Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
MLP1997-00002
XIIBIT A MI NOR:: LAND::::PARTITIO, . MLP 97- 0002" : , CITY OF TIOARD • C ; �Develo meat . . .:. . ......: .:.:. .: .... Shd " R`BeLter:Conununi tY :: :: »> ::: >DOWNING /.SHAW:: >PARTITI .Betz: SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION Minor Land Partition MLP 97 -0002 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested to partition one (1) parcel of 1.02 acres; into three (3) parcels of 8,115, 14,700 and 17,017 square feet respectively. APPLICANT: Mr. Miles Downing OWNER: Mrs. Dorothy Shaw 9757 SW McDonald Street 11600 SW Greenburg Road Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential; 1 -5 Dwelling Units Per Acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. The R-4.5 Zoning District Allows Low Density Detached, Single - Family Residences. LOCATION: 11600 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 06700. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.162 and 18.164. SECTION II: DECISION of ce_ s hereby;gi en that;the City of:Tigard :.Dev ment Diirector's:;desi n e e ..:.: >.tY. : p : 9 has ;: APPROVED :;the;:above; to conditions: ofa : .roval: :: T and c onclu s ions :'. on which '<the .. are: noted :in,.Section ::IV. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 1 • • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO:! RECO:RDING °THEFINALPLAT ::THE >FOL • CON DITIONS.SHALL BESATI (Un ess otherwise noted, the. s contactshall be: Br an..Ra er;in:the . • 1. Prior to approval of the final plat, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Five (5) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Once redline comments are addressed and the plans are revised, the design engineer shall then submit eight (8) sets of revised drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate for final review and approval. (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 name, address, and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. 3. Any necessary off -site utility easements shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and shall be submitted to, and accepted by the City prior to construction. 4. Additional right -of -way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW 92nd Avenue to increase the right -of -way (ROW) to 25 feet from the centerline. A ROW radius of 25 feet shall also be dedicated at the intersection of SW 92nd Avenue and SW Greenburg Road to provide room for the curb return, sidewalk, and wheelchair ramp. These dedications shall be shown on the face of the final plat. 5. The applicant shall construct standard half e) street improvements along the frontage of SW 92nd Avenue. 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. curb; d. storm drainage, including any off -site storm drainage necessary to convey subsurface runoff; e. a five (5) -foot concrete sidewalk; f. street striping; g. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; h. underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay a fee in -lieu of undergrounding existing overhead utilities); street signs; j. driveway apron (if applicable); and • • NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 2 S • k. adjustments in vertical and /or horizontal alignment to construct SW 92nd Avenue safely, as approved by the Engineering Department. 6. The applicant shall place a joint driveway easement on the final plat to indicate any shared driveways. 7. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connections prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. 8. The applicant's proposed storm drainage design shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. 9. 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 ". 10. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 92nd Avenue underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in -lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, it shall be paid prior to recording of the final plat. 11. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: a. Three (3) mylar copies of the partition plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. b. The partition plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. c. The right -of -way dedication for SW 92nd Avenue shall be made on the partition plat. 12. The Tualatin Valley Fire District reviewed this application and stated that the plans were not approved. Plans reflecting the changes listed under the agency comments' section of this report shall be submitted to the Tualatin Valley Fire District. CONTACT: Gene Birchill, Tualatin Valley Fire District (503) 526 -2469. 13. The applicant shall provide a street tree planting plan. The applicant shall also bond for or provide another acceptable form of assurance for the planting of street trees. The street trees shall be planted prior to the release of the bond. Where possible, existing trees that are to be preserved may serve as the required street tree plantings. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division (503) 639 -4171. . NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 3 • 14. The applicant shall revise the partition plat to eliminate the private street. The applicant may provide an access and /or utility easement for Lot 2 instead of directly • accessing SW 92nd Avenue. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division (503) 639 -4171. ...... ........... . DIT ON I NS SHALL BEST FI 15. Prior to issuance of building permits on this site, the applicant shall obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all grading for the lots, all on -site private utility installation (water, sewer, storm, etc.), and all driveway construction. (NOTE: this permit is separate from any permit issued by the Engineering Department for work in the public right -of -way.) 16. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with one (1) recorded mylar copy of the partition plat. . 17. Prior to issuance of any building permits within this project, 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. 18. Prior to issuance of the building permits for Lots 2 and 3, the applicant shall pay the standard water quality fee of $180.00 per lot. 19. Flag lot access screening shall be provided along the affected portions of the access easement. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division (503) 639 -4171. THI APPROVAL::SHALL BE VALID :F.OR4I MONTH > >< > > > > »> »<> > > >>> <> FROM:' THEEFF:ECTIVE>DATEOF THISDEC ISION'<!<<:< < >' >`<< SECTION III: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: • The site is presently developed with a detached, single - family residence and garage. The site has approximately a five (5) percent slope towards SW Greenburg Road. The site has large, mature fir trees throughout the portion of the property that is to be developed. The applicant states that Mr. Shaw planted these trees years ago on the property. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 4 • • • On March 27, 1997 the City issued a Decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97 -0002 . ' subject to Conditions of Approval. Because a new private street was proposed to serve the partition, the land use decision either should have been issued as a Major Land Partition or have required a revision for an access easement type of accessway or other acceptable method for the lots that are being created. The applicant has requested that the Minor Land Partition be re- issued with revised Conditions of Approval that reflects the limitations of a Minor Land Partition. For these reasons, an amended decision has been issued based on the criteria set forth for approval of a Minor Land Partition. Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant proposes to develop the areas that were planted with fir trees with a private street and utilities in order to develop two (2) new single - family, detached residences. SECTION IV: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Impact Study: Section 18.32.050 states the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right -of -way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Alternatively, an applicant may specifically concur with the requirement for dedication of right -of -way to the public and waive the impact study analysis by dedicating the right -of -way and completion of a waiver statement. An impact study waiver was provided. The applicant proposes to develop under existing required system development fees and construct full half- street improvements for their property frontage on SW 92nd Avenue. The proposed half street improvements would connect with and continue the existing street improvements on SW Greenburg Road, and are being developed to comply with current Local Street standards as reviewed within this report. The applicant also proposes to construct a private street to serve this development. Through this amended decision, the private street will be incorporated into one (1) or more of the lots as an access easement. The easement may be a shared accessway at the applicants' discretion. 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% of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial street system. Presently, the TIF for each trip that is generated is $169.00 The total TIF for a detached, single - family dwelling is $1,690.00. Because the applicant has proposed to construct improvements on a Local Street, no TIF credits are applicable in conjunction with the development of these streets. Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $3,380.00 ($1,690 x 2 dwelling units). Based on the estimate NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 5 • • that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a • fee that would cover 100 percent of the project traffic impact on major streets is $10,560.00 ($5,280 x 2 dwelling units). Therefore the development of this project will result in an unmitigated traffic impact of $7,180.00. For this reason, the cost of all required and potential future street improvements (as discussed within this report), are less than the impact and, therefore, roughly proportional to the impact of the development. Minor Land Partition - Approval Standards: Section 18.162.040 contains the following general approval criteria for a Minor Land Partition: 1. The proposal conforms with the City's Comprehensive Plan; 2. The proposed partition complies with all statutory and ordinance requirements and regulations; 3. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposal; 4. All proposed lots conform to the size and dimensional requirements of this title; and 5. All proposed improvements meet City and applicable agency standards (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 83 -52). The proposed lot size and type of development conforms with the type of density range allowed by the Comprehensive Plan as required by Criteria 1. The applicable development standards that implement the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property are reviewed elsewhere within this report. Each of the proposed parcels would exceed the 7,500 square foot minimum. The proposed parcels would also exceed the 50 -foot average width requirement, as required by Section 18.50. The parcels, as proposed, would allow the development of up to two (2) additional detached, single - family residential dwelling units. The applicant can choose to file a Conditional Use Permit application to develop a duplex on Lot 3. It may also be possible to partition Lot 3 in the future to develop an additional dwelling unit or duplex. The partition, as proposed, does not preclude any future partition(s). The development, as proposed, does not exceed the maximum residential density allowed under Chapter 18.92 for a 1.02 acre parcel within the R-4.5 Zoning District. After subtraction of 7,500 square feet for the minimum lot size of the zoning district, for the existing home that is to be preserved, a net site area of 36,931 square feet remains. By dividing the net area by 7,500 square feet, this site yields the opportunity to develop up to four (4) dwelling units. Because the site has in excess of 100 feet of frontage on SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue Section 18.100 requires the planting of street trees. Prior to recording the Final Plat the applicant shall provide a street tree planting plan. The applicant shall also bond, or provide another acceptable form of assurance, for the planting of street trees. The street trees shall be planted prior to the release of the bond. Where possible existing trees that are to be preserved may serve as the required street tree plantings. Upon completion of the appeal period, the development will have complied with NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 6 • • the statutory requirements of the City of Tigard for development review, as required by • Criteria 2. • Adequate public facilities are available, or have been required to be provided to serve this site, as set forth in Sections 18.164.030 (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), and 18.164.100 (Storm Drain), as required by Criteria 3. These requirements are reviewed by the Engineering Department in this report. The new parcels do not exceed a two and one -half, to one, length to depth ratio. The 50- foot average width requirement is also met by these parcels. For these reasons, the proposed parcel configurations conform with size and dimensional requirements of the R-4.5 Zoning District, as required by Criteria 4. As proposed, the improvements will comply with City and applicable agency standards in satisfaction with Criteria 5, as reviewed through the Building Permit Plan Check process. All three (3) parcels comply with the Basic Solar Access requirements because the north to south lot dimension of these parcels would exceed 90 feet in length. Future development of structures on the new parcels will require compliance with Solar Balance Point Standards of the Solar Accessibility requirements of the Community Development Code. Section 18.162.050 contains the following special provisions for lots created through the Partition Process: 1. Lot Width: The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district. 2. Lot Area: The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the accessway may not be included in the lot area calculation. 3. Lot Frontage: Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right -of -way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15- foot -wide access easement. 4. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. 5. Front Yard Determination for Flag Lot: When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet. Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from existing structures. 6. Screening on Flag Lots: A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.100.080 and 18.100.090. Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development. 7. Fire Protection: The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire fighting capabilities. 8. Reciprocal Easements: Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement that will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 7 • • 9. Accessway: Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.108, Access, Egress, and Circulation. 10. Floodplain: Where landfill and /or development is allowed within or adjacent to the one - hundred -year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian and or bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian and or bicycle pathway plan. Criterion's 1, 2, 3 and 4 are satisfied. The parcels will exceed the area requirement of 7,500 square feet required for properties zoned R-4.5. The newly created parcels would have, in excess of 15 feet of direct frontage on a public street or fifteen feet of frontage on an access easement. Lot 1 has direct frontage on SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue, in satisfaction of the lot frontage requirement. Lots 2 would either have a minimum of 68 feet of direct access frontage on SW 92nd Avenue or be accessed through a shared access easement with Lot 3 in satisfaction of Criteria 3. The standards for setbacks, landscaping, and clear vision requirements will be reviewed for new structures at the time of Building Permit Plan Check Review. The existing residence complies with the front, rear, and sideyard setback requirements after the creation of a new lot line in the rear yard, in satisfaction with Criteria 4. Criterion's 5 and 6 have been addressed. Because it does not meet the definition of a flag lot, Lot 2 is not required to take access separately from an access easement. Because SW 92nd Avenue is a Local Street, Lot 2 can take direct access through SW 92nd Avenue. However, the applicant can elect to combine access for these lots. Depending on the access easement configuration a flag lot setback determination will be necessary for Lot 3. Flag lot setback standards will be applied, where applicable, through the Building Permit Plan Check process. Through the Building Permit review, fire hydrants shall be consistent with Uniform Fire Code standards, thereby, satisfying Criteria 7. Criteria 8, requiring a reciprocal access and maintenance agreement, has been addressed through the recommended Conditions of Approval. A shared maintenance and access easement shall be provided where combined access for Lots 2 and 3 is requested by the applicant. Criteria 9 will be satisfied through the requirement for a 10- foot -wide minimum paved driveway to serve Lot 3; or if desired, up to two (2), of the three (3) lots. Criteria 10 has been met because the parcel is not located within the 100 -year flood plain or in areas with slopes exceeding 25 percent. Because the site does not adjoin the 100 -year flood plain, dedication of areas for pathway purposes is not applicable. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: Section's 18.164.030(E)(1)(a) (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), 18,164.100 (Storm Drains) shall be satisfied. Development Code provisions related to Storm Water Quantity, Storm Water Quality, Existing Utility Line Undergrounding, Water Service, Site Permits, Grading and Erosion Control are also addressed below: NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 8 • • Streets This site is adjacent to SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue. Southwest Greenburg Road is classified as a major collector street and is fully improved adjacent to this site. No additional right -of -way dedications or street improvements are necessary (except for the 92nd Avenue intersection, which will be discussed next). SW 92nd Avenue Southwest 92nd Avenue is a local residential street that is paved, but not improved, to City standards. The existing ROW width is approximately 40 feet. The applicant proposes to dedicate an additional five (5) feet to give 25 feet from centerline. This ROW dedication will be adequate. In addition, the applicant will need to dedicate additional ROW at the intersection to make room for the curb return. City design standards call for a ROW radius of 25 feet. This dedication shall also be shown on the face of the final plat. The roadway surface of SW 92nd Avenue is paved, but the structural section does not appear to meet City standards for a local residential street. In order to mitigate the additional traffic that will be generated from this development, the applicant will construct half- street improvements on SW 92nd Avenue adjacent to this site. These improvements will also include installation of a curb return at the northeast corner of the intersection at Greenburg Road, which will result in a much safer intersection. The applicant will be required to design and construct the street improvements to City standards. Any necessary pavement taper required to tie the new improvement into the existing edge of pavement shall be accomplished beyond the site frontage. Access will be provided to the new lots through a new paved driveway onto SW 92nd Avenue. If the driveway will be shared, the applicant will need to place a joint driveway easement on the final plat. Sanitary Sewer There is an existing 8 -inch public sewer line in SW 92nd Avenue that can adequately serve this site. The location of the sewer taps shall be approved by the City prior to construction. Storm Drainage There is an existing public storm drainage line in SW Greenburg Road that collects street runoff, including the catch basin at the northeast corner of the SW 92nd Avenue intersection. The applicant proposes to extend a public storm line in SW 92nd Avenue in order to pick up the street drainage and potential runoff from this site. The plan also indicates the lot drainage may be piped directly south through an easement over Lot 1 to the storm pipe in SW Greenburg Road. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 9 • • • The design of this storm system shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant may need to adjust the location of the existing catch basin at the street corner in order to complete the new curb return. 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. For small sites such as this, the R &O makes an exception that would allow the applicant to pay a fee in -lieu of constructing an on -site facility. Staff recommends that the applicant pay the fee in -lieu. Grading and Erosion Control USA R &O 91 -47 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 that accelerates erosion. Per R &O 91 -47, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. Existing Overhead Utility Lines There are existing overhead utilities on SW 92nd Avenue. Section 18.164.120 of the TMC requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in -lieu of undergrounding can be paid. If the fee in -lieu is proposed, it is equal to $27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. Site Permit Required The applicant is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on- site private utility installations (water, sewer, storm, etc.), and driveway construction. This permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of the permit from the Engineering Department to allow work in the ROW. Water This site lies within Tualatin Valley Water District's (TVWD) service area. The applicant's plan indicates that there is an existing public water line in SW 92nd Avenue. Any proposed connections to, or extensions of, the public water line shall be reviewed and approved by TVWD. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 10 • • SECTION V: OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Building Division reviewed this application and had the following comment: Lots 2 and 3 can easily drain through the easement at east side of Lot 1 to SW Greenburg Road. The Police Department reviewed this application and had the following comment: Addresses are needed to be marked for each home on SW 92nd Avenue, so we can locate the homes easily. No other Staff comments or objections have been received. SECTION VI: AGENCY COMMENTS The Tualatin Valley Fire District reviewed this application and stated that the plans were not approved. Plans reflecting the following comments shall be submitted to Gene Birchill of the Fire Marshall's office: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (15 feet for not more than two (2) dwelling units), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet, 6 inches. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.1). Where fire apparatus access roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and maintain the minimum 20- foot -wide unobstructed driving surface, "No Parking" signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. (UFC Sec. 902.2.4). Signs shall read "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - TOW AWAY ZONE, ORS 98.810" and shall be installed with a clear space above ground level of seven (7) feet. Signs shall be 12- inches -wide by 18 inches high and shall have black or red letters and border on a white background. (UFC Sec. 901.4.5.(1)(2) & (3). No other Agency comments or objections have been received. SECTION VII: PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance X Affected government agencies NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 11 • • Final Decision: <:THE <DECISIO:N >S L'' f <: :W D H AL...:: BE ...INA IVESDA > APR IL 2 <:1:. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Sections 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.340 of the Community Development Code that provides that a written appeal must be filed within ten (10) days after notice has been given and sent. The deadline for filing an appeal is specified below. The appeal fee schedule and appeal form are available from the Community Development Department or Planning Division at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. .THE'. DLI DEAN :.<::: NE FOR FILING ., O. F: ANAPPEAL:' > IS »3 >APRLL :23, .1997 Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division or Community Development Department of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639 -4171. 7 /Add/4 April 4. 1997 PREPARED BY: Mark Roberts DATE Associate Planner, AICP •v i■./ April 4. 1997 APPROVED BY: Richard BewersdoYY;� DATE Planning Manage • I: \CURPLN\MARK RUNLP97- 02.DEC NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 12 II* • CY av►o: WW • f- U4110 sV 921(0 ■ . • 3 J NEIGHBORS HOUSE o 0 AVlmf , 97.51 97.51 LOT 2 W to 8115 SQ FT LOT 3 • 17,017 SQ FT •■ Lt1 W GAS LINE 6' OFF ■∎• Q ..: CURRENT PROPERTY � LINE • •� ,• 3 VATER METERS V L >^ . �. • SEVE - SEVER O` .•"' 6 31 � P:4 0 2 f 188•S .F er '� . VER Z nr �'__// ��:=o rr ATE Sr:- o io, -....serimmoU Alblit6 cktcliD Amr... CI ti :� `` , al- � ` r F j �� r � =° c 7 0.4.44 9 1 3 0 > a. • : O U630 SV GREv waRc RD lu. CC �••• ! 0 639 -2702 ' j'� d f ' r I Y; ' LOT 1 q, ...