Helen L. Wegener Fred Neuman 580 NW Alpine Terrace 19730 SE Semple Road Portland, OR 97210 Clackamas, OR 97015 (503) 223-9453 (503) 658-5915 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Subdivision and Planned Development Review approval for a 22-lot detached single-family residential Planned Development Subdivision. I There is natural area that ~Sp is proposed to be re erv@d in a t ct area within the subdivisio iS a ~ ~ ii.,ma.~c~`~ua'n l~~'a LOCATION: The subject parcels re located on the south side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 700 Avenue; 1 S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential- ZONE: R-4.5: Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The nurnose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home Jan• 06 00 03:22p I Yip 504641-3929 P.1 C(OPY VENTURA HOMES 3760 Ste' PACER DR. BEAtiERTON, OR 97008 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET r~,; rxvn: Bruce,e Todd Ivy Yip - Ventura Homes r_ O M PAN Y: DATE Compass Engineering January 6, 2000 VA& NUMBER: _ TOTAL NO. OF PAGLS 1NCLUDiNC CU\tR: 653-9095 18 PHONE NUMBER. SENDER'S REHRENCE• NUMBER 653-9093 RF- YOUR RF.FF.R&!J,:F. NC? iRF.R: ❑ Ult(;h:N't' x Folt RKVIv.w ❑ 1'I.KASI( (:(1n1Mh:NT ❑ 1ILKASK IWAILY ❑ PLh:AlY. L'KCYCt.I; NO"rEs/coaimL'NTS: Attached are copy of letter from Corps of Engineers. Please call if your have any question. Ivy PlIONF: (303) 626.3119 FAX: (505) 641-3929 Jan OG 00 03:22p IV Yip 503-641-3929 p,2 DEPARTMENT OFTHE ARMY PORTLAND DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 2946 1\! Po November 24, 19992sas Reply to Attention of: Operations Division SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit Verification Case No: 99-1475 Ventura, L.L.C. Attn: Barry Desbiens 8760 SW Pacer Drive Beaverton, Oregon 97008 Dear Mr. Desbiens: This is your Department of the Army authorization to place approximately 5 cubic yards of riprap within 0.0011 acre in an unnamed intermittant tributary of Fanno Creek near Tigard, Washington County, Oregon (Section 36 TIS/RIW). This letter verifies that your proposed activities as presented in your application (Enclosure 1) are authorized under the terms and limitations of Nationwide Permit Number 18, as described in Enclosure 2. Your activities must be conducted in accordance with the conditions presented in Enclosures 3 and 4. Failure to comply with any of the listed conditions will render your authorization invalid and could result in the assessment of civil penalties. Permits, where required, under Oregon's Removal/Fill Law, as well as other appropriate local authorizations, must also be obtained or your authorization will not be valid. This verification is valid until November 22, 2001, unless the nationwide permit expires, is modified, reissued, or revoked prior to that date. All the nationwide permits, except Nationwide Permit 26, are scheduled to be modified, reissued or revoked in February 2002. Nationwide Permit 26 will expire on December 31, 1999. If you commence or are under contract to commence this activity before the date the nationwide permit expires, is modified or revoked, you will have twelve months from the date of the modification or revocation to complete the activity under the present terms and conditions of the current nationwide permit. Jan 06 00 03:22p IvY Yip 5041-3929 p.3 -2- If you have any questions regarding our nationwide permit authority, please contact me at the above address or telephone (503) 808-4381. Sincerely, e, -I& 4f an Stuart Project Manager Regulatory Branch Enclosures Copies Furnished: ODEQ (Melville) ODSL (Parks) DLCD CO-GP (Black) w/Application Jan 06 00 03:23p IV Yip 503-641-3929 p,4 ~i l O p JOINT c US Army Corps PERMIT APPLICATION FORM ° of Engineers THIS AppucAnON WILL MEET THE REQuiiza4mm of BoTH AGENces Portland District ~a s e AGENCIES WILL ASSIGN NUMBERS Corps Action ID Number Oregon Division of State Lands Number. SEND ONE SIGNED COPY OF YOUR-APPUCATION TO EACH AGENCY District Engineer ' State of Oregon ASP O Box 2946~P O CT 2 1999 Division 7755 Summer Street NE Portland, OR 97208-2946 Ep r, • Salem OR 97310 503-326-7730 503.378.3805 © ApplicantName Ventura, L.L.C business phone # (503) 626-2119 L.L.C. and Address 8760 SW Pacer Drive home phone # N/A FAX # (503) 641-3929 O Co-Applicant Barry Desbiens business phone # (503) 657-3300 O Authorized Agent Ventura. L . L . C . O Contractor home phone # N/A Name and Address 15840 S. Pope Lane FAX # (503) 657-4646 Oregon City, Ore on 97045 Property Owner business phone (d different than applicant) Same as applicant home phone # Name nrxl Address FAX # 02 PROJEcr LOCATION Street, Road or other descriptive location Legal Description located on the south side of Ventura Drive Quarter Section Township Range at the termini of SW Locust Street and AA 36 1S 1W SW 70th Avpnue In or Near (City or Town) County Tax Map # Tax Lot # Tigard Washington 1S 1 36AA 601, 700 Waterway River Mile Latitude Longitude N/A N/A 45026145" 122044145" Is consent to enter property granted to the Corps and the Division of State Lands? 0 Yes 0 No ® PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION Activity Type: 0 Fill 0 Excavation (removal) 0 In-Water Structure 0 Maintain/Repair an Existing Structure Brief Description: Construction of storm outfall for 22-lot subdivision Fill will involve N/A cubic yards annually and/or 5 cubic yards for the total project 2 cubic yards in a wetland or below the ordinary high water or high fide Gne Fill will be ® Riprap 0 Rock 0 Gravel 0 Sand 0 Silt 0 Clay 0 Organics 0 Other Fill Impact Area is 0.0011 Acres; 5 ft length; 10 ft 'width; 2ft depth Removal will involve N/A cubic yards annually and/or N/A cubic yards for the total project cubic yards below the ordinary high water or high tide line Removal will be 0 Riprap 0 Rock 0 Gravel 0 Sand 0 Silt 0 Clay 0 Organics 0 Other Removal Impact Area is N/A Acres; N/A length; N/A width; N/A depth Is the Disposal area: Upland? 0 Yes 0 No Wetland / Waterway? 0 Yes 0 No N/A Are you aware of any Endangered Species on the project site? 0 Yes a No If Yes, please explain in the project Are you aware of any Cultural Resources on the project site? 0 Yes Q No description (on page 2, block 4), Is the project site near a Wild and Scenic River'? 0 Yes Q No - Jan 06 00 03:23p Iv~j Yip 503-641-3929 • p.5 ® PROPOSED PROJECT PURPOSE 8c DESCRIPTION • Project Purpose and Need: To install a storm outfall for storm water disposal for a 22-lot subdivision. Project Description: To extend a storm sewer line to the daylight point of discharge location an the property. The project will include the placement of 5 yards of rip-rap for erosion protection. How many project drawing sheets are included with this application? 5 NOTE: A complete application must include drawings and a location map submitted on separate 81/,X I I sheets. Will any material, construction debris, runoff, etc. enter a wetland or waterway? 0 Yes ® No If yes, describe the type of discharge (above) and show the discharge location on the site plan. Estimated Start Date January 2000 Estimated Completion Date February 2000 © PROJECT IMPACTS AND ALTERNATIvEs Describe alternative sites and project designs that were considered to avoid impacts to the waterway or wetland. The discharge location shown was determined to be the most suitable location during the preliminary subdivision design process. An open space tract is designated over the existing drainage'area and a buffer for the existing drainage area was incorporated into the design layout. Describe what measures you will use (before and after construction) to minimize impacts to the waterway or wetland. Erosion control measures will be implemented during construction. A water quality swale and sump facilities will be constructed to treat storm water run-off prior to entering the drainage area. NOTE If necessary, use additional sheets. ® 1 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Adjoining Property Owners and Their Addresses and Phone Numbers See drawing Sheet 5 of 5 attached to the application. Has the proposed activity or any related activity received the attention of the Corps of Engineers or the State of Oregon in the past, e.g.. wetland delineation, violation, permit, lease request, etc.? O YES ® NO It yes, what identification number(s) were assigned by the respective agencies: Corps # State of Oregon# Jan 06 00 03:23p I Yip 503-641-3929 p.6 ® CITY / COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MDAVIT (to be completed by local planning official) 0 This project Is not regulated by the local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. Pr/Thls project has been reviewed and Is consistent with the local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. QSGo49 /A SUe 98-C00, y 0This project has been reviewed and is not consistent with the local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. 0 Consistency of this project with the local planning ordinance cannot be determined until the following local approval(s) are obtained: 0Conditional Use Approval 0Development Permit 0 Plan Amendment 0Zone Change 0 Other An application 0 has 0 has not been made for local approvals checked above. ul~k 4z c"g-1r- r'QarJ /0 22-99 Si re (ot oc l planning official) Title city/ Gouty Date ® COASTAL ZONE CERTIFICATION i~ If the proposed activity described in your permit application is within the Oregon coastal tone, the following certification is required before your application can be processed. A public notice viii be issued with the certification statement which will be forwarded to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCO) for its concurrence or objection. For additional information on the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program. contact the department at 1175 Court Street NE Sateen Oregon 97310 or call 503-373-0060. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the proposed activity described In this application compiles with the approved Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program and will be completed in a manner consistent with the program. N/A Print/Type Name Title Applicant Signature Date iJ SIGNATURE FOR JOINT APPLICATION (REQUIRED) Application is hereby made for the activities described herein. I certify that I om familiar with the information contained In the application, and to the best of my lnowledge and belief, this information is true. complete, and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority including the necessary requisite property interests to undertake the proposed octivittes. I understand that the granting of other permits by local, county, state or federd agencies does not reieme me from the requirement of obtaning'fhe permits requested before commencing the project. I understand that local permits may be required before the state removal-fig permit a issued I understand that payment of the required state processing fee does not guarantee permit Issuance, Barry Desbiens, Ventura, L.L.C. Print/Type Nome (cooppficonn rule )5-7~ Applcont 1p ccapplican Date I certify that I may act as the duty authorized agent of the applicant. Todd R. Knepper, P.E., Compass Engineering Engineer Prtnt/Type Name Tare ,;4a Ate`-- - /ozz- y Authortzed Agent Signature Date' Jan 06 00 03:23p 16 Yip 50641-3929 p.? SUPPLEMENTAL WEr1AND IMPACT INFORMA116 (Foa WETLAND Pius Omy) Site Conditions of impact area N/A Impact area is O Ocean O Estuary O River O Lake O Stream O Freshwater Wetland Note: Estuarian Resource Replacement is required by state law for projects involving Intertidal or Tidal marsh alterations. A separate Wetlands Resource Compensation Flan may be appended to the application. Has a wetland delineation been completed for this site? O Yes O No If yes, by whom: Describe the existing Physical and biological character of the wetland/waterway site by area and type of resource (use separate sheets and photos, if necessary) Resource Replacement Mitigation Describe measures to be taken to replace unavoidably impacted wetland resources i i I I Because this information Is not necessary for a complete application. you may submit this sheet and other environmental information after submitting your application. - Jan 06 00 03:24p Iv"y yip 503-641-3929 p.8 u 8 • ! -ham • S t7 t't a oble ~ • Mist s i Kala F a 7 D D D D .N D ^N Wtese1d ~j c O Cy U htJ ~0 D l IM Pittstwrp . `Columbia J! t,w~ 7 Elsie 9C rr 9 S . 9 City j oodlat nlet ea Ana j St. Helens 1b LaCer Y t. 47 3,-`9 w E b:' 26 Fa 1 ti~ t t 13 Warren rv'I 9 11 • ..orae.++wavn 7 a ! -t-y,;•(: Pioneer .S 77 :.r' 80.,E ~7 Sc*90 oose ° KU• D 4 `~i; l:~tt a[ D _ ; }1 Stevenson 'M Kt" ti- ! Buxton i D ( ! 1s at>.l+r vurr • a t. t Manning 1 _c i~ 30 t. liI J ! C, ~y V; uver Dca•on Stab Park 68 14 Banks . i NAk !l t Lows aad C1arf py~■,or !took 21 Ann: (tEST.R 6 w. fl. t Plains; ID Stan Park vats Park M { gal At a 62 x.. M 'a ve~t>oon r 1 d raaarrt; ° ° z xr~ D S Cor a ius SC NtC tCUI( i Tr 24 •Ctit•t:: o t: i Forest.Grov I5 res Dooaor t `sass ..Nt.OWQtac@-Vw* 0'01t'r •11^c:l7 State \lalest ,-k LLJ- L, Te, t• `-•.y.•ti•N.{i,: 4~var1,, ❑illey 36 ve Is • Pey aaa roaa wwai Steil Pat Grove - c dston 10 !o to - Q 7 1 (lam Run .y` Mr - 219 10 we 0212 q - wit: 7relk (j o O't 2. S ~s. c\,5 . v9 Sandy _ _ i htvro . •~•J•n` ■ Dales U n a S Covz~rcharo sta s st n8 6 CfiEr iue • _ ! T1 n1: .4.■, z J 47 t ~f6 71 Eagie ` lag Yamhil1o ervifOo gg Creek t ' ~ ? s 240 D 94 WilS~nvitt 7 D Ciiy n ~ t(W~ek .a. n, ~,}.as_ , 'Rhododtm or►!12• 48 Dun ee ewbar gg rpo re1e111 E ~t ode in ....1 .v° l '21311 r.... x... fc~s ~ ~ ~ f .000 / VICINITY MAP 00-00 •.'i. ter 1. 26 •Z 1- ' R h• s ` a• en•t :a . 2bo PROJECT_ LOCATION 3 ' .I et2$ei f 17 70A . ~ - t . 2 fr. 1 ~ ; ~ u• ~ y ~ orss 7 fit' 5 200 r Q1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP VENTURA ESTATES USGS OUADRAN&E _ BEAVE OK LM(E OSWEW OFM STORM OUTFALL - VENTURA LL.C. OCTOBER 1999 SHEET 1 OF 5 Jan 06 00 03:26p Io Yip 503-641-3929 P-9 S H I N G T 0,N S O ' R E IE S TlA T E S 4<~ I It-1 35DD I I 4 T.L 2200 1 I ! 1 T.L. 2500 T.L 2400 % 2300 T.L 2400 TL,. 2500 IT.L 2600 Tl 2700 II _ 1 s- t w- 2 5 o c S. VENT RA AVENUE 1 - ! / i T.L. 7600 ( c ! 7 ' 6 SITE TBM ! 1/2' IRON ROD WITH Z 7cT A ~U tom'' 7 RED PLASTIC CAP i / _ ELEV a 268.07 3 ' SEE* WTAALS SHEM 3 APD'4:; 0 W ' j T.L 400 T1. 7700 12 ; 11 ',10 '~-------L------ lT.L 7100 I Q j : 3 ! IT.L. 7200! 14 ; 15 ; 16 I N 2 X13-- - w S.-W-` -L-00VS`T ST. - E ' I I I PLAN i 22 21 17 Ste: I" - 100' +T.L. 6900 ~T.L 7000' T.L TOt I T.L 702 i ~ j ; N r 20 , 19 1 18 T.L. 300 1 Z I i'i' I I W 3 T.L 6800 UP Z _ f ( W. 1 T.1.1005 T.L. 302 > Q , TL 1002 ; T.L. 600 T.L 1400 LL Q T.L. 7400. i p I a- T.L 1500 00 VENTURA ESTATES OUTFALL LOCATION STORM OUTFALL VENTURA L LC. OCTOBER 1999 _ SHEET 2 OF 5 Jan 06 00 03:28p I~ Yip 50641 -3929 P.10 I . 1 i STU AN 1-1 (I ` STA. 1+00.00, STU 1 I STA. 0+0a00, S71112 ' I ` STY OIITFALL STA. 0+7Q00, STU I S CY CLASS Zoo RIPRAP TR 'A ' r • 100 LF 6'0 STM ` 0+4 Y.L. 7800 i STM 1 ~ I! i 41x6' TEE 51 STA. 0+956 1 _ 5 LF 4'0 RO 4x6 TEE v► + 5 LF 4'm RD STM C8 2-1 N CURB STA. 0+41.01, CUR8-1 TC 270.46 M WATER QUALITY SWa1 F RIM: 26986 IF- w 26736 i i lE OUT26716 SUAIP:265.66 2400T DROP WTH 1 C. Y. l li i 10.00 LF 1~ sly____ CLASS 50 RIPRAP STU OUTFALL ° STA. 0+50.00, STU J 5 CY CLASS 200 RIPUAP. 4-4 70 Lf 72i DETE z , ~STM NH 1-2 COMTROL STA 2t20.35, STU 1 - - -OUT OF C8 SrA. 1+00.00, STM 3 20 LF 4'0 RD a ' = STREET STA. 1J+66.04, 21.92'L r STU CS 2.2 N PLAN VIEW SCALE: r . 50' E S VENTURA ESTATES STORM OUTFALL VENTURA L.LC. OCTOBER 1999 SHEET 3 OF 5 Jan 06 00 03:28p I: Yip 503-641-3929 p.11 ! i v , i 260 NOIE AHBfLY 60UIIREDNE >N3' i / ~`i STY YH 60• CONTROL / STA. 2+20.35. STM 1 / }h srk 1+oaoo. snv 3 0. = STREEt STA. 13+66.04, 2 .92' L T k1M: 2T0 1 OV£RFL . 267.26 240 E IN 91 snu 1 N 71,`Sa7 12'0 Sfld 0 502 IE. OUT 267.91, 12"0 / STY YN 1-! X. OUT 26Z 71, 4'0 SUMP: 2 21 I STA. 1+00.00, SW I STA. 0+00.00. S 2 RIM. 251.41 Z W 241.86. 5 1 . IN34?~36-5 IE OUT 241.66 I STY 0 ALL I ( I STA. 0+7aoa STM 1 1f IE. OUT 2' .91 zzo 5 CY CLA 200 RIPRAP DATUM ELEV ` 210.00 1+00 2+00 3+00 STM 1 STORM SEWER PROFILE SCALE. 1" = 50' HORIZONTAL 1 " = 10' VERTICAL VENTURA ESTATES STORM OUTFALL VENTURA LLC. OCTOBER 1999 SHEET 4 OF 5 Jan 06 00 03:29p I~~ Yip 503-641-3929 • • p.12 NATIONWIDE PERMIT Nationwide Permit 18 authorizes minor discharges of dredged or fill material into all waters of the United States provided: a. The discharge does not exceed 25 cubic yards; b. The discharge will not cause the loss of more than 1/10 acre of a special aquatic site, including wetlands. For the purposes of this nationwide permit, the acreage limitation includes the filled area plus special aquatic sites that are adversely affected by flooding and special aquatic sites that are drained so that they would no longer be a water of the United States as a result of the project; c. If the discharge exceeds 10 cubic yards or the discharge is in a special aquatic site, including wetlands, the permittee notes the District Engineer in accordance with the "Notification" general condition. For discharges in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the notification must also include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands; d. The discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary and permanent, is part of a single and complete project and is not placed for the purpose of stream diversion. Jan 06 00 03:29p Ivy Yip 503-641-3929 • ~ P-13 QUALIFICATIONS CONDITIONS Case No: 99-1475 The Corps of Engineers has determined, based on available information, that the proposed work is in conformance with the enclosed terms and conditions of the authorizing Nationwide Permit (Enclosure 2) and with the following listed "Qualification Conditions". However, the permittee is responsible for verifying that his activities are and continue to be in conformance with these terms and conditions throughout the execution of the authorization. 1. Navigation. No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation. 2. Proper Maintenance. Any structure or fill authorized shall be properly maintained to ensure public safety. 3. Aquatic Life Movements. No activity may change stream gradients or substantially disrupt the movement of aquatic lift indigenous to the waterbody, including those species, which normally migrate through the area, unless the activity's primary purpose is to impound water. 4. Wild and Scenic Rivers. No activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System; or in a river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the system, while the river is in an official study status; unless the appropriate Federal agency, with direct management responsibility for such river, has determined in writing that the proposed activity will not adversely effect the Wild and Scenic River designation, or study status. Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained from the appropriate Federal land management agency in the area (e.g., National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.) S. Tribal Rights. No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights. 6. Federal Endangered Species. No activity is authorized under any NWP which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act, or which is likely to destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. Note: Authorization of an activity by a nationwide permit does not authorize the take of a threatened or endangered species as defined under the Federal Endangered Species Act. In the absence of separate authorization (e.g., an ESA Section 10 Permit, a Biological Opinion with incidental take provisions, etc.) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, both lethal and non-lethal takes of protected species are in violation of the Endangered Species Act. 7. State Endangered Species. No activity is authorized under any NWP that is likely to have adverse impacts to species listed by the State of Oregon as threatened, endangered or sensitive, unless approved by the appropriate state agency., 8. Historic Properties. No activity which may affect historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places is authorized unless, until the DE has complied with the provisions of 33 CFR Part 325, Appendix C. 9. Water Supply Intakes. No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake except where the discharge is for repair of the public water supply intake structures or adjacent banks. 10. Shellfish Production. No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur in areas of concentrated shellfish Jan 06 00 03:30p Ivy Yip 503-641-3929 p.14 . • production, unless the discharge is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by NWP 4. 11. Mitigation. All feasible and prudent alternatives to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the United States shall be considered. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States must be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent practicable at the project site (i.e., on-site), unless the District Engineer approves a compensation plan that the District Engineer determines is more beneficial to the environment than on-site minimization or avoidance measures. Compensatory wetland mitigation, where practical. shall be required in accordance with Oregon guidelines for compensatory wetland mitigation. 12. Spawning Areas. Discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 13. Obstruction of High Flows. To the maximum extent practicable, discharges must not permanently restrict or impede the passage of normal or expected high flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound waters). 14. Adverse Effects From Impoundments. If the discharge creates an impoundment of water, adverse effects on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of water and/or the restriction of its flow shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. 15. Waterfowl Breeding Areas. Discharges into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 16. Removal of Temporary Fills. Any temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to their preexisting elevation. 17. Local Land Use Planning. Proposed work must be consistent with local comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances. 18. Compensatory Mitigation Sites. Proposed work which would adversely impact previously required Federal or state compensatory mitigation or restoration efforts can not be authorized by a Nationwide Permit. 19. Territorial Seas. Proposed work occurring within Oregon's Territorial Sea (Base Line to 3 nautical miles offshore) is not authorized until individual coastal zone certification from DLCD is obtained. 20. Fish Passage. The placement of culverts, diversion structures, or changes to the channel morphology must be designed to be consistent with passage standards developed by ODFW and NMFS, titled "ODFW Standards and Criteria for Stream Road Crossings". 21. Fish Habitat Enhancement. Bioengineering designs (conducive to fish usage), shall be preferred and utilized wherever appropriate. Fish habitat enhancement measures (willow sprigs in rock applications, fish resting areas, vegetative stabilization, etc.) shall also be incorporated into non bioengineering designs to the extent practicable as mitigation measures. Jan 06 00 03:30p IVM Yip 503-641-3929 . • ~ P-15 IMPLEMENTATION COND_ ITIONS Case No: 99-1475 The following conditions specifically address requirements that must be met during the pesmittee's implementation of the authorized work. 1. Work Period. All in-water work shall occur between July 1 and September 30, in accordance with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's recommended in-water work period. 2. Agency Access. Permittee must provide access to the work site to representatives of the Corps of Engineers, DEQ, DLCD (for projects in the coastal zone), and ODFW during all hours of construction or operation. 3. Equipment. Heavy equipment shall not be operated in the active flowing waterway unless specifically authorized. Use of heavy equipment in waters may be authorized if necessary in the interest of safety or due to site conditions prohibiting certain work from the bank. Heavy equipment working in wetlands must be placed"6n mats, or other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance 4. Erosion and Siltation Controls. Appropriate erosion and siltation controls (such as hydroseoding, filter bags, organic or fabric soil detention systems, leave strips, berms, etc.) must be used and maintained in effective operating condition during construction to protect all exposed soil, stock piles and fills from erosion. These features, as well as any work below the ordinary high water mark or high tide line, must also be permanently stabilized it the earliest practicable date. Materials shall not be placed on unstable slopes, and stockpiles shall not exceed 25 feet in height. S. Disturbed Area Protection. Construction access roads and associated staging areas shall be protected with a gravel blanket or other suitable material to protect against erosion of sediments into waterways and wetlands. 6. Suitable Material. No discharge of dredged or fill material may consist of unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc.,) and must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. 7. Pollutants. Petroleum products, chemicals, fresh cement, construction, or deleterious waste materials shall not be allowed to enter waters or wetlands. Special attention shall be given to preventing sandblasted material and chipped paint from entering the water. Machinery refueling is to occur off site or in a confined, designated area to prevent spillage into waterways and wetlands. 8. Vegetation. Vegetation, not designated for removal or modification in the authorization, shall be protected from disturbance to the maximum extent possible and restored with native plant species when damaged or disturbed. The standard for success is 80 percent cover with native plant species that replace the habitat type lost or damaged. 9. Wetlands. Wetlands adjacent to work areas shall be clearly flagged, or otherwise appropriately identified, to prevent damage or loss of that resource. Damaged areas shall be restored to pre-work conditions. 10. Endangered Species. If at any time during the conduct of the work authorized, the permittee becomes aware that a Federally listed threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation (as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act) or the habitat of such species may be affected, the permittec must immediately cease activities, notify the Corps of Engineers and not re-initiate activities until approved by the Corps of Engineers. 11. Cultural Resources & Burials. If at any time during the conduct of the work authorized, the permittee becomes aware that human burials, cultural resources or historic properties (as identified under Federal historic preservation laws) be affected, the permittee must immediately cease activities, notify the Corps of Engineers and Jan 06 00 03:32p Ivy Yip 503-641-3929 p.16 not re-initiate activities until approved by the Corps of Engineers. 12. Turbidity Testing. Turbidity shall be monitored frequently while conducting in-water work. Monitoring points shall be at locations 100 feet upstream (background) and 100 feet downstream. Measurements shall be accomplished with either a turbidimeter or visually and turbidity shall not exceed either 10% above background or be visible (if measuring visibly) at the downstream station. These limits can be exceeded for a maximum of two hours in a 24-hour period provided all practicable erosion control measures have been implemented. . 13. Compliance Certification. The permittee shall, upon completion of the permitted work or activity, fill out the enclosed Compliance and submit it to this office at.the address above. If the permitted work or activity is not carried out by the expiration date of this permit, the permittee shall note this fact on the Compliance Certification and submit it as above. Jan 06 00 03:32p IVM Yip 503-641-3929 • • p.17 Compliance Certification Permit Number: Date of Issuance: Name of Permittee: I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit, has been completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said permit, and that required mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions, except as described below. Signature of Permittee _ End 5 Jan 06 00 03:33p Ivy Yip 503-641-3929 P.18 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District (CENWP-OP-G) P. O. Box 2946 Portland, OR 97208-2946 Nov 11 99 10:15a Iv- Yip 503-641-3929 p•1 (C(OPY VENTURA HOME 8760 SW PACER DR. BEAVERTON, OR 97008 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: Bruce & Todd Ivy Yip - Ventura, Homes COMPANY: DATE: Compass Engineering November 11, 1999 FAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 653-9095 3 PHONE NUMBER: SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER: 653-9093 RE: YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER: ❑ URGFNI' x FOR REVIEW ❑ PLEASE COMMENT ❑ PLEASE RFsPLY ❑ PLEASE RECYCLE NOTFiS/COMMENTS: Attached are two documents that were sent to Ventura LLC for your reference. Please call if your have any question. IVY PHONE: (503) 626-2119 FAY: (503) 641-3929 Nov •11 99 10:15a 10 yip 5033641-3929 p•2 Division of State Lands . , regon 775 Summer Street NC y John A. Kitzhabcr, M.D., Governor Sa lem, OR 973 I0-1337 (503) 378-3805 FAX (503) 378-4844 November 3, 1999 TTY (503) 378-4,615 State Land Board JD02/NSP-18902 John A. Kitzhaber VENTURA LLC Governor 8760 SW PACER DRIVE Phil Keisling BEAVERTON OR 97008 Secretary of State . Jim Hill RE: State File No. NSP-18902 Skate Treasurer Dear Applicant: We have received your application to fill approximately 2 cubic yards of material for construction of a storm outfall for a 22-lot subdivision (T1 S, R1 W, Section 36) in Washington County. The Division of State Lands requires a permit if you plan to remove, fill or alter 50 cubic yards or more of material within the banks of most waters of the state. State designated Essential Salmon Habitat streams and State Scenic Waterways are exceptions in that any amount of removed, fill or alteration typically requires a permit. Based on your application, your project involves removal or filling of less than 50., cubic yards of material IN WATERS THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY DESIGNATED Essential Salmon Habitat or State Scenic Waterways; therefore, a State removal-fill permit is not required. You must also receive authorization, when required, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and local planning department before beginning construction. If you have any questions, please call me at 503-378-3805, extension 234. Sincerely, A'~' William L. Parks Natural Resource Coordinator Field dperations-Western Region WLP:jed FolAttachmentsAwestWSP No State Permit RequiredWSP-18902.doe c: Jim Anderson,. Corps of Engineers Washington County Planning City of Tigard 41-3929 p•3 5031i Nov ~1 1 99 10:15a 10 Y i p M APPLICATION OR WerLAND DE1INEAT1ON/DET ERMINATION at RECEIPT Fbl*WaWU APPLICANT (Printed Neme) DATE TO: VENTURA, L.L 10/27/1999 Our office has received your: CORPS 1D NUMBER ~x Application woo, 99-1475 ❑ Wetland Delineation/Determination After preliminary evaluation of your application/delineation, we may contact you if additional information is-required. Please refer to the Corps Identification (ID) Number above when you contact this office regarding your project/property. If you have questions, please contact the project manager below by telephone or written request. PROJECT MANAGER (Printed Name/ PHONE NUMBER FROM: NWP FL 1145.1 44up 1999) Pr.vbuf A" N not mbl* Abponrnr Oft*.. CENW^O" F Division of State Lands 775 Summer Street NE -Oregon Salem, OR 97310-1337 John A. Kitzhaber, M.D., Governor (503) 378-3805 FAX (503) 378-4844 November 3, 1999 m TTY (503) 378-4615 State Land Board JD02/NSP-18902 John A. Kitzhaber VENTURA LLC Governor 8760 SW PACER DRIVE Phil Keisling BEAVERTON OR 97008 Secretary of State Jim Hill State Treasurer RE: State File No. NSP-18902 Dear Applicant: We have received your application to fill approximately 2 cubic yards of material for construction of a storm outfall for a 22-lot subdivision (T1 S, R1 W, Section 36) in Washington County. The Division of State Lands requires a permit if you plan to remove, fill or alter 50 cubic yards or more of material within the banks of most waters of the state. State designated Essential Salmon Habitat streams and State Scenic Waterways are exceptions in that any amount of removed, fill or alteration typically requires a permit. Based on your application, your project involves removal or filling of less than 50 cubic yards of material IN WATERS THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY DESIGNATED Essential Salmon Habitat or State Scenic Waterways; therefore, a State removal-fill permit is not required. You must also receive authorization, when required, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and local planning department before beginning construction. If you have any questions, please call me at 503-378-3805, extension 234. Sincerely, William L. Parks Natural Resource Coordinator Field Operations-Western Region WLP:jed Fo\AttachmentsAwest\NSP No State Permit Required\NSP-18902.doc r c: Jim Anderson, Corps of Engineers Washington County Planning City of Tigard N'~ P> April 13, 1999 Tigard Planning Commission 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: Ventura Estates Subdivision; Subdivision (SUB) 98-0014, Terminus of SW Locust Street, Tigard, Oregon To Whom This May Concern: As concerned residents we are submitting this letter to the Tigard Planning Commission. Our home is located approximately 150 feet of the proposed ingress and egress point to the proposed Ventura Estates Subdivision, subdivision. On August 26, 1998, we attended a meeting held by Mr. Ken Sandblast of Land Solutions (Attachment A) regarding the proposed Ventura Estates Subdivision. To-date we have not been informed of any modifications to the August 26, 1998, proposed plan ("the Plan"), and as such, our comments are based on that information as follows: 1) The Plan has proposed smaller lot sizes to make up for "lost space" due to a protected environmental area. We feel that smaller lot sizes are out of character with our neighborhood, will devalue our property, and reduce our neighborhoods livability. We would like to petition the planning committee to adhere to the existing code requirement of lot sizes of a minimum of 7,500 square feet. 2) The Plan indicated that the width of SW Locust Street curb-to-curb in front of our home was 35 feet; in fact it is 27 feet curb-to-curb. Since residents in our neighborhood make extensive use of on-street parking this leaves anywhere between 12 to 15 feet of street available for vehicles to pass in front of our residence, and if things go as proposed, so will ingress and egress to the proposed development. The 12 to 15- foot width typically does not allow for two-way traffic. Since the proposed development of 22 homes will more than quadruple the amount of traffic in front of our residence it is likely that the available street width will result in an extreme amount of vehicle congestion. Many solutions are available to remedy the anticipated congestion two of which are as follows: City of Tigard Planning Commission Page 2 of 2 Proposed Ventura Estates Development April 13, 1999 Tigard, Oregon a) Consider site ingress and egress along SW Ventura Street immediately to the north of the proposed development. This would be the most beneficial and efficient location since SW Ventura Street is much wider than our portion of SW Locust Street and is better designed to take two-way traffic. b) reduce the number of homes in the proposed development. We have extended family and make use of on-street parking on both sides of the street. As such we do not feel that elimination of all or a portion of on-street parking in front of our home would be an acceptable solution. 3) Based on the proximity and density of the houses on our portion of SW Locust Street, and our street width, we believe devices that reduce traffic speed are warranted (i.e. speed bumps). 4) It appears that the Plan map presented by Land Solutions on August 26, 1998, was missing a number of 12-inch diameter trees on the western border of the proposed site development. We request that the Plan re- evaluate this portion of the property for large trees. In addition, we request that as many of these large diameter trees be saved as feasible to keep within the character of our mature neighborhood. Lastly, we would like to request that all large diameter trees on the western property boundary, other than those necessary for the extension of SW Locust Street, be saved to reduce the large clearing a 22 home development would create. 5) Due to the quantity of proposed homes and ingress and egress location, we anticipate construction debris to be spilled, dumped, and tracked on our street. We believe that any such debris are unacceptable and request that the City of Tigard strictly enforce keeping the public roadway clean and free of debris. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact either of the undersigned. Sincerely, Guy and Kathy Tanz 7081 SW Locust Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 H (503) 452-8307 W (503) 796-0717 A IT A C F/ M -r A August 31, 1998 Mr. Kenneth L. Sandblast Compass Corporation 6564 SE Lake Road Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 Subject: Proposed SW Locust Street Development, Tigard, Oregon Dear Mr. Sandblast. Thank you for your August 26, 1998, meeting held by Compass Corporation regarding Windgate Homes, Inc.'s, proposed SW Locust Street development. Subsequent to that meeting, the below-referenced residents would like to bring several issues to your attention regarding the proposed development. The width of SW Locust Street in front of our homes and at the point of access to the proposed development is 27 feet wide curb-to-curb, not 35 feet as indicated on your preliminary design plan. Since residents in our neighborhood make extensive use of on-street parking, this leaves anywhere between 12 to 15 feet of street available for vehicles to pass in front of our homes, and in all likelihood in the future for ingress and/or egress to the development site. The 12 to 15-foot width does not allow for two-way traffic. Since your proposed development will more than quadruple the amount of traffic in front of our respective residences, we believe that Compass Corporation needs to re-evaluate their proposed site development for the following reasons: 1) The available street width will result in an extreme amount of vehicle congestion in front of our residences 2) The available street width will limit emergency vehicle access to our residences, and also to the proposed development We believe that Compass Corporation needs to seriously consider additional site ingress and egress to the site. We propose that an additional access to SW Ventura Street immediately to the north of the proposed development is the most beneficial and efficient location. SW Ventura Street is much wider than our portion of SW Locust Street, and is better designed to take two-way traffic. n Compass Issue Letter #1 Page 2 of 2 Proposed SW Locust Street Development August 31, 1998 Tigard, Oregon As a second issue, we believe that the map presented on August 26, 1998, was missing a number of 12-inch diameter trees on the western border of the proposed site development. We request that Compass Corporation re-evaluate this portion of the property for large trees. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact any of the below. Sincerely, Residents 7081 SW Locust Street Guy Tanz Kathleen Tanz H (503) 452-8307 (503) 452-8307 W (503) 796-0717 Residents 7090 SW Locust Street Rick Boler Patricia Boler H (503) 246-3350 (503) 246-3350 W (360) 835-9589 (503) 768-3766 c: City of Tigard Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue 41 Y t,h ~•:l yt~K!'lfi .t.1~- ~:W 4 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION City of Tigard APRIL 19, 1999 ~ - 7:30 P.M. shapbTA BeuerCamwzi y TIGARD CIVIC CENTER - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4.1 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 98-0014/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 98- 0013/VARIANCE (VAR) 99-0006 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION REQUEST: The applicant has requested approval of 22-lot Planned Development Subdivision. There is a natural area that is proposed to be preserved in a tract area within the subdivision. A variance to the maximum length to allow a cul-de-sac in excess of 200 feet. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5; Single- Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low-density residential home sites. LOCATION: The subject parcels arg located on the south side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 70 Avenue; WCTM 1S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. 5. TITLE 3 DISCUSSION Duane Roberts 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7. ADJOURNMENT April 13,'1999 Tigard Planning Commission 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: Ventura Estates Subdivision; Subdivision .(SUB) 98-00141 Terminus of SW Locust Street, Tigard,.Oregon To Whom This May Concern: As concerned residents we are submitting this letter to'the Tigard Planning ` , .`.'•i: ~;`i'y. Commission. Our home is located approximately 150 feet of the proposed : ingress and egress point to the proposed Ventura Estates Subdivision, subdivision. On August 26, 1998, we attended a meeting held by Mr. Ken Sandblast of Land Solutions (Attachment A) regarding the proposed Ventura Estates Subdivision. To-date we have not been informed of any modifications to the' August 26, 1998, proposed plan ("the Plan"), and as such, our comments are based on that information as follows: 1) The Plan has: proposed smaller lot sizes to make up for "lost space" due to", a'pcted' environmental area: ._We feel that smaller. lot sizes are PD 4!'f t out of character with our neighborhood, will devalue our property, and r $ reduce our neighborhoods livability. We would like to petition the planning committee to adhere to the existing code requirement of lot sizes of a minimum of 7,500 square feet. r. 2) The Plan indicated that the width of SW Locust Street curb-to-curb in , • ~ front of our home was 35 feet; in fact it is 27 feet curb-to-curb. Since residents. in our neighborhood make 'extensive use of on -street parking t this leaves anywhere between 12 to 15 feet' f street available'for vehicles to pass'in front of our residence; and'if things go as proposed, so will ingres's and egress to the proposed development. The 12 to 15- foot width typically does not allow, for two-way traffic: w > Since the'proposed development of 22 homes will more than quadruple , the amount of traffic in front of our residence it is likely that. the available street width will result in an extreme amount of vehicle congestion. Many solutions are available to remedy'the anticipated congestion two of which are as follows: City of Tigard Planning Commission Page 2 of 2 Proposed Ventura Estates Development April 13, 1999 Tigard, Oregon a) Consider site ingress and egress along SW Ventura Street immediately to the north of the proposed development. This would be the most beneficial and efficient location since SW Ventura Street is much wider than our portion of SW Locust Street and is better designed to take two-way traffic. b) reduce the number of homes in the proposed development. We have extended family and make use of on-street parking on both sides of the street. As such we do not feel that elimination of all or a'.':', s.., portion of on-street parking in front.of our home would be an acceptable ' solution. , 3) Based on the proximity and density of the houses on our portion of SW I~ Locust Street, and our street width, we believe devices that reduce traffic speed are warranted (i.e. speed bumps). 4) It appears that the Plan map presented by Land Solutions on August 26, 14,Ave- o12U-i10r 1998, was missing a number of 12-inch diameter trees on the western L4 ean, border of the proposed site development. We request that the Plan re- q~ vy- evaluate this portion of the property for large trees. In addition, we ~.n qdd; ;S request that as many of these large diameter trees.be saved as feasible sU " ;to keep within the character of our mature neighborhood. Lastly, we 1v14 -14¢G ~ 'would like to request that all large diameter trees on the western C -~d property boundary, other than those necessary for the extension of SW oc- our o jjb Locust Street, be saved to reduce the large clearing a 22 home ti Av, d development would create. S~ ~ubr" 5) Due to the quantity of proposed homes and ingress and egress location, 00 we anticipate construction debris to be spilled, dumpe-d, and tracked on ; / our street. We believe that any such debris are unacceptable and request that: the City of Tigard strictly enforce keeping the public roadway clean and free of debris. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact either of the.undersigned. Sincerely, Guy and Kathy Tanz 7081 SW Locust Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 H (503) 452-8307 W (503) 796-0717 • • A ITAC~-1MCN'r A August 31, 1998 Mr. Kenneth L. Sandblast Compass Corporation 6564 SE Lake Road Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 Subject: Proposed SW Locust Street Development, Tigard, Oregon Dear Mr. Sandblast. Thank you for your August 26, 1998, meeting held by Compass Corporation regarding Windgate Homes, Inc.'s, proposed SW Locust Street development. Subsequent to that meeting; the below-referenced residents would like to bring several issues to your attention regarding the proposed development. The width of SW Locust Street in front of our homes and at the point of access to the proposed development is 27 feet wide curb-to-curb, not 35 feet as indicated on your preliminary design plan. Since residents in our neighborhood make extensive use of on-street parking, this leaves anywhere between 12 to 15 feet of street available for vehicles to pass in front of our homes, and in all likelihood in the future for ingress and/or egress to the development site. The 12 to 15-foot width does not allow for two-way traffic. Since your proposed development will more than quadruple the amount of traffic in front of our respective residences, we believe that Compass Corporation needs to re-evaluate their proposed site development for the following reasons: 1) The available street width will result in an extreme amount of vehicle congestion in front of our residences 2) The available street width will limit emergency vehicle access to our residences, and also to the proposed development We believe that Compass Corporation needs to seriously consider additional site ingress and egress to the site. We propose that an additional access to SW Ventura Street immediately to the north of the proposed development is the most beneficial and efficient location. SW Ventura Street is much wider than our portion of SW Locust Street, and is better designed to take two-way traffic. • Compass Issue Letter #1 Page 2 of 2 Proposed SW Locust Street Development August 31, 1998 Tigard, Oregon As a second issue, we believe that the map presented on August 26, 1998, was missing a number of 12-inch diameter trees on the western border of the proposed site development. We request that Compass Corporation re-evaluate this portion of the property for large trees. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact any of the below. Sincerely, Residents 7081 SW Locust Street o` Guy Tanz Kathleen Tanz H (503) 452-8307 (503) 452-8307 W (503) 796-0717 Residents 7090 SW Locust Street A~I_x ? Rick Boler Patricia Boler H (503) 246-3350 (503) 246-3350 W (360) 835-9589 (503) 768-3766 c: City of Tigard Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Agenda Item: Hearing Date: April 19. 1999 Time: 7:30 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF TIGARD FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ShapinCgA Community (Deve4ment 120 DAYS = 5/31199 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Subdivision SUB 98-0014 Planned Development Review PDR 98-0013 Variance VAR 99-0006 The applicant has requested approval of 22-lot Planned Development Subdivision. There is a natural area that is proposed to be preserved in a tract area within the subdivision. A variance to the maximum length to allow a cul-de-sac in excess of 200 feet. APPLICANT: Ivy Yip APPLICANT: Barry Desbiens Ashwood Homes, Inc Wingate Corporation 8760 SW Pacer Drive 15840 S. Pope Lane Beaverton, OR 97008-6915 Oregon City, OR 97045 OWNER: Helen L. Wegener OWNER: Fred Neuman 580 NW Alpine Terrace 19730 SE Semple Road Portland, OR 97210 Clackamas, OR 97015 APPICANT'S Ken Sandblast Land Solutions REP.: PO Box 38 Clackamas, OR 97015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low-density residential home sites. LOCATION: The subject parcels are located on the mouth side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 70 Avenue; WCTM 1 S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the proposed Subdivision/Planned Development meets the applicable approval criteria of the Tigard Community Development Code and that the proposal will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL, subject to the following recommended conditions of approval: 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 1 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION r~ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT, THEf,,OLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Brian Rager, Engineering ' :Department (503)639-4171.) 1. Submit a plan that shows street trees will be provided including the species and proposed spacing in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 2. Submit a plan that, shows typical building footprint and the location of trees proposed to be retained and removed. The revised plan must clearly show the tree numbers. If trees outside the typical building footprint are proposed to be removed, an explanation as to why the particular tree must be removed will be required. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 3. Submit a tree removal plan that clearly shows the number and location of existing trees and trees proposed to be removed. If the number of trees proposed to be removed exceeds 25%, the applicant must submit a tree mitigation plan to be approved by the Planning Division. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 4. Submit a revised plan that shows the inside and outside radius for the cukde-sac will be in accordance with the Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue standards. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 5. Submit a plan that shows how each individual lot can be landscaped to insure that the total 20% landscaping requirement will be satisfied. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 6.- Submit confirmation from Washington County that the proposed subdivision name is not duplicative or submit confirmation of a revised subdivision name approved by Washington County. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 7. Submit a detail of the proposed pedestrian connection to S.W. Ventura Drive to show how it can be extended without impacting the drainage area. If it is not possible to extend a pedestrian connection in this area without an impact, the applicant must show a pedestrian connection between lots land 8 on the final plat. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 8. Revise the plat so that all frontages will have 25 feet of frontage on a public or private street. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Department. 9. Submit confirmation from Division of State Lands and US Army Corp of Engineers that no permits are required if there is any alteration, including grading, within the drainage area or the 25-foot buffer. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 10. Prior to approval of the final plat, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Six (6) 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. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 11. As a part 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, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 12. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park 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 application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 13. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee in the amount of $660. 14. The applicant shall construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of SW Ventura Drive. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 16 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. 5-foot concrete sidewalk; F. street trees behind the sidewalk spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; 1. underground utilities; J. street signs (if applicable); K. driveway apron (if applicable); and L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Ventura Drive in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 15. The applicant shall provide "No Parking" signs on one side of SW 70th Avenue (Place) along the segment where the curb-to-curb width is only 28 feet. 16. If the variance to the cul-de-sac length standard is granted, the applicant shall name the north/south cul-de-sac "SW 70th Place". 17. The applicant will not be allowed to construct a raised median/island in SW 70tI" Avenue (Place), as shown on the preliminary plan. 18. Full-width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic 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. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 19. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private street will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from it. 20. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and : Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private street. The CC&R's shall obligate the- private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the street. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to, the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) prior to approval of the final plat. 21. The pavement and rock section of the proposed private street shall meet the City's public street standard for a local residential street. 22. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) for the proposed public water work prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. 23. The applicant shall construct the public sanitary sewer line proposed along the north boundaries of Lots 13 through 16 of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe. A manhole shall be provided at the end of this pipe run as shown on the preliminary plan. 24. The applicant shall extend the proposed storm drainage line in SW Locust Street to the eastern boundary of the site. 25. The applicant shall construct a private storm drainage line along the northern boundaries of Lots 13 through 16. This line shall be owned and maintained by the owners of Lots 13 through 16 and shall be constructed of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe. 26. The applicant shall provide an on-site detention facility, designed to meet the Unified Sewage Agency Design and Construction Standards. A final design and calculation package shall be submitted to the Engineering Department as a part of the public improvement plan review. 27. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) as a part of the public improvement plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract to the City of Tigard on the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City' will take over maintenance of the facility: In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 28. The applicant shall provide a maintenance access road to the facility and any drainage structures within the facility to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. The access road shall be paved and a minimum of 15 feet wide. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 29. 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." 30. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of 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 Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). 31. The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the 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. 32. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard.pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. 33. The design engineer shall 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. 34. 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. 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; and D. Once the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer's signature. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 35. Prior to issuance of building permits on lots 5-8, a geotechnical report must be submitted and received. 36. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the subdivision/partition plat. 4/19199 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 37. 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) any off-site street and/or utility improvements. are completely finished, and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. 38. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) mylars, and 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable. Note: if the public improvement drawings were hand-drawn, then a diskette is not required. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANTuSHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS''OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST: 18.430.080 Improvement Agreement: Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: ♦ Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and ♦ 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 provide 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: ♦ An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; ♦ A surety bond executed by 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 ♦ 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. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 6 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 18.430.100 Filing and Recording: Within 60 days of 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 Application Submission Requirements: Three copies of the subdivision plat prepared by a land 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 accordance 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: ♦ All centerline-centerline intersection points; ♦ All cul-de-sac center points; and ♦ Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. Monument Boxes Required Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 18.810 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: 18.810.120 Utilities All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.810.130 Cash or Bond Required All improvements installed by the 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. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION ♦ The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.810.180. 18.810.150 Installation Prerequisite No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefor have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.810.180 Notice to City Required Work shall not begin until. the City has been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 18.810.200 Engineers 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's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINAL ORDER. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: City records do not indicate any previous development approvals have been granted for this property. Vicinity Information: The site is located south of SW Ventura Drive at the western terminius of SW Locust Street and the northern terminius of SW 70th Avenue. The site is surrounded on all sides by property zoned R-4.5. Site Information and Proposal Description: The site is 5.15 acres in size and is currently vacant with the exception of several accessory structures. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low Density Residential use and the zoning for the site is R-4.5. Topography ranges between 10-20% with less than 10% in the southeast and greater than 25% in the northwest where the tract area is proposed. The Tract area is identified as having Sensitive Lands with steep slopes and a drainageway, however, that applicant has not proposed any alterations in these areas. SECTION IV APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Impact Study: Section 18.390.050 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks 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 property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests,the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. 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 findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real . property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Any required street improvements to certain collector or higher volume streets 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-Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 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 $189. The total TIF for an attached, single-family dwelling is $1,899. Because the local streets extending through the development are needed to serve the development and to meet the standards of the code, they are inherently proportional to the development. The applicant is being required to construct half-street improvements along SW Ventura. The Engineering Department has estimated the cost of half-street improvements to be approximately $200 per lineal foot. Assuming a cost of $200 per linear foot, it is estimated that the total cost of the half-street improvements for SW Ventura is $38,000 (190 feet x $200). Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $41,778 ($1,899 x 22 dwelling units). Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $130,437 ($41,778 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact, is considered an unmitigated impact. Since the TIF paid is $41,778, the unmitigated impact can be valued at $88,659. Given the estimated cost of the half street improvement and the unmitigated impact, the half street improvement on Ventura meets the rough proportionality test related to the impact of the development. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT The applicant has requested a Planned Development (PD) overlay zone change for the subject property. The PD overlay requires developers to follow the Planned Development process for any proposal on affected sites. The Planned Development chapter provides for flexibility in development design and allows deviation .from certain standards of the base zone. The following paragraphs address compliance with the applicable base zone standards and with the specific Approval Standards under Section 18.350.100. The Planned Development Process: Section 18.350.020 states that there are three elements to the planned development approval process, as follows: ♦ The approval of the planned development overlay zone; ♦ The approval of the planned development concept plan; and ♦ The approval of the detailed development plan. The applicant has requested the Planned Development to allow flexibility in lot sizes in order to preserve the natural area in the northwestern portion of the site and. The applicant is requesting approval of all three elements for the Planned Development as part of this application, therefore, the applicant is complying with the process set forth for Planned Developments. Applicability of the Base Zone Development Standards: Section 18.350.070 requires compliance to specific development standards: The provisions of the base zone are applicable as follows: Lot dimensional standards: The minimum lot size, lot depth and lot width standards shall not apply except as related to the density computation under Chapter 18.715; Density is discussed further in this report. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 9 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Site coverage: The site coverage provisions of the base zone shall apply; There is no maximum lot coverage standard in the R-4.5 zone, therefore, this standard does not apply Building height: The building height provisions shall not apply; and Structure setback provisions: Front yard and rear yard setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall be the same as that required by the base zone unless otherwise provided by Chapter 18.360; The side yard setback provisions shall not apply except that all detached structures shall meet the Uniform Building Code requirements for fire walls; and Front yard and rear yard setback requirements in the base zone setback shall not apply to structures on the interior of the project except that: (1) A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure which opens facing a street; (2) A minimum front yard setback of eight feet is required for any garage opening for an attached single-family dwelling facing a private street. as long as the required off-street parking spaces are provided The individual lots will be reviewed for compliance with these setbacks during the building permit phase. Other provisions of the base zone: All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except as modified by this chapter. Any additional provisions of the base zone are discussed within the body of this report or will be reviewed during the building permit phase. FINDING: Because the provisions of the base zone either do not apply in a Planned Development or will be required to comply during the building plan review, the applicability of the base zone development standards have been satisfied. SPECIFIC PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL STANDARDS Section 18.350.100.13 requires that the Commission make findings that the following criteria are satisfied when approving or approving with conditions, or the criteria are not satisfied when denying an application: All provisions of the land division provisions, Chapter 18.410, 18.420 and 18.430 shall be met. The provisions of Chapter 18.430, Subdivision are addressed further within this report. The provisions of Chapters 18.410, Lot Line Adjustments and 18.420, Partitions are not applicable to this proposal. Except as noted, the provisions of the following chapters shall be utilized as guidelines. A planned development need not meet these requirements where a development plan provides alternative designs and methods, if acceptable to the Commission, that promote the purpose of this section Density Computations and Limitations: Chapter 18.715 implements the Comprehensive Plan by establishing the criteria for determining the number of dwelling units permitted. The number of allowable dwelling units is based on the net development area. The net area is the remaining parcel area after exclusion of sensitive lands and land dedicated for public 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. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 10 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION The gross acreage of the site is 5.15 acres. The net site acreage is 3.8 acres (165,528 square feet) after deduction for public and private streets, slopes greater than 25% and drainageways. The maximum density, therefore, is 22.07 lots and the minimum is 17 lots.. The applicant is proposing 22 lots. FINDING: Because the applicant has proposed 22 lots and 22 lots are the maximum permitted based on the net acreage of the site, this standard has been satisfied. Visual Clearance Areas: Chapter 18.795 applies to all development and requires that clear 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 permanent 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 phase. 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. Landscaping and Screening: Chapter 18.745 contains landscaping provisions for new development. Section 18.745.100 requires that street trees be 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.C contains specific standards for spacing of street trees as follows: ♦ 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 sized trees (25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; and ♦ Large trees (over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart; The applicant has not submitted a plan that shows street trees will be planted, therefore, staff can not determine if this standard is met. Staff finds it feasible for this standard to be met if the applicant submits a revised plan that shows street trees will be planted, the type and proposed spacing. Section 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. Therefore, this section does not apply. FINDING: Because the applicant has not submitted a plan that shows street trees, staff can not make a finding that the landscaping and screening standards have been met. If the applicant submits a plan that shows street trees will be provided and shows the species and proposed spacing in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C, this.standard will be satisfied. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 11 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION CONDITION: Submit a plan that shows street trees will be provided and shows the species and proposed spacing will be in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements: Chapter 18.765, Table 18.765.2 requires that sin?le-family residences be provided with one (1) off-street parking space for each dwelling uni . The applicant has stated that this standard will be satisfied with the future driveways and residential' garages on the individual lots. FINDING: 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, therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Access Egress and Circulation: 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 access and egress into the site itself is discussed later in this report 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 access and egress into the site itself is discussed later in this report and access to individual lots will be reviewed during the building permit phase, this standard has been satisfied. Signs: Chapter 18.780 provides provisions for signs. The applicant has not indicated a sign will be provided. If signs are proposed, a sign permit will be required and may be obtained from the City Development Services Department. FINDING: Because signs will be reviewed if desired through a separate permit application, this standard has been satisfied. IN ADDITION, THE FOLLOWING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA SHALL BE MET: The development does not involve a multi-family or non-residential use therefore, the following additional review criteria do not apply and will not be discussed in this report: Private Outdoor Area: Multi-Family Use, Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Multi-Family Use, Privacy and noise. The following have been discussed previously in this report and will not be addressed in this section: Signs, and Parking. Relationship To The Natural And Physical Environment: The streets, buildings and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography, and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible; Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to slumping and sliding; There shall be adequate distance between on-site buildings and other on-site and off-site buildings on adjoining properties to provide for adequate light and air circulation and for fire protection; The structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where possible; and Trees preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 12 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION - The site has been laid out to avoid the natural drainage at the northwest corner of the site and steep slopes. The applicant has submitted a geotechincal report that indicates the northern lots may be prone to instability if adequate measures are not taken during construction. The geotechnical report is based on a slightly different plan, therefore, the lot numbers referred to in the report differ from those on the plan. The lots identified in the report generally correspond with lots 5-8 on the proposed plan. The geotechnical report outlines recommendations for the northern lots. It appears feasible based on the geotechnical report that, if proper measures are taken, these lots can be safely developed. The Building Division will require compliance with geotechnical review standards during the building review on the individual lots, however, staff strongly recommends a condition requiring a geotechnical report be required for lots 5-8 prior to issuance of building permits. The project will be reviewed for compliance with applicable setbacks at the time of building permit plan review which will insure that adequate light and air circulation is provided. All structures will be required to meet UBC standards for fire separation. The applicant has submitted a tree report which generally identifies the trees that are proposed to be removed and retained. The tree report does not identify the location of trees to be retained and removed. Given the size of the lots and street configuration, staff can assume that the trees within the proposed rights-of-way and toward the front of the lots will be removed. Given the slope and potential for ground instability at the northern portion of the site, staff encourages as many trees as possible be retained. In order to evaluate if the trees proposed to be removed are in a location that makes sense, staff must see a plan that clearly identifies all of the trees by number and shows the trees to be removed versus retained. In addition, staff needs to see a plan that shows the typical building footprint for each lot to determine if perhaps, some trees towards the rear of the lots could be retained. The actual mitigation evaluation of trees to be removed is discussed further in this report. FINDING: Because the plans do not provide enough detail for staff to confirm that trees will be preserved to the greatest extent possible and the geotechnical report indicates that the northern lots may be prone to instability if proper measures are not taken, staff can not confirm that the Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment standards have been met. If the applicant complies with the conditions specified below, staff can determine that the standards are satisfied. CONDITIONS: Submit a plan that shows typical building footprint and the location of trees proposed to be retained and removed. The revised plan must clearly show the tree numbers. If trees outside the typical building footprint are proposed to be removed, an explanation as to why the particular tree must be removed will be required. Prior to issuance of building permits on lots 5-8, a geotechnical report must be submitted to the City for review. Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining Uses: Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses (for example, between single- family and multiple-family residential, and residential, and commercial). The proposed land use is single-family detached residential. The Buffering and Screening Matrix (Section 18.745.1) does not require buffering or screening for proposed single-family detached uses. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix, the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under Chapter 18.745. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 13 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION As noted above, the Buffering and Screening Matrix does not require buffering or screening for proposed single-family detached uses. Therefore, a determination of the adequacy and extent of required buffers is not applicable to this proposal. On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such things as service areas, : storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: (a) What needs to be screened; (b) the direction from which it is needed; and (c) whether the screening needs to be year-round. The proposed use is a single-family residential Subdivision/Planned Development. The applicant has not proposed any service areas, storage areas, parking lots or rooftop mechanical devices or other features that would require screening. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. FINDING: Because the site is single-family abutting single-family, the buffering and screening standards do not apply. Access and Circulation: The number of allowed access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.705. Access and Circulation is addressed elsewhere in this report. All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. One hammerhead turnaround is proposed at the end of the private street which meets the TVF&R dimensional standards by providing a 90-foot by 20-foot turning area with a 25-foot turning radius. The applicant has proposed a one-way cul-de-sac in order to reduce the amount of grading on the topography, however, the outside radius does not appear to meet the required 45-foot outside turning radius. The required radius provided in the plans includes part of what appears to be a sidewalk. The street widths and patterns are discussed in more detail further in this report. Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways if such facilities are shown on an adopted plan. The City of Tigard Pedestrian/Bike Path Map located in the Comprehensive Plan does not identify a proposed path in this area. FINDING: Because the plan does not show the outside turning radius of the cul-de-sac meets the 45-foot standard, the Access and Circulation standards have not been met. If the applicant submits a plan that shows the radius for the cul-de-sac will be in accordance with the TVF&R standards, the Access and Circulation standards will be met. CONDITION: Submit a revised plan that shows the inside and outside radius of the cul-de-sac will be in accordance with the TVF&R standards. Landscaping and Open Space: Residential Development. In addition, a minimum of 20 percent of the site shall be landscaped. 4119/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 14 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION As noted earlier, the gross site area of the proposed project is 5.17 acres. The landscaped portion of the project must, therefore, be a minimum of 1.03 acres (20 percent). The applicant has not provided calculations describing what portion of the site will be landscaped. Because the proposed tract will be .36 acres, there is a remaining .67 acres, or 29,185.2 square feet remaining to be landscaped. While it is anticipated that this landscaping can be provided on individual lots, because there is no minimum landscaped area and the setback standards do not apply, staff can not confirm that this standard will be met without more information. Staff proposes that the applicant be required to submit a typical building footprint plan or some other method that shows the remaining 29,185.2 square feet of required landscaping will be provided. FINDING: Because the applicant has not provided detail on how the 20% landscaping requirement will be met, staff can not determine that this standard has been satisfied. If the applicant submits aplan that shows how each individual lot can be landscaped to insure that the total 20% landscaping requirement will be satisfied, staff can find that this standard has been met. CONDITION: Submit a plan that shows how each individual lot will be landscaped to insure that the total 20% landscaping requirement will be satisfied. Public Transit: Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on: ♦ The location of other transit facilities in the area; and ♦ The size and type of the proposed development; Based on staff review of the Tri-Met bus line map, there is no bus line along the frontage of this development. Therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: Because there is no bus line abutting this site, the Public Transit standard does not apply. Drainage: All drainage provisions shall be laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.810 and the criteria in the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan. The Engineering Department has reviewed this application and addressed the project's compliance with the City's storm water drainage standards. See comments under Public Facility Concerns. FINDING: Because drainage will be discussed and conditioned if necessary further in this report, this standard has been satisfied. Floodplain Dedication: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. According to the adopted FEMA floodplain maps, the project site does not fall within the 100-year floodplain, therefore, this criterion does not apply. FINDING: Because the site does not fall within the 100-year floodplain, this standard does not apply. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 15 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION LAND DIVISION: SUBDIVISION (18.430) Approval Standards - Preliminary Plat: The proposed preliminary plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations The proposed project complies with the Comprehensive Plan's Low Density Residential designation for the subject property because it complies with the applicable provisions of the Community Development Code which implements the plan. Compliance with the majority of specific regulations and standards have been addressed previously within this report under the planned development. review section. Several sections, not listed as approval criteria for Planned Developments, are applicable to Subdivisions. These Chapters are listed under ADDITIONAL SECTIONS APPLICABLE TO SUBDIVSIONS. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92. The applicant has not provided evidence that the proposed subdivision name has been reserved. Prior to final plat, approval from Washington County must be provided to insure that the name is not duplicative. The Streets and roads are laid out so as to conform 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 further in this report. 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 report under Public Facilities Concerns. FINDING: Because the applicant has not provided evidence of the plat name being reserved at Washington County, staff can not confirm that all of the preliminary plat approval standards have been addressed. If the applicant submits confirmation from Washington County that the proposed subdivision name is not duplicative or submits a revised subdivision name approved by Washington County, this standard will be satisfied. All other preliminary plat approval standards have either been met outright or are conditioned as discussed later in this report. CONDITION: Submit confirmation from Washington County that the proposed subdivision name is not duplicative or submit confirmation of a revised subdivision name approved by Washington County. ADDITIONAL SECTIONS APPLICABLE TO SUBDIVSIONS. Tree Removal: Chapter 18.790 requires mitigation of trees over 12" diameter at breast height (dbh) removed as part of the development of the site. The applicant's tree report states that there are 196 trees on the site which have diameters greater than 12 inches. The tree report does not total the trees to be removed or the trees that are considered hazardous and must be removed. The applicant states that greater than 75% of the trees will be retained, however, staff has no way of confirming this. In addition, the tree report does not 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 16 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION identify the location of trees referred to in the report. In order for staff to determine that the proposal complies with the tree mitigation requirement, the applicant must submit a plan that specifies the total inches of trees to be removed and a program for mitigation in compliance with Section 18.790.030.B. It is feasible for this standard to be met if the applicant complies with the recommended condition of approval. Please note, that while the applicant may comply with the tree removal section of the code by providing this additional information, as discussed previously in this report, the applicant may be required to retain additional trees in order to comply with the Planned Development Criteria. The revised plan must show consistency with the conditions related to tree preservation. FINDING: Because the applicant has not submitted a tree report that clearly shows the location and number of existing trees over 12 inches caliper being removed, staff can not confirm that more than 75% of the existing trees will be retained. If the applicant submits a plan that clearly shows the number and location of existing trees and trees proposed to be removed, staff can determine if the standard has been satisfied. CONDITION: Submit a tree removal plan that clearly shows the number and location of existing trees and trees proposed to be removed. If the number of trees proposed to be removed exceeds 25%, the applicant must submit a tree mitigation plan to be approved by the Planning Division. 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 as necessary later in this report under Public Facility Concerns. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030(E) requires a local street to have a minimum 50-foot right-of-way and 32-foot paved section between curbs and sidewalks. The applicant's plans show the right-of-way will be 50 feet with 32 feet of pavement. This standard 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 give 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 adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. The subject site abuts large lots that could be redeveloped in the future. The applicant has shown on their plans how SW Locust Street will be extended within and east of the site. The applicant has not proposed the cul-de-sac be extended further to the east due to topography. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 17 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION • I 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 reconfigure 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 is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. The applicant's plans show SW Locust Street and SW 70th Street extending through the site. There are no other streets abutting the development which can be extended through the development site. Cul-De-Sacs: Section 18.810.030(K) requires that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental or topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation: ♦ All cul-de-sac shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other than circular, shall be approved by the City Engineer; and ♦ The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured along the centerline of the roadway from the near side of the intersecting street to the farthest point of the cul-de-sac. ♦ If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the City. There will not be more than 20 houses taking access from the- cul-de-sac. The applicant has proposed a cul-de-sac in excess of 200 feet. The applicant submitted supplemental information to request a variance to the cul-de-sac length. The cul-de-sac adjustment criteria are reviewed further in this report. Staff is recommending approval of the variance. With the Variance, the cul-de-sac length will be greater than 300 feet, therefore, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street is required. The applicant has indicated that a pedestrian access will be available to SW Ventura Drive via the open space tract, however, staff has great concerns that construction of such an access will impact the drainageway. Staff is not opposed to this, but would like additional detail in order to approve such a connection. If this location is not acceptable to the City, an alternate location within the water easement between lots 7 and 8 which would also be a logical location for a pedestrian path from the cul-de-sac bulb to SW Ventura Drive. 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 15' percent for distances of no greater than 250 feet. The street grades are discussed under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Curbs, Curb Cuts, Ramps, and Driveway Approaches: Section 18.810.030(N) requires the following: 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 18 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with standards specified in this Chapter and Tigard Municipal Code Section 15.04.080, and: ♦ Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except ♦ Where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval; and ♦ Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to City configuration standards. The applicant has indicated that the project will comply with all City construction standards and material specifications with respect to curbs, curb cuts, ramps and driveway approaches. The conditions of approval and the public improvement plan review process will insure that these standards are met. These criteria are discussed and conditioned, if necessary, further in this report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Block Designs - Section 18.810.040(A) states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed 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: Block 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: ♦ 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. ♦ For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. The development will aid in the formation of blocks, however,. due to existing street patterns and topographic constraints, the blocks formed by the streets through this development will continue to exceed 1,800 feet. Because the block length requirement is precluded from being met, in part due to topographic constraints, this standard is found not to apply. Block Lengths: Section 18.810.040(B)(2) states that when block lengths greater than 600 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. The intersection of SW 70th Avenue and the future intersection of SW 69th Avenue is less than 600 feet. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. 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-4.5 zoning district for single-family detached development is 7,500 square feet. Only Lot 8 is larger than 1.5 times the minimum lot size. However, the lot depth of this lot does not exceed 2.5 times the average lot width. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 19 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION As shown on the Preliminary Site Plan, all proposed lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public streets with the exceptions of Lot 20 which only has 20 feet of frontage and Lot 9, which only has 22 feet of frontage. Because this is processed as a Planned Development, the Planning Commission could determine that this standard need not apply. Because slight adjustments could be made,. however, which would enable the standards to be met, staff recommends that the applicant be required to submit a revised plan that shows all lots will comply with the lot frontage standard. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all residential streets. The applicant is proposing to construct sidewalks to City standards on all public streets. Therefore, this criterion is met. Sanitary Sewers: Section 18.810.090 requires sanitary sewer service. The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicant's materials, including the Preliminary Utilities Plan. Sanitary sewer is discussed later in this report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. 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 report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Based on the analysis therein, storm water drainage provisions will be provided as required and that this criterion is either satisfied outright or will be met upon compliance with the applicable conditions of approval. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the applicant has not met all of the Street and Utility Improvement Standards. Staff finds is feasible for the standards to be met if the applicant complies with the conditions specified below. CONDITIONS: ♦ Submit a detail of the proposed pedestrian connection to SW Ventura Drive to show how it can be extended without impacting the drainage area. If it is not possible to extend a pedestrian connection in this area without an impact, the applicant must show a pedestrian connection between Lots land 8 on the final plat. ♦ Revise the plat so that all frontages will have 25 feet of frontage on a public or private street. Subdivision Adjustment - Maximum length of a Cul-de-sac: Community Development Code Section 18.370.020C.9 allows the Director to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the street improvement requirements based on findings that the following criterion is satisfied: Strict application of the standard will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on. existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or existing mature trees. The applicant has submitted a response to the variance criteria which indicates that a connection to SW Ventura Drive was considered originally, however, due to the slope and the natural drainageway at the northwestern portion of the site,. it was determined that a connection was not feasible. In addition, due to 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 20 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION street spacing standards, the street could not be extended to SW Ventura Drive at a point further east. The applicant has stated that the street was not proposed to extend to the east due to the location of an existing house on the property to the east of the site. The applicant has not submitted an existing conditions plan showing the location of structures on and off-site for staff to confirm this statement. In addition to attempting to protect the slope and drainage area, the applicant has indicated that the cul-de- sac will enable a greater number of trees to be retained. As discussed previously within this report, the tree plan does not clearly indicate the trees that will be retained, so staff can not. confirm this fact either. Compliance with the previous conditions of approval, however, will insure that as many trees as possible are retained. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards. If the street were extended to SW Ventura Drive within this subdivision, the proposal would exceed the slope requirement, result in substandard street spacing and result in additional loss of trees not to mention the potential impacts to the existing drainageway. The proposed street layout will still provide two points of ingress and egress into the subdivision (SW Locust Street and SW 70th Avenue) and provides for streets of adequate size to enable emergency vehicles access to the properties. As will be discussed, the proposal does not fully comply with dimensional standards for access and circulation, however, conditions have been recommended that will insure all these standards are satisfied. As conditioned, granting of the variance to allow a 390-foot cul-de-sac will not be detrimental to the public or injurious to the rights of other properties. Granting the variance for the length of the cul-de-sac would allow the length to be 180 feet longer than the development code requires. Allowing a length slightly greater than the standard does not interfere with the rights of adjoining property in any way. Surrounding properties have the ability to continue to use their property as they currently exist or to potentially develop the properties, whether or not the City grants the variance. FINDING: Because the applicant has submitted evidence that the potential impacts of not allowing the variance exceed the impacts of permitting this variance and that no adverse impact on public life or property will result from the approval of this variance, staff finds that the approval criteria have been satisfied. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: The City Engineering Department has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Streets: Tigard Development Code (TDC) 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved 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 Ventura Drive and is at the present terminus of SW Locust Street. SW 70th Avenue is also located to the south of this site. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 21 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION SW Ventura Drive This roadway is classified as a local residential street on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. This roadway classification requires a right-of-way (ROW) width of 50 feet. At present, there is approximately 50 feet of ROW adjacent to this site, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. Therefore, no additional dedications are necessary Ventura Drive is currently paved but not constructed to full City standards. In order for this street to ; current City standard, the applicant should construct a half-street improvement along this roadway as a part of the project. This improvement is roughly proportionate to the impact from this development, as shown by the impact analysis within the Planning Department Section of this report. SW Locust Street This roadway is also a local residential street with a 32-foot curb-to-curb section and a 50-foot ROW. The preliminary plan shows that the applicant will extend this street into this project to help provide access to the proposed lots. The street width dimensions will match the existing widths. SW 70th Avenue This roadway is also a local residential street that has not been fully dedicated and improved up to the south boundary of the site. The applicant has proposed to construct the portion of this roadway through the site in alignment with the existing ROW and improvements to the south. But until the properties to the south redevelop to where ROW and street improvements can be required, there will be a gap between the existing improvements to the south and the proposed new improvements. The applicant is proposing to terminate this roadway as .a cul-de-sac near the north end of the site. A 90-degree bend is proposed toward the end of the street and from there to the end of the bulb the ROW and paved widths will decrease to 46 feet and 28 feet respectively. Because this segment of roadway will' only serve a few lots, these widths are acceptable provided the applicant installs "No Parking" signs on one side of the roadway along that segment. The preliminary plan indicates what appears to be a raised median in SW 70th Avenue in the narrower segment and in the cul-de-sac bulb. It was not clear in the applicant's materials why this is shown, and such a median is not a standard feature in a public street. Staff does not believe this median is necessary and would increase City maintenance costs in the future if it were installed. Therefore, the applicant should not be allowed to construct this median in the public street. If the variance to the cul-de-sac length standard is granted, then the street name for this roadway should be "SW 70th Place". The variance request will be discussed next. Variance for Cul-de-sac Length The applicant has asked for a variance to TDC 18.810.030(K), which states that a cul-de-sac shall not be longer than 200 feet. The applicant's plan would result in a cul-de-sac (SW 70th Avenue) of approximately 390 feet in length. TDC 18.370 provides the criteria for granting a variance and the Planning Department will address this issue in greater detail in their section of this decision. The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicant's findings for why the variance should be granted. The applicant states that the variance should be granted for the following reasons: 1. The topography in the north/south direction is in excess of 18 which would yield a street with a grade of approximately 18%, thereby in violation of City standards (15% maximum grade). 2. There is a substantial drainageway along the northern boundary, which should not be disturbed to extend a northerly connection of SW 70th Avenue. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 22 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 3. There is a "linear section of 25% plus topography approximately 160 feet in length running north/south along the subject site's northeasterly boundary that prevents a local street from being constructed as a through street connection. This topographic constraint, when combined with the location of the existing residence on the adjoining parcel to the east, necessitates a cul-de-sac design for the proposed extension of SW 70th Avenue." (Taken from a letter from the applicant's engineer, dated March 17, 1999). 4. The cuts and fills near the eastern boundary would result in excessive impacts to the natural drainage area. Staff agrees with the first two points, but was initially less agreeable to Points #3 and #4. While the applicant's grading plan does indicate a "drainage" adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site that does appear to run in a northerly direction at a grade of approximately 25%, the easterly extension of the local street would be crossing this drainage, not following it. In addition, the existing house that is east of this site, while not shown on the applicant's plan, appears to be located such that an easterly extension of this roadway could be aligned in such a way that there would not be a conflict. Staff based this finding on a review of City aerial photos and topographic maps that show the house location in relation to this site. Staff talked with the engineer on March 18, 1999, and received additional written information concerning Points #3 and #4 dated March 19, 1999. If a street were extended toward the eastern boundary of the site, several complications would occur. First, the cross slope increases in grade from approximately 5% just prior to the proposed bulb, to approximately 23% near the eastern boundary. With cross slopes this extreme, the cuts above and the fills below the street would be excessive, and in order for the applicant to meet the Tigard standards for cross slopes outside the roadbed area, retaining walls would be required or extensive upslope and downslope grading to meet minimum grading requirements. These measures would preclude access into the lots abutting the street. Second, the excessive cuts and fills would result in a significant disturbance of the steeper- sloped area and the trees within that area. The applicant would like to avoid these impacts. Based upon the additional information provided by the applicant, and further review by Staff, it is our recommendation that the variance to the cul-de-sac length standard be granted. Proposed Private Street The plan proposes that Lots 18, 19 and 20 be served from a private street. TMC 18.810.030(S) limits the number of lots to be served from a private street to a total of six (6). Therefore, the proposed plan will meet this standard. Section 18.810.030(S) also indicates that the applicant shall ensure the continued maintenance of private streets by establishing a homeowners association. It is recommended that the applicant place, a statement on the face of the final plat indicating the private street will be owned and maintained by the properties that will be served by it. In addition, the applicant should record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) along with the final plat that will clarify how the private property owners are to maintain the private street. These CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of the final plat. The City's public improvement design standards require private streets to have a pavement section equal to a public local street. The applicant will need to provide this type of pavement section. Traffic Engineer's Findings Lancaster Engineering submitted a traffic analysis letter, dated October 13, 1998, which addresses the project impacts onto the adjacent street system. The letter states that this site will generate approximately 16 new trips during the AM peak hour and approximately 22 trips during the PM peak hour. These trips will be split directionally and the net impact to SW 72 d Avenue during the AM peak hour will be approximately 13%, and the impact to SW Locust Street west of SW 72nd Avenue during the AM peak hour will be approximately 6%. During the PM peak hour, the impact will be approximately 3% on SW 72nd Avenue and approximately 8% on SW Locust Street west of SW 72nd Avenue. These impacts are small and will likely not be noticed by drivers in the area. Therefore, no additional offsite traffic mitigation is necessary. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 23 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Water: This site will be served from the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD). There are existing water lines in SW Ventura Drive, SW 70th Avenue and SW Locust Street. The applicant's plans show that these existing water lines will be extended (looped) through the site. The applicant will need to obtain plan approval from TVWD, as a part of the City's review of the public improvement plans. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer line in SW 70th Avenue that extends northerly' through this site to SW Ventura Drive and beyond. The applicant's preliminary utility plan shows that this line will be used to serve all of the lots in this site. The plan shows a short extension of a public sewer line in SW Ventura Drive to serve a few of the northerly lots. The plan proposes a public sewer extension from SW 70th Avenue easterly between two blocks of lots. Typically, the City avoids locating public lines in back or side yards because of the difficulty in accessing the lines in case of a breakage. This sewer line would only be approximately 300 feet in length, however, which could be easily cleaned with the City's sewer cleaning equipment from the manhole in SW 70th Avenue. There is still a concern that this line could be vulnerable to breakage due to future fence construction along the common property line or other excavations typical in back yards of single-family dwellings. However, the City could accept a line in this location if it were constructed of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe. These two pipe materials are very strong and would be essentially "bullet proof' against excavations in the back yards. Therefore, the City would have little worry about future breakage. Staff recommends the sewer line location be approved provided the applicant construct this line of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe. Storm Drainage: The storm water from this site will be conveyed to the northwest corner of the site where it will be treated and released into a natural drainage channel that crosses SW Ventura Drive. The applicant submitted a downstream analysis that indicates that there should not be negative impacts to the downstream system from the additional storm water from this site. However, the City and USA recently completed a basin study of Fanno Creek. A resulting finding of that study indicated that all developments within the City must now provide onsite detention facilities. Therefore, .the applicant will be required to provide an onsite detention facility in addition to the proposed water quality facility. The applicant's plan indicates a new storm line to be extended in SW Locust Street through the site. However, the line is shown to stop short of the eastern boundary. Since it is unknown exactly how the street will be extended in the future and the needs for storm drainage on the adjacent property, the applicant should extend the public line to the eastern boundary (TDC 18.810.100). The applicant's plan does not show how Lots 13 through 16 will be accommodated with storm drainage facilities. Staff would assume that since the applicant is proposing to extend a public sanitary sewer line along the northern boundary of these lots, then a storm line would also be appropriate. A storm drainage line serving these four lots would not need to be a public line, but could remain a private facility to be owned and maintained by the owners of Lots 13 through 16. Staff would recommend that the applicant be required to construct this line of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe, to avoid future problems as was mentioned in the Sanitary Sewer section of this report. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations 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 plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. 