� � - �• ■ ,�� o� 14,700 t '° SQ FT ti OWNER '� . Q• '� 2 Q awl =OA C � A a ( 4 4 . � � A 639-3792 L 23603 � • , 0 / ) I >" • S TO RM DRAINS TO CUR G B V 1 • • PLOT PLAN a CASE NO. ' EXHIBIT T MAP y Downing /Shaw Partition ! J�-\ I MLP 97 -0002 1 • N • y D AKOTA ... , - i . %-. - - _ . 1 ; ' i - ‘ ST C N 5 ' \ 4" - v iii -r r-- o III 1 a i CO • a a I 1 C - um -n I ; , lima G AF i 1 c 1 LE L LO MIT A CO TAELA ___ 7 w IlrA„ . L j _ S > > �� TANGELA C ,' . - w • � I 1 °' AI � I 0 •K " ' ' ♦• r A ..t, Vicinity Map I 97 -0002 E --- W N S : Downing /Shaw Partition REVISED MLP 97 -0002 Eumr./3v1W PAtAdite T c -c .1)1))(1' 1 /-)i)aLL' -- / i -riOn (4, Pg. 1 of 3 1 S.135DC -07300 1 S135DC -07200 ALLEN, ALMA M BELL, CARROLL M & FLORENCE P 1164ip SW 91ST 11600 SW 91ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S1350C-02700 1 S135DC -07400 BURKS,.MARK J & CANTRELL, PATRICIA A & CARROLL SHERI OUAINTANCE 11700 SW GREENBURG 840 EVERGREEN RD TIGARD,OR 97223 - LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 1 S 135DC -07000 1 S 135DB-03800 CEARLEY, MICHAEL 0 AND CRAIG, DAVID W AND VICKI R WAGGONER, NADINE 11420 SW 92ND 11875 SW 91ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC -06000 • 1S135DC -06900 DALTON, LEN F & MARY M DRENNA, JOHN W & 6906 SW TAYLORS FERRY RD BURNETT, JOHN F & STEPHANIE A TIGARD,OR 97223 PO BOX 23803 TIGARD,OR 97281 1 S135DB-03000 1S1350B-04700 FLEENER, RONALD C & JANICE M GAVETT, WESTON C & KERRY L 11555 SW 91ST 11435 SW 92ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 135DB -04600 1 S135D8-00600 GLAUBKE, JOHN A & MARY MARTHA JACKSON, LINDA .1 CO TRUSTEES 11554 SW 90TH 11405 SW 92ND TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 15135D8-02900 1S135DB -05000 • JUNGWIRTH, RANDY PAUL - KARBSTEIN, BRUNO TRUSTEE 11515 SW 91ST AVE 11580 SW GREENBURG RD TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 • 1S135D13-04901 1S135D8-03700 KNAUSS, BARBARA J KOLMODIN, NORMAN B 11495 SW 92ND AVE MARY LOU T1GARD,OR 97223 11450 SW 92ND TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 135DB-00400 1S135DC-02602 LAMB, PATSY LEARY, DAVID L AND 11475 SW 90Th RASMUSSEN, KENNETH T1GARD,OR 97223 603 SW LARKSPUR CT SUBLIMITY,OR 97385 1 S 135DC -07100 1 S1350C-02600 LOWRY, MARYLEE A LURVEY, DANIEL C 11595 SW 91ST 11665 SW GREENBURG RD T1GARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 REVISED MLP 97 -0002 341�I IIQf JRARTIRR14V //Vc? 7tft~l1' i- - l / (I ' L /)6. -g U f ) (Page 2 of 3) IS )35DC -06200 1S135DB-01900 MARTINEZ, EDWARD MCHORSE, MICHAEL CORIE AND 11674 S N 92ND AVE MICHELE LYNN TIGARD,OR 97223 11440 SW 91ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 J 1 S 135DC -08200 1 S 135DB -01800 MOLITOR, LAWRENCE Ft/NANCY L O'CALLAGHAN, COLLEEN C 11587 SW 90TH AVE 17780 OVERLOOK CIRCLE TIGARD OR 97223 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 1 S135DC -03000 _ 1 S135DB -01600 PUZISS, KELLY RAMIREZ. JOSE C/MARIA PO BOX 22193 11580 SW 91ST PHOENIX,AZ 85028 TIGARD,OR 97223 • 1S135DC -06500 1S135D8-02800 SABBE, REMI HECTOR SANOBO, JOHN R AND DONNA M 11665 SW 92ND AVE TRAUBA, DONNA M TIGARD,OR 97223 11475 SW 91ST TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC -06100 1S1350C -08700 SHAFFER, ANTHONY G/SARAH J SHAW, LLOYD P DOROTHY J 11690 SW 92ND AVE 11800 SW GREENBURG RD TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S135DB-02700 1513508 -03600 SIMONSEN, RORY L 8 SMITH, TERRENCE W AND ADAMS, CINDY L LISA R 11435 SW 91ST AVE 11480 SW 92ND T1GARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DB-05100 1S13508-04800 SNEIDEMAN, HARRY E STRONG, THOMAS L AND ROXANN S 11570 SW GREENBURG RD 11465 SW 92ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S135DB-05200 1 S135DC-03002 TAYLOR, ROLLAND S TIGARD, CITY OF SHIRLEY L 13125 SW HAL 25133 MCCLUN RD PO BOX 7 SWEET HOME,OR 97386 ,OR 97223 IS135DB -04902 1S1350B -04900 TIGARD, CITY TOWER, T G/LYLE I 13125 SW LL do WILTROUT, RONALD B PO 23397 11590 SW GREENBURG RD RD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S135DC -06300 1 S135DB-01700 VANWORMER, IDA M WEINSTEIN, KATHLEEN R 4224 NE 102ND 11520 SW 91ST AVE PORTLAND,OR 97220 TIGARD,OR 97223 REVISED MLP 97 -0002 DOWNllG iorPAR 'ION 90a- Wi /Vof/ Dr!t ; / -A1/ /O/1.� (/96, 3 of3) (Page 3 of 3) 1St 35DC -06400 1S13508-00500 WEYRAUCH, LORRAINE D AND GLENN WHITE, PAUL UBARBARA A 11585 SW GREENBURG RD - 11495 SW 90TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC -06800 MILES DOWNING WILKINSON. VARIA J 9757 SW MCDONALD STREET 11630 SW GREENBURG RD TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 • • Ai, , , AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING C R;► 1- It . Community 4Devekopment t , Shaping .4 Better Community STATE OAF OREGON ) . County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, Patricia L Lansford, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am an Administrative Specialist II for The City of Tigard, Oregon. ❑ That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED ❑) PUBLIC HEARING FOR: (OarWiukumm rY) DM Mlle httaaMel {cbaeb appropriate bae balaw} ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director O Tigard Hearings Officer ❑ Tigard Planning Commission O Tigard City Council That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED i) DECISION FOR: (aarWrrrRu ) City of Tigard Planning Director • ❑ That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED ❑) FINAL ORDER FOR: (Ore rrsallalleatU) {Check appropriate ba below} O City of Tigard Planning Director • ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer O Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard City Council ❑ That I served OTHER NOTICE OF FOR: l A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE/NOTICE OF DECISION/NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER/OTHER BOMBS] of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A ", w mailed to ea named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked - "B", � e • - y o /, ,./6, 199 ; and deposited in the United States Mail on ir _,.... ' i• a ����%� ' 199 postage prepaid. Aw r or Notices , 04 . Subscribed and sworn /affirmed before me on the c l day of . .L... , 1v 1 f �� �,. OFFICIAL SEAL �� , 9j z - t-; •? DIANE M JELDERKS r .. NOTARY PUBLIGOREGON R 16 ®; COMMISSION NO. 0461 42 NOT , 1 Y PUBLIC O , I ' . ON MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07, 1999 IVI Commission I s. ALEINFO_ ijf f1 ka. D CCStDI?J MUM /12L, 1.1'" 0 CASE sinus): r - ]cwii; / (/ 5 »w) r h l 1 • • EXHIBIT A • O CE F DECI 1 O SON...... . ; ?i: ?`:? iii:::;,.,: >'vi':; >iii' '<::;.) \; %i`;i`: ?`:? iiiii %+iji:i;:: i. ..: .: ...:.::..::::.:...:..: JJsg;i;iJJ::. ':i::::::: r < <5;:: • +; >:::>: >:: »s::> <>:.>:. >: >.: +s �..:.. « • : > PARTITI m o mura me • WNIN /SHAW: PARTITION << ;::;:::::::: >:: >::<:: >:::: >:::, ha Bet ter ity S pr►+ ..... C SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION Minor Land Partition MLP 97 -0002 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested to partition one (1) parcel of 1.02 acres; into three (3) parcels of 8,115, 14,700 and 17,017 square feet respectively. APPLICANT: Mr. Miles Downing OWNER: Mrs. Dorothy Shaw 9757 SW McDonald Street 11600 SW Greenburg Road Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential; 1 -5 Dwelling Units Per Acre). ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; 4.5. The R-4.5 Zoning District allows low density detached, single - family residences. LOCATION: 11600 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 06700. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.162 and 18.164. SECTION II: DECISION: • e eby given that the City of Tigard Community Development; Director designee has APP :: ' _ .. :.:. . :..: ROVEDtte>above;re' uestsub eet >toconditions >ofa ' royal:: g c the decls�on isbased are notedin Section IV.. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 1 • • • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL O. RECORDING':THEFINAL:PLAT THE:.F.OLL CONDIT I..IO NS`SHALL :BE SATISFIED;.: < >::: :; :< • U.n ess::oth`erwise n oted , . the s En ineerin ; ;De ............................................ a:irtment 503 :639- 41:7<1 ::::.:::...:..:;.: .:: ...:. 1. Prior to approval of the final plat, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Five (5) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Division. Once redline comments are addressed and the plans are revised, the design engineer shall then submit eight (8) sets of revised drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate for final review and approval. (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 sh 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 name, address, and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. 3. Any necessary off -site utility easements shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and shall be submitted to, and accepted by the City prior to construction. 4. Additional right -of -way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW 92nd Avenue to increase the right -of -way (ROW) to 25 feet from the centerline. A ROW radius of 25 feet shall also be dedicated at the intersection of SW 92nd Avenue and SW Greenburg Road to provide room for the curb return, sidewalk, and wheelchair ramp. These dedications shall be shown on the face of the final plat. 5. The applicant shall construct standard half (VI) street improvements along the frontage of SW 92nd Avenue. 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. curb; d. storm drainage, including any off -site storm drainage necessary to convey subsurface runoff; e. a five (5) -foot concrete sidewalk; f. street striping; g. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; h. underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay a fee in -lieu of undergrounding existing overhead utilities); i. street signs; j. driveway apron (if applicable); and NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 2 • k. adjustments in vertical and /or horizontal alignment to construct SW 92nd Avenue safely, as approved by the Engineering Department. 6. 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. 7. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (C.C. & R.'s) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, which clearly lays out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private street. The C.C. & 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 one (1) copy of the C.C. & R.'s to the Engineering Department prior to approval of the final plat. 8. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connections prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. 9. The applicant's proposed storm drainage design shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. 10. 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 ". 11. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 92nd Avenue underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in -lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, it shall be paid prior to recording of the final plat. 12. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: a. Three (3) mylar copies of the partition plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. b. The partition plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. c. The right -of -way dedication for SW 92nd Avenue shall be made on the partition plat. PRIOR TO ::ISSUANCE.O I > PER T T ; ;...:.:... FO CONDITIONS!' SHA ` L B L ESA FI NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 3 S • 13. Prior to issuance of building permits on this site, the applicant shall obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all grading for the lots, all on -site private utility installation (water, sewer, storm, etc.), and all driveway construction. (NOTE: • this permit is separate from any permit issued by the Engineering Department for work in the public right -of -way.) 14. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with one (1) recorded mylar copy of the partition plat. 15. Prior to issuance of any building permits within this project, 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. 16. Prior to issuance of the building permits for Lots 2 and 3, the applicant shall pay the standard water quality fee of $180.00 per lot. 17. The Tualatin Valley Fire District reviewed this application and stated that the plans were not approved. Plans reflecting the changes listed under the agency comments' section of this report shall be submitted to the Tualatin Valley Fire District. CONTACT: Gene Birchill, Tualatin Valley Fire District (503) 526 -2469. 18. The applicant shall provide a street tree planting plan. The applicant shall also bond or provide another acceptable form of assurance for the planting of street trees. The street trees shall be planted prior to the release of the bond. Where possible, existing trees that are to be preserved may serve as the required street tree plantings. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division (503) 39 -4171. FROM THE EFFECTIVEDATE.;OF THIS DECISION. „ SECTION III: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: The site is presently developed with a detached, single - family residence and garage. The site has approximately a five (5) percent slope towards SW Greenburg Road. The site has large, mature fir trees throughout the portion of the property that is to be developed. The applicant states that Mr. Shaw planted these trees years ago on the property. Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant proposes to develop the areas that were planted with fir trees with a private street and utilities in order to develop two (2) new single - family, detached residences. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 4 • • SECTION IV: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Impact Study: Section 18.32.050 states the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right -of -way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Alternatively, an applicant may specifically concur with the requirement for dedication of right -of -way to the public and waive the impact study analysis by dedicating the right -of -way and completion of a waiver statement. An impact study waiver was provided. The applicant proposes to develop under existing required system development fees and construct full half- street improvements for their property frontage on SW 92nd Avenue. The proposed half street improvements would connect with and continue the existing street improvements on SW Greenburg Road and are being developed to comply with current Local Street standards as reviewed within this report. The applicant also proposes to construct a private street to serve this development. 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% of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial street system. Presently, the TIF for each trip that is generated is $169.00 The total TIF for a detached, single - family dwelling is $1,690.00. Because the applicant has proposed to construct improvements on a Local Street, no TIF credits are applicable in conjunction with the development of these streets. Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $3,380.00 ($1,690 x 2 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 the project traffic impact on major streets is $10,560.00 ($5,280 x 2 dwelling units). For this reason, the cost of all required and potential future street improvements (as discussed within this report), are less than the impact and therefore, roughly proportional to the impact of the development. Minor Land Partition - Approval Standards: Section 18.162.040 contains the following general approval criteria for a Minor Land Partition: 1. The proposal conforms with the City's Comprehensive Plan; 2. The proposed partition complies with all statutory and ordinance requirements and regulations; 3. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposal; 4. All proposed lots conform to the size and dimensional requirements of this title; and NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 5 • • 5. All proposed improvements meet City and applicable agency standards (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 83 -52). - • The proposed lot size and type of development conforms with the type of density range allowed by the Comprehensive Plan as required by Criteria 1. The applicable development standards that implement the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property are reviewed elsewhere within this report. Each of the proposed parcels would exceed the 7,500 square foot minimum. The proposed parcels would also exceed the 50 -foot average width requirement, as required by Section 18.50. The parcels, as proposed, would allow the development of up to two (2) additional detached, single - family residential dwelling units. The applicant can choose to file a Conditional Use Permit application to develop a duplex on Lot 3. It may also be possible to partition Lot 3 in the future to develop an additional dwelling unit or duplex. The partition, as proposed, does not preclude any future partition(s). The development, as proposed, does not exceed the maximum residential density allowed under Chapter 18.92 for a 1.02 acre parcel within the R-4.5 Zoning District. After subtraction of 2,988 square feet for the area of the private street; and 7,500 square feet for the minimum lot size of the zoning district for the existing home that is to be preserved a net site area of 33,943 square feet remains. By dividing the net area by 7,500 square feet, this site yields the opportunity to develop up to four (4) dwelling units. Because the site has in excess of 100 feet of frontage on SW Greenburg Road, SW 92nd Avenue, and the proposed private street; Section 18.100 requires the planting of street trees. Prior to recording the Final Plat the applicant shall provide a street tree planting plan. The applicant shall also bond or provide another acceptable form of assurance for the planting of street trees. The street trees shall be planted prior to the release of the bond. Where possible existing trees that are to be preserved may serve as the required street tree plantings. Upon completion of the appeal period, the development will have complied with the statutory requirements of the City of Tigard for development review, as required by Criteria 2. Adequate public facilities are available or have been required to be provided to serve this site, as set forth in Sections 18.164.030 (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), and 18.164.100 (Storm Drain), as required by Criteria 3. These requirements are reviewed by the Engineering Department in this report. The new parcels do not exceed a two and one -half to one, length to depth ratio. The 50 -foot average width requirement is also met by these parcels. For these reasons, the proposed parcel configurations conform with size and dimensional requirements of the R-4.5 Zoning District, as required by Criteria 4. As proposed, the improvements will comply with City and applicable agency standards in satisfaction with Criteria 5, as reviewed through the Building Permit Plan Check process. All three (3) parcels comply with the Basic Solar Access requirements because the north to south lot dimension of these parcels would exceed 90 feet in length. Future development of NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 6 • • structures on the new parcels will require compliance with Solar Balance Point Standards of the Solar Accessibility requirements of the Community Development Code. Section 18.162.050 contains the following special provisions for lots created through the Partition Process: 1. Lot Width: The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district. 2. Lot Area: The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the accessway may not be included in the lot area calculation. 3. Lot Frontage: Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right -of -way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15- foot -wide access easement. 4. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. 5. Front Yard Determination for Flag Lot: When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet. Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from existing structures. 6. Screening on Flag Lots: A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.100.080 and 18.100.090. Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development. 7. Fire Protection: The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire fighting capabilities. 8. Reciprocal Easements: Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement that will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. 9. Accessway: Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.108, Access, Egress, and Circulation. 10. Floodplain: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the one - hundred -year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian and or bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian and or bicycle pathway plan. Criterion's 1, 2, 3 and 4 are satisfied. The parcels will exceed the area requirement of 7,500 square feet required for properties zoned R-4.5. The newly created parcels would have, in excess of 15 feet of direct frontage on a public street or fifteen feet of frontage on an access easement. Lot 1 has direct frontage on SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue, in satisfaction of the lot frontage requirement. Lots 2 and 3 would also have a minimum of 68 feet of frontage on the proposed private street, in satisfaction of Criteria 3. The standards for setbacks, landscaping, and clear vision requirements will be reviewed for new structures at the time of Building Permit Plan Check Review. The existing residence complies with the NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION • PAGE 7 • • . front, rear, and sideyard setback requirements after the creation of a new lot line in the rear yard, in satisfaction with Criteria 4. ' Criterion's 5 and 6 have been addressed because the proposed lots will each have in excess of 15 feet of frontage on a public street. For this reason, a flag lot setback determination is not necessary and flag lot access screening is not required. Through the Building Permit Plan Check Review, fire hydrants shall be consistent with Uniform Fire Code standards, thereby, satisfying Criteria 7. Criteria 8, requiring a reciprocal access maintenance agreement, has been addressed through the recommended Conditions of Approval. It is recommended the C. C. & R's be recorded for shared maintenance of the proposed private street. Criteria 9 will be satisfied through the requirement for construction of a minimum 10- foot -wide driveway to serve the new parcel. Criteria 10 has been met because the parcel is not located within the 100 -year flood plain or in areas with slopes exceeding 25 percent. Because the site does not adjoin the 100 -year flood plain, dedication of areas for pathway purposes is not applicable. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: Section's 18.164.030(E)(1)(a) (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), 18.164.100 (Storm Drains) shall be satisfied. Development Code provisions related to Storm Water Quantity, Storm Water Quality, Existing Utility Line Undergrounding, Water Service, Site Permits, Grading and Erosion Control are also addressed below: Streets This site is adjacent to SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue. Southwest Greenburg Road is classified as a major collector street and is fully improved adjacent to this site. No additional right -of -way dedications or street improvements are necessary (except for the 92nd Avenue intersection, which will be discussed next). SW 92nd Avenue SW 92nd Avenue is a local residential street that is paved but not improved to City standards. The existing ROW width is approximately 40 feet. The applicant proposes to dedicate an additional five (5) feet to give 25 feet from centerline. This ROW dedication will be adequate. In addition, the applicant will need to dedicate additional ROW at the intersection to make room for the curb return. City design standards call for a ROW radius of 25 feet; this dedication shall also be shown on the face of the final plat. The roadway surface of SW 92nd Avenue is paved but the structural section does not appear to meet City standards for a local residential street. In order to mitigate the additional traffic that will be generated from this development, the applicant will construct half- street improvements on SW 92nd Avenue adjacent to this site. These improvements will also include installation of a curb return at the northeast corner of the intersection at Greenburg Road which will result in a much safer intersection. The applicant will be NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 8 • • required to design and construct the street improvements to City standards. Any necessary pavement tapers required to tie the new improvement into the existing edge of pavement shall be accomplished beyond the site frontage. Proposed Private Street The applicant's plan indicates a proposed private street to serve the three (3) lots. The Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) states that private street design standards shall be established by the City Engineer [18.164.030(S)(a)]. The Engineering Department Public Improvement Design Standards indicate that private streets shall be constructed to have the same structural section as a public street. The proposed structural section shown on the applicant's plan (2 inches of asphalt, 2 inches leveling rock, 6 to 8 inches of base rock) does not meet public street standards that calls for 3 1/2 inches of asphalt, 2 inches of leveling rock and 7 inches of base rock. The applicant will be required to build the private street section to meet public standards. The private street will also need to be jointly owned and maintained by the property owners of the new lots. Section 18.164.030(S)(2) states the developer is required to provide legal assurances for the continued maintenance of the private street (such as a bonded maintenance agreement or the creation of a homeowners' association.) Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall provide such assurance to the City. A statement shall also be placed on the final plat indicating the private property owner's obligation to maintain the street in the future. In addition, the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions shall provide specific language as to how the private street will be maintained. Sanitary Sewer There is an existing 8 -inch public sewer line in SW 92nd Avenue that can adequately serve this site. The location of the sewer taps shall be approved by the City prior to construction. Storm Drainage There is an existing public storm drainage line in SW Greenburg Road that collects street runoff, including the catch basin at the northeast corner of the SW 92nd Avenue intersection. The applicant proposes to extend a public storm line in SW 92nd Avenue in order to pick up the street drainage and potential runoff from this site. The plan also indicates the lot drainage may be piped directly south through an easement over Lot 1 to the storm pipe in Greenburg Road. The design of this storm system shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant may need to adjust the location of the existing catch basin at the street corner in order to complete the new curb return. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 9 • • 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. For small sites such as this, the R &O makes an exception that would allow the applicant to pay a fee in -lieu of constructing an on -site facility. Staff recommends that the applicant pay the fee in -lieu. Grading and Erosion Control USA R &O 91-47 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 that accelerates erosion. Per R &O 91 -47, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. Existing Overhead Utility Lines There are existing overhead utilities on SW 92nd Avenue. Section 18.164.120 of the TMC requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in -lieu of undergrounding can be paid. If the fee in -lieu is proposed, it is equal to $27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. Site Permit Required The applicant is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on- site private utility installations (water, sewer, storm, etc.), and driveway construction. This permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of the permit from the Engineering Department to allow work in the ROW. Water This site lies within Tualatin Valley Water District's (TVWD) service area. The applicant's plan indicates that there is an existing public water line in SW 92nd Avenue. Any proposed connections to, or extensions of, the public water line shall be reviewed and approved by TVWD. SECTION V: OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Building Division reviewed this application and had the following comment: Lots 2 and 3 can easily drain through the easement at east side of Lot 1 to SW Greenburg Road. The Police Department reviewed this application and had the following comment: Addresses are needed to be marked for each home on SW 92nd Avenue, so we can locate the homes easily. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 10 • No other Staff comments or objections have been received. ' SECTION VI: AGENCY COMMENTS The Tualatin Valley Fire District reviewed this application and stated that the plans were not approved. Plans reflecting the following comments shall be submitted to Gene Birchill of the Fire Marshall's office: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (15 feet for not more than two (2) dwelling units), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet, 6 inches. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.1). Where fire apparatus access roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and maintain the minimum 20- foot -wide unobstructed driving surface, "No Parking" signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. (UFC Sec. 902.2.4). Signs shall read "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - TOW AWAY ZONE, ORS 98.810" and shall be installed with a clear space above ground level of seven (7) feet. Signs shall be 12- inches -wide by 18 inches high and shall have black or red letters and border on a white background. (UFC Sec. 901.4.5.(1)(2) & (3). No other Agency comments or objections have been received. SECTION VII: PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance X Affected government agencies Final Decision: :. >:::::: >: ><:THE<DECISIONSHALLBE FINAL>ON WEDNESDAYAP.RIL:9 :1:99.7 Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Sections 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.340 of the Community Development Code that provides that a written appeal must be filed within ten (10) days after notice has been given and sent. The deadline for filing an appeal is specified below. The appeal fee schedule and appeal form are available from the Community Development Department or Planning Division at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 11 • • Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division or Community Development Department of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639 -4171. • ,/(464 661 March 27. 1997 PREPARED BY: Mark Roberts DATE Associate Planner, AICP - March 27. 1997 APPROVED BY: Richard Bewersdorff DATE Planning Manager • I: \CURPLN\PATTY\MLP 96- 15.DEC NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION PAGE 14 • • ix ovum t.o Li 1— 11440 SW MD •- • 3 J NEIGHBORS HOUSE 8 ci I •V100, • 97.51 97.51 LOT 2 W 8115 SQ FT LOT 3 gillig z ei 17,017 SQ FT . I '.' • • in a pi : : i . 'A LJ s �• GAS lI1�E 6' OFF ` n -i ' ,• , L IJRRENT PROPERTY • : • - LINE ; � 3 VATER DETERS ! ii ty ' z SEVER • 2 0 _ i ur� ^ ,Z 3. 0 0 �'t FT Alke: II... _. ,2. .■ • —_ .--;77: 9 —Now .Z " x , I°. "Lin' 1WW * 1 1144 10 .,._ r Atir ST ° Q r / r ..,i . ` ir p� TIN 9 4. � .r, �o . in 4, - "gilt CC ,.. c-6; �� OWNER V VamsvN 11630 SV GREMLIN RD • L OT 1 sy • I' Z � • c 14.700 :32A\ � •,' ti \!:. ' SQ FT WPC* J� g ��4- T �(� "�e L .L. rt a ?�O O X y 4 . ��• Crel 4- >. . * 4. 3 . ' OL . %/ • i i.- S TORM DRAINS TO CURB ._ G U PLOT PLAN .1 CASE NO. EXHIBIT MAP y 9-0002 '7 w Partition MLP -- — • - - -- - - - - -- --- -•- - ---- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- Q N ___1 ti ' I. 7$ ,I, 1 ' 1 T___ ___ ____ 1 DAKOTA 1 � ST ' ' rm. —\ . .6, 1 NM NMI • ` _ III I a CCU ! ---) . III 0-1 I 0 i III — , " Qct svteoz NA, <4 - 2, t ,-%, •, _ , _■ .44 ,,y_ _ 2 - - ? E LEWIS LN • LOMITA CIO i a. 7 • ,J,, P. • I t as TANGELA C i , f ..- i • 0 ), I ■ I - JIII I • ; }�, ...<0- .*.- oFfor $ I ,,, ,,,,,,„, -..i. r Avittws Vicinity Map 0 v LP 97 -0002 . , �-•--- S W E ! Downing /Shaw Partition i MAY t-we < DOL fl1 /_maa /iv-f+0D7 (/'F, ! 013) • 1S135DC -07300 1S135DC -07200 ALLEN, ALMA M BELL, CARROLL M & FLORENCE P 11640 SW 91ST 11600 SW 91ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC -02700 1S135DC -07400 BURKS, MARK J & CANTRELL, PATRICIA A & CARROLL SHERI QUAINTANCE 11700 SW GREENBURG 840 EVERGREEN RD TIGARD,OR 97223 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 1S135DC -07000 1S135DB -03800 CEARLEY, MICHAEL D AND CRAIG, DAVID W AND VICKI R WAGGONER, NADINE 11420 SW 92ND 11675 SW 91ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC -06000 1S135DC -06900 DALTON, LEN F & MARY M DRENNA, JOHN W & 6906 SW TAYLORS FERRY RD BURNETT, JOHN F & STEPHANIE A TIGARD,OR 97223 PO BOX 23603 TIGARD,OR 97281 1S135DB -03000 1S135DB -04700 FLEENER, RONALD C & JANICE M GAVETT, WESTON C & KERRY L 11555 SW 91ST 11435 SW 92ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DB -04600 1S135D8-00600 GLAUBKE, JOHN A & MARY MARTHA JACKSON, LINDA J CO TRUSTEES 11554 SW 90TH 11405 SW 92ND TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S135DB -02900 1S135DB -05000 JUNGWIRTH, RANDY PAUL KARBSTEIN, BRUNO TRUSTEE 11515 SW 91ST AVE 11580 SW GREENBURG RD TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DB - 04901 1S135DB -03700 KNAUSS, BARBARA J KOLMODIN, NORMAN B 11495 SW 92ND AVE MARY LOU TIGARD,OR 97223 11450 SW 92ND TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DB -00400 1S135DC -02602 LAMB, PATSY LEARY, DAVID L AND 11475 SW 90TH RASMUSSEN, KENNETH TIGARD,OR 97223 603 SW LARKSPUR CT SUBLIMITY,OR 97385 1S135DC -07100 1S135DC -02600 LOWRY, MARYLEE A LURVEY, DANIEL C 11595 SW 91ST 11665 SW GREENBURG RD TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 y'/ - 00o d Uocv vavg/ u> , ri 7/0/V ( /-' • :� a (a ) S 1S135DC -06200 1S135DB -01900 MARTINEZ, EDWARD MCHORSE, MICHAEL CORIE AND t. 1f676 SW 92ND AVE MICHELE LYNN TIGARD,OR 97223 11440 SW 91ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 • 1S135DC -08200 1S135DB -01800 MOLITOR, LAWRENCE R/NANCY L O'CALLAGHAN, COLLEEN C 11587 SW 90TH AVE 17780 OVERLOOK CIRCLE TIGARD,OR 97223 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 1S1350C -03000 1S135DB -01600 PUZISS, KELLY RAMIREZ, JOSE C/MARIA PO BOX 22193 11560 SW 91ST PHOENIX,AZ 85028 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC -06500 1S135DB -02800 SABBE, REMI HECTOR SANDBO, JOHN R AND DONNA M 11665 SW 92ND AVE TRAUBA, DONNA M TIGARD,OR 97223 11475 SW 91ST TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC -06100 1S135DC -06700 SHAFFER, ANTHONY G /SARAH J SHAW, LLOYD P DOROTHY J 11690 SW 92ND AVE 11600 SW GREENBURG RD TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DB -02700 1S135DB -03600 SIMONSEN, RORY L & SMITH, TERRENCE W AND ADAMS, CINDY L LISA R 11435 SW 91ST AVE 11480 SW 92ND TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DB -05100 1S135DB -04800 SNEIDEMAN, HARRY E STRONG, THOMAS L AND ROXANN S 11570 SW GREENBURG RD 11465 SW 92ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DB -05200 • 1S135DC -03002 TAYLOR, ROLLAND S TIGARD, CITY OF SHIRLEY L 13125 SW HAL 25133 MCCLUN RD PO BOX 7 SWEET HOME,OR 97386 T OR 97223 1S135DB -04902 1S135DB -04900 TIGARD, CITY TOWER, T G /LYLE I 13125 SW LL Go WILTROUT, RONALD B PO 23397 11590 SW GREENBURG RD ARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC -06300 1S135DB -01700 VANWORMER, IDA M WEINSTEIN, KATHLEEN R 4224 NE 102ND 11520 SW 91ST AVE PORTLAND,OR 97220 TIGARD,OR 97223 ML/' 9 . 7 - 000A 220,01)70/S711J fA2TlrlDN (/'s, 3 4-eg) S • 1S135DC -06400 1S135DB -00500 YVEYRAUCH, LORRAINE D AND GLENN WHITE, PAUL L/BARBARA A 11'585 SW GREENBURG RD 11495 SW 90TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC -06800 MILES DOWNING WILKINSON, VARIA J 9757 SW MCDONALD STREET 11630 SW GREENBURG RD TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 • • • ' AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CITY OF noaaD Community (Development S rrapingjl Better Community s E OAF OR EgON ) County of Washington ) ss. • City of Tigard ) • I, Patricia L Lansford, being first duly sworn /affirm, on oath depose and say that I am an Administrative Specialist II for The City of Tigard, Oregon. ❑ That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED ❑) PUBLIC HEARING FOR: ro.awaimummeiro Mitt Mlle Mg qt) (check appropriate box bin) O City of Tigard Planning Director O Tigard Hearings Officer O Tigard Planning Commission 0 Tigard City Council That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED 0) DECISION FOR: (MOW Intl wIc N) City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED ❑) FINAL ORDER FOR: (cbsct appraprlata ba below} O City of Tigard Planning Director • O Tigard Hearings Officer O Tigard Planning Commission O Tigard City Council ❑ . That I served OTHER NOTICE OF FOR A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE/NOTICE OF DECISION/NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER/OTHER NOTICEIS] of which is attached, marked xhibit "A" mailed to eat�• am ej� person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), matted Edda " ; , n the [� - -•y of if f, 199 , and deposited in the United States Mail on the tit! ` day o __ I I I 199 postage prepaid. ff/' I te ared Nodce Subscribed and sworn /affirmed before me on the r q" ay of , 19D OFFICIAL SEAL • ice DIANE M JELDERKS a ra"^ NOTARY PUBLIC•OREGON COMMISSION NO. 046114 NOTARY PUBUC OF ORE ` i MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 0�, 199 Commission E>Qli 9 My HU INFO: a77 • n ,, I USE Naar / 97--- ,0eZA eaar<awest 7 (�/I/l/1 � �I,C(� A 177/ U CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development Shaping getter Community PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION FILE NO: MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97 -0002 FILE TITLE: DOWNING /SHAW GREENBURG SITE PARTITION APPLICANT: Miles Downing OWNER: Dorothy Shaw 9757 SW McDonald Street 11600 SW Greenburg Road Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 684 -1334 (503) 644 -7330 D ee REQUEST: A request to partition 1wo_(2} lots of 1.02 acres intoir- ( ranging in size from 8,115 to 14,700 square feet. LOCATION: 11600 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 6700. The site is located at the northeast corner of SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue. ZONE: R-4.5; Residential, 4.5 units per acre. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.162 and 18.164. CIT: East CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request PHONE NUMBER: (503) DECISION MAKING BODY X STAFF DECISION DATE COMMENTS DUE: Monday February10,1991 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 PROJECT RELATED COMPONENTS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION X VICINITY MAP LANDSCAPING PLAN NARRATIVE X ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SITE PLAN X OTHER STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division (503) 639 -4171 x317 MLP 97 -0002 DOWNING /SHAW GREENBURG SITE PARTITION PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS 0 1 LAND PARTITION APPLI ` 1 i 13125 SW Hall Blvd., T' ard, OR 97223 (503) 63 X171 FAX. (503) 684 -729� . : - ` y ` - ► ,. ''' 1 j C6?Y OF TIGARD . il /2 9-96 GENERAL INFORMATION PRE -APP. HELD WITH: 11=Pri - 7Mf■ • DATE OF PRE -APP.: L,! .:7' Property Address/Location(s): !/, O() SG,) /(/ iW FOR STAFF USE ONLY Tax Map & Tax Lot #(s): /o/'® /s/ 3,5 C L o T' 6700 Case No.(s): L - 041) - ' Site Size: /0 0 oZ /96- 2L'3 Other Case No.(s): Property Owner /Deed Holder(s)': DO if? 0 % /f f' 5/7" Receipt No.: 6 1 7- 1.4' 6 177 X Address: Phone: 6L1 — 7 3 30 Application Accepted By: City: Date: 2 - f � ty Zip: y 7 Applicant': I L L= $ O J /U t /lJ • Date Determin d To Be Complete: Address: ??S ? S t-J i'"G LO,v /-Lp Phone: 6 3 (/- / 3 3 y — 2-1 - 2_ I 417 . City: Thi 6 )9-R. 6r< Zip: q 7.22 c- / Comp Plan/ Zone Desig ation: :••••,:•:. : : : Late tO . • When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written • CIT Area: •ma : :.:: .. . authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner with written Recording Date and Number. authorization. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. Rev. 8/26/96 tturpinmastersgandpartdoc PROPOSAL SUMMARY - s' .� •,......... .. The owners of record of the subject property request permission to g ,' . allow a Land Partition to: �� `� divide /e 0 2 huic into REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS (total area) (# of parcels) containing and (sq. ft or acres) (sq. ft or acres) ✓ Application Elements Submitted: ©Application Form S Q Tr Q/ Owner's Signature/Written Authorization (provide any additional information here) � I S ¢ � 7d0 aN d Title Transfer Instrument or D O 1-7 oil S ua�e � / P.e / y ❑ Site/Plot Plan (8'/: "x 11 ") ✓ "' �, (# of copies based on pre -app check list) r Q/ Applicant's Statement • (# of copies based on pre -app check list) "Filing Fee $780.00 1 • T. p 1 . Listany'VARIANCE OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: r APPLICANTS: To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application in the "Required Submittal Elements" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained, upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject propel/. • If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All 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 found 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 for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this /7 day of Jfr/tJ , 19 77 - �i -�- _, ice - ,G,/T Owner's Signature A Owner's Signature i Owner's Signature 2 . ` Till!: MAP IS f ROVIDI:D.` COURTESY OF OREGON TITLE INSU1 7. COMPANY N 'I'hi•: map is madc solely for the purpose of assisting in locating said premises. and the Company assumes no liability for variations, if any, in dimensions. areas, and locations ascertained by actual survey. • SEE MAP I S I 3508 • Li.! 1 • • Q !: a 11111 Se C ZOO - 23 -8i 1 C 6700 L t at. Ae. i .. 2 0 �/'� .O /Ae. _ n o W y 3002 IIs 0 ; 4, CO r T10o ...Q ti. 820 3 00 0 f . 10 • Y H .3TA . /JTAc. b • 6 1,0 ' [� 7200 .• • . i 6 4 00 • •� .K Ac 6903 . u Q o S 5 ii . • . was .. - : ''� + .27AC 7000 Q 5 ; . 3844. IMOD 1 a a.• • — — - - 12 • 9 r1 r It 6300 , } 8 • _ 01 T300 0 i •1131b 2 6 4 1 . . I I •1 ° 1 g 1 M Y t 1141‘ w r + I • c+ , so 2 J3 I is a 7400 4. : ' C O . + � * t. . 29A c • 1541.01 -f) - - C 6100 $ 2600 1 u7 0 < g ) '� Y 66 00 � .s 9 �-' .r6Ac. / ■. N 7,�• �e / ,, 4a t 1 14 • )■ § w ••.•. •a41 ° 2 008 � q ■ w + + � +� ii 1 • • . 0 8300 &W S? , 1 LA n>e % 2602 4 71.04 w .26.49' • 4 - ' 3 5900 ■ J9Ac , d 2601 K as 1500 / 0 .34At .' 7 ark .14 Ac. : �. / AU , 5300 • nos 74.f1 1111.1111 1 O \� i t IF aa••aa C IMO / � 1 Q � �� , .•.•• ' MILL -s 1-1.1N •2500 • 02 ° 1400 4800 INITIAL PT. - _r_ A N./ A i � .�dAe. • / w•+1 21Ac • • M 8 0 loo Post-it° Fax Note 7671 Date / , ' 7 I # of Q 1 600\ • ' ti w ^ +° b /� Pa9eS D i•a a f °w /6A o ° so \ ' I To (� From • � 1 Q I �� OP1/ v � Cd1pQ7S rs pp • C o. /Dept. / `� Co. t 1 1� I00 sass 600 1 t ort,tP C ol?Yrder 20 1" I701 si 11133 Ind : � Phone # c w 41 22- LZ Phone # / _y .� .r o , /9Ac. 'T D � t /`r / / l . /.TAc. : , � 1300 N 19Ac. Z Fax # ° •t I s 100 Cr ' 4 i5 **oleo►* -wo f srt45Cjk hit • moo .........r ' �� �� 9143 , �a Q ..iit1,301. I�f blow d'we ` ax (t : :' 1200 = wC.S. 2000 4 C S. 7863 o /s,ec. "' . 6 O ��pp (C SNo.t0909) # 1700 v t L ' I. r' w IV T ej I I 0`. I I 90 90 90 I 1118. to N 0° I' 33" E _ _ 2 D I 6 3s g g $ W §6 Y� N - T ' A 5 ea 4 0, 0. ' : x,6.,4 o3 , o l - •- 51-'' R:75 L� LZ '� y 0 v, a x .63 ` 0�� 2o 0 34 �� f• S • 3 ' •y S w 23 % i — § ;1 g �► 0 0 '_ O 0 01) r4� 4006 • — �� % 9 v c �' S � � 'r / �� .T . . / 6' 92nd s A■ Nl`t 281.33 • 2? � o ' t. - 8 T. 90 r �� - n) .gb ao vj f.' ' Y; N 001' o . / ' 30 FI r ?8 ° t ° +/ a N O co AO 'T ri Op. -0e / n Q Y ;� 3 ^ 44 0 4 N 0 i.99 9.5 A V t� �+ o A 0 IY634 ./ D O z00' n Q 4 ' ' s o °ot' w iso.00 F ir . y � _ „e 0 7 , � e. W Co 41 C' N O 0 N --)0r.: r. u4 S4 1 4 2 % C I - . 1 j --A i h N. 609 .14j VI S A S i • '` . * "4. 91st AVE. 03 l ' s 'q N O °10'!./ ', •2 95.3 103 . O r �` ° '`j xi O a m Q1 O e U1 p o A ti a O $ O a • 4. k 9S' -. 0 g 1 7. ct ,� f ;. . c 122 NO ° 08'43 "E , t� N ) 04 O S 0 Il W (y oy (� 0�+ N a 0 w IA I it n -9 . • Y 9 it _LC to -10 MARCH 4, 1997 TERRY SMITH, I AM SORRY I TOOK SO LONG GETTING BACK TO YOU BUT I NEEDED TO CLARIFY WITH THE PLANNER THE STATUS OF THE LAND USE APPLICATION. THE PLANNER MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT I TOLD HIM IN OCTOBER. IN OCTOBER, I WAS ASKED WHETHER THE PROPERTY ON TAX LOT 1 S 135DC 6700 WAS ONE OR TWO PARCELS. AT THAT TIME, I CONTACTED KEN BAUER OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE ASKING HIS OPINION ABOUT SAID TAX LOT 6700. HE INDICATED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE DEED IS WRITTEN AS PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 2 IT WAS ONE LOT AND NEEDED TO BE PARTITIONED OR SUBDIVIDED TO CREATE NEW LOTS. ALTHOUGH A PIECE OF LAND MAYBE DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 1, PARCEL 2, ETC., AS IT WAS IN THIS CASE, THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PARCELS WERE CREATED ULTIMATELY DETERMINES HOW MANY PARCELS THE PROPERTY CONTAINS. THE CITY PLANNER HAS SENT THE APPLICATION BACK TO THE APPLICANT • TO BE CHANGED BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY ONE LOT IN THIS TAX LOT. THE PLANNER ALSO SAID THAT IF THE APPLICANT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THIS DETERMINATION HE SHOULD CONTACT THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYOR. UNLESS THE COUNTY SURVEYOR CHANGES HIS INTERPRETATION THE TAX LOT 6700 IS ONLY ONE LOT. IF I CAN BE OF ANY SERVICE PLEASE CALL ME AT 639 -4171. Sincerely, John R. Hadley Engineering /Survey Specialist Surveyor i:\eng\johnrh\tsmith.doc i • 411 � (� ))) OREGON TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Lake Oswego Branch 4550 Kruse Way, Ste 175 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 (503)635 -8851 FAX 635 -9187 PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT FOR ISSUING TITLE INSURANCE Date Prepared: December 9, 1996 Oregon Title Insurance Company 4550 Kruse Way, Ste 175 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Attn: Debbie Reyes Reference: ORDER NO : 865926w PARTY REF: SHAW /DOWNING PROP ADDR: .11600 SW Greenburg Road Tigard, OR 97224 OTHER REF: OREGON TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY is prepared to issue title insurance, insuring title of the land shown on Schedule A, subject to the exceptions shown on Schedule B. The proposed policy or policies and indorsements are shown on Schedule A. Issuance of the policy or policies is conditioned on payment of the full premiums, and on recordation of satisfactory instruments establishing the interests of the parties to be insured. This report is based on the condition of title as of the effective date shown on Schedule A. Matters arising after the effective date may affect this report. New exceptions will appear for matters arising through the proposed transaction. Any change in the amount of insurance or type of coverage may cause the premium t� change. This report is for the exclusive use of the principals to the contemplated transaction, and the company does not have any liability to any third parties. Until all necessary documents are placed of record, the company reserves the right to cancel, amend or supplement this preliminary title report for any reason. Any questions concerning this preliminary title report may be directed to: Debbie Reyes • • SCHEDULE A, Page No. 1 • Order No. 865926w 1. The effective date of this preliminary title report is 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1996 2. The policies and indorsements to be issued and the related charges are: Policy /Indorsement Description Charge ALTA Standard Owner's for $218,500.00 757.50 ALTA Extended Lender's for $ (TO COME) Lender Indorsements 100, 116, 8.1 50.00 Government Service Fee 20.00 3. Fee simple interest in the land described in this report is owned, at the effective date, by: LLOYD P. SHAW AND DOROTHY J. SHAW, as tenants by the entirety 4. The land referred to in this report is described as follows: PARCEL I: • Beginning at the Northeast corner of the John Hicklin Donation Land Claim situated in Section 35, Township 1 South, RiCnge 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon; and running thence South 89° 34' West 968.88 feet; thence South 0° 01' west a distance of 1003.0 feet; thence North 65° 38 1/2' West a distance of 97.10 feet to the rue point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence continuing on said bearing of North 65° 38 1/2' West a distance of 122.43 feet; thence South 0° 01' West a distance of 10.0 feet; thence South 27° 49' West a distance of 126.12 feet to the Northerly line of Greenburg Road; thence following along said Northerly line of Greenburg Road, South 56° 51' East a distance of 117.08 feet; thence North 28° 10' East a distance of 153.27 feet to the point of beginning. (Continued) • • • SCHEDULE A, Page No. 2 Legal Description, Continued Order No.: 865926w PARCEL II: • Beginning at a point in the North line of the John Hicklin Donation Land Claim situated in Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, which bears South 89° 34' West 968.88 feet from the Northeast corner of said claim; thence South 0° 01' West 1003.0 feet to a pipe at the true point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence North 65° 38' 30" West 219.53 feet to a pipe; thence North 0° 01' East 89.0 feet to an iron pipe that is South 88° 36' West 10 feet from an iron pipe at the Southwest corner of Lot 9, DOGWOOD RIDGE, a plat of record in Washington County, Oregon; thence South 89° 59' East 200 feet to an iron pipe, said point being the Southeast corner of said Lot 9; thence South 0° 01' West 180.00 feet to the true point of beginning. . S Order No. 865926w Effective Date: 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1996 SCHEDULE B, Page No. 1 Except for the items properly cleared through closing, the proposed policy or policies will not insure against loss or damage which may arise by reason of the following: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records; proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interest, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances, not shown by the public records; unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights or claims or title to water. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for taxes, worker's compensation, services, labor, equipment rental or material, heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose. 6. Municipal liens, if any, imposed by the City of Tigard. NOTE: An inquiry has been directed to the City Clerk, and subsequent advice will follow concerning the actual status of such liens. No search has been made or will be made for water, sewer or storm drainage charges unless the City claims them as liens and reflects them on its lien docket on or before _ the date of closing. Buyers should check with the appropriate City bureau or water and sewer district and obtain a final reading. Such charges are not adjusted in escrow. 7. The subject property lies within the boundaries of the Unified Sewerage Agency and is subject to the levies and assessments thereof. 8. The subject property lies within the boundaries of the Tualatin Valley Water District and is subject to the levies and assessments thereof. 9. The rights of the public, governmental bodies, and public utilities, in and to that portion of the herein described property lying within the limits of SW 92nd Avenue and Greenburg Road. NOTE: We find no judgments, federal or state tax liens against: Miles Downing. (Continued) • SCHEDULE B, Page No. 2 Exceptions, Continued Order No.: 865926w NOTE: Taxes for 1996 -97, paid in full. Original Amount $3,025.26 Tax Amount $3,025.26 Code No. 023.81 Key No. R275874 Map No. 1S135DC -06700 OREGON TITLE INSURANCE Y By: Miche le L. Hoke ADS /lcd • cc: Miles Downing Dorothy Shaw • 0 0 APPLICATION FOR MINOR LAND PARTITION FOR 3tors SHAW WOODS SUBMITTED 2 -4 -97 1 • FACTS Applicant: MILES DOWNING 9757 SW MCDONALD ST TIGARD, OR. 97224 684 -1334 Owner: DOROTHY SHAW 11600 SW GREENBURG RD TIGARD, OR. 644 -7330 Development Consultant: GILBERTSON ENGINEERING 16920 SW GREENTREE AVE. LAKE OSWEGO, OR. 97034 635 -7590 Location: 11600 SW GREENBURG RD TIGARD OR Tax Lot: MAP 1 S135DC LOT 6700 Applicable Code Criteria: COMMUNITY CODE CHAPTERS 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160, 18.162, 18.164 2 ` . • GENERAL INFORMATION: This narrative is for the application of a minor partition, these changes will create two new single family lots and a lot with an existing house. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The property has two parcels. Parcel 1 has a house on it that fronts on GREENBURG road. Parcel 2 fronts on 92nd and will be partitioned into 2 lots. VICINITY INFORMATION There are 2 bus stops on the corner of GREENBURG and 92nd for easy transportation. The property is also in walking distance of a grocery store (Safway), a shopping mall( Washington Square), and a large office center (Lincoln Center). The properties bordering the site are all residential R -4.5. SITE INFORMATION The site contains approximately 1.02 acres. Five feet of the property will be given to the city for the road improvement along 92nd, approximately 226' long. The border along GREENBURG rd is approximately 117'. The northern boarder is 200' and the eastern boarder is 180'. The site has an even slope of about 6 %. The site has a stand of trees on it that will have to be removed for the safety of the residents in the area. 3 • • PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to divide the land into three lots. The application is for a minor partition and the proposal is in compliance with the current city ordinances and codes as relevant to R -4.5 zoning. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS The new single family lots are over the 7500 sq. ft size for the R -4.5 Zone, and easily meat all minimum width of 50 ft and depth and setbacks for front yards of 20 ft, and 15 ft on corner sides, and 5 ft on side yards and 15 ft in back yards. Road right -of -way will be 25 ft wide. 18.92 DENSITY The building sites provide for the density as prescribed in the R -4.5 zoning. 18.100 LANDSCAPING Tree planting will be required along 92nd as stated in 18.100.030 and 18.100.035. Some trees in the yard of the existing house may be used as stated in 18.100.040. 18.102 VISUAL CLEARANCE Landscaping will be consistent with this section, ensuring the preservation of vision clearance triangles at the entrance from 92nd and at the access to GREENBURG rd. 18.106 OFF - STREET PARKING Parking will be provided at a minimum of 2 parking spaces for each dwelling unit. Any buildings constructed will have a minimum set back from 92nd of 15 ft or from the private street of 20 ft. There will be no parking on the new private street and signs will be installed as needed. (UFC Sec. 902.2.4). 4 • • 18.108 ACCESS AND EGRESS Access to all lots will be as stated in 18.108.040 to the private street and 92nd ST, which will be widened as requested by the city of Tigard. 18.150 TREE REMOVAL For this minor partition a tree plan is not required as stated in 18.150.025/A, and permits for removal are not required as stated in 18.150.030/A. 18.160 SUBDIVISION The application is for a minor land partition so this section does not apply, the section for minor land partition does, see section 18.162 below. 18.162 MINOR LAND PARTITION The proposed partition meats the requirements of this section as stated in 18.162.040 and 18.162.050. The proposal conforms with the cites current comprehensive plan. Public facilities are available to serve the property. All improvements will meet the required standards. The three lots have an average width of over 50'. The lot areas exceed the required 7500 square feet per lot. Each lot has a frontage of over 15' to a public - right -of -way. Setbacks will be as required for single family residence. A fire hydrant exists on the property that will meet the fire marshals requirement that it be within 500' of any portion of buildings. All three of the lots will have reciprocal easement rights to the new private street including the right to subdivide lots in the future. The new private street will meet all standards for access egress and circulation. 18.164 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS Streets: The applicant will improve 92nd as required by the City by giving 5 feet of the property along 92nd to the city right -of -way and improving one half of 92nd along said property to city standards, including curb, sidewalk, and extending storm drain from corner of Greenburg Rd and 92nd St. to the northerly corner of said property. 5 • I Sewer, water, and gas are located in the street in 92nd and in Greenburg Rd. Surface water run -off may be diverted to the curb in GREENBURG rd approximately 45' from a storm water catch basin in the street, or to the curb in 92nd which ever is appropriate. The storm sewer line in 92nd will be extended to the north edge of the property. Fire: a fire hydrant is located on the property at the north east corner of GREENBURG and 92nd, served by a 6" water main, and the houses will be serviced from 92nd off a 4" water line. SUMMARY The proposed minor partition complies with all applicable elements of the Community Plan, and Development Code. It is also compatible with the established neighborhood character within the City boundaries. Adequate public facilities and services exist to serve the development and all improvements will be constructed to Cites and other applicable standards. 6 CITY OF TIGARD EXPENDITURE REQUEST O D This form is a multi -use form. Appropriate receipts and documentation must be attached to this form. Approved request due Tuesday 5:00 PM to A/P for checks by Friday (week opposite payroll only). VENDOR NO.: DATE: February 28, 1997 PAYABLE TO : Downing, Miles L. REQUESTED BY: Patty Lunsford 9757 SW McDonald Street Tigard, OR 97224 2/4/97 Customer refund for the 10- 0000 - 438000 $991.00 Conditional Use Permit (CUP 97- 0001) portion of money paid for the land use application fees as the applicant dropped this portion. "Retaining MLP 97- 0002" See receipt No. 97- 289918 in the amount of $1,771.00 for the property located at 11600 SW Greenburg Road. TOTAL $991.00 Mileage $0.31 APPROPRIATION BALANCE: N/A AS OF: NLA PURCHASING: APPROVALS: (IF UNDER $50) Section Manager /Professional Staff (IF UNDER $2500) Division Manager (IF UNDER $7500) Department Manager (IF UNDER $25000) City Administrator (IF OVER $25000) Local Contract Review Board h: \patty\docs \m 1p97- 02.exp 28- Feb -97 February 14, 1997 CITY OF TIGARD ' Mr. Miles Downing 9757 SW McDonald Street OREGON ` Tigard, OR 97224 Re: Notice of Incomplete Submittal/Shaw Woods CUP 97- 0001 /MLP 97 -0 Dear Miles: This letter is in response to the Shaw Woods submittal. This application has been considered incomplete pending the submission of the following additional information: 1. Rewrite the cover sheet of the narrative to state the application is for a Minor Land Partition and Conditional Use Permit, instead of a Lot Line Adjustment and Minor Land Partition. 2. In your review of Section 18.106 include a discussion of the setback to be provided from the front of the proposed building to the adjoining private street. • Refer to the building foot print on the revised plat map. A garage is not required to be provided but two (2) off - street parking spaces for each dwelling unit will need to be provided. • 3. Include a brief review of the Conditional Use Permit, Section 18.130 of the Community Development Code that refers to the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement. 4. Address the specific criteria within Section 18.162.040 and 050 instead of stating that the application meets these standards. State briefly how the applications meet these requirements. 5. Please also rewrite the summary page. The current summary page addresses a Planned Development application. The proposed applications do not include a Planned Development Review request so this does not summarize your request. 6. The Conditional Use Permit standards state that Architectural Elevations shall be provided for any application for Conditional Use Permit. We will need twenty (20) sets of Architectural Elevation plans. Foot prints of these floor plans will also need to be added to the three duplex lots shown on the partition plat. These floor plans will need to match the footprint of the Architectural Plans. Please staple these plan sets together and fold them down as close as possible to an 8 1/2° by 11" size. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772 Pa0p 1 of 9 • At the Public Hearing it is expected that neighboring property owners will raise concerns with the design of the proposed duplexes. Because the existing neighborhood is developed with detached single - family residences, it is suggested that the proposed duplexes be designed to look like detached single - family residences. One such project on the west side of the Metro area that was developed in this way is located in Beaverton east of Murray and south of Allen, along the 14000 Block of Daphne Street. Upon submittal of the revised application, these materials will be reviewed and if complete, a Public Hearing will be scheduled. Please feel free to contact me concerning this information at (503) 639 -4171. Sincerely, . 74444 41-A • Mark Roberts Associate Planner, AICP c curpINmark_dcup97- 0001.ib. c: land use file CUP 97- 0001/MLP 97 -0002 • Page 2 of 2 • . _ 1`' .^ AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE SIGN POSTING, RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO: , . .PIanning Division . ' • 1312 `'S SW Hall Boulevard : . ... . • • Tigard. OR 97223 . I, MILES DOWNING , do affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed M.INOR ARTITION -LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT affecting the land ' located at (state the approximate location(s) if no address(s) and/or tax lot(s) currently registered) 11600 SW GREENBURG RD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 , and did on -the 4th day of DECEMBER 19 96 personally post notice indicating that the site may be proposed for a MT NOR PARTITION application, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. . The sign was posted at NORTT-TFAST C'ORNnR OF 9inrl ANT) C;RFFNRTTRG RD. IN FRONT OF 11600 SW GREENBURG RD. TIGARD, OREGON (state location you posted notice on property) tY,x, ,, Signature (In the sence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBUC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 3 day of , 19 0 . -..„ OFFICIAL SEAL , / .A0Ash . .-t r CONNIE MARTIN N OTARY PUBLIC- OREGON ∎,,, COMMISSION NO 055532 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 07, 2000 NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON My Commission Expires: o . 7 .2000 . l (Applicant, please complete information below for proper placement with proposed project) r NAME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED NAME: SHAW WOODS TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: RFSTDFNTTAT. RTTTT.nTNO STTFS Name of ApplicantIOwner. MTT,F.S nnWMTNG /nnPQTgy SHAW I Address orC- eneralLocadonof Subject Property: 11600 S ORT:T:NgTTRG RD_,TTr GON Q7 92 ' L Subject ? Tax Map(s) and Lot t(s J n: Jogmmpaayr. auaststposi r. st • • DECEMBER, 4, REGARDING: PROPERTY AT 11000 SW GREENBURG RD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 DEAR INTERESTED PARTY: MILES DOWNING IS REPRESENTING TO OWNER OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1160 SW GR.EENBURG RD, TIGARD OR. 97223. I AM CONSIDERING PROPOSING A MINOR LOT PARTITION AN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT THIS LOCATION. PRIOR TO APPLYING TO THE CITY OF TIGARD FOR THE NECESSARY PERMITS, I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSAL IN MORE DETAIL WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS. YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND A MEETING ON: MONDAY, DECEMBER 23,1996 7:00 PM TIGARD CITY HALL RED ROCK CREED ROOM OFF THE COURT YARD PAST THE LIBRARY DOOR 13125 5W HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD OR 97223 PLEASE NOTICE THIS WILL BE AN INFORMATIONAL MEETING ON PRELIMINARY PLANS. THESE PLANS MAY BE ALTERED PRIOR TO THE SUBMITTAL OF THE APPLICATION TO THE CITY. I LOOK FORWARD TO MORE SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSING THE PROPOSAL WITH YOU. PLEASE CALL ME AT 684 -1334 IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. SINCERELY, MILES DOWN R6 AGREEMENT TO DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS AND CONDITIONS IN LIEU OF PROVIDING IMPACT STUDY WHEREAS, the undersigned L) QXUT // cs ///94) warrant(s) that (I /we /they) are owner(s) of real property in the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon as descnbed: • In EXHIBIT 'X, attached hereto, and incorporated by reference herein. WHEREAS, the undersigned wishes to develop the above described property for A- 7)9/4)0 t hwa Pryer 77c4 without preparing an impact study to quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The preapplication conference established that the developer will transfer an interest in real property. The undersigned wish to develop the. above referenced property in accordance with the preapplication conference. NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned agree(s) to the following: 1. That the value of the real property interests required to be transferred for the above referenced development are roughly proportional to the impacts of the proposed development upon public facilities and systems. As such, the undersigned hereby agrees to comply fully with real property requirements and public improvements and waives the right to pursue any legal challenge to those conditions. • 2. This agreement is a binding contract between the City of Tigard and all persons who presently have an interest in the property or who acquire any interest in the property in the future. 3. This covenant shall run with the land, shall be recorded in the Washington County deed records and shall be binding on the undersigned and all successors in interest of any property affected by this development. , 4. Should any portion of this agreement be declared void by a court of law, the remaining portions of this agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Dated JgN / 7 , 19 97 Dated 19 Signature of owner(s) City of Tigard STATE OF OREGON ) —' ) ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON Perso Ily appeared before me on the now of 19en �----- ��� le=- acknowledged � who acknowledged that the foregoing W his voluntary act and deed. 1. OFFICIAL SEAL .:- / AMY F- RUSSELL 'v` y NOTARY PUBUC - OREGON N • ary • Ii, f. r Oregon / ra COMMISSION NO. 051742 Mb\impw .agr MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAR. 4, 2000 '� ' • n Expires: 3 a Q • awk • • sue_ CITY OF TI GARD May 23, 1997 O REGON Terry Smith 11480 SW 92nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 (Fax) 526 -0244 RE: Deadline to Submit Appeal Information Dear Terry: This letter is to confirm our earlier conversation regarding the date and time deadlines for submitting information for consideration of the appeal of Minor Land Partition (MLP) 97 -0002 "Downing/Shaw Partition ". Information must be submitted to the City of Tigard, Community Development Department. The deadline for submitting information is Tuesday May 27, 1997, by 3:30 PM. If you have any further questions concerning this information, please feel free to contact me at (503) 639 -4171. Si rely, i • Ai Ai James N.P. Hendryx Community Development Director i:ticurpinktery.let c: MLP 97 -0002 land use file Dick Bewersdorff Mark Roberts Planning Commission 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772 411 { :. MILES DOWNING 684 -1334 9757 SW MCDONALD 598 -8629 fax TIGARD OR 97224 ;of ,. RECE FEB 2 p1997 COMMUN1 DEV ELOP MENT Att Mark Roberts Re: 11600 SW Greenburg Rd. SHAW WOODS Dear Mr. Roberts As per our conversation concerning said property and the conditional use permit, I am not going forward with this because of the demands of code you expressed in your letter dated 2- 14 -97. Please refund to me the money paid for the conditional use permit. Thank You, ffl Miles Downie 41 • , , % cin F TIGARD illii PRE- APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES .: I''� ;� C fr of Tigard, gard, Oregon .:.... ::. i RESIDENTIAL SW F: wl tgte APPLICANT: (i.,4I ' yeas- awiAcu AGENT: Phone: ( 1 68'1- 1 3 Phone: ( ) PROPERTY LOCATION: 6 ADDRESS: (I goo �w G G'Qev u (lo,'9 TAX MAPITAX LOT: f 57 35 10_- ,v 1,4F 7 7 }+ ' NECESSARY APPLICATION(S): WSJ. (L p L a =��' � �� °^`���,l �(, d�; _ , .�;�i, � ;�;,; ; f�p �- � ,F^.,- PL: . 1 I - z ` ' y. d i , '-- PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: � e . F�' '�-��;, L 0 Z– a c ✓' ave / ,,( h t. Q vi ) / . /al .< yC �S T ! /'..Q <U0.4( �I�D vin 2. �O 1 S yam' Lk, C3 4.1 Prf''‹ . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: IO w' Dew /0.QS & /€ 4iQ { 6_ 5 diS t ZONING DESIGNATION: T 1-1.5" (7, coo ,u,1140_ ( L i / iti iti.t at,,4 4 P CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Eu FACILITATOR: 5'12-e 1 /— TEAM AREA: PHONE: 1503) ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot size:7S sq. ft. Average lot width: s0 ft. Maximum building height: �4 ft. Setbacks: front 20 ft. side ' ft. rear (4 ft. corner f S ft. from /9 street. , Maximum site coverage: , % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: ru /rn % (Refer to Code Section 18. SO ) ' ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot frontage: 25 feet, unless lot is created through the Minor Land Partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15 -foot wide access easement. The depth of all lots shall not exceed 2% times the average width, unless the parcel is less than 1% times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. (Refer to Code Section 18.164.060 Lots) CITY OF TIGARD Pre - Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 10 Residential Application/Planning Department Section SPECIA - BACKS • Streets: — 50 feet from the centerline of . i -) ev.. - 10 Ra • Established areas: feet from • Lower intensity zones: +I/a feet, along the site's �/I /I boundary. • Flag lot: 10 foot side yard setback. ` • -\ • Zero lot line lots: minimum of separation between buildings. • Multi- family residential building se ration: (Refer to Code Section 18.96.030 Accessory structures up to 528 square feet in size may be permitted on lots less than 2.5 acres in size - 5 foot minimum setback from side and rear lot lines. Accessory structure up to 1000 square parcels of at least 2.5 acres in size (See applicable zoning district setbacks for primary structures.) BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS • Maximum hei s h of 30 feet in R -1 R -2, R -3.5 - . I d R-4.5 zones. • Maximum height of 35 feet in R -7 and R -12 zones. • Maximum height of 45 feet in the R -25 zone. • Maximum height of 60 feet in the R-40 zone. FLAG LOT BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS Maximum height of 1 stories or 25 feet, whichever is less in most zones; 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(B) are met. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION (See example below) The 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: 1. All sensitive lands areas including: 1' o a‘5 -� �fiy a. Land within the 100 year floodplain. ak ,,41 N 1 Q — .7, 5 b. Slopes exceeding 25 %. c. Drainageways. I _ 2. Public right -of -way dedication. .. Q:Q-L - (c) 2 Q 6�� a. Single- family allocate 20% of gross acres for public facilitie�. b. Multi- family allocate 15% of gross acres for public facilities. = u ate (Refer to Code Section 18.92) , ° ✓A av24 t s keeke' DO ale,1el EXAMPLE OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATIONS: ' d weithAi toK)+s . EXAMPLE: USING A ONE ACRE SITE IN THE R -12 ZONE (3,050 MINIMUM LOT SIZE) WITH NO DEDUCTION FOR SENSITIVE LANDS Single- Family Multi - Family 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 8.712 sq. ft. (20 %) for public right -of -way 6.534 sq. ft. (15 %) for public right - - way NET: 34,848 square feet NET: 37,026 square feet 3.050 (minimum lot area) - 3.050 (minimum lot area) = 11.4 Units Per Acre = 12.1 Units Per Acre * The Development Code requires that the net site area exist for the next whole dwelling unit NO ROUNDING LIP IS PERMITTED. CITY OF TIGARD Pre - Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 10 Residential ApplicationlPlanning Department Section BLOCKS 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 18.164.040) RESIDENTIAL DENSI TRANSFER The City of Tigar• allows a Residential Density Transfer of up to 25% of the units that could otherwise have been develop- • on sensitive lands areas listed in the density calculations that may be applied to the developable portion o he site. (Refer to Code Sectio 8.92.030). • • - - • • 1 . • • 1 for a residential development application to provide a detailed calculation for both the permitted r idential density and the requested density transfer. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TRANSITION Regardless of the allowed housing density in a zoning district, any property within 100 feet of a designated established area shall not be developed at a density greater than 125 percent of the maximum Comprehensive Plan designation (not zoning) of the adjacent parcel. Transition area applies to any roperty, which is a designated established area. The subject pro •erty is designated as an --1-^6 lz e area. The subject property is adjoined by - . . • I' - - • I • /areas to the north, south, east and west. FUTURE STREET PLAN AND EXTENSION OF STREETS 1. A future street plan shall: a. 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. b. Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 500 feet of the site. 2. 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 18.164.030) RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SOLAR ACCESS REQUIREMENTS 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: / 1. Demonstrate a north -south dimension of at least 90 feet. 2. Demonstrate a front lot line orientation within 30 degrees of a true east -west axis. CITY OF TIGARD Pre - Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 10 Residential ApplicationlPlanning Department Section _ _ The total or partial exemption o a site from the solar access requirement may be approved for the following reasons: 1. East, west or north slopes steeper than 20 %. 2. Off-site shade sources (structures, vegetation, topography). 3. On -site shade sources (vegetation). Adjustments allowing a reduction of the 80% solar lot design requirement may be made for the following reasons: 1. Reduced density or an increased cost of at least five percent due to either: a. East, west or north slope greater than 10 %. b. Significant natural feature. c. Existing road or lotting pattern. d. Public easement or right -of -way. 2. Reduction in important development amenities. 3. 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 adjusted out. The following items shall be included in the analysis: 1. The north -south lot dimension and front lot line orientation of each proposed lot. 2. Protected solar building lines and relevant building site restrictions, if applicable. 3. 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: a. Height. b. Diameter. c. Species. • d. A statement declaring that they are to be retained. 4. 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: 1. Protected Solar Building Line - The solar building line must: a. 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. c. Provide a minimum distance of 45 feet from the northernmost buildable boundary of the subject lot to the north property line. 2. Performance Options - There are two performance options which may be utilized as follows: a. 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. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 10 Residential ApplicationiPlanninp Department Section • • PLEASE NOTE: Regardless of the option(s) 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. PARKING AND ACCESS All parking areas and driveways must be paved. • Single family: Re• uires 2 off - street parking spaces per dwelling unit. u ip e amity: Requires 1. p- . • • • - - - _ - - . - _ :: . Requires 2 parking spaces per unit for 1+ bedrooms. Multi- family dwelling uni with more than 10 required spaces shall provide parking for the use of guests and shall consist of 15% o the total required parking. (Refer to Code Section 18.106.030) No more than 40% of require• spaces may be designated and /or dimensioned as compact spaces. Parking stalls shall be dimensione as follows: • Standard parking spa - dimensions: 8 ft. 8 inches X 18 ft. • Compact parking space •'mensions: 8 ft. X 15 ft. • Handicapped parking: • parking areas shall provide appropriately located and dimensioned disabled person • - rking spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, a well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities A (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbol s .II be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. BICYCLE RACK Bicycle racks a = required for multi - family, commercial and industrial developments. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas • otected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided on the . sis of one space for every fifteen (15) required vehicular parking spaces. Minimum number of accesse . Minimum access width: Maximum access width: Minimum pavement width: REQUIRED WALKWAY LOCA ON Within all attached housing xcept two- family dwellings) and multi - family developments, each residential dwelling shall be connected walkway to the vehicular parking area, common open space and recreation facilities. CLEAR VISION AREA The City 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 18.102) CITY OF TIGARD Pre - Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 10 Residential ApplicationlPtanning Department Section • • BUFFERING AND Sc ENING In order to increas- •rivacy and to either reduce or eliminate adverse noise or visual impacts between adjacent developmen especially between different land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perime - rs. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied . a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between - rtical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often a•visable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, - nces, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be f• nd in the Community Development Code. (Refer to Code Chapter 18.100) The required buffer widths which are apple - ble to your proposal area are as follows: ft. along north boundary. ft. along east boundary. ft. along south boundary. ft. 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 tree for every seven parking spaces must be planted in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls, and raised planters. For detailed information on design requirements for parking areas and accesses. (Refer to Code Chapters 18.100, 18.106 and 18.108) TREE REMO ! - gr. - : • - t A tree pan 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: ➢ Retainage of less than 25 percent 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; ➢ Retainage of from 25 to 50 percent 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; CITY OF TIGARD Pre - Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 10 Residential ApplicationiPlanning Department Section • • ➢ Retainage of from 50 to 75 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070.D; ➢ Retainage of 75 percent or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation; - b Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; and b 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 18.150.025) 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 18.150.070 (D) SIGNS Sign permits must be obtained prior to i tallation of any sign in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon reque . Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed fo eview before the Hearings Officer. CITY OF TIGARD Pre - Application Conference Notes Page 7 of 10 Residential ApplicationIPlanning Department Section • • SENSITIVE LANDS The Code provides re• _ lations for lands which are potentially unsuitable for development due to areas within the 100 -year flood. - in, natural drainageways, wetland areas, on slopes in excess of 25 percent, or on unstable ground. -ff will attempt to preliminarily identify sensitive lands areas at the pre- - application conference based o available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely identify • -1S - I.1. _ - _ -Al! - i _ •_-....- i - - .. ....+ . 1 -PP • .1 1 - 11 -- ' 1• 1 . •_fl .. •n .f - i'v- I. • u. i•- - -rl i •• _ -• •1 • a1. .• 'ti -. I 1 - • - - 0•11-1 - application. (Refer to Code Chapter 18.84) Chapter 18.84 also provides regulations for the . e, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. Residential development is prohibited within floodp s. In most cases, dedication of 100 -year floodplain areas to the City for park and open space areas I required as a condition of the approval of a development application. NARRATIVE 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. C • DE SECTIONS _ 18.80 _ 18,98 _ 18.114 _ ✓18.150 18.84 — 18.100 18.116 60 _v 18.92 !i18 _L.-1302 6 _ 18.130 _ A--- _ 18.96 1-----T8.108 _ 18.134 e2 `e.. tica e kvr AI .. PACT STUDY As a part 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 .050) 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 .250 , - L �. a, Ve•¢ , Qu �a✓ S Qv� 2vtClOS , / EIGHBORHO • . , .""" - ,- . ►7 1 _ ; ,M'J.Nnw'„►., , _ . ,,l , R The applicant shall notify all property owners thin 250 fee and the appropriate CIT Facilitator of thei proposal. A minimum of 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. (Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout) CITY OF TIGARD Pre - Application Conference Notes Page 8 of 10 Residential ApplicationlPlanning Department Section • • • RECYCLING Applicants Id contact franchise hauler for review and approval of site servicing compatibility with Pride Dispos ' vehicles. CONTACT PERSON: ny Hing with Pride Disposal at (503) 625 -6177. (Refer to Code Section 18. 6) AD DITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: �I g kt, w . i ,1. GAS J la�� Q•,..getyk eQ.+ de/i/t e / 1 , ---.max *- - V k)v ) 5�v * dd ) wa vd itee- u uo uL - ,vXli6< Sods 0 ..1 (Wi L,c, pek- 4 In e a +6 to42.. 1) e Ca t4tr tely e v- r ; P r t o £ c.‘zertzot ce_ �� e p. v Ad--a 4 C6YA•tp I 0 et r.€10 0.1 is v aihect PROCEDURE 1/9dministrative Staff Review. 6 'S 1 L I' Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. a S Public 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. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 9 of 10 Residential ApplicationlPlanning Department Section • • • Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 by 11 inches. One 8.5 inch by 11 inch 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 plri d follows a�l Jand use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard Zi Go ci C1 I . A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is 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. 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 conference(s) is /are required if an application(s) is /are to be submitted more than six months following this pre - application conference, unless the additional conference(s) is deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division. - PREPARED BY: 1 j [-�� .4 ,e(A ---- PLANNING DIVISION Phone: (503) 639 -4171 Fax: (503) 684 -7297 h:Uoginlpattytpreapp•r.mst (Engineering section: preapp.eng) July 19, 1996 CITY OF TIGARD Pre - Application Conference Notes Page 10 of 10 Residential Application /Planning Department Section • DL ItCo"Ioo • mo=w City of Tigard; Oregon PRE APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES I ENGINEERING SECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES 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: (1.) E J cZ to 2-6 feet from centerline. (2.) to feet from centerline. (3.) to feet from centerline. Street improvements: (1.) Z street improvements will be necessary along q� (2.) street improvements will be necessary along (3.) Street improvements shall include Iry 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, streetlights, and a two year streetlighting fee. CITY OF TIGARD Pre - Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 3 Engineering Department Section • • In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the street 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 formed to improve: (1.) Z'" 44,E • (2.) Ped estri a nways /bikeways: Sanitary Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) inch line which is located in AvS . The proposed development must be connected to a public-sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to c "1-I■tte-1 f -1 l..st' To R- L&--- Water Supply: The �va•-•,‹ct,.s v Water District - Phone:(503) " provides public water service in the area of this site. The District should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your proposed (649-441( *- T development. l� - (. G►�Lt�- b_sn. L n1c- I N� G& 1. �D -A 1 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. Other Agency Permits: CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 3 Engineering Department Section • • • • Storm sewer improvements: EteLe ‘s A,.t Easrte.4ci S" M PILAt 5�ktr.► -A tpr (--d S 1.a, �D Ppoitix. A, ST I t T 5k. • - 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 $180.00. Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. pN 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. STREET OPENING PERMIT - " -- ei`' N ''04 0 No work shall be performed within a public right -of -way, or shall commence, until the applicant has obtained a street opening permit from the Engineering Department. FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS All projects that require a grading plan also require that the applicant shall submit a typical floor plan for each lot. This floor plan shall indicate the elevations of the four corners of that plan along with elevations at the corner of each lot. PREPARED BY: 14T ' I(JZotego ENGINEERING DEPA"TMENT Phone: (503) 639 -4171 Fax: (503) 684 -7297 h: Vogin\patty\preapp.eng (Master section: preapp - r.mst) April 23, 1996 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 3 Engineering Department Section • CITY OF TIGARD • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 0 ��,If APPLICATION CHECKLIST ---- CITY OF TIGARD 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: I 3Q' Date: 1 1 22 Rt 'APPLICATION & RELATED DOCUMENTS) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE / MARKED ITEM S �l A) Application form (1 copy) m� B) Owner's signature/written authorization C) Title transfer instrument/or grant deed D) Applicant's statement No. of Copies 2D E) Filing Fee $ S� _ 1 fowit"4/ e as Wit P /LL q I ELI as SU /LL,4 2 q SITE - SPECIFIC MAP(S)/PLAN(S) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE / MARKED ITEMS A) Site Information showing: PCI`ja � No. of Copies 1. Vicinity map / LIP Aa ❑ 2. Site size & dimensi.►ns ❑ 3. Contour lines (2 ft :t 0-10% or 5 ft for grades > 10 %) ❑ 4. Drainage patterns, ourses, and ponds ❑ 5. Locations of natura hazard areas including: ❑ (a) Floodplain areas ❑ (b) Slopes in exc-ss of 25% (c) Unstable gro nd ❑ (d) Areas with hi :h seasonal water table ❑ (e) Areas with se ere soil erosion potential ❑ (f) Areas having .everely weak foundation soils ❑ 6. Location of resourc: areas as shown on the Comprehensive Map Inventory incl .ding: ❑ (a) Wildlife habit :ts ❑ (b) Wetlands ❑ 7. Other site features: (a) Rock outcrop•ings ❑ (b) Trees with 6" . caliper measured 4 feet from ground level ❑ 8. Location of existing .tructures and their uses ❑ 9. Location and type o on and off -site noise sources ❑ 10. Location of existing tilities and easements ❑ 11. Location of existing •edicated right -of -ways ❑ LAND LSE APPLICATION J UST PAGE 1 OF 5 B) Site Develo • ment PIa dicating: a. of Copies 1. The proposed ite and surrounding properties ❑ 2. Contour line in -rvals ❑ 3. The location, di ensions and names of all: (a) Existing & p acted streets & other public ways and easements o the site and on adjoining properties 0 (b) Proposed stre: is or other public ways & easements on the site ❑ (c) Alternative roues of dead end or proposed streets that require fut re extension ❑ 4. The location and dim : nsion of: (a) Entrances and e..its on the site ❑ (b) Parking and circ lation areas ❑ (c) Loading and sery es area ❑ (d) Pedestrian and bit ■ cle circulation ❑ (e) Outdoor common : reas ❑ (f) Above ground utiliti: s ❑ 5. The location, dimensions & etback distances of all: (a) Existing permanent stru . res, improvements, utilities, and easements which are locate on the site and on adjacent property within 25 feet of the site ❑ (b) Proposed structures, improve ents, utilities and easements on the site ❑ 6. Storm drainage facilities and analysi- of downstream conditions 0 7. Sanitary sewer facilities ❑ 8. The location areas to be landscaped ❑ 9. The location and type of outdoor lighting , onsidering crime prevention techniques ❑ 10. The location of mailboxes ❑ 11. The location of all structures and their orienta on ❑ 12. Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agree • ents a C) Gradin • Plan Indicatin No. of Copies The site development p :n shall include a grading plan at the same scale as the site analysis drawin; .nd shall contain the following information: 1. The location and extent to which grading will take place indicating: (a) General contour line- ❑ (b) Slope ratios ❑ (c) Soil stabilization prop. al(s) ❑ (d) Approximate time of yea for the proposed site development ❑ 2. A statement from a registered en;' eer supported by data factual substantiating: (a) Subsurface exploration and geot- hnical engineering report 0 (b) The validity of sanitary sewer and • orm drainage service proposals 0 (c) That all problems will be mitigated a•d how they will be mitigated 0 1.ANO 1.5E APPLICATION / LIST PACE 2 OF 3 D) Architectural Drawin Indicating: o. of Copies The site developmenan proposa shall include: Floor plans indicating th square footage of all structures proposed for use on -s e 2. Typical elevation d wings of each structure E) Landscape Plan Indicating: No. of Copies 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 or the irrigation system where applicable 0 2. Location and height of fences, buffers and screenings a 3. Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and common open spaces a 4. Location, type, size and species of existing and proposed plant materials ❑ 5. Landscape narrative which also addresses: (a) Soil conditions a (b) Erosion control measures that will be used a F) Sign Drawings: ❑ Sign drawings shall be submitted ' ccordance with Chapter 18.114 of the Code as part of the Si evelopment Review or prior to obtaining a Building Permit to con uct a sign. G) Traffic Generation Es ' ate: a H) Preliminary Partition /Lot Line Adjustment Man Indicating: No. of Copies 7 G 1. The owner of the subject parcel 2. The owner's authorized agent at/� 3. The map scale (20,50,100 or 200 feet -1) inch north arrow and date 4. Description of parcel location and boundaries 5. Location, width and names of streets, easements and other public ways within and adjacent to the parcel 6. Location of all permanent buildings on and within 25 feet of all property lines 7. Location and width of all water courses 3. Location of any trees within 6" or greater caliper at 4 feet above cg ground level 9. All slopes greater than 25% 0� 10. Location of existing utilities and utility easements 11. For major land partition which creates a public street: (a) The proposed right -of -way location and width (b) A scaled cross - section of the proposed street plus any reserve strip ci 12. Any applicable deed restrictions 1 3. Evidence that land partition will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable AND LSE P °_ ;C TION/ LIST PAGE 3 OF I) Subdivision Preliminary Plat Map and Data Indicating: No. of Copies r /a ' 7 -t/ 1. Scale equaling 3. 50,100 or 200 feet to the inch and l imited to one phase per sheet f 2. The proposed name of the subdivision m � 3. Vicinity map showing property's relationship to arterial and M collector streets 4. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of the owner, developer, engineer, surveyer and designer (as applicable) t 3. Date of application 6. Boundary lines of tract to be subdivided ti.----' 7. Names of adjacent subdivision or names of recorded owners of adjoining parcels of un- subdivided land ii■ 8. Contour lines related to a City - established benchmark at 2 -foot intervals for 0 -10% grades greater than 10% c41.--------- 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 6.-- ------- (b) Public and private sanitary and storm sewer lines ri---- (c) Domestic water mains including fire hydrants cf----- (d) Major power telephone transmission lines (50,000 volts or greater) cir-- (e) Watercourses (f) Deed reservations for parks, open spaces, pathways and other et------ land encumbrances 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 rg--- 13. Scaled cross sections of proposed street right -of- way(s) cA-- 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 gr- 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 18. 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) t3--� (b) Proof of property ownership (c) A proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvements c3 // 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 m/ L.tO LSE APPLICATION / LIST ?.ACE 4 CF 3 ►) Solar Access Calculate ns: • K) Other Information No. of Copies 5 ca/ r# R470 / ,57 e Ott PeAKee..1/4 1 h::ogith; rr nastors`J- cciist.:nst . %av 23. 1995 La'O 1.5E APP! :C.kTION / LIST PACE 3 OF 3 C 1 • - _Nc x, 4 X u Q IIP,., I .ilb •lAY 16 •16 it ' S I i — VI: illli 1 fr 0 r woo . mill i e 1 sr I i N ,, litt • I ii1W4 44 2 ) AA,/ 4 ilL? = + 10It • '.V 0 6 'M + ° 'V m -'� ',el 1 wiping _.:„, Aill%4 44441 14 * I • 4 I 4 -- 4 i 14 . iv / i ) �. o ,,,_. .) rur.v... ig.reb% 4 J A % r *. is i r p a : 1 Jill — I 4 • 1.1 - - ° N . ". At ......_ » in r 90. �` � o,Q / say 39 200 23 "; t '' 6 70 0 0 . _ sa o V av 3100 �' I.: c L 02 Ac. GP f !2 3r /q� . 35' Ac, l e e.; J - � „� ` I s • t a `4 ' \ 3 • LL' r► C � _ N 3001 ��e « O S4Ac � 1 J °. X 3002 a ` a o sz ea. 10 N89°13E w « 0 V , , : . *at 7106 11 moo `" _ ^ 3000 ' '0 404 + ,Q • 10 ° o �v v io 3200 . ....i. z w /.2TAc. . 274 c. O 9i m a O 9r $ _ S .6400 a ag o h ,�. .2B Ac. 6900 ra_t Ae o . 118.99 R D „„ ? .27Ac 119.00S N 89°13'E 138.66 1.2 6 AftX/N � e N 89° 13' k' 2:8.00 N 89 w�f �j " � �/ t I �► b —`-, 3300 1N o SOAc. J ~ r J a .� !� i r g 1 . ��' 6300 ; . � "' — s o - « ( UNRECORDED) 49.39 h oo �. �� 238.00 1 158.85 tt50Q , St I I 1 ., p 9 e 8 o >` 64:5 ry 3400 3500 - - - & 56 9e ., s � 4 w � Js A., 2/A c. I 33 c 9 $ ~,.� 3 � 10 0 ~ ; 2 700 '9e. �� J3 4 115 I -Tr !a O O. ? "moo ! _ ? C O r V s a9 1 sa.6s 8515 2 163 6100 °' a 260 se r e N • 396.66 Z ?218 w �e 9 al ^ p .264c. a '•'� 3600 6600 C�9 99 a � �` 0 m 6000 L 63.41 1 .0)" "2 a 8 a ti q 1, I 396.66 $ IJ – m N 89° 13 TANGELA ° >99 2602 /e 13,0 3700 _ T 5900 . /94c. , ,� ` 2601 � 23 . �a� N O 73.06. °0 5300 a) .144c. '° s 7 t� 3800 ' co ° A 74.91 119.85 .07.06 C.S. 4649 I a 1�w 2 � 79.86 S89 °55 E 197.8 4 • • CITY OF TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTIFICATION PROCESS 1.) Neighborhood meeting /notification is required for the following applications; D Comprehensive Plan Amendments D Zone Changes D Subdivisions D Sensitive Lands D Conditional Uses and; D Site Development Review. 2.) Applicant makes arrangements for neighborhood meeting. D• Applicants choice of date (using staff guidelines). D Applicant schedules a meeting facility. 3.) Applicant prepares a letter regarding the upcoming meeting to be held with the neighborhood. D Letter briefly describes the development, location and sets the date, time and place for meeting. • NOTE Meeting date to be within 2-4 weeks of the date the letter is sent. D Two (2) weeks minimum notice must be provided to the neighborhood property owners within 250 feet plus the CIT contacts! :.) Aoplicant mails letter of meeting. D Applicant acquires list of affected property owner(s) from available sources. D Applicant gets list of Community Involvement Team (CIT) contacts from the City Planning Department. 5.) Applicant prepares affidavit of mailing on form provided by the City at the pre- application meeting. 3.) Aoplicant posts site and on the same day. letter of meeting is mailed to affected property owners. D Sign must be posted at a location easily observable from a public right -of -way. D Sign shall state that site may be under consideration for a land use application include a phone number where the applicant can be reached for additional information or comments. '.) Apolicant prepares affidavit of posting on the form provided by the City at the pre - aoplication meeting 3.) A9plicant holds meeting for neighborhood as previously scheduled. Applicant presents their proposal, including City requirements and answers any questions. D Applicant makes note of the names and addresses of all individuals who speak at the meeting and provides documentation of their comments, concerns or issues. 1.) Applicant modifies preliminary proposal if desired following the neighborhood meeting to take into consideration reccmmerdations. concerns or issues which could delay the applications approval process. 0.) Applicant submits their proposal to the City for review accompanied by the following essential documents: D A copy of the letter mailed to the affected property owners in regard to the meeting along with a copy of the mailing list and the corresponding affidavit of mailing the meeting letter /notice. ' D A copy of the sign -up sheet(s) from the meeting(s) held with interested citizens /affected property owner(s) on the land use proposal. h :Vogin'patty\masters\c:tnotif.mst AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE SIGN POSTING. RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO: ... ' . ity of .:::.:.�',: • . Planning Division .: 13125 SW Hall Boulevard • Tigard, OR 97223 I. , do affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed affecting the land located at (state the approximate location(s) if no address(s) and/or tax lot(s) currently registered) and did on the day of 19 personally post notice indicating that the site may be proposed for a application, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. The sign was posted at (state location you posted notice on property) Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBUC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of , 19_. NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON My Commission Expires: (Applicant, please complete information below for proper placement with proposed project) N AVE OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED NAME: - I TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Name of Applicant/Owner: Address or General Location of Subject Property: LSubject Property Tax Maps) and Lot T(s): J J n:logmlpaCy4rastersWSposurst • SAMPLE NOTICE CONCERNING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING (Date of mailing) NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROPERTY } OWNER WITHIN 250 FEET, OR IF } RESIDENT, USE "RESIDENT AND } PROPERTY ADDRESS } RE: (Application Name) Dear Interested Party: (I/my /company namel (am/is) the (owner/representing the owner) of the property located at (give address if available or a general description of the location, tax map(s) and lot(s) . Wyea are considering proposing a (describe the proposal. such as: conditional use. site development review. subdivision. etc.) at this location. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits, I would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: (Day, Month, Date, Year) (Location) (Address) (Time...this should be an evening meeting and located somewhere in the CIT, as close to the neighborhood as possible) • Please notice this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the City. I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at (phone number where you can be reached) if you have any questions. Sincerely, (Your name) • (Your title. if applicable) • tviogranaryvnarersct v.nut • CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT TEAMS (CIT'S) NO III ICA I ION 1151' 1011 AI'i'I.ICAN 15 Will I I ANILUSF. 1'ItOI'OSAI S • WI!S1 CIT.IJ1N11 IISC 61111CUAlAl17'TC0 CAST CIT 60II111 CIT - CI!N7IIA1. CIT . • • • Abdirilah Alkadl Clark G. Zeller llevedy Fronde Craig I lopkins .lank Ulellian Brian Wolin 11905 SW 125111 Court 13290 SW Shore Drive. 12200 SW Dull Mountain Roar 7430 SW Varns Street 15525 SW 109th Avenue 10965 SW Pathfinder Way Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 ' fignrrl, Olt 517224 llgard, Olt 97223 - 3930 (503) 524.1060 (503) 524-0994 (503) 630.2529 ' Dill Gross Larry Westerman Kathy Smith Mark F. Mahon John Donnell' • 11035 SW 135th Avenue 13665 SW Fern Street 11645 SW Cloud Court 11310 SW 01s1 Court 15550 SW 1091h Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 • Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 07223 Tigard, Oft 97224 (503) 524.6325 (503) 524.4550 (503) 639.0894 Kathie Kalilo Christy lien Linda Masters Joel Slovens 12940 SW Glacier Lily Drive 11306 SW ironwood Loop 15120 SW 141st Avenue 9660 SW Ventura Corn Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224 • Tigard, OR 97223 (503)•524.5200 (503) 590 624.0000 (503) 620.7602 Ed I lowdon Barbara Saltier Scoll Russell Pat Wyrinn 11029 SW Morning I till 11245 SW Morgan Court 31291 Raymond Creek Ron 0122 SW Spruce Sheet Tigard, OR 07223 Tigard, OR 07223 Scnppoose, OR 07056 Tigard, OR 0/223 (503) 524.6040 (503) 604.9303 (503) 543 -2434 Benno & Jim Roach June S Cal Woolnry 144;11 SW Twekesbury Drive 15940 SW 1461h Avenue 12350 SW 132nd Court Tigard, OR 97224 Tigorrl, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 590.0461 (503) 590.0523 (503) 500.4207 111 Karl Swanson 11410 SW Ironwood Loop Tigard, OR 97223 . (503) 590.3369 ■.