4/19199 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 24 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION As was stated previously, the applicant is proposing to provide a vegetated Swale at the northwest corner of the site. The applicant shall provide a maintenance access road to the facility and any drainage structures within the facility to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. The access road shall be paved and a minimum of 15 feet wide. Prior to the City accepting this facility as a public facility, the developer shall maintain it for a minimum of three years after construction is completed. The pond shall be placed in a tract and conveyed to the City on the final plat. The developer will be required to submit annual reports to the City which show what maintenance operations were conducted on the facility for that year. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 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 water system 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) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the 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 plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots that are to be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The applicant will also be required to provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 -of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report will need to be incorporated into the final grading plan and a final construction supervision report must be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant did submit a report from their geotechnical engineer, and there were come concerns about a few of the lot locations. However, Staff believes that if the applicant follows the recommendation given by the geotechnical engineer, then it is feasible to construct these lots in a safe manned. 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. 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). For parcels within the USB, an addressing fee in the amount of $30 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to approval of the final plat. For this project, the addressing fee will be $660 (22 lots X $30/address = $660). FINDING: Based on the information provided from Engineering, the applicant's plan does not fully comply with all of the Street and Utility Improvement standards. If the applicant complies with the Conditions 10 through 37 specified at the beginning of this report, then staff can determine that the standards have been met. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 25 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION • • SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Tigard Police Department has reviewed this proposal and offered no comments or objections. The Tigard Building Division has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: (1) No Parking signs and curb markings on one side of street less than 36 feet; (2) fire truck access to within 150 feet of most remote exterior walls of buildings on lots 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11; (3) Provide cul-de-' sac with turning radius inside of 25 feet and outside of 45 feet (UFC 902.2.2.3); (4) Provide fire access road way not less than 20 feet wide (UFC 902.2.1); (5) Provide fire hydrant at the corner of Tract A and SW Locust and entry to the hammer head drive and Locust; (6) provide storm drain lateral system to lots 5, 14, 15, 16, 2, 3 ,4 and 8. The City of Tigard Operations Department has reviewed the proposal and raised the following concerns: (1) At the time individual lots are developed for the Building Envelopes, with as much slope as the site has, it creates the need for cut and fill type of grading which can be more disruptive to the root systems and vegetation. (2) What is the time.that the tree retention ratio is calculated? This needs to be addressed. It is stated that a retention greater than 75% of healthy trees greater than 12 inches on site will be provided, providing satisfaction of Section 18.790.030. Staff response: The issues raised are valid and should be addressed through the revised tree report showing the typical building envelopes. The mitigation requirements include all trees to be removed on individual lots for the placement of structures. The revised tree plan must also take into account grading required for the building footprints. The City of Tigard Operations Utility Manager has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: Question if the Tract "A" area is proposed to be public. If the tract area is not public, an easement is needed along the storm line between the 70th Avenue extension and SW Ventura Drive. Questions are also raised regarding the need for an additional catch basin. These comments are addressed under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS discussed previously in this report. SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS The Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County has reviewed this proposal and has offered comments which have been incorporated into the body of this report. The Oregon Division of State Lands has reviewed the proposal offered the following comments: A small drainageway on the property may be jurisdictional which would require a DSL permit if impacted through development. If under 50 cubic yard of material is altered, filled or removed a permit would not be required. The US Army Corps of Engineers has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: Based on the drawing submitted by Scoles and Associates, it appears that the turn in 70th (adjacent to Tract A and lot 5) may effect the drainage by grading at the source. A permit would be required if there is any grading within the drainage. Staff response: A condition will be attached requiring permit approval from the US Army Corps of Engineers and DSL if there is any alteration proposed for the drainage or the 25-foot buffer area. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 26 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION The Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed the proposed and offered the following comments: We have reviewed the proposal and are not opposed to it. Please have Developer's engineer contact us to discuss layout of the water system before submitting plans for review and approval. Note that some revisions are in order to meet District requirements. Portland General Electric and GTE have reviewed this application and have offered no comments or objections. [~44L~ rc~L~Aj April 1. 1999 PREPARED BY: Julia Powell H jduk DATE Associate. Planner April 1. 1999 APPROVED B ichard Be dorff DATE Planning M ger iAcurpln\julia\sub\Ventura Staff Report.doc 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 27 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION WAS INGTON SOU RE ESTATES ' Tl 1100 T1 2300 TL 1.00 TL 1100 T1 1.00 T1 2M0 S.W. VENTURA DRIVE I • T.L 7000 I 1• ~ 7 II I f• 8 • Y 7 ti N Tl MO a 7,900 sr - ).wlsr. 4"1 Sr.%~.~ • I ~Y j I, 10•319 if. i I- 1 I l i 1 1 j' 3 ( TR CTs'A• 111•u. I' MINIM i O 8 1 4 1 ~ I I acf wl of I 'Y AJ7sr. Ta.. T700 y „ Fri /1 r9.ie Sr 7 K 1 9,791 sr 5070 Sr. 11 I 1 I Tl 7a0 TA- 72o0 'Y Aim Sr. tic. Wy 1 0 I I I $4 1• 1• I 0r A 4817 sr 9,.5.10 Sr. = 4.130 Sr. L 4131 Sr. ' jl Z 1 ru Mmm .cIIa• lair .1 W r 4 s 1 u ylooatr M, ! - s= - -U- u le.oea Q ~ a 4,- W to la- t ' >z - J I.W. --'--LOCUST STREET ---Q-- - 1. _ 1 ^y 22 Z 1/ a 7,71 7,471 S!. Sr It i.i.~ • 4 779 Sr. 1 O I' 9.411 Ill. II a _ . y 1 T.L 7a1 M 1 1 1 ( n T10.00 T1 7000 = 1 I I ; ; _-V T.L 701 1 MI0a410r7Rtlgl' Ir 1 1 1 1 lr4 lOrmm ! oe /11~m/r 1 1 1 1 20 1 `j I`~ i= 7.390 Sf. ~ 2 4.c0 Sr. 1, 1305!. ; 1 1 u. li. I I T.L 11•0 o T.I. 44" ~1 I T.L "a - ---'7 T.L MOO 1 T.L 101 1. T.L 1001 1 1 1 I I I t 0 T1. 1007 t 1 Oam~ TA. 7.00 I l a l I I , ~ Tl I ~ I 1 I I ' I I 1 y! 1 CASE NO[S] a CASE NAME[SI: SITE PLAN SUB 98-0014 VENTURA PDR 98-0013 ESTATES EXHIBIT MAP N VAR-99-0007 SUBDIVISION SHAny 7.O.,R APHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM =E: ELMWOOD ST LOLA LN Q.1 ALFRE V 1 1 N ITY MAP ST EED Li SARA SUB 98-0014 PDR 98-0013 LN ~ VAR 99-0001 Z DR VENTURA ~ ESTATES SUBDIVISION (2) SUBJEC TURA EN URA PARCELS R > W a L LOCUST w Q ST T A N w > Q MAPLELEAF Q o 100 200 300 400 500 Feet ST 2 1'- 378 feet L OAK ST w w City of Tigard OAK ST Q Information on this map is for general location only and = should be verified with the Development Services Division. F- 13125 SW Hall Blvd • W CO Tigard, OR 91223 > (503) 838.4171 Q httpJMww.ci.tigsrd.ocus Community Developrpeot Plot date: Feb 1, 1999; C:\magic\MAGIC02.APR Agenda Item: Hearing Date: April 19. 1999 Time: 7.30 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ' CITY OF TIOARD; Community THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON oo ment SfwpingA Better terCommunity 120 DAYS = 1/99 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Subdivision SUB 98-0014 Planned Development Review PDR 98-0013 Variance VAR 99-0006 The applicant has requested approval of 22-lot Planned Development Subdivision. There is a natural area that is proposed to be preserved in a tract area within the subdivision. A variance to the maximum length to allow a cul-de-sac in excess of 200 feet. APPLICANT: Ivy Yip APPLICANT: Barry Desbiens Ashwood Homes, Inc Wingate Corporation 8760 SW Pacer Drive 15840 S. Pope Lane Beaverton, OR 97008-6915 Oregon City, OR 97045 OWNER: Helen L. Wegener OWNER: Fred Neuman 580 NW Alpine Terrace 19730 SE Semple Road Portland, OR 97210 Clackamas, OR 97015 APPICANT'S Ken Sandblast Land Solutions REP.: PO Box 38 Clackamas, OR 97015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low-density residential home sites. LOCATION: The subject parcels are located on the outh side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 70u' Avenue; WCTM 1S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the proposed Subdivision/Planned Development meets the applicable approval criteria of the Tigard Community Development Code and that the proposal will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL, subject to the following recommended conditions of approval: 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 1 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: (Unless otherwise noted,.rethe staff contact shall be Brian Rager, Engineering ~Department (503)639-4171.) 1. Submit a plan that shows street trees will be provided including the species and proposed spacing in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 2. Submit a plan that shows typical building footprint and the location of trees proposed to be retained and removed. The revised plan must clearly show the tree numbers. If trees outside the typical building footprint are proposed to be removed, an explanation as to why the particular tree must be removed will be required. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 3. Submit a tree removal plan that clearly shows the number and location of existing trees and trees proposed to be removed. If the number of trees proposed to be removed exceeds 25%, the applicant must submit a tree mitigation plan to be approved by the Planning Division. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 4. Submit a revised plan that shows the inside and outside radius for the cul-de-sac will be in accordance with the Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue standards. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 5. Submit a plan that shows how each individual lot can be landscaped to insure that the total 20% landscaping requirement will be satisfied. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 6. Submit confirmation from Washington County that the proposed subdivision name is not duplicative or submit confirmation of a revised subdivision name approved by Washington County. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 7. Submit a detail of the proposed pedestrian connection to S.W. Ventura, Drive to show how it can be extended without impacting the drainage area. If it is not possible to extend a pedestrian connection in this area without an impact, the applicant must show a pedestrian connection between lots 7and 8 on the final plat. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 8. Revise the plat so that all frontages will have 25 feet of frontage on a public or private street. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Department. 9. Submit confirmation from Division of State Lands and US Army Corp of Engineers that no permits are required if there is any alteration, including grading, within the drainage area or the 25-foot buffer. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 10. Prior to approval of the final plat, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Six (6) 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. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 11. As a part 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, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 12. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park 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 application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 13. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee in the amount of $660. ~O,N/or~1~ S~'.YrJ-riH~rova~~n~- on lk~~ro. ~ rhL(~dG 5++4+[vw Ik . N ~ ar~.i~ ~ ~S, 14. The applicant shall construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of SW Ventur Drive. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: U'+d~ ~ alts,' 9s A. City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 16 feet; 416,..,gf 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; 5-foot concrete sidewalk; street trees behind the sidewalk spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; 1. underground utilities; J. street signs (if applicable); K. driveway apron (if applicable); and L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Ventura Drive in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 15. The applicant shall provide "No Parking" signs on one side of SW 70th Avenue (Place) along the segment where the curb-to-curb width is only 28 feet. 16. If the variance to the cul-de-sac length standard is granted, the applicant shall name the north/south cul-de-sac "SW 70th Place". 9 Dio~Se~l tgi~sdNgd,'~+n rY~v a/ jrZ W,,J+ *nI.LvZ/ 1j Ci~ tT~n~o.-f~ ~n, rl/s/Ia^ 17. The applicant will not be allowed construct a raised median/island in SW 70th Avenue (Place), as shown on the preliminary plan. /h- sw 7ot, 4v,- (aloe-,)- V- 18. Full-width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic 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. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 19. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private street will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from it. 20. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private street. The CC&R's shall obligate the private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the street. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to. the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) prior to approval of the final plat. 21. The pavement and rock section of the proposed private street shall meet the City's public street standard for a local residential street. 22. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) for the proposed public water work prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. 23. The applicant shall construct the public sanitary sewer line proposed along the north boundaries of Lots 13 through 16 of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe. A manhole shall be provided at the end of this pipe run as shown on the preliminary plan. 24. The applicant shall extend the proposed storm drainage line in SW Locust Street to the eastern boundary of the site. 25. The applicant shall construct a private storm drainage line along the northern boundaries of Lots 13 through 16. This line shall be owned and maintained by the owners of Lots 13 through 16 and shall be constructed of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe. 26. The applicant shall provide an on-site detention facility, designed to meet the Unified Sewage Agency Design and Construction Standards. A final design and calculation package shall be submitted to the Engineering Department as a part of the public improvement plan review. 27. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) as a part of the public improvement plans. Included with the' plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract to the City of Tigard on the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 28. The applicant shall provide a maintenance access road to the facility and any drainage structures within the facility to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. The access road shall be paved and a minimum of 15 feet wide. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 29. 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." 30. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of 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 Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). 31. The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the 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. 32. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard.pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. 33. The design engineer shall 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. 34. 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. 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; and D. Once the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer's signature. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 35. Prior to issuance of building permits on lots 5-8, a geotechnical report must be submitted and received. 36. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the subdivision/partition plat. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 37. 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) any off-site street and/or utility improvements are completely finished, and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. 38. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) mylars, and 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable. Note: if the public improvement drawings were hand-drawn, then a diskette is not required. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; .THIS°IS,NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST: 18.430.080 Improvement Agreement: Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: ♦ Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and ♦ 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 provide 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: ♦ An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; ♦ A surety bond executed by 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 ♦ 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. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 6 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 18.430.100 Filing and Recording: • Within 60 days of 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 Application Submission Requirements: Three copies of the subdivision plat prepared by a land 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 accordance 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: ♦ All centerline-centerline intersection points; ♦ All cul-de-sac center points; and ♦ Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. Monument Boxes Required Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 18.810 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: 18.810.120 Utilities All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.810.130 Cash or Bond Required All improvements installed by the 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. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION • ♦ The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.810.180. 18.810.150 Installation Prerequisite No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefor have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.810.180 Notice to City Required Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. 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 divider's 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's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINAL ORDER. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION' Site History: City records do not indicate any previous development approvals have been granted for this property. Vicinity Information: The site is located south of SW Ventura Drive at the western terminius of SW Locust Street and the northern terminius of SW 70th Avenue. The site is surrounded on all sides by property zoned R-4.5. Site Information and Proposal Description: The site is 5.15 acres in size and is currently vacant with the exception of several accessory structures. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low Density Residential use and the zoning for the site is R-4.5. Topography ranges between 10-20% with less than 10% in the southeast and greater than 25% in the northwest where the tract area is proposed. The Tract area is identified as having Sensitive Lands with steep slopes and a drainageway, however, that applicant has not proposed any alterations in these areas. SECTION IV APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Impact Studv: Section 18.390.050 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks 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 property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests,the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. 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 findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Any required street imProveme to certain collector or higher volut streets 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-Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 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 $189. The total TIF for an attached, single-family dwelling is $1,899. Because the local streets extending through the development are needed to serve the development and to meet the standards of the code, they are inherently proportional to the development. The applicant is being required to construct half-street improvements along SW Ventura. The Engineering Department has estimated the cost of half-street improvements to be approximately $200 per lineal foot. Assuming a cost of $200 per linear foot, it is estimated that the total cost of the half-street improvements for SW Ventura is $38,000 (190 feet x $200). Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $41,778 ($1,899 x 22 dwelling units). Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $130,437 ($41,778 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact, is considered an unmitigated impact. Since the TIF paid is $41,778, the unmitigated impact can be valued at $88,659. Given the estimated cost of the half street improvement and the unmitigated impact, the half street improvement on Ventura meets the rough proportionality test related to the impact of the development. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT The applicant has requested a Planned Development (PD) overlay zone change for the subject property. The PD overlay requires developers to follow the Planned Development process for any proposal on affected sites. The Planned Development chapter provides for flexibility in development design and allows deviation .from certain standards of the base zone. The following paragraphs address compliance with the applicable base zone standards and with the specific Approval Standards under Section 18.350.100. The Planned Development Process: Section 18.350.020 states that there are three elements to the planned development approval process, as follows: ♦ The approval of the planned development overlay zone; ♦ The approval of the planned development concept plan; and ♦ The approval of the detailed development plan. The applicant has requested the Planned Development to allow flexibility in lot sizes in order to preserve the natural area in the northwestern portion of the site and. The applicant is requesting approval of all three elements for the Planned Development as part of this application, therefore, the applicant is complying with the process set forth for Planned Developments. Applicability of the Base Zone Development Standards: Section 18.350.070 requires compliance to specific development standards: The provisions of the base zone are applicable as follows: Lot dimensional standards: The minimum lot size, lot depth and lot width standards shall not apply except as related to the density computation under Chapter 18.715; Density is discussed further in this report. 4/19199 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 9 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Site coverage: The site coverage provisions of the base zone shall apply; There is no maximum lot coverage standard in the R-4.5 zone, therefore, this standard does not apply Building height: The building height provisions shall not apply; and Structure setback provisions: Front yard and rear yard setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall be the same as that required by the base zone unless otherwise provided by Chapter 18.360; The side yard setback provisions shall not apply except that all detached structures shall meet the Uniform Building Code requirements for fire walls; and Front yard and rear yard setback requirements in the base zone setback shall not apply to structures on the interior of the project except that: (1) A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure which opens facing a street; (2) A minimum front yard setback of eight feet is required for any garage opening for an attached single-family dwelling facing a private street as long as the required off-street parking spaces are provided The individual lots will be reviewed for compliance with these setbacks during the building permit phase. Other provisions of the base zone: All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except as modified by this chapter. Any additional provisions of the base zone are discussed within the body of this report or will be reviewed during the building permit phase. FINDING: Because the provisions of the base zone either do not apply in a Planned Development or will be required to comply during the building plan review, the applicability of the base zone development standards have been satisfied. SPECIFIC PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL STANDARDS Section 18.350.100.6 requires that the Commission make findings that the following criteria are satisfied when approving or approving with conditions, or the criteria are not satisfied when denying an application: All provisions of the land division provisions, Chapter 18.410, 18.420 and 18.430 shall be met. The provisions of Chapter 18.430, Subdivision are addressed further within this report. The provisions of Chapters 18.410, Lot Line Adjustments and 18.420, Partitions are not applicable to this proposal. Except as noted, the provisions of the following chapters shall be utilized as guidelines. A planned development need not meet these requirements where a development plan provides alternative designs and methods, if acceptable to the Commission, that promote the purpose of this section Density Computations and Limitations: Chapter 18.715 implements the Comprehensive Plan by establishing the criteria for determining the number of dwelling units permitted. The number of allowable dwelling units is based on the net development area. The net area is the remaining parcel area after exclusion of sensitive lands and land dedicated for public 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. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 10 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION The gross acreage of the site is 50, .15 acres. The net site acreage P3.8 acres (165,528 square feet) after deduction for public and private streets, slopes greater than 25% and drainageways. The maximum density, therefore, is 22.07 lots and the minimum is 17 lots.. The applicant is proposing 22 lots. FINDING: Because the applicant has proposed 22 lots and 22 lots are the maximum permitted based on the net acreage of the site, this standard has been satisfied. Visual Clearance Areas: Chapter 18.795 applies to all development and requires that clear 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 permanent 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 phase. 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. Landscaping and Screening: Chapter 18.745 contains landscaping provisions for new development. Section 18.745.100 requires that street trees be 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.C contains specific standards for spacing of street trees as follows: ♦ 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 sized trees (25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; and ♦ Large trees (over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart; The applicant has not submitted a plan that shows street trees will be planted, therefore, staff can not determine if this standard is met. Staff finds it feasible for this standard to be met if the applicant submits a revised plan that shows street trees will be planted, the type and proposed spacing. Section 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. Therefore, this section does not apply. FINDING: Because the applicant has not submitted a plan that shows street trees, staff can not make a finding that the landscaping and screening standards have been met. If the applicant submits a plan that shows street trees will be provided and shows the species and proposed spacing in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C, this standard will be satisfied. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 11 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION CONDITION: Submit a plan that shows street trees will be provided and shows the species and proposed spacing will be in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements: Chapter 18.765, Table 18.765.2 reqquires 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 garages on the individual lots. FINDING: 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, therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Access, Egress' and Circulation: 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 access and egress into the site itself is discussed later in this report 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 access and egress into the site itself is discussed later in this report and access to individual lots will be reviewed during the building permit phase, this standard has been satisfied. Signs: Chapter 18.780 provides provisions for signs. The applicant has not indicated a sign will be provided. If signs are proposed, a sign permit will be required and may be obtained from the City Development Services Department. FINDING: Because signs will be reviewed if desired through a separate permit application, this standard has been satisfied. IN ADDITION, THE FOLLOWING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA SHALL BE MET: The development does not involve a multi-family or non-residential use therefore, the following additional review criteria do not apply and will not be discussed in this report: Private Outdoor Area: Multi-Family Use, Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Multi-Family Use, Privacy and noise. The following have been discussed previously in this report and will not be addressed in this section: Signs, and Parking. Relationship To The Natural And Physical Environment: The streets, buildings and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography, and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible; Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to slumping and sliding; There shall be adequate distance between on-site buildings and other on-site and off-site buildings on adjoining properties to provide for adequate light and air circulation and for fire protection; The structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where possible; and Trees preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. 4119/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 12 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION The site has been laid out to avoid the natural drainage at the nortest corner of the site and steep slopes. The applicant has submitted a geotechincal report that indicates the northern lots may be prone to instability if adequate measures are not taken during construction. The geotechnical report is based on a slightly different plan, therefore, the lot numbers referred to in the report differ from those on the plan. The lots identified in the report generally correspond with lots 5-8 on the proposed plan. The geotechnical report outlines recommendations for the northern lots. It appears feasible based on the geotechnical report that, if proper measures are taken, these lots can be safely developed. The Building Division will require compliance with geotechnical review standards during the building review on the individual lots, however, staff strongly recommends a condition requiring a geotechnical report be required for lots 5-8 prior to issuance of building permits. The project will be reviewed for compliance with applicable setbacks at. the time of building permit plan review which will insure that adequate light and air circulation is provided. All structures will be required to meet UBC standards for fire separation. The applicant has submitted a tree report which generally identifies the trees that are proposed to be removed and retained. The tree report does not identify the location of trees to be retained and removed. Given the size of the lots and street configuration, staff can assume that the trees within the proposed rights-of-way and toward the front of the lots will be removed. Given the slope and potential for ground instability. at the northern portion of the site, staff encourages as many trees as possible be retained. In order to evaluate if the trees proposed to be removed are in a location that makes sense, staff must see a plan that clearly identifies all of the trees by number and shows the trees to be removed versus retained. In addition, staff needs to see a plan that shows the typical building footprint for each lot to determine if perhaps, some trees towards the rear of the lots could be retained. The actual mitigation evaluation of trees to be removed is discussed further in this report. FINDING: Because the plans do not provide enough detail for staff to confirm that trees will be preserved to the greatest extent possible and the geotechnical report indicates that the northern lots may be prone to instability if proper measures are not taken, staff can not confirm that the Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment standards have been met. If the applicant complies with the conditions specified below, staff can determine that the standards are satisfied. CONDITIONS: Submit a plan that shows typical building footprint and the location of trees proposed to be retained and removed. The revised plan must clearly'show the tree numbers. If trees outside the typical building footprint are proposed to be removed, an explanation as to why the particular tree must be removed will be required. Prior to issuance of building permits on lots 5-8, a geotechnical report must be submitted to the City for review. Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining Uses: Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses (for example, between single- family and multiple-family residential, and residential, and commercial). The proposed land use is single-family detached residential. The Buffering and Screening Matrix (Section 18.745.1) does not require buffering or screening for proposed single-family detached uses. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix, the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under Chapter 18.745. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 13 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION As noted above, the Buffering and Screening Matrix does not require buffering or screening for proposed single-family detached uses. Therefore, a determination of the adequacy and extent of required buffers is not applicable to this proposal. On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such things as service areas, storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: (a) What needs to be screened; (b) the direction from which it is needed; and (c) whether the screening needs to be year-round. The proposed use is a single-family residential Subdivision/Planned Development. The applicant has not proposed any service areas, storage areas, parking lots or rooftop mechanical devices or other features that would require screening. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. FINDING: Because the site is single-family abutting single-family, the buffering and screening standards do not apply. Access and Circulation: The number of allowed access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.705. Access and Circulation is addressed elsewhere in this report. All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. One hammerhead turnaround is proposed at the end of the private street which meets the TVF&R dimensional standards by providing a 90-foot by 20-foot turning area with a 25-foot turning radius. The applicant has proposed a one-way cul-de-sac in order to reduce the amount of grading on the topography, however, the outside radius does not appear to meet the required 45-foot outside turning radius. The required radius provided in the plans includes part of what-appears to be a sidewalk. The street widths and patterns are discussed in more detail further in this report. Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways if such facilities are shown on an adopted plan. The City of Tigard Pedestrian/Bike Path Map located in the Comprehensive Plan does not identify a proposed path in this area. FINDING: Because the plan does not show the outside turning radius of the cul-de-sac meets the 45-foot standard, the Access and Circulation standards have not been met. If the applicant submits a plan that shows the radius for the cul-de-sac will be in accordance with the TVF&R standards, the Access and Circulation standards will be met. CONDITION: Submit a revised plan that shows the inside and outside radius of the cul-de-sac will be in accordance with the TVF&R standards. Landscaping and Open Space: Residential Development. In addition, a minimum of 20 percent of the site shall be landscaped. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 14 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION • As noted earlier, the gross site area of the proposed project is 5.17acres . The landscaped portion of the project must, therefore, be a minimum of 1.03 acres (20 percent). The applicant has not provided calculations describing what portion of the site will be landscaped. Because the proposed tract will be .36 acres, there is a remaining .67 acres, or 29,185.2 square feet remaining to be landscaped. While it is anticipated that this landscaping can be provided on individual lots, because there is no minimum landscaped area and the setback standards do not apply, staff can not confirm that this standard will be met without more information. Staff proposes that the applicant be required to submit a typical building footprint plan or some other method that shows the remaining 29,185.2 square feet of required landscaping will be provided. FINDING: Because the applicant has not provided detail on how the 20% landscaping requirement will be met, staff can not determine that this standard has been satisfied. If the .applicant submits a .plan that shows how each individual lot can be landscaped to insure that the total 20% landscaping requirement will be satisfied, staff can find that this standard has been met. CONDITION: Submit a plan that shows how each individual lot will be landscaped to insure that the total 20% landscaping requirement will be satisfied. Public Transit: Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on: ♦ The location of other transit facilities in the area; and ♦ The size and type of the proposed development; Based on staff review of the Tri-Met bus line map, there is no bus line along the frontage of this development. Therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: Because there is no bus line abutting this site, the Public Transit standard does not apply. Drainage: All drainage provisions shall be laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.810 and the criteria in the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan. The Engineering Department has reviewed this application and addressed the project's compliance with the City's storm water drainage standards. See comments under Public Facility Concerns. FINDING: Because drainage will be discussed and conditioned if necessary further in this report, this standard has been satisfied. Fooodplain Dedication: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. According to the adopted FEMA floodplain maps, the project site does not fall within the 100-year floodplain, therefore, this criterion does not apply. FINDING: Because the site does not fall within the 100-year floodplain, this standard does not apply. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 15 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION LAND DIVISION: SUBDIVISION (18.430) Approval Standards - Preliminary Plat: The proposed preliminary plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations The proposed project complies with the Comprehensive Plan's Low Density Residential designation for the subject property because it complies with the applicable provisions of the Community Development Code which implements the plan. Compliance with the majority of specific regulations and standards have been addressed previously within this report under the planned development review section. Several sections, not listed as approval criteria for Planned Developments, are applicable to Subdivisions. These Chapters are listed under ADDITIONAL SECTIONS APPLICABLE TO SUBDIVSIONS. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92. The applicant has not provided evidence that the proposed subdivision name has been reserved. . Prior to final plat, approval from Washington County must be provided to insure that the name is not duplicative. The Streets and roads are laid out so as to conform 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 further in this report. 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 report under Public Facilities Concerns. FINDING: Because the applicant has not provided evidence of the plat name being reserved at Washington County, staff can not confirm that all of the preliminary plat approval standards have been addressed. If the applicant submits confirmation from Washington County that the proposed subdivision name is not duplicative or submits a revised subdivision name approved by Washington County, this standard will be satisfied. All other preliminary plat approval standards have either been met outright or are conditioned as discussed later in this report. CONDITION: Submit confirmation from Washington County that the proposed subdivision name is not duplicative or submit confirmation of a revised subdivision name, approved by Washington County. ADDITIONAL SECTIONS APPLICABLE TO SUBDIVSIONS. Tree Removal, Chapter 18.790 requires mitigation of trees over 12" diameter at breast height (dbh) removed as part of the development of the site. The applicant's tree report states that there are 196 trees on the site which have diameters greater than 12 inches. The tree report does not total the trees to be removed or the trees that are considered hazardous and must be removed. The applicant states that greater than 75% of the trees will be retained, however, staff has no way of confirming this. In addition, the tree report does not 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 16 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION identify the location of trees rered to in the report. In order for S to determine that the proposal complies with the tree mitigation requirement, the applicant must submit a plan that specifies the total inches of trees to be removed and a program for mitigation in compliance with Section 18.790.030.B. It is feasible for this standard to be met if the applicant complies with the recommended condition of approval. Please note, that while the applicant may comply with the tree removal section of the code by providing this additional information, as discussed previously in this report, the applicant may be required to retain additional trees in order to comply with the Planned Development Criteria. The revised plan must show consistency with the conditions related to tree preservation. FINDING: Because the applicant has not submitted a tree report that clearly shows the location and number of existing trees over 12 inches caliper being removed, staff can not confirm that more than 75% of the existing trees will be retained. If the applicant submits a plan that clearly shows the number and location of existing trees and trees proposed to be removed, staff can determine if the standard has been satisfied. CONDITION: Submit a tree removal plan that clearly shows the number and location of existing trees and trees proposed to be removed. If the number of trees proposed to be removed exceeds 25%, the applicant must submit a tree mitigation plan to be approved by the Planning Division. 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 as necessary later in this report under Public Facility Concerns. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030(E) requires a local street to have a minimum 50-foot right-of-way and 32-foot paved section between curbs and sidewalks. The applicant's plans show the right-of-way will be 50 feet with 32 feet of pavement. This standard 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 give 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 adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. The subject site abuts large lots that could be redeveloped in the future. The applicant has shown on their plans how SW Locust Street will be extended within and east of the site. The applicant has not proposed the cul-de-sac be extended further to the east due to topography. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 17 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 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 reconfigure 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 is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. The applicant's plans show SW Locust Street and SW 70`h Street extending through the site. There are no other streets abutting the development which can be extended through the development site. Cul-De-Sacs: Section 18.810.030(K) requires that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental or topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation: ♦ All cul-de-sac shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other than circular, shall be approved by the City Engineer; and ♦ The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured along the centerline of the roadway from the near side of the intersecting street to the farthest point of the cul-de-sac. . ♦ If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the City. There will not be more than 20 houses taking access from the cul-de-sac. The applicant has proposed a cul-de-sac in excess of 200 feet. The applicant submitted supplemental information to request a variance to the cul-de-sac length. The cul-de-sac adjustment criteria are reviewed further in this report. Staff is recommending approval of the variance. With the Variance, the cul-de-sac length will be greater than 300 feet, therefore, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street is required. The applicant has indicated that a pedestrian access will be available to SW Ventura Drive via the open space tract, however, staff has great concerns that construction of such an access will impact the drainageway. Staff is not opposed to this, but would like additional detail in order to approve such a connection. If this location is not acceptable to the City, an alternate location within the water easement between lots 7 and 8 which would also be a logical location for a pedestrian path from the cul-de-sac bulb to SW Ventura Drive. 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 15, percent for distances of no greater than 250 feet. The street grades are discussed under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Curbs, Curb Cuts, Ramps, and Driveway Approaches: Section 18.810.030(N) requires the following: 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 18 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with standards specified in this Chapter and Tigard Municipal Code Section 15.04.080, and: ♦ Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except ♦ Where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval; and ♦ Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to City configuration standards. The applicant has indicated that the project will comply with all City construction standards and material specifications with respect to curbs, curb cuts, ramps and driveway approaches. The conditions of approval and the public improvement plan review process will insure that these standards are met. These criteria are discussed and conditioned, if necessary, further in this report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Block Designs - Section 18.810.040(A) states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed 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: Block 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: ♦ 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. ♦ For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. The development will aid in the formation of blocks, however,. due to existing street patterns and topographic constraints, the blocks formed by the streets through this development will continue to exceed 1,800 feet. Because the block length requirement is precluded from being met, in part due to topographic constraints, this standard is found not to apply. Block Lengths: Section 18.810.040(B)(2) states that when block lengths greater than 600 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. The intersection of SW 70th Avenue and the future intersection of SW 69th Avenue is less than 600 feet. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. 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-4.5 zoning district for single-family detached development is 7,500 square feet. Only Lot 8 is larger than 1.5 times the minimum lot size. However, the lot depth of this lot does not exceed 2.5 times the average lot width. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 19 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION As shown on the Preliminary Site Plan, all proposed lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public streets with the exceptions of Lot 20 which only has 20 feet of frontage and Lot 9, which only has 22 feet of frontage. Because this is processed as a Planned Development, the Planning Commission could determine that this standard need not apply. Because slight adjustments could be made, however, which would enable the standards to be met, staff recommends that the applicant be required to submit a revised plan that shows all lots will comply with the lot frontage standard. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all residential streets. The applicant is proposing to construct sidewalks to City standards on all public streets. Therefore, this criterion is met. Sanitary Sewers: Section 18.810.090 requires sanitary sewer service. The Engineering Department has.reviewed the applicant's materials, including the Preliminary Utilities Plan. Sanitary sewer is discussed later in this report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. 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 report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Based on the analysis therein, storm water drainage provisions will be provided as required and that this criterion is either satisfied outright or will be met upon compliance with the applicable conditions of approval. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the applicant has not met all of the Street and Utility Improvement Standards. Staff finds is feasible for the standards to be met if the applicant complies with the conditions specified below. CONDITIONS: • Submit a detail of the proposed pedestrian connection to SW Ventura Drive to show how it can be extended without impacting the drainage area. If it is not possible to extend a pedestrian connection in this area without an impact, the applicant must show a pedestrian connection between Lots 7and 8 on the final plat. ♦ Revise the plat so that all frontages will have 25 feet of frontage on a public or private street. Subdivision Adjustment - Maximum length of a Cul-de-sac: Community Development Code Section 18.370.020C.9 allows the Director to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the street improvement requirements based on findings that the following criterion is satisfied: Strict application of the standard will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on. existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or existing mature trees. The applicant has submitted a response to the variance criteria which indicates that a connection to SW Ventura Drive was considered originally, however, due to the slope and the natural drainageway at the northwestern portion of the site, it was determined that a connection was not feasible. In addition, due to 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 20 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION street spacing standards, the street could not be extended to SW Aura Drive at a point further east. The applicant has stated that the street was not proposed to extend to the east due to the location of an existing house on the property to the east of the site. The applicant has not submitted an existing conditions plan showing the location of structures on and off-site for staff to confirm this statement. In addition to attempting to protect the slope and drainage area, the applicant has indicated that the cul-de- sac will enable a greater, number of trees to be retained. As discussed previously within this report, the tree plan does not clearly indicate the trees that will be retained, so staff can not confirm this fact either. Compliance with the previous conditions of approval, however, will insure that as many trees as possible are retained. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards. If the street were extended to SW Ventura Drive within this subdivision, the proposal would exceed the slope requirement, result in. substandard street spacing and result in additional loss of trees not to mention the potential impacts to the existing drainageway. The proposed street layout will still provide two-peirrts-& ingress and egress into the subdivision (SW Locust Street 70th ) and -aad- &W provides for streets of adequate size to enable emergency vehicles access to the properties. As will be discussed, the proposal does not fully comply with dimensional standards for access and circulation, however, conditions have been recommended that will insure all these standards are satisfied. As conditioned, granting of the variance to allow a 390-foot cul-de-sac will not be detrimental to the public or injurious to the rights of other properties. Granting the variance for the length of the cul-de-sac would allow the length to be 180 feet longer than the development code requires. Allowing a length slightly greater than the standard does not interfere with the rights of adjoining property in any way. Surrounding properties have the ability to continue to use their property as they currently exist or to potentially develop the properties, whether or not the City grants the variance. FINDING: Because the applicant has submitted evidence that the potential impacts of not allowing the variance exceed the impacts of permitting this variance and that no adverse impact on public life or property will result from the approval of this variance, staff finds that the approval criteria have been satisfied. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: The City Engineering Department has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Streets: Tigard Development Code (TDC) 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved 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 Ventura Drive and is at the present terminus of SW Locust Street. SW 70th Avenue is also located to the south of this site. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 21 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION SW Ventura Drive This roadway is classified as a local residential street on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. This roadway classification requires a right-of-way (ROW) width of 50 feet. At present, there is approximately 50 feet of ROW adjacent to this site, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. Therefore, no additional dedications are necessary Ventura Drive is currently paved but not constructed to full City standards. In order for this street to current City standard, the applicant should construct a half-street improvement along this roadway as a part of the project. This improvement is roughly proportionate to the impact from this development, as shown by the impact analysis within the Planning Department Section of this report. SW Locust Street This roadway is also a local residential street with a 32-foot curb-to-curb section and a 50-foot ROW. The preliminary plan shows that the applicant will extend this street into this project to help provide access to the proposed lots. The street width dimensions will match the existing widths. SW 70th Avenue This roadway is also a local residential street that has not been fully dedicated and improved up to the south boundary of the site. The applicant has proposed to construct the portion of this roadway through the site in alignment with the existing ROW and improvements to the south. But until the properties to the south redevelop to where ROW and street improvements can be required, there will be a gap between the existing improvements to the south and the proposed new improvements. The applicant is proposing to terminate this roadway as a cul-de-sac near the north end of the site. A 90-degree bend is proposed toward the end of the street and from there to the end of the bulb the ROW and paved widths will decrease to 46 feet and 28 feet respectively. Because this segment of roadway will only serve a few lots, these widths are acceptable provided the applicant installs "No Parking" signs on one side of the roadway along that segment. The preliminary plan indicates what appears to be a raised median in SW 70th Avenue in the narrower segment and in the cul-de-sac bulb. It was not clear in the applicant's materials why this is shown, and such a median is not a standard feature in a public street. Staff does not believe this median is necessary and would increase City maintenance costs in the future if it were installed. Therefore, the applicant should not be allowed to construct this median in the public street. If the variance to the cul-de-sac length standard is granted, then the street name for this roadway should be "SW 70th Place". The variance request will be discussed next. Variance for Cul-de-sac Length The applicant has asked for a variance to TDC 18.810.030(K), which states that a cul-de-sac shall not be longer than 200 feet. The applicant's plan would result in a cul-de-sac (SW 70th Avenue) of approximately 390 feet in length. TDC 18.370 provides the criteria for granting a variance and the Planning Department will address this issue in greater detail in their section of this decision. The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicant's findings for why the variance should be granted. The applicant states that the variance should be granted for the following reasons: 1. The topography in the north/south direction is in excess of 18 which would yield a street with a grade of approximately 18%, thereby in violation of City standards (15% maximum grade). 2. There is a substantial drainageway along the northern boundary, which should not be disturbed to extend a northerly connection of SW 70th Avenue. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 22 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION 3. There is a "linear section of 25% plus topography approximately 160 feet in length running north/south along the subject site's northeasterly boundary that prevents a local street from being constructed as a through street connection. This topographic constraint, when combined with the location of the existing residence on the adjoining parcel to the east, necessitates a cul-de-sac design for the. proposed extension of SW 70th Avenue." (Taken from a letter from the applicant's engineer, dated March 17, 1999). 4. The cuts and fills near the eastern boundary would result in excessive impacts to the natural drainage area. Staff agrees with the first two points, but was initially less agreeable to Points #3 and #4. While the applicant's grading plan does indicate a "drainage" adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site that does appear to run in a northerly direction at a grade of approximately 25%, the easterly extension of the local street would be crossing this drainage, not following it. In addition, the existing house that is east of this site, while not shown on the applicant's plan, appears to be located such that an easterly extension of this roadway could be aligned in such a way that there would not be a conflict. Staff based this finding on a review of City aerial photos and topographic maps that show the house location in relation to this site. Staff talked with the engineer on March 18, 1999, and received additional written information concerning Points #3 and #4 dated March 19, 1999. If a street were extended toward the eastern boundary of the site, several complications would occur. First, the cross slope increases in grade from approximately 5% just prior to the proposed bulb, to approximately 23% near the eastern boundary. With cross slopes this extreme, the cuts above and the fills below the street would be excessive, and in order for the applicant to meet the Tigard standards for cross slopes outside the roadbed area, retaining walls would be required or extensive upslope and downslope grading to meet minimum grading requirements. These measures would preclude access into the lots abutting the street. Second, the excessive cuts and fills would result in a significant disturbance of the steeper- sloped area and the trees within that area. The applicant would like to avoid these impacts. Based upon the additional information provided by the applicant, and further review by Staff, it is our recommendation that the variance to the cul-de-sac length standard be granted. Proposed Private Street The plan proposes that Lots 18, 19 and 20 be served from a private street. TMC 18.810.030(S) limits the number of lots to be served from a private street to a total of six (6). Therefore, the proposed plan will meet this standard. Section 18.810.030(S) also indicates that the applicant shall ensure the continued maintenance of private streets by establishing a homeowners association. It is recommended that the applicant place a statement on the face of the final plat indicating the private street will be owned and maintained by the properties that will be served by it. In addition, the applicant should record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) along with the final plat that will clarify how the private property owners are to maintain the private street. These CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of the final plat. The City's public improvement design standards require private streets to have a pavement section equal to a public local street. The applicant will need to provide this type of pavement section. Traffic Engineer's Findings Lancaster Engineering submitted a traffic analysis letter, dated October 13, 1998, which addresses the project impacts onto the adjacent street system. The letter states that this site will generate approximately 16 new trips during the AM peak hour and approximately 22 trips during the PM peak hour. These trips will be split directionally and the net impact to SW 72 d Avenue during the AM'peak hour will be approximately 13%, and the impact to SW Locust Street west of SW 72nd Avenue during the AM peak hour will be approximately 6%. During the PM peak hour, the impact will be approximately 3% on SW 72nd Avenue and approximately 8% on SW Locust Street west of SW 72nd Avenue. These impacts are small and will likely not be noticed by drivers in the area. Therefore, no additional offsite traffic mitigation is necessary. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 23 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Water: This site will be served from the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD). There are existing water lines in SW Ventura Drive, SW 70th Avenue and SW Locust Street. The applicant's plans show that these existing water lines will be extended (looped) through the site. The applicant will need to obtain plan approval from TVWD, as a part of the City's review of the public improvement plans. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer line in SW 70th Avenue that extends northerly through this site to SW Ventura Drive and beyond. The applicant's preliminary utility plan shows that this line will be used to serve all of the lots in this site. The plan shows a short extension of a public sewer line in SW Ventura Drive to serve a few of the northerly lots. The plan proposes a public sewer extension from SW 70th Avenue easterly between two blocks of lots. Typically, the City avoids locating public lines in back or side yards because of the difficulty in accessing the lines in case of a breakage. This sewer line would only be approximately 300 feet in length, however, which could be easily cleaned with the City's sewer cleaning equipment from the manhole in. SW 70th Avenue. There is still a concern that this line could be vulnerable to breakage due to future fence construction along the common property line or other excavations typical in back yards of single-family dwellings. However, the City could accept a line in this location if it were constructed of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe. These two pipe materials are very strong and would be essentially "bullet proof' against excavations in the back yards. Therefore, the City would have little worry about future breakage. Staff recommends the sewer line location be approved provided the applicant construct this line of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe. Storm Drainage: The storm water from this site will be conveyed to the northwest corner of the site where it will be treated and released into a natural drainage channel that crosses SW Ventura Drive. The applicant submitted a downstream analysis that indicates that there should not be negative impacts to the downstream system from the additional storm water from this site. However, the City and USA recently completed a basin study of Fanno Creek. A resulting finding of that study indicated that all developments within the City must now provide onsite detention facilities. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide an onsite detention facility in addition to the proposed water quality facility. The applicant's plan indicates a new storm line to be extended in SW Locust Street through the site. However, the line is shown to stop short of the eastern boundary. Since it is unknown exactly how the street will be extended in the future and the needs for storm drainage on the adjacent property, the applicant should extend the public line to the eastern boundary (TDC 18.810.100). The applicant's plan does not show how Lots 13 through 16 will be accommodated with storm drainage facilities. Staff would assume that since the applicant is proposing to extend a public sanitary sewer line along the northern boundary of these lots, then a storm line would also. be appropriate. A storm drainage line serving these four lots would not need to be a public line, but could remain a private facility to be owned and maintained by the owners of Lots 13 through 16. Staff would recommend that the applicant be required to construct this line of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe, to avoid future problems as was mentioned in the Sanitary Sewer section of this report. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations 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 plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 24 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION As was stated previously, the applicant is proposing to provide a (1getated swale at the northwest corner of the site. The applicant shall provide a maintenance access road to the facility and any drainage structures within the facility to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. The access road shall be paved and a minimum of 15 feet wide. Prior to the City accepting this facility as a public facility, the developer shall maintain it for a minimum of three years after construction is completed. The pond shall be placed in a tract and conveyed to the City on the final plat. The developer will be required to submit annual reports to the City which show what maintenance operations were conducted on the facility for that year. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 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 water system 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) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the 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 plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots that are to be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The applicant will also be required to provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33-of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report will need to be incorporated into the final grading plan and a final construction supervision report must be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant did submit a report from. their geotechnical engineer, and there were come concerns about a few of the lot locations. However, Staff believes that if the applicant follows the recommendation given by the geotechnical engineer, then it is feasible to construct these lots in a safe manned. 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. 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). For parcels within the USB, an addressing fee in the amount of $30 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to approval of the final plat. For this project, the addressing fee will be $660 (22 lots X $30/address = $660). FINDING: Based on the information provided from Engineering, the applicant's plan does not fully comply with all of the Street and Utility Improvement standards. If the applicant complies with the Conditions 10 through 37 specified at the beginning of this report, then staff can determine that the standards have been met. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 25 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Tigard Police Department has reviewed this proposal and offered no comments or objections. The Tigard Building Division has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: (1) No Parking signs and curb markings on one side of street less than 36 feet; (2) fire truck access to within 150 feet of most remote exterior walls of buildings on lots 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11; (3) Provide cul-de- sac with turning radius inside of 25 feet and outside of 45 feet (UFC 902.2.2.3); (4) Provide fire access road way not less than 20 feet wide (UFC 902.2.1); (5) Provide fire hydrant at the corner of Tract A and SW Locust and entry to the hammer head drive and Locust; (6) provide storm drain lateral system to lots 5, 14, 15, 16, 2, 3 ,4 and 8. The City of Tigard Operations Department has reviewed the proposal and raised the following concerns: (1) At the time individual lots are developed for the Building Envelopes, with as much slope as the site has, it creates the need for cut and fill type of grading which can be more disruptive to the root systems and vegetation. (2) What is the time that the tree retention ratio is calculated? This needs to be addressed. It is stated that a retention greater than 75% of healthy trees greater than 12 inches on site will be provided, providing satisfaction of Section 18.790.030. Staff response: The issues raised are valid and should be addressed through the revised tree report showing the typical building envelopes. The mitigation requirements include all trees to be removed on individual lots for the placement of structures. The revised tree plan must also take into account grading required for the building footprints. The City of Tigard Operations Utility Manager has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: Question if the Tract "A" area is proposed to be public. If the tract area is not public, an easement is needed along the storm line between the 70th Avenue extension and SW Ventura Drive. Questions are also raised regarding the need for an additional catch basin. These comments are addressed under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS discussed previously in this report. SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS The Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County has reviewed this proposal and has offered comments. which have been incorporated into the body of this report. The Oregon Division of State Lands has reviewed the proposal offered the following comments: A small drainageway on the property may be jurisdictional which would require a DSL permit if impacted through development. If under 50 cubic yard of material is altered, filled or removed a permit would not be required. The US Army Corps of Engineers has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: Based on the drawing submitted by Scoles and Associates, it appears that the turn in 70th (adjacent to Tract A' and lot 5) may effect the drainage by grading at the source. A permit would be required if there is any grading within the drainage. Staff response: A condition will be attached requiring permit approval from the US Army Corps of Engineers and DSL if there is any alteration proposed for the drainage or the 25-foot buffer area. 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 26 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION The Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed the proposed and offered the following comments: We have reviewed the proposal and are not opposed to it. Please have Developer's engineer contact us to discuss layout of the water system before submitting plans for review and approval. Note that some revisions are in order to meet District requirements. Portland General Electric and GTE have reviewed this application and have offered no comments or objections. April .1. 1999 PREPARED BY Julia Powell H jduk DATE Associate. Planner dice April 1. 1999 APPROVED B ichard Be dorff DATE Planning M ger iAcurpln\julia\sub\Ventura Staff Report.doc 4/19/99 PUBLIC HEARING - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 27 OF 27 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-00131VAR99-0006 - VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION W A S I N G T O N SOU R E E S T A T E S ~ ` TL 1700 TL 2700 ` ` TL f70f TL 21100 TL 8f00 T.L 2700 S.W. VENTURA DRIVE I f I TL 7000 I s • :i TL {00 a ~aorsr = ~os,sr. ~u,sr.~l.~, • I Y ~ ,l ! f 1 0 I I O = i Tr~Deru ~ rir~u 11 : r w f r ~ a I I ~ v/ 3 TRACT 'A' o I 4 1 I auu:U`X..% 10 TL 7700 31x1 s!. „ 11 11 7 a u tr I I ' tla, sr. Solo u. I 1 < I~ 2 n. . tld I V TL 7100 T.L T700 iS 3133 1 1 11 nlc, 004 k 1 u u 1a W I am= y n 4a,7 sr r,.uo sr. i 4,u1 Sr t tlsr ir. 'F 2 :1 1 r/ mm.cvn 1 Z W a LL.~ I~Ir 1!M! ! - sr - Q u lama 4 W to td- 4 ' a a Itlltl~ 7S W. LOCUST STREET ---a-- - - - - CL a4 I ~ ~ w n.aa 1~ r n 11 i i _ I t 22 21 a 7,741 it ~m,s.r I 2S.u , sr. I f, 77asr. o ' Q A. 701 u « I ; ~ I V •y 1 TL 6600 T1 7000 1 1 1 I I 1 1 T1 702 1 MlmMAKfK11w' IY 1 flllr , ,ru IpO¢m I a n.o10n 1 I 1 , . < 1 I A11.us 1 ' 20 11 W I III 7.590 Sf. L Z 4x60 Sr. 7,150 Sr. ` 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 L T.1- {{0o I ~ TL 000 1 ' W TL 11400 I T.L 3,03 1 1 T.L no{ , 1 1 1 1 , Tl 1007 1 ' f.. I I' `a~ U T.L. 7400 1 ' ~ 1 I ; T.L. 1{00 I *40 I 1 1 I I I I~ I ~ 1 I ' ' I I 1 I 1 V1 1 I 1 1 CASE NO(S) 8 CASE MAME[Sk SITE PLAN SUB 98-0014 VENTURA PDR 98-0013 ESTATES EXHIBIT MAP N 'A' 99-0'0' SUBDIVISION CITY of TIGARD OEOORAGHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP ELMWOODST LOLA LN ALFREE 7- VICINITY MAP L 6 ST SUB 98-0014 ~ ARA PDR 98-0013 LN v URA VAR 99-0007 _ DR VE NTU RA ESTATES ~ s SUBDIVISION (2) SUBJEC URA VENTURA PARCELS R LI a L LOCUST ST j Q L N w w Q Q 0 100 200 300 100 500 Feet MAPLELEAF ST = r- 376 root H ~o to L OAK ST w w City of Tigard F-1 F- I > OAK Q Q Infomtatlon on this map is for general location only and ST = should be verified with the Oevelapnant Servloss Division. CD 13125 SW Hall Blvd CD Tigard, OR 27223 (503) 639-4171 Q r77- i httpJlwr+AV.ci.6gard.or.u3 t Plot date: Feb 1, 1999; QVnagic\MAGIC02.APR munity Development CITY OF TIGARD Community Deve[opmerit S(apingA Oetter Community PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY. APRIL 19,1999 AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NOS.: SUBDIVISION [SUB] 98-0014 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PORI 98-0013 VARIANCE [VAR] 99-0007 FILE TITLE: VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION APPLICANT: Ivy Yip APPLICANT: Barry Desbiens REP.: Ken Sandblast Ashwood Homes, Inc. Wingate Corporation Land Solutions 8760 SW Pacer Drive 15840 S. Pope Lane PO Box 38 Beaverton, OR 97008-6915 Oregon City, OR 97045 Clackamas, OR 97015 OWNERS: Helen L. Wegener Fred Neuman 580 NW Alpine Terrace 19730 SE Semple Road Portland, OR 97210 Clackamas, OR 97015 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Subdivision and Planned Development Review approval for a 22-lot detached single-family residential Planned Development Subdivision. The applicant is also requesting a Variance to the maximum length to allow a cul-de-sac in excess of 200 feet. There is natural area that is proposed to be preserved in a tract area within the subdivision. LOCATION: The subject parcels are located on the south side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 70th Avenue; 1 S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.370, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.390 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 320 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR 99-0007 ' VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION NOTICE OF 4/19/99 P.C. PUBLIC HEARING IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENC' SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION pR MARCH 29, 1999, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTII\5ANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS ~O CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST-EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ORS 197.763(6). INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AND ALL PARTIES TO RESPOND PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25G) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25~) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER JULIA HAJDUK AT (503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. ELMWOOD T LOLA LN ALFRED LL- -ST 0 BARBARA LN V URA = DR H v ~ Cy, J (2) SUBJEC URA VEN U PARCELS R w a L LOCUST ST w L w w MAPLELEAF ST = H rn h L OAK T w w OAK ST SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0007 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION NOTICE OF 4/19/99 P.C. PUBLIC HEARING FROM LAND-SOLUTIONS, Inc. PHONE NO. : 15037228585 Mar. 19 1999 09:46AM P2 LAND SOLUTIONS, Inc. 9140 S.E. St. HeleOnsSMAet Clackamas. OR 97015 Planning . Permits • Project Management Tel: 503-722.8585 F2%: 503-722-8555 www.landsolubonr,.com March 19, 1999 Mr. Brian Rager, P.E. City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE. File No. SUB 98-00141PDR 98-0013 - Ventura Estates Subdivision Application Dear Mr. Rager: As per your request, this letter is submitted to supplement the previously submitted application materials involving the turnaround variance issue and the possibility of constructing the extension of S. W. 70"' Avenue to the eastern boundary of the subject site. To summarize previously submitted application materials regarding the proposed cul-de-sac design for S.W. 70'hAvenue versus a street stub to the eastern boundary, the variance for cul- de-sac length is a combined result of the existing boundary configuration of the subject site, the surrounding existing development and street network, and the twenty five percent plus topography on and adjacent to the subject site. The topography of the subject site through which the proposed centerline of the S.W. 70m Avenue extension would be placed has slopes in excess of twenty five percent. Although possible to engineer an extension through topography this steep, in this case the resulting construction across these slopes would create significant impacts to the topography and trees located on the subject site through the resulting use of cut slopes, retaining walls, possible culverting and may involve slope easements from adjoining property. To not exceed City of Tigard engineering design standards for cross slope grades on new local street construction, the roadway constructed through the northeastern section of the subject site would required extensive grading to create a "flat" roadbed. Given the existing topography, this would create the need for either: retaining walls on both sides of the road or extensive upslope and downslope grading to meet minimum grading requirements. The applicant believes that neither of these impacts is preferable, the first due to public safety and the inability to create lots with vehicular access, and the second due to significant site impacts. It is as a result of these special and unusual circumstances that the cul-de-sac design is proposed and the resulting variance necessary. This subdivision application was designed and prepared as a planned development at the direction of the applicant to minimize the overall impacts of developing the subject site. We believe that the proposed cul-de-sac design is the best alternative to achieve this objective while still developing the site at allowable densities. Please include this letter within the record for the above referenced file number. If you have any questions or require additional information, I may be contacted at 722-8585. Si ~ere~,y -4 L 1. Kenneth L. Sandblast cc: Wingate Homes Ashwood Homes K~ 6:c' broieusuY] i wnor,wrrt.dpo Providing Profitable and Creative Land Development Solutions MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: March 19, 1999 TO: Julia Hajduk, Associate Planner FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer RE: SUB 98-0014, Ventura Estates Subdivision Description: This application is for a 22-lot single-family detached subdivision with a Planned Development approval. The site is located to the south of SW Ventura Drive, east of the terminus of SW Locust Street and north of the terminus of SW 70th Avenue (1 S1 36AA, Tax Lots 601 and 700). Findings: 1. Streets: TDC 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved 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 Ventura Drive and is at the present terminus of SW Locust Street. SW 70th Avenue is also located to the south of this site. SW Ventura Drive This roadway is classified as a local residential street on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. This roadway classification requires a right-of- way (ROW) width of 50 feet. At present, there is approximately 50 feet of ROW adjacent to this site, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. Therefore, no additional dedications are necessary. SW Ventura Drive is currently paved but not constructed to full City standards. In order for this street to meet current City standards, the applicant should construct a half-street improvement along this roadway as a part of the project. This improvement is roughly proportionate to the ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 98-0014 Ventura Estates Subdivision PAGE 1 impact from this development, as shown by the impact analysis within the Planning Department section of the decision. SW Locust Street This roadway is also a local residential street with a 32-foot curb-to-curb section and a 50-foot ROW. The preliminary plan shows that the applicant will extend this street into this project to help provide access to the proposed lots. The street width dimensions will match the existing widths. SW 70th Avenue This roadway is also a local residential street that has not been fully dedicated and improved up to the south boundary of the site. The applicant has proposed to construct the portion of this roadway through the site in alignment with the existing ROW and improvements to the south. But until the properties to the south redevelop to where ROW and street improvements can be required, there will be a gap between the existing improvements to the south and the proposed new improvements. The applicant is proposing to terminate this roadway as a cul-de-sac near the north end of the site. A 90-degree bend is proposed toward the end of the street and from there to the end of the bulb the ROW and paved widths will decrease to 46 feet and 28 feet respectively. Because this segment of roadway will only serve a few lots, these widths are acceptable provided the applicant installs "No Parking" signs on one side of the roadway along that segment. The preliminary plan indicates what appears to be a raised median in SW 70th Avenue in the narrower segment and in the cul-de-sac bulb. It was not clear in the applicant's materials why this is shown, and such a median is not a standard feature in a public street. Staff does not believe this median is necessary and would increase City maintenance costs in the future if it were installed. Therefore, the applicant should not be allowed to construct this median in the public street. If the variance to the cul-de-sac length standard is granted, then the street name for this roadway should be "SW 70th Place". The variance request will be discussed next. Variance for Cul-de-sac Length The applicant has asked for a variance to TDC 18.810.030(K), which states that a cul-de-sac shall not be longer than 200 feet. The applicant's plan would result in a cul-de-sac (SW 70th Avenue) of approximately 390 feet in length. TDC 18.370 provides the criteria for granting a variance and the Planning Department will address this issue in greater detail in their section of this decision. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 98-0014 Ventura Estates Subdivision PAGE 2 The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicant's findings for why the variance should be granted. The applicant states that the variance should be granted for the following reasons: 1. The topography in the north/south direction is in excess of 18%, which would yield a street with a grade of approximately 18%, thereby in violation of City standards (15% maximum grade). 2. There is a substantial drainageway along the northern boundary, which should not be disturbed to extend a northerly connection of SW 70th Avenue. 3. There is a "linear section of 25% plus topography approximately 160 feet in length running north/south along the subject site's northeasterly boundary that prevents a local street from being constructed as a through street connection. This topographic constraint, when combined with the location of the existing residence on the adjoining parcel to the east, necessitates a cul-de- sac design for the proposed extension of SW 70th Avenue." (Taken from a letter from the applicant's engineer, dated March 17, 1999). 4. The cuts and fills near the eastern boundary would result in excessive impacts to the natural. drainage area. Staff agrees with the first two points, but was initially less agreeable to Points #3 and #4. While the applicant's grading plan does indicate a "drainage" adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site that does appear to run in a, northerly direction at a grade of approximately 25%, the easterly extension of the local street would be crossing this drainage, not following it. In addition, the existing house that is east of this site, while not shown on the applicant's plan, appears to be located such that an easterly extension of this roadway could be aligned in such a way that there would .not be a conflict. Staff based this finding on a review of City aerial photos and topographic maps that show the house location in relation to this site. Staff talked with the engineer on March 18, 1999, and received additional written information concerning Points #3 and #4, dated March 19, 1999. If a street were extended toward the eastern boundary of the site, several complications would occur. First, the cross' slope increases in grade from approximately 5% just prior to the proposed bulb, to over 23% near the eastern boundary. With cross slopes this extreme, the cuts above and the fills below the street would be excessive, and in order for the applicant to meet Tigard standards for cross slopes outside of the roadbed area, retaining walls would be required or extensive upslope and downslope grading to meet minimum grading requirements. These measures would preclude access into the lots abutting the street. Second, the excessive ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 98-0014 Ventura Estates Subdivision PAGE 3 cuts and fills would result in a significant disturbance of the steeper-sloped area and the trees within that area. The applicant would like to avoid these impacts. Based upon the additional information provided by the applicant, and further review by Staff, it is our recommendation that the variance to the cul-de-sac length standard be granted. Proposed Private Street The plan proposes that Lots 18, 19 and 20 be served from a private street. TMC 18.810.030(S) limits the number of lots to be served from a private street to a total of six (6). Therefore, the proposed plan will meet this standard. 18.810.030(S) also indicates that the applicant shall ensure the continued maintenance of private streets by establishing a homeowners association. It is recommended that the applicant place a statement on the face of the final plat indicating the private street will be owned and maintained by the properties that will be served by it. In addition, the applicant should record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) along with the final plat that will clarify how the private property owners are to maintain the private street. These CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of the final plat. The City's public improvement design standards require private streets to have a pavement section equal to a public local street. The applicant will need to provide this type of pavement section. Traffic Engineer's Findings Lancaster Engineering submitted a traffic analysis letter, dated October 13, 1998, which addresses the project impacts onto the adjacent street system. The letter states that this site will generate approximately 16 new trips during the AM peak hour and approximately 22 trips during the PM peak hour. These trips will be split directionally and the net impact to SW 72nd Avenue during the AM peak hour will be approximately 13%, and the impact to SW Locust Street west of SW 72nd Avenue during the AM peak hour will be approximately 6%. During the PM peak hour, the impact will be approximately 3% on SW 72nd Avenue and approximately 8% on SW Locust Street west of SW 72nd Avenue. These impacts are small and will likely not be noticed by drivers in the area. Therefore, no additional offsite traffic mitigation is necessary. 2. Water: This site will be served from the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD). There are existing water lines in SW Ventura Drive, SW 70th Avenue and SW Locust Street. The applicant's plans show that these existing water lines will be extended (looped) through the site. The applicant will need to ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 98-0014 Ventura Estates Subdivision PAGE 4 obtain plan approval from TVWD, as a part of the City's review of the public improvement plans. 3. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer line in SW 70th Avenue that extends northerly through this site to SW Ventura Drive and beyond. The applicant's preliminary utility plan shows that this line will be used to serve all of the lots in this site. The plan shows a short extension of a public sewer line in SW Ventura Drive to serve a few of the northerly lots. The plan proposes a public sewer extension from SW 70th Avenue easterly between two blocks of lots. Typically, the City avoids locating public lines in back or side yards because of the difficulty in accessing the lines in case of a breakage. This sewer line would only be approximately 300 feet in length, however, which could be easily cleaned with the City's sewer cleaning equipment from the manhole in SW 70th Avenue. There is still a concern that this line could be vulnerable to breakage due to future fence construction along the common property line or other excavations typical in back yards of single-family dwellings. However, the City could accept a line in this location if it were constructed of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe. These two pipe materials are very strong and would be essentially "bullet proof' against excavations in the back yards. Therefore, the City would have little worry about future breakage. Staff recommends the sewer line location be approved provided the applicant construct this line of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe. 4. Storm Drainage: The storm water from this site will be conveyed to the northwest corner of the site where it will be treated and released into a natural drainage channel that crosses SW Ventura Drive. The applicant submitted a downstream analysis that indicates that there should not be negative impacts to the downstream system from the additional storm water from this site. However, the City and USA recently completed a basin study of Fanno Creek. A resulting finding of that study indicated that all developments within the City must now provide onsite detention facilities. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide an onsite detention facility in addition to the proposed water. quality facility. The applicant's plan indicates a new storm line to be extended in SW Locust Street through the site. However, the line is shown to stop short of the eastern boundary. Since it is unknown exactly how the street will be extended in the future and the needs for storm drainage on the adjacent property, the applicant should extend the public line to the eastern boundary (TDC 18.810.100). ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 98-0014 Ventura Estates Subdivision PAGE 5 The applicant's plan does not show'how Lots 13 through 16 will be accommodated with storm drainage facilities. Staff would assume that since the applicant is proposing to extend a public sanitary sewer line along the northern boundary of these lots, then a storm line would also be appropriate. A storm drainage line serving these four lots would not need to be a public line, but could remain a private facility to be owned and maintained by the owners of Lots 13 through 16. Staff would recommend that the applicant be required to construct this line of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe, to avoid future problems as was mentioned in the Sanitary Sewer section of this report. 5. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations 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 plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. As was stated previously, the applicant is proposing to provide a vegetated swale at the northwest corner of the site. The applicant shall provide a maintenance access road to the facility and any drainage structures within the facility to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. The access road shall be paved and a minimum of 15 feet wide. Prior to the City accepting this facility as a public facility, the developer shall maintain it for a minimum of three years after construction is completed. The pond shall be placed in a tract and conveyed to the City on the final plat. The developer will be required to submit annual reports to the City which show what maintenance operations were conducted on the facility for that year. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 98-0014 Ventura Estates Subdivision PAGE 6 immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 6. 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 water system 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) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the 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 plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots that are to be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The applicant will also be required to provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report will need to be incorporated into the final grading plan and a final construction supervision report must be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant did submit a report from their geotechnical engineer, and there were some concerns about a few of the lot locations. However, Staff believes that if the applicant follows the recommendations given by the geotechnical engineer, then it is feasible to construct these lots in a safe manner. 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. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 98-0014 Ventura Estates Subdivision PAGE 7 7. 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). For parcels within the USB, an addressing fee in the amount of $ 30.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to approval of the final plat. For this project, the addressing fee will be $660.00 (22 lots X $30/address = $660.00). Recommendations: THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT: Note: Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact for the following conditions will be Brian Rager, Engineering Department (639-4171). 1. Prior to approval of the final plat, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Six (6) 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. 2. As a part 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, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 3. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park 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 application, ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 98-0014 Ventura Estates Subdivision PAGE 8 and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 4. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee in the amount of $660.00. 5. The applicant shall construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of SW Ventura Drive. The improvements adjacent to this site shall.include: A. City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 16 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. 5 foot concrete sidewalk; F. street trees behind the sidewalk spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; 1. underground utilities; J. street signs (if applicable); K. driveway apron (if applicable); and L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Ventura Drive in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 5. The applicant shall provide "No Parking" signs on one side of SW 70th Avenue (Place) along the segment where the curb-to-curb width is only 28 feet. 6. If the variance to the cul-de-sac length standard is granted, the applicant shall name the north/south cul-de-sac "SW 70th Place". 7. The applicant will not be allowed to construct a raised median/island in SW 70th Avenue (Place), as shown on the preliminary plan. 8. Full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic 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. 9. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private street will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from it. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 98-0014 Ventura Estates Subdivision PAGE 9 10. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private street. The CC&R's shall obligate the private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the street. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) prior to approval of the final plat. 11. The pavement and rock section of the proposed private street shall meet the City's public street standard for a local residential street. 12. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed public water work prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. . 13. The applicant shall construct the public sanitary sewer line, proposed along the north boundaries of Lots 13 through 16, of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe. A manhole shall be provided at the end of this pipe run, as shown on the preliminary plan. 14. The applicant shall extend the proposed storm drainage line in SW Locust Street to the easternboundary of the site. 15. The applicant shall construct a private storm drainage line along the northern boundaries of Lots 13 through 16. This line shall be owned and maintained by the owners of Lots 13 through 16, and shall be constructed of either PVC C-900 or ductile iron pipe. 16. The applicant shall provide an onsite detention facility, designed to meet the USA Design and Construction Standards. A final design and calculation package shall be submitted to the Engineering Department as a part of the public improvement plan review. 17. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) as a part of the public improvement plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract to the City of Tigard on the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the three-year maintenance ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 98-0014 Ventura Estates Subdivision PAGE 10 period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 18. The applicant shall provide a maintenance access road to the facility and any drainage structures within the facility to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. The access road shall be paved and a minimum of 15 feet wide. 19. 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." 20. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of 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 Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). 21. The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the 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. 22. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. 23. The design engineer shall 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. 24. 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. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 98-0014 Ventura Estates Subdivision PAGE 11 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. 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. D. Once the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer's signature. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 25. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the subdivision/partition plat. 26. 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) any off-site street and/or utility improvements are completely finished, and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. 27. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) mylars, and 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable. Note: if the public improvement drawings were hand-drawn, then a diskette is not required. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 98-0014 Ventura Estates Subdivision PAGE 12 IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST: 18.430.080 Improvement Agreement: Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: 1. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying 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 provide 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 by 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. 18.430.100 Filing and Recording: ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 98-0014 Ventura Estates Subdivision PAGE 13 Within 60 days of 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 Application Submission Requirements: Three copies of the subdivision plat prepared by a land 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 accordance 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 points; 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. Monument Boxes Required Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 18.810 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 98-0014 Ventura Estates Subdivision PAGE 14 18.810.120 Utilities All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.810.130 Cash or Bond Required All improvements installed by the 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 Installation Prerequisite No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefor have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.810.180 Notice to City Required Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. 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 divider's 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's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 98-0014 Ventura Estates Subdivision PAGE 15 THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. I:\eng\brianr\comments\su b98-0014.bdr.doc ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 98-0014 Ventura Estates Subdivision PAGE 16 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIOARD RECEIVED PLANNING Community (Development ShapingA Better Community DATE: February 16, 1999 MAR 15 1999 TO: Lori Dorsey, US West Communications CITY OF TIGARD FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT. Julia Powell Halduk, Associate Planner Phone: 15031639.4111 / Fax:15031684-1291 RE: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 98-0014/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW [PORI 98-0013 ➢ VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Q The applicant is requesting Subdivision and Planned Development Review approval for a 22-lot detached single- family residential Planned Development Subdivision. There is natural area that is proposed to be preserved in a tract area within the subdivision. LOCATION: The subject parcels are located on the south side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 70th Avenue; 1 S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached is the Site Plan, ViCinity Map and Applicant's Statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: TUESDAY - MARCH 21999 "NOTE: PLEASE RSVP DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTSI. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by [be above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. _ Please contact of our office. _ Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: ftrease provide the folZ wing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: Phone Number[s): 2 - ~Sc,~vt SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION REQUEST FOR COMMENTS REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development RECEIVED PLANNI"apingA Better Community DATE: February 16,1999 F E B 17 1999 TO: David Scott, Building Official CITY OF TIGARD FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT. Julia Powell Halduk Associate Planner Phone: 150316394171 / Fax: 15031684-1291 RE: E SUBDIVISION (SUB) 98-0014/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW [PORI 98-0013 ➢ VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Q The applicant is requesting Subdivision and Planned Development Review approval for a 22-lot detached single- family residential Planned Development Subdivision. There is natural area that is proposed to be preserved in a tract area within the subdivision. LOCATION: The subject parcels are located on the south side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 70th Avenue; 1S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicants Statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: TUESDAY - MARCH 2.1999 "NOTE: PLEASE RSVP DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTSI. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by Me above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. _ Please contact of our office. _ Please refer to the enclosed letter. _kZ Written comments provided below: CI) /No ~.orK/lNd tidrri .4wie stir/~ ~+or.t~Ti e,ti Cl) J19~ m~ ~t}.e~ L 7.7Mac~ (A) flKi f'rticAr Iyetor» to ev1/tile pro, CA=a►]401f rt.,,.l40 px) IJ4)h e/C dl i V!J !&'L[ o ._97 ~l•Na it . ~3 Ir~~~ o ca/.~tJae^ (✓11`4 rw.►wt F~iiiv~ LS -u.~'rtJ~. ys~ 'Arc (701 i{ .Z7 61) C'r,1,14 rion- /4-t!!// dfiA-1 woe. AdP leli k4e k -Zr',- (4FC 9d? 2.? 1 ,~~77U 1 / i CS~ YVv► We F u~ t'e~Mnw~. er / fK.%.[. ~ J kli ! t9C4 J ~/~4iA e'~ l w.. 'ILo ~]nr►.~.,~v Att ` D 1 1 r ~ oc CC 1 ~~o V 1 U. ~ J'• b L w 1'/ • ~ /fy/ /".t ~L] L d 1~1 ~Y~ ~ 3,Tt , kfj please provide the following information) Name of Personls) Commenting: Phone Numberlsh SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION REQUEST FOR COMMENTS REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIOARD Community (Development RECEIVED PLANNING ShapingA (Better Community DATE: February 16,1999 TO: Brian Moore, PGE Service Design Consultant F E B 2 2 1999 CITY OF TIGARD FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Halduk Associate Planner Phone: (50316394111 / Fax: (5031684-1291 RE: SUBDIVISION (SUB] 98-0014/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PORI 98-0013 ➢ VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Q The applicant is requesting Subdivision and Planned Development Review approval for a 22-lot detached single- family residential Planned Development Subdivision. There is natural area that is proposed to be preserved in a tract area within the subdivision. LOCATION: The subject parcels are located on the south side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 701h Avenue; 1 S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicants Statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: TUESDAY - MARCH 2,1999 "NOTE. PLEASE RSVP DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTSI. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. 11you are unable to respond by Me above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. _ Please contact of our office. _ Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: (hease provide the following information) Name of Persou(sl Commenting: y, ,gam Phone Number(Sh S-'7) -44.CX, SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION REQUEST FOR COMMENTS O CITY OF TIOARD REQUEST FOR COJ Community (Development VEO~: (Better Community DATE: February 16,1999 ce1999 T0: Tualatin Valley Water District Administrative 0Di of T/40 FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTAAssociate Planner Phone:1503) 639-4171 / Fax:15031684-1 BE SUBDIVISION (SUB) 98-OOWPLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW [PORI 98-0013 ➢ VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Q The applicant is requesting Subdivision and Planned Development Review approval for a 22-lot detached single- family residential Planned Development Subdivision. There is natural area that is proposed to be preserved in a tract area within the subdivision. LOCATION: The subject parcels are located on the south side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 700' Avenue; 1 S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The purpose of the R4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached is the Site Plan, MO N Map and AP011cauft Statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: TUESDAY - MARCH 2.1999 "NOTE: PLEASE RSVP DOE TO TIME CONSTRAINTSI. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. It you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. _ Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: a-0 a-re- fl- a3s:~ r D (Please provide tke fo&, ing information) Name of PersONIS) COMMOR 9: Phone Number(s): p Z SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TOOe DNIH33[NIDNH aAAZ 9960 T69 COS XVJ 0£:80 NOR 66/ZZ/ZO REQUEST FOR COMMENT CITY Oa TIGARD RECEIVED PLANNING Community vewropment SfiapirrgA rDetter Community DATA Februeni 18.1099 FEB 2 4 1999 TO: Elaine Self BTE OGy OF TIGARD FROM: 011V of Tigard Planning Dlulltlon STAFF CONTACT: lulls MON Nelduk ASSOCIate Planner Pbon~ 1808) 889-4111 / 1'Li:1508) 8840491 RE: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 08-OOWPIANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIE N (PORI 98.0018 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Q The applicant Is requesting Subdivision and Planned Development Review approval for a 22-lot detached single. family residential Planned Development Subdivislon. There is natural area that Is proposed to be preserved in a tract area wlthln the subdivision. LOCATION: The subject parcels are located on the south side of SW'Ventura Drive at the terminl of SW Locust Street and SW 70'' Avenue; iS136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential.ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached Is the Site Pien, V11911 i M80 and APPHUntS Stetenlelit for your review. From Information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other Information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: TUESDAY - MARCN 2.1999 ``NOTE PLEASE RSVP DOE TO TIME CONSTRAINTSL You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If log ere unable to reanond by die above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments In writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Divislon, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to It. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: (~1 oe pmvidc tr¢ fvZudng inf oration) Name of Pei'a0n1E~ Commendne: Phone Nnmbeils): 100 'd 9LL80Z9U3:131 N9I53Q SS300V ONDI 311 £I Li i(IH~,)66.8t- 83H REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OFTIGARD Community (Development ShgpingA Better Community DATE February 16, 1999 TO: US Army Corns. of Enulneers FROM: City of Tlnard Plannlnu Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Ha]duk Associate Planner Phone: (5031639-4171/Fax- [503] 684-1291 BE IL SUBDIVISION [SUB] 98-0014/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW [POR] 98-0013 ➢ VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Q The applicant is requesting Subdivision and Planned Development Review approval for a 22-lot detached single- family residential Planned Development Subdivision. There is natural area that is proposed to be preserved in a tract area within the subdivision. LOCATION: The subject parcels are located on the south side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 70"' Avenue; 1 S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinhy Map and Applicant's Statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: TUESDAY - MARCH 2. 1999 "NOTE PLEASE RSVP DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTSI. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond bythe above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. _ Please contact of our office. _ Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: S C4 9~ Ile '1'4 164 1 (Tkase provide tfte foanving inyonnation) Name of Person( mentin . !Mil 1_0 ~Wu Phone Number[ : vrSUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION REQUEST FOR COMMENTS \ W A i I N O T O i 0 U R E E t T A T! t Holy. mr : •n i wy. • ~ °M rL fu.r- iL +n, _ rL tw TL rw-- rL n,1 y, f"'f Iwa as wn... ~m iq SITE i i 7 ! . ~ ,L .a rt ! ' xmfu - 7,aN S;r, 7.w u. / R I S t ~ I- / flfo v. ~ \ ~ / ~ ~ 2 j ~ - ~ Molflr'7 f1AO sr+c .a / t • m 4 I s = I ~11/L rtfisl ~ ~ R. ~ \ TRACT .Ar ~Y~[~IY(Y O e o r 10 LEGAL DISCRIPTION: A'"7Tf „ xavsi I TAX LOTS 602 6 700 ,L n.. ~iamxi Amon a T.1S, RAW, 36AA r j >b ~d WASHINGTON COUNTY rL rw *L 7fa AAau AREA . 5.15 ACRES ~ f 1 bb n u u rI 4rr7xr aafos7 alfr si C" sr o. ftl. n'Aar ffm le.m N.m wm wm 1«m 1 r - aNfY - - _Y C- t 1 `•f Zr TQRI AVDARE 1 t 1 k a k ~ _y-_ _ Scvt' i• . IO 1011101'¢ K 1 r m + T7 1 ; f lafwlrn7r. fma blur. f,fm lafa./fu.rr.a ,ra..~ = 1 u •7.,„a!. a x7N V. :I 1 1 ~ i nfu.n.N r.fN C 0 a.w:< X 4711:, 1{ I ; i rvNrv•Mn 1 aA.tlm 'tlay K' G ,4 1 ; I •►m IDIrT.If M'-f11f 1 mm'r ' 7 Ia Mf4 D•N TL 10.4 1 rL 1M « 1 j f! R 8 y~y ' y 1YN(Y. a,N i1 .lea ; ,L b I V ' j 1 1 $ 1< i i t~ x in 1 r... awes 1 1 t R 5 5 ' io r - ¢ a° Y =7.Df0Y. ECUs, gmar.. a _ L\I I I 6 I 1 1: a 11 rra Ta. Mf 1 rL f.a TL f., ,L TL ,W ~ I i ~ I! TflY Wms 'q I«m Wm N.m , tj I I , ,L ra I le I 4 !p Ar LDCRT STREET I I 1 11 1 f 7y l.m I~ j 1 1; d suu: . sc Ilana,.f 1 7~ I I I I I I am 1 ` 1 I =25PROME f PRELIMINARY PLAT AND STREET PLAN •'m °'~'0i COMPASS CORPORATION ASHWOOD AND WINGATE LOCUST STREET SUBDIVISION tro 1 r _ fv N>r Ifr in mo . RUR,livmo ~P"Kmxo TIGAM OREGON A 131 m -I W A i I N G T O i 0 U [ i T A---- \`I W A f I N O T O i 0 U i[ ! i T A T[ i T/.«. ` TL TL W. TL .W ra rt.. tL M« 11 V« TL TL r«t rl w. TL . l 6R WTI. .WBrf 1L 1T0. i ~ rl tl 1W it w rL rl i T 3 TfACT 'A• I ; 0 0 o a , to ° I s < < I i1 rW rL it« I it IrM it H« ~ + i ' p 11 tf • I ~ # r f ' - - - 11-------------- \ aR uwr~r. 1 i ~ z r I t ' ff !t i ; r i ; ' ' i rl r.r I i i ~ Tl we Tl rw i i I 1L Tl Tl m I ITLw ~ , ;tlw rl w rl w rL w rL ~ r~J w w l u w i ra ~ rl w , ' ~ ' I rLw , uw ' I f rLw ~ I m1w ' TLrw ( I i I~ I ' I ' YYYYY • , I ~ ~ raw I ( , ~ rt w I I. I ~ I ~ ~ I I I I• I ~ ! I ~ PRELIMINARY UTILITY AND GRADING PLAN COMPASS CORPORATION ASHWOOD AND WINGATE LOCUST STREET SUBDIVISION 2 r _ av en .w Hsu RRapfltNwa . UUWMVMG . PLAU N O TIGARD. OREGON n 1 C 0J./,D1/99 11:35 FAX 503 6403525 UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY Q001 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY Of TIGARD Community Ocvefapment ShapingA fBetter Community DATE FeriwruaN 16.1999 G TO: Julia Huffman. USA/S= Program FROM City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell HOOK Associate Planner Phone: 1503) 63941711 Fax- 1503) 684-1291 BE SUBDIVISION (SUB) 98-00141PLANNED DEVROPMENT REVIEW MOM MOM VENTURA ESTATES SUBOMSION Q The applicant is requesting Subdivision and Planned Development Review approval for a 22-lot detached single- family residential Planned Development Subdivision. There is natural area that is proposed to be preserved in a tract area within the subdivision. LOCATION: The subject parcels are located on the south side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 70'' Avenue; 1 S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached is the Site Pfau, ViiC nNY Mao Bud AppCCaRt"S Statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the shear future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: TUESDAY - MARCH 2,1999 ~1101E: PLEASE RSVP DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS! You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If You are unable to regend blithe above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. _ Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. _ Written comments provided below: Y (Please provide the foQawing information) Marne of Personisl Comm®ntln9: Phone Numberm: - c,~ d- 1 03/01/99 11:36 FAX 503 6403525 _,t1NIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY Z002 Uffm) 4 UNTFMD SEWERAGE AGENCY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY MEMORANAUM DATE: March 1, 1999 TO: Julia Powell Hajduk, City of Tigard FROM: Julia Huffman, USA J J\-:1 SUBJECT: Ventura. Estates Subdivision, SUB 98-0014, PDR 98-0013 SANITARY SEWER Each lot within the development should be provided with a paeans of disposal. for sanitary sewer. The means of disposal should be in accordance with R&O 96-44 (Unified Sewerage Agency's Construction Design Standards, July 1996 edition). Engineer should verify that public sanitary sewer is available to uphill adjacent properties, or extend service as required by R&O 96-44. STORM SEWER Each lot within the development should .have access to public stoma, sewer. Engineer should verify that public storm sewer is available to uphill adjacent properties, or extend storm service as required by R&O 96-44. Hydraulic and hydrological analysis of storm conveyance system is necessary. If downstream storm conveyance does not have the capacity to convey the volume during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the applicant is responsible for mitigating the flow. WATER QUALITY Developer should provide a water quality facility to treat the new impervious surface being constructed as part of this development. SENSITIVE AREA A "Sensitive Area" exists (may exist). Developer must preserve a 25-foot corridor as described in R&O 96-44 separating the sensitive area from the impact of development. The creek, sensitive area shall be identified on plans. DIVISION OF STATE LANDS/CORPS OF ENGINEERS A DSL/Corps of Engineers permit may required for any work in the creek. EROSION CONTROL A joint 1200-C erosion control permit is required. 155 North First Avenue, Suite 270. MS 10 Phone: 5031648.8621 MVISION OF STA'r LANOIZ . RECEII• ly i~ v ! l A RIEST FOR COMME Si, CITY OF TIOARD J Community Development Shq ngA'&tterCommunity DATE: February 16,1999 him 0 1 70 JO TO: OREGON DIVISION OF STATE LANDS FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: luHa Powell PINK, Associate Planner Phone: 15031639-4111 / Fax: 15031684-1291 RE: SUBDIVISION [SUB) 98-0014/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PORI 98-0013 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Q The applicant is requesting Subdivision and Planned Development Review approval for a 22-lot detached single- family residential Planned Development Subdivision. There is natural area that is proposed to be preserved in a tract area within the subdivision. LOCATION: The subject parcels are located on the south side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 70th Avenue; 1 S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicants Statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: TUESDAY - MARCH 2,1999 "NOTE: PLEASE RSVP DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTSI. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by Me above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. _ Please contact of our office. _ Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: - C 42Z 411-~ ftkase provide the foMnving information) Name of Persons) Commenting: Gl Phone Numberlsh 3 -j SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION REQUEST FOR COMMENTS REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development ShapingA Better Community DATE: February 16,1999 T0: John Roy, Property Manager/Operations Department FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Nalduk, Associate Planner Phone: 150316394171 / Fax: 15031684-1291 RE: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 98-0014/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW [PORI 98-0013 ➢ VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Q The applicant is requesting Subdivision and Planned Development Review approval for a 22-lot detached single- family residential Planned Development Subdivision. There is natural area that is proposed to be preserved in a tract area within the subdivision. LOCATION: The subject parcels are located on the south side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 70th Avenue; 1S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish Standard urban low density residential home sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicloft Map and APPllcant'S Statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: TUESDAY - MARCH 2. 1999 "NOTE: PLEASE RSVP DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS!. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by Me above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. _f Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: (hease provide the foMnt4ng information) Name of Person[s] Commenting: ' ~w A7C Phone Number[s]: - zfe SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION REQUEST FOR COMMENTS February 26, 1999 Julia Hajduk City of Tigard Current Planning 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Ms. Hajduk, In reviewing the Locust Street Subdivision Tree Conditions Review Documents submitted by Robert Mazany and Associates, which includes the preliminary site review, field notes and the tree preservation/protection specifications. The plan and specifications are well prepared and if followed will preserve a fairly impressive stand of older Western Red Cedars. My concerns are as follows: 1. At the time of the individual lots are developed for the Building envelopes, with as much slope as the site has it creates the need for cut and fill type of grading which can be more disruptive to the root systems and vegetation. 2. What is the time that the tree retention ratio is calculated this needs to be addressed. It is stated that a retention greater than 75% of healthy trees diameter inches greater that 12 inches on site, providing satisfaction of section 18.790.030 I nce yMark ! # REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIGARD r Community (Development RECEIVED PLANIVC~ingA Better Community SATE: February 16,1999 G TO: lulla Huffman, USA/SWM Program MAR 0 3 1999 I~~(( OF IGARD FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: lulls Powell Wuk,ociate Planner Phone: [5031639-4111 / Fax: 15031684-1291 RE: 1E SUBDIVISION [SUB] 98-0014/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW [PORI 98-0013 ➢ VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Q The applicant is requesting Subdivision and Planned Development Review approval for a 22-lot detached single- family residential Planned Development Subdivision. There is natural area that is proposed to be preserved in a tract area within the subdivision. LOCATION: The subject parcels are located on the south side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 70th Avenue; 1S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicaffs Statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: TUESDAY - MARCH 2.1999 "NOTE: PLEASE RSVP DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTSI. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. _ Please contact (09 of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: i'• ~~ac y (Please pnrviQe the forming information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: 1 Phone Number[sl: - 15'3 4- SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ufr4 4 0 0 UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY MEMORANDUM DATE: March 1, 1999 TO: Julia Powell Hajduk, City of Tigard FROM Julia Huffinan, USA J tiI\,:- SUBJECT: Ventura. Estates Subdivision, SUB 98-0014, PDR 98-0013 SANITARY SEWER Each lot within the development should be provided with a means of disposal for sanitary sewer. The means of disposal should be in accordance with R&O 96-44 (Unified Sewerage Agency's Construction Design Standards, July 1996 edition). Engineer should verify that public sanitary sewer is available to uphill adjacent properties, or extend service as required by R&O 96-44. STORM SEWER Each lot within the development should have access to public storm sewer. Engineer should verify that public storm sewer is available to uphill adjacent properties, or extend storm service as required by R&O 96-44. Hydraulic and hydrological analysis of storm conveyance system is necessary. If downstream storm conveyance does not have the capacity to convey the volume during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the applicant is responsible for mitigating the flow. WATER QUALITY Developer should provide a water quality facility to treat the new impervious surface being constructed as part of this development. SENSITIVE AREA A "Sensitive Area" exists (may exist). Developer must preserve a 25-foot corridor as described in R&O 96-44 separating the sensitive area from the impact of development. The creek, sensitive area shall be identified on plans. DIVISION OF STATE LANDS/CORPS OF ENGINEERS A DSL/Corps of Engineers permit may required for any work in the creek. EROSION CONTROL A joint 1200-C erosion control permit is required. 155 North First Avenue, Suite 270, MS 10 Phone: 503/648-8621 Hillsboro, Oregon 97124-3072 FAX: 503/640-3525 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development ShapingA Better Community DATE: February 16;1999 TO: Jim Wolf, Tigard Police Department Crime Prevention Officer FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell NaIduk Associate Planner Phone: (50316394111 / Fax: 15031684-1291 RE: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 98-0014/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PORI 98-0013 ➢ VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Q The applicant is requesting Subdivision and Planned Development Review approval for a 22-lot detached single- family residential Planned Development Subdivision. There is natural area that is proposed to be preserved in a tract area within the subdivision. LOCATION: The subject parcels are located on the south side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 70th Avenue; 1S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached is the Site Plan, VlCinity Map and Applicant's Statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: TUESDAY - MARCH 2,1999 "NOTE: PLEASE RSVP DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTSI. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. _ Please contact of our office. _ Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: (T[ease pmrvide the following information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: CA W\ vA oak Phone Number(s): ^.""14 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION REQUEST FOR COMMENTS REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TI©ARD RECEIVED PLANNIN9 Community Deveropment (apingA Better Community DATE: FedruaN16,1999 FEB 2 2 1999 T0: Michael Miller, operations UdliRl Manager CITY OF TIGARD FROM: City of Tigard Planning Diulsion STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Halduk, Associate Planner Phone: [5031639-4111 / Fax:15031684-1291 RE: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 98-0014/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 98-0013 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Q The applicant is requesting Subdivision and Planned Development Review approval for a 22-lot detached single- family residential Planned Development Subdivision. There is natural area that is proposed to be preserved in a tract area within the subdivision. LOCATION: The subject parcels are located on the south side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 70th Avenue; 1S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: TUESDAY - MARCH 2.1999 "NOTE: PLEASE RSVP DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS!. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by Me above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. _ Please contact of our office. _ Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: G' h ((Please provide the following information) Name of Persouls) Commenting: Phone Numberls): SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIGARD 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 o PN1 Foy w ar d~ IS136AD01900 1 a EL ~ U. BRAUER ROBERT K JR A ad ~ e S 3 ~ 5150 NW NEAKAHNIE AVE ##48 Q V ~T 8RAL.11_`ic> yle3~y:~v (S i.t:yY 7.'i 04/06/99 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND i BRAUER'ROBERT K JR 6914 SW OAK ST • N TIGARD OR-97229-1126 ~~~3 IlElil11tllttllit!ltllS~{l~44ff4FF~~~}~!lfl1!fill !!I CITY OF TICARD 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. \ = P;.; Tigard, Oregon 97223 *11- ~ - T- -T lute Q 136AA00302 U to Idves,~j C~ UINN MICHAEL P & JEAN L c~ 10275 'W69 TIT TIGARD OR 97223 I RUNRN, TO UNUR ~ ' '3 fill AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CITY OFTIGARD cormrrurtity rDeveroprnerrt SGaping,4 (Better Community SAATE O'- OXEGON ) County of Washington )ss. City of TWard ) I, (Patricia L. Lunsford, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am an Administrative Specialist II for the City ofTWard, Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: (Check Appmprlate Box(s) Beim) ❑ NOTICE OF PENDING LAND USE APPLICATION FOR: E2 ❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File NoJName Reference) ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: ❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File NoJName Reference) ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director D NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: E2 SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR 99-0001 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION / 4/19/99 ❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File NoJName Reference) (Date of Public Hearing) ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer 0 Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard City Council ❑ NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. FOR: E2 ❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File NoJName Reference) (Date of Public Hearing) ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer 0 Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard City Council H NOTICE OF (Type/Kind of Notice) FOR: L:i I (File NoJName Reference) (Date of Public Hearing, If applicable) A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE/NOTICE OF DECISION/NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER/OTHER NOTICE(S) of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A", was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhl It " on the 291° day of arch 199 nd d osited in the United States Mail on the 29" day of March, 1999, postag prepaid. ! (Perso Prepare ice . ubscribed and sworn/affirmed befo me on the QO day of.19 OFFICIAL SEAL alwttg DIANE M JELDERKS NOTAA11 NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 046142 aqo My Commission Expires: MBER 07 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTE, EXHIBIT A/\ CITY OF TIGARD Community (Developnerit S(apingA Better Community PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1999 AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NOS.: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 98-0014 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW IPORI 98-0013 VARIANCE (VAR) 99-0007 FILE TITLE: VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION APPLICANT: Ivy Yip APPLICANT: Barry Desbiens REP.: Ken Sandblast Ashwood Homes, Inc. Wingate Corporation Land Solutions 8760 SW Pacer Drive 15840 S. Pope Lane PO Box 38 Beaverton, OR 97008-6915 Oregon City, OR 97045 Clackamas, OR 97015 OWNERS: Helen L. Wegener Fred Neuman 580 NW Alpine Terrace 19730 SE Semple Road Portland, OR 97210 Clackamas, OR 97015 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Subdivision and Planned Development Review approval for a 22-lot detached single-family residential Planned Development Subdivision. The applicant is also requesting a Variance to the maximum length to allow a cul-de-sac in excess of 200 feet. There is natural area that is proposed to be preserved in a tract area within the subdivision. LOCATION: The subject parcels are located on the south side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 70th Avenue; 1 S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.370, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.390 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 320 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0007 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION NOTICE OF 4/19/99 P.C. PUBLIC HEARING IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE UPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFAR MARCH 29. 1999, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTIN CE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE ISCONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ORS 197.763(6). INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AND ALL PARTIES TO RESPOND PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25~) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25~) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER JULIA HAJDUK AT (503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. ELMWO D T LN ALFRED ---H LOLA LL- -ST 0 ARA LN V URA = OR H v OT J (2) SUBJEC URA VENT PARCELS R w a L LOCUST g w L w w Q -1 _T = -7- a MAPLELEAF ST o tD co0 L OAK ST w w a OAK ST Lu SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013NAR 99-0007 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION NOTICE OF 4/19/99 P.C. PUBLIC HEARING buB VtS-UU14/YllK Vb-UUI.i/VAR 99-0007 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION C Ny , i o r ; EXHIBIT B I S 125D000300 •I S 125DD05301 I S 125DD05400 SENN ERNEST E ELDA H ALLEN JAMES & KATHLEEN DIETZ THOMAS PATRICK & CYNTIRA 9750 SW 74TH AVE 9810 SW VENTURA CT 9840 SW VENTURA CT PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 125DD05700 1 S 125DD04500 1 S 125DD05600 TORIAN BRENDA M KEEVER M[OJDEH B SODERQUIST DAVID R. & PAMELA E 9880 SW VENTURA CT 9795 SW VENTURA CT 9870 SW VENTURA CT TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 r I S 125DD05500 1 S 125DD04400 1 S 125DD04300 MCLELLARN ROBERT W/PALMIRA B OLIVERA EDWARD F JR. & ANNA F TR AUSE HOLLY M & 9860 SW VENTURA CT 105 BUENA VISTA AVE 9815 SW VENTURA CT TIGARD OR 97223 GILROY CA 95020 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 125DD04100 1 S 125DD04200 X251)1)10100 CARTER KAY AND DENNIS E CARTER DENNIS E AND KAY W WASF LJ~ GT UARE ESTATES 9835 SW VENTURA COURT 9835 SW VENTURA CT LOT9W1 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 125DD03600 1 S 125DD03700 1 S 125DD04000 KASTEN SHEILAH SUE SIGLINT TR SHREVE THOMAS A & MARY B WILLIAMS JAMES B AND 9885 SW VENTURA CT 9875 SW VENTURA COURT 9845 SW VENTURA COURT nGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 125DD03800 I S 125DD03900 1 S 125DCO 1500 KOSTUR CHARLES J & DIANNE M STOIANTSCHEWSKY SPASS O & BENSON CAROL A 9865 SW VENTURA CT 9855 SW VENTURA CT 7145 SW VENTURA TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 IS125DC01600 IS125DC01700 IS125DC01800 WI=ORD ROBERT W & ELEANOR A MANKIN LOIS C MORSE WILLIAM J & LOURENE J & 7125 SW VENTURA DR 7105 SW VENTURA DR 7085 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1S125DCO1900 IS125DCO2000 IS125DC02100 IMCELWAIN JAMES D/JANET K BONHAM JOHN G & JOYCE M MORRE STEPHEN E JR. & RHONDA L 7065 SW VENTURA DR 7045 SW VENTURA DR 7025 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 125DD00800 I S 125DC02200 I S 125DD02200 WIENEKE MARILYNN A MONROE JAMES E MORRISON JOHN T & SANDRA S 6755 SW VENTURA PL 7005 SW VENTURA DR 6965 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 125DD02300 I S 125DD02400 1 S 125DD02500 STELLAR SHERYL A & ROBERT DALE QUERIN PHILLIP C & TARI L BOYER THOMAS L & BARBARA J 17755 SW 131ST AVE 6925 SW VENTURA AVE 6905 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 125DD02600 • I S 125DD02700 1 S 125DD02800 ATTIA FARAG A & PEGGY C BUI CHUC VAN & LIEM DUY ROSS CAROL 6885 SW VENTURA DR 6115 NE FREMONT 6845 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97213 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 125DD02900 1 S 125DD03000 1 S 125DC02900 LANGVIN MICHAEL J & SCHOCK CARL F & MICHELLE K JOHNSTON MICHAEL R & MARY 6825 VENTURA DR 6805 SW VENTURA DR ELLEN TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 7160 SW VENTURA DR ' TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 125DC02800 I S 125DC02700 1 S 125DC02600 SHERMAN PATRICK J CRAWFORD TERRY N & MARGARET LITMER ROBERT H & LAURIE J 7130 SW VENTURA DR K 7080 §W VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97223 7100 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1S125DC02500 1S125DC02400 IS125DD01800 GENTRY DIANE Y BROWN RONALD & GORRETTA FRANK H & 7050 SW VENTURA DRIVE 7020 SW VENTURA DR 6760 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 125DC04700 I S 125DD 10100 I S 136AB00200 JOHNSTON MICHAEL R & MARY WASHINGTON SQUARE ESTATES NEWELL JERI JUNE ELLEN LOT OWNERS 10060 SW 72ND 7160 SW VENTURA DR 0 PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1~ O 1 S 136ABO3700 I S 136ABO3800 I S 136AA07600 SILCOX RICHARD L & BECKY A WINGER ERIC A & MELISSA J DEL ROSARIO DANILO E AND 10005 SW 71 ST PL 10008 SW 71 ST PL 7025 SW LOCUST ST PORTLAND OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 136AA00700 1 S 136AA00601 1 S 136AA00400 WEGENER HELEN L & WEGENER HELEN L & MCGUIRE JAMES E 580 NW ALPINE TER 580 NW ALPINE TER 6909 SW OAK ST PORTLAND OR 97210' PORTLAND OR 97210 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 136AA00301 1 S 136AA00201 1 S 136ABO3701 WEBER LESTER C JR & STATE OF OREGON SANDER LEO ROBERT 3434 ARBOR DR P O BOX 14350 10031 SW 71ST "EST LINN OR 97068 SALEM OR 97309 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 136ABO3900 1 S 136AB00201 I S 136AA07700 SCHULTZ DONALD A & LINDA L NEWELL JERI JUNE LEE REYNOLD GEORGE 10034 SW 71ST PL 10060 SW 72ND AVE 7047 SW LOCUST ST TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 136ABO3600 1 S 136ABO4000 1 S 136ABO4100 STEWART JOHN M & KAREN S OLSEN STEPHEN & DANNER BENJAMIN F & DONNA E 10061 SW 71ST PLACE 10066 SW 71ST PL 10088 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 ISI36AA07800 IS136ABO3500 IS136AB00101 BOSNAR MARAJAN & NENITA AND MCDANIEL DIANE J & LUSK SANDRA G 2058 SE SPRUCE ST 10097 SW 71ST PL 7105 SW LOCUST ST PORTLAND OR 97214 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 136AA07100 I S 136AA07200 I S l 36AB00301 TANZ GUY H AND MACIARIELLO JAMES P JONES MARK S & DANACIA M 7081 SW LOCUST 7063 SW LOCUST ST 7123 SW LOCUST ST TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 136ABO4200 1 S 136ABO3400 1 S 136ABO 1703 HUGHES SANDRA K TRUSTEE THORPE RICHARD L AND LONGFELLOW THOMAS NEIL & 7119 SW LOCUST ST 5606 SW CALIFORNIA 11750 NE LAUREN LN TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97219 NEWBERG OR 97132 1 S 136ABO 1701 1 S 136ABO 1601 1 S 136ABO 1602 SMITH CLAUDE I AND CASE SHERMAN L & MARY E WORF ROGER WILLIAM & 7130 SW LOCUST ST 7108 SW LOCUST ST 11935 SW BURNETT LN PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 BEAVERTON OR 97008 I S 136ABO 1600 I S 136AA06900 1 S 136AA07000 WORF ROGER WILLIAM & BOLER RICKY D & PATRICIA R WELLE KLAUS & VERA A 11935 SW BURNETT LN 7090 SW LOCUST ST 7072 SW LOCUST BEAVERTON OR 97008 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 136AA06800 1 S 136AA0070I 1 S 136AB01704 MURALT MICHAEL P & KRABERLY A NEUMAN HENRY B TRUSTEE BROCK NEAL ROBERT 7054 SW LOCUST ST 10200 SW 70TH AVE 6140 STATE HWY 214 NE TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97223 GERVAIS OR 97026 I S-136AA00702 1 S 136AA00300 1 S 136ABO 1700 HILLS JAMES R & MARIANNE C AUSE DAVID H/MEGAN M MCBRIDE ALBERT N 10205 SW 70TH AVE 10241 SW 69TH 10230 SW 72ND TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97223 1 S 136AB01900 1 S 136AA01005 1 S 136AA00600 O'HALLORAN JOHN JOSEPH GOSS MARNELL K PILLERS LAURITZ P/JUNE M & 7113 SW MAPLELEAF 10255 SW 70TH 10285 SW 77TH PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97223 I S 136AA01400 1 S 136ABO2100 1 S 136AA00302 SARVAY JAMES A & CARM[ENZA M FREETH JULIANNA FREDERIKA & QUINN MICHAEL P & JEAN L PO BOX 4017 7111 SW MAPLELEAF 10275 SW 69TH AVE BEAVERTON OR 97005 PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 136AAO 1002 1 S 136AA00303 1 S 136AA07400 WEGENER HELEN L & WEBER LESTER C JR. & HOWARD LLOYD F & MARIA H 19730 SE SEMPLE RD 3434 ARBOR DR 9389 OCHOCO CT CLACKAMAS OR 97015 WEST LINN OR 97068 TUALATIN OR 97062 •-1S136AB01800 • 1S136AB01801 IS136AA01000 STTTEL DELORES L BITZ CHARLES D TAM YIK.CHEUNG & CHUNG MING. P O BOX 230092 7175 SW MAPLELEAF ST 10285 SW 70TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97281 PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 136AA01500 I S 136AA02100 1 S 136AA01001 LUKE_DORF WEBER LESTER C JR & COCHRAN CLAUDIA J 10313 SW 69TH 3434 ARBOR DR 10330 SW 70TH AVE TIGARD OR 97223 WEST LINN OR 97068 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 136AA01007 I S 136AA01201 1 S 136ABO5000 BALSIGER JAMES M & SARVAY JAMES A & CARMENZA M SMITH JERALD L AND LAURIE P 10335 SW 70TH PO BOX 4017 7134 SW MAPLELEAF CT TIGARD OR 97223 BEAVERTON OR 97005 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 136AA02000 1 S 136AA07500 I S 136ABO4900 SARIOGLU ESTER STERZELMAIER HANS D & PATRICIA INMAN DAVID S & CHERYL F 10340 SW 69TH 10288 SW 71ST AVE 5100 SW MACADAM AVE #270 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97201 1 S 136AA01200 1 S 136AA01600 1 S 136AA00802 PILLERS LAURITZ P/JUNE M & AUSE DAVID H SCHUBERT HELEN 10285 SW 77TH 10241 SW 69TH 10350 SW 71ST AVE PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 IS136AA00900 IS136AA01100 IS136ABO4800 FULLER DONALD D TAYLOR EWING R III & GAY MICHAEL J & CARRIE L 7015 SW OAK 7005 SW OAK ST 7103 SW MAPLELEAF CT TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 136AA01202 1 S 136AA01300 1 S 136AA01800 MCLAUGHLIN RICHARD D & SARVEY JAMES A & CARMENZA M WILLIAMS TRUMAN D & CARRIE P 6915 SW OAK ST BY NIKE INC ONE SW BOWERMAN 6817 SW OAK TIGARD OR 97223 DR TIGARD OR 97223 BEAVERTON OR 97005 1 S 136AA01900 1 S 136AA00801 1 S 136AA01700 VAN BIBBER STEVEN P COLOMA DALE A & CHARLOTTE K SACKS KRISTIN S & WAYNE 6807 SW OAK ST 10380 SW 71ST AVE 6901 SW OAK TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 IS136AD02100 IS136AD02000 IS136AD01900 CEARLEY MICHAEL D COLLINS LEROY B & MARY LOUISE BRAUER ROBERT K JR 7010 SW OAK ST PO BOX 1477 5150 NW NEAKAHNLE AVE #48 TIGARD OR 97223 FAIRVIEW OR 97024 PORTLAND OR 97229 I S 136AD01901 MILLER OVIE A TRUSTEE 6910 SW OAK PORTLAND OR 97223 :.S spy, -J 0+.~) IVY YIP `ASHWOOD HOMES, INC. 8760 SW PACER DRIVE AEAVERTON OR 97008-6915 BARRY DESBIENS WINGATE CORPORATION 15840 S. POPE LANE OREGON CITY OR 97045 KEN SANDBLAST LAND SOLUTIONS PO BOX 38 CLACKAMAS OR 97015 FRED NEUMAN 19730 SE SEMPLE ROAD CLACKAMAS OR 97015 Alk W A 8 I N O T O N SQUARE' OU R E ESTATES r.L noo T.L 1000 TL f400 TL 2000 TL 0000 T.L 1700 S.W. VENTURA DRIVE row T.L 7000 J. a / Z 7 TL s00 S 7,901 Sr. 7,031 Sr. ),131 Sr.; 11,519 if. I 7 z I o I O a ~ 1 ~ ~ti 4 I if. TRACT 'A' V♦ O 8 p ` 4 1 10 I rl ~r TL noo 9 4397 sr. 9 m r i 11 >9usr. I 13 Q Z r 4791 Sr. 4010 sr. I m < ! 1 rr^^ 1 3 1V I V M 44 / u /0 T.L 7100 FY S W .%F TL 7100 1 hp,'~4 ,4 1 1 1 1 to u 1s 1s I I m 4sair. I.=Sr. t 4lilir. 4J511r. 3 1 iI jl / r14 ho4m rata ! ~ e,lsssr. W L r /coalr~- _ > > - - Q lama m• Z la I --'---S.W_ LOCUST STREET ---a-- - - ? a. I w 110 / 1 1 I 1 = 1 ^.1 33 Y it a Z24) sr. C Ip 4JJ/ sr. Z 4719 Sr. 7,171 IF I I -.3Y__ . H I T.L 701 ~ I i i I 1 1 _ TL swo TL 7000 V I TL 701 1 MloaalbaloVCGa' Il I 1 I p ~ 11n lama ! oer"mrr ~ I < 1 ~ ! 474 »ue ~ j 30 N 1s 1♦ 1 7,590 Sf, t II 4460 Sr. 7, ISO S!. I u. :L o T.L 0100 I T.L 000 T.L MOO I I T.L 001 i Lu I T.L 006 1 I l 1 T.L. 1007 1 1 1 Z 1 ~ T 1 11 1 > 1 T.L 7400 1 I ' Q I ~ 1 T.L UW 1 CASE NO[S] 8 CASE NAME[Sk SITE PLAN SUB 98-0014 VENTURA PDR 98-0013 ESTATES WIRIT MAP N ~AR_99-MK SUBDIVISION RHAny CITY of TIGARD M GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM ELMWOODST LOLA iL I LN ALFRED VICINITY MAP [U] ST 6 ARBARA SUB 98-0014 PDR 98-0013 LN ~ TuRA VAR 99-0001 Z VENTURA ~ DR J ESTATES SUBDIVISION (2) SUBJEC NTURA VENTURA PARCELS DR w Q L LOCUST Val ST w N w > Q MAPLELEAF ST Q 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet 1'= 378 feet CD (D 43~ r- T. L OAK ST w w City of Tigard OAK ST ¢ = Information on this map is for general location only and _ should be verified with the Development Services Division. I (D 13125 SW Hall Blvd w to Tigard, OR 97223 HL IE -1 (503) 839-4171 Q httplAvww.ci.tigard.or.us Community Development Plot date: Feb 1, 1999; CAmagic\MAGIC02.APR SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013/VAR 99-0007 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION (py, lof 5 I S125D000300 IS125DD05301 *IS125DD05400 SENN ERNEST E ELDA H ALLEN JAMES & KATHLEEN DIETZ THOMAS PATRICK & CYNTF A 9750 SW 74TH AVE 9810 SW VENTURA CT 9840 SW VENTURA CT PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 125DD05700 1 S 125DD04500 1 S 125DD05600 7ORI4,N BRENDA M KEEVER MOJDEH B SODERQUIST DAVID R & PAMELA E 9880 SW VENTURA CT 9795 SW VENTURA CT 9870 SW VENTURA CT TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 125DD05500 I S 125DD04400 1 S 125DD04300 MCLELLARN ROBERT W/PALMIRA B OLTVERA EDWARD F JR & ANNA F TR AUSE HOLLY M & 9860 SW VENTURA CT 105 BUENA VISTA AVE 9815 SW VENTURA CT TIGARD OR 97223 GILROY CA 95020 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 125DD04100 1 S 125DD04200 25DDI0100 CARTER KAY AND DENNIS E CARTER DENNIS E AND KAY W WA GT Di-$UAARE ESTATES 9835 SW VENTURA COURT 9835 SW VENTURA CT LOT TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 125DD03600 1 S 125DD03700 1 S 125DD04000 KASTEN SHEILAH SUE SIGLIN TR SHREVE THOMAS A & MARY B WILLIAMS JAMES B AND 9885 SW VENTURA CT 9875 SW VENTURA COURT 9845 SW VENTURA COURT TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 125DD03800 1 S 125DD03900 1 S 125DC01500 KOSTUR CHARLES J & DIANNE M STOIANTSCHEWSKY SPASS O & BENSON CAROL A 9865 SW VENTURA CT 9855 SW VENTURA CT 7145 SW VENTURA TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 125DC01600 1 S 125DC01700 1 S 125DC01800 WHITFORD ROBERT W & ELEANOR A MANKIN LOIS C MORSE WILLIAM J & LOURENE J & 7125 SW VENTURA DR 7105 SW VENTURA DR 7085 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 125DCO 1900 I S 125DC02000 I S 125DC02100 MCELWAIN JAMES D/JANET K BONHAM JOHN G & JOYCE M MOORE STEPHEN E JR & RHONDA L 7065 SW VENTURA DR 7045 SW VENTURA DR 7025 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1S125DD00800 IS125DC02200 IS125DD02200 WIENEKE MARILYNN A MONROE JAMES E MORRISON JOHN T & SANDRA S 6755 SW VENTURA PL 7005 SW VENTURA DR 6965 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 125DD02300 1 S 125DD02400 1 S 125DD02500 STELLAR SHERYL A & ROBERT DALE QUERIN PHILLIP C & TARI L BOYER THOMAS L & BARBARA J 17755 SW 131ST AVE 6925 SW VENTURA AVE 6905 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 (P9 a of 5) 1 S 125DD02600 •1 S 125DD02700 • 1 S 125DD02800 ATTIA FARAG A & PEGGY C BUI CHUC VAN & LIEM DUY ROSS CAROL 6885 SW VENTURA DR 6115 NE FREMONT 6845 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97213 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 125DD02900 1 S 125DD03000 1 S 125DC02900 LANGVIN MICHAEL J & SCHOCK CARL F & MICHELLE K JOHNSTON MICHAEL R & MARY 6825 VENTURA DR 6805 SW VENTURA DR ELLEN TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 7160 SW VENTURA DR ` TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 125DC02800 1 S 125DC02700 1 S 125DC02600 SHERMAN PATRICK J CRAWFORD TERRY N & MARGARET LITMER ROBERT H & LAURIE J 7130 SW VENTURA DR K 7080 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97223 7100 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 125DC02500 1 S 125DC02400 1 S 125DD01800 GENTRY DIANE Y BROWN RONALD & GORRETTA FRANK H & 7050 SW VENTURA DRIVE 7020 SW VENTURA DR 6760 SW VENTURA DR TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 125DC04700 1S 125DD10100 1 S 136AB00200 JOHNSTON MICHAEL R & MARY WASHINGTON SQUARE ESTATES NEWELL JERI JUNE ELLEN LOT OWNERS 10060 SW 72ND 7160 SW VENTURA DR 0Ccac of e'P°~ e--c PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1.17 O ce 1 S 136ABO3 700 1 S 136ABO3800 1 S 136AA07600 SILCOX RICHARD L & BECKY A WINGER ERIC A & MELISSA J DEL ROSARIO DANILO E AND 10005 SW 71ST PL 10008 SW 71ST PL 7025 SW LOCUST ST PORTLAND OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 136AA00700 1 S 136AA00601 1 S 136AA00400 WEGENER HELEN L & WEGENER HELEN L & MCGUIRE JAMES E 580 NW ALPINE TER 580 NW ALPINE TER 6909 SW OAK ST PORTLAND OR 97210 PORTLAND OR 97210 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 136AA00301 1 S 136AA00201 1 S 136ABO3 701 WEBER LESTER C JR & STATE OF OREGON SANDER LEO ROBERT 3434 ARBOR DR P O BOX 14350 10031 SW 71ST WEST LINN OR 97068 SALEM OR 97309 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 136ABO3900 1 S 136AB00201 1 S 136AA07700 SCHULTZ DONALD A & LINDA L NEWELL JERI JUNE LEE REYNOLD GEORGE 10034 SW 71ST PL 10060 SW 72ND AVE 7047 SW LOCUST ST TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 136ABO3600 1 S 136ABO4000 1 S 136ABO4100 STEWART JOHN M & KAREN S OLSEN STEPHEN & DANNER BENJAMIN F & DONNA E 10061 SW 71ST PLACE 10066 SW 71ST PL 10088 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 • • I S 136AA07800 1 S 136ABO3500 I S 136AB00101 BOSNAR MARAJAN & NENITA AND MCDANIEL DIANE J & LUSK SANDRA G 2058 SE SPRUCE ST 10097 SW 71ST PL 7105 SW LOCUST ST PORTLAND OR 97214 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 136AA07100 I S 136AA07200 I S 136AB00301 TANZ GUY H AND MACIARIELLO JAMES P JONES MARK S & DANACIA M 7081 SW LOCUST 7063 SW LOCUST ST 7123 SW LOCUST ST TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 136ABO4200 1 S 136ABO3400 1 S 136ABO 1703 HUGHES SANDRA K TRUSTEE THORPE RICHARD L AND LONGFELLOW THOMAS NEIL & 7119 SW LOCUST ST 5606 SW CALIFORNIA 11750 NE LAUREN LN TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97219 NEWBERG OR 97132 IS136ABO1701 IS136ABO1601 IS136AB01602 SMITH CLAUDE I AND CASE SHERMAN L & MARY E WORF ROGER WILLIAM & 7130 SW LOCUST ST 7108 SW LOCUST ST 11935 SW BURNETT LN PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 BEAVERTON OR 97008 1 S 136ABO 1600 I S 136AA06900 1 S 136AA07000 WORF ROGER WILLIAM & BOLER RICKY D & PATRICIA R WELLE KLAUS & VERA A 11935 SW BURNETT LN 7090 SW LOCUST ST 7072 SW LOCUST BEAVERTON OR 97008 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 136AA06800 1 S 136AA00701 I S 136ABO 1704 MURALT MICHAEL P & KIMBERLY A NEUMAN HENRY B TRUSTEE BROCK NEAL ROBERT 7054 SW LOCUST ST 10200 SW 70TH AVE 6140 STATE HWY 214 NE TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97223 GERVAIS OR 97026 1 S 136AA00702 I S 136AA00300 I S 136ABO 1700 HILLS JAMES R & MARIANNE C AUSE DAVID H/MEGAN M MCBRIDE ALBERT N 10205 SW 70TH AVE 10241 SW 69TH 10230 SW 72ND TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97223 1 S 136ABO 1900 1 S 136AA01005 1 S 136AA00600 O'HALLORAN JOHN JOSEPH GOSS MARNELL K PILLERS LAURITZ P/JUNE M & 7113 SW MAPLELEAF 10255 SW 70TH 10285 SW 77TH PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97223 1 S 136AAO 1400 I S 136ABO2100 1 S 136AA00302 SARVAY JAMES A & CARMENZA M FREETH JULIANNA FREDERIKA & QUINN MICHAEL P & JEAN L PO BOX 4017 7111 SW MAPLELEAF 10275 SW 69TH AVE BEAVERTON OR 97005 PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 136AA01002 I S 136AA00303 I S 136AA07400 WEGENER HELEN L & WEBER LESTER C JR & HOWARD LLOYD F & MARIA H 19730 SE SEMPLE RD 3434 ARBOR DR 9389 OCHOCO CT CLACKAMAS OR 97015 WEST LINN OR 97068 TUALATIN OR 97062 CP9 -t 01- b -IS 136AB01800 *'IS"136ABO1801 10 1S136AA01000 SITTEL DELORES L BI TZ CHARLES D TAM YIK CHEUNG & CHUNG MING, P O BOX 230092 7175 SW MAPLELEAF ST 10285 SW 70TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97281 PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 136AA01500 1 S 136AA02100 1 S 136AA01001 LUKE-DORF WEBER LESTER C JR & COCHRAN CLAUDIA J 10313 SW 69TH 3434 ARBOR DR 10330 SW 70TH AVE TIGARD OR 97223 WEST LINN OR 97068 TIGARD OR 97223 ' 1 S 136AA01007 1 S 136AA01201 1 S 136AB05000 BALSIGER JAMES M & SARVAY JAMES A & CARMENZA M SMITH JERALD L AND LAURIE P 10335 SW 70TH PO BOX 4017 7134 SW MAPLELEAF CT TIGARD OR 97223 BEAVERTON OR 97005 TIGARD OR 97223 I S 136AA02000 1 S 136AA07500 1 S 136AB04900 SARIOGLU ESTER S T ERZELMAIER HANS D & PATRICIA INMAN DAVID S & CHERYL F 10340 SW 69TH 10288 SW 71ST AVE 5100 SW MACADAM AVE #270 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97201 1 S 136AA01200 1 S 136AA01600 1 S 136AA00802 PILLERS LAURITZ P/JUNE M & AUSE DAVID H SCHUBERT HELEN 10285 SW 77TH 10241 SW 69TH 10350 SW 71ST AVE PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 57223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 136AA00900 1 S 136AA01100 1 S 136AB04800 FULLER DONALD D TAYLOR EWING R. III & GAY MICHAEL J & CARRIE L 7015 SW OAK 7005 SW OAK ST 7103 SW MAPLELEAF CT TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 i S 136AA01202 1S 136AA01300 1 S 136AA01800 MCLAUGHLIN RICHARD D & SARVEY JAMES A & CARMENZA M WILLIAMS TRUMAN D & CARRIE P 6915 SW OAK ST BY NIKE INC ONE SW BOWERMAN 6817 SW OAK TIGARD OR 97223 DR TIGARD OR 97223 BEAVERTON OR 97005 1 S 136AA01900 1 S 136AA00801 1 S 136AA01700 VAN BIBBER STEVEN P COLOMA DALE A & CHARLOTTE K SACKS KRISTIN S & WAYNE 6807 SW OAK ST 10380 SW 71ST AVE 6901 SW OAK TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S 136AD02100 1 S 136AD02000 1 S 136AD01900 CEARLEY MICHAEL D COLLINS LEROY B & MARY LOUISE BRAUER ROBERT K JR 7010 SW OAK ST PO BOX 1477 5150 NW NEAKAHNIE AVE #48 TIGARD OR 97223 FAIRVIEW OR 97024 PORTLAND OR 97229 1 S 136AD01901 MILLER OVIE A TRUSTEE 6910 SW OAK PORTLAND OR 97223 i IVY YIP ASHWOOD HOMES, INC. 8760 SW PACER DRIVE BEAVERTON OR 97008-6915 BARRY DESBIENS WINGATE CORPORATION 15840 S. POPE LANE OREGON CITY OR 97045 KEN SANDBLAST LAND SOLUTIONS PO BOX 38 CLACKAMAS OR 97015 FRED NEUMAN 19730 SE SEMPLE ROAD CLACKAMAS OR 97015 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIOARD Community (Development ShapingA Better Community DATE: February 16, 1999 TO: PER ATTACHED FROM: City of Tigard Planning DiuiSion STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Ha)duk Associate Planner Phone: (50316394171/Fax- 15031684-1291 RE: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 98-0014/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW [PDR) 98-0013 ➢ VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Q The applicant is requesting Subdivision and Planned Development Review approval for a 22-lot detached single- family residential Planned Development Subdivision. There is natural area that is proposed to be preserved in a tract area within the subdivision. LOCATION: The subject parcels are located on the south side of SW Ventura Drive at the termini of SW Locust Street and SW 70t' Avenue; 1S136AA, Tax Lots 00601 and 00700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and ApplicanrS Statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: TUESDAY - MARCH 2. 1999 "NOTE: PLEASE RSVP DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTSI. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. _ Please contact of our office. _ Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: ( hease provide the following information) Name of Persons) Commenting: Phone Number[s): SUB 98-0014/PDR 98-0013 VENTURA ESTATES SUBDIVISION REQUEST FOR COMMENTS *REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ! NOTIFICATION LIST FOR LAND USE & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS dITAna: 1101 M IS] M CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAMS CO Race forrevIewInUlbmCITBOOM FILE NO(Sl_- FILE NAME(Sk VeAlrel CITY OFFICES A _ AQVANCED PLANNING/Nadine Smith, a s~wyr ' COMMUNITY DVLPMNT. DEPTJo~m~.s~ .Twa &h_ ,POLICE DEPTJJim Wolf, cnm R"W'na,ofa. _ UILDING DIVJDavid Scott, ecaavotridw j5rGINEERING DEPT./Brian Rager, mom R.A. Eno. -WATER DEPTJMichael Miller,wud.. w.p« ay o.. ✓6PERATIONS DEPTJJohn Roy, P..P"m.n.w _ OTHER _ CITY ADMINISTRATION/Cathy Wheatley, Re SPECIAL DISTRICTS _ TUAL. HILLS PARK & REC. DIST.*_ TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE t-fUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT tUNIFIED SWRGE. AGENCY Mt Planning Manager Fire Marshall Administrative Office Julia Huffman/SWM Program 15707 SW Walker Road Washington County Fire District PO Box 745 155 N. First Street Beaverton, OR 97006 (place in pick-up box) Beaverton, OR 97075 Hillsboro, OR 97124 LOCAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONS _ CITY OF BEAVERTON _ CITY OF TUALATIN _ OR. DEPT. OF FISH & WILDLIFE ✓R. DIV. OF STATE LANDS _ Planning Manager Planning Manager 2501 SW First Avenue 775 Summer Street, NE _ Mike Matteucci, regnwfw. word. PO Box 369 PO Box 59 Salem, OR 97310-1337 PO Box 4755 Tualatin, OR 97062 Portland, OR 97207 Beaverton, OR 97076 _OR. PUB. UTILITIES COMM. - METRO - LAND USE & PLANNING _ OR. DEPT. OF GEO. & MINERAL IND. 550 Capitol Street, NE _ CITY OF DURHAM V 600 NE Grand Avenue 800 NE Oregon Street, Suite 5 Salem, OR 97310-1380 City Manager Portland, OR 97232-2736 Portland, OR 97232 PO Box 23483 ±-tl!f ARMY CORPS. OF ENG. Durham, OR 97281-3483 _ Paulette Allen, GrewthMenapameniCoordinator _ OR. DEPT. OF LAND CONSERV.& DVLP. 333 SW First Avenue _ Mel Huie, Greenspaoascoordinator(cpKsaoxa) 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 200 PO Box 2946 _ CITY OF KING CITY Salem, OR 97301-2540 Portland, OR 97208-2946 City Manager _ METRO AREA BOUNDARY COMMISSION 15300 SW 116th Avenue 800 NE Oregon Street _ OREGON DEPT. OF TRANS. (ODOT) _ WASHINGTON COUNTY #F King City, OR 97224 Building #16, Suite 540 Aeronautics Division Dept. of Land Use & Trans. Portland, OR 97232-2109 Tom Highland, PlennkV 155 N. First Avenue _ CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3040 25th Street, SE Suite 350, MS 13 Planning Director _ OR. DEPT. OF ENERGY Salem, OR 97310 Hillsboro, OR 97124 PO Box 369 Bonneville Power Administration _ Brent Curtis (cpxs) Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Routing TTRC - Attn: Renae Ferrera _ ODOT, REGION 1 _ Scott King (CPA's) PO Box 3621 Sonya Kazen, Dwpmt. Rev. co d. _ Mike Borreson (E.ginw) _ CITY OF PORTLAND Portland, OR 97208-3621 123 NW Flanders _ Jim Tice pGxs) David Knowles, Ptamkv a..au Da. Portland, OR 97209-4037 -Tom Harry (cunt Pi. Apps) Portland Building 106, Rm. 1002 _ OREGON, DEPT. OF ENVIRON. QUALITY _ Phil Healy (c~ iPi. Apps.) 1120 SW Fifth Avenue 811 SW Sixth Avenue _ ODOT, REGION 1 - DISTRICT 2A _ Sr.Cartographer tcpvzcA) ms u Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97204 Jane Estes, P. ,utspecwist 5440 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 350 _ ODOT, REGION 1 - DISTRICT 2A Portland, OR 97221-2414 Right-of-Way Section (vacauons) Rick Reeves 123 NW Flanders Portland, OR 97209-4037 UTILITY PROVIDERS AND SPECIAL AGENCIES _ PORTLAND WESTERN R/R, BURLINGTON NORTHERN/SANTA FE R/R, OREGON ELECTRIC R/R (Burlington Northem/Santa Fe R!R Predecessor) Robert 1. Melbo, President & General Manager 110 W. 10th Avenue Albany, OR 97321 _ SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS. CO. R/R _ METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS ✓fCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON _ TRI-MET TRANSIT DVLPMT. Clifford C. Cabe, Construction Engineer Debra Palmer (Anne wns Only) Pat McGann Michael Kiser, Project Planner 5424 SE McLoughlin Boulevard Twin Oaks Technology Center 14200 SW Brigadoon Court 710 NE Holladay Street Portland, OR 97232 1815 NW 169th Place, S-6020 Beaverton, OR 97005 Portland, OR 97232 Beaverton, OR 97006-4886 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC LIW NATURAL GAS COMPANY ✓GENERAL TELEPHONE _ US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Brian Moore, Svc.Design Consultant Scott Palmer Elaine Self, Engineering Lori Domey, Engineering Dept.. 9480 SW Boeckman Road 220 NW Second Avenue MC: OR030546 8021 SW Capitol Hill Rd, Rm 110 Wilsonville, OR 97070 Portland, OR 97209-3991 Tigard, OR 97281-3416 Portland, OR 97219 _ TIGARD/TUALATIN SCHOOL DIST. #23J _ BEAVERTON SCHOOL DIST. #48 Marsha Butler, Administrative Offices Joy-Gay Pahl, Demographs & Planning Dept. 13137 SW Pacific Highway 16550 SW Merio Road Tigard, OR 97223 Beaverton, OR 97006 flt - INOICAMCS AVTOMAWC NOTIFICATION IF W81014A 2X01 OF TNQ SVB,FcCT PROPERTY FOR ANY/ALL CITY ~19CTS. (PROlLCT PLANNLR IS "S"US88" FOR INOICATINC PABT89S TO NOTIFY h:ipaaytmasters%rfcnotice.mst 2-Dec-98 1 Engineers raising the quality of consulting service in geosciences 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 Geosta~dords 1 1 1 1 1 Ashwood and Wingate Homes 1 (suB q~-~~~, 1 Proposed Subdivision SW 701b Avenue and Locust Street Tigard, Oregon 1 P98-0156 1 October 15, 1998 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ge8SISAO dS Engineers raising the quality consulting service in geoscience s Principal Sam Adettiwar, MS, PE Engineering Consultants Project No. P98-156 Dinesh Katti, PhD, PE Adel Blassy, PhD, PG Fred DeLeon, MS, PE, PG ' October 15, 1998 Ms. Ivy Wip Ashwood and Wingate Homes 8760 SW Pacer Drive Beaverton, OR 97008 ' Dear Ms. Wip: Re: Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Subdivision, SW 70'" Avenue and Locust Street, Tigard, i Oregon ' We have completed the geotechnical evaluation you authorized in May 1998. Our purpose was to provide geotechnical assistance to you, the architect and the engineer in designing foundations, slabs, ' pavements, and in preparing plans and specifications for the construction of new buildings. Results of our evaluation are summarized below. Subsurface Exploration Results We noted following subsurface soil conditions in our excavated test pits TP-1 through TP-7. Topsoil and Fill - Roughly 6 to 12 inches of silty loam is present throughout the site. Minor surficial ' fill of up to 12 inches was encountered at isolated locations in the westernmost portion of the site. ' Native Soils - Topsoil and fill is underlain by generally medium stiff to very stiff native silt-clay mixtures (ML, CL/ML) extending to the maximum explored depth of 12 feet. Our review of available geological literature (OFR 0-90-2, and Geologic Map of Oregon) suggests that these soils are the result ' of complete weathering of rock presents beneath the site. 1 Westlawn Professional Bldg, 1225 NW Murray Blvd, Suite 210, Portland, OR 97229, Ph: 503-646-9069, Fx: 503=646-8976 ' 13215-C SE Mill Plain 8/No. 561, Vancouver, WA 98684, Ph: 360-882-6618, Fx: 360-256-8567 www.alveus.com-GeoStandards / e-mail: geostandards@iefx.com P98-0156 October 15, 1998 Page No. ii ' Bedrock - Upper native residual soils are underlain by Pliocene Sandy River Mudstone formation in the steeper northern portion and Pliocene/Pleistocene boring lavas (Qtb) in the rest of the site. Based on the results of our subsurface explorations and our knowledge of the site, we anticipate that the ' unweathered bedrock may not be encountered in project excavations. Groundwater - We did not encountered groundwater seepage in excavated test pits at the time of our explorations. Based on our knowledge of the site and review of Soil Conservation Survey (SCS) book on Washington County, we believe, seasonal high perched groundwater table may be encountered at ' depths of 1 (in the upper terrace area) to 3 feet (in sloping areas) below existing grades. Design Recommendations ' Based on the results of our study, we believe the site is suitable for the proposed development, ' provided following recommendations are followed. Foundations ' Proposed new buildings can be supported on properly prepared native subgrade or on structural fill using continuous and individual shallow spread footings designed for following net maximum allowable ' bearing capacity of 2,000 psf. The given allowable bearing capacity is intended for dead loads and sustained live loads and can be increased by one-third for the total of all loads, including short-term wind or seismic loads. ' Slab-on-grade We anticipate the use of framed slab with crawl space. If concrete slab-on-grade is used, then it should be supported on native subgrade or on structural fills after the topsoil is removed and after the subgrade is proof-rolled and/or approved by a qualified and registered geotechnical engineer. 1 P98-0156 October 15, 1998 ' Page No. iii 1 ' Individual Lot Development ' Based on the results of our study, we make following recommendations for individual lot development. ' Lot No. 1 • As a minimum, discharge all drain systems (foundation, roof, surface, etc) directly into a suitable receptacle but not into the face of the steep slope. ' Minimize vegetation removal from steep slope areas. Provide erosion protection for exposed and eroded slope face. • An offset of 10 feet from the existing crestline of an eroded slope should be used for house layout. If this offset requirement can not be met, then a lot-specific geotechnical evaluation must be ' performed by us or a qualified and registered geotechnical engineer after the house layout/plan is available for review. ' Lot No. 2 through Lot No. 5 • Surficial fill of up to 12 inches and isolated old horse barn structures may be present. Any existing ' surficial fill along with topsoil should be removed. ' • No other lot-specific recommendations are required. Nevertheless, if the placement of large quantities of fill or deep excavations are required, then we should review the proposed house layout/plans and confirm the applicability of our recommendations. ' Lot No. 6 through 19 ' No lot-specific recommendations are required. Nevertheless, if the placement of large quantities of fill or deep excavations are required, then we should review the proposed house layout/plans and confirm the applicability of our recommendations. ' P98-0156 October 15, 1998 ' Page No. iv ' Lot No. 20 to 23 As a minimum, discharge all drain systems (foundation, roof, surface, etc) directly into a suitable receptacle but not into the face of the steep slope. Minimize vegetation removal from steep slope areas. Provide erosion protection for exposed and eroded slope face. 1 . A lot-specific geotechnical evaluation must be performed by us or a qualified and registered geotechnical engineer after the house layout/plan is available for review. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions, please call us at 646-9069. Sincerely, 18055 Cs h Gp sF'D77 1s,' EXPIRES: ' Sam Adettiwar, M.S., P.E. Principal ' Attachment: Geotechnical Evaluation Report ' c:\reports\P98-156\p98156.doc 1 1 r r ' Table of Contents Summary ' 1.0 Purpose and Scope 1 1.1 Subsurface Exploration 1 r 1.2 Laboratory Evaluation 1 1.3 Engineering Analyses 2 1 2.0 Project Description 2 3.0 Surface Conditions 3 r 4.0 Subsurface Conditions 3 4.1 Soils and Geology 4 ' 4.2 Groundwater 4 4.3 Seismic Considerations 4 5.0 Site Stability Evaluation 5 6.0 General Construction Recommendations 5 ' 6.1 Subgrade Preparation 6 6.2 Fill Placement 6 6.2.1 Fill Placement in Dry Weather 7 6.2.2 Fill Placement in Wet Weather 7 6.3 Excavations and Dewatermg 8 ( 7.0 Design Recommendations 8 7.1 Individual Lot Development . . . 9 ' 7.2 Foundations 10 7.3 Floor Slabs 11 7.4 Retaining Walls 11 7.5 General Drainage 12 7.6 Pavements 12 7.6.1 Bituminous Pavement 13 ' 7.6.2 Concrete Pavement 13 8.0 Construction Monitoring 14 9.0 General Conditions 14 1 1 ' Geotechnical Evaluation Report Proposed Subdivision ' SW 701b Avenue and Locust Street Tigard, Oregon 1.0 Purpose and Scope ' The purpose and scope of this study was to explore surface and subsurface site conditions, perform slope stability analyses, and to provide foundation design, pavement design, site preparation, and general construction recommendations for the proposed construction. Specifically, our scope of services included following work items. Environmental and seismic assessments of any kind were beyond our scope of services. 1 1.1 Subsurface Exploration ' We evaluated surface conditions at the site (Figure 1) and reviewed available geological literature to develop our subsurface exploration program. In order to ascertain subsurface soil conditions at the site, we excavated seven test pits using a trackhoe at locations showed in Figure 2. ' We collected grab soil samples at random intervals. Samples were identified in the field and some samples were placed in sealed containers and transported to the laboratory for further classification and testing. Logs of all test pits showing details of subsurface soil conditions encountered at the site are included in an Appendix. 1.2 Laboratory Evaluation 1 ' Selected samples of soils were transported to our laboratory for further evaluation, to aid in classification of the materials, and to help assess their strength and compressibility characteristics. Laboratory evaluation consisted of visual and textural examinations. Laboratory index soil testing was P98-0156 October 15, 1998 Page No. 2 ' not deemed necessary for this project. 1.3 Engineering Analyses Using the results of subsurface exploration and laboratory evaluation, we performed bearing capacity and settlement analyses to develop recommendations for foundation and floor slab design. We 1 performed lateral earth pressure analyses to develop recommendations for retaining wall design. In addition, we designed asphalt and concrete pavement sections for assumed traffic loading. We also ' developed recommendations for general site preparation including placement and the compaction of fill materials, foundation excavations, and construction dewatering/drainage. We have completed this study in general accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties expressed or implied. GeoStandards is not responsible for the independent conclusions, opinions or recommendations made by others based on the information presented in this report. Results of our study are discussed below. I 2.0 Project Description The project site (site) is situated at the end of SW 70th Avenue and Locust Street in Tigard, Oregon as shown in an attached Site Location Map (Figure 1). The project consists of developing the site into several residential lots and associated driveway and parking areas. The proposed preliminary construction plan is shown in an attached Schematic Site Plan (Figure 2). t At this time, details on proposed construction are not available. We anticipate the new residential buildings will be constructed of wood frames with finished concrete or wood floor elevations at or near ' existing surface elevations for most of the site. We have estimated maximum strip footing load of 1,500 psf and floor loads of 150 psf for proposed construction. 1 P98-0156 October 15, 1998 Page No. 3 ' 3.0 Surface Conditions ' The site is generally a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land situated in a highly developed residential neighborhood. It primarily consists of a relatively leveled to gently sloping southernmost portion (Lots 5 to 11), a gently sloping (5H: 1V) central portion (Lots 2 to 4 and Lots 12 to 19), and a moderately to steeply sloping northernmost portion (Lot 1, Lots 20 to 23, and Tract A) as illustrated in Figure 2. Our review of Site Plan provided by LDC Design Group indicate site grades at elevations ranging from EL. 330 near the southern property line to El. 250 near the northern property line. Attached Figure 3 illustrates the generalized cross-section of the site topography. At the time of our site visit, we noted evidence of old horse barn structures and minor surficial fill (up to 12 inches thick) in the western portion. Besides this area of the site, we did not notice any evidence ' of past grading or fill placement on the site. We noted evidence of severe erosion, the presence of man made drainage features, and very moist slope face conditions in the northernmost portion of the site (Lot 1, Lots 20 to 23, and Tract A). We inspected surface conditions at the site in order to identify visual evidence of slope instabi i and/or ' active landslide features in the hillside. At the time of our site visit, we didmQt_notice t~ nsion cracks, heed scarps subsidence, slumps, bent fir trees etc that are indicative of slope instability and/or landslide activity. 1 4.0 Subsurface Conditions ' We encountered following specific subsurface soil and groundwater conditions during our subsurface exploration. Detailed descriptions of subsurface soils are given in test pit logs TP-1 to TP-7 included ' in an Appendix. ' P98-0156 October 15, 1998 Page No. 4 ' 4.1 Soils and Geology t Topsoil and Fill - Roughly 6 to 12 inches of silty loam is present throughout the site. Minor surficial fill of up to 12 inches was encountered at isolated locations in the westernmost portion of the site. Native Soils - Topsoil and fill is underlain by generally medium stiff to very stiff native silt-clay mixtures (ML, CL/ML) extending to the maximum explored depth of 12 feet. Our review of available ' geological literature (OFR 0-90-2, and Geologic Map of Oregon) suggests that these soils are the result of complete weathering of rock presents beneath the site. ' Bedrock - Upper native residual soils are underlain by Pliocene Sandy River Mudstone formation in the steeper northern portion and Pliocene/Pleistocene boring lavas (Qtb) in the rest of the site. Based on the results of our subsurface explorations and our knowledge of the site, we anticipate that the unweathered bedrock may not be encountered in project excavations. 4.2 Groundwater We did not encountered groundwater seepage in excavated test pits at the time of our explorations. Variations in groundwater levels should be expected seasonally, annually and from location to location. We anticipate that groundwater table will rise during months of peak runoff. Based on our knowledge ' of the site and review of Soil Conservation Survey (SCS) book on Washington County, we believe, seasonal high perched groundwater table may be encountered at depths of 1 foot (in the upper terrace area) to 3 feet (in sloping areas) below existing grades. 4.3 Seismic Considerations ' The site falls within seismic Zone 3 having a seismic zone factor of 0.3 as classified by the Uniform Building Code of 1994. Based on site specific geology and subsurface soil conditions encountered during our exploration, we characterize the soil profile at the site as S2 with a site coefficient ('S' ' factor) of 1.2. It should be noted that a site-specific seismic evaluation was beyond the present scope of services. We can perform such an evaluation at your request at an addition cost. ' P98-0156 October 15, 1998 ' Page No. 5 ' 5.0 Site Stability Evaluation ' As indicated earlier, our site observations did not indicate visual evidence of slope instability at the site at this time. However, we noted evidence of severe erosion, the presence of man made drainage ' features, and very moist slope face conditions in the northernmost portion of the site (Lot 1, Lots 20 to 23, and Tract A). This area is underlain by moisture-sensitive fine-grained materials that are found ' and known to be prone to instability if adequate geotechnical measures are not taken-during construction. ' In order to evaluate the existing factor of safety against slope failure, we modeled existing site slopes and soil/groundwater data described earlier using XSTABL software and performed preliminary slope stability analyses. Results of our analyses are illustrated in Figure 4. Based on the results of our analyses, in our opinion, the site is anticipated to remain stable after construction, provided following general construction and design recommendations, especially the Lot-specific recommendations, ' discussed in Sections 6.0 and 7.0 are strictly followed. ' 6.0 General Construction Recommendations ' Based on the results of our field exploration, laboratory evaluation, and engineering analysis, we believe the site is suitable for proposed development provided following general construction recommendations are followed. Following paragraphs provide only general recommendations. Variations in soil conditions may be encountered during construction. In order to permit correlation between soil test pit data and actual soil conditions encountered during construction, we recommend that a geotechnical engineer be ' retained to perform inspections during construction and to provide specific recommendations for soils or foundation related phases of the project. ' P98-0156 October 15, 1998 ' Page No. 6 1 6.1 Subgrade Preparation ' In general, we recommend that any surface water within construction areas be drained away by cutting drainage ditches or by pumping from a sump hole, if necessary. Surface vegetation including 6 to 12 ' inches of topsoil, surficial fill, any saturated/inundated and disturbed soil, and any non-soil or incompetent materials encountered at the time of construction should be removed. In wet season, a 3-inch to 6-inch thick crushed rock layer should be placed immediately on the subgrade after site grading and/or topsoil removal to protect moisture sensitive subgrade soils during ' construction activities. For construction truck traffic areas, at least 12-inch thick granular working base is generally recommended with thicker sections and/or geotextile fabrics for heavily traveled areas. 1 1 6.2 Fill Placement 1 Depending upon proposed site grades and proposed building features, additional structural fill may be placed on the site. In general, all required structural fill materials for new building and pavement areas 1 should be placed in layers that, when compacted, do not exceed about 6 to 8 inches for fine grained soils (silts and clays) and about 10 to 12 inches for granular materials (sands and gravels). ' Fills should not be placed near steep slopes on the site prior to consulting with a geotechnical engineer. In general, structural fill materials for new building and pavement areas should be moistened or dried to achieve near optimum moisture conditions and then compacted by mechanical means to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined from ASTM D1557 modified Proctor laboratory test. Landscape fill can be placed and compacted by mechanical means to a minimum of 90 percent of ' the maximum dry density determined from ASTM D1557 modified Proctor laboratory test. As indicated earlier, these are general recommendations. Depending upon the type of fill material used 1 during construction, a geotechnical engineer may revise the fill placement and compaction requirements. In any case, selected samples of fill materials should be submitted to our laboratory for 1 evaluating the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content and for evaluating the suitability of chosen fill materials. i 1 P98-0156 October 15, 1998 ' Page No. 7 ' 6.2.1 Fill Placement during Dry Weather ' During dry weather, prior to the placement of any fills, all exposed subgrades should be proof-rolled with a loaded dump truck having a static weight of at least 45,000 pounds. Areas found to be soft or otherwise unsuitable for supporting anticipated structural loads during a proof-roll test should be over- excavated and replaced with compacted fill as described below. During dry weather, on-site native soils could be considered for use as fill materials provided they are free from organics and non-soil debris. However, we anticipate that these materials will have moisture ' content in excess of optimum, except perhaps during the driest months of the year, and accordingly, may require drying to achieve adequate compaction. Should wet weather grading be anticipated, the use of on-site soils as fill will be difficult without stabilizing fill materials using lime, cement, kiln ' dust, etc. ' 6.2.2 Fill Placement during Wet Weather During wet weather, grading or cutting operations should be performed using a smooth bladed tracked backhoe working from undisturbed or unexposed areas or from areas where fill has been placed and ' compacted. Structural subgrade areas should be cleanly cut to expose firm undisturbed soil. During wet weather, subgrades should not be proof-rolled. A geotechnical engineer should evaluate site conditions and provide specific recommendations for subgrade preparation and fill placement. On-site native soils are highly moisture sensitive and thus will not be suitable for use as structural fill during wet weather unless they are stabilized. If on-site soils must be used as fill materials, then we should be contacted for specific recommendations for on-site soil stabilization using lime, cement, kiln- dust, etc. Based on our preliminary evaluation, we anticipate the use of roughly 3 to 7 percent (of dry weight of material to be treated) cement content for on-site soils. Higher cement content will be ' required for higher moisture content at the time of construction. As an option, all-weather, clean granular fill materials such as sand, crushed rock, or sand and gravel ' containing less than 5 percent materials passing # 200 sieve can be used as fill during wet weather conditions. ' P98-0156 October 15, 1998 ' Page No. 8 6.3 Excavation and Dewatering ' Temporary earth slopes in dry season may be cut near vertical up to 5 feet deep. In general, dry weather excavations deeper than 5 feet should be performed in accordance with Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines for Type B soils. Deep excavations for any basements or deep utilities may be excavated at grades steeper than the recommended OSHA grades provided the excavations are monitored and certified by a registered geotechnical engineer. Please note that site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. ' Groundwater seepage in excavations should be anticipated during the wet season of the year. For most of the excavations for this project, pumping from sumps outside the limits of the excavation should control groundwater seepage and surface water ponding. All deep excavations such as utility trenches ' should preferably be made in dry season. ' Soils exposed in excavated areas should be protected from rain, freezing, and excessive loading along edges. Surface water run-off should be intercepted and drained away from excavated areas. Ideally, in structural areas, concert should be poured within 24 hours of the completion of excavation. 7.0 Design Recommendations We have developed following design recommendations using the results of our study and our knowledge of proposed construction. We should be contacted to revise our design recommendations if proposed construction characteristics are drastically different from those described in Section 2.0. P98-0156 October 15, 1998 ' Page No. 9 ' 7.1 Individual Lot Development ' Based on the results of our study, we make following recommendations for individual lot development. Lot No. 1 As a minimum, discharge all drain systems (foundation, roof, surface, etc) directly into a suitable receptacle but not into the face of the steep slope. ' . Minimize vegetation removal from steep slope areas. Provide erosion protection for exposed and eroded slope face. • An offset of 10 feet from the existing crestline of an eroded slope should be used for house layout. If this offset requirement can not be met, then a lot-specific geotechnical evaluation must be performed by us or a qualified and registered geotechnical engineer after the house layout/plan is ' available for review. Lot No. 2 through Lot No. 5 Surficial fill of up to 12 inches and isolated old horse barn structures may be present. Any existing ' surficial fill along with topsoil should be removed. No other lot-specific recommendations are required. Nevertheless, if the placement of large quantities of fill or deep excavations are required, then we should review the proposed house layout/plans and confirm the applicability of our recommendations. ' Lot No. 6 through 19 ' No lot-specific recommendations are required. Nevertheless, if the placement of large quantities of fill or deep excavations are required, then we should review the proposed house layout/plans and ' confirm the applicability of our recommendations. Lot No. 20 to 23 As a minimum, discharge all drain systems (foundation, roof, surface, etc) directly into a suitable ' receptacle but not into the face of the steep slope. ' P98-0156 October 15, 1998 Page No. 10 ' Minimize vegetation removal from steep slope areas. Provide erosion protection for exposed and eroded slope face. ' A lot-specific geotechnical evaluation must be performed by us or a qualified and registered geotechnical engineer after the house layout/plan is available for review. 7.2 Foundations Proposed new buildings can be supported on properly prepared native subgrade or on structural fill using continuous and individual shallow spread footings designed for following net maximum allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf. The given allowable bearing capacity is intended for dead loads and ' sustained live loads and can be increased by one-third for the total of all loads, including short-term wind or seismic loads. All residential footings should be at least 16 inches wide. All continuous exterior footings should extend to a minimum depth of 12 inches beneath the lowest adjacent exterior compacted grade to provide frost protection and to minimize punching shear failure. Interior footings in heated areas can be placed at any convenient depth. ' We estimate that foundations supported on native subgrade designed and constructed in accordance with the above recommendations will experience total settlements generally less than 1-inch and ' differential settlements between columns generally less than 1/2-inch. Allowable lateral frictional resistance between the base of footings and the native or fill subgrade can ' be expressed as the applied vertical load multiplied by a coefficient of friction of 0.35. In addition, lateral loads may be resisted by passive earth pressures based on an equivalent fluid density of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) on footings poured "neat" against in-situ soils or properly back-filled with ' structural fill. This recommended values include a factor of safety of approximately 1.5, which is appropriate due to the amount of movement required to develop full passive resistance. ' If the footings are constructed during wet weather, it may be necessary to protect the foundation excavation bottoms from disturbance during construction activities. In this regard, we recommend that a 3-inch to 4-inch thickness of crushed rock be placed at the bottom of the footing excavations immediately after the excavation is completed. 1 ' P98-0156 October 15, 1998 ' Page No. 11 ' 7.3 Floor Slabs ' We anticipate the use of framed slab with crawl space. If concrete slabs-on-grade is used, then it should be supported on native subgrade or on structural fills after the topsoil is removed and after the subgrade is proof-rolled. For concrete slab-on-grade, we recommend the placement of a minimum of 6 inches of free-draining (a ' maximum size of 3/4 inch with less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) well-graded gravel or crushed rock base course to provide uniform subgrade reaction or support for the slab. The base ' course material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density determined by ASTM D 1557 laboratory test procedure. ' The crushed rock beneath slab-on-grade should provide a capillary break for the migration of moisture through the slab. If additional protection against moisture vapor is desired, a vapor retarding membrane may also be incorporated into the design. Because of variables such as cost, special considerations for construction, and floor coverings, we suggest that the owner or the architect make decisions regarding the use of vapor retarding membranes beneath the slab. 7.4 Retaining Walls Lateral earth pressures on walls that are not restrained at the top, such as retaining walls, etc., may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf for level backfill and 60 pcf for steeply sloping backfill. Walls that are restrained from yielding at the top (such as foundation/basement walls) may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf for level backfill and 90 pcf for steeply sloping backfill. ' Lateral earth pressures on walls may be resisted by passive pressure resistance acting against footing base and by frictional resistance between footing elements and supporting soils. An equivalent fluid ' density of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and a friction factor of 0.35 may be used for retaining wall design. The recommended equivalent fluid density includes a factor of safety of 1.5, which is appropriate due to the amount of movement required to develop full passive resistance. 1 P98-0156 October 15, 1998 ' Page No. 12 All backfill immediately behind retaining walls, foundation walls, etc., should be select granular material (sand and/or sandy gravel). We anticipate that on-site material will not be suitable for this ' purpose. All backfill behind walls should be placed in lifts not exceeding 6 inches in loose thickness and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM D 1557 test procedure. While placing fill behind walls, care must be taken to minimize undue lateral loads on the ' wall. 7.5 General Drainage Foundation drains should be installed at the base of all footings placed on silty subgrade to prevent surface and shallow perched water from migrating beneath footings. In general, building areas placed ' below exterior site grades must be provided with a well-designed drainage system in order to control hydrostatic pressures against walls, seepage of groundwater through base walls, etc. Under no circumstances should surface water run-off and roof drains be led into foundation drains. Surface run-off from roofs, parking areas, etc., should be tight-lined into storm sewer or other ' approved disposal areas. All pavement areas should be sloped away from the building to prevent ponding of water near buildings. t All drain systems for Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 20 through No. 23 must be discharged into a suitable receptacle but not into the face of the slope. 7.6 Pavements 1 In general, prior to placing the base or leveling course, the subgrade should be proof-rolled with a loaded dump truck having a minimum static weight of 45,000 pounds to detect areas or pockets of unusually soft material. These failed areas should be excavated and replaced with suitable compacted ' fill. Fill material should be selected according to our recommendations described in Section 5.2. A filter fabric should be placed over all fine-grained soils (silts-clays) prior to the placement of base rock. ' P98-0156 October 15, 1998 Page No. 13 Based on our experience, we have provided following preliminary pavement design recommendations for planning purposes only. Once the project traffic data is available, we will revise our preliminary ' recommendations and modify them if necessary. 7.6.1 Bituminous Pavements ' We assumed a design California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 3. We assumed 15,000 cumulative ESALs for parking area and 50,000 cumulative ESALs for driveway areas for 20 years of design life. Based ' on these assumptions, we recommend following bituminous pavement sections: Materials Thickness Entrance, Driveways, Car ' Service Roads Parking Bituminous Concrete (AC) 4 inches 21/2 inches Crushed Rock Base 8 inches 8 inches Cement Treated Base (option) 4 inches 4 inches 1 Bituminous pavement crushed rock base course materials should consist of well-graded 11/2-inch or '/c- inch minus crushed rock, having less than 5 percent material passing # No. 200 sieve. The base ' course and bituminous concrete materials should conform to the requirements given in the latest edition of the State of Oregon, Standard Specifications for Highway Construction handbook. In general, the base course material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined by the ASTM D-1557 laboratory test procedure. The bituminous concrete material (AC) should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the theoretical maximum density determined by ASTM D-2041 (Rice Specific Gravity) laboratory test procedure. 1 ' P98-0156 October 15, 1998 Page No. 14 ' 7.6.2 Concrete Pavement We assumed a design modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 150 pci. Based on our assumed k value and ESALs, we recommend following concrete pavement sections: Materials Thickness Entrance Car Service Roads Parking ' Concrete (4,000 psi) 6 inches 4 inches Leveling Coarse 2 inches 2 inches ' (Sand or All-Weather Base) Once the project data is available, we can provide detailed pavement design recommendations that will ' discuss joints, reinforcement, etc. 8.0 Construction Monitoring We recommend that a geotechnical engineer examine and identify all excavated footings to verify subgrade soil conditions. All structural subgrades should be proof-rolled in the presence of a geotechnical engineer. Structural fill placement and compaction should be continuously observed and tested by us. Fill samples should be submitted to our laboratory for evaluation prior to its placement. ' 9.0 General Conditions We have completed this study in general accordance with generally accepted Geotechnical engineering principles and practices as discussed in ASFE document included in an appendix. This warranty is in ' lieu of all other warranties expressed or implied. GeoStandards is not responsible for the independent conclusions or recommendations made by others based on information presented in this report. 1 S Sw a Be ert ' on d i Na t y m ill y a. ' m e 0 ' Gar en n a I a l h lvd 217 'On 0,770 a 'yCP a or ry Rd h 6y h ~ Ti•gard ;s r e old t Is m St - w c~ H y0 r S CO n d t ' o a a ' ¢ c N b 6 Q m Rd a 0 mi 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 N - No's tanda~ds Proposed Subdivison, Dead End of SW 70th Ave. Tigard, Oregon ' As Shown 1 P98-0158 6/23/98 USER jJK REVDATE FNAN oC97- r O O . n , C r :ZE In y ' y ? 25 - - N00;0'21'E-:------------------ 513.52', - 25 7- 178' ~..CU ~ Y4 f'lZ Lam. ` ! •ic U I •1 • • O \ VII \ Q 1 \ f~l`\\ : u. I b l \ \ \\1 t91 \ 1 ~..I 68 S. W.: 70TH AVE. _ i EVS G SANI7A11 Y SEWER o l 11z I / o ~ ~ I O O ~jA[_ O ►v 95 j 100' L~ 11 91' I I ~Ia 14 Vw? NOQ'10'21 E _ 1 \ T 49 21\\ I 1 1\ ~08'~ - l 1 \ 14 ~ ~ \m \ v..~ - \ 95\\ \ \ 100' \ ~ \ \I~ ' \ \08' \ 1 V 1 5 0 \95' ` \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 11 \ OI TO' o" o \ o o ` o 1•. i T.: O. t. N95' U181 \ \ _p" '"5,' \ \ ` \ \ \ \ ` 0 25 50 75 100 Feet Ty 3 1 0`. °:.ti' \ 25ti \ \95'\\ \ +~o' 2s• `25' 6~ 8. .'-rt1 _ :e.+i~~ 11'~Y?:;^ •t~~ri1~1~• ' . I \ b I ~ I ~ a, ` a odnemmac sate Nm Reference: LDC Design Group, Inc., Hillsboro, OR. ~eostand~~ds Proposed Subdivison, Dead End of Legend: All locations are APPROXIMATE SW 70th Ave., Tigard, OR TP-1 through TP-7 explorations by _ _ G-T -DWE eostandards 6/96 As Shown- 2 P98-0156 6/23/98 USER REVDATE FNAME I Tigard A-A' section Tigard B-B' section ' 500 500 400 400 W 300 t ' - m300 UI X V) ' a 200 a 200 ' 100 100 ' 0 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 ' X-AXIS (feet) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 X-AXIS (feet) I f I I (CIM55 gedkMg A - A' Mil E ~ IF ~eostandards Proposed Subdivison, Dead End of SW 70th Ave., Tigard, OR I No. Yp0(R mm DOE As Shown 3 P98-0156 10/98 USER RK REVOATE MORRISON I ' Proposed Tigard Subdivison FOS (-1.23) for Lots 20-23 Proposed Tigard Subdivison - Section A - A' Section B - B 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 2.338 500 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS 1.229 ' 500 ' 400 400 0)300 ~ a)300 a _ I ^ v N _ ' (n X Q 200 Q 200 } } 100 ' 100 ' 0 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 X-AXIS (feet) X-AXIS (feet) 1 AMER 5, Toff. CCmom aea®mns Proposed Subdivison, Dead End ~eostandards of SW 70th Ave., Tigard, OR ' FQ= MM N As Shown 4 P98-0156 10/98 USER RK REVDATE MORRISON 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 SHEET 1 OF 1 1 t~ fldarfi Fs PROJECT NAME Proposed Subdivison LOCATION Dead End of SW 70th Ave., Tigard, OR PROJECT NUMBER P98-0156 SURFACE ELEVATION DATUM MSL LOGGED BY SMA SAMPLE INFORMATION a z0 1 ~W DEPTH SAMPLE POCKET MOTS- U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION REMARKS w LL FEET TYPE PENETR, TURE, SYMBOL tsf % w 1 GRAB ML TOPSOIL - Dark gray silt with roots GRAB 1.5 32.4 ML SILT - Brown gray, medium stiff, moist 1 2 SILT -Grayish brown, stiff to very stiff, moist 1 GRAB 2 33.5 ML 3 1 5 1 Test Pit Terminated at 9 feet Groundwater seepage was 1 not encountered during excavation 1 1 i iv 0 d O a DRILLING CONTRACTOR SITE CONDITIONS TP-1 is located in the north/central portion of 1 DRILLING METHOD Backhoe the site as shown in figure 2 a a DRILLING EQUIPMENT Backhoe W DRILLING STARTED ENDED r BORING NUMBER TP-2 SHEET 1 OF 1 ~ ~eosta~da~ds PROJECT NAME Proposed Subdivison LOCATION Dead End of SW 70th Ave., Tigard, OR PROJECT NUMBER P98-0156 ' SURFACE ELEVATION DATUM MSL LOGGED BY SMA SAMPLE INFORMATION z ' a o DEPTH SAMPLE BLOW Recovery U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION REMARKS > w FEET TYPE COUNTS % SYMBOL N w GRAB ML TOPSOIL - Dark gray silt with roots 1 ML 71 SILT - Brown gray, medium stiff, moist GRAB ML SILT - Grayish brown, stiff to very stiff, moist 2 GRAB 3 5 ' GRAB ML 10 4 Test Pit Terminated at 10 feet Groundwater seepage was not encountered during ' excavation 1 ' e 0 c~ O cw7 CL C7 a w DRILLING CONTRACTOR SITE CONDITIONS TP-2 is located in the northeast portion of the site as shown in figure 2 °z DRILLING METHOD Backhoe c=i DRILLING EQUIPMENT Backhoe w ' DRILLING STARTED ENDED BORING NUMBER TP-3 SHEET 1 OF 1 PROJECT NAME Proposed Subdivison ~eosta~dards LOCATION Dead End of SW 70th Ave., Tigard, OR PROJECT NUMBER P98-0156 ' SURFACE ELEVATION DATUM MSL LOGGED BY SMA SAMPLE INFORMATION a z0 ' DEPTH SAMPLE BLOW Recovery U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION REMARKS Lu Lu LL FEET TYPE COUNTS % SYMBOL N w ' GRAB TOPSOIL -Dark gray silt with roots 1 SILT - Brown gray, medium stiff, moist GRAB SILT - Grayish brown, stiff to very stiff, moist 2 GRAB 3 GRAB 5 4 Test Pit Terminated at 5 feet Groundwater seepage was ' not encountered during excavation 1 e 0 1 c~ d 0 N a CL 1 CL w DRILLING CONTRACTOR SITE CONDITIONS TP-3 is located in the east portion of the site as o DRILLING METHOD Backhoe shown in figure 2 DRILLING EQUIPMENT Backhoe w °DRILLING STARTED w ENDED 1 0 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4 SHEET 1 OF 1 /~p~Stat~dards PROJECT NAME Proposed Subdivison phi LOCATION Dead End of SW 70th Ave., Tigard, OR PROJECT NUMBER P98-0156 ' SURFACE ELEVATION DATUM MSL LOGGED BY SMA SAMPLE INFORMATION z a o DEPTH SAMPLE POCKET MOTS- U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION REMARKS W uj U. FEET TYPE PENETR, TURE, SYMBOL tsf % w GRAB ML - TOPSOIL - Dark gray silt with roots ML SILT - Brown gray, medium stiff, moist GRAB 2 ' 5 Test Pit Terminated at 6 feet Groundwater seepage was ' not encountered during excavation 1 1 0 1 6 ~a 0 DRILLING CONTRACTOR SITE CONDITIONS TP-4 is located in the central portion of the site ' C§ DRILLING METHOD Backhoe as shown in figure 2 a a DRILLING EQUIPMENT Backhoe ~ DRILLING STARTED ENDED 1 ~ 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-5 SHEET 1 OF 1 PROJECT NAME Proposed Subdivison 1 ~eosta~dards LOCATION Dead End of SW 70th Ave., Tigard, OR PROJECT NUMBER P98-0156 ' SURFACE ELEVATION DATUM MSL LOGGED BY SMA SAMPLE INFORMATION Q zz ' DEPTH SAMPLE POCKET MOTS- U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION REMARKS > w u FEET TYPE PENETR, TURE, SYMBOL tsf % W GRAB - TOPSOIL -Dark gray silt with roots SILT- Brown gray, medium stiff, moist GRAB 2 ' GRAB 29 SILT- Grayish brown, stiff to very stiff, moist 3 1 1 Test Pit Terminated at 9 feet Groundwater seepage was not encountered during ' excavation c~ 1 ~ 0 t- N W C7 O a' DRILLING CONTRACTOR SITE CONDITIONS TP-5 is located in the southwest portion of the ' DRILLING METHOD Backhoe site as shown in figure 2 a a DRILLING EQUIPMENT Backhoe w DRILLING STARTED ENDED BORING NUMBER TP-6 SHEET 1 OF 1 ~eostandaPROJECT NAME Proposed Subdivison LOCATION Dead End of SW 70th Ave., Tigard, OR PROJECT NUMBER P98-0156 SURFACE ELEVATION DATUM MSL LOGGED BY SMA SAMPLE INFORMATION Q o ' DEPTH SAMPLE BLOW Recovery U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION REMARKS W FEET TYPE COUNTS % SYMBOL N W GRAB - TOPSOIL - Dark gray silt with roots 1 GRAB SILT - Brown gray, medium stiff, moist 2 1 5 ' 10 ' GRAB 3 Test Pit Terminated at 12 feet Groundwater seepage was not encountered during excavation 1 m 0 0 d 0 10 'a a W DRILLING CONTRACTOR SITE CONDITIONS TP-6 is located in the southwestl portion of the ' o DRILLING METHOD Backhoe site as shown in figure 2 v DRILLING EQUIPMENT Backhoe w DRILLING STARTED ENDED 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-7 SHEET 1 OF 1 ~ ~eostat~dards PROJECT NAME Proposed Subdivison LOCATION Dead End of SW 70th Ave., Tigard, OR PROJECT- NUMBER P98-0156 SURFACE ELEVATION DATUM MSL LOGGED BY SMA SAMPLE INFORMATION a z0 ' F- h ~ DEPTH SAMPLE POCKET MOIS- U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION REMARKS I 1>1 W FEET TYPE PENETR, TURE, SYMBOL cn tsf % w ' GRAB - TOPSOIL - Dark gray silt with roots SILT - Brown gray, medium stiff, moist GRAB 2 ' GRAB 27.7 SILT - Grayish brown, stiff to very stiff, moist 3 ' 5 ' Test Pit Terminated at 8 feet Groundwater seepage was not encountered during excavation 1 1 d 7d' 0 N a DRILLING CONTRACTOR SITE CONDITIONS TP-7 is located in the southeast portion of the DRILLING METHOD Backhoe site as shown in figure 2 a a DRILLING EQUIPMENT Backhoe y DRILLING STARTED ENDED 1 ~ SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - CLEAN . b•• ► GW SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO ' GRAVEL GRAVELS • • • FINES AND GRAVELLY (LITTLE OR NO FINES) ~U POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, ° o", Oo 0 GP GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE o Q SOILS aQ Q OR NO FINES COARSE ° ° E° SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - FINES WITH Oa~mp~ GM SILT MIXTURES GRAINED MORE THAN 50% GRAVELS P SOILS OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. (APPRECIABLE AMOUN CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - 4 SIEVE OF FINES) GC CLAY MIXTURES SW WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY ' CLEAN SANDS SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES MORE THAN 50% SAND OF MATERIAL IS AND (LITTLE OR NO FINES) LARGER THAN NO. SANDY SP POORLY-GRADED SANDS, ' 200 SIEVE SIZE SOILS FIESELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO MORE THAN 50% SANDS WITH SM SILTY SANDS, SAND -SILT 1 ' OF COARSE FINES t. MIXTURES FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 (APPRECIABLE AMOUN CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY SIEVE OF FINES) `S C' MIXTURES ' INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ML SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR t CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO SILTS MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY FINE AND L LIQUID LIMIT CL CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY ' GRAINED CLAYS S THAN 0 - - - - CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS SOILS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC OL SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY ^ INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR MORE THAN 50% MH DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR E OF MATERIAL IS SILTY SOILS z SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE ASILTS ND LIQUID LIMIT CI INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH ' A GREATER THAN 50 PLASTICITY Z CLAYS € ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO ' OH HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS ^ o - - ' " PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS V - - NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS 1 ' XSTABL File: TIGARDA 10-15-98 13:11 * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * Ver. 5.200 96 A 1455 Problem Description : Tigard A-A' section 1 ' SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ' 4 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 i20.0 250.0 225.0 270.0 i 2 225.0 270.0 250.0 265.0 1 ' 3 250.0 265.0 450.0 300.0 1 4 450.0 300.0 650.0 310.0 1 ' 4 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit ' No. (ft.) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 120.0 240.0 225.0 260.0 2 ' 2 225.0 260.0 250.0 255.0 2 3 250.0 255.0 450.0 290.0 2 4 450.0 290.0 650.0 300.0 2 1 1 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 2 Soil unit(s) specified ' Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. ' 1 100.0 110.0 .0 28.00 .000 .0 1 2 120.0 130.0 .0 30.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified ' Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 5 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 120.00 245.00 2 225.00 265.00 ' 3 250.00 260.00 4 450.00 295.00 5 650.00 305.00 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random ' technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. ' 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced ' along the ground surface between x = 120.0 ft and x = 300.0 ft ' Each surface terminates between x = 200.0 ft and x = 500.0 ft ' Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft 1 * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 6.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS 1 The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees 1 Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 43 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 260.00 266.75 2 265.66 264.77 3 271.37 262.93 4 277.13 261.22 5 282.92 259.65 6 288.74 258.22 ' 7 294.60 256.92 8 300.49 255.77 9 306.40 254.76 ' 10 312.34 253.89 11 318.30 253.16 12 324.27 252.57 13 330.25 252.13 ' 14 336.24 251.82 15 342.24 251.66 16 348.24 251.65 17 354.24 251.77 ' 18 360.23 252.04 19 366.22 252.45 20 372.19 253.01 ' 21 378.15 253.71 22 384.09 254.54 23 390.01 255.52 24 395.91 256.64 25 401.77 257.90 1 ' 26 407.61 259.30 27 413.41 260.84 ' 28 419.17 262.52 29 424.89 264.33 30 430.56 266.28 31 436.19 268.36 ' 32 441.77 270.58 33 447.29 272.93 34 452.75 275.41 ' 35 458.15 278.01 36 463.49 280.75 37 468.77 283.61 38 473.97 286.60 ' 39 479.10 289.71 40 484.16 292.95 41 489.13 296.30 ' 42 494.03 299.77 43 497.53 302.38 ' Simplified BISHOP FOS = 2.338 The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces ' Problem Description : Tigard A-A' section FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment ' (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 2.338 345.94 503.53 251.89 260.00 497.53 5.736E+07 ' 2. 2.346 160.45 366.43 123.26 120.00 234.69 7.050E+06 3. 2.347 147.21 400.45 152.89 120.00 226.43 5.001E+06 4. 2.385 336.93 419.77 180.92 240.00 473.56 5.316E+07 5. 2.434 360.96 376.33 119.32 300.00 452.78 1.563E+07 ' 6. 2.444 363.73 437.45 186.99 280.00 492.76 4.252E+07 7. 2.447 141.02 425.29 176.54 120.00 224.99 4.770E+06 8. 2.481 296.46 693.00 438.50 200.00 495.49 8.948E+07 9. 2.539 183.82 319.95 66.72 160.00 227.48 1.386E+06 10. 2.592 162.32 419.06 166.75 140.00 233.56 4.297E+06 * * * END OF FILE 1 XSTABL File: TIGARDB 10-15-98 14:14 * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis using the * Method of Slices * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5.200 96 A 1455 Problem Description : Tigard B-B' section 1 SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 3 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit ' No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 120.0 250.0 200.0 260.0 1 2 200.0 260.0 240.0 280.0 1 3 240.0 280.0 550.0 310.0 1 3 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment ' 1 120.0 240.0 200.0 250.0 2 2 200.0 250.0 240.0 270.0 2 ' 3 240.0 270.0 550.0 300.0 2 r r ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters ' 2 Soil unit(s) specified r Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. ' 1 100.0 110.0 .0 28.00 .000 .0 1 2 120.0 130.0 .0 30.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x-water y-water ' No. (ft) (ft) 1 120.00 245.00 2 200.00 255.00 ' 3 240.00 275.00 4 550.00 305.00 r A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. ' 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. ' 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 120.0 ft and x = 250.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 250.0 ft ' and x = 500.0 ft ' Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft 1 r ' * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 6.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS ' The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * 1 The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 16 coordinate points ' Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 177.78 257.22 2 183.58 255.70 3 189.49 254.66 1 4 195.47 254.13 5 201.47 254.10 6 207.45 254.58 ' 7 213.37 255.55 8 219.19 257.02 9 224.86 258.97 10 230.35 261.39 11 235.62 264.26 12 240.63 267.57 13 245.34 271.28 ' 14 249.72 275.38 15 253.75 279.83 16 254.99 281.45 Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.229 The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces i Problem Description : Tigard B-B' section FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.229 198.82 325.48 71.42 177.78 254.99 2.038E+06 2. 1.326 150.84 473.39 217.35 206.67 252.30 1.370E+06 3. 1.364 195.21 353.45 103.09 163.33 270.34 5.269E+06 4. 1.384 179.96 407.85 153.33 163.33 268.60 4.701E+06 5. 1.392 222.10 290.75 31.46 206.67 251.94 6.747E+05 6. 1.469 209.35 295.14 49.34 177.78 256.72 2.909E+06 7. 1.471 189.63 372.10 125.30 148.89 278.40 8.991E+06 8. 1.481 217.97 289.62 39.99 192.22 257.08 1.917E+06 9. 1.505 209.77 391.45 133.58 192.22 290.23 5.814E+06 10. 1.521 219.66 291.94 42.85 192.22 261.24 2.289E+06 ' * * * END OF FILE 1 IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL 1 ENGINEERING REPORT t As the client of a consulting geotechnical engineer, you MOST GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS ARE should know that site subsurface conditions cause more PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS construction problems than any other factor. ASFE/fhe Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the only at those points where samples are taken. The data Geosciences offers the following suggestions and were extrapolated by your geotechnical engineer who ' observations to help you manage your risks. then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual interface A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS BASED between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas ' Your geotechnical engineering report is based on a not sampled may differ from those predicted in your subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a report. While nothing can be done to prevent such unique set of project-specific factors. These factors situations, you and your geotechnical engineer can work typically include: the general nature of the structure together to help minimize their impact. Retaining your ' involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the geotechnical engineer to observe construction can be structure on the site; other improvements, such as particularly beneficial in this respect. access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; ' and the additional risk created by scope-of-service A REPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly CAN ONLY BE PRELIMINARY problems, ask your geotechnical engineer to evaluate The construction recommendations included in your how factors that change subsequent to the date of the geotechnical engineer's report are preliminary, because report may affect the report's recommendations. they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are Unless your geotechnical engineer indicates otherwise, indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. do not use your geotechnical engineering report: Because actual subsurface conditions can be discerned ' only during earthwork, you should retain your geo- • when the nature of the proposed structure is technical engineer to observe actual conditions and to changed, for example, if an office building will be finalize recommendations. Only the geotechnical ' erected instead of a parking garage, or a refrigerated engineer who prepared the report is fully familiar with warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated the background information needed to determine one; whether or not the report's recommendations are valid • when the size, elevation, or configuration of the and whether or not the contractor is abiding by appli- ' proposed structure is altered; cable recommendations. The geotechnical engineer who • when the location or orientation of the proposed developed your report cannot assume responsibility or structure is modified; liability for the adequacy of the report's recommenda- • when there is a change of ownership; or tions if another party is retained to observe construction. ' • for application to an adjacent site. GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND PERSONS problems that may occur if they are not consulted after Consulting geotechnical engineers prepare reports to factors considered in their report's development have meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report changed. prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. ' SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE Unless indicated otherwise, your geotechnical engineer A geotechnical engineering report is based on condi- prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for tions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration. purposes you indicated. No one other than you should Do not base construction decisions on a geotechnical apply this report for its intended purpose without first ' engineering report whose adequacy may have been conferring with the geotechnical engineer. No party affected by time. Speak with your geotechnical consult- should apply this report for any purpose other than that ant to learn if additional tests are advisable before originally contemplated without first conferring with the ' construction starts.Note, too, that additional tests may geotechnical engineer. be required when subsurface conditions are affected by construction operations at or adjacent to the site, or by GEOENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or ground ARE NOT AT ISSUE ' water fluctuations. Keep your geotechnical consultant Your geotechnical engineering report is not likely to apprised of any such events. relate any findings, conclusions, or recommendations about the potential for hazardous materials existing at mates was not one of the specific purposes for which it ' the site. The equipment, techniques, and personnel was prepared. In other words, while a contractor may used to perform a geoenviron mental exploration differ gain important knowledge from a report prepared for substantially from those applied in geotechnical another party, the contractor would be well-advised to ' engineering. Contamination can create major risks. If discuss the report with your geotechnical engineer and you have no information about the potential for your to perform the additional or alternative work that the site being contaminated, you are advised to speak with contractor believes may be needed to obtain the data your geotechnical consultant for information relating to specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating ' geoenvironmental issues. purposes.) Some clients believe that it is unwise or unnecessary to give contractors access to their geo- A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS technical engineering reports because they hold the SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsi- ' Costly problems can occur when other design profes- bility for the accuracy of subsurface information always sionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the of a geotechnical engineering report. To help avoid best available information to contractors helps prevent misinterpretations, retain your geotechnical engineer to costly construction problems. It also helps reduce the work with other project design professionals who are adversarial attitudes that can aggravate problems to affected by the geotechnical report. Have your geotech- disproportionate scale. nical engineer explain report implications to design ' professionals affected by them, and then review those READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY design professionals' plans and specifications to see Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively how they have incorporated geotechnical factors. on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other Although certain other design professionals may be fam- design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly ' iliar with geotechnical concerns, none knows as much unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnical about them as a competent geotechnical engineer. engineers. To help prevent this problem, geotechnical engineers have developed a number of clauses for use in BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED their contracts, reports, and other documents. Responsi- FROM THE REPORT bility clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to Geotechnical engineers develop final boring logs based transfer geotechnical engineers' liabilities to other upon their interpretation of the field logs (assembled by parties. Instead, they are definitive clauses that identify ' site personnel) and laboratory evaluation of field where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and samples. Geotechnical engineers customarily include end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their only final boring logs in their reports. Final boring logs individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. should not under any circumstances be redrawn for Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in ' inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, your geotechnical engineering report. Read them because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the closely. Your geotechnical engineer will be pleased to transfer process. Although photographic reproduction give full and frank answers to any questions. eliminates this problem, it does nothing to minimize the ' possibility of contractors misinterpreting the logs during RELY ON THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER bid preparation. When this occurs, delays, disputes, and FOR ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE unanticipated costs are the all-too-frequent result. Most ASFE-member consulting geotechnical engineer- ing firms are familiar with a variety of techniques and To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpreta- approaches that can be used to help reduce risks for all tion, give contractors ready access to the complete parties to a construction project, from design through geotechnical engineering report prepared or authorized construction. Speak with your geotechnical engineer not ' for their use. (If access is provided only to the report only about geotechnical issues, but others as well, to prepared for you, you should advise contractors of the learn about approaches that may be of genuine benefit. report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not You may also wish to obtain certain ASFE publications. one of the specific persons for whom the report was Contact a member of ASFE of ASFE for a complimentary ' prepared and that developing construction cost esti- directory of ASFE publications. ' THE ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING FIRMS ~4 5 F E PR ACTICING IN THE GEOSCIENCES ' 8811 COLESVILLE ROAD/SUITE G 106/SILVER SPRING, MD 20910 TELEPHONE: 301/565-2733 FACSIMILE: 301/589-2017 ' Copyright 1992 by ASFE, Inc. Unless ASFE grants specific permission to do so, duplication of this document by any means whatsoever is expressly prohibited. Re-use of the wording in this document, in whole or in part, also is expressly prohibited, and may be done only with the express permission of ASFE or for purposes of review or scholarly research. ' BPC0592A/3.5M Lot Address Quantity Inches Inches Type Entry 1 _ 3 3 Oak _ Entry 1 4 4 White Pine 3110005 SW 70th PI 2 0 Colorado Blue Spruce 10005 SW 70th PI 2 0 Vine Maple 4,10009 SW 70th PI 2 0 ,Vine Maple 4 10009 SW 70th PI 2 0 Cedar _ 4 10009 SW 70th PI _ 1 0 Alaskan cedar 5 10013 SW 70th PI 1 0 Blue Atlas Cedar 5 10013 SW 70th Pl. 1 _ 2 _ 2 Norway Maple 5 10013 SW 70th PI 3 _ 1.5 4.5 Japanese Maples 5 10013 SW 70th PI 3 0 Western Red Cedar / 5 10013 SW 70th PI 4 0 Vine Maple 6 10023 SW 70th PI 3 0 Blue Atlas Cedar 6 10023 SW 70th PI 1 2 2 Norway Maple _ 6 10023 SW 70th PI 2 1.5 3 Japanese Maples 11 10022 SW 70th PI 2 1.5 3 Norway Maple 11 10022 SW 70th PI 1 _ 0 Cedar Turnaround Island 3 2 6 Vine Maple - Turnaround Island 3 3 9 Lawson Cypress Turnaround Island 3 3 9 Western Red Cedar 13 6993 SW Locust 2 0 Betula (Shade trees) 14 6979 SW Locust 3 0 Lawson Cedars 14 6979 SW Locust 1 0 Douglas Fir 14 6979 SW Locust 1 0 Japanese Maples 14 6979 SW Locust 1 0 Spruce 14,6979 SW Locust 1 0 Weepy spruce _ 14L979 SW Locust 1 _ 0 Japanese Maples / 15 6955 SW Locust 7 3 21 Western Red Cedar d 15 6955 SW Locust 1 3 3 Canada Hemlock 15 6955 SW Locust 1 _ 3 3 Comus nuttalli 15 6955 SW Locust 3 _ 2 6 ,Vine Maple 15 6955 SW Locust 3 2 6 Northern India 15 6955 SW Locust 1 3 3 False Cypress _15 6955 SW Locust 2 4 _ 8 False Cypress 16 6939 SW Locust 2 3 6 Norway Maple _ 16 6939 SW Locust 1 0 Japanese Maples 16 6939 SW Locust 2 0 Pines 17 6930 SW Locust 2 0 Alaskan cedar 17 6930 SW Locust 1 0 White Pine _1716930 SW Locust 2 0 Cedar 18 10240 SW McKenna PI 2 0 Pines 18 10240 SW McKenna PI 1 3 _ 3 Red Bud Tree 18 10240 SW McKenna PI 2 0 Vine Maple 1810240 SW McKenna PI 2 0 Japanese Maples 19 10230 SW McKenna PI 3 _ 0 Vine Maple _ 1 10230 SW McKenna PI 2 _ 0 Japanese Pines _20 10225 SW McKenna PI 1 0 Alaskan cedar 20 10225 SW McKenna PI 2 0 Japanese Maples 20 10225 SW McKenna PI 1 2.5 2.5 Styrex _ 21 6970 SW Locust 2 2 4 Norway Maple 21 6970 SW Locust 2 O ,Vine Maple 377 q ANY EXCAVATION JEOPARDIZING THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING TREES OR BANK STABILITY SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE PROJECT CONSULTING ARBORIST FOR SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS. , ti ~ ~ I ~ \ I \ ~ I I i 1 i I \ T,L. ~~00 T.~.,, ~~00 T.L, 2500 T ~ ~Q00 T,L, ~~00 ~ ~ _ \ . \ T _ _ - TREES TO BE REMOVED ►ti REES TO BE REMOVED TREES TO BE REMOVED PER STORM CONFLICT 1 ' ~ `Try ry►ry 0 PER SANkTARY LATERAL CONFL CT pER STORM CONFLICT ~U/ , ry M1 ► ry M1ry -G22~ \I / ,,II ~ ► S:1fV: ENTU ~NUE - - _ _ _ 2360 V~ ~ ~ ~ 5 - - - < • l 2361 j ~ ' ~ ^ ryM1ryy ry7ry I i ~i, \ i h'SOTi - ' ry 2359- iF ry 5°~ ~ \ \ ~ ~ _ r - - / ry y6 ry i ~ / 1 / / 1 / ry , ~ , ~ MO ~ ~4~®~t +.r~o.~ w ! 1 ~ ~ , yy I r r~'J' \ I -....rte ry 2194 ~ / \i / \I IL ~ T \ ~ A: - i \ _27 19\ r\ /~~z,/ e _ it ~ i / ~ ~ . 2 92 _ 6~ w / a -62358 2244 7 I \ / \ \ ~1 ~ 0 ~ ~ E t`' \ II iS 2191 I ~ 0 ry ♦ M1,► ► \ 2250 , - 1 ~ / I M1~ ry ry ry I y,~ _ I \1 _ I 2251 _ 53 _ _ ~]I . M1 \ 1 / _ ~6 s,r, . - 2357 - - / X258 'J \Il \ I ^ / \ ~ M1 356 .II__ ~ \ I ~ f \ / ~ III/ `zra ~ .2354 11/ 2BB 1252 \II/ , ~ r 2 95Ai/ ~ ~ 2162 2184 ~ ~ ,~6 ry\`~ ~ I I ~ ~ _ - \ I ~ I II /I ► 144 f/ 1. I 5 I _ r~ / i ~ I 2254 I 1 ~ _ ~\II ~ y ~'6 1 ~ _ /i \ I ' 2281 2262C r °-r'1, - ~ J 2183 1y Iry, I'l / \II ry ~7 / ~ 0 2287( I :i ,II 283 ~I \ - l 2196 1! / I M1'` / \ .ti~Ilry 11 i`l (R; I 9 2284 I - I i _ 1 I \I!/~ ~ }/i \ ~ M1 22sD 1~1 2t 'I II ' ~ _ z 72 - / \ 226 ,i/ : I ,l -226 I I , _ 2,73 t4 / \ , ~ ~ ~ 1 i Q ~ \ 2197 i` 210 n 1 E / \ / \\~t3 '2285 ~ \11 79 I ~ 2162 j I I / T~~„ 1 1.1 ~ 2259 61 r II I ~ 2353 - ~ 2 I I I - / \ \Il~ \tl I / \I! i \ 62 2179 / \ ~.,C ~ / - r I / ~ ~ I 1 ,I pny2 CJ'11~'s~ n ~>+K~ 2352 ~ `I/ ~ i / tl~ ~ 1t Ii ' 1 ~ 214 / / \2150 13 f G ~ f r , _ / . 1 ` r \ \ \ / ~ I , I 2278 ~ r 626 ~ ?,~78 I ~ ~ / \ . \I~ 0 \ \ ~ 1 / .282 I \ 2198 ~ 1 i r) w ~„1 hug 1'i i 'L s'` . I` iI il. / r ~ C i T35f 11~ ~ 5 ( / \ 2 9 27 11' ! \ . I 5 r+'~ 'T• ry 6 _ / i / ~ + 216 \ \Ii/ 2129 st z z ~ , / 1 ry ~ 9 ~ . ~ 27 226s • I i \ i - - I I ~ \ i _\Ilj ~ ~ ~ ~ I ryry m.. / 2s2A ~ ~ / 2130 \ , r 9. I 216 - ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~z!§I ~c,~ ,j1,'~ 2349 q II / / ~ ~ op > ! p 2348 .l/ / \ ~ ~ r, I 2264 ~ 1 1 / \ ~N ~ 1v i 2 7~ ~ i ' - - ~ / I r \2158 ~ 2,53 /I ~ (PICA F __I ~ \ 1 ~ ~ ll 11 ' ~ 2261 •2267 ~ ~ ' ~ / 23os \Ilj I~ \r. . , ~ tI \ \ ~ I 6 f aio3 uo zlor _ 2347 ~ 227-, 2266 I ~ I ry ~ ~ ~ , ~r ~ / \ 229 • 0`' I ' 1 2268 / , ~ ~ \ ~ \ , d^ ,y+ ry1 /1\~ / ~ 11 I / a , M1 y1 1 \ ~ 11 ~ M1~ I 229 i / ry 1 215`1 2297 122 r ry Try ~ ~ \ 2112 ` / ` i-A o IC's! 7I~:C- S,3/tP-7AFWA AeJIl;-t Id",.f~ - - r 2299' i ~ ~ ry \ / i 1~' r ~ ' ~ J I r~ 12271, ~ i ~ t I r ~ ~ 1• / ~ I 12T7a / ~ \ r, ry I 1 ~ .1 \ i ~ \iI/ 3D \11/ I / ~ ry ~ / \ 2300~~\ 1 ~ ~'y i \1 ry` ~y ~ _r1/ i I ~i i ry ~l vl ~ - t 23D3 2,,, , , 24,5 237, ~ ~ ~ - - 2302 / \\lrj ~ 41 ~ `Ii O / \ ~ I r ' I ~ / \ • I i 41 2 3 4 'O ~ I I I p1 / 2 0 r/ ~ t. / / I 2 I7 : _ I `~0 ti~ ~ -1 ry~ X00 < 241 - /-I- I M1 M1, ry~ 1 ~ \I M1 / I / 2414 i i 1 V21 ~ ~ ~Il; ►S i 1 I I _ 210 / ~ I 1 r 4, fry / ► 1 \ ,7i 1 E ! I ~ ~ / I ~ , I~ \ 1 I I r~ t J 2 08 I ~ ti I ~i 2416 ~ / r / I ~l 2405 D91 ~ I 4 ` \ ! \Ilj I c+ I i L+' \ i 9 'tf, / 2375 I / `I / \ iI ~ ( ~ 2366 I / `c~- t~ \ , ► 2311 fi~ ~ I M1 I I r "2406 I 1 ry► 1 ~~lr i 4p \ \ ~ \Ii/ 1 ~I~ 1' ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ i M1 / 2097 b / ^-24(h, - - - - 4 ~ 1! , \ ~[J 'S1 1 / ~ ~ • ~ 0 0 / 2096 ~Il~ 2 I \ r~ r 2 22 1 II M1 1 . ~ M1 ry / 2099 r I . \ II 123 ~ M1'! 1 / ~ , I \ /'2140 I ~ ~ iI ~ I I i \ I I Z / 24 2 , I/ ~ 1B' ~ DAR ~ 0 9 ~ ~ 1 I \ I ~ ~ ~ ,r ~C y -c r ~ 1 ►ry ► , ~/I _1 Y I 1 ' I iI 'YS M1 11 ' / I 2DB4 I i ~ iI ry I, \ I ~ _ ~ _ ~ 2083 I \Ii 2439 ~ I ry ► I /~17 CEDAR - ' /\Ilry / \ ~-={•2401 ry .I 24.T~i, I / ! ~ \ I / r I !12" CEDAR I I ~ I i~ I ~ 1 I 13 00 ~ ~i _ ~ ~ / T ( i \ I 238 / I / i I \ 0°' ry f*~ / ~ i~ 437) \ \ t ~ 2381 I ry0 Iry d'' \Ill ~ I ~ ~ I ~ / \ fti ti. TREE DESCRIPTION TABLE I 4 I I ► I ~ w~ 1 \ iI/ ~ 2 35 I I I 2382 \X \ ~ /ry I _ L - I \ I ~f r \iI 2082 y' ~ 1 ~ •242 \I.~ ~ \ ~tr 1~j/i 4`~~ 2436 i \ 11 ~ I I 67 /I / \ / ~ 0 i 396 TREE 8' e / - 2421 I ( I I I / /I ~ \ I 2002 TREf 26'F1R 2)80 TREE 10"FIR 2 '8 Ay I ~ \ i , I , C5 ~y y ab ~ \ 243B~ \ \ I \II/ gi \ I 2003 TREE 26'F1R 2,81 TREE 2D'ALDER 2399 TREE 2S ~I/M1 ~ 9 / ~ - - - r \ I - - .r - -I ~ - _ i T B'F R 2182 TREE 20'ALDER 24D0 TREE 7 ~ i~ 2434 I I ti ~ ` 2004 REE 1 ! ry - i' \ ry~ i 4 3 h~ 12428 ~ _ I / \ 2006 TREE 18'TWIN FIR 2)83 TREE 24'ALDER 2441 TREE le ~ a I~ _ 2390 y9 I ti ry► 2429 T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ 20D7 TREE 10'MAPLE 2184 TREE 24'CEDAR 2402 TREE 6' 1 \II ry~0 U ' I ~ \ •.239 ~ ,2066 -°----__-----'207 -r~--~ i ( . / i// 20~r 2008 TREE 18'FIR 2)65 TREE f0'FIR 2403 TREE I( ~ I I , , - ~ - - / L /L~ - 20D9 TREE 8'FIR 2186 TREE 30'CEDAR 2404 TREE IS I /I ( / 2~5 1 ~ 2010 TREE 12'FIR 2187 TREE 24'CEDAR 2405 TREE lE i I I I ~ i TREES TO BE REMOVED I t ,1. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2011 TREE 12'FIR 2188 TREE 18'ALDER 24D6 TREE li Zlfl~ I \ ~ -'--------'---PE STORM CONFLICT----- ---1•----------__ 2012 TREE 26'F!R 2189 TREE 20'ALDER 2407 TREE Ii I I ~ .2458 i \I! X207A ~ i \II/ 2532 I / ~ 1 2065 \11 2060 2013 TREE f5'FIR 2190 TREE 24'CEDAR 2408 TREE 1( I / 1 ~ 't ~i1~ 2014 TREE 6'iR!-0EClD 2191 TREE 15'f!R 2409 TREE ]i / ~~_____i \ tll / / . r/ \ \ / i i I \ ~ 9 TREf 6'CEDAR 2410 TREE 1e I rI I 2457 2464 \ ~ \ ~ ` / 2016 TREE 12 FIR 21 2 2 1 \ 1 , 2062 j~ 2oB ~ 2011 TREE 12'FIR 2193 TREE 24'CEDAR 2437 TREE If \ ~ _ I I I \ - - I i r - / 2061 r - - - - _ = _ - ~ 2018 TREE 6'FIR 2194 TREE 18'CEDAR 2412 TREE 8' ! ~ /I ! I ( 2019 TREE 14'F!R 2195 iREc" 24'CEDAR 2413 TREE 8' _ I / t I 2414 TREE 6' \ 1 - - - I 2D60 ~ 2020 TREE 6'FIR 2196 TREE 12 MAPLE 24 6 ! 1` I ~ ~ ~ I i I 2021 TREE 18'FIR 2197 TREE 26'CEDAR 2415 TREE li I I ~ / ~ I I ~ QQ \ I 1 2064 ~ I / \ 1 OB6 E` 2D22 TREE )5'F!R 2198 TREE 30'CEDAR 2416 TREE 8' l t I I ~I 2398 TREE B'FIR ' 245 I i ~ II 2D6 I ~a_2D23 _ rREE_6'7&I~ECID _-__-?232__TREE 6'ALDER - _ _.2417__- IREE.1s I r - - - - - I ~ I I \ ~ ~ / I 2D5f TREE J2'DECID 2233 TREE 6'ALDER 2418 TREE 1C r / I / ~ I 2399 TREE 24'CEDAR 2400 TREE 15'CEDAR I ~ I I I ~ I I PRaPOSED 4 9 " EE 2451 I i I r 2087 I I I 2D52 TREE 12'DECID 2234 TREE 6'ALDER 2 1 rR 1 I I I I I 11 I n~p 2401 TREE 12'MAPLE I 2452 + ~ 1 ~ ~ i i I i 2053 TREE 36'FIR 2.235 TREE 8'ALDER 2421 TREE IS h1 . ~ I I I I ~ ~IJ~IJC(i~ I ~ 1 . , ' r I ~ I 2060 TREE 10'ALDER 2236 TREE 8'ALDER 2422 TREE ]f -I I ~--/~-_I I_ _I 2402 TREE 6"CEDAR 2403 TREE 10"CEDAR 2453 1 ` ~ ~ - '245 ~ I J i I - 2D61 TREE 10'CHERRY 2231 TREE 6'ALDER 2423 TREE 1s I 2448 I• ' ~ ~ I I ~ - ~ *ncc r. 2404 TREE 14'FIR I I 1Ubz ltttt ib'rirr _ _ ~ 2447 , I' L-----I _ _ 12445 I i \ \ 1 _ _ ^ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2063 TREE 10' TWINCHERRY 2239 TREE 40' CEDAR 2425 TREE ] 2405 TREE 18"ALDER 2406 TREE 12'TWINCEDAR 1 ~ ' II " irl ' \ \ i ~ , - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - 2D64 TREE 10'CHERRY 2240 TREE 8'ALDER 2426 TREE 1f I . _I ~ ~ , 2407 TREE 12'CEDAR I rl ~ ~ I 2D65 TREE 10'TW.NCNERRY 2241 TREE 6'ALDER 2421 TREE 1( I 2444 ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 2066 TREE 24'FIR 2242 TREE 8'ALDER 2428 TREE l( 2408 TREE 10'CEDAR 2409 TREE 12"ALDER \ \ a \ \ \ \ I ~Il~ 2446/ ry ►a / ~ ~ , , \ ~ ~ ~ \ 2067 TREE 16'MAPLE 2243 TREE B'TW1N-ALDER 2429 TREE ]i ~ \ - 2410 TREE 12'ALDER i\1 - - i~ ` , I 2068 TREE f8"FIR 2244 TREE 10'ALDER 2430 TREE If ( .,y~ ~ _ ,r \ O 2D69 TREE 12'MAPLE 2247 TREE 10'ALDER 2431 TREE 8' 2411 TREE 18'ALDER 2412 TREE 8'ALDER T O 2070 TREE 10'ALDER 2248 TREE 12'ALDER 2432 TREE 2S 2413 TREE 8'ALDER ` \ ~ ' • \ ~ - - 2071 TREE 24'CEDAR 2249 TREE )0'MAPLE 2433 TREE 8' _ - 4 O t7 ~ 2072 TREE 24'F!R 2250 TREc 8'MAPLE 2434 TREE li 2414 TREE 6"-10"-12'ALDE 2415 TREE 12'ALDER 4 3 O 2073 TREE 1Z'F!R 2251 TREE 30'CEDAR 2435 TREE 8' 2416 TREE 8'-10'-12'ALDE II / ~ ' 2014 TREE 10'-6'CNERRY 2252 TREE 6'ALDER 2436 TREE 6' ~ 2442 N 2075 TREE 6'CRERRY 2253 TREE S2'ALDER 2437 TREE fe 2417 TREE _ 14'CEDAR 2418 TREE 10'CEDAR , - - r ~ ~ '9,r h~~ ~ \ ~ \ ~ 2076 TREE 12'F!R 2254 TREE 40'LEDAR 2938_ __iRE~ I( 2419 TREE 10'ALDER ii ""2441 ~ . ~ ~ 2077 TREE 18'F!R 2255 TREE 12'ALDER 2439 TREE 2f irUS l S 1 . / \ ~ ~ 2078 TREE 14'FIR 2256 TREE 12"ALDER 244D TREE 1: 2421 TREE 14"ALDER 2422 TREE 12"-14'ALDER 440 2079 TREE i6'MAPLE-14"F1 2257 TREE 6'ALDER 2441 TREE 11 2423 TREE 14'ALDER \ ~ 2090 TREE 32"F1R 2258 TREE 14'CHERRY 2442 TREE 1~ ' . 1 i ~ A 2443 TREE 1: • . fr ,f~~, ~ 2081 TREE 24'FIR 2259 TREE 24 CED R 2 "Ae ncq 24-24 T ?ET 2425 TREE 10"TRI-ALDER ~ . ,ul, a1 ,tt'1r ~ r - - - - - r' - - - - 2082 TP,EE 36'fIR 2260 TREE 24'CEDAR 2444 TREE 1' X142 ~ ~ L1µ I , 2426 TREE 18'CEDAR ~ff~ _ ~QZ1_ _ , ti . ' _ _ _ I I 2083 TREE 30'FIR 2261 TREE 8'CEDAR 2445 TREE 41 ~ ~n -'JT ..7-"_ ( I i , ~ ..•rro Deco TDCC ,e•ueore ~eea Tpcc ~r 2427 TREE 10"-14'ALDER - r - - - ° - I I ~ 2085 TREE 1B'MAP1E 2263 TP,EE 42'CEDAR 2447 TREE 11 2447 TREE 12'FIR ~ ~ ~ ~ I ( I 0 6 TREE J4'-12'MAPLE 2269 TREE 36'CEDAR 2448 TREE 1~ ~ I I 28 2448 TREE 14'FIR ~I I- I I ~ I I f \ / i I 2087 TREE 10'FIR 2265 TREE 12"CEDAR 2949 TREE 4f 1 I I I 'p ti , ~ ~ I 7R O'MAPLE 2450 TRE£ 11 i gry19 ry I I 1 2069 TREE JO'ALDER 2266 EE 1 2449 TREE 40'FIR 2450 TREE 10'xl2'FIR ry 1 0 1 1 \2006 ~ I I I I I poi+o6 ry I I ~ I ~ 2090 TREE 10"MAPLE 2267 TREE 6'ALDER 2451 TREE 11 ryp, I - I I i 2451 TREE 12'ALDER ~ ~ ry o \ I I 2091 TREE 8'ALDER 2268 TREE 6'ALDER 2452 TREE 11 ry t ~ I ~----._...-I 4 I ~ ~5 , , L - _ - - I - - - I 2092 TREE 12'ALOER 2269 TREE f0'AIDER 2 53 TREE 1! 2452 TREE 12'FIR 2453 TREE 18'FIR i I ~l I I ~ I 2 0 TREE ID'-]2"ALDER 2454 TREE fl ^ I I ; I ~ 2093 TREE 14'FIR 27 2454 TREE 18'FIR ~ I i~ ~ . L ~.~oe.._.. I 2094 TREE 24'FIR 2271 TREE ]0'ALDER 2455 TREE 8~ - 2007 200 ~ ~ 2095 TREE 12'ALDER 2212 TREE 10"ALDER 2456 TREE 1 2455 TREE 8'x2-12'ALDER 2456 TREE 15'FIR ~I i; ~ ~!/f ~ 2002 \tl~ i ~ ~ J l ~ ~ ( 2096 TREE ]0'FIR 2273 TREE 8'ALDER 2457 7F,EE la 2457 WEE 18'FIR j ~ ~ ~ i ~ / ~ / 12003 ~ ~ i ~~2013 \ \ ~ 2097 TREE 6"F1R 2274____ TREE 10'ALDER 2458 TREE 8 ~ ~ j / ~ ~I \ /I I 24'FIR 2276 TREE 10"ALDER 2959 TREE 1' ~ /f 2098 TREE 2458 TREE 8'ALDER 2459 TREE 12'xl4'ALDER 1014 i I 1 I I 4 THE 1. ' ~ 8" ER 2 60 E I ieA.. ti ~ ~ ~ ~ I I 2099 TREE 6'TWINCHERRY 2277 TREE ALD 2460 TREE 18'x24'CEDAR I ryo, I t „ - ~ - 2100 TREE 20'CEDAR 2218 TREE 12'ALDER - J q~ I 2101 TREE 36'CEDAR 2279 TREE 6'ALDER I ~J`~= ~ ~ ~ 2102 TREE 14'MAPLE 2280 TREE 6"ALDER ADDITIONAL TREES I I ~ ~ ~ 4' D 2281 TREE ]2'AIDER ADDITIONAL TREE Y e~~ I 2103 TREE 2 AL ER I I ~ ~ 7 EE e'FIR 2282 TREE 10'ALDER LDT 12 TREE b 2104 R LOT 12 TREE 18' CEDAR, NO TAG I - - 2105 TREE 24"CEDAR 2283 TREE 8'ALDER LOT 12 TREE 1 LOT 12 TREE 12' CEDAR, NO TAG I _ _ _ 2106 TREE 20'FIR 2284 TREE 24'CEDAR LOT 12 TREE 1 LOT 12 TREE 17' CEDAR, NO TAG LOT 12 TREE 12' CEDAR, NO TAG Ii ~p I I r - 2107 TREE 24'ALDER 2285 U?EE 8'ALDER LOT 12 TREE 1 ~p ~ I I 2195A TREE 2 as3' I I 2108 TREE 26'FIR 2286 TREE ]5"F!R f 2195A TREE 24' CEDAR I r - - - - - r - - - - - ~ I 2109 TREE 20'CEDAR 2287 TREE 14'CEDAR 2262A TREE 1 I ~ ~ I I ~ 2110 TREE 24'ALDER 2288 TREE 3D'CEDAR 22628 TREE 1 2262A TREE 12' MAPLE 22628 TREE 17' ALDER ,c I 1 ~ i I - - ,M I I I ~ 2111 TREE 12'F]R 2290 TREE i5'CEDAR 2262C TREE ] 2262C TREE 14' MAPLE Q I I I I I 2112 TREE 14'ALDER 2291 TREE 1D'MAPLE t 2113 TREE 24'ALDER 2292 TREE i0'MAPLE n I 1 ~ I I 2114 TREE 36'CEDAR 2293 TREE 15'FIR I ( i I ~ I •i 11.25 I , I L I ~ I Z1J5 TREE f8'ALDER 2294 TREE 14'CEDAR - - - - - ~ ~•:1•t' TREE 24'CEDAR 2295 TREE ]2'ALDER I I I I ~ I ~ l ~ r~ 2125 s i i ~2D52 - I _ 2]26 TREE 30'CEDAR _ 2296 TREE ]0'ALDER _ I ~ ( I ( T EE 36"CEDAR 2297 TREE 18'FIR I ~ ~ 2127 R ~......----I ~-.~---su.l DER I ~ , ~ % I 2129 TREE 30'CEDAR 2298 TREE 18 AL I I ~,/J 2053'/ \ 2130 TREE 12'CEDAR 2299 TREE 18'MAPLE 1 I I I 2131 TREE 36'CEDAR 2300 TREE 14'ALDER ~i 2132 TREE 36"CEDAR 2301 TREE i5'ALDER ~1 I 1 ~ 2133 TREE !0'CEDAR 2302 TREE 30'CEDAR I i EXiS1~NG PAVEMENT I ~ ~ ®s o ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ 2134 TREE 12"CEDAR 2303 TREE 30' CEDAR I 1 c~, p 2135 TREE 36'CEDAR 2305 TREE 24'CEDAR T.~. ~,3~be 2136 TREE 36'CEDAR 2347 TREE 14'MAPLE I 2137 TREE 36'CEOAR 2348 TREE 14'FIR i T.L, ~~1 - - - ~ - 2349 TREE 14'FJR I ~ 2140 TREE 24'CEDAR _L - _ 2141 TREE 15'CEDAR 2350 TREE 30'CEDAR 2142 TREE ]6'CEDAR 2351 TREE ]4"CEDAR 2143 TREE 24'CEDAR 2352 1REE 10'CEDAR ~ 2144 TP.EF_ 3D'CEDAR 2353 TREE 24'CEDAR q ~ I ~ ~ 2145 TREE 12'ALDER 2354 iP,EE 24'FIR T'~• 2146 TREE 18'FIR 2355 TREE ID'CEOAR i { ~ ~ 2147 TREE 12'F1R 2356 TREE 18'CEDAR ~x~,„ ~QQ~ ~ 2148 TREE ]8'CEDAR 2357 TREE 3D'FIR I / I~ 2149_ TREE_36'CEDAR 2358 TREE 12~CEDAR I TREE 6'FIR 2359 TREE 10'MAPLE 2150 - - " - I 2151 TREE 12'ALDER 2360 TREE 12'ALDER 2152 TREE 10'CEDAR 2361 TREE 10'ALDER 2153 TREE 8'CEDAR 2371 TREE 5'x2-11'ALDE 2154 TREE 36'CEDAR 2372 TREE 8'ALDER 1 i 2155 TREE 30'FIR 2373 TREE 10'ALDER I 2157 TREf 12'CEDAR 2374 TREE iD'A1DER I I i 2158 TREE 30'CEDAR 2315 TREE 6'ALDER I - 2]59 TREE 24'FIR 2376 TREE 2-8'x6'ALDER .-I 2]60 TREE 3D'CEDAR 2377 FREE 6'ALDER Y! 2378 TREE 14'ALDER 2161 TREE 36'CEDAR a ZI6Z TREE 36~CEDAR 2379 TREE f0'TWINALDER ~ 2163 TREE 36 CEDAR 2380 TREE 10'ALDER - 2164 TREE 24'CEDAR 2381 TREE !0'ALDER 2165 TREE 26'CEDAR 2382 TREE 10'OAK I 2]66 TREE 24'CEDAR 2383 TREE 14'CEDAR I T.L. `~5~ I I 2167 TREE 24'CEDAR 2384 TREE fD'xi2'TWINALD I I I 2168 TREE 30'CEDAR 2385 TREE !2'ALDER I / ~ 2169 TREE 15'CEDAR 2386 TREE 36'CEDAR 1 __2170, _ TREE I5'CEDAR_. _ _ _ 2387 _ TREE 12'ALDER _ i - 2171 TREE 36'CEDAR 2388 TREE 12'ALDER 2172 TREE 12'ALDER 2389 TREE 6'ALDER 2113 TREE ID"CEDAR 2390 TREE 10'TWINALDER 2174 TREE ]2'MAPLE 2391 TREE BALDER 2175 iftEE 12'ALDER 2392 TREE 8"ALDER ! 2176 TREE 38'FIR 2393 TREE 14'MAPLE 1 I I 2177 TREE 10'ALDER 2394 TREE 18'ALDER I ~ i 2178 TREE 10'ALDER 2395 TREE ID'F]R I / 2 9_2179 TREE 15'CEDAR_ 2396 TREE_]6'F!R 2397 TREE 12'F1R I f N DESIGNED TRK CHECKED BDG , - 50 DATE NOV 1998 E E i~1 ~ IN ~ E 6564 S.E. LAKE ROAD 503 653-9093 PHONE MILWAUKiEr OREGON 97222 compassQnorthw®st.cclm 503 653-9095 FAX ~~237=~~22 4237C1VL s FOUND 5/8" IRON FOUND 1/2" IRON PIPE ~ FLAT BOOK ROD, ON LINE (RiJ ~lE~D. EAST-wESr WASHINGTON SQUARE ESTATES BOOK 32, PAGE 44 T BOOK PAGE INIT{AL POONT IRON PIPE IS N00171'34"E, RECORDED AS D DRDED AS DOC. NO. ALSO FOUND 3/4' IRON PIPE ~ 014' (CALLED IN DEEDS) (U.O.) S007011'W, 1.19 ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ _ S.W. VENTURA DRIVE N 'E S T A T EEO 3' ROC, N0. TRACT "B" Gs' S8933'?1 f 264,177' 2644,48' P2 TRACT "F" 25 BASIS DF BfAR1N ~ ( ) 25 30 - _ 81-041824 5893321 f 39918 - 117.80' 81,7 ' N - A SUDDIVI~ION IN THE N.E "1~SEC.3~ - SEC. 36, T.1S., RAW., W. M. - ~ 89.99' ~ 1 5' i 110.69' 6120' 1103.15 , i 0,9 65,95 ~ ~ 36 31 r i I i 25'PRI~ATESD.E FOR CITY OF TIGARD VIIASHINGT N 0 CC 36 I ~ ~ GTON COUNTY, OREGON i , I , THE BENEFIT Of 10TS 5-8 ~ " ~ i i- i FOUND 1/2 IRON PIPE FDUND 2' BRASS DISC -►i I ~W i (R1) ~ EAST-WEST 18' PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN , ^ , 7 CITY OF TIGARD CASE FILE N0. SU FILE NO. SUB 98-0014 AT 1/4 CORNER, HELD ACCESS EASEMENT ~ I I 6 0 ~ ,00 , IRON PIPf !S NOOn9 f0 E, BT BOOK 9 PACE 140 ~ 5 , r 1,113 S0. fT, 0 a 0.52 (CALLED 1N DEEDS) N rr + ' I ~ h s,9fo sa fr. ° ~ ~ SCALE; 1:50 APRIL 13 ~ ,w I 8,025 SQ. f>; o h ° i SEf NOTE 3, ~ 0• APRIL 13, 2000 ~ ~ ^ 1S R 1 " " i ^ ~h I SEE NOIf 3 ~ SEE NOTE ,3; z i SHEET 1 h f -1 4° R SHEET 1 OF 2 1 ~ TRACT A i N v o ^ SHEET 2 ~ ~ 11350 S , FT. OUND 3 / BASS DISC OF 2 25 i o h I SHEET 2 z , 3 P.U,E Q AT SEC1)ON CORNER,~ELD ~ ~ (OPEN SPACE) i ° I A i SEE NOTE 3 r 36 0 ~ o I ® BT BDOK E, PAGE 215, s 1995 .a 16,082 SD. f>: , z I 15 EXISTING _ 30 SHEET 2 ti ~ ' I--PSSE. c-17.62' g 1'' MULTNOMAN COUNTY RECORDS g C R SEf PLAT RESIRICDON i ® 6 ~8 , a NOTE 7, SHEET 2 , 2.51 ~ I L-565 C=8,97' ; ` ' , ,~I',11.32 ~ 31 '41"E ~ . 25 30 ~ S I , L 10,34 ~ N7876 x ~ ~ ~ 111.11' ~ a 36 31 ~ ? I ~ ,p~'~ ~ 1 r 3 0^~ PARCEL 2 ~ ~ a l~' • ~ 1 I ~'V, S8971'10 E _ R ~ i 969 PARTITION PLAT , 38 ~9 0 ADIUS_51 ~ 32 m ~6•y, / 81.14 1990-074 i p ~ 9 ,-~1 , © ~ ~ , ' 3 ~ 11,367 SO. FT. L=6641 ~ 5703 ~ - _21_71' 36 hi ~ ,.000 Q- h~ N89'49'39'W ' 1~ 5 L=34,70' L=17.62' 35 33 v j n FOUND 5/8" IRON ROD 89.58' ~ ~ CURVE DATA LEGEND WITH r~1ow PLASnc cAP i;" ~ c=r4,3o ® w ~ - STAMPED "1 PETERSON L=536' I ~--8'P.UE, `,,l 61.04_,-' GURYE LENGTH RADIV3 DELTA CHORD ~ SET 5 81NCH 1856" P4 ~ U I ro ' 34 s~ / PLS ~ TYPICAL ~ s O 0 4 Q i ( ) ~ 1 2610' 11,00' 89'58'26' 54430'26 f 14,04' Wl1N YELLOW P 0.11' WEST o i o W ~ 9' ~ ° 5399 SO FT, '`O• G. ~ i ^ • w 10 1 26.71' 11.00' 90171'34" N45>?9;34 E 24,05' fNG1NEERING' ( 12 ~ ^ F PARCEL 1 ~ rnI ° ^ 11 ~ m 1,611 SO. fl; ~ 3 6115' 191,00' 2070'28' N800507"f 8691' ~ rn ~ N 6,914 SO fT. ° 0 5/81NCN D1AM sA - PARTITION PLAT I I- o , 0 5,362 S0. FT w 4 51145' 16600' 2070'28' N80175'07E 5815' WITH YELLOW P - ~ N8949'39"W , p I o , f9 z 5 49,65' 141,00' 2070'28' 58005b7°W 49.39' fNGlNEERING' ) 1990 074 1e o 0 20 P,S:SE. ° 89 99 ; 0 2 i L=3 05' 6 61.16' 191, 00' 18'31'34' S8171'Ol °W 61.49' SET ON _ o°> IN 3 -r - -------58971'18!- - _ 1 5953' 166,00' 2032'49' 5807823"W 59,21' r' • ~ p 7580 119,08' 8 4628' 141,00' 18'48'24' N8f'08;30 f 46,07' ❑p 5/81NCN DIAM 0 5,405 SO. fT. ~ SA g p a oo' ~ ~ i 6903' 65.00' 6500' 64.88' 9 2659' 17.00' 89'31'39" N4438'28"W Zi96' YELLOW PLASM a h ° IRON ROD FALLS 1N 21ro -t-----'---- - 10 39,43' 25.00' 9071'21' N457131 E' 3547' 1N MONUMENT f „ h ,r z ~v or SET ON a ~ IREf, SET S884136 E, r u ©0 ~ ~ or 11 39,1 f' 25,OD' 8931'39" 5443818E 3524 F ~ ~ V' ' ~ F "W 5.00 ( ~ hr 18 10 20 PR1VAlE SDE TO BOOK 362, PAGE 346 11 26.81' 17.00' 9072'21" S4571;32"W 14.11' FOUND 5 8"!R~ ~ / a H ~ BENEFIT LOTS 13-16 1J ,W 16 T 13 1672' 11.00' 90'01'54' N44'48'12"W 24,05' COMPASS ENG1 LOT 6 " ~ o N88'42'36"W 84.41 ~ ' , ~W N " j a ~ , r 13 ^ , ^ , 6,016 SQ fl; ° n 6016 SO. fT. ^ 14 26,69' 11.00 89'5706 5951148 W 24,03' AUM DOWNS ~ a ~ • • „ 1 _ ~ c r N ~ N ~ N n P DENOTES PLAT §"A~ LINT MR T! ~ ~ r„ • r 8, X76 .~1. F,. - r 14 ~ g 15 _ _ 51,89' 189,00' 16p159" 5087416 W ,5212 a 15 ~ Ih ~ ti r ° ° 6 T ° °j ~ _ 16 46, 45' 166. DO' 160159"'~ S(~8'14`11 W 46,3U' low 12 ~ 2 h 16 h o r 2 ,225 SO. f. °2 8 P.U f o f R DENOTES RECOJ 0o r ~ q 17 415' (TYPICAL) 11 40, 01 14,100' 16 Ole 59 N0874'11"E 39.89 6,091 SO. fT, i „ q ro °j r i *S44'4618 E' ~ 5 P.U.E 18 50.00 189,00 1509'28' N0840'34°f 49.85' FOUND 5 8" IRON ROD ~ SN DENOTES SURV1 / „ 8.17' 811 41.34' ,Q_ ; ---------;----y, 19 3.05' 189,00' 00'5516' N00;3804"f 305' Wl1N YELLOW PLASRC CAP ~N457408 E ~ ~ L=674 _ 6 6500 64,91 ~ ro WITH WASH1NGTi , , ~ L.61.1 ~ 20 46.59 166, DO 18174 53' N0872'S1 E 46.44 STAMPED J Pf]ERSON 4247' 4 I 23 r 23 ~L-26.72' o ' ~ ~ W 5 1 f 7 5 'W 40.00' , ~ 3 , ~ 4014 14,100 18T7453 SO$ 2 1 • " SO. fT. SQUARE FEET PLS 1856 P] ~I DD ; -_---59.99'--T 1=26.69 h , - T-- L,49.65 `0 22 ~ 4 ' ° 473 0 E 5.3s C I A N 5 36 35 00 8 46' 2 ~0 0 a Q7 _ S8977'f8"E _ ~ 23 6.64' 35.00' 1032'15' S14T12'29f 6.63' o 1.100' o ° 10.01' " P.U.E PUBLIC UDCfTY ~ i L,Sg.53 134.33 0 14 39.58' 50,00' 4571t'17' S0372'01'W 38.55' S•W. LOCUST ST. a N ~ ® 1289 ~ o~ 25 17 ' S .00' 8836'22' 5707051"W 69.85' P.SSf. PUBLIC SAN1lAF _ _ _ _ _ 9996 _ 50_04' .45' 16.19' ~ ~ A .32 0 x_58 19.39 29,61 26 5.65 3500' 974153' NIOTJ815"W 564 0 589'49'39 E r 150.00 ~ , $ SD.E. STORM DRAINA( o N L:46.Z8___ g~ _ ' 12 ~ !__59.31'----- cn 21 891' 35,00' 14'41'19" N82t76'31"W 895' ~ ~ ~ , ~ 13,11' L=26,59 1=26.81' 28 11.62 19.00' S3TlT'48' S633855°W 16.99' h{ 15 03 CURVE DATA, S o r\ o L.61. 29 31.81' 51,00 427828' S5839Y5"W 3695' 51,98 ~ , ; 1 ° .W ° z'-------' W 544;3817 f ~ . ~ M r7 2 ~ 40 4 ~ " *N457133"f 30 44.38' 51.00' 4931'31' N7570'45"W 42.99' pop ~ 0 21 256 1150 I-'- 4128 U.O. UNKNOWN OR1G1 FOUND 5 8'lRON ROD 1=2~`~~ , ~ L=2s.71' L=4.18 ~ ~ ~ 17 31 31.40' 51.00' 357631 N32'36'44"W 30,91' / 8' P.U.E A r ~ 7,335 S0. FT, N N w + W11H YELLOW PLASRC CAP ~ n w 7,242 S0. fT. ~ 32 31.52' 51.00' 3574' 42' N01'43'52 E 31.02' * PUBLIC SIZE Dl. (TYPICAL) i ' $ , i~ 22 SEE NOTE 4, SHEET 2 h o ~ N SEf NOTE 8 S1 r' STAMPED d PElERSbN i zl vi *N45t763fi E ,W ^ F r: 33 34,35' 51.00' 383524" N394355 E 3,170' *S44'49;39 E i' ~ ~ °i 5,584 S0. fT SEE NOTE 4, , PLS 1856" (Pf) HELD o i~ 25 ~ 25 iii 42.47' N TRACT "B" W N ~ SHEET 2 34 61.04' 51.00' 6834' 49' S864058 E' 57.47 P i 1 42.43' I , ~i 74.90' o w 12.50 , ~ _ " - , ° S.W. MCKENNA NI F f0 PU I R 35 14,30 51.00 160411' S447128E 14,26 5,250 S0. fT. ~ 89'4936 W 99 90 - r ~ ° PLACE" ° 757' BL C OAD 36 1762' 19.00' 53117'48' • 562'53'16"1 16.99' ~ , 1 ° z 1 D a'S > BOOK 121, PACf 42 o < , t: ~ ~ i ~ I 4637 SO, FT. g• o ~ 11 37 3410 12.00' 90'22''33' N452131°E 31,21 REFERENCE LOT 4 75.00 1 N 742, z a `~i ii " " _ + " + 20.00' 4600' V S897T18"f 51.62' 38 8,109' 40.00' 90'22'29' N457135~ 5675' AUM DOWNS , ' N894936 W 1.0(1 S00>78'47"W ~ ' PLAT OF FTlR VALLEI i S8977'18"E 66.00 0 4508 44,81' o 44,05' 39 614 191.00 02'01'15° 571'00'30"W 674 I 200 - 0 - :'~0 40 4.28' 141.00 0144'15" N7053'31 f 418' (Pf) PLAT OF AUM DOWNS I I o S8977'18 E 84.99' A o (P2) PLAT OF "WASH/NGTOI 6299' 2Z 00' $N (P3) PARATION PLAT 1990• I { I N z P4 PARDTION PLAT 1990• a ~ ROC. N0. I I w o N4570'13E' (R2) SN 6517 " 20 ^ 7.04' 18 R3 SN 7096 ~ 96041766 I I ~ W ( ) 6,873 SQ. FT, R (R1) SN 12943 I I ROC. N0. ~ 19 6,318 SO. fl, ° A ~ rn ~ o (R4) SN 17210 ~ I I I 93013710 0 ^ A ~ 5,678 SO. FT. A ~ SN 28270 ~ 50'INGRESS AND EGRESS Z °o o ~ 1 i l( I Z s EASE'MENT PER BOOK 503, ~ PACE 502, AND BOOK 659, I ~ r LOT 2 N PACE 613 I I REGISTERED "AUM DOWNS" ~ shoo' 67.99' 8600' N I I PROFESSIONAL o " _ ALSO FOUND 5/8° IRON ROD L U R Y N894936 W 199,99 (R1) BAD1Y BENT N2l'N; 0.45' Q ~ 0 FOUND 5/8' fRON ROD Z FOUND 5 8" CALLED IN DEED / BOOK 405, PAGE 217 ~ W IN YELLOW PLASRC CAP IRON ROD, BENT ~ STAMPED J PETERSON ~ I (R2) NJ7~ O.16' ~ PLS 1858"INSIDE I' N- W OREGON ~ N7t L POINT p p CALLEDlN DEED „ „ MICHAJULA 16, 1987 a IRON PIPE. I 1 A i ~ ~ ROC. N0. 98057184 BOOX 405, PAGE 217 FUR VALLEY EL . RADEMACHER ~ AUM DOWNS (Pi) ; W 2303 ~ ~ ~ i r 146- N • I a ROC. N0. 88048740 ~ DATE OF SIGNATURE 0 g VALID UNT1L• 12/31/00 i I 1 ` ' PJI ~ L. Ryu N 25' 15' N I CERTIFY THIS IS AN EXACT 1 1 f! ~ COPY OF 1HE ORIGINAL PLAT. m 3 - I ~2 Q P 2 , j SE M N YELLOW PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "COMPASS ENGINEERING" d' t~ IN MONUMENT BOX TO BE POST-MONUMENTED. N a SET ON D Q U FOUND 518" IRON ROD WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP STAMPED 3 z COMPASS ENGINEERING" UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE DENOTES PLAT DIMENSION, SEE REFERENCE SURVEY' DENOTES RECORD DIMENSION, SEE REFERENCE SURVEYS DENOTES SURVEY NUMBER ON RECORD WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. . PLAT BOOK OOK PAGE RECORDED AS DOG. )ED AS DOC. NO. A SUUDIV[SION IN ThIE N,E, 1 4 E ' S C. 36 CITY OF TIGARD WAS~[IN T N Go c r ou CITY OF TIGARD CASE FILE N0, SUB S SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE APRiL 13, 2000 SHEET 2 OF 2 1, MICHAEL A. RADEMACHER, A PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR IN ]Nf STA1E OF OREGON, CERTFY AND SAY THAT! NAVE CORRECAY SURVEYED AND MARKED W1H PROPER MONUMENTS 1Hf LAND REPRESENlfD ON THE ATTACHED SUBDIVISION MAP Of "VENTURA ESTATES; THE BOUNDARY BEING DESCRIBED AS fOLLOWS• A TRACT Of LAND IN ]NE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 1 DECLARATION APPROVALS SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, GYTY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, BEING MORE PARJJCUL4RLY DESCR18E0 AS FOLLOWS KNOW Aii PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS ]NAT VENIURA LLC, AN OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DOES COMMENCING AT THE NORTH ONE-QUARTER Of SECTON 36, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, HEREBY MAKE, ESTABLISH AND DECLARE THE ANNEXED MAP OF "VENIURA ESTATES" AS DESCRIBED PN THE APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 200( RANGE 1 WEST W1iLAMfT1E MERIDIAN; THENCE ALONG THE NOR]N LlNf OF SAID ACCOMPANYING SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE TO 8E A ]RUE AND CORRECT MAP AND PLAT THEREOF, ALL LOTS CITY OF l1GARD SECTON 38, 589'53'21 E, 1,20375 FEET TO 1Hf INITIAL POINT, A 5/8 INCH AND TRACTS Bf/NG DF THE DIMENSIONS SHOWN AND ALL S1RffIS AND EASEMENTS of THE WIDTHS )HEREON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR D/AMf 1ER IRON ROD W11H A YELLOW PLASTIC CAP STAMPED COMPASS SfT FORTH, AND DOES HEREBY DEDICATE TO 1HE USf OF 1NE PUBLIC AS PUBLIC WAYS ALL STREETS AS ENGINEERING" AT 1HE NORTHWEST CORNER Of THAT TRACT Of LAND DESCRIBED IN SHOWN ON SAID PLAT (EXCEPT TRACT "B"), AND DOES HEREBY GRANT ALL EASEMENTS AS SHOWN OR WARRANTY DEED TO VENIURA, L,1,C, AN OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, NOTED ON SAID PLAT. SUBJECT TO CONDIAONS AND RfS1RICTlONS AS NOTED HEREON. TRACT ;4" 1S 8Y RECORDED AUGUST 10, 1999, 1N DOCUMENT N0. 99093890, WASHINGTON COUNTY HEREBY CONVf}ED TO 1Hf CITY OF TIGARD. DEED RECORDS (HENCE THE OU]BOUNOS OF "VENIURA ESTATES" ARE DESCRIBED I AS FOLLOWS: THENCE CONIINUINC ALONG THE NORTH LINE Of SAID SECTION 36, 5893,1'21 E, 399.18 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID VENIURA L.L.C. 1RAC1; THENCE 500'09'10"W, 610.56 FEET TO 1Hf NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT WINGATE CORPORATION, MEMBER ASHWODD HOMES, INC., MEMBER APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 200( TRACT Of LAND DESCRIBED 1N DEED TO JAMES A. SARVAY AND CARMENZA BARRY J. DESBIENS, PRESIDENT IVY S. YIP, PRESIDENT CITY OF TIGARD i MANTILLA, RECORDED OCTOBER 31, 1988, 1N DOCUMENT N0. 88048140, WASHINGTON CITY ENGINEER COUNTY DEED RECORDS,• THENCE ALONG THE NOR1N LINE THEREOF, AND !T S WESIERCY fXTENSlON, N89'49'36"W., 199.99 FEET TO JNf EAST LINE Of ]HAT TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE HENRY B, NEUMAN TRUST, RECORDED ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY FEBRUARY 13, 1993, IN DOCUMENT N0. 93013710, WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS; THENCE ALONG 1HE EAST LINE ]HEREOF, NO0'OT'34"E., 130.00 FEET TO ]HE NORTHEAST CORNER Of SAID NEUMAN ]RACY; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE STAY Of OREGON ~ Of SAID NEUMAN TRACT, N89'49'36"W., 99.90 FEET; ]HENCE ALONG THE WEST COUNTY Of CLACKAMAS T TN NORTHEAST APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 200( 11NE Of SAID NEUMAN TRACT; 500'0847"W, 20.00 FEET 0 f WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYOR CORNER OF ]HAT TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO JAMES R. HILLS AND ]HIS DECLARA]lON WAS ACKNOW1fDGED BEFORE ME ON , 2000 MARIANNE C Hl1G$ RECORDED MAY 10, 1996, IN DOCUMENT NO. 96041766, 8Y BARRY J. DESBIENS, AS PRESIDENT Of W]NGA]E CORPORATION ON BEHALF Of SAID CORPORATION WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE ]HEREOF, AND IVY S. YIP, AS PRESIDENT OF ASHW17OD HOMfS~ INC, ON BEHALF Of SAID CORPORATION T TO IHf EAST LINE OF LOT 2 AUM DOWNS' A SAID CORPORAI)ON5 BEING MEMBERS OF VENTURA LLC AND THEY ACKNOWLEDGE 1HE ABOVE BY N89'4936 W., 100.00 FfE INSTRUMENT TO 8E OF ]HEIR OWN FREE ACT AND DEED. SUBDIVISION PLAT Of RECORD (BOOK 71, PAGE 341 !N SAID WASHINGTON COUNTY,• ]HENCE ALONG iNE EAST LINE OF AUM DOWrTS; riiVD SHE EAST LINE Of I PAR1T 1)ON PLAT 1990-074, WASHINGTON COUNTY PLAT RECORDS NOO'1O'21 E, NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID STATE AND COUNTY 50013 FEET TO TNf lNIITAL POINT, CONTAINWC 220,013 SQUARE FEET (5.05 APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 20( ACRES). DIRECTOR OF ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION (WASIINGTON COUNTY ASSESSOR) 1 ALSO CERAfY ]HAT 1Hf POST-MONUMEN]ED fNTERIOR MONUMENTS WILL 8E SET MY COMMISSION EXPIRES W11HIN 120 DAYS AfIER THE COMPLETION Of THE STREET PAVING OR ONE YEAR AF1ER THE PLAT RECORDING DATE, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST 1N ACCORDANCE WITH BY O,R.S 92-060. J NOTES APPROVED TTiIS DAY OF , 2G WASHINNGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1) THIS PLAT 1S SUBJECT TO CITY Of TIGARD CASE Fllf N0. (SUB) 98-0014 CONSENT AFFIDAVIT CONDI]IONS OF APPROVAL BY 2) AN 8.00 FOOT PUBLIC UllLITY EASEMENT 1S HEREBY CREATED WITHIN EACH LOT A SUBDIVIS/ON PLAT CONSENT AFFIDAVIT BY WASHINGTON MUIUAi BANK, A WASHINGTON AND TRACT IN 1HlS PLAT AS SHOWN CORPORATION, BENEFICIARY UNDER DEED OF ]RUST RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO 99093891, WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS HAS BEEN EXfCU1ED AND RECORDED 3J DIRECT MOTOR VEHICLE ACCESS TO OR FROM LO1S 5 THROUGH 8 TO S W. VENTURA AS DOCUMENT N0. ,WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS ATTEST 1NIS DAY OF , 2( DRIVE IS PROH1811ED, UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY Of DGARD. DIRECTOR OF ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION 1S 17 AND 21 TO iNCKENNA PLACE" IS EX-OTFFICIO COUNTY CLERK 4) DIRECT MOTOR VEHICLE ACCESS FROM iO PRONlBI1ED. INTERIOR CORNER INONUINENTATION BY 5) TRACT A" !5 HEREBY CONVEfED TO THE CITY OF TIGARD FOR AN OPEN SPACE AND WATER DUALITY FACILITY. DEPUTY 1N ACCORDANCE WIN O.R.S 92070, TNElNIfRIOR CORNERS Of THIS SUBDIVISION HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY SET W1TN " " " PROPER MONUMENTS AN AFfIDANI HAS BEEN PREPARED REGARDING THE SETTING OF SAID MONUMENTS AND WAS 8) TRACT B , S W. MCKENNA PLACE SHALL BE OWNED BY 1NE OWNERS OF COTS 1r~ RECORDED 1N DOCUMENT N0. ,WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS ' 19 AND 20, AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE W1)H A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT RECORDED AS DOCUMENT N0. ,WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS APPROVED THIS DAY OF jI 7) TRACT B; SW. MCKENNA PLACE; IS A SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC UTILITY, SANITARY AND STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT OVER ITS fN1IRETY. 8) NO TREES OR SHRUBBERY SHALT 8f PLANTED W11HIN 1HE PUBLIC SIZE DISTANCE WASHING]ON COUNTY SURVEYOR EASEMENT AND NO FENCING OR STRUCTURES SHALL BE BUILT WITHIN THE PUBLIC S!]E DISTANCE EASEMENT REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL NARRATIVE LAND SURVEYOR STATE Of OREGON ~ STA1E OF OREGON ~ COUNTY Of WASHINGTON COUNTY Of WASHINGTON rr ~i 1. CLIENT: VENTURA, L.L C. - , 8160 SW. PACER DRIVE 1 DO HEREBY CERTIFY THIS (RACING IS A COPY CERII!?ED TO ME, BY 1 DO HEREBY CERlIfY (NAT THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT WAS Rf !VE fl E N THE SURVEYOR of THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT TO Bf A ]RUE AND EXACT ~6 987 ~ BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008 ~ FOR RECORD ON 1HlS_DAY of 000 MICHAEL A. RADEMACHER COPY OF THE ORIGINAL, AND (NAT Il WAS RECORDED ON 1NE AT OCLOCK_M,, AND RECORDED IN THE COUNTY ~ 2. ]NE PURPOSE Of THIS SURVEY IS TO SUBDIVIDE ]NOSE TRACTS Of LAND DAY OF , 2000 AT O'CIOCK_ M, ~ 2303 DESCRIBED IN DEEDS TO VfN1URA, L.t.C. RECORDED fN WASHINGTON COUNTY IN ]Hf COUNTY CLERKS RECORDS CLERK S RECORDS ~ DOCUMENT N0. 99093890 (8/10/99) PfR THE CITY Df )TGARD CASE FILE N0. (SUB) DATE OF SIGNATURE 3 98-0014. BY VALID UNTIL 12/31/OD n 3. FOR BASIS Of BEARINGS AND BOUNDARY DE]ERMINAlION, SEf SN 28270, BY DEPUTY COUNTY CLERK WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEY RECORDS DEPUTY COUNTY CLERK I CERTIFY THIS IS AN EXACT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PLAT. 3 U 1 V r SE 0 i u r t 3 - r ~ _ - sari, Y 4f2~44~ c~~cc«c~, SON C~UN~ wp,N1NG ~ 5wr~~►~'' . I,~ r ~ 140 . gCA " E ~ , e,t~.. c~ . ; 1~~ ~4A ~ ~ . a~ v~'~ ~ C,~ • ♦ ~ f t! ~ ~ { .t', ~t ~~~~1 MAR S r r SEA k y~ R , ,~~~a ssst~et !pa . ~ s~ ~ . N roo ~ = - as ~~a ea gTptt 41C. 53 , 284 ~ r N5#t•vE4N~ ~ 1 INE T}i~MA3 ~ t , N4RT}l ~ 5 ~ tAC ~ ~ ~ 662 ~ ~ aaa ~ ~ ?zap rcAU~ ~ ~ o~ ~c t +Cr~ ltikii ~ 1.8~ 1 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Srl.~ p~r~ rM~~r. _ f',Tx'l~. ~ ~ ~ s. t a. ~~o 3 -w-- 1Q0 ~.e~ ~ , b , ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ - ~aL ' _ ~ ~ , • ~ ~r r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • r ~r. so-- ~ - t, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3a 8 ~ F~ ~3d. „ ~ 1 r' ~ a r',_„~'~.r..' 1' ta.b4' 72~a cg +2 9a3~ ~ r i!~ 304 a+s . r .e 71 ~0 , i; 1 ~ ~ p ~ ~ - ~t ,ar. ~ ~ ~ ~~'1, ~ ~v ~ 6 ~ wa ~xz.~,~,,:, . f eSr e3 ~ ~ ~ c x -~t7 . ` ~ !N` ~ ~ 5~ , . r. ~ 1 ~y r9 tea ~ _ J N 'tis P-'h- s. 4 Six b}~ - . S . _ ~ - t`~ ~ `~~...W ~ - a. ~ ~ ~ z~ ~ ~ 00 ~~i e~.~ ins ~ 1 f ~ A k'S ~ ~ ,-ro- ;4 - ~ S ~ . ~ ~3 i~94a o - .9,~~ -.22" .1 $ . 16 49pa 7~}, t : ~ ~ I ~ fir' , 2~ , ~ . , : ~ . , ~ , ~ 1:~ ~:r,~~, ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 41pQ * 4144 4~`~, ; ~ ~ ~ ; , $ t- ~ ~ p a 1 ~ ~ to - ~ y ~-M.~- ,1 ~ 12p~, ~ p t:. r; . ~ . ~ 2~ E ro w' . . y~ N f~~~ ~ A~ .1 AC' ~ , x~t4 ~ ~ _ ~ - Y ~~r - r . , ~~.ra ~ ud.~ X00 ~ 4:f44 ' 4#Q~ ° ~ ~,i • ~ r 1104 a ~ - . ~ ~ . ~ ' x - ~ ~ J Spa , ~ ' ~ . r- 80 ~6AG' 1. $ ~ ~1 r. ~ ~ - e,4 - . • o- r ~ 0 od . 7 ~ _ ~ rail! , E, , ~r ~ ~ ~ . ~ F ~ ~ t ~ ~ r „ r v T Y'~ t` ~4j~u NNp . a- _ ~ , . , ~ ~ ~ af~~E ~ . ~ - „ ~ , r, ~ „ , . a~~°. 'r_ y. ~r . ~ ~ - . a ~ ~ ~ ~ t •~~"k t. ~ ~ , A , R, v i ~ 'r ,DE / a I. GF DESIGN GROUP .s , i S. W. yElyTIJRA DRIVE r'' p ' ~ h _ ti 1 ~s ~ ~ r ~-r-' ~ ~ ~ 260 ~ S~9~111 rr X00:00 - ~ - - .350 J ~ ~0' /'60 70 ~ 60' ~ PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE >N CONFERENCE SUPPORT MATERIAL ~ ~ 0 / / . ' ~ APPLICANT. ASHWOOD ASHWOOD HOMES, INC. G 'Z C> W1NGA TE 1 WINGATE HOMES f ~ . 8760 SW ~ - ~ it J ~ ~ n~ BEAV'ERtO 8760 SW PACER DRIVE BEAVERTON, OR 97008-6915 2 22 ~ AGENT. LDC DESlGt ; ~ / 7 ~ ~ LDC DESIGN GROUP, INC. L/ OL 28 233 SE WA / j / / ' HlLLS80R0, 233 SE WASHINGTON STREET HILLSBORO, OR 97123 ~ i i , A U M w N s ~ - 8Y R08ERT 1 / BY ROBERT OQUIST, PLS Y ~ - n _ 1 ~ / ~ ~ ~ PROPOSED USE: PLANNED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO YIELD / _ ~ ~ - / - ~ A 23 LOT A 23-LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 70 SO' ~ SU801VIStON l~~ ~ i . ~ / / ~ ~ CURRENT ZONING: R 4.5, SFi r., o ~ s cco J ~ ~ / % ~ t, ~ / ~ ~ ~ - - - - - i - ~ LEGAL OESCRIPI)ON: i Si 36AA- ~ ~ ~ - - - / ~ I 7ON: lSi 36AA-00601 AND 00700 J N ~ ~ % ' ~ 29 I OWNER: ICA SPRAG - ~ / / ~ COT 7 ~ , ~ / L~_`- / ~ 10270 SW - - - - - - - PORAAND - IDA SPRAGUE, TRUSTEE 10270 SW 70774 AVENUE ~ ~ ✓ i 70 60 7 50 ~ r / / PORTLAND, OR 97223 / so' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / / , ~ ~ ~ , i ~ ~ / N ~ N ~ NARRA T(VE: / ~ I / ~ / / r. i ~ / ~ / , , ap, I APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 23~ ~ - o~ o ' ~ o o ~ i I RESIDENTIAL SU'BOtVtSION ON 5. ROPOSING A 23-LOT SINGLE-FAMILY ~ ~ ~o / / ~o , 1 ~ 0 18 0 ~0 ~ ~ r• Q ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ PLANNED DEti'ELQPMENT PROCE_ ifXVISION ON 5.15 ACRES THROUGH- THE to ~ CHAPTER 18.80 OF THE CITY OF ~ ~ ~ / Jp0 I I DEVELOPMENT CODE. ~ ~ ~ 9fY .I----~ % I ~ ~ ~ THE PLANNED ENVIRGNMENT CAI ~ i ~ ~ I MEET OR EXCEED THE SOLAR R~ W 60' 70 50 i ( THE EFFECT FOR A NORTH SLOF / ~ DEVELOPMENT. / ~ I 3/ p i ~ bt / ~ ? THE STREET AND LOTTING ARRA i Q / / ~ ~ I p ~ ti ~ ~ / i ~ <<! ~ TO OGRAPHY TO 8E P„ / ~ ~ i „P10JE P ~ _ _ _ ~ 4 - ~ 0 TRACT 'A" TOGETHER WITH a N / F ~ ~ p ~ o f i , I i AREA OF LO T ~ f. r ~ / ~ 1~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ THE STREET CONFIGURATION ALt z ~ v~ rn a ~ I LOT 5 LOT 6 i / k , , , OF SW LOCUST STREET TO lNTE ~ ~ n~ ~ / i I I 70TH AVENUES 41NILE MAINTAINI OF THE CITY OF 77GARD COMMUNITY 'ODE. % OF LOTS TO e / ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ / PA )TERN PURSUANT iM 1N ; NE ~ / I I N ~ ~ / ~ / ~ ' ~ 310 f , ° I THE STREET CONFIGUAT70N ALL( VVIRONMENT CALLS FOR 87 D THE SOLAR REQUIREMENT, MAXIMIZING Q ~ _J I ~ i , ~ / ~ r- ~ OF LAND AND PRESERVAI]ON 0~ _ ~ _ 7 60 r ~0- > --u0-/i _ / DDES NOT CONk'ECT TO SW VEI / ~ - ~ ' A NORTH SLOPE COMMUNITY o / / / / GRADES (N EXCESS OF 159G S ~ -~38' / ~ N ~ I OCCUPY IN EXCESS OF 25% OF ~ ~+7X I 1NE ECONOMIC NEED FOR THE f LOTTING ARRANGEMENT ALLOWS THE ----------L - ~ I / ~ / - ~ ARRANGEMENTS. APHY TO BE PRESERVED BY THE CREATION / / I N ~ ~ - - - - - ~ 3 SPECIAL CONSIOERA TtON FOR St TOGETHER WITH THE LARGE UNBUILDABLE s. w. ~ocusr sr. _ iN R I / ~ FEATURES, CIRCULATION, EXlSTI! - I UTfLtZA1I0N Of SOLAR EFFECT ~ 80' 70' ~ ~ ~ I SI]E YIELDS THE 23-LOT PLAN 4FIGURAT20N ALLOWS THE CON77NUA77ON STREET TO INTERSECT 4WTH SW 6977-1 AND ~n / o ~ cv ~ / ~ ~ HEREON. A711LE MAINTAINING A CIRCULATION ~ ~ I _ O ' ~ ~ D I I PUBLIC UTILITIES TO INCLUDE: .ANT iMTH THE 77?ANSPORTAT70N PLAN. - 75 30' ~ ~ ~ SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWEfi vF1GUATION ALLOWING THE EFFICIENT USE / / ~ I I / p j AND ELECTRIC SYSTEMS ARE IN; 'RESERVATION OF LANDSCAPE FEATURES vECT TO SW VENTURA DRIVE DUE TO _ _ - - o o ~ b o ~ I I C OF ADJACENT THERETO. t - ~ o 7' 0 0~ 11 ~ 20 y 3 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ I I CON TOUR INTERVAL = 2 F00 _ 5 - !JF 259: (2F I ANf) ARFA_.MANf)A77N(; 1 p ~ I ( ~ ~ 89 2713 ~ VEED FOR THE PROPOSED LOT _ ,r ~ I Lor 3 Lor 4 7s' I I ~ x 1 0 0 N8 1 _ fis' i I ERA77ON FOR SLOPE, LANDSCAPE 'ULATION, EXISTING UTILITIES, AND BEST SOLAR EFFECT ON THIS NORTH-SLOPING 1~0 0' 90 / . ~4____ _ 23-LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SHOWN ~ 66' ~ - / ~ ; „ r• e / $0010 21 W ~ " TO INCLUDE. 20.Od W Z, STORM SEWER, WATER, TELEPHONE, YSTEMS ARE INSTALLED EITHER ON-SITE R / / ~ s ~ N 8 ~ h 1~ o i w o ~ > ~ Q Q ~ o / = ' z z ~ ti ~ Z 4 ~ scAC£ Lor 2 ° - s' ss' ~ s ~ - N89 2715 W 200.00 ~i I~; SCALE l "=50' __1 1 ~ ti ~ i 1 ~ ~ e~ \ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~k~ Q BAm~ ~SvY,3`i~M' 1 ~ q;~~+~y~pgyy~~~i pg ,;p#, ~qyp +tt}~ Pg ~,p! y■y~yp,~~~®{ {~@c ~y%) !r"M. %EiY=d'~ ~YS~k SiB ~ 9Fk H~ i%~ "Y'ellW AA'~91 ~ ~ i~h L~ °n ~ ~ ~ ~T"~`r'4'a*-'+nn+wws+oswiawvv~r ca ~~w wn mnr~ aw .m ~+x.~e.w..e~wwn .s ~.w w........m:v,~.e w .w i+r.w. ..v rm mn ~xmr.~vmvwm+~a wr +um amtmvawm~~~.s w iw ~w+~.r~nae +w y-a .ew~oss w .u vevmxu~+~..w r w w ° w Exlsr s°m wA`~R '4,~ . S.W. VENTURA AVENUE a 5~-- ..l ~,w.., _ _ _W.._~.... - f~f%%° ' f=~ ~ W' ~ S,W~ VENTURA AVENUE y rr~~'t~~,fytQ ~ = t _ _ °`M~ ~ 1 J e~4 y W.L.. ~'7 a bCC"6t w..`.`..^` WY.'n°+' °..e6'°..:..'..~1 ;G°~~6: °..:.^.Y w~....~...r ....a`... r~~..~ .r,.~.. ....,.~.W.,... ...............s«.........,....W i~w~. i~.~ ..rr~..r~.~ w"" w»~.twvr .m.«.' ~ „r ...~..m.~..~~, ..M ..~.w...w.~.. i .~i .wi'i'Ti' i5i1'~.i.4~.iYfi9Cl.ifuyl.CinY1.'YGY~ii'i' ip7ui51i7fitiiifiialliri~5i ~ I t i $ $ S ~ ~ , I I ~ l i I i i ~ t T.~ T'G~} II I i i . ~ T I ~ I NI , ~ ~ t ~ ~ ' ~ t . ~ , ~ I ~ C(3 u ~ c~~' 8 ~ ~ ~ r _.w. / ~ ~ ~ ; ~ f i ~ t ull i t1 ~ ` ~ + i ~ ~ t ' n i I ~ ; I t.lr ; ~ i I i ~ ~ . t00 i~j' ! . ~ f ~ ~ 1. " i ~ ~ ~ ~t . ~ I ~ I . ~ ~ /1 r , a I N t ~ ..~s ~ ~ ~ , H 1 ~ ~ .~P~R i I • l ~ 278 ~-„ter..-~ a ~ rI ' TRACT- A , - =vim ~=r~ - ~ ~ d N 4: I I I I 10 I. ~ o I 11 I f i _ , i_ ~ i .d.._...._...~...~... ~i '~.oo ^gt i - - -~-------------1 t n~ ~+d ~,a F Fd I ~r~. d k^~ R a"~a ~PV 1 I d ♦f . I - 13 14 15 16 °ti -f a i ~ i 1 2 i~ r I , ~ t I i i I I _ a.... t ~...._.._...a._...~ww M..........~. ~ ...Y..... I -h - - _ _ _ _ _ ...~.m. ..~...a ~;rs w EXIST. 4 m ~ lER ~ I $ N '0 °f S, L4GUST ST. ~ ;k. - c w bo 1 ~ s.w. ~ocu~ I s~ ~ ~ ~ . ;l C n; y + I I I ~ } 17 t I ~ I , ~ I 21 ~t~; I z i ; , i 1 i I 22 t I 1ri ( 71~; N. . I ip t~r.,,~ I I I t t c t I b l ~ } I t I A 4 i, i r .._..~.,.r„ a I _ ' 'w I I ! ~...r..~..~.... ,w.p . ~e ¢~~y~§+q t r)jit "a•.'s^# ':;~i~^:i ~i. ~ ~rCr, r; k`~~`''~~`~~ ~p y~ ~ . T'~t.. G~ ~ I a~~,~ I ~`e~, I r,~~. I f , I I - .....,,.a...M.....~ ,....,..._.......,._....M_ - I i r~. ~?~t I I a~~~~~'., I i 20 19 18 I I I I 1 3 I I ~ N i ~ I I I ~ I I ~I a I I y~ gg~gg ~ I 0 6 I 1 a~ £tS~tPd y,--~ 'I'~U. G~ a I I T.~, i T.~. ~ ~G te~rr. ~ ~..._~._._._._.~.,V.w.. T~~,. 3 i I 9 d ~QG2 I al d _.__w__..~4.__.~_.~_..~.__ ~ 6 ~ { ~~...~..,__..~_..~_~._.._._d..w.__._..._.ev.. ` t. ~ I , Q J ti I < ; I T~. 9 ~ i ~_~.~...~._._.._W...__.,.~..._~~...w._... T'.~~. 7 1 f i I tit - u y C i 4 ~ I I I ~ I i" I I I 1 SA SAii I I ~ ,~~...y... a..,,~,~,.~,~. a,. d I 1 I _,.F _m . I I I a I. _,...~.~,...w_............_ I~ ~ ~ ~ i a ~ f m m rn m ai 0 U 61 O .ti L lL m 3 PRELIMINARY UTILITY AND GRADING PLAN D V a N D DRAWN QJS DESIGNED KLS CHECKED BDG 4 ASHWO1 COMPASS CORPORATION SHWOOD AND WINGATE LOCUST STREET SUBDIVISION 2 7 a TIGARD, OREGON ^ d * OUIIVEVIN4 * PLANNING ALE 1" = 50' DATE Nov 1998 E ENGGINEERIH SC lY m 9093 PHONE N 6564 S.E. LAKE ROAD . r 503 03 653653--9095 FAX i L 6 DATE No. REVISION PLAN 98-4237-2222 PUDPRE4 DWG MILWAUKIE, OREGON 97222 5 S 01", o '+.u ~ ~ ~ PVI Sl•A = 10+63.98 i PVI ELEV = 295.21 Q ._.._..__.,..W.. _ D. = 5.10 a BARBARq ~ `T.tl , = 8.71 T,1~ ~ ~ ~.~r ~`0 320 - __~._.__...L._...___._......_....~ _..W...~....,...~~_W..__ w._u..~_~__... ~ (ANE uFN1URA CT. - s~~~ t s;--r ~ I ~ - = ;1 _ - _ _ ;A~ - i . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •r - S.W. VENTURA AVENUE f n w~.r~__~,..-...._ _ - _ _ __..w..._ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ , .,.l....,.~.ry,..~.. ..r...,~~..r.~rr~ ~,.i.swrna.wssr~,rrn~sr.s~awrcc rj~+:~i^rr~s.~rrtir ._.r.. -.,..,.,n...~~....................d__,..a I I 71 66 108' + + 65 r 9p r , I I t ---r- I I ~ ; i ! + , ! s , ; ; I 300 I rn + ~ i + r ~r~ I I N 6 7 , , _ _ ! 15 - I I ,,F = 1, 051 S.F. 7,151 S F ; 11, 9015 g IM I + , s~ I + + S , t I 11,519 Sf. ~ i t I + ~ ~ i ! a + + ~ ! t ' + + • ao ~ I , , ~ I f ~ ,y + I t , ' : I 1 I 20 X24 ! ` ! ! O i} i7 I ~ ~ N N ~1 , I ~ rv 280 . J• ! ~M i'~ r ~98 4~, ~ 37 11, 111 SF. ~ ~ , s8 ~0 ~ ' TRACT A I Pc 13+37 N ! ~ 90 ~ LAN I I P $ SCALE: J = 50 4 ~ ~ js I G I I s. I w,. ~ 5,391 SF 1, o0 4 ~ 11 7, 938 S.f. I~ r3 ~ a 12 ' 1 ~ 5, 070 S. ~ ~ 1 I : 1s 1s , ~ ; ~ 5 2 6,191 S I ~ 9a' , I I I 260 I 1 Ni I - - ~ N I I 75' 120' 3 Pr= 12+528a ~ I t 69' 65' 65' 65' qe .g y~ 'O 5,335 S I I A ~q• gg ~(qq [ s~r l 4f9i ' ~ I f ( , i nlrr ~~rnF~ ~ `fe . p i t I I - . R~ ~ n~ I (06.14 ' M 16 85 ! 13 14 15 , ` ~ ~ 6 51 S.F. 8 817 S F. 6,550 S F. ~ 6,351 S.F. ,3 DATUM ELEV t ~ I . ~l ro m m i oo I Z~ ° F 245.00 ~-~..i ' ~ 9+00 ~ I;~i i + I 1 ~ ~ 2 01 . ~ I ~ 1 n srA. o+oo.oo, AccESS `0 ~ ; ~ srA.13+1~.ao, tocUSr 6, 165S.F , , , P~ a I ' i t PC = 1+59.65 65' 65' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 STRUC ON _ ' ~ 62 - - - - - _ _ _ ~ STARTCON a I I ~ ~ STA. 10+00.00, ^ i i ~ ~ 1 ~ i N ! I o ~ ~ ~ N j S,W. 40003T ST. ~O 1 ae ~ ~j, , ~ ~ 1 „ ti I I i *3r ~ r z ,~s . f 1 ~ l 1, ' .~w_ .w__.. _w_ ` s ~ ~ • ~ + END CONSTFUC iION I ~,.,..,Y„~.,.-..,. . I.b S8 i' 3 ! ' •r: } 5 rA. i a+02.40 I ~ 1 x, ~ lOrH AVE. k ~ f ! I - a J{{~,~~y 17 I i i I t $rA. 11+00.00 ~ LOCUST 5~ v si.,~>.n ifl r ~ I I ~ f ~ 1 ib a 'Gr,7s~ 1241 S F rn( I 22 0 ~ I 1 25 ~ , I ~ , I. 1,321 S F ~ I I p °i 6,729 S.F. ~ 6,331 SF. I ~ I i °J ~I i I ' I I I ip l~ I i p Qd,. ,.l s I } ~ ` I ~r~ ! ~ p a r , ~ i~ ^ i e = kc r t ~ I i I ~i, 68 P ! ~r.mr ~ : I 11 ~ . 22 I ~ 5rA CONSrONSTRUC ON ( II t; ,n;;4:,t ,T,~ ~ i I ' I STA. 1 +00.00 I ! a ~'4"~ END PAVEMENT - ti .n~ I j ..~...-.o..T--~.-- --~--~-a..~-_-~..~-- I ~u:~' ( STA.1+4229 YY~~..__,, Zp 19 18 I r u1 ~ N ~ L I P i , ~ 7, 590 S F ~ m 6, 460 S F 7,150 S. ~ I i 300 ~ i ~ 3 I Ik It ~ ► 1 I I Q I i ~ I I I I I I 1 I 0 8 I 6' 68' 66' S ...,...6 ..a...._.. ..o,...~.,._.. L_,._....__________._...__...__.._.__._..._.._.._.~ ll r.i Z ~r~. ' ` 1 I I l , ~ f I t~ I ~R~ 1 h I ( I ( ( i 280 - I I ( 1 LATUM f fit? ( _ ._.__.~~....~..,.~...-...._.__.J 4 _ , ~ 275.00 10+00 _y_ i~="""..._.. a ~ t 1 ' I !z I w I I a ( ~ I I ~ r f 1m i 1 f ~ f 3 ! ( vi i ( I ( ( i a I w..._.._....,.....~...._.......,. I a im ( 4 ! m I a ti m ~ ! _~.____~M_,_w._....-_,.I. _ ~_______.___.~._.~......__I 1 ~ 3 I f ~ I i I I ( i m I ~i ( i r _.._..m..~..".._.~____._. I I I i , ~s v 0 U a.) N L LL PRELIMINARY PLAT AND STREET PLAN m 3 D N ,SHWOOD AND WINGATE LOCUST STREET SUBDIVISION 1 DRAWN BJS DESIGNED KLS CHECKED BDG D COMPASS CORPORATION A HW * TIGARD, OREGON Nov 1998 ENGINEERING * SURVEYING PLANNING m SCALE 1 50 DATE , A' E cu 6564 S.E. LAKE ROAD 503 653-9093 PHONE q2 v MILWAUKIE. OREGON 97222 503 653-9095 FAX ~ S :E :i" 9ve0,100 N0. REVISION PLAN 98-4237-2222 PUDPRE4 awc DATE I ~ i .m T.. m..~,,.,v~... ~ i I P ~ t. 1 1 R~. ~ ~1 , ~ ti ^\,r -0aw~w~.n+xu~.~» w......m~~..a Iw....m...,........~ w. .,.s«. a wwa«,.~,.~,ew.r .....,n ....o. w.....b> . ' w w- w i~, EXIST &'0 WA~ER , ~ w S.w. VENtURA AVENUE ~ s~►--- ' x S.W~ YENTURA AVENUE ' r.,, _ ~""«'"tr LX<,4.,~^~., xY' L..... W^ ...>......'.i"^...:5 .::.°w, ."':.5 :.....,..mot . M~ ~ f.~_ ~ ~ _._.._..w.. _ ..n._ e.. _ $ W,...,..,. .~......W... RR ..r.... ..I...R.....s.R~~ ~~.~~.icn~ ° rr~.r►.R~r~t+yrrr.~RS+~t.~n ~ r~~wirrr+:~RS~t.R~r.~:R~ m........~, ,,,.,....a..,,,~ w~N,w...•~~ . I I ~ S S S / ~ , I- -1 / / r- I ( ; ~ I i ; ~ I ~ ; 1 ~ I / ~ . I I ; 6 7 Aso , 5 , ~ , I ~ ~ 8 / _ ~N ~ ~ ~ I = . 1 ! 1 { ~ I ~ I I ~ t~ I I I . I 1 ~~lP ..'1,~ 5 E p1, / , ~ ~ I ~ ' 9 ~ ~ ~ I ' TRACT 'A' I I I ~ ~ 4 I I 1~ r II a ~ 11 ~R~R a~oo Yr II 12 . root ~ I f . 3 r _...._...r_v~..~ e■~}■ ' s.~-- ~ e ~ a■~1{~ r)~ {4RhnA ~ ~ - - - ! zed ~Rw.a i P~4 f f, f A >v I ~"~aF 1 I ~ R I r~.`- VI ' 13 ~4 15 16 t. r ~ I a r ~ ~ R 2 ~ ~ i i ~ ~ 1 1 i I I ~ ~ .~~b, s.... w.. ,.~~...,.~...,n 1 r ~ O ,.,a,...,,n..,. . o ~ ~ rte:. . "ys w EXIST. 4 0 ~IER 1 a °o s.w. >.ocusr sr. bo l - ~ r - s.w, uocu I ~ I w ...........»....~w~, w. w w,«w~. ~'l'~'~ i I R I I t ~ ,'u ' h 1 I I ~ I 21 ";ir 1 1 22 I 1 I I ,Y;,n 1 ' q+ { A ~ 1 A ,c I t I ~ 1 I I 1 A d l?;, I 4 f ?M, y~ 1 1 I i ,~.,s,,, I tp L..~~.RRr.~RR.r.R...R ~Rt~R k~ : , A T` rrfzR $S~ ( ,r °G;'" I a~ ~ fa~a ,l~R~' _ j' qy; +tp(~~q{~'~~pt ~ ~ ~ 3hF! D 9LIf I ~~fr. ~LS I I I I { ~ I .e...~.....s..e.~.~...e. ~ w I x~ ~ I ~ . I I -~,f~~~y:~~~ 20 19 18 , I I I I 1 3 I R ~ I 1 I I I N I e I G.4 I l I I ~ I 1 ~ ' I ~I I I I o 6 I R a~ I ...r..,_.,._... ~ s ~ L___.__._._.____._,.._._._.~_u_.._ JI ~~g~gp~ _ _~._e..~__.~.__.~__ ~ i , ~ ~1 t~R 4XVi4eY'W ; i ,:a ' I ~ !"LEA. ~4J 1 w. _ ~y~` r r.~, '~~3 Q ~ r i k k 1 I I < a I ' z ~ I ~ ~ ? \f w 1 N ` I ~ _ S ' t~ R~~~ 1 .