---- • PLEASE NOTE: In addition to properly owners within 250 feel, notice of meetings .� "" _ __... •�_. __ .. �_ We , on land use proposals shall ho sent to all the names on tins list. . -............- w-- .- ..... ..........�._�■.-■.• I•M V•�n•Il rvw••In W q.a1k m• • A,. 7 • • • • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. City of Tigard ) 1 , , being duly sworn, depose and say that on , 19 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) 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 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/affirmed before me on the day of , 19_. NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON My Commission Expires: _ (Applicant. please complete information below for proper placement with proposed project) , NAME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED NAME: TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Name of ApplicancOwner: Address or General Location of Subject Property: L ubject Proper:I TLt Map(s) and Lot T(s): l h.'icainbatiWrutiers rtud.tna TO BE POSTED ON SITE CLOSE TO ADJOINING STREET(S) SIGN SHOULD MEASURE A Affbaggal OF 2 3' AND BE WATERPROOF MEETING NOTICE CELLULAR ONE IS PROPOSING A CONDITIONAL USE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A 100 FOOT WOOD POLE TOWER ANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT SHELTER AT THIS LO(A T'ION. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits, the applicants would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: TI MAY, FE IJ FEUIPIJAVV 1, 1 995 7 :00 VA 114 4J ID 131) 5 SW EALL13011JEVAIIAD IflICAIVID, CU 97223 PROJECT DEVELOPER CONTACT: PHONE NUMBER: Please note: This is an informational meeting on the preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the . application to the City • • CITY OF TIGARD LAND USE APPLICATIONS A',»4ti FEE SCHEDULE City of Tigard, Oregon .; .... : :....:....... .:..... . ACCESSORY STRUCTURE $ 80 APPEALS > Director's Decision to Planning Commission $ 250 > Hearing Referee $ 500 > Planning Commission /Hearing's Officer to City Council $1,745 + Transcript APPROVAL EXTENSION $ 150 BLASTING PERMITS $ 145 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESSING > Text Only, Map Only, or Both $ 4,015 CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW $ 1,615 DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVISION REVIEW > Single - Family Building Plan $ 40 • > Commercial /Industrial /Institution $ 250 EXPEDITED REVIEW > Land Partition $ 1,280 > Subdivision $2,625 + $10 /Lot FINAL PLAT $ 295 HEARING POSTPONEMENT $ 115 HISTORIC REVIEW /OVERLAY DISTRICT $ 2,190 HOME OCCUPATION (Type I:) $ 30 > Original Permit (Type II:) $ 255 INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE > By the Community Development Department $ 340 LAND PARTITION > Residential and Non - Residential $ 780 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ 270 MINOR MODIFICATION TO APPROVED PLAN $ 100 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT > Conceptual Plan Review $ 2,170 > Detailed Plan Review $ 510 PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE FEE $ 240 SENSITIVE LANDS > Administrative $ 745 > Hearings Officer $ 1,240 SIGN CODE EXCEPTIONS $ 690 • 11111111 NE NI 1 ......... : ..... g OUR :< D �:>< D ::: ': >1111 ':: > <::: >_« :.:..:: >: . .:.:::.:..::: :::: :::: FE :: >:: :: >:: :: ::::::::::: ::::::: SIGN PERMIT > 0 -24 sq.ft. /24 -100 sq.ft. /100 + sq.ft. (No Size Differential) $ 50 > Temporary Signs (Per Sign) $ 15 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW > Under $100,000 $ 800 > $100,000- 999,999 $ 1,600 > $1 Million /Over $1,780 + $5/$10,000 SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT $2,125 + $ 10 /Lot TEMPORARY USE > Director's Decision $ 315 > Special Exemption /Non - Profit -0- TREE REMOVAL $ 160 VACATIONS $1530 Deposit + > Streets and Public Access Actual Costs Charged VARIANCE > Administrative $ 545 > Flexible Setback $ 390 • > Hearing's Officer $ 535 > Sign Code $ 535 > Subdivision $ 505 . ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATIONS $ 1,160 ZONE CHANGE PROCESSING $ 1,505 ZONING ANALYSIS (Detailed) $ 150 ZONING INQUIRY LETTER (Simple) $ 50 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT $ 1,415 100% of Highest Planning Fee JOINT APPLICATION PLANNING FEE + 20% Of All Additional Fees Related To The Proposal. EFFECTIVE 7/1/96 (Resolution No. 96 -30, Repealing Resolution No. 91 -01) h:\patty\masterslpingfees. mst 05/28/96 11:43:34 AM • • SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 4 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 FAX: (503) 684 -7297 CITY OF TIGARD PRE -APP. HELD WITH: l'hi p • GENERAL INFORMATION DATE OF PRE -APP.: j 1 26/q‘ Property Address /Location(s): FOR STAFF USE ONLY • Case No.(s): • Tax Map & Tax Lot #(s): Other Case No.(s): Receipt No.; . Site Size: Application. Accepted By: • ..,> . Property Owner /Deed Holders) Address: Phone: City: Zip: Date Determined To Be Complete: Applicant': • Address: Phone: Comp . Plan /Zone: Designation: City: Zip • When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in ossession with written • Recording Date' and..Numter • `< > P . authorization from w the owner or an agent of to the owner. The • owner (s) .. ... ... must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. Rev. 8/31/96 .i:lcurplovnasierstsabapp.doc PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property request Subdivision approval to divide a: I REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS parcel into lots between • Application Elements Submitted: and square feet in size. ❑ Application Form ❑ Owner's Signature/Written Authorization ❑ Title Transfer Instrument or Deed (provide any additional information here) I ❑ Site /Plot Plan (8'/: "x 11") (# of copies based on pre -app check list) ❑ Applicant's Statement • (# of copies based on pre -app check list) ❑ Filing Fee (Preliminary Plat).... $2,125.00 (+ $10 Per Lot) , (Final Plat) $ 295.00 • 1 • List 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 REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application in the "Required Submittal Elements" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained, upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. • If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All 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 found 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 for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this day of , 19 Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature 2 t c► <.... Al 2 0�- S -a --%...*N "-----.._. I IIIL - ° %'\ ..‘3 1 * f-- - - - - --...._ irf I 111 p G ' _ x t 1 lit C .... , d 4 --O - ") 0 brim". 0 - i , 0 5 • /P ...../.....,.kyt • 217.4 - 0 f=• s. ...; .: .... 1 ,,,,,,..„- • . X ♦- , X71 qi ,,,. 0 Of 41 li 0 / 4, . . c ('' i -77; r -- $ zoo W 03 7kr...104: --"••••■..- o - L ■4„.......A 0 • r • ( h . --. ,,:i . la ' , . /4 c 11 /' \ . § A:k• s 1 ! ..1 Inn f;I:ti ' b. • 11. F ( .Cg• g • , \ ill \ % \ '' \ Newts. e N. _NI! 1 ?", A : 1 --- to g I i 1 g i LJ 1 I • 1 I \ � -7.4 ` . �g . '4. ' ��� a � -.0. � 6 s � J L.,.) Ca H \ I •� / • a r .�_ 1 N 009f• Q Web' ` 1; I 11 I i i \ Li I r" . -...ii l e; i Ni7. 01 D z Er • - 'iva ls?err - - -,E :I i 1 1 . P P P I • q. q , Is i os, ,•1 0 ° : .G ig , 1 p �! a. : z �L ti 4 I ` g\`t—J. • g 0 [ \I; M • , II ` N 0099 ! '`• J 3 r C — -- --- -- --- li - - - -u --7-7— _ ea ; o _- - -S.W. 100th AVE.— • - - - -- - - - - -- i f o� c� al o 3• Q 1 . = o N D I I r i M 70 i i N I >o 120 I CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DEPT. .4, • f .. _:::.::::::: o:: <•:o::.:::: .....:: _....:i:a:i:9:•:' iiSi::::: i:::::;::::'.::;::::::: isiiiasii :::Sii:i:i:i:[:::::::i:it: iii: isir: isisisSi:: i' isi:? ii risiia;: 2;% a: i::::: i??[ 3 i: iJ.; ai: ii :;a:c;:oii::aiii;;iii;:::::: :: :� ::::::.::::.:.:: . 'Ji ii: .i: :: ?: iii :::: i::? ii+ ii:• iiii:^: i: i:;{? ivv::!:::: S:: isik: isi!:?:• i} iiiiiii XiJ::i::ii::i:Lv:ii::i::::iiii ?iii }iiiiiiii ?iiiii: ^: 'v 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 13 14 `•> 8 9 10 11 2 20 21 1 ? 1 19 > 15 16 17 8 �� 22 23 2 4 25 26 27 28'• 29 30 3 1 ::i:: is 9:, : jj::} :::: :!'*•��i::ii:::j::i'r';`.:'•� ? }'r:4::i`.:�2 ?::::::isL'} Isis: ?jji::if:i• { <Yj• { ?::':C }� ii:Jiiii)ii;i•i }Iii:::::: <4iiii iii }:i:_i:_ }iiiiii: iiii:_iii:::::::::: :.; ?i:.ii • 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 100 0 ::::>:: s>::::>::>:::«:>::>::>:::::>:>:: >i >:::: >:: >:: >:: >:::: >::: >::::> :>:<>::::>::»::>::?»::>:::<»::» r;:>::»::::»»::>::> :Y2 ?•::r;«::: » >: » »:::.::;:::I <: is .i;x:. >:.iii:.; >:.i:.;:.i:.i:.: 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 12:39PM Tuesday, November 19, 1996 7 S /1iC,2,tVn \ 69 , ,0 L/ rP 97�z `� 1 7 - fix 4c) /5/ _ ao-0f i I \ (5.‘ n ( CE�� HEDGE ( \� { C O s.rJ .� ✓.itJ�. J J JJ.J- J.J. -A..J J.-1,J' J.-J../-....^...1.-1,-/,,,1\--J..1 � Q N V , • 1111 _ \ q . \ act) l / / / liiii . v `� �, 9N/7 2O7 (2 c �' \ �0 %:,, I 4) ,c,-2}_is_ t s i f k e.'' \ ■ ! 3 ! v k ' (?Lo...<.' > t.cy ( ) : k i I ARIViaMY EiucR6ROENS 1 • ^ ��oFNE06E 1 30f \ ---+ — — - — — — — — -�✓ -- K X X x _ _ — i \ DR'VEwAY i y � £AyI7,NT ` � 'y V � '�- Y 1 i / z- /9sa, /7)i�/1/7 /RJ f4Pl ?O7. - I . \ . 1 1 //priiciemi 7 ,- //1141:3 WA) AN /U4 Z ()ilia 1' 7,... c_ Lf e< ,k; f: A) I .- A)5 : LOC 8N41/ ii3RADY ! 97 sil? /s7CI LOT ,78 C->k A NAM 116A'= 2 D OA 97,2.2_"/ i 7/9x 1.OT /5/ _ \ 68 Y Li . ‘ , \ k i < . ) ._ _ .., . 1 •„ 't 4\\- 2:\ 0 I\ I. CETht\R HEDE .t. t A 4*--...■ • - -1 _} J..... J ..1 1 ■ / C i 0 t Ni , l k.1 • • , i , 9 : t-• --, Q0 v) - \ I ` , ii 1 - . i • . , /v/7 207 113-1/V t c. — .\,, , ; \ c). \ ) _Zt' ' • 1 . ‘ < T- ._. i u . , • • (t 0 ri: 1 \ 1, \o 's DEC_K I' r0 < 28' ") --- J c\si I ,k' IN i k i k x v DRi v cL E \ ) \ i • 3o' _ . _ _ r ._... .._._. _ •.. 1 _ ...... A 1 \ . 1 \ \ DR\ vEwAy ----, — T V \ . ) I 1 , 1 1 ri) 4- As a N7 f IR 1: / / P 2? 0 X ; t 1 - I 1 1 . . ' . .+9... — - • / • -1-ci j ' N.INN.Viad GLIV11 JO AJ.10 . „..„,;:..,... ..i.... _...., , 61 • £ • If: :. ....___ . , . F . ....,..,•• • ).,,..„ r.„ • • • ,i ., i , oe • . , E . I - • Iri 1— • ! • ' I I %.„ " i 11:6 111 dv 1.5.. • • , .i. • , ' I 0 . 3 Ill 1 • .. 1 1— . 0 2 c r; . . , . . CY , h O. -- .• • 14 i r il,• .:•• • • , ,,‘ • • . m N . t ,' , , ;.."". . i V 4 " Th 9 i I-- '8, , , ; • , , , . ‘, Z —1 .—• . i 1 ' . Atit 1 CO 5 1..., ".. . <t 4( • • . 8 x 11; • , . • 1 1 .-- .. I. . J'.." ...?r, .1 n CA I. 4,• . ; 4 / (5 ) ;(/ %9 3 006, 4/ X • i 1 A L, I Ifr 4,011 e • .0, azio IX av 0 I-- W Ll r% cr- • Z x a■ _I co Di, , I i4:10.04 l • . 1,...k-.1. , /iv g ..„. a. IC liCIC . 4 , • 3 > qi • ,4_ • .f., , 15^- • ....1 Ac.........ests ..........,,... i fe il s t i p , . 4 . 3 ..i iv 3N11 • 0.4 I.„ N:lil 1•555555!•5?•5Yi..4000.." :,.." i i 1 . 1 7 . 01 .............7.........im......, '"•••"....W. . °Vb • P • _____. . II I r ur.:41,z,„fto Lous,,,* • ,. I 'l ' - ' 1 9 ' () H ca i...• • 1.- + : . i • .,'" ■-`i!! ..".. • ir._4 kJ_ , . , . 4 • ' . - 1 1441 .'" -. t : 4 . si:■ ; 1 ,, : . , •' N-<.-- 0 "T• • is son - • , it" i e c ,. -f : • 0, 1 ...L. • • , I V i\ • 1 ''''''' le o ' • , N.) ...—.1 . e • . . ..- . • . .•- rs .. , c t o .„ : ,‘,,,,, 4 ----;---------- Al 3NCIlld '31111331 , .1,'',:. ‘ ,,,,,, -- . • 1 %'.. N!,7z. • • e.X),/ 0.4 e ' ILI • . I , . . ■Iii.oke : y y . • .. *4.6. - rf I F. 1 1 T ' - - ' /M -1 [_, I : H 1 1 : 3 re • _____.o5rif___ . il —Th 1 L - ? • 11 - (,, l- ____t i 1 l iT I ? 1* 4 if — ''' 94 1111 ‘1E- H____ c , 9 --- •t?4 ow i m . - —I _id I** ■ A L _______ ---1-- in+z 1 ..„„ *Iv , „.... Fri - ii7 fri I° '9v°1 7 -I- III [ FITI 4 1 CIMI • — 1 rA [ 913T [ A Ilw -- mar m Es co ftra 94 D 1k z " Ai I ,_• ---- City of Ti.gprclFlarlping...Pepprtmept___. • ------ /V•bM , -3f•. 9ctrog . • N In Col a • D '0 _J I L a S.W. s 95th a :Si: MOB a /{ 1 • o A e a M i g . / 1./I �1 -8 fi NO1 a 1 00 •t , u ' . LAA WW�� d I a q � 'o r t '-� Q •� u ,fq ' iii.,4,si. 4 e 7,,,,,,„ O A. ' 04.6 _ .L $ •� ' I Nlp y I _. .s ~ , .eD. A, • so to k .� r I � • ` r f 1•A • o cn 0 6)1 2 - �l 8 - ! 0 . I �a1 1 R �, .§5, ; 0 4 °01.0 - , W ' r. i. • . ♦ 4 1 IMI. 40 11. I 16.13 6 . 1 / r 8 • • 115.16 � ! ,. 3304 71./3 6 16 II • # a S.W. _ 0 i " 94th i AVENU F � S 11.46 Its �� I RN ..." • 5.34 • ,,l i 6f in ' 3033 . - w y 1 4 a • I li N N / •f - 0334 V �' I V N I NIl r I7 co O 88 a A $ W 8 34 8 - U - 0 Na o F. J8 I v S N a g u a N O O ._ w A • ; � ��. v - r = • o_ • . As 0.0 1 • 0; D.• V .• O•. v ' MP S. e''. I 1 ° 1.1.1. - . o. NN00t 1 0 • Q Q l I m i W g 1 +•. • i I • w 16.1 1 3 ' / N •a 60 03 (§ 4 A : W NI ;18. - n - R ,„ � C ) w I D " %� 1 • •+,; i v \f� L s / 0:8 1 1 0.01'17 ! 1 113.31 11 6 06 N N 36 I D3. +•'+ / nc..v1 " S.W. .. 6 .. - .3 92nd _ .. 304.! AVENUE g . 3 1 j 133.3 3 r I I >� N W g W a A l A rn /i i i - 0. 1 . l i : 8£ N D i ■ / 10 : O - 1i N : ti ! A N • -. S5 3 w g t; • err. R 1 D G 1 ,E. o g St g. 5 / II N • • . I I 73 7 toss g SOON •001. • • 060. .0••0•. N I H f,! 9-• iii . „ IPITI6l R g..s7 assn e:1.10 also 51.30 0750 • • • - M 0. 10 • N _ - • " � , " A R " B " � tiS A I t • L _1 U O O O - O O / a 3 �„ F r 1\lt• o . a m ID O N °1 E p Y q '. q.s . 'E A I / a / F • ! S.W. 91sT AVENUE > . / . E ' i1; „ . o�•••' + 17 '17' �� A J r • A • v 0730 673o am 3 730 3731 / i • 2 / 1 ° S.W. 91st COURTS # S 8 • A v 1 3 o, . !"1 ♦ / 0 . I 5750 OVAL1 5750 0750 31.61 . a •o•1Pl i • • •q l - _ v. p O 1 * � ' .���a ��, 040404 Q.a a '.a k1 N Q / N p p O . 53.6 SSA 13.5 3� 10 L. 1 V N • W y Q V y O r 8_ i r 1 • °' �' / AI & O Out p 01 0 a .> v W N g _.8,: E • 8 1 % . uo.ol o f� ° (� + v Y 173 a a s 5.5• w . A I • / 34 0 63.34 =`e= = Leo 51.00 07.60 37.50 i 4 • E I 10 j ,- 8 IN N f 0• W• loo : • 141 1 31 0 - ( s • 1 I I I A f 13 /S V I 8 V ° Y • 1r1 0IAR C)\ ? LiJE D P ��RI }t f. • o r • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING �y�� CITY OF TIOARD Community 'Development Shaping (Better Community STATE OAF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) - I, Patricia L Lansford, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am an Administrative Specialist II for The City of Tigard, Oregon. [ That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED ❑) PUBUC NEARING FOR: ,5 / '7 — (ow W Yrammokr o IBM MU Wu1111 dial {duck oppropitate hz blow} ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ / Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard Planning Commission O Tigard City Council ❑ That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED ❑) DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director • ❑ That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED ❑) FINAL ORDER FOR: OKIla Oral wdaNe) (auk oppnprtate troll below} ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director O Tigard Hearings Officer O Tigard Planning Commission O Tigard City Council I ❑ That I served OTNER NOTICE OF FOR j A copy of the PUBUC HEARING NOTICE/NOTICE OF DECISION/NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER/OTHER NOTICEISI of which is attached, marke• Exhibit "A ", w .. mailed to e na -d person(s) at the add ss(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Mid : " • , r the - ' j i f f; of . / 199 f , and deposited in the United States Mail on the' .� i, day of " 64!Z 199 osta prepaid. AM2A1V/P/ P ��a red Notice Subscribed and sworn /affirmed before me on the- day of At..�L , l"7,7 • � � O NOTARY PUBLIC OF • MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07, 1999 My Commission 3 1 RLEINFO.. CASE Mt / D fkLP VI-6°M CUEEMYIEISk )oW nk /1/'7 • • 'CCM* A • - CITY OF TIGARD Community Development SfiapingA Better Community PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY, MAY 19, 1997 AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO: APPEAL OF MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97 -0002 FILE TITLE: AMENDED DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION APPLICANT: Miles Downing OWNER: Dorothy Shaw 9757 SW McDonald Street 11600 SW Greenburg Road Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST > An appeal was filed concerning the Director's Decision to approve Amended Minor Land Partition (MLP 97- 0002). The basis for the appeal was that the application was incomplete and should have been processed as a Major Land Partition. LOCATION: 11600 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1 S135DC, Tax Lot 06700. The site is located at the northeast corner of SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 8.32 and 18.162. ZONE: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. 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. APPEAL OF MLP 91 -0002 DOWNING/SHAW PARTITION NOTICE OF 5 -19 -91 P.C. PUBIlC HEARING • • • . IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER APRIL 28. 1997, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO 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 (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 (250 PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER MARK ROBERTS AT (503) 639 -4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. Ti I I I, 111 III 11N DAKOTA ] Num , g \ g a 1 Ti ---------________ c:> & hl , ' h �! 1 C� � ? . A LN p je LOMITA 1 ii 1 /� 1 LN 1. 1 . I - a. II NMI I L AIC —� —� 1a . I II 11� 1 1 I i, , 1 ' WI to Fs; j j : � , I I APPEAL OF MU' 91 -0002 DOWNING/SHAW PARTITION NOTICE OF 5 -19 -91 P.C. PUBUC HEARING M12 97-0(5,2 O .NDCi W P, kre OW 4 P L • of 3 vaunt .8 ,S1 3.50C-07100 1513500 -07:00 ALLEN, ALM AM SELL. CARROLL M 8 FLORENCE P 11640 SW 91ST 11600 SW 91ST AVE nGARO.OR 97223 TIGARO.OR 97'.23 1 S 1350C -02700 131350C-07400 3URKS. MARK J 6 CANTRELL PATRICIA A & CARROLL SHERI OUAINTANCE 11700 SW GREENBURG 340 EVERGREEN RO TIGAR0.OR 97223 LAKE OSWEGO.OR 97035 +S1250047000 1513506-03600 CEARLEY. MICHAEL 0 ANO CRAIG. OAVID W ANO VICKI R WAGGONER. NADINE 11420 SW 92ND 11675 SW 91ST AVE TIGARD.OR 97223 TIGARO.OR 97223 1S1350C-00000 /51350000900 • CALTON. LEN F 6 MARY M ORDINAL JOHN W & 5900 SW TAYLORS FERRY RO BURNETT. JOHN F & STEPHANIE A TIGARD.OR 97223 PO BOX 23603 TIGARO.OR 97201 1 513508-03000 1 S13506-04700 rLEENER. RONALD C b JANICE M GAVETT. WESTON C & KERRY L 11553 SW 91ST - 11435 SW 92ND AVE TIGARD.OR 97223 TIGARO.OR 97223 1513508 -04600 1S13508-00000 GLAUBKE. JOHN A & MARY MARTHA JACKSON. LINDA J CO TRUSTEES 11554 SW 90TH 11405 SW 92N0 TIGARO.OR 97223 PORTLANO.OR 97223 1513508.02900 1513508 -05000 JUNGWIRTH. RANDY PAUL KARBSTEIN. BRUNO TRUSTEE 11515 SW 91ST AVE 11560 SW GREENBURG RO • TIGARO.OR 97223 TIGARD.OR 97223 1513508-04901 1513508-03700 <NAUSS. BARBARA J KOLMOOIN. NORMAN 3 1495 SW 92ND AVE MARY LCU TIGARO.CR 97'223 11450 SW 92N0 TIGARD.OR 97223 ' S 13505.30400 151350002602 :MB. PATSY LEARY. OAVIO LAND 11475 SW 90TH RASMUSSE.N. KENNETH TIGARO.CR 97=3 503 SW LARKSPUR CT SUBUMTTY.OR 97285 S 1350C-37100 1 S 1350CJ2500 LCWRY. MARYLEE A LURVEY. CANIEL 1 1595 SW 91ST 11665 SW GREENBURG RO TIGARO.CR 97223 IGARD.CR 97=3 Nl LP a i - .) C.: pC.;�, ' ∎LIN /,SHL-■W P�,RTI��C 1+/ ( Page 2 of 3) • • EX11181T 8 S: 330C-06200 1513306-01900 MARTINEZ, EDWARD MCHORSE• MICHAEL CORIE AND 1670 SW 92N0 AVE MICHELE LYNN 1CARD.OR 97223 11440 SW 91ST AVE T1GARD.OR 97223 • S t350C -06200 1513506-01600 ■OUTOR• LAWRENCE RINANCY L OCALLAGHAN. COLLEEN C • 1367 SW 90TH AVE 17780 OVERLOOK CIRCLE 1GAR 0.OR 97223 LAKE OSWEGO.OR 97034 • 31330C-03000 1S13506-01600 3 UZ1SS. KELLY RAMIREZ. JOSE 07NARIA 2 0 BOX 22193 11360 SW 91ST ' IOENIXr1Z 83026 TIGARO.OR 97223 1S1330C-0650O 131350602600 • SA88E REMI HECTOR SAN08O. JOHN R AND DONNA M 11665 SW 92ND AVE TRAUB& DONNA M 7IGARD.OR 97223 - 11475 SW 9151' TIGARO.OR 97223 • S1350C•06100 151350C-06700 SHAFFER. ANTHONY =ARAN .1 SHAW. LLOYD P DOROTHY J • 1690 SW 92ND AVE - 11600 SW GREENBURG RD 7IGARD.OR 97223 TIGARO.OR 97223 :S133013-02700 1513508 -03600 SIMONSEN. RORY L & SMITH. TERRENCE WAND aDAMS. CINDY L USA R 11433 SW 9IST AVE 11460 SW 92N0 GARD.OR 97223 TIGARD.OR 97223 1S13506-05100 - 1513506-04100 . SNEIDEMAN, HARRY E STRONG. THOMAS L AND ROXANN S 1570 SW GREENBURG R0 11465 SW 92ND AVE 1GARD.CR 97223 TIGARD.CR 97223 • S1 350B-05200 1S1350G03002 TAYLOR. ROLLAND S TIGARD. CITY OF SHIRLEY L 13125 SW HAL :5133 MCCLUN RD PO BOX • ,. 7 SWEET HCME.CR 97288 .OR 97=3 •S13508-04902 1513508 -34900 GARD. CITY TCWER. T G.tYL ! • 3125 SW tea WILTROUT. RCNALD B "0 23397 11590 SW GR•NBURG RD O.CR 97223 TIGARD.CR 97223 51350C-36300 1S135CB- 1:20 JANVVCRMER. :OA M WINS! N. KATHLEEN R ::4 NE 102ND 11520 S1V91STAVE "CRTLANO.CR 97=0 - TIGARD.CR 97223 Mi.P 9 -JCO Cc:WNlNc4.5ii pARILTICN l+PP L (Page 3 of 3) IBIT B t s13SOCa6•00 1513508.00300 (+yEYRACCH, LORRAINE 0 ANO GLENN WHITE, PAUL L(8ARBARA A • 11565 SW GREEN8URG RO 11495 SW 90Th AVE IlefARO.OR 9T:23 TTGARO.OR 97227 IS1350C -06900 MILES DOWNING WILKINSON. VARIA J 9757 SW MCDONALD STREET 11630 SW GREENBURG RO rcARO.OR 97=3 TIGARD OR 97224 • • I • COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 8 813 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising *City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard , Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit 'Accounts Payable • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' I, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say, that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard—Tualatin Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the MLP Down; ng /Shaw (Ma - ,R) a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and • • • consecutive in the following issues: RECEIVE!) May 8, 1997 MAY 12 1997 u CLUE OE BOARD Subscribed and sworn to j ore me this 8th day of May , 19 9 7 A •''w OFFICIAL SEAL C, r z;. ROBIN A. BURGESS Notary ublic for Oregon '6 • r' NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO, 024662 My Commission Expires: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 18, 190 AFFIDAVIT 0 0 > APPEAL OF MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97 -0002 < DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION The Director approved, subject to conditions, a request to partition one (1) lot of 1.02 acres into three (3) lots ranging in size from 8,115 to 17,017 square feet. On March 27,1997, the City issued a Decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97 -0002 subject to Conditions of Approval. Because a new private street was proposed to serve the partition, the land use decision either should have been issued as a Major Land Partition, or have required a revision for an access easement type of accessway or other acceptable method for the lots that are being created. The applicant has requested that the Minor Land Partition be re- issued with revised Conditions of Approval that reflects the limitations of a Minor Land Parti- tion. On April 23, 1997, an appeal was filed of the Director's Decision to approve the amended decision. The basis for the appeal is that the appel- lant states that the application is incomplete and should have been processed as a Major Land Partition. LOCATION: 11600 S.W. Green - burg Road; WCTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 6700. The site is located at the northeast corner of S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. 92nd Avenue. ZONE: R -4.5; Residential, 4.5 units per acre. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.162 and 18.164. ' M II " , I \, -. I Fp— Min= -�' 1 1 1 mi 04A _I ___ DAIS ST -7-1 IIII L _...,.._,, ..... ...... . or "► � ` 1 I ' hi F.--- 1 \ ___r --41....i l I Hi _L1 � • TA - 1111141% 1 79:1--....1 <17 L h L� -1-1 ■ \' TT8813 — Publish May 8, 1997. 4 N --• y- 7 . 0) DAKOTA S l■ ■1 ,, II i i 11111 \ ? ■ ; , I Co • a n 1 cc oi I 8 iii 41 1- 5 c Q 5I 2 ..I ,i . -- c, —ss,, c .,4 _ � , 0' C LEWIS LN V ` CEO LOMITA Co , ri TANGELA i 1 1 cl3 TANGELA C iii .w . : 1/4.4! Q Q 1 i hb. I— 1 4 if 4- 4 ,_ 0 1 NW .7•-.1 *■.•-r/far • IPIK *, q ■r i r A*4 4 d s 6) 4, r vicinity Map N IVILP 97 -0002 W E �..e,,..,.,... S Downing /Shaw Partition 0 411I ,. '..'t..I1 Q 1S135DB -04600 1S135DB -03800 1S1135DB -0 ., 5DB-019 DO 1S135DB -04100 I( --+ - 135DB -05200 1S135DB -031' ' 35DB -028 I aa Co 15135DB- 0180�135D8 -00400 a 1S135DB -04800 _ m ai 1S135DB -0360 1 0� 1 _ 1 ' �� DB -029 " � � 35DB- 0110�135DB -00500 4iR 41,1t5, S135DB - 1S 0 5 D B -04901 /�' 1St 5DB -03 100 1S135D6 -00600 1S1 002 35DB -0 0 i 1SDB -01600 _ .... 1S135D � � � : � p 1S135DC -0 � ' i (f) i 35D 50C -0 00 1 DCtC -08 0 Si - C 5DC -0 ! 1 Q 1S1 DC -0 800 CD -1S135DC -03u 1S13 • DC -0 ; 900 - — 11 15 5DC -063 I 1S1{ 500 -07 10g `13500 -01300 - D ID 1S135 DC 0qg ' S ', DC -0 , I o 1St 5DC-111 990 ,1 i k` -02600 1 500 -074 _ .2) 1S1 NC- I i 1 , F'- LN TANCELA _ p C -U Q \ Vicinity Map MCP 97 -0002 ' Notification Map REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIOARD Community cDevedopment S/i aping )4 Better Community DATE: February 26,1991 TO: Per Attached FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts [x3111 Phone: (5031689 -4111 Fax: (50816841291 RE: MINOR LAND PARTITION IMLPI 91 -0002 ➢ DOWNING /SHAW GREENBURG SITE PARTITION Q A request to partition two (2) lots of 1.02 acres into four (4) lots ranging in size from 8,115 to 14,700 • square feet. LOCATION: 11600 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 6700. The site is located at the northeast corner of SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue. ZONE: R-4.5; Residential, 4.5 units per acre. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.162 and 18.164. 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: Monday March 10. 1997. 