`f Lti _ ~ I p~ ~ ~ f I 1 SA SA.' ~ I I cc A m C CL s a }e m i[ " ` rn rn r, m Ri ~ci v O U d r~ L LL- 01 PRELIMINARY UTILITY AND GRADING PLAN 3 n v cu N cn_ DRAWN BJS DESIGNED KLS CHECKED BDG ASHWO COMPASS CORPORATION 1SHW00D AND WINGATE LOCUST STREET SUBDIVISION 2 3 a i m SCALE 1" = 50' DATE NOV, 1998 w E ENGINEERING * SURVEYING * PLANNING TIGARD, OREGON ^ v 6564 S.E. LAKE ROAD 503 653-9093 PHONE MILWAUKIE, OREGON 97222 503 653-9095 FAX DATE NO. REVISION PLAN 98-4237-2222 PUDPRE4 DWG S L 0 4co - - - ANY EXCAVATION JEOPARDIZING THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE ~ EXISTING TREES OR BANK STABILITY SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE PROJECT CONSULTING AR80RIST FOR SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS, f \ t \ .e , 1 i , \ 4.. i I ~ 1 h I ~ I k ~ ~ '1,.` fib....,,.„........,,. ; ,...w.. , TREE DI~CRIPTION TABLE p ,Ire . M1M1~ ° » _ _ _ ~ _ ......S.W:- _ ENTURA- -AVENUE ._...M___._.._ _ . 2002 TREE 26°fIR 2180 TREE 10°fIR 2398 TREC 8"F)R ~ i ~ 2003 TREE 26'F1R 2181 TREE 20"ALDER 2399 TREI 24"CEDAR \I~/ \ 23at I ~ ~I ~ I ,J' w r ~ M1"?' y1~6y,-;: ~ M1ry 2359 i I yq~.}` . uc_..,' ~`rP"Jif' "r`v;,'~.M~..,`,7.~.:7;.. ;t, ~>.'•~;r,'rr;:'in rGJ'` r,,27,.. •~.t"}" x.~.:: s:a 2004 TREE 18'FIR 2182 TREE 20"ALDER 2400 TREE 15'CEDAR ~ y~ ' C G 1' 2006 TREE 18"TWIN F!R 2183 TREE 24"ALDER 2401 TREE 12"MAPLE 2007 TREE 10"MAPLE 2184 TREE 24"CEDAR 2402 TREC 6"CEDAR ,TRACT 7A1 ~ t'/~ "I,~ `11-_,~ 1182 \ ~`7 1 \ ~~~t\ ~3\- Ali' \11/x. . ..t..a,a......- , n ~.ar~, :a •~..z - ,I ~ i I /~~I/~ ' 2257 ~,-~~1; 12,>b I, ~ v vI 2008 TREE 18"FIR 2185 TREE ]0"FIR 2403 TREE ]0"CEDAR ~~I~/ 1 i I'•~.~ ~I ~ 2,92 ~ ~ / ~~/II\~._ ~~I /\,~ry .r --G7J51 2249 r \ / 1 ~ I `fPO M1 ~B1i ry ~ \ 2009 TREE 8"FIR 2186 TREE 30'CEDAR 2404 TREI: 14"F!R 2010 TREE 12"FIR 2187 TREE 24"CEDAR 2405 TREi. f8"ALDER /I\ 2291' 1 ~ ~1 I _____»,1/ _ 1191__ ~'_»'M 1\ ~I,,,/yyy ~ M1` M1` iJj 11~" I " 2257 7. , I ~ i ~Il,/ _ 2J57 I' 9"~'(15e ~I~% ~ I 7 11 ~~A I~~~~ ~I~ ,k 275e 22e6 /I{225 1~ I ~ X2,95 11 / ~ ti1i91 ,rye I / ~ 4Sy~T ~ ~ \ ~ • 201! TREE 12"F1R 2188 TREE 18'ALDER 2406 TREE 12'TWINCEDAR I 20si A1~ V { 1 j AI(i_ /IA ;~2te2 11 ' I . ro ~ ~ ~ Vy~ nae ljj y M1ry~~' yIA~ /h I 2012 TREE 26"fiR 2189 TREE 20'ALDER 2401 TREI 12"CEDAR I i ~ \ I 1 ! 22x1 f ~i .2254 I ' 1' ~ I ~ 1 f ~ ~ 2167 `ryy ryry ~ 1 i M1~' \ ~,I~h M1~3 t 2297 V ' V 67 I I \ 2t 9fi ~ i ~ I 7 ~ /I 214 Ill ~\,I,, .I~~i \I t /I\ ~ 12e4~~ ~1~' lie, 11•~1_~ 1t7zh~((.~-~\~ ~i~;p p~ 2013 TREE 15"FiR 2190 TREE 24'CEDAR 2408 TREI- ]0'CEDAR I , 2014 TREE 6"iRl-DECID 2]91 TREE 15"FIR 2409 TREI 12'ALDER i ~ \1 ~I~, 229 ~ • / 11 71 i~ ~ •3187 ~ ~ 21e0 ~ v~ ~ ~ ~ 1161 179~17/~ /Iv /I~11J~ /v 6,F.~,. OW ~ ~ 3 / 21 ~w\I%1179 1259` ~ 91 ~ I . f i I I ~ i \ ~I ~ \II/ I t . i!~ 253'F~~Y /I \tf, ~ \ J \ ~ 161 I. 11 I 2,79 ~ \ 2,4 ~ ~'~2,50 ~ .3,71; 2016 TREE 12"FiR 2192 TREE 26'CEDAR 2410 iRE,~ 12"ALDER 13s2 v i ~ ~ eve 1 - ~ ~ me IA /v• J J. \ I a2 t -1zn 1~ ~ ~ ;~•31se I I 2551 r ~ I ~ 2~~~ r II 9 276 X2287 I II ~21a9 . ~ 2114~'~ .21150 2017 TREE 12"FiR 2193 TREE 24'CEDAR 2411 TREC: 18"ALDER 2018 TREE 6"FIR 2194 TREE 18"CEDAR 2412 TRE;: 8"ALDER I , J q ~ ~l ~ i f . ' I 2319 II\\ ~9" > 1 1 I I 116 215 ~ ~ i la. J_ 2019 TREE I4"FIR 2195 TREE 24"CEDAR 2413 TRE.: 8"ALDER ~ 23N y(J/\ M1 / ~ ~I, . I , ~ 218:- N i ~C' i t 9 I 2264 1 - I~ I 21;1 M1° 1~ I ~ 1- :2)ee 2155 / ( ~ I ~ i\) al z:eY - 11 3285 ~ ~ I I ~ ~b 1 2020 TREE 6"FIR 2196 TREE !2'MAPLE 2414 TRE.: 6"-1D"-12"ALDE 2021 TREE 18"FIR 2191 TREE 26'CEDAR 2415 TREC 12"ALDER , ' 1503~/~ 2N7 7~ ~y 2777 1 2266 I ` ~ ~ 1 I ~ \ 22 ~ fie ~ ~ / \ ~ ~ 1,1 \I~. ,M1~1ry1 ~ , 229 f /I I~ I / M17ry~ ry 2156 ='2151 ~~/~ry. I 2022 TREE f5"FIR 2198 TREE 30"CEDAR 1416 TRE' 8"-10"-12"ALDE I 2297 ~ _ : 27^ 1~, L » ~ ~ _ / ~ 1 ~ 14 ~ 2111 ` ~ ~ ~J { ~ 220\ 171. ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ 1 Ij I tY(ti~ i ~ ~ \ _ / 2023 TREE 6'TR!-0ECID 2232 TREE 6"ALDER 2411 TRE- 14"CEDAR 2051 TREE 12"DEC1D 2233 TREE 6"ALDER 2418 TRE: 10"CEDAR f V~/ 701 \I~j 2,70 i ~ a` M1`~ \ _ I 2052 TREE 12"DEC1D 2234 TREE 6"ALDER 2419 TRE: 10"ALDER I , Ui I I v~r / I M1, ~ 1 ~I~M1 v~l~ry' 1 ~ 27°7 2411%i , ~.3 11 24,s 1 1774 \ i \ ~ 2053 TREE 36"F!R 2235 TREE 8'ALDER 2421 TRE: 14"ALDER 2060 TREE 10"ALDER 2236 TREE 8"ALDER 2422 TREI 12"-14"ALDER ~ ]Dl I~_~! / 1~,IJX/ IIA i 'I' ~ /I\ /I\ °6 I I 2061 TREE ]0'CHERRY 2231 TREE 6"ALDER 2423 iRE~ 14"ALDER ~ - Ii - I ate t ~ ''~M1'~M1`° 210e A1~/ ~ly~l~~ S I 1 14 V' 1 11 { . 2107 . ~ ~ I 2062 TREE 15'FIR 2238 TREE 8"ALDER 2424 TREC 24"ALDER 2063 TREE 10"iWINCHERRY 2239 TREE 36"ALDER 2425 TRE: JO"iR!-ALDER 2H 71 ~ I I _ ~ I ~ i V l ~ u, i'f ~ one II 11 1 I, I I /I PLAN y ~I i ~ ~ ~E-T 2069 TREE 10'CHERRY 2240 TREE 8'ALDER 2426 TRE: 18"CEDAR ~ ti ~I 2+as ~.j~ 117{ ~ I ~~X ~ , ;Il,: I SCALE: 1 = ,.D ~ 1r~ 1 ~ 3ae I 277s ~ d°~ 2 m`'~C I fu+ ~ I ~ ~ •~I\~)\' I IM1 1 M1' r I_» 2771 / \ \1 ~ ~ / I 2065 TREE 10'TWINCHERRY 2241 TREE 6"ALDER 2421 IRE: 10"-14'ALDER 1 # 2066 TREE 24'F!R 2242 TREE 8"ALDER 2418 TRE: 10"ALDER I 8 I W°' / 2,06 W +y ~ \ ^-I'~ .i . 1 ~ 1 ~ M1,~ 11\~ M1°1 ~ ~a ~ \ ~ ~-2182 I 2067 TREE 16"MAPLE 2243 TREE 8"TWIN-ALDER 2429 TRE= 12"TWINALDER i ~v \I~ ~1~~ 284 I I I ~ I- I`. ' / ,1 VI aae , 2068 TREE 18"FIR 2244 TREE JO'ALDER 2430 TRE_ ]0"MAPLE t 2069 TREE 12"MAPLE 2247 TREE ]0"ALDER 2431 TRE- 8"ALDER ~~'U-~\ X11 ~ 1 I I ttb ~ 1 y age ~dl; i v•'f . zz \ 11 I ~~,4 ~r ~ ~~I V / 09Y ~i'~2,W 2070 TREE ]0"ALDER 2248 TREE 12"ALDER 2432 TRE': 24"OAK X2401 1 ' \ ~ ~ t I ~ ~ 7 11 ^P ,,g 4 ~ ~ I ~ ~ z0e, ~ ~ I /I\ 1 ~ I M1~ry *M1~ . I /I `1 I i M1"Y 1"P ~ 1 I1 1O ~IIry~ ~ 10BJ 2011 TREE 24"CEDAR 2249 TREE 10'MAPLE 2433 TRE_ 8'ALDER 2012 TREE 24"fIR 2250 TREE 8"MAPLE 2434 TRE- 12"F1R ~ 1 Al~j lw7 24Jg}.1~ I , I M1 114w - I ~ " Icy! ~,1rr ~ A /I~ i Ili ~ ' I ~ ~ ~ f~3 00 { 1+ -1JS M1 ,I~ " \ I 2073 TREE 12°fIR 2251 TREE 30"CEDAR 2435 iRE" 6'x2-10'ALDER ~ s i, 11 1 I 1 v { ~ 2]92 ~x0 I I M1°~ 1, ~M1 y x~ / \ ~ 1 ~ ~ .1371 ~ 1 ~ 1 . I ; 2581 11 , I/,~~ ~ \I~, ~3 I 2074 TREE 10"-6"CHERRY 2252 TREE 6"ALDER 2436 TRE_ 6"TWINALDER 2075 TREE 6"CHERRY 2253 TREE 12'ALDER 2431 iRE~ 12"ALDER ' VI 11/ =gas i , 1 1 I 1 ~Y~ r ; : ,>~M1 ,lI zce2 I I 1~ ~J l ~A IlT V~l• 16s4~,-/- I +,4 2;,; / ~')11 1/J8 1 1 ~ 2426 I ~•~=2067 ~\1~- ~I I\~~ j~2a91 2016 TREE 12'FIR 2254 TREE 40'CEDAR 2438 TRE: 10"ALDER p! 1 \I ~t~~ 2,56= 12421 1 11. 2J91 ~ '/~~1074 + , ~ 2011 TREE 18"FIR 2255 TREE 12'ALDER 2439 TRE" 28"CEDAR I 2078 TREE 14"FIR 2256 TREE f2"ALDER 2440 TRE- IS"F1R I i a~ /\3~~134 I I I I I , I tla t I 2a 6 1 _ _ . _ h I\ y J ;P 2,16 t it~-Z39o f I ' 2079 TREE 16"MAPLE-14'FI 2251 TREE 6"ALDER 2441 TRE: 12"FIR ~ I I 4 ~~1~ 1~ 1~/ I ; 1 ~ I'~2J91 I 206e 107A 1~ 2077- ~ • I I 2080 TREE 32'F1R 2258 TREE f4'CNERRY 2442 TREE 12'F1R 2081 TREE 24"fIR 2259 TREE 24'CEDAR 2443 TREE 15"FJR ' 7'.L4 "~04 ''I "71 17 1,2,5 ~ ~ ~ - r- /t\_ 1 1 2082 TREE 36'F1R 2260 TREE 29"CEDAR 2444 TRE: 14"ALDEP, 7.L. 7500 I , ~ ~ t-------------------------------~------------------/-, 1 I 1\ ~ '2,56. I { 11 2x79 I ! ~ ~~2532 y ~ ~ ~ ~ II , 1 1~20es ~ ~ /10ea 2083 TREE 30"FIR 2261 TREE 8"CEDAR 2445 TRE: 48"FIR 2084 TREE 14"fiR 2262 TREE 14'MAPLE 2446 TRE= 36"F1R I /I ~ 1 ~ 1,57 ~ 2460 I' I I I - , I 1 1 -_--2a2 ~ 2085 TREE 18"MAPLE 2263 TREE 42"CEDAR 1447 TREE 12"F!R , ' - ~ ~ ~t' 206, 16 I 1 ~ I~, ,7 13 ~ I 2086 TREE 14'-12"MAPLE 2264 TREE 36"CEDAR 2448 TRE.- 14"FIR ~ 2081 TREE ]0"F!R 2265 TREE 12"CEDAR 2449 TRE_ 90"F1R 7 1415 2 i I ~ 7060 1 I 2;6 ~ fq II I 1-~~ 2089 ~ TREE ]0'ALDER 2266 TREE 10'MAPLE 2450 TRE.: 10"xl2'FiR I f a I << , QQ / 1 2661 ~ ! ~GB6 ' I 2 i 7 ~ Y .2087 I I 2090 TREE ]0"MAPLE 2267 TREE 6"ALDER 2451 TREE 12"ALDER 2091 TREE 8"ALDER 2268 TREE 6'ALDER 2452 TREE 12"FIR } ~ 1,71 ~ I„ I ~ ~ I ~ 21.6, 1rPR~OSED STREET TREE TVA. . 2092 TREE 12`ALOER 2269 TREE' 10"ALDER 2453 TREE ]8"F1R ' I I 2452 1I ~ ' ~ ,i ~ i ,J i ~ I :X-' (INUNDERCtDUO Ft01~1?6 GP UM) - ~ - I ~ ~ I I I ( 145] 1~ I , 2,3 7 2093 TREE I4"fIR 2270 TREE 10"-12'ALDER 1454 TRE: 18'FIR s 2094 TREE 24'F!R 2271 TREE 10'ALDER 2455 TRE_ 8`x2-12'ALDER I 11 'I { , I , I I : 21 2141 ~ ~ ~ il1 ~ i f I 2095 TREE 12"ALDER 2212 TREE 10"ALDER 2456 TREE 15"FIR i , . - - 1 ~ I r - - 1,44 ; I ~ i~~ ~ I i-! ~ I ' I ~ - ~ - 2096 TREE 10"FIR 2213 TREE 8"ALDER 2451 TRE= 18"fIR , ~ 2091 TREE 6"fIR 2274 TREE 10'ALOER 2458 TRf 8'ALDER ! i _ . . ' 2098 TREE 24"F1R 2216 TREE 10"ALDER 2459 TRE' 12"x14"ALDER ~ I ~ 2099 TREE 6"TWINCHERRY 2271 TREE 8"ALDER 2460 iRf " 16'x24'CEDAR ~ 2100 TREE 20"CEDAR 2278 TREE 12"ALDER ~ 3 r,. "w i o ~ I 2]01 TREE 36"CEDAR 2279 TREE 6"ALDER ~ p 'll/I 1 ~ I I 2102 TREE 14"MAPLE 2280 TREE 6"ALDER 2103 ' TREE 24"ALDER 2281 TREE 12'ALDER ~ ~ ~ ' ' ..._r.»..+.., " ' I-'»'-".-- 244: - I - ' ~ 1 i O7 X2441 I . - 2104 TREE 8"FIR 2282 TREE 10"ALDER ` ' S.W. LOCUST ST. I ~u DO I . 1a I ' :a ` 2105 TREE 24"CEDAR 2263 JREE 8'ALDER ~1D6 T;,Ez ~7F1R 2244 TREE 24"CEDAR i , 2101 TREE 24'ALDER 2265 FREE 8'ALDER ~ 210B TREE 26"FiR 2266 TREE 15"FIR ~ 2109 TREE 20"CEDAR 2287 TREE !4"CEDAR ,r ~ I I I t I ~ I t I I I 211v Tl~f 24"niDER 2268 7PEE 3r'rFnnp sµ I 7 1\ I 1 I I I I , f I ,,,,pp I 2111 TREE 12"FiR 2290 TREE IS"CEDAR 2112 TREE ]4'ALDER 2291 TREE 10'MAPLE ~ I ~ ~ I I ,'.a h°`~`9 I 2001 I I { I 1 I I 1 ~mi '~~7tide I I I I I 1 l.~"~ I , I 2113 TREE 24"ALDER 2292 TREE 10"MAPLE ~ I I W'~ I ~ I ! ~ I I I 2]]4 TREE 36'CEDAR 2293 TREE 15"FIR ~ 2115 TREE 18"ALDER 2294 TP,EE J4"CEDAk 1 20071 1 I I I ~ I \II/ vii \li~ 1 ~ j1 i 1~ 1 2002 \11j I 1 001 2125 TREE 2-0'CEDAR 2295 TREE 12'ALDER %11~/I "~eali + ~ I ~ ~ ~~~2007 I~I~ I~ / I ~ I r7; 1 /I~10n /~S- tt~ ~ I 1 I ~ .....L..... 22 21 % 2126 TREE 30"CEDAR 2296 TREE 10"ALDER 1 2121 TREE 36"CEDAR 2237 TREE 18"FIR 1 I ~ ~ ~ M1 ~ 17 - E ~ I I ~M1O I ~ - - - - I 2129 TREE 30"CEDAR 2298 TREE 18"ALDER I i j I I I ~Q~ i ` I ~ i 2130 TREE 12"CEDAR 2299 TREE 18"MAPLE C 2131 TREE 36'CEDAR 2300 TREE 14"ALDER vy{ ~ _ T4L4 ~~~0 7g,e _ I 2132 TREE 36'CEDAR 2301 TREE 15"ALDER I I , I 2133 TREE 10'CEDAR 2302 TREE 30"CEDAR ' 2134 TREE 12'CEDAR 2303 TREE 30"CEDAR i ,a i ! ~ i i 2135 TREE 36'CEDAR 2305 TREE 24'CEDAR ~ ~I\ EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN - I I e i 1 ~ , 2136 TREE 36"CEDAR 2347 TREE 14'MAPLE 2137 TREE 36"CEDAR 2348 TREE 14"FIR O { ; I ~ n l , 2140 TREE Z4"CEDAR 2349 TREE 14"FiR ,l' I I I ! I ~1~ 051 ' 2141 TREE 15"CEDAR 2350 TREE 30'CEDAR ;~~I EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED ' I I I ~ 2051 ~ I ~ ~ ~ j I J, I 2142 TREE i6"CEDAR 2351 TREE 14'CEDAR 2143 TREE 24"CEDAR 2352 TREE 10'CEDAR I 1 ~ N , ~ ~ - I 1 I 1 1057 ~ ~ l 2144 TREE 30"CEDAR 2353 TREE 24"CEDAR I ~ : I t ~ 1 '~~,k ' 20 19 18 1 2145 TREE 12"ALDER 2354 TREE 24"FIR 2146 TREE 18"FIR 2355 TREE ]0"CEDAR ~ I EXISiINC PAVEMENT- 1 I ' I 2147 TREE 12"FIR 2356 TREE 18'CEDAR I 2148 TREE 18"CEDAR 2351 TREE 30'FIR ~ 2149 TREE 36"CEDAR 2358 TREE 12"CEDAR ' 1 i _ i 2150 TREE 6"FIR 2359 TREE 10'MAPLE ~ , t { } e 7'iY~~ ' ,'f ~ 2151 TREE 12"ALDER 2360 TREE 12'ALDER 2152 TREE 10"CEDAR 2361 TREE !0"ALDER s ~4riM. i ?yI V~„/ 2153 TREE e"CEDAR 2311 TREE 5-6"z2-11`ALDE I f 1 1 I { 1 OeM1.~R ~£~rinl a. 2154 TREE 36'CEDAR 2372 TREE 8"ALDER 2155 TREE 30'FiR 2313 TREE 10"ALDER , I ~ 7 , i 2156 TREE 12"f1R 2374 TREE 10"ALDER ' I { I I I i I t 2151 TREE ]2'CEDAR 2375 TREE 6"ALDER 2158 TREE 30'CEDAR 2376 TREE 2-8"x6"ALDER I i l l I } ~ ' } 2159 TREE 2a'FiR 2377 TREE 6"ALDER , y. g ,r ~y~ Q 107,. 1'"~6~d ~ Q 2160 TREE 30"CEDAR 2318 TREE 14'ALDER 2161 TREE 36"CEDAR 2379 TREE f0'TWINALDER I 3 a 1 . m o LL 2162 TREE 3b"CEDAR 2380 TREE 10'ALDER a I ~ ~w m I 2163 TREE 36"CEDAR 2381 TREE 10"ALDER 2164 TREE 24"CEDAR 2382 TREE 10'OAK I _ _ . t- I Z 2165 TREE 26"CEDAR 2383 TREE 14'CEDAR o ! _ IW o C7 . ~ 2166 TREE Ca"CEDAR 2384 TREE 10'x12"1WINALD ~ 2167 TREE °a"CEDAR 2385 TREE 12"ALDER N ~ ~ ~ Q 2168 TREE ~~"CEDAR 2386 TREE 36"CEDAR m ~ ~ ~ I i U r 2169 TREE 15"CEDAR 2387 TREE 12"ALDER 2110 TREE 15"CEDAR 2388 TREE 12"ALDER I I I ;J ~ ° 1 m 2171 TREE 35"CEDAR 2389 TREE 8'ALDER ~ I ~ { ,a 3 , 2172 TREE 12"ALDER 2390 TREE 10"TWINALDER ~ ' 2113 TREE ]0"CEDAR 2391 TREE 8"ALDER _ I - _ 2]14 TREE 12"MAPLE 2392 TREE 8'ALDER I ` `s (n Y 7 N~ 7 Z I • F- i m 3 D TE v ~ N DRAWN BJS DESIGNED TRK CHECKED 3DG VENT VENTURA, L.L.C. COMPASS ENGINEERING N 6760 S.W. PACER DRIVE VENTJAp MTµMTgE~gyUBDIVISION y - 8760 S.1 01/06/00 2 PER CITY REVIEW SCALE 1 = 50DATE NOV, 1998 ENGINEERING * SURVEYING * PLANNING N 1 PER CITY REVIEW EEAVERT01 ~ 11/03/99 6564 S E. LAKE ROAD 503 653-9093 PHONE i MILWAUKIE, OREGON 97222 503 653-9095 FAX i50~ DATE NO. REVISION PLAN 98-4237-2222 237CIVL DWG s l w L t TREE .DESCRIPTION TADLE , ANY EXCAVATION JEOPARDIZING THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING TREES OR BANK STABILITY SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE PROJECT CONSULTING ARBORIST FDR SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS, _ 2002 TREE 26'FIR 2180 TREE 10"FIR 2398 TREE 8'f1R 2003 TREE 26"FIR 2181 TREE 20'ALDER 2399 iR:E 24`CEDAR 2004 TREE 18"FIR 2182 TREE 20'ALDER 2400 iREE 15'CEDAR ~ I ~ 2606 TREE 18"iW1N F!R 2183 TREE 24"ALDER 2401 TREE 12'NAPLE , 2007 TREE !0'lIAPLE 2184 TREE 14"CEDAR 2402 TREE 6"CEDAR ~ 2008 TREE 18'FIR 2185 TREE 10'FIR 2403 iRCE 10'CEDAR .I_ I 1` ~ ~ir~ 6 7 , ' 1 y~ ! Y ~ Y Bow ~~n 1..P Y~/ 1' ~ I. I, 2009 TREE 8'F1R 2186 TREE 30'CEDAR 2404 1ATE 14'F!R I i ,'I A~ d ' I I I 2010 TREE 12"FIR 2187 TREE 24'CEDAR 2405 iRCE 18'ALDER ' ~ ~ ~v 'I I I f I 2011 TREE 12"FIR 1188 TREE !e'ALDER 2406 iRCE 12`TWlNCEDAR 2012 TREE 26'fIR 2189 TREE 20`ALDER 2407 TREE 12`CEDAR .I 1.L. 2013 TREE 15"FIR 2190 TREE 24"CEDAR 2408 TREE f0",'EDAR I I ~ T.a,. ~34C \ RI~'i S lV~{ 2014 TREE 6'TR1-DEClD 2191 TREE 15'FIR 2409 TREE 12"ALDER 2016 TREE 12'FIR 2192 TREE 26'CEDAR 2410 iR'EE 12',aLDER _ 2017 TREE 12'F!R 2193 TREE 24'CEDAR 241 ] TREE 18",ALDER TREES TO BE REMOVED TREES TO BE AEI~OvCD ~ y ~ TREES T6 BE REMOVED 2018 TREE 6'FIR 2194 TREE i8'CEtlAR 2412 TREE 8'ALDER 2019 TREE 14'FIR 2195 TREE 24'CEDAR 2413 iRCE 8`ALDER PER STORM CONFLICT ~ M1M1'ry•M1•\p ~ PER SANITARY LATERAL CONFECT PER STORM CONFLICT 1 ~ v ~ o M1ry roi -:.rli~~ h 2020 TREE 8"fIR 2196 TR£E 12'dl,4PLE 2414 TREE 6"-10'-12"ALOE 2021 TREE 18'FIR 2197 TREE 26'CEDAR 2415 TREE 12',aLDER 2022 TREE f5"FIR 2198 TREE 30'CEDAR 2416 TREE 8'-10"-12"ALOE 77"4 - r~ . ryry'y' yh h h 2023 TREE 6'TR!-DECIO 2131 TREE 6'ALDER 2417 iRL'E 14'CEDAR :1+e -7 ~ \ , 1) 11~ ~ V74~w ~ - - 'ri7?/T~/ i{i~iji~%Jj/f,117,r7;?7✓'p-, ~j.n ~;ri~ir~ :,~y,)nj~r~i~J~lI~~' /%~~~T~/~ ~ _ /n. - 2051 TREE 12'DEC1D 2233 TREE 6'ALDER 2418 TREE f0'CEDAR A a:~,9.r. • of \ y', `7! •w ~I( Ycra~pryrn r~is.Y t~cc~xr-.r•.r.__-.ems-.--_:~.r~-^c~-__e=r-•_-~~...,.,. 2052 TREE 12"DEC1D 2234 iREf 8'ALOER 2419 TREE 10"ALDER 2053 TREE 36'F1R 2235 TREE 8'ALDER 2421 TREE 14'ALDER , •~~~M~ ~ 1 I' ~ i11- 1257 2 9 ~ i i 90 I ~ ~ ~V,'~l /I ~ \ / \ry ~l!/•, / ~j I\ ti •Vlj 1Y ' /l ` 2193 ~ /('~~v'(\ M1rv 6, / ~ ryY~\ ' 2060 TREE 10"ALDER 2236 1RCE 8"ALDER 2422 TREE 12"-14'ALDER ~ -~2JSE 77 1 1 1 2191 q 1 I h Q ~ I 7754 - - - -------~------------~-`rMIPl=---- \,7! ~~lry I ant ~ I i~1'isi-- 1CI%-- 219s I t. 1M1 III IJSr i Y--.i - il~zsB \\llj I. I ~ /I~ ~ _ 2061 TREE f0"CHERRY 2231 TREE 6'ALOER 2423 TREE 14'4LDER 2062 TREE 15"FIR 2238 TREE 8'ALDER 2424 TREE 24',4LDER 7)56 .l ~ I /I\ ~ ~ 1 ~ =218/ ~ ( ~ by ~ ~ / \ I I Wp'pg iqy p~•p,, ~ 2155 ~ i, "B5 1 1 I I /119~~~ A21e2 11 ~/I v ~ w I i 2141 ~~1/ 7 ~ry~~ I(y /11 2063 TREE 90'iW1NCHERRY 2239 TREE 4D" CEDAR 2425 TREE 10`TRl-ALDER r.wa. lSY ,~FVY , ,M'~2J5 I t. {7751 i f _ ~ ~ 11 BJ 1b 1y~1 1, ~ M1. ~ I I 21e,~1'ylyv BS ,r .Ier i ~'I'---- 3znc ~2w6 LI~~ I ry` 1 ~ /I~~ au \l~/~~i/ A11/i~ A~~ ~ w 2064 TREE 10"CHERRY 2240 TREE 8'ALDER 2426 TREE 18'CEDAR 2065 TREE 10'TWINCHERRY 2241 TREE 6"ALDER 2421 TREE f0"-14'ALDER /I~ 7:e1A"+~ 1~ ~ 7160 I I 27 ~1 11 ~ ~ 2t 72 8,~~v •n t I I 7TID, I' q ~ 2173 211 ~1l Ate/ ~ J~ ~ ~ ~p ( ^ \I~~ 77e7~y'11'4 - .I ~ 1 ~7q 1759 ~ , I .1197 / ~ 2180 2163 ~ III I I 1 •,F.. °4~51'Td I 2066 TREE 14"fIR 2242 TREE 8'ALDER 2428 TR[E f0':ALDER 1353~~ ~~I, ( 1~ ~ Y ~~IA: 7 ~ , 26621 1 11 I I~ ~ 379 I ~ ~ ~ 311 i~150 j ~lIJI~ I 1352 ~ ~ ~ Ill J7 B '2 ~r l 62e r' i C ~ Ij17B \ - /I~ 2067 TREE 16"41APLE 2243 TREE 8' TWIN-ALDER 2429 TREE 12' TWINALDER 2068 TREE i8'FIR 2244 TREE 10'ALDER 2430 TREE ifl'~1APLE \~1~ I j r- ~ 'M1_ r7 IrJ it ~ \ I 216 LI. yp~~ ~~I ~II 3129 235f,. \5 1. ry~ . 7291y/ ^7 i -.1765 I I \ I ..I I J ~2154~ J ~ V I / IIII ql ~ 71 i9~"'~ i 3~ I / 1s' ~ e ~ r 2D3A 21 so \ 3,81 t 2069 TREE 12'AIAPLE 2247 TREE !0'ALDER 2431 TREE 8'ALDER I 13i9 - I~ 14/ ,d, II r , I L,_~I I 2,52 ~ I~ ~ ,N I 331A 1 \ - 1 ~ 1 ~ /I 1 1 ~„+PI,( 12761 I I ~.v ~ ~I'~ X21 Se~ 2153' /I I , 2070 TREE i0"ALDER 2248 TREE 12'ALDER 2431 TREE 24'OAK 2071 TREE 24"CEDAR 2149 TREE 1D'NAPLE 2433 TFCE 8`ALDER I l /t^ ~ 16J V ~I' ~ ~ h 2JO5 i 1~ ~ \t II I .e}' \I ~2 \ ~ 7311 jl' 1213=r ...77aA ry\he1 i I / I I ♦ \ ~ ~ I M1 M1 2012 TREE 24"fIR 2250 TREE 8'MAPIE 2434 TREE 12"FIR 7796^ Qh "/I~ -7.M ~7 ~ tiy11 I \ 1 - 1 ry / r7 }T I ~ ~ ~ h 1 112 A/ / ~l/ , 2073 TREE 11"FIR 2231 TREE 30'CEDAR 2435 TREE 8'x2-10'ALDER 2014 TREE 10'-6'CHERRY 2252 TREE 6'ALDER 2436 TREE 6"TWINALDER a29v~' . IIr1=t ~ - ~ v ~I ~ ` A I I , ~ I 2015 TREE 6"CHERRY 2253 TREE 12'ALDER 2431 TREE 12'ALDER , I I ~~~JD , li 3 3 11 ~ ~ y ~ , ' ,y'~~ lY E It .)1 2076 TREE 12"FIR 2254 TREE 40'CEDAR 2438 TREE 10'ALDER 2077 TREE 18'f1R 2255 TREE 12'ALDER 2439 TREE 28`CEDAR i ;al, /I ` 1JD~ `a~_ 2311 h --r~~ ~ y \ I ~ 1703 I111y\.J / i `'2115 \ 1(p 'I ~ I r - 7~`~ -51 ~ 1 1 I 2078 TREE 14'F1R 2256 7REE IZ'ALDER 2440 TREE 15`FIR ~ 3410 ' ` 2 17 ~ \ I ~ p°i I /I//M1 ~ . \ a rlr 21IA r+ ~ htiM1 31D6~1/ `~Y~~l~% ~ i - 2079 TREE 16'iAAPLE-14'FI-•,- 2251 TREE 6'ALDER 2441 TREE J2'f!R - 2080 TREE 32'f1R 2258 TREE 14"CHERRY 2442 TREE 12"FIR Ct~ vp I v ~ I ~ y. I I 1l ~ I IIDy ~ y ~ i i ll I I ,I %I I I ` - ~ I rl~ s PLAN ~ 2081 TREE 24"FIR 2259 TREE 24'CEDAR 2443 TREE 15'F1R n:q ~ `~I 7~01~ I ~ 1u6 II . 1~ 1 I ' Ir I i I ~I ~ ~~"I. Iia, ;1 ~ i~+l 1 I ~ I „e ~ ~ ~ ~ I I , 210~11~~ I SCALE: 1 = 60 2082 TREE 36'FIR 2260 TREE 24'CEDAR 2444 TREE 14"ALDER V ✓ , I s' ~ I I 4 IY:' 2786 / I , 2375 3371 ~ / ~ 1~plpy /I~ ~ A..~ ~ ~ - 2083 TREE 30'F1R 2261 TREE 8'CEDAR 2445 TREE 48'fiR 2084 TREE 14'F!R 2262 TREE 14"MAPLE 2448 TREE 36`FIR I 21De I~~ ~ V~ / oy~'' Ili p1` peep i R.~~ ~-c31D2 2085 TREE 18'~UAPLE 2263 TREE 42'CEDAR 2447 TREE 12'FIR ---r- ~ ~ 7 110 ~ IIry v, v ~ /A ryp0 7 7 CIA 'h, tn+ V 11 I \ ~ ~ ~ \ ; \ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ 2096 ' \ ~f \Ili :.gala I 1 I ~ v 1z' CtDl~~r 1" . 'p`°4 plp / ;.{~-:D9e ,A1~/ S I I 2086 TREE 14"-12'MAPLE 2264 TREE 36'CEDAR 2448 TREE 14'FIR 1- 2081 TREE f0"F!R 2265 TREE 12'CEDAR 2449 TREE 40'F1R ~ ~~'z'fi~------121rt-~. . III ~ 71W ll~l~/ rya4~ ,Iv -'~11/1,M1~ ~,I~ A~ '~~~~:-7os9 ,.~210o I 2089 TREE 10"ALDER 2266 TREE 10'MAPLE 2450 TRCE 10'x12"FIR E' ~.1 2 I, I v ry6 ~ ,l I /I ~`~I I 11 ~ I _II a M1ye hs° 11 ~I ' ~ '~''~2o6J ~ I /I , 1 I ~ •ry I ~I ~ ~1T c6Dnx ~ ~ ~ ` /\IIry ~ \ I 2090 TREE 1D"AIAPLE 2261 TREE 6"ALDER 2451 TREE 12'ALDER _ I/1 2091 TREE 8"ALDER 2268 TREE 6'ALDER 2452 TREE 12'fIR ~.,r__ ~1f jIiD1 Ii39 I •I IT a ,I 2,~ }r ccD~n ~ I vI / I ~ ~ ~ / ~ I I VI% Ate' I ~ PJ ~Q ~ I /I~ ~ .277 I, ~ ryp~ ~ ~ry 41~ h ~ I I "17001 I V I ` 23A I /I ~I(~ I ~ ~0~ ~ p9 ; 1 2092 TREE 12'ALDER 2269 TREE 10'ALDER 2453 TRUE 1B`f1R ~,6 i/C I , , ~ L 71ll1 I ~ ; ~ I ; I 238 117 ~ :~~~I h~, 2093 TREE 14'FIR 2270 TREE 10'-12'ALDER 2454 TR[E 18'fIR 2094 TREE 24'F1R 2271 TREE 10"ALDER 1455 TREE 8'~2-12'ALDER ~ 1 ' ~1 ~ AIl~ L - ~21u "'-I ~ ' ~ I I , I 11~ ~ 123A3 I \I . ~ /x,11/ ~ \~ll~z~vl ~1~3ce2 I rt \ =N36 I 1 I I I ~ I061 1..a20B1 ~ I 2095 TREE !2'ALDER 2272 TREE 10'ALDER 2456 TREE 15'fIR ~ ~ ~ "1'1--- _ _ LI \ i I I I I I /I\ ~~~IO13'//~\ \/I x y ry^F yry 6 I( . I ~2,u . I 1 = qq 2071 ~ { J ~ ,JI./ ti9 y ~ g136= - I ~ ~~I/ 2791 / 2073 Q I 2096 TREE 10"FIR 2273 TREE 8'ALDER 2451 TREE 18'fIR ~ 2097 TREE 6'FiR 2214 i~EE 10"ALDER 2458 TREE B'i~LDER I I~, ~ ~~M1ry~yry4 /~r~~71p_._. , I 1 ' ~ I A I ,..._.I ~ ~ ~~1~1076 .~.~~.f_-._-.._ ~ ~'~A qS I qJ ah~.~l li76f~,'S: 1 v _I ____-_-____-1( i~1J90 I ~ Z y y ~ ~ I _ ~ - 2098 TREE 24"FIR 2276 ikEE 10'AIDER 2459 TREE 12`x14"ALDER Z M1ry VI ryya IIry` I'I~t` ~ I ~ T 339t'~ 1068 2D7e1~ 3D)j~: ,'Y ./I~ I I I 1 i !715 \ I ~ ~ -..-~~L 1 2099 TREE 6'iW1NCHERRY 2277 TREE 8'ALDER 2460 TREE 18"x24'CEDAR . ~,i,,, 7,~,(~t~ ~ I I I I i 7 . ~ I TREES 10 BE REMOVED ~I s I 2100 TREE ?0'CEDAR 2278 TREE 12'ALDER 2101 TREE 36'CEDAR 2279 TREE 6'A1DER .h. T QQ I I r-------------- --------------PE STORM CONFLICT----- I ~ \ h 1156 . I ~ I ~ 2DAS I 'Ij3m91~ Ioeo---- v~33 ----I ' I I ' ' I I 'I l~~ 2102 TREE 14',UAPLE 2280 TREE 6'AIDER ADDITIONAL TREE:; I ~v~~ ~ I i Vl! I I I q /I~ I 21s7 , 1.6o I 11 / 1Des 1 I { 3 r I ~7 2063 I I t~ 2103 TREE 14'ALDER ZZBI TREE 12'ALDER 2104 iRE£ 8'ftR 2282 TREE t0'ALDER COT 12 iRLE 18` CEDAR, NO iAC I I I ~,~J - - - ~-f- 1 I f` - 2p61 _ _ - - _ I - - - - _ I s 1 2]05 TREE 24"CEDAR 2283 TREE 8'ALDER LOi 12 TREE 12' CEDAR, NO TAG ~i if ~4 2~ I S~M 2 216 rl ~ `I I I I I ~ I 2106 TREE 20'F!R 2284 ikEE 14"CEDAR LOT 12 TREE 1T CEDAR, NO TAC 2107 TREE 14"ALDER 2285 TREE 8"ALDER LOT 12 TREE 12" CEDAR, NO TAG 'I' ~ . 1 I I 2061 \tir~, Dae I 1~ 1 °O ~ I I I~ 1 11 206j I I I i"\ I I I 21153 i ~ / 1 I `I\ .I I /I\I I A 1./'~PA 4f Vd(.O SIfiGGr lP'L !/!I'.~ _ _ - s "'.T. 2108 TREE 28'FJR 2286 TREE 15'FIR 2195A TREE 24° CEDAR ~ _ . ~ 7.109 _ .TREE 9A."CEOAR. 2287 TREE 14'CEDAR , _ _ _ _~i2262A . iRFE~2' 11APLE_~_ _ . _ _ _ _ . - - - _ ; _ _ - ~ - - - - - I - - - - I _~r.5,~ I I - - -I 'I i i - •~D,I I - I ~ r~*TNUNDERp.WDFLOY,edNCPLUM ~ I 2110 TREE 24'ALDER _ 2288 TREE 30'CEDAR 22628 Tki E 17' ALDER 1 2152\ I 1 i I I I I I I I ` ~ , I i ,1~ 1J I .1 I I I L_____I j L__.~__I I L-____I , 2111 TREE t2"FIR 2290 TREE 15'CEDAR 2162C TREE 14' MAPLE ~ ~ I ~ , I 2;,a ~ I ' ~ .:131s ~ : i I I I . 2411 rl I 1 1 1 ♦ 1 L»__.- ----ti 17115 I \ 2112 TREE 14'ALDER 2291 TREE 10'NAPLE _ ' 1113 TREE 14'.4LDER 2292 TREE 10'aLAPIf I~ i III ~7 5( 1 1 v I ~ 1 I ~ - .ICI. ?114 TRf£ 36'CEDAR 2293 TREE f5'F1R - - 2115 TREE 18'ALDER _ 2294 TREE 14'CEDAR ~I~ 2ufi'~\ ry Iii/ ~ I \ \ t 2125 TREE 24"CEDAR - 2295 TREE 12'ALDER i y~'~'l I I ~ I,', ~ ~ ~ . d rlyr, 2126 TREE 30'CEDAR 2296 TREE f0'ALDEP, 2121 TREE 36'CEDAR 2297 TREE 18"FIR ~~"~~~;j'~ Lf 4 u~{.,x'6 1~L i~~ ry 1'• 'jam ISI,F~. , A e ' X9,11 r... ; i ~ o M 2129 TREE 30"CEDAR 2298 TREE 18'ALDER O I,I\ 1 I t I 3112 I I _ _t-`_ r ♦ y l rtr r~ 1 213C TREE 12'CEDAR 2299 TREE 18'1dAPLE . - 2131 TREE 36'CEDAR 2300 TREE 14'ALDER Total Trees On Site;, _ _ ~ 329 ' ' ~ ~2u1 I I r " 2132 TREE 36'CEDAR 2301 TREE 15'ALDER ~ Total Trees Oyer 12":~ 209 S.W. LOCUST ST. ~,I, Iti oo - ------------------s ~ 1 - ~ . . 2,10 I I , 2133 TREE 10"CfflAR 230 TREE 30'CEDAR ~ . - ~ .__u 2134 TREE 12"CEDAR 2303 TREE 30'CEDAR Total Hazardous?rees Over 12"7o Be Removed: ~ 28 I 1 - " ~ 7. I 1 r I r ~ I I 2135 TREE 36'CEDAR 2305 - .TREE 24'CEDAR _ _ _ -1~i- ~ I I I i I i I 2136 TREE 38`CEDAR 2347 TREE 14'IfAPLF Mitigation Calculations; _ _ _ _ IT I, vv I I y? _ _ I I I I I 2]37 TREE 36"CEDAR 2348 t~EE 14'FIR Total Tree_S Otier 12":; _ J _ ~ 209 2140 TREE 24"CEDAR 2349 TREE 14"fIR Total Hazardous Trees To Be Remo4ed: -28 n r I~ ~ I ';I ` I I 1 ~ I I I I ~ I • I i ryep I phy j 1 ' i i i I I I I I I I I ~ 2141 TREE 15"CEDAR 2350 TREE 3D'CEDAR _ 181 hp 1 ~ I 2 I p., h I I ~h0~ \0 I I 1 ~ I I I • hp 1 I ~ II I 2142 TREE P6"CEDAR 2351 TREE 14'CEDAR - 2143 TREE 24'CEDAR 2352 TREE 10'CEDAR _ _ _ T m~A , I h ; I ~ I L------ L------- 1--_--- J I I I I 1 I I _ 2144 TREE 3D'CEDAR 2353 >'REE 24'CEDAR Total Non-Hazardous Trees Over 12" TO Be RemO~ed: 40 I 10071 pw 1 ..L... .•...u I ~ F~ L I \I ~ I , 2ao2 \Ilj I i I 2145 TREE 12"ALDER 2354 TREE 24'f!R . 2148 TREE 1B'fiR 2355 TREE 10'CEDAR \Ilj~ ~ 1~ ~Il7I~'~1 i ~Y^ ~I~ I i. ! ~ ~ d I , \ : I i 2oDJ I . ~/~1DU ~ ~ ~ /I ~ 1 /Iw eg ~j I I 2147 TREE 12'f1R 2356 TREE 18"CEDAR Percentage of Trees Over 12" To se Remo4~ed^~ /181= 22.1% ,vtl,~ L..! . IJ I 1~ I 2148 TREE 18"CEDAR 235T TREE 30"FIR _ _ _ 2149 TREE 36'CEDAR 2358 TREE 12'CEDAR Percentage of Trees Over 12" To BE Retained: 77.90% 2150 TREE 6'F1R 7359 7lREE i0'IdAPLf 2151 TREE 12'ALDER 2380 TREE 12`ALDER 2152 TREE f0'CEDAR 2361 TREE 10'ALDER T.L. ~3~CQ ~ I I I I I - - 2153 TREE 8'CEDAR 2371 TREE 5-6'x2-11'ALDE I- I Q I I I _ I ` 2154 TREE 36"CEDAR 2372 TREE 8'ALDER 2155 TREE 3D"FIR 2373 TREE 10"ALDER I i ~-----I -I r I ~ ~ - - - . _ - I__._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I ~ I I I I I ~ I I ?157 TREE 12'CEDAR 2314 TREE 10"ALDER . ~ I I I 1 I I ►~1 I ' I I I I it ~ ID51 I I 2158 TREE 30"CEDAR 2375 TREE 6'ALDER 2159 TREE 24'FIR 2376 TREE 2-8'x6'ALDER LEGEND j ' ; I I I I I w I ~...F' I I I ' L~__,__I I I I I ~1 2160 TREE 30'CEDAR 2371 TREE 6'ALDER . I ~ 1 I I ~ I =2053 I I I ~ `1' i j 1' 1 11 1 L..-___~I L.___ 1LLjl ~ I I 2161 TREE 36'CEDAR 2378 TREE 14"ALDER 2162 TREE 36'CEDAR 2379 TREE 10"TWINALDER I I N I I ~ 2163 TREE 36"CEDAR 2380 TREE 10'ALDER I 'i I I I 3053 I I I I, I~ I , 2164 TREE 24"CEDAR 2381 TREE t0"ALDER \i1~ EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN , I , I ~ 20 ~g ~8 I EXISTING PAVEMENT I ; I r 2165 TREE 26"CEDAR 2382 tREE 10"OAK 2166 TREE 24"CEDAR 2383 TREE 14'CEDAR I ~ I +00 I I I T.L. 3Ci{.~ , 2161 TREE 24"CEDAR 2384 TREE 10'x12'TWlNALD I 2168 TREE 30'CEDAR 2385 TREE 12"ALDER 2169 TREE 15'CEDAR 2386 TREE 36"CEDAR EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED 1 ~'.le. eQ i ' - - - - ~ i I 2170 TREE 15'CEDAR 2387 TREE 12"ALDER i I t I I ,w ~ , ~~,a f~';:i I ~ i ~ ! 2171 TREE 36"CEDAR 2388 TREE 12'ALDER 2171 TREE 12"ALDER 2389 TREE 8"ALDER _ _ ~ 'I ~ ~".t.. 'flC~~ 2173 TREE 10'CEDAR 2390 'TREE f0"TWINALDER ~ _ I I I l ~ i I ( I ~ I I I 2174 TREE 12',UAPLE 2391 TREE 8'ALDER I 2175 TREE 12'ALDER 2392 TREE 8'ALDER I ~ APPROX1tulATE $U1t.DING f00TPRINT SHOWN. ..I I I I I I I 1 { 2176 TREE 38'FIR 2393 ~ TREE 14'IfAPLE I i PRECISE DESING LAYOUT SUBJECT TO 1 I 1 ~ I I i 2177 TREE 10"ALDER 2394 TREE 18"ALDER ~ I BUILDING AND ARCHITECT THROUGH , 2178 TREE tD`ALDER 2395 TREE f0'F1R I ~I BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS I . F'. I I l 2179 TREE 15"CEDAR 2396 TREE 16'F!R I _ _ _ _ _ _ ^ _ "k.L. 3 e~Q I I I ~ I I I 1 - _ _ I I 2397 TREE 12"fIR ~ 1 L~ ~I I ~ ~ Q. I I ~ { I 1 ~ 1 - - I ~ ~ RECEfU~!~ ~P~NiNG I ~ I (7 ~r.a~. i, 4DA 4 I I I~ I I 1 MAY U 1 2000 ~ , 1 I I I I y I ~ I I~ I .a ~o ' ~ CITY OF `fIGARD ~ , I Im I I ~ I I a1 { I I I~ l ' n~ .I:c /~~~~i~`~ ~S a~ 3 r ~ ~ I T La A N E E P capon= VENTURA, L.L.C. VENTURA -ESTATES SUBDIVISION CHECKED 04J24/00 3 REVISED PER CITY PLANNING REQUIREMENTS DRAWN BJS DESIGNED TRK BDG N 8760 S.W. PACER DRIVE F [19/10 TIGARD, OREGON 01/06/00 2 PER CITY REVIEW V, 1998 E ENGINEERING * SURVEYING * PLANNING EEA1lERT , pp ;AVERTON, OREGON 97006 11/03/ 5 99 1 PER CITY REVIEW SCALE 1 50 DATE NO 6564 S.E. LAKE ROAD 503 03 653653--9095 9093 FAX PHONE ~l ~ (503) 626-2119 DATE NO. R~vlsio~ PLAN 98-237-2222 4237CIVL raWG MILWAUKIE, OREGON 97222 n ~.•~Y. Y3,. ..'r4'a .yr,.Y. H.f, .r u r,w- , 7BEE -DESCRIPTION TABLE ANY EXCAVATION JEOPARDIZING THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING TREES OR BANK STABILITY SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE PROJECT CONSULTING ARBORIST FOR SPECIAL IiECOMMENDATIONS. 2002 TREE 26"FIR 2180 TREE 10'FIR 2398 iREE 8"fIR 2003 TREE 26'fIR 218] TREE 20'ALDER 2399 iR~E 24`CEDAR 2004 TREE 18"FIR 2182 TREE 20"ALDER 2400 TREE 15"CEDAR ' ~ ~ i 2006 TREE 18"TWIN FIR 2183 TREE 24'ALDER 2401 TREE 12"MAPLE I 1 - _ . ,~.,.._.M. _ t i I ~ 2007 TREE 10'MAPLE 2184 TREE 24"CEDAR 2402 TREE 6'CEDAR 2008 TREE 18"FIR 2185 TREE 10"FIR 2403 TREE ]0`CEDAR I 1 i N' 3j \ ~ ~ F $ ;t t S"Y emu. ~s0 V.. I ~ ~ ~ iii e ; 0~ ~ d" ~ 0 ~ aa>I 1 ~'~a I. 2009 IREE 8"FIR 27B6 IREE 30'CEDAR 2404 TREf 14'F!R _ , I I 2010 TREE 12"fIR 2187 TREE 24"CEDAR 2405 TREE 18'ALDER 2011 TREE 12'FIR 2188 TREE 18'ALDER 2406 TREE 12'TWINCEDAR I ~ ! 1 2012 TREE 26'flR 2189 TREE 20'ALDER 2401 TREE f2'CEDAR ° ti ~°•L• 2303 . 1 i `v,, T.L. NCO I 2013 TREE 15'F1R 2190 TREE 24'CEDAR 2408 TREE 10'CEDAR 2014 TREE 6'iR!-DEC1D 2191 iREE 15'FIR 2409 TREE 12'ALDER r r 14''d A 2016 TREE 12'FIR 2192 TREE 26'CEDAR 2410 TREE 12'ALDER _-..,~,W ~ 2011 TREE 12"fIR 2193 TREE 24'CEDAR 2411 TREE 18'ALDER 2018 TREE 6"f/R 2194 TREE 18'CEDAR 2412 TREE BALDER ~ TREES TO BE REMOVED TREES i0 BE REMOVED TREES TO BE REMOVED hh.y~h \ PER SANITARY LATERAL CONFECT PER STORM CONFLICT PER STORM CONFLICT \l(/~ h~.M1,o 2019 TREE 14'FIR 2195 TREE 24'CEDAR 2413 TREE 8'ALDER ~22~'4 \I M1 _ _ _ _ _ _ I__ ~ ~ ~ S:W: - ENTU - - ENUE - _ _ - _ . - _ - _ _ 2020 TREE 6'FIR 2196 TREE 12'MAPLE 2414 TREE 6'-f0"-12'ALDE 2021 TREE 18'FIR 2197 TREE 26'CEDAR 2415 TRCE 12'ALDER 2}60 ~I ` hhhy5 hyh 2022 TREE 15"FIR 2198 TREE 30'CEDAR 2416 TREE 8'-IO"-12'ALDE \II/ 2361 ~ \ I \ •\I ~1 i h yiy0~q~~ ~ . h _ - _ _ _ 2359i/ ~ ~I(~'11 h,1 ~ hhy9 /IA / ./TIT;//~ ~ ~ , J ,;,^•.il7J,Qg/1.r i~1n/~~/~//r7J'L/~/ !/f%~ ~ ~ '~i 2023 TREE 6'iRI-DEC]D 2232 TREE 6'ALDER 2417 TRi:E 14'CEDAR 2051 TREE 12'DECID 2233 TREE 6"ALDER 2418 TREE IO"CEDAR • 1 1 • S{1f!•hy • 2194 ~ i 1/ ~ ~ ~ \ .i.r ~1~/~1ii~i•c z=•-~. ~ r ~___s _...-.._.,.~^n.:•s__....._.__ :~r•.:^~ __,.._._s_ 2052 TREE 12"DEClD 2234 TREf f"ALDER 2419 TREE 1D"ALDER ~ I I ACT A J~ ~ - 219 \ - ~I i ~ - ~ ~-Ch` ~ 1/» ~ t 1 /Iy\l~% i/ \ 2257 / I 90 I ~ \ ~ ~ /I\ h ~ ~ h ~I~~ '\II, I I ~rY~\ I ~ 2,92 / 6 ~ , ~ ~ 2053 TREE 36"FIR 2235 TREE 8'ALDER 2421 TREE 14'ALDER , 2060 TREE 10'ALDER 2236 TREE 8'ALDER 2422 TREE 12'-14'ALDER ~2J58 2219 I \I~P 2191 i I ,~`1~ ~ h ~ 1M1~~ h~~. 22 - _ `1I/ ` /I\ 2257 / c I_ M1 _ 1_ \1/ yb 2061 TREE 10'CHERRY 2231 TREE 6`ALDER 2423 TREE 14'ALDER 4J~ 1 I I 2s3 ,T//F258 z19s 1 ~lMli - ~ \1(,'C17/ \I M1, ..,/.-_2367 ~ p--yl ~ \ \I + I ~ \ /I\' y i 2 ~i~l 2356 X I /I\ / \ 1 ~ 218a~ ~1 I ~ by ~y \ ~ \ i 2062 TREE 15"FIR 2238 TREE 8'ALDER 2424 TREE 24'ALDER 2063 TREE 1fl'TWiNCHERRY 2239 TREf 4fl' CEDAR 2425 TREE ]fl`TRI-ALDER 11i5 2261 I I \ ~ 2182 ~ 'L / \ I TeL. ~~SfIfS✓ ~~235, ~I~- Q I Vl~ /Iti9 IAA 1( I , + ~\I~ 27 as V~/ h I Sy 1 r~~ i \ I 1122BI I ~ \2254 2262CI f - - ~ 21 BJ `0 (,~~1 \1~ ~ \ '\~~M1`~? ~11~R i 2064 TREE 10'CHERRY 2240 TREE 8'ALDER 2426 TREE 18'CEDAR I v 2267 .3 11 /Iv 2,96 1' I ' h /Iv 211 v~/~~"~ y1(/~/Y~ ~ i yI~% ~ I /I \ ~M1y`~ 228a~~. 7263 1 r - - - - - 1 ~ l l\ I 1 ~ J 2t 72 \ I ~p :q, \I 228 ~ 11 2Zgyy 2260 I I~ _ 2160 ~ 1 ~ ~ _ ~ 2173 21, ~I~l~ ~ ~/~131 \ f s~ . ~'aii ~,g. '~°6~ 2065 TREE 10'TWINCHERRY 2241 TREE 6'ALDER 2427 TREE IO'-14`ALDER 2066 TREE 24'FIR 2242 TREE 8"ALDER 2428 TREE 10'ALDER j~ 2285 l ~ '~1~~79 225 , ~ 611 2191 _ 2162 ~f.-~- I\I~/ I ~1(/ I 2353-iY~ /I ~1~ f. ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 I 11 I 11 2 79 ~ ~ 211 A~11 i~150 j-~2131i { 2152 _ 1(/ I ~ I 2067 TREE 16'MAPLE 2243 TREE 8'TWIN-ALDER 2429 TREE 12'TWINALDER III V ~ / 2B2 ~ 2278 ~ 628 X2498 ~ ~ ~ 7~ ~ 8\, - ~IA /IA Y27Z 1 ~ / ` ( / z35r 9°~ / A s 97=: I ~ 216 ~I~~ `vllj AI~j z129 206E TRE£ i8"fIR 2244 TREE 1D'ALDER 2430 TREf 10'MAPLf l Av ( hM1 0~ VIA ~t ~ 276 2265 ~I V Ir - - I I ~ ~ ~ 2159 ~ A ~ 2149a ~ i ~ 2130 h G ~ 1 t ^ 2621 I 2349 - r ~ ~ M1~~ / II -r 1- I I -I 2'1. : 1 \ 2151 - ~ /IJ~! i ~N . I 1316 ~ ~ ,il/ 4 ~ ~ \I 1~\ 69 1( 2264 ~ / r i, \ 2153 2069 TREE 12'MAPLE 2247 TREE 10'ALDER 2431 TREE 8'ALDER 2070 TREE 10"ALDER 2248 TREE 12'ALDER 2432 TREE 24"OAK /I ~ h 1 Y17, ~ 1~ ~ , I I 1 ,2,SB I , 1 . y~<•- v( 1~ ~ 2261 --1 1! 2263 vvv ~ A /I \ ~M1hE z}0s \1~j I ~ h. 1 2 2011 TREE 24"CEDAR 2249 TREE 10'MAPLE 2433 TREE 8'ALDER 2317 2273y ~ ~ 2266 1 \ ~ \ I I ~ ~Ilyi~' 1 M1 i ~ 229 ~ a'' 2268 I ~ tiy11 \ 215`f ~""~h, / 22 ~ 22 ~ ~ ~ ( 1ti y1h ~ i \ `2112 2012 TREE 24"f!R 2250 TREE 8'MAPLE 2434 TREE 12"FIR 2073 TREE 12'fIR 2251 TREE 30'CEDAR 2435 TREE 8"x2-1D'ALDER 2297 ~I~~~ / M1 / \ \ / I,, /~'~Y 22997 2271, . .r / ~ i ~ ~ A A ~ ^ r ~ I i I ~ ~ A / I 2014 TREE 10"-6'CHERRY 2252 TREE 6'ALDER 2436 TREE 6'TWlNALDER 2270 h ~1(~30f ~1(/ I > 1 ~ \ 1~, I 1 h` \ yi I ~I ~1 ~ \ ~ 412 ~ 1 \ `y 1 r , M1,y 1y+ II 15 2075 TREE 6`CHERRY 2253 TREE 12'ALDER 2437 TREE 12'ALDER 2076 TREE 12"f!R 2254 TREE 40"CEDAR 2438 TREE ID'ALDER i :d(/ /Iv 2^"' IA v~, ~ 2374 ~1, M1s ,v , fly ~1~, a 2071 TREE 18"fIR 2255 TREE 12'ALDER 2439 TREE 28'CEDAR ~I 2}02 tall atj 11 2116 IfO ~ I ~ l r-~..,_~I~-1 1 i I 2,10 i'` ,-ter 2 2417. ~ ~ V 1 I ~0~Q o9 tiff s~ ' ~ ~ /1 ~ . r 1 2x16 -I- i h h ti 21o~~1!j AIY%Al~ 2078 TREE 14"FIR 2256 TREE 12'ALDER 2440 TREE 15'FIR - - 2079 TREE 16'MAPLE-14'fF:r . 2257 TREE 6"ALDER 2441 TREE 12"F!R - - ~"d~ ~p f I eau I 1 1 JI 21oy ~ ~ y ~ i i 1 r I- I 2080 TREE 32"FIR 2258 TREE 14'CHERRY 2442 TREE 12"FIR I I I - J- I/ I PLAN I „ a . .0~ I , ?Toil j ~ u6 IJ Il r / v T/ _'T__T ! 1`,'j, 21x5 109; I I v v ~ ~ - ~ f I I AII,~ I SCALD: 1 = 50 2081 TREE 24"fIR 2259 TREE 24'CEDAR 2443 TREf 15"fIR 2082 TREE 36'FIR 2260 TREE 24'CEDAR 2444 TREE 14'ALDER \ ~I. ~ 1375 0! 2101, I ~ ~ ~Ilf y / ~ I ~ i ~a I 2386 I 2371 r ~ ti oy ~I~ ,1 2083 TREE 30'FIR 2261 TREE 8'CEDAR 2445 TREE 48'f1R a°-''a ~ / 2106 l ~ y0 y / ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ 1~ ~ ~ 1 ~ II ,hM1'~ ~i1~ h°1 i ~ M1~°,o j`~Vv 2m2 2084 TREE 14'FIR 2262 TREE 14"MAPLE 2446 TREE 36'FIR 2085 TREE 18"MAPLE 2263 TREE 42'CEOAR 2441 TREE 12'F1R -,~I, ----r- I ~ / ho ,1, i y ~ ~ ~ ~\v ,z ~ zo97 /-=z,0+ I ~ / \ / \\V 2096 i e " - - 2086 iRfE 14'-12'MAPLE 2264 TREE 36"CEDAR 2448 TREE 14'F1R ~ , , ~z~Q~----- 21n111 v, Ilf 12'6EOo-n 1(/ 1yy11 r, h~oM1°o/ A ^i~ay ~Ihsmo i I I 2087 TREE 10"FIR 2265 TREE 12`CEDAR 2449 TREE 40"FIR 2089 TREE ]D'ALDER 2266 TREE 10'MAPLE 2450 TREE 10'x12'FIR °m~& j ~2a 2 I ~ I i 18' c 0PA r y1' 9 ~ \ y ~ L I / ~ I + ~ . I I /I ~I ' i 1+ ~ I ,1, h~ h~ 11 r I ' ~ 0 2os, i 2090 TREE 10'MAPLE 2261 TREE 6'ALDER 2451 TREE 12'ALDER 1 i I ./a~ 1 ~ j 1 M1~i h'h 12a~ ~;7'IC60aa ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ /\1~ \ ~/~2oe3 I I 11 ~/~2,01 I I 13 GO , ; /~12 CEDAR ~ 1_1237 C ~ ob`" ~ ~ / ~ I i 2091 TREE 8'ALDER 2268 TREE 6"ALDER 2452 TREE 12'F1R 2092 TREE 12'ALDER 2269 TREE 10'ALDER 2453 iR~E 18'f1R l 1~~. \ \2x001 I I\ I I \ 23B r I M1 I \ ~~IIM109~ ~ry0hh i I I l ~1 e1371 1 , ~ I 'I I 1 I~~ ~ \1!_ /-~1, ~qy ;sd s I ~ ~/~,~/fh i 2093 TREE 14'FIR 2270 TREE 10'-12'ALDER 2454 TREE 18'F1R ~ V1 I ~j 2 35~ ~ I a ~ 1 I 12362 1 \ ~ , / 1 ~ ~ 2 , ~1~2oe2 h,°~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l " 2136 I 11 ~ 2a2~ I I I I ~ 2067 /1 \Fr ~\~1 X20 ~ i 2094 TREE 24"FIR 2211 TREE 10`ALDER 2455 TREE 8'x2-12'ALDER 2095 TREE 12'ALDER 2212 TREE f0'ALDER 2456 TREE 15'FIR >.ti~ - - I - I I I I /1~ ~ A 2073 /~IA ~ I , y~ ! "y~ yy''11~4 T ~ 2074 1 ! ~T~X W 0n.M1y9g6 I \II ~ ~ 2,38 I I 242 I i ~1 \12791 '~l ~ 2015 ~ I 1 2096 TREE 10'FIR 2273 TREE 8'ALDER 2457 TREE 18"FIR 11/ y9 ~ : ~ \ ` I ~_----1 I ----I !1~-2076 I I - - I~wM _ , ~hyy9 ~I~' ;y 2131 ~ 11 ~ i I 1+ i~9D + ~ . 2097 TREE 6'fIR 2274 TREE 10'ALDER 2458 TREE 8'ALDER 2098 TREE 24"fIR 2276 TREE f0'ALDER 2459 TREE 12'x14`ALDER by 0y y 12429 f r____________ 2392~~ I 2099 TREE 6'TWINCHERRY 2217 TREE 8"ALDER 2460 TREE 18'x24'CEDAR I \~~7 I } I' ' - - ~/I ~ X066 107~~~ 20~ 1 I I , I I I TREES TO BE REMOVED 2100 TREE 20'CEDAR 2278 TREE 12'ALDER 2101 TREE 36'CEDAR 2279 TREE 6"ALDER P.~.. ~S~'~ 1 I , ~ ~ t-------------- --------------PER STORM CONFLICT----- - 1 s,~ I I A $,58 I I X11/ 2079 ~ ~ \1! 2065 ~ / _ 1~ ~ 2080 2102 TREE 14"MAPLE 2280 TREE 6"ALDER I I ( { ~ , 3 /I \ 7 i 2451+ 2160 I \ 11 ~ / 1 \ 2085 2]03 TREE 24'ALDER 2281 TREE ]2'ALDER ADDITIONAL TREES 2104 TREE 8'fIR 2282 TREE f0'ALDER LOT 12 TRCE 18' CEDAR, NO TAG t 2062 I 11 g \ ( I I$ 1 1 I r-" 2061 y 2105 TREE 24'CEDAR 2283 TREE 8'ALDER LOT 12 TREE 12" CEDAR, NO TAG @ 1 ' /I l ~ I I i I I ~ I _ I ~4 2ar>a I ! I 2 2,~6 1 r;" I I I 1 I I ~ 2106 TREE 20"flR 2284 TkEE 24`CEDAR LOT 12 TREE 11" CEDAR, NO TAG 2107 TREE 24'ALDER 2285 TREE 8'ALDER LOT 12 TRCE 12' CEDAR, NO TAG 1s i I 1 IM / I\1/ 2064 f 201 /I\ I \I(i OB6 I i I 2+~s I , I I ,1,,, I ~ ~ ~ 2108 TREE 26"fIR 2288 TREE 15'f1R 2]95A TRCE 24' CEDAR r - - - - - I ! ~ ' I I I I I 1 I ~ ~I\ I 1 ~ ~r-PRQPASED STREET ~'E ~TYP.) _ ~ IHUMUERaUUD PIU. E'.1NG PLUM ?109 TREE 20'CEOAR 2281 TREE 14'CEOAR 2262A iR~'E 12' MAPLE _ 2110 TREE 24'ALDER 2288 TREE 30'CEDAR 22628 Th~E 17" ALDER ' I i I 2152~i"i 'i li i ' I I I I I I I I I i i I T i i I ? - ~ ~ I I i I . 2153 1. - 2,5 I I I ----I I 0---/+~--1 I 1------I ( 2111 TREE 12"FIR 2290 TREE 15"CEDAR 2262C iR; E 14' MAPLE I I ~ I 2446 - ~ I I I 1 I I i 1 2x,5 2x/7 +~rfl ,hi ' I I I L-----1 ' 1 I~ 1 1 I i I 2112 TREE f4'ALDER 2291 TREE 10'MAPLE 2113 TREE 24'dLOER 2292 TREE 10'#iAPIE I I mo- 'r I I I ' . /I, ~ I I 2114 TREE 36'CEDAR 2293 TREE 15'fIR 2115 TREE 18'ALDER 2294 TREE 14'CEDAR 2125 TREE 24'CEDAR 2295 TREE 12'ALDER y~~ - I I \ I I 2126 TREE 30'CEDAR 2296 TREE f0'ALDER 212+ TREE 36'CEDAR 2297 TREE 18'fIR ~ `1' ~ ~~r~ 2129 TREE 30'CEDAR 2298 TREE 18'ALDER , °o ,1+''I i I 2130 TREE ]2"CEDAR 2299 TREE 18'MAPLE _ ~ _ ._._.,---I- - - I - ' 2x42 - I i - 1. ' N v v ~ ~ ~a:;~- ,a° ~ v ~ ~ , ~ 'nn I I - - - I I \ r r T' 213: TREE 36'CEDAR 2300 TREE 14"ALDER Total Trees On Site: ~329 _____.~.__..~~-__._~._-.._____._._.__-_r__._ 2132 TREE 36'CEDAR 2301 TREE 15'ALDER Total Trees 01Rr 12": I 209 S•W. LOCUST ST. - I 111 00 I ' _ - - - ----------i ' 2133 TREf f0"CEDAR 230c TREf 30'CEDAR 2134 TREE 12'CEDAR 2303 TREE 30'CEDAR otal Hazardous7rees Oyer 12"?o Be Remo~ed,~ ~ 28 2135 TREE 36'CfDAR 2305 TREE 24'CEDAR _ ~iop I I _ I I i _~1 _2021-7-----~ i 1 _ I I I I i 2136 TREE 36'CEDAR 2347 TREE 14'MAPLE Mitigation Calculations: _ _ ~!'6 I 1 -~11 A I I ~ r----- I 1 1 I I~, , ~ I I I I I 2131 TREE 36'CEDAR 2348 TREE 14"FIR Total Trees 0~2r 12":; _ ~ 209 2140 TREE 24'CEDAR 2349 TREE 14'F1R Total Hazardous Trees To Be Remoti2d: _ -28 ax I~ I rl I I I I ~ 1 1 I I I ~ I I 41~ i gM1Oa1 ~ ohy I 1 j I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 2141 TREE 15`CEDAR 2350 TREE 30'CEDAR - I h o0,,e 1 1 2 D6 I f I 1 1 I 1 1 , 6 0 i i i 1 huh' I I I I I ~ L I ~-----I 2142 TREE 16"CEDAR 2351 TREE 14'CEDAR _ _ i. - 181 ----1 I I i I 1 I I I I 2143 TREE 24'CEDAR 2352 TREE !0'CEDAR _ ~4~ ~ 2144 TREE 30'CEDAR 2353 TREE 24'CEDAR Total Non-Hazardous Trees Oyer 12" To Be Remo~d: 40 1 120071 low. ..L..~ ~..•e.. I , ~ 4 Vr 1, ~ \1%^ i l(., 2002 U(j . I 2145 TREE 12"ALDER 2354 TREE 24"fIR _ AI(i~/~ ; ~ i I i~2oa3 = p 1 1 ~'/Ivy~I~ 2m3 /~y y /I v /Iti i ~I~ /1A LIZ i 1 1 2146 TREE 18'FIR 2355 TREE 10'CEDAR _ 214.•' TREE 12"FIR 2356 TREE 18'CEDAR Percentage of Trees Oar 12" To Be Remo~d•~ /181= 221% ,I.,~ L,. i I I ~ r.-t~r_- I 17 I I q~~ I - - - 1 2148 TREE 18'CEDAR 2357 TREE 30'F1R I 1 h~ I I I I I h I I I ' 2149 TREE 36"CEDAR 2358 TREE 12'CEDAR - _ ~~T 2150 TREf 6'F1R 7359 TREE 1D'MAPLf Parentage ~f Trees Osier 12" ToB~ Retained. ~ 77.90% I I z'.r.. 'r7~~ I I I I I.,..m. f,~.. f000 1 I e ~ I I I - - 2151 TREE 12'ALDER 2360 TREE 12'ALDER T.~,. +00 I , I I i Q I , r-----I I I . I 1 2152 TREE 10"CEDAR 2361 TREE 10'ALDER 2153 TREE 8"CEDAR 2311 TREE 5-6'x2-11'ALDE I ~ I I I ~ 1 ° ! I ! I I ~ r---- r----- 1 2154 TREE 36"CEDAR 2372 TREE 8'ALDER _ _ ~ , I i I 1 4 2155 TREE 30"FIR 2373 TREE 10'ALDER 2157 TREE 12'CEDAR 2374 TREE 10'ALDER p l , I I I I I I I I 1 i I 1, , I i 2158 TREE 30'CEDAR 2375 TREE 6'ALDER ' ,i--1-i`~ i i I I I I I I 265 I ~ I f ' ~ , I ~-----I I I I I ,~1,,.~ 2159 TREE 24"FIR 2316 TREE 2-8`x6'ALDER LEGEND 2160 TREE 30"CEDAR 2371 TREE 6'ALDER I I ~ -20.52 1 I i I ~ , 2161 TREE 36'CEDAR 2378 TREE 14'ALDER 1 I N i i ~-----1 '---'1=--~~~ ~ s ~ ' , ° I I I ~ 2053 % I \ I I I 2162 TREE 36"CEDAR 2379 TREE 10'TWlNALDER 2163 TREE 36'CEDAR 2380 TREE 10"ALDER I i ~\I i i 2164 TREE 24'CEDAR 2381 TREE 10"ALDER EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN I 20 19 18 EXISTING PAVEMENT I , I ~..•..o..~... s 2165 TREE 26'CEDAR 2382 TREE f0'OAK 2166 TREE 24'CEDAR 238,? TREE 14'CEDAR I I I ~ I I ~'E~.. X07 ~ L___..~..._ _ - , 2161 TREE 24"CEDAR 238x• TREE 10"x 12' TWINALD _ ~ I I , I T,L, ~~~00 , _ _ ,,1 i ~ _ _ 2168 TREE 30'CEDAR 2365 TREE 12'ALDER 2169 TREE 15"CEDAR 2386 TREE 36'CEDAR ~ EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED I I ; ; T,~,. ~~O ~ , , ~~~;rFQ~ s I T,9.. ~ , I . 2170 TREE 15"CEDAR 2387 TREE 12'ALDER I ~ I I I ( ! I I 2171 TREE 36"CEDAR 238E TREE 12'ALDER 2112 TREE 12"ALDER 2389 TREE 8'ALDER _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ; I ~ I ~ I I i ; `~'.L. ~CO~ I I i 1 2173 TREE 10"CEDAR 2390 TREE 10'TWlNALDER I _ A _ _ _ ~ I I ~ I 2174 TREE 12"MAPLE 2391 TREE 8'ALDER I 2175 TREE 12"ALDER 2392 TREE 8'ALDER 1 1 APPROXJMATE BUILDING FOOTPBIIJT SHOWN, - - 4 ~ I , I ' ' ' , ~ I i 2176 TREE 38"fIR 2393 i•REE 14'MAPLE I I PRECISE DESING LAYOUT SUBJECT TO ' ' ' . I I t 2117 TREE 10'ALDER 2394 TREE 18'ALDER I BUILDING AND ARCHITECT THROUGH 2118 TREE 10"ALDER 2395 TREE 10"FIR I `~.L. 104 I I I I ~ ~ I BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS 2179 TREE 15'CEDAR 2396 TREE 16'FIR I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I i _ ~ ~ _ ~ I 1 LLI I 1 2397 TREE 12'FIR I ~ a 1 I IZ I , 1 W R~CEIU~~ ~p ~NI~G I i ~ I I ~ ~a,~ i IQ 1 ! I~ c I , I I t I MAY U 1 2000 I , I f I 1~ 1 I ~ ~o I ~ y Im ~ ! CITY a~ T6~AR® ~ 1 , a, ~ 3 , b ~ 1 F c TREE PLAN N 04/24/00 3 REVISED PER CITY PLANNING REQUIREMENTS DRAWN BJS DESIGNED TRK CHECKED BDG COMPASS ENGINEERING VEN 8160 01/06/00 2 PER CITY REVIEW SCALE 1" = 50' DATE NOV, 1998 w B ENGINEERING * SURVEYING * PLANNING 6EAVERT r 11/03/99 1 PER CITY REVIEW 6564 S.E. LAKE ROAD 50J 653-9093 PHONE MILWAUKIE, OREGON 97222 503 653-9095 FAX DATE N4. REV1S1014 PLt1N 88-4237-2222 4237CIVl..owG s Fr f ANY EXCAVATION JEOPARDIZING THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING TREES CR BANK STABILITY SHALL BE REVIEWED B'f THE PROJECT CCNSULTINv ARoORiST FCR SPECIAL RcCOMIJENCf~fiC"JS. I ~ ti, I I I I \ \ , ~ I I ~ ~ s i \ „ i TREESwTO BE REMOVED TREES i0 BE REMOVED TREES TO BE REMOVED ryo~,, pER SANITARY LATERAL CONFLCI pER STORM CONFLICT ~ r_'~ ~ _ - - PER STORM CONFLICT ti hryry.`ao . ~ ~ 2 ~d ~ M1ry - s _ _ _ _ I__ ' - --S:W:- - ENTU - -A ENUE - - _ _ - _ _ - ~ ~ 2760 / ~ I ryM1ry3'S ry.5ry ~ ,r 2361 i/\ I ~~f \1 h 'S ,~O y~ M1 2359 \ l~ I 59? 'T ~ _ - ~n7~Ir7". G /x 7~n'.i i, j_ _ l4;'r,"i'%~i;riliii/'/~i'~ %~~/.»f, ~._r._ ~6 M1 I 2002 TREE 26'FIR 2180 TREE f0'FIR 2398 TREE B'FIR 1 ! r' ~1~M1y \Ilj .194 ~ ~ \ .~1 ~t~ ~ ~ ~ III. ~Sl,%' ~5.:.~...4~~~ 2003 TREE 26'FIR 21B1 TREE 20'ALDER 2399 TREE 24'LEDAR c IRACT A ry ~~z2s7 n9 A 9a ~Iv ~ ~y I' \ ~ V~ • I 2249 ~ I I 2191 ~ I ~ ry0 A rry a 4` ry~ 7 ~ ~ 2355 2250 - 2 ~ _ ` ~ ~ 0 2004 TREE 18"FIR 2182 TREE 20"ALDER 2400 TREE f5'CEDAR 2006 TREf 18' iWlN FIR 2183 TREE 24'ALDER 2401 TREE 12'MiPLE I 2251 ir= r \ :I~r 1 ~ ~ zs3 -1T~~2is6 219s ~I I ~ ~ ~ V~ `V \ i ~I~ 2007 TREE f0'MAPLE 2184 TREE 24'CEDAR 2402 TREE 6`CE'IAR z3s7 11-- I it ,\Ilj \Ig,~l I r 1~\ / 67 I I y`+"/, \ ~ \ 2716 /I I ~ \ V '21 2151~~ "1; M1~ ~\y /IA ~"ss 1(~ , i. ' ~,bzu I \11j /1~9s~\_ ~ II •rl ! /~IYL 214,~~/ a ~ s ~1 2008 TREE 18'fIR 2185 TREE 10'FIR 2403 TREf 10'C%JAR 2009 TREE 8'FIR 2186 TREE 3D'CEDAR 1404 TREE 14'F1R y22~ \ 2354 \ I ~ . ~ 1 ~ ~ AI ^L ~ , I . i i~ 5' I ~i~lnal t zs4 t n62c1 r- ~ '-I- 21e3 rya ~ ~ /I\ 21e6~\I~~~J~~ \l~j% ~ i \I 1~~ I yo 2297~~IIJ ~ 2931 ~ ~~I~~':fi - I fir' ..2,96 ~ i It91 , _ F 2,72 V ~ /V,pp1 (e.~y day,; 20iv in'cE 12"F!R 2187 TREE 24'CEDAR 2405 TREE 18`AIDER I ryS 229iA ~ 1 22 2260 ~ ~I I~_ ~ 2190 ~ ~ ~ ~ 2173 214)\~•~~~ /IA /I'~134 /IA fe~. +@~~~d 4f~ , 225 , ~ / ~'wL. ~ 197 I` 1162 2011 TREE 12'fIR 2188 TREE f8'ALDER 2406 TREE !2'IIINCEDAR _ 2012 TREE 26'fIR 2189 TREE 20'ALDER 2407 TREE 12'CEDAR ~~,q i~' 2255 @1 1 1-~`~i V1~~79 225 hl 261 I I 2 I I / i/, ~ IJ7 ~ 2353t~~j' /I ~J~j ~ - I~I~ ~ ~ ~ 621 I~ ~1 .I 2~7~ ~ ~ ~ 1\~~I. i ~ 27W ~ ~ 2 . 2352 \ i,J 1 q A" 2276 _ 628' ~ 2498 ~ ~ ~ I 1 ~ ~ ' ~ ' /I /I 2129 2013 TREE 15"F!R 2190 TREE 24"CEDAR 2408 TREE 10'LEOAR /a 3t~1~ o% \ ~ -F, ! r~2~ 27LI~ - I I - ! 2,e \ ~ I ~ \11/ ~til~ 2351 v 1 ryryry I 9~\ 292 ~ ` I 176-2265 I I \ r--I "~,j f2159 ~ 21/9-~'~ i ~ 2130 . 1/ 1 \1 ~ 11 ~ 267A 1160 ~6 2151 ~ i (r I 2014 TREE 6'TRI-DECID 2191 TREE 15"FIR 2409 TREE 12',aIDER 2016 TREE 12'FIR 2192 TREE 26"CEDAR 2410 TREE 12'~!DER 23d9~ ~ h ryM1V 4' ;III` 1 I I _ y ~ I 2348 ~ IA' ~ .I ♦ b9 ~I 2264 I ~ Ili 215E \ 2153` /IA , i~ 227^~J : '1 ~ --I / ~ y '".'-.i 2011 TREE 12'FIR 2193 TREE 24'CEDAR 2411 TREE 18'~,:DER I . /!I~ / ~ \II,I.' II ~ 2267 11263 \,t ' \ ♦ \ I \ '14M1w1 i I z3a5„ ~I~j z34r ~ zvas~ ai' iiae I ~ 1~ ~ ~ A ~I / \I~ ti~ I 2018 TREE 6'FIR 2194 TREE 18"CEDAR 2412 TREE 8'ALGER 2019 TREE 14"fIR 2195 TREE 24'CEDAR 2413 TREE 8'AL"ER \ 229 9ry i r . ~~~j M1S~1 "p45i >~~M1. I p2 ~y ,1~, I ~ ~ 1~,(l ~ 1 A2112 1 I 2297 ti 22~ I ~~IY~.~ ~ / ryry5 ~ 1 I 7 2020 TREE 6'fIR 2196 TREE 12"MAPLE 241A TREE 6'-k''-12`ALDE . 2299 l\ 2271, V~ , ~ - 1,1 \ \ ~ ~ ~1 I i ~ 2210 ~ ~~~I ~ / I ,I- A / . \ I I 2021 TREE 18'F!R 2191 TREE 26'CEDAR 2415 TREE 12'A' DER 2022 TREE 15'fIR 2198 TREE 3D"CEDAR 2416 TREE 8'-1d"-J2'ALDE ~~1~ >01 ~tili 1 fY E I 412 II I 9 11 I . ryy ~ ry1'>• I I \ \ ,A ~ ~ 1~ t,11/ 11A 2]00'/I\ ~~1/ ~ 'Y~ V ~ I ~ 2771 1 `a 2023 TREE 6"TR!-DECID 2232 TREE 6'ALDER 2411 TREE 14'L;.DAR 270] 2n1 y,1~ 11 2415 1~0 I ' I ~ I r-TIo ~I~I o1 2]02 2410 ` ~ ItY 2417, ~ I ~ I I ~``p9 1 2051 TREE 12"DECID 2233 TREE 6'ALDER 2418 TREE 10'L_7AR 2052 TREE 12'DEClD 2234 TREf B"ALDER 2419 TREf 1fl'A.' DER i ~ / ' ~ I 2419 M1` ry ti 210 AI~/ ~I I/~ r~' \ I~ nl I I 1 V JI 210 \ i y\ . 2053 TREE 36'FIR 2235 TREE 8'ALDER 2421 TREE 14'A'DER . ~ I I I i PLAN . •0° z+o I i 2,16 1( 11 ~ I I^l I vi \II SCALE: 1 = 50 2060 TREE 10'ALDER 2236 TREE 8`ALDER 2422 TREE f2'-.4`ALDER 2061 TREE ID'CHERRY 2237 TREE 6"ALDER 2423 TREE J4'AIDER f~ , n,, it ~ I - I , ~ ~ I o` ~ 2,a~; 4 ~II/ 2,05 ~ ~ 2375 , ~ , o / . v ~ ~ \I ~ V I ~ j .A 'a. I 20ea ~ I 23n ~ L - - - - ry ry I , 2062 TREE 15"fIR 2238 TREE 8'ALDER 2424 TREE 24'AfDER /I ~ 2406 \ a1 i ry5 1~ 01, i o t ~ X2102 i 2063 TREf 10'TWINCHERRY 2239 iRE£ 40' CEDAR 2425 TREE lfl'Ti'1-ALDER 2064 TREE i0"CHERRY 2240 TREE 8"ALDER 2426 TREE 18'CrDAR I - - ~ ~ , I 2 11 dl aso ~ ~ 117" /v ry` o~° /Iv ' 2065 TREE 10'iWINCHERRY 2241 TREE 6`ALDER 2427 TREE 1D'-:4'ALDER \ - ~I~j , \ " ~ ~ ~ \ ~ i e o / - Y 2096 .~24D/ I Ir t¢oaxfi 1 ~ 01 / ~ : o9e \I / j \ I b 1 ' h h ~ 1,%2099 -2100 I ' ~2f~~.----- 2,z21~~', A 1 I ry,,11 .'1 l / ~ I A ~v ~ Vv ~ 2066 TREE 24"FIR 2242 TREE 8"ALDER 2428 TREE !0'AIDER 2067 TREE 16"MAPLE 2243 TREE 8"TW1N-ALDER 2429 TREE 12'11'lNALDER / I '~.y X46 1~~ I ~ \ / ~11 11 I , ~A / - I 1 q ~ ~ ~ I I I ~~24z gulrr~r I I ~ ~ I~ 19'cora ~1ti'P ~6 ~ I \ o 206+ 2068 TREf 18'FIR 2244 TREE 10"ALDER 2430 TREE ]D'6''~PLf , I / I II ~ I ~ ry I 2os7 r /I\ ~z47it~1~I ~ ' ti"~ ,ry" -I I\~v'cc0ra ~ ` \ /\I~~\ I i All/ z101 I I 124~~i2' cl2ona " ~ ,~I I ~ ~ ~ v / ~ A I 2069 TREE 12"MAPLE 2241 TREE 10'ALDER 2431 TREE 8'AL~-ER 2070 TREE ]0'ALDER 2248 TREE 12'ALDER 2432 TREE 24'G~~K ~~//I~I I I ~ I /I ( ~ ~ 23J I, V I1 Oa I M1 i I xn i /~slool I 1 I I I z3~e I I I I \ ry°~~7 1~ry°~ y+, _ 2071 TREE 24'CEOAR 2249 TREE f0`MAPLE 2433 TREE 8'AU)ER `11. ~1.~371 ( ~ 4 ~ I /I I I~i i~y~ _~~~,M1O S Vt Al~j l ~243s. ~ I I I ~ I z36z I A ~ Vv /~~~y z 4 ~~~2oa2 I 2072 TREE 24'F!R 2250 TREE 8"MAPLE 2434 TREE 12'F1R 2073 TREE 12'f1R 2251 TREE 30`CEDAR 2435 TREE B'x2.1D'ALDER L e y 2,36 ~ I 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 2@~ I I I j 2067 /I ~20 ~/I ~ i I I _ 1 l r - I I I I I I /I I i~\ 2071 "'IA \ I 2074 TREF' 10'-6`CHE,RRY r~ 2252 TREE 6"ALDER 2436 TREE 6'TM'iNALDER - ~ym6a Alr~/ 247e; II z42! l ~ I \1~239i ioie \ 2075 TREE 6"CHERRY 2253 TREE 12,'ALDER 2437 TREE 12'AIDER 2016 TREE'12"FIR 2254 TREE 90,`CEDAR 2438 TREE 10'ALDER ~ry799 //\N F""2434--- I i,y I I i .x'2190 I ~ ~ . , i ;'I~ M1y I I/]3 /~ry4~12429~, ~ ( _r____-______ 2392~~~___^ __________________2078 __7~ 2017 TREE 18"fIR 2255 TREE ]2'ALDER 2439 TREE 28'CfDAR I 20 I ~ \~/~39 I 1~, I i I _._L.. I ~ 2066 - \~iy 2076 TREE i4"FIR 2256 TREE 12"ALDER 2440 TREE f5'F'R 2019 • TREE-16"MAPLE-!4'F! . ~ _ 225.7. - TREE 6•"ALDER ~ 2441 -TREE 12`F!R - - ~ /I~ I ~ I i ~ '24s i TREES TO BE REMOVED ~ i i ~ 'C.I. 7~OC i I I I I t-------------- --------------PEg~ STORM CONFLICT----- - ~;1;-07--------- I ~ I ~ u ~ l.r I I . ~ \ r- 4s6 I 2065 I - ~/-z ~,11~ 2oeo 1 2080 TREE 32'FIR ~ 2258 TREE 14'CHERRY 2442 TREE 12'F.IR ' \t~2572 I~' i r~l ~ ~ I \l~ I I /A V 2081 TREE 24"FIR 2259 TREE 24"CEDAR 2443 TREE 15'FIR ~ 2082 TREE 36'FIR 2260 TREE 24"CEDAR 2444 TREE 14'AIDER o i _/i~ ~'~\L-----I i I 2457 ~ 2,SO I ,~~~'/I\ pp~ I zoas~ I I I ~,y V i ~ ~I ~I 2061 I r---•-- I~Vr--"--- ~ 2083 iRF: 30'F!R 2261 TREE 8'CEDAR 2445 4 'FIR aN I I - ---I~- I ~ 13 I r 7~ ,y I I i 1 I r r I I 1 1~ ~y, za66 I r T' 2084 TREE 14'f!R 2262 TREE 14`MAPLE 446 TREE 36'F1R 2085 TREE 18"MAPLE 2263 TREE 42`CEDAR 44 TREE-~2 FiR I 2 z4~6 ,'7 ~ I r-----I I d(trT I 13°f~i' I I ~Jle.~' I i ~ , 2 ~ ~ I 206+ I /I\ I ,.~1 ~6 I I I I- . , 20 ! { 2086 iRE~ 14"-12'MAPLE 2264 TREE 36"CEDAR 2448 TREE 14'FIR r _ _ _ _ _ 245 4~ ~ I 3o14T I - ~ I I /I\.I I PROPOSED STREET' TREE ilR 141, , ~ I I I I I ,,r ,2097 I I C~ FYOWfRNG _'JM 2081 TREE 10"fIR 2265 TREE 12'CEDAR 2449 TREE 40'fIR 2089 TREE 10'ALDER 2266 TREE 10'MAPLE 2450 TREE ]0"x:2"F1R ! I 2 i l 4.'1.1 I, ~ 7 f I I 1 1 I ~ I I i (IHUMDERGXOU ) 1 „s~ w. ~ , r 1 f ~ ~ I T i, 1II J I .f I I ~ 1..-----I I L--/+4--I I L-.-._-I i 2090 TREE 10"MAPLE 2261 TREE 6'ALDER 2451 TREE 12'AI.DER I I I e457 111 I~ - X245 i I I I I I I I 249 ~ I i I I I 2091 TREE 8'ALDER ~ 2268 TREE 6'ALDER 2452 TREE 12'F:R I i 214 2447 h' I I I I I I I ,I~1 ~ ~ i I C I ~ ~ I 2092 TREE 12`ALDER 2269 TREE 10'ALDER 2453 TREE i8'FiR 2093 TRFE 14"FIR 2270 TREE 10'-l2'ALDER 2454 TREE 18'F.'R I - - a ~ I I - - I _ i 2441 ~ ~~I ~ I V I I V A.A . A ~?\V"V \ t 2094 TREE 24"FlR~ 2271 TREE 10'ALDER 2455 TREE 8"x2 d2'ALDER 2446 i I ! \ i , 2095 TREE 12"ALDER 2272 TREE 10`ALDER 2458 TREE !5'f'R 2096 TREE 10"FIR 2273 TREE 8'ALDER 2451 TREE 18'F;R _ ~ k a I i o 2091 TREE 6"fIR 2214 TREE 10'ALDER 2458 TREE 8"ALDER o ti l, I I I ~ 2098 TREf 24'F!R 2276 TREE 10'ALDER 2459 TREE 12'x 14"ALDER 2099 TREE 6'iWINCHERRY 2277 TREE 8'ALDER 2460 TREE 18`x4"CEDAR O 2442 ~ - 1 I ~ ~.yAAA~` V AV ~ 'av vt a. ~ 'iC'~~ A 1 2100 iREE 20"CEDAR 2278 TREE 12'ALDER 05 ~2u1 I I ~r 1 2101 iREE 36"CEDAR 2219 TREE 6"ALDER 2102 TREE 14"MAPLE 2180 TREE 6'ALDER ADDJiIDNAI TREES LOCUST ST. ~ ~ 11 00 ~ 1 S.W. I 2,4o I I 1 _ - ' 2103 iR"f 24"ALDER 2281 TREE 12`ALDfR Leo t I - - I i 2104 TR1E 8'FIR 2282 TREE 10`ALDER LOT f2 TREE f8" IEDAR, NO TAG 2105 TREE 24"CEDAR 2283 TREE 8'ALDER LOr 12 TREE 12' IEDAR, NO TAG ~ I I -y -2~- I I i t 1,1.1 t ~ i i ~ - - - ! I I ! , 2106 TREE 20"FIR 2284 TREE 24'CEDAR LOT 12 TREE 1T IEDAR, NO TAC ~ ~t~, 1 i AA I r I I 13~14T I n, I- . I I I r I I I I I I I I I 2107 TREE 24"ALDER 2285 TREE 8'ALDER LOT 12 TREE 12' IEDAR, NO TAG 2108 TREf'26"FIR 2286 TREE ]5'F1R 2195A TREE 24' IEDAR . , I S I i I I I I I I ( , I e.,la , ory°a1 ~ ory I 106 I I I I I ( M1oo.~6 h I I g ~ I I I I I I , 1 2109 iRE 20"CEDAR 2281 TREE 14'CEDAR 2262A TREE 12' I=APLE I I I ~ry~M1° I ~ I I I t_..-.----I L-----I 1 4 I I ~ I 1 I L-----I 2110 TRre 24"ALDER 2288 TRFE 30`CEDAR 22628 TREE 11' i LDER Z!.'1 IIG ~ iZ'r/rc LcYV ii~~ _ 15~Gc'unR «G£C iCCi „ : ~ I I ~ I I I ~ i { I ~ , ~ zoo71 110 i 1 DO 2112 TRH 14"ALDER 2291 ikEz 10"MAPLE I \ I ~ , zoo2 \ll/ ~ p i \llj~, v ~ / \I j t•i ~ y,~ R~ ~u, Z i I \ ~ c2oo3 ~ I' I 2113 TRs~ 24"ALDER 2292 TREE 10"MAPLE , 2114 TREE 36"CEDAR 2293 TREE 15"F1R 1~~~'11, 26,7,h~ ~ ,I, ~Iv /i` 22 21 . 1 ;t~ 120 e... , ~I„1 I 17 L..®.. I 2115 TR=': iB"ALDER 2294 TkEE 14'CEDAR I I I 1M1OO, I I - - - - I I I f ryryryp I I I . 2125 TRLE 24"CEDAR 2295 iRFE 12'ALDER 2126 TRcE 30"CEDAR 2296 TREE f O'ALDER ~ $ ~ f ~~ti~a.. x ~ 'G~ i I I I I ~ I ~~.i, , r~~d~ I I I ~ i I 2127 TREE 36'CEDAR 2297 TREE 18"FdR ,~~,,.~~~1~,~~y~;,~~~~7p,~~~~~~„5'~{~{~~~~xp,~~~~~,a~,;~A.d~`. "<1~~~1 I r - - - ~~;a, I ~ I I NCO ~ I I - - 2f29 iR~: 30'CEDAR 2298 TREE f8'ALDER ' 2130 iREi 12"CEDAR 2299 TREE 18'MAPLE __.u-_.__.__.~___._._.._.__..___.....__.___.__.~.___.____~.__.__.__.___ I ma I I ~ , I r - I I ~ I 1 I + i t 2131 TR:E 36"CEDAR 2300 TREE 14 `ALDER Total Trees On Site; _ 329 ~,i' I 1_M~ I I I I I 'd(L I r----- r------ I _ _ 1 I } I I I ~ a I~ T I I I _ _ , 2]32 TREE 36'CEOAR 2301 TRFE 15'ALDER Total Trees Over 12"_:~ _ _ _ , 209 . I/C~f I~(1S ~~~4 2133 Tki E 10'CfDAR 2302 TF':•f 30'CEDAR ~ ~ ~ " y ~ ~ ~ i I S TotalHazardous7reesOver12 To Be Removed. _ , 9 Q,yl 25 ~I1 , - _ __J ~ ~ ' I I of T I 3~1~7" i i---- - - - - - - t o i ~ I I Imo. I I ~v.._..-... I , 2134 Tk..' 12'CEDAR 2303 TkcE 30`CEDAR f~"`'' I ~ 1 I I I I I I 11 2051 I i t I I I. 1 I , 2135 ik;e 36"CEDAR 2305 TREE 24'CEDAR _ _ _ _ ~ 2136 TbE 36"CEDAR 2341 TREE !4`MAPLE Mitigation Calculatlons~ _ _ i34~~"yN1U~~ ~GC 1 ~ i I I I I I --I I I ' ; , I I I~ -2052 I , I 2137 Tk"E 36"CEDAR 2348 TREE !4"F!R T_otal Trees_O~er 12": _ _ ~?.g Zak err' - I i~~ i t 29s3~~ I 2144 Tft:E 24'CfDAR 2349 TREE 14'f1R . ~ Total Hazardous Trees To Be Removed i _-28 z9 2141 ik±E 15"CEDAR 2350 TREE 30'CEDAR 181 /$O I ! , ~ ~ ! 2142 iRe E 16'CEDAR 2351 TREE 14"CEDAR _ _ _ _ _ > I 20 19 18 2143 TRFE 24'CEDAR 2352 TREE 10`CEDAR _ _ _ _ _ _ 2144 TREE 30'CEDAR 2353 iRF.E 24"CEDAR - - _ Total Non-Hazardous Trees Over 12" 'io Be Removed: ' 4~ I EXISTING PAVEMENT ~ I , i --»-i~--« 2145 TRF: 12'ALDER 2354 TREE 24'FIR ---_~r___....__._._.__.___..____._.._.._..___._~ 2146 TRLE 18'F!R 2355 TREE 10"CEDAR _ r__~ _ 2147 Tfi 12`FIR 2356 TREE IB'CEDAR Percentage of TreeS.Over 12"_To_Be Removed. _ 4O/t81= 22.1% Y.~//go I T.~. 4G~4I ~ } i-- _L - ~'f ~q r'+t1 [ I ~1 Tkr`,1 T.~, , 2148 ik. 18'CEDAR 2351 TREE 30'FIR _ _ I I , I I ~ i I E I t I 2149 iREF 36'CEDAR 2358 TREE 12'CEDAR percentage of Trees Over l2" To Be Retained: j ~ 77.90% 2150 TREc' 6'F1R 2359 TREE 1D'MAPL£ I °1,~, 1c~,1~j"a w I I , I I ! I 4 1 I ' 2151 TkEE 12"ALDER 2360 TREE 12'ALDER I ~ ~ 43~~~~ I 1 i I I I 2152 iRt~ 10"CEDAR 2361 TREE !0'ALDER 2153 TREE 8'CEDAR 2371 TREE 5~ 6'x2-f 1'ALDE - _ I t I i 2154 TRcE 36"CEDAR 2372 TREE 8"ALDER 1 I I ~ I I I r i s 2135 TREE 30`FIR 2373 TREE 10`ALDER 2151 ikeE 12`CEDAR 2314 TREE 10'ALDER ' I 2158 TkfE 30'CEDAR 2375 TREE 6"ALDER 6 f i 13 2159 TREE 24"FIR 2376 TREE 2-8`x6'ALDER LEGENR 2160 TktE 30"CEDAR 2317 TREE 6'ACDER I ~ ~ ;w ~ 0 ~ ~ 2161 TREE 36'CEDAR 2318 TREE 14'ALDER I I II z I 1 _ _ . _ . _ 2162 TREE 36'CEDAR 2379 TREE 10'iWINALDER 2163 TREE 36'CEDAR 2380 TREE 10'A1DER ~'r1~ ~C~I~i~~ PLANNING ~ r I ~ ~ I'.. , , a 2164 TREE 24"CEDAR 238E TREE 10'ALDER ~ EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN I I I la 1 2165 TREE 26`CEDAR 2382 TREE f0'OAK I I i V. ~ 2167 TREE 24'CEDAR 2384 TREE f0'x12`iWlNALD MAY 1 8 200 I I 1 ~ J aD 2168 TREE 30'CEDAR 2385 TREf 12'ALDER 2f69 TREE 15'CEDAR 2386 TREE 36'CEDAR ' ~ EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED I I ~ ~ i ~ 2110 TREE 15'CEDAR 2387 TREE 12`ALDER ~ CIS aF TIGARD I ~ I I al , 1 I 2171 TREE 36"CEDAR 2388 TREE 12'ALDER ~n rnrr "M .~nrn 9]0(1 TOCC G~dl I1C0 L TREE PLAN t~ N VENTL DRAWN BJS DESIGNED TRK CHECKED BDG w- _ 04/24/00 3 REVISED PER CITY PLANNING REQUIREMENTS DATE COMPASS ENGINEERING 8760 S.'rI 01/06/00 2 PER ~r CITY REVIEW SCALE 1 _ 50 NOV, 1998 ENGINEERING * SURVEYING * PLANNING BEAVERTON - ~ $ 6584 S.E. LAKE ROAD 503 653-9083 PHONE 11/03/99 503 653-9095 PFAX H 15031 MILWAUKIE, OREGON 97222 s ! 10 DATE N. PER CITY REVIEW 4237CIVL DWG sloN LAN 88-4237-2222 ~ i 1