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: V q (Please provide the foltowing information) Name of Persontsl Commenting: I Phone Numbertsl: I MLP 97 -0002 DOWNING /SHAW GREENBURG SITE PARTITION PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS • 0 1 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS NOTIFICATION LIST FOR LAND USE 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS . . CITAt88:IC)';fE1;:[S):(W)''. '::<'<:::.':`::!!`;<`::;'` >` >:' `. ; :..: Place tot review In library CIT Book(s) FILE NAME: Do w K G 1 v l—`1 e FILE NO[SU.: WALE 77- ox - • CIT1f OFFACES:. . 1 AOGANCED PLANNING /Nadine Smith, Planning Supervisor euwu _ QMIVI TY DVLPMNT. DEPT.l anpmnt. Svcs. reun�iene !- �fiOLICE DEPT. /crme Prenanuonomcer BUILDING DIV. /David Scott, ngorredel GINEERING DEPT. /Brian Rager, Dvlpmnt. Review Engineer _ WATER DEPT. /Michael Miller, Operations Manager _ CITY ADMINISTRATION /Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder _ OPERATIONS DEPT. /John Roy, Property Manager _ OTHER • <. ; .;:;;•: :::. >:: >: i : : : ::>::; >:: :::::> ;. : ::;; : :: PECIALDISTRIC . • Z LATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE e rTUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT _ UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY Fire Marshall Administrative Office Lee Walker, SWM Program Washington County Fire District PO Box 745 155 N. First Street (place In pick -up box) Beaverton, OR 97075 Hillsboro, OR 97124 .. '':•:::•.'. •:•.i.•::::' ..::: ::;. '::::> •:: :.;,>;<::: >:: >::;;: ><: :: >:::::> : ;.:: LO STAT U R I SDICTIONS: : > : :: : > - .... - . CITY OF BEAVERTON _ CITY OF TUALATIN _ OR. DEPT. OF FISH & WILDLIFE _ OR. DIV. OF STATE LANDS • PO Box 4755 Planning Director 2501 SW First Avenue 775 Summer Street, NE Beaverton, OR 97076 PO Box 369 PO Box 59 Salem, OR 97310 -1337 Tualatin, OR 97062 Portland, OR 97207 _ Larry Conrad, Senior Planner _OR. PUB. UTILITIES COMM. _ Mike Matteucci, Neighbmd. coon. METRO _ OR. DEPT. OF GEO. & MINERAL IND. 550 Capitol Street, NE 600 NE Grand Avenue 800 NE Oregon Street, Suite 5 Salem, OR 97310 -1380 _ CITY OF DURHAM Portland, OR 97232 -2736 Portland, OR 97232 City Manager US ARMY CORPS. OF ENG. PO Box 23483 Mary Weber, Growth Management Coordinator _ OR. DEPT. OF LAND CONSERV.& DVLP. 333 SW First Avenue Durham, OR 97281 -3483 _ Mel Huie, Greensp aces Coordinator (CPA's20A's) 1175 Court Street, NE PO Box 2946 Salem, OR 97310 -0590 Portland, OR 97208 -2946 _ CITY OF KING CITY _ METRO AREA BOUNDARY COMMISSION City Manager 800 NE Oregon Street _ OREGON DEPT. OF TRANS. (ODOT) WASHINGTON COUNTY 15300 SW 116th Avenue Building #16, Suite 540 Aeronautics Division Dept. of Land Use & Trans. King City, OR 97224 Portland, OR 97232 -2109 Attn: Tom Highland, Planning 155 N. First Avenue 3040 25th Street, SE Suite 350, MS 13 _ CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO _ OR. DEPT. OF ENERGY Salem, OR 97310 Hillsboro, OR 97124 Planning Director Bonneville Power Administration PO Box 369 PO Box 3621 _ ODOT, REGION 1 _ Brent Curtis ( cPA's) Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Routing TTRC - Attn: Renae Ferrera Sonya Kazen, Dvlpmt. Rev. Coord. Scott King (CPA's) _ Portland, OR 97208 -3621 123 NW Flanders _ Mike Borreson (Engineer) _ CITY OF PORTLAND Portland, OR 97209 -4037 _ Jim Tice (IGA's) David Knowles, Planning Bureau Dir. _ OREGON, DEPT. OF ENVIRON. QUALITY _ Tom Harry (Current PI, Apps.) Portland Building 106, Rm. 1002 811 SW Sixth Avenue _ ODOT, REGION 1 - DISTRICT 2A _ Phil Healy (Current Pl. Apps,) 1120 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Jane Estes, Permit Specialist Portland, OR 97204 PO Box 25412 Portland, OR 97298 -0412 • ... • . DERS AND SPECIAL AGENCIES ..:: • • • . • _ BURLINGTON NORTHERN R/R _ METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS _ SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS. CO. � TRI -MET TRANSIT DVLPMT. Administrative Office Jason Hewitt Clifford C. Cabe, Construction Engineer Kim Knox, Project Planner 1313 W. 11th Street Twin Oaks Technology Center 5424 SE McLoughlin Boulevard 710 NE Holladay Street Vancouver, WA 98660 -3000 1815 NW 169th Place, S -6020 Portland, OR 97232 Portland, OR 97232 Beaverton, OR 97006 -4886 _ COLUMBIA CABLE COMPANY _ TCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON _ US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Craig Eyestone _ NW NATURAL GAS COMPANY Linda Peterson Pete Nelson 14200 SW Brigadoon Court Scott Palmer 3500 SW Bond Street 421 SW Oak Street Beaverton, OR 97005 220 SW Second Avenue Portland, OR 97201 Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97209 -3991 _ GENERAL TELEPHONE Paul Koft, Engineering PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY MC: OR030546 Brian Moore Tigard, OR 97281 -3416 14655 SW Old Scholls Ferry Road Beaverton, OR 97007 h:lpatty)masters rfcnotice.mst 7- Feb -97 . J y I • l lj _14.• CITY OF TIGARD OREGON July 11, 1997 Kerry L. Gavett 11435 SW 92nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Downing Property Minor Land Partition issues Dear Kerry: This letter is in response to your letter dated June 17, 1997, in which you reviewed a previous conversation we had regarding the Downing property. Upon receipt of that letter, I contacted you and stated that no final decision had been made on the issues that you addressed. I also stated that the City declined to address the legal status of the Downing property or properties until such time as Mr. Downing filed a new development application. With regard to the first point you made, you were correct because Mr. Downing has withdrawn his application for Minor Land Partition (MLP) 97 -0002 and no further action is forthcoming from the Planning Commission concerning that application. The second point you made was regarding the legal status of the former Shaw ownership. Upon review of the application materials that were filed by Mr. Downing for a new Minor Land Partition (City file: MLP 97 -0010), the City has determined that the request is complete. The City Attorney found that substantial evidence exists that the property subject to this application was created as a separate legal parcel. This parcel was originally created by deed. Although the properties have apparently been owned by the same property owner during each subsequent sale since the 1940's, at no time were the legal descriptions consolidated to describe the ownership as a single property. You stated that the parcel was recorded under one deed, with the parcel that was developed with the residence and, therefore, the ownership was one parcel dating back to 1960. Because the underlying legal description described two legal parcels and not a single parcel, the property was never consolidated into one parcel. Tax lots define the ownership area for which taxes are being paid. Tax lots do not necessarily reflect the underlying legal description, nor the status of the property as a legally recorded lot. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772 The previous interpretation that the entire 1.02 acre area was one legal parcel was reviewed with the County Surveyor's staff, but not with the City Attorney. At that time, the applicant had also apparently not reviewed this issue with an attorney. Please accept the City's apology for any confusion concerning this issue. The City's Community Development Code defines lot of record as, "A lawfully created lot which existed prior to the effective date of the code codified in this title." This definition requires that an applicant provide evidence that demonstrates that a parcel to be partitioned was originally, legally created. The City Attorney has also found that the definition of parcel according to Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 215.010 does not apply to this application because the property is not under County jurisdiction. The entire ORS Section 215 specifically addresses and authorizes Comprehensive County Planning requirements. In the past, Mr. Downing stated an interest in making application for construction of a dwelling unit on the vacant property that is the subject property of pending Minor Land . Partition 97 -0010. To date, Mr. Downing has not made any application for a building permit on this property. It is the Community Development Director's interpretation that the Commercial Forestry provisions of the tree removal standards do not apply to properties that have been issued building permits. The intent of the Community Development Code on this issue was to regulate thinning of undeveloped forested properties, not to preclude development for several years in order to clear enough trees to allow issuance of a building permit. The Community Development Director has discussed having this issue go before the Planning Commission for confirmation of this interpretation before action on any future appeals of Minor Land Partition 97 -0010. If no appeal is filed, this issue would likely go before the Planning Commission as soon as possible, after the Minor Land Partition decision becomes final. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me at (503) 639 -4171. Sincerely, ' ?//1,411/4 • Mark Roberts Associate Planner, AICP I:\curpin■mark rigavett.doc c: Terry Smith Miles Downing Jim Hendryx Dick Bewersdorff • • } 0 R EC JUN 1 IMMUNITY pE VECOPiyENT • • Kerry L. Gavett 11435 SW 92n Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 June 17, 1997 Mr. Mark Roberts City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 — Re: Downing Property Located at 11600 SW Greenburg Road, Tigard, OR Dear Mark: I am writing to confirm some of the issues that you and I have discussed during several telephone calls over the last few days, regarding Miles Downing's property located at 11600 SW Greenburg Road in Tigard, Oregon. We have several concerns which we believe should be addressed before a building permit is issued for Mr. Downing to construct a dwelling on the undeveloped portion of the property. During our telephone conversations on Friday, June 13, 1997, and Monday June 16, 1997, you informed us of the following: • On June 13, 1997, Mr. Downing formerly withdrew his application for a Minor Land Partition for the property referenced above. Therefore, the City of Tigard Planning Commission would not be issuing a decision on our appeal of the Minor • Land Partition at the Public Hearing on Monday, June 16, 1997. • The City of Tigard has decided that the property referenced above should be considered two separate lots, with one lot consisting of the portion which contains a dwelling, and the second lot consisting of the undeveloped portion of the property. It is our understanding that you believe these are two separate legal lots that were combined solely for tax purposes. • Mr. Downing intends to apply for a building permit to build a single dwelling on the undeveloped lot. You stated that he intends to further partition the undeveloped lot into several lots at a later date. PLC :1My Documents\Mr. Murk Roberts 2.doc- 97hu:1 • ..� • -_ June 18, 1997 Page 2 • The City is going to allow Mr. Downing to remove six of the Douglas fir trees on the portion of the lot for which he is attempting to get a Building Permit, in accordance with the commercial forestry provisions of the Tree Removal Ordinance. You stated Mr. Downing was informed that if any Douglas fir trees which are to remain standing are damaged in the process of removing other trees, _ Mr. Downing will be required to mitigate the damage in accordance with the provisions of the Tree Removal Ordinance. • We believe that Mr. Downing's property should be considered a single legal lot for the reasons listed below: • The Downing property was purchased in 1960 by Mr. And Mrs. Lloyd P. Shaw. A single deed was filed and recorded, which contained the metes and bounds of both portions of the property. Therefore the property has been considered as a single lot from 1960 to the present. • The property is currently taxed as a single lot (Tax Lot 6700). It was not formed • as a single lot for tax purposes, but was formed as a single lot by deed. • In a letter dated March 4, 1997, from Mr. John R. Hadley, City of Tigard Surveyor to Mr. Terry Smith, Mr. Hadley stated that the property was a single lot which needed to be partitioned or subdivided to create new lots. He stated that although a piece of land may be described as Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, etc., the manner in which the parcels were created ultimately determines how many parcels the property contains. In this case, the property was created under a single deed. • The Oregon State Statutes state that `parcel" is a unit of land created by deed or land sales contract, if there were no applicable planning, zoning or partitioning ordinances or regulations. The current City of Tigard Development codes were probably not in effect in 1960. Based on the points we have outlined above, it is our interpretation that the Downing property is legally a single lot. We would like to brow what legal events have occurred since Mr. Hadley's letter dated March 4, 1997 which would change the City's interpretation of the status of the property. At some point, existing deeds must have legal standing. If the City issues a building permit before Mr. Downing properly partitions or subdivides his lot, it is our opinion that he will be in violation of the City of Tigard Municipal Code. It appears that Mr. Downing is again demonstrating his intent to ultimately partition his lot into several new lots while attempting to avoid the preparation of a Tree Mitigation Plan P1C:1Mv Docwnent* Mr. Mart Roberts Zdoe- 974au: I . • 1 • ` June 18, 1997 Page 3 required for applications for Subdivisions or Major Land Partitions. However, any trees which are removed within the period of one year prior to a development application (e.g. if Mr. Downing applies for a Major Land Partition to construct additional dwellings on the property) the trees will be inventoried as part of the Tree Mitigation Plan and will be replaced according to the provisions of the Tree Removal Ordinance. It is not our desire to prevent Mr. Downing from developing his property. However, we believe that it is our responsibility to make sure that any partitioning and construction he proposes will not substantially alter the character of the large and unique stand of Douglas fir trees located on his property (a goal of the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan.) If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 624 -7180. Sincerely, eCAi. / Ji autom Kerry L. Gavett cc: Miles Downing �ameseTslEiendtyx, City of Tigard Dick Bewersdorfi; City of Tigard P1C:1My Documents \Mr. Mark Roberts 2.doc- 97:1 .i S 1 R ECE 1 VED JUN 1 8 19 97 IMMUNITY p Fli fIOPMENT • Kerry L. Gavett 11435 SW 92n Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 June 17, 1997 Mr. Iviark Roberts City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Downing Property Located at 11600 SW Greenburg Road, Tigard, OR Dear Mark: I am writing to confirm some of the issues that you and I have discussed during several telephone calls over the last few days, regarding Miles Downing's property located at 11600 SW Greenburg Road in Tigard, Oregon. We have several concerns which we believe should be addressed before a building permit is issued for Mr. Downing to construct a dwelling on the undeveloped portion of the property. • During our telephone conversations on Friday, June 13, 1997, and Monday June 16, 1997, you informed us of the following: • On June 13, 1997, Mr. Downing formerly withdrew his application for a Minor Land Partition for the property referenced above. Therefore, the City of Tigard Planning Commission would not be issuing a decision on our appeal of the Minor Land Partition at the Public Hearing on Monday, June 16, 1997. • • The City of Tigard has decided that the property referenced above should be considered two separate lots, with one lot consisting of the portion which contains a dwelling, and the second lot consisting of the undeveloped portion of the property. It is our understanding that you believe these are two separate legal lots that were combined solely for tax purposes. • Mr. Downing intends to apply for a building permit to build a single dwelling on the undeveloped lot. You stated that he intends to further partition the undeveloped lot into several lots at a later date. P1C:1My Doeumettts\Mr. Mark Roberts 2.doc- 97 \eu:1 .� . June 18, 1997 Page 2 • The City is going to allow Mr. Downing to remove six of the Douglas fir trees on the portion of the lot for which he is attempting to get a Building Permit, in accordance with the commercial forestry provisions of the Tree Removal Ordinance. You stated Mr. Downing was informed that if any Douglas fir trees which are to remain standing are damaged in the process of removing other trees, Mr. Downing will be required to mitigate the damage in accordance with the provisions of the Tree Removal Ordinance. • We believe that Mr. Downing's property should be considered a single legal lot for the reasons listed below: • The Downing property was purchased in 1960 by Mr. And Mrs. Lloyd P. Shaw. A single deed was filed and recorded, which contained the metes and bounds of both portions of the property. Therefore the property has been considered as a single lot from 1960 to the present. • The property is currently taxed as a single lot (Tax Lot 6700). It was not formed • as a single lot for tax purposes, but was formed as a single lot by deed. • In a letter dated March 4, 1997, from Mr. John R. Hadley, City of Tigard Surveyor to Mr. Terry Smith, Mr. Hadley stated that the property was a single lot which needed to be partitioned or subdivided to create new lots. He stated that although a piece of land may be described as Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, etc., the manner in which the parcels were created ultimately determines how many parcels the property contains. In this case, the property was created under a single deed. • The Oregon State Statutes state that `parcel" is a unit of land created by deed or land sales contract, if there were no applicable planning, zoning or partitioning ordinances or regulations. The current City of Tigard Development codes were probably not in effect in 1960. Based on the points we have outlined above, it is our interpretation that the Downing property is legally a single lot. We would like to know what legal events have occurred since Mr. Hadley's letter dated March 4, 1997 which would change the City's interpretation of the status of the property. At some point, existing deeds must have legal standing. If the City issues a building permit before Mr. Downing properly partitions or subdivides his lot, it is our opinion that he will be in violation of the City of Tigard Municipal Code. It appears that Mr. Downing is again demonstrating his intent to ultimately partition his lot into several new lots while attempting to avoid the preparation of a Tree Mitigation Plan P1C:1My Documents\Mr. Merl: Roberts 2.doe- 971eu:1 S.' June 18, 1997 Page 3 required for applications for Subdivisions or Major Land Partitions. However, any trees which are removed within the period of one year prior to a development application (e.g. if Mr. Downing applies for a Major Land Partition to construct additional dwellings on the property) the trees will be inventoried as part of the Tree Mitigation Plan and will be replaced according to the provisions of the Tree Removal Ordinance. It is not our desire to prevent Mr. Downing from developing his property. However, we believe that it is our responsibility to make sure that any partitioning and construction he proposes will not substantially alter the character of the large and unique stand of Douglas fir trees located on his property (a goal of the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan.) If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 624 -7180. Sincerely, Q(. Deny L. Gavett cc: Miles Downing • Wild J :�Hendtyx,. City ofiigard Dick Bewersdorff, City of Tigard • P1C :1114y Documents\Mr. Mai; Roberts 2.doc- 971au:1 07/08/97 11:42 12503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD • X 001 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** ACTIVITY REPORT * ** * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** TRANSMISSION OK TX /RX NO. 0918 CONNECTION TEL 2473 CONNECTION ID START TIME 07/08 11:40 USAGE TIME 02'25 PAGES 5 RESULT OK Post -If Fax Note 7671 Date ..- . m .. u.r• .M1 CoJDept. e co. G ` a. July 8, 1997 ROM* Fu t, Ry Fax # 6 sq./ --7-2_6/7 Kerry L. Gavett - — 014aas—a ev1,244) r 44c paci —`4A4 "'° kbo�s �Fa tt«tie 11435 SW 92nd Avenue 50644e. (! a Tigard, OR 97223 r € ou k l e. f Re: Downing Property Minor Land Partition issues enk Dear Kerry; This letter is in response to your "June 17, 1997" letter in which you reviewed a previous conversation we had regarding the Downing property. Upon receipt of that letter I contacted you and stated that no final decision had been made on the issues you highlighted in your letter of June 17. I also stated that the City declined to address the legal standing of the Downing property or properties until such time as Mr. Downing filed a new development application. With regard to the first point you were correct because Mr. Downing has withdrawn Minor Land Partition 97 -0002 that no further action is forthcoming from the Planning Commission concerning that application. The second point you made was regarding the legal status of the former Shaw ownership. Upon review of the application materials that were filed by Mr. Downing for a new Minor Land Partition (City file MLP 97 -0010) the City has determined that the request is complete. The City Attorney found that substantial evidence exists that the property that has been filed on was created as a separate legal parcel. This parcel was originally created by deed. Although the properties have apparently been owned by the same property owner during each subsequent sale since the 1940's at no time were the legal descriptions consolidated to describe the ownership as a single property. You stated that the parcel was recorded under one deed with the parcel that was developed with the residence and therefore, the ownership was one parcel dating back to 1960. Because the underlying legal description described two legal parcels and not a single parcel the property was • • "b,uniri5h90 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes June 16, 1997 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice President Collson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Collson, DeFrang, Griffith, Holland, Padgett, and Scolar Commissioners Absent: President Wilson, Commissioners Anderson and Neff Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff,_ Planning Manager; Will D'Andrea, Associate Planner; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 APPEAL OF TRI- COUNTY CENTER DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION Continued from 5 -19 -97 Planning Commission Meeting The applicant requested a continuance to July 21, 1997. Dick Bewersdorff advised that the applicant was requesting the continuance in hopes the interpretation for the Tigard Triangle design standards could be worked out. He noted that an application has not been submitted as yet. Commissioner Padgett moved to continue the appeal to July 21, 1997. Commissioner Griffith seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 4.2 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97 -0002 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES REQUEST: A proposal to amend the Community Development Code (Title 18) by establishing standards for wireless communication facilities by creating a new Chapter 152 (18.152). The purpose of these regulations are to ensure that wireless communication facilities are regulated in a manner which minimizes visual impacts, promotes universal service to all customers, encourages collocation of facilities to minimize the number of new facilities, ensures structural safety, and ensures all providers are fairly treated. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 11; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1.a, 2.1.1, 2.1.3 and 7.7.1; and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. LOCATION: Citywide PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 16, 1997 - Page 1 • • STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Will D'Andrea presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He said this was a proposal to amend the Community Development Code by establishing standards for wireless communication facilities. He said staff has proposed accordance that will address the requirements of the Federal Telecommunications Act and provide for reasonable regulation of wireless facilities. D'Andrea summarized the different "tiers" involved. He explained which uses are permitted outright (Tier 1), which require a director's decision (Tier 2), and which are conditional uses (Tier 3). He highlighted the review criteria for each tier. He also reviewed setbacks, tower spacing and submittal requirements. • D'Andrea explained that in Conditional Uses, setbacks are from the tower to residential structures. He also discussed collocational protocol and submittal requirements. D'Andrea said staff recommends approval, with amended language requested by ODOT. They requested language to include review by ODOT Aeronautics for tower painting and lighting. CIT COMMENTS Martha Bishop, 10590 SW Cook Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, representing the East CIT, testified that the City has already been approving monopoles without coming before the CITs. She said the East CIT was told that monopoles were Federally mandated so there was no chance for the CIT to comment. Dick Bewersdorff explained that the monopoles currently being installed fall under existing ordinance requirements. He said this request will bring us more into conformance with federal mandates. Bishop said none of the criteria for monopoles were addressed by the CITs. Commissioner Padgett remarked that at the last City Council workshop, there was discussion of this ordinance and that representatives from all the CITs were at that meeting. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR Spencer Vail, AT &T Wireless, 4505 NE 24th, Portland, OR 97211, and Kevin Martin, Sprint PCS, 7770 SW Mohawk, Building F, Tualatin, OR 97062, discussed some changes and corrections they would like in the ordinance: On page 1 of the draft, under the definition of monopole (18.152.020.A.8c), it should read "upright" instead of "uptight ". It should also say "...not requiring guy wires... ". On page 2, regarding setbacks from a residence, Vail noted that the draft makes no distinction between what the zone might be. He asked if the intent was to include a house in an industrial area or does it really mean a house in a residential zone adjacent to a monopole. Dick Bewersdorff answered that the intent was for any house. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 16, 1997 - Page 2 • • Also on page 2, under Uses Permitted Outright (18.152.040.D.1 - accessory equipment shelters) Martin advised that the company putting in a pole doesn't always lease enough area to enclose the accessory equipment. In that case, they may have to obtain a _ second lease. He asked if the additional leased space would be put into a Director's review with a public hearing. He said he would rather see it reviewed as part of a building permit or an over - the - counter process that would not require a notice. Will D'Andrea commented that additional accessory structures, under Uses Permitted Outright, may not need a review for landscaping or screening. Those requiring a Director's Decision would require notice, but not a hearing. On page 3, under Tower Spacing, should read: "If, having completed the collocation protocol outlined in Section 18.152.080 without success, and the provider is required to build a tower less than 500 feet from an existing tower, then they will be required to obtain a variance... ". Spencer Vail talked about the variance issue. He said using the standard variance language (hardship) makes it extremely difficult to justify. He gave an example of a 100' x 100' lot with a stand of trees on one side. Under this scenario, it would be best to put a pole by the trees rather than in the middle of the lot, but it would be hard to justify a "hardship" in order to decrease the setback and move the pole. He said he would like to see some specific criteria established, rather than using the variance procedure. Kevin Martin said that some jurisdictions have come up with a separate set of adjustment standards just for communication facilities. Also on page 3, under Setbacks, Martin advised that towers are not designed to collapse, but if they do supposedly collapse, they don't fall over at the base - they will break higher on the pole. He submitted a letter from Andrew Corporation, a major manufacturer of towers, which talks about design and engineering (Exhibit "A "). Martin suggested deleting the language about towers designed to collapse within themselves and just say what the setbacks are. In industrial and commercial zones, he would like to see the setbacks be the same as what the underlying district is. On page 4, #4, Martin would like to have the variance language changed to be the same as on page 3. On page 6, #6, under Fencing, Martin noted that they frequently go 6' with another foot of barbed wire. He asked if this would be allowed. Dick Bewersdorff answered that it would be all right. With regard to variance requirements, Dick Bewersdorff agreed that variance criterion are stringent which makes it difficult to get approval, but it may be appropriate. As an alternative to the variance requirement, he said staff could write adjustment criterion into the ordinance, if the Planning Commission chooses. He remarked that this ordinance PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 16, 1997 - Page 3 • • makes a number of concessions to the industry. He said that if it makes sense to locate towers closer together, then there should be reasonable justification for doing so. Vail and Martin stated that some jurisdictions have adjustment criteria just for towers. They said these jurisdictions still require extensive documentation to prove why anything else won't work. On page 4, #8, regarding noise, Martin and Vail advised that DEQ standards are 50 dBA. They requested to be subject to the same standards as any other particular use. Bewersdorff answered that the dBAs listed in the draft are City standards. He said the Planning Commission can choose to make a recommendation to adopt DEQ standards into the ordinance. Commissioner DeFrang remarked that 45 dBA at the property line is fairly loud. Kevin Martin referred to the request from Oregon Aeronautics Division asking that applications be routed to them for review. He stated that Oregon Aeronautics tends to require lighting on towers that the FAA does not. Commissioner Holland noted that the ordinance states, "No lighting shall be permitted, except as required by the FAA ". Dan Dutton, Western Wireless, 7535 NE Ambassador PI., Portland, OR 97220, commented on the section stating that new towers shall maintain a non - reflective gray finish. He said it may be better to have some towers painted brown (e.g., towers located in a stand of trees). Commissioner Holland said the ordinance might be changed to just read that new towers be non - reflective. Dutton also commented on the term "Significant.public open spaces" . He said it could be a problem if this term is not defined somewhere in the code. Commissioner Holland referred to #2 on page 4, under Color. He noted that this wording contradicts the earlier requirement that towers be gray. He suggested the wording in both sections be the same regarding color. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION No one testified in opposition. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Padgett asked staff how strongly they felt about the amendment concerning the lighting requirements. Dick Bewersdorff answered that unless ODOT requires something, the wording is adequate the way it is. He agreed that there should be language allowing for coordination with ODOT. The Commissioners said they would like to see another draft with agreed upon changes before they make a recommendation. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 16, 1997 - Page 4 • The Commissioners recommended the following: • Regarding noise - use City standards. • Regarding setbacks - lump all towers into one category, require setbacks in accordance with setbacks contained in the base zone, except where adjacent to any existing off-site residence, in which case, it shall be set back by a distance equal to the height of the tower. Eliminate 18.152.050B.2b. • Regarding exceptions - stay with the variance criteria. • Regarding whether setbacks apply to a house or to the residential zone - D'Andrea brought up the Tigard Triangle as an example of people living in homes that may not be in a residential zone. The Commissioners agreed to leave the language the way it is, clarifying that the setbacks apply to the structure. • Regarding color - take out the word gray; stay with non - reflective, neutral color. • Regarding the definition of significant open space - leave as is; this will have to be weighed at the public hearings. Commissioner Padgett moved to have staff make the recommended changes and bring back the revised draft to the July 21, 1997, Planning Commission meeting for a decision. Commissioner DeFrang seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 4.3 APPEAL OF MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97 -0002 AMENDED DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION Continued from 6-2 -97 Planning Commission Meeting This application was withdrawn by the applicant. 5. OTHER BUSINESS It was brought up that the Commissioners should make an effort to notify the Planning Commission Secretary in advance if they know they will not be able to attend a meeting. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m. • Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: Mike Col!son, Vice President PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 16, 1997 - Page 5 *IMES DOWNING a 684 -1334 P.O BOX 230972 968 -5798 fax =.. „. TIGARD OR 97281 -0972 6/24/97 TO: CITY OF TIGARD ATTN. JIM HENDRIX RE: City of Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.12 INTERPRETATION • Mr Hendrix Please provide me and the record with an interpretation of comercial forestry and it application in regards to land use decisions. THANK YOU MILES DOWNING JUN 20 '97 11 26A O'DONNELL, RAMIS P.1 •'DONNLL RAMIS CREW • CORRIGAN & BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 TELEPHONE (503) 222-4402 PAX: (503) 243.2944 PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLANQ OFFICE EACSIMMELTRANSMISSION COVER SHEET • THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONSIST OF ATTORNEY FRIvILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED BELOW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR. THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OP THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. DATE: June 20, 1997 ' CLIENT NO.: 90024 -4 TO: " Roberts City of Tigard FAX #: 684 -7297 Phone #: 639 -4171 FROM: Jim Oliver FAX # (503) 243 -2944 DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED: Definitions from Washington County Code, COMMENTS: PAGE(S) TO FOLLOW, EXCLUDING COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL THE UNDERSIGNED AT (503) 222 -4402 IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU. SIGNED: Anja Mundy AN ORIGINAL IS BEING MAILED; AN ORIGINAL IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST: X JUN 20 '97 11.26AM O'DONNELL, RAMIS P.2 • . • 1 -12 contiguous tax lots are in the same ownership. Each tax lot lawfully created by a deed or sales contract prior to the effective date that the District Is applicable to the subject property, shall be deemed a lot of record. When a tax lot consists of two (2) or more noncontiguous lots or parcels created as a result of a lawful partition by deed or sales contract prior to the effective date that the district is applicable to the subject property, each noncontiguous lot or parcel shall be considered a lot of record. A lot of record does not authorize development of a lot or parcel which does not comply with the requirements of • . ' a 'parcel as defined by Sectiorr 1061.51. 106 -117 Lot of Record (Applicable tg all the urban districts) Any lot or parcel created by a lawful sales contract or deed and of record prior to March 26, 1984, the effective date of this Code. Two or more such lots or parcels which are contiguous and under identical ownership of record on the ffectiv date o S be deemed separate lots of record only if the creation of the lot(s) or parcels) was approved by the County under a County Partitioning or Subdivision Ordinance. A lot of record does not authorize development of a lot or parcel which does not comply with the requirements of a "parcel" as defined by Section 106 -151. 106 -119 Lot Width The horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth at a point midway between the front and rear lot lines. 106 -121 Loth The perpendicular distance measured from the midpoint of the front lot line to the midpoint of the opposite lot line. 106 -123 Manufacturing The processing or converting of raw, unfinished, or finished materials or products or any combination thereof into an article or substance of different character, or for use for a different character or purpose. 106 -129 Mifigalign Reducing,the.impacts of a proposed.development and /or offsetting the loss of habitat values resulting from development In fish, wildlife, and big game range areas, mitigation may include, but is not necessarily limited to, requiring: 1) clustering of structures near each other and roads, controlling location of structures on a parcel to avoid habitat conflicts, minimizing extent of road construction to that required for the proposed use; and, 2) replacing unavoidable loss of values by reestablishing resources for those lost, such as: forage for food production, escape or thermal shelter. In other areas of significant wildlife value, such as wetlands, riparian vegetation and special bird nesting sites, maintenance and enhancement of remaining habitat, setbacks and restoration of damage and avoiding damage would be appropriate. 106 -131 Manufactur_Ad_Dwellinna 108-131.1 Residential Trailer A structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking and plumbing facilities, that is intended for human occupancy, that Is being 11/21196 JUN 20 '97 11:27AM O'DONNELL, RAMIS P.3 • A• • • • 1 -14 be stored or manufactured in an office, although mail, telephone and incidental walk -in sales may be made in an office. • 106 -145 Occupancy Permit (Certificate of OccuDancyl The permit provided in the Uniform Building Code which must be issued prior to occupying a building or structure or portion thereof. For the purposes of this Code, "occupancy permit" includes the final inspection approval for those buildings or structures not required to obtain an occupancy permit by the Uniform Building Code. • 106 -147 Qveriay District A supplementary district placing special restrictions or allowing special uses of land beyond those required or allowed in the Primary District 106 -149 gYilliE The legal owner(s) of record as shown on the tax roles of the County, or where there Is a recorded land sales contract in force, the purchaser thereunder. 106 -151 parce( Parcel includes lot unless the context requires otherwise. A parcel includes a unit of land created: 106 -1511 By partitioning land as defined in ORS 92.010; 106 -151.2 , In compliance with all applicable planning, zoning and partitioning ordinances and regulations; or 106 -151.3 By deed or land sales contract, if there were no applicable planning, zoning or partitioning ordinances or regulations. 106 -151.4 Does not include a unit of land created solely to establish a separate tax account. 106 -152 eartitton Either an act of partitioning land or an area or tract of land partitioned. 106 -153 Partition anci To divide an area or tract of land into two or three parcels within a calendar year. "Partition land" may or may not involve the creation of a street or road. `Partition land" does not Include: 106 -153.1 A division of land resulting from a lien foreclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure of a recorded contract for the sale of real property or the creation of cemetery lots; 106 -153.2 An adjustment of a property Ilne by the relocation of a common boundary where an additional unit of land is not created and where the existing unit of land reduced in size by the adjustment complies with any applicable ordinance provisions; or 106 -153.3 The division of land resulting from the recording of a subdivision or condominium plat; or 11/21/96 1 1 ► ` "" w .- II NO T ls / 3 6--).). i / . I - I 90 90 90 118.2 , �, 0)N 0°1' 33" _ `� IV �i ,A a x . ,. /�Ita s' ♦ ' 7 'r `� kt // ` . . S 0 `0 om l 9RL' R :75 "` jZ l; . g92 116 o Asa F : zO `2 33'' 4 s yb S wR:230 , w r O o'' 2;-.0e-A15 ,P Jr--,, • Ja�O > � : —• - 92nd g A1 N P05'2 • 281.53 2T` 0 0 .. y� +� ®`+ 82 93 0---- k N a0 4 \� N o0o • Zv i 3 t fl • t / . 4 A ~ y e ? p 4 N Q M 0? ?p Viii, d° 434 j n Q a N O) � � • 33 :t § st t 0 ~�1i 3 p � P O i • M 0 y a p X79.5 IN) 43) v .3 12834 ./ a 8 m ° 2011 ' A 8 + s o•ot' w loom) 4 • � ,� CIHARDENCA a. $ pi, V 68 31 d 90 Op Y6o •92 N . ISA s-u - � I I ,,i 4 % . 91st N ,� AVE.v OD •t► • .2 95.3 105 0 �.� . ,° 41 ••4 A . k. -J h 0 • : d 0) 4 a p1 ( o Q AI 0 s 8 w . _ �` . co I ? ? • NO ° 08'43"E • ti C ) b j,c \ S 0 • I 3 w 4 1 C134 C N— ° 4b ( N CI w . ` n com CD • • D I t ✓� - GO a Id V vQ s ►� �5 (e.a sQ- d- T�Le )`Hnu e �' o vl,Q . Wi les loo wK wM' apI' l4. )s p veUk't& o •.•I lca4 1 a t.� LI\Ok I b0 ,2evt • ad le + IA R 1 N Lo crvS . •�-- ca ll kek o frk 1 "-'(t o 5 `I`4e C Could V' eU) a �- wo (Se `ra air S. S 1 u.e5s t4- 7 icin "( s ave. '-1- e`'s2 +w4 s dVdie ve dgeel ? k 2 tee) L p.$' Pe _ dt, Q (e loo a^ OF a URA - of - a t a 5 to 7 d eeoi o v 54 e s Co vt+vacf — d ? PS 2 I'S. 6l6 I/14 7 ! e5 i s Sa yi 't ese E..fet0e5. we've- bo kk Q avd yv � / 54 aHd gokcy C nd•V l fr- 1 K pit ooseS. litJ Lev was ,,e • • traur 14 e 1Oa ✓ C2rl Cvear V141 1e5 140 tx) ; vt+tt,,Js fd IQ r a raM1 4cri 0 P�•c�(1 11-15 I dL I S , l !f- �� rG•el 1a - 75 1/14(.1< • • MARCH 4, 1997 TERRY SMITH, I AM SORRY I TOOK SO LONG GETTING BACK TO YOU BUT I NEEDED TO CLARIFY WITH THE PLANNER THE STATUS OF THE LAND USE APPLICATION. THE PLANNER MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT I TOLD HIM IN OCTOBER. IN OCTOBER, I WAS ASKED WHETHER THE PROPERTY ON TAX LOT 1 S 135DC 6700 WAS ONE OR TWO PARCELS. AT THAT TIME, I CONTACTED KEN BAUER OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE ASKING HIS OPINION ABOUT SAID TAX LOT 6700. HE INDICATED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE DEED IS WRITTEN AS PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 2 IT WAS ONE LOT AND NEEDED TO BE PARTITIONED OR SUBDIVIDED TO CREATE NEW LOTS. ALTHOUGH A PIECE OF LAND MAYBE DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 1, PARCEL 2, ETC., AS IT WAS IN THIS CASE, THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PARCELS WERE CREATED ULTIMATELY DETERMINES HOW MANY PARCELS THE PROPERTY CONTAINS. THE CITY PLANNER HAS SENT THE APPLICATION BACK TO THE APPLICANT • TO BE CHANGED BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY ONE LOT IN THIS TAX LOT. THE PLANNER ALSO SAID THAT IF THE APPLICANT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THIS DETERMINATION HE SHOULD CONTACT THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYOR. UNLESS THE COUNTY SURVEYOR CHANGES HIS INTERPRETATION THE TAX LOT 6700 IS ONLY ONE LOT. IF I CAN BE OF ANY SERVICE PLEASE CALL ME AT 639 -4171. Sincerely, John R. Hadley • Engineering /Survey Specialist Surveyor L� nth i,muun.mc OREGON TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Lake Oswego Branch (( )j 4550 Kruse Way, Ste 175 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 (503)635 -3851 FAX 635 -9137 PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT FOR ISSUING TITLE INSURANCE Date Prepared: December 9, 1996 Oregon Title Insurance Company 4550 Kruse Way, Ste 175 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Attn: Debbie Reyes Reference: ORDER NO : 865926w PARTY REF: SHAWIDOWNING PROP ADDR: .11600_SW Greenburg:Road::: Tigard, OR 97224 OTHER REF: OREGON TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY is prepared to issue title insurance, insuring title of the land shown on Schedule A, subject to the exceptions shown on Schedule B. The proposed policy or policies and indorsements are shown on Schedule A. Issuance of the policy or policies is conditioned on payment of the full premiums, and on recordation of satisfactory instruments establishing the interests of the parties to be insured. This report is based on the condition of title as of the effective date shown on Schedule A. Matters arising after the effective date may affect this report. New exceptions will appear for matters arising through the proposed transaction. Any change in the amount of insurance or type of coverage may cause the premium to change. This report is for the exclusive use of the principals to the contemplated transaction, and the company does not have any liability to any third parties. Until all necessary documents are placed of record, the company reserves the richt to cancel, amend or supplement this preliminary title report for any reason. Any questions concerning this preliminary title report may be directed to: Debbie Reyes • • SCHEDULE A, Page No. 1 • Order No. 865925w 1. The effective date of this preliminary title report is 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1996 2. The policies and indorsements to be issued and the related charges are: Policy /Indorsement Description Charge ALTA Standard Owner's for $218,500.00 757.50 ALTA Extended Lender's for 5 (TO COME) Lender Indorsements 100, 116, 8.1 50.00 Government Service Fee 20.00 3. Fee simple interest in the land described in this report is owned, • at the effective date, by: LLOYD P. SHAW AND DOROTHY J. SHAW, as tenants by the entirety 4. The land referred to in this report is described as follows: PARCEL I: • Beginning at the Northeast corner of the John Hicklin Donation Land Claim situated in Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 west of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon; and running thence South 89° 34' west 968.88 feet; thence South 0° 01' West a distance of 1003.0 feet; thence North 65° 38 1/2' west a distance of 97.10 feet to the,.r..-ue point of beginninc of the tract herein described; thence continuing on said bearing of North 65° 38 1/2' West a distance of 122.43 feet; thence South 0° 01' West a distance of 10.0 feet; thence South 27° 49' West a distance of 126.12 feet to the Northerly line of Greenburg Road; thence following along said Northerly line of Greenburg Road, South 56° 51' East a distance of 117.08 feet; thence North 28° 10' East a distance of 153.27 feet to the point of beginning. (Continued) SCHEDULE A, Page No. 2 Legal Description, Continued Order No.: 865926w PARCEL II: Beginning at a point in the North line of the John Hicklin Donation Land Claim situated in Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, which bears South '89° 34' West 968.88 feet from the Northeast corner of said claim; thence South 0° 01' West 1003.0 fee: to a pipe at the true point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence North 65° 38' 30" West 219.53 feet to a pipe; thence North 0° 01' East 89.0 feet to an iron pipe that is South 88° 36' West 10 fee= from an iron pipe at the Southwest corner of Lot 9, DOGWOOD RIDGE, a plat of record in Washington County, Oregon; thence South 89° 59' East 200 feet to an iron pipe, said point being the Southeast corner of said Lot 9; thence South 0° 01' West 180.00 feet to the true point of beginning. • • • • • • • • • Order No. 865926w Effective Date: 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1996 SCHEDULE B, Page No. 1 Except for the items properly cleared through closing, the proposed policy or policies will not insure against loss or damage which may arise by reason of the following: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records; proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interest, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. • 3. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances, not shown by the public records; unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights or claims or title to water. • 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for taxes, worker's compensation, services, labor, equipment rental or material, heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose. 6. Municipal liens, if any, imposed by the City of Tigard. NOTE: An inquiry has been directed to the City Clerk, and subsequent advice will follow concerning the actual status of such liens. No search has been made or will be made for water, sewer or storm drainage charges unless the .City claims them as liens and reflects them on its lien docket on or before • . the date of closing. Buyers should check with the appropriate City bureau or water and sewer district and obtain a final reading. Such charges are not adjusted in escrow. 7. The subject property lies within the boundaries of the Unified Sewerage Agency and is subject to the levies and assessments thereof. 8. The subject property lies within the boundaries of the Tualatin valley Water District and is subject to the levies and assessments thereof. 9. The rights of the public, Governmental bodies, and public utilities, in and to that portion of the herein described property lying within the limits of SW 92nd Avenue and Greenburg Road. NOTE: We find no judgments, federal or state tax liens against: Miles Downing. (Continued) • • SCHEDULE 13, Page No. 2 Exceptions, Continued Order No.: 865926w NOTE: Taxes for 1996-97, paid in full. Original Amount : $3,025.26 Tax Amount : $3,025.26 Code No. : 023.81 Key No. : R275874 Map No. : 1S135DC-06700 OREGON TITLE INSURANCE . By: Michelle L. Hoke ADS/lcd cc: Miles Downing Dorothy Shaw • 17■ • • 1- , f ••' * • • f - • . , • ' TI II': MAP IS PROVIDED. "' •OURTESY OF OREGON TITLE INSU (: . N Thin map is male solely for the purpose of assisting in locating said premises. and the Company assumes no liability for variations, if any, in dimensions. areas. 111 :md locations ascertained by actual survey. SEE MAP W I S I 3500 Q .., 238I s se so *i too r C . .'' • 6700 $ 9 ,''' 3 t att At. 4.-. a\� . III se • 3002• , . :s w W .O /we .Z " w > - 820 6 3000 • 4 = 1 41 41 , f 7100 Q 1.374.4 .. LITAC. k = s� ` _ • D 2 " ' _ 6800 fV 7200 ? I 6400 . i "" 6.y 00 x t..L e a 3 , ' . `� s• . • ' i • 27At 7000 Q fa.. �e 12 .JS 1111 — f oral _ �.. fnv • /a • r� _. 2 k Q' 6300 • — a -1111 w • - mama - . - - � 1 r 500 A ; -- ' 8 � ii 4 am ' ..:ate 416 •, , tt it ; �3 10 r � 1 2700 't d � _ a• t�. + ro... k • . _ 1 • ' �swc s� • �' 7400 840C 13l• ■ t .:.• .Q ' 6100 _. 1 2600 1 �• t' * .3s 4 _ 29wc * : 7 ■ 2 8 8 »; .1 . , j >; Ile. IS 2 - it, 11 11 8 2 300 ,»e 2602 Q sso^ « ' ~ r c• • r .W. �' 3 5900 IswG A id 2601 ; :. 15 / • 5300 T ./44c. -J�Ac cy�' , I / Ay 1 . s ..f"f. t IPA 1 Q R 6.47 1 . • e J 1 %CSC rrIU , At. *s •:•.1.3.11 2500 �� 4 .r / /�s;r�fJ� S i 4800 WR1At. PT. . .48 $ V .— .. .sswe. I 5400 _ 6 LL Z o' 0 C • k..11 • 1U 8 O 3 s• p .......4 1 j 1600 ' " •y • f his – , 2 .0 4 '` ` It1.f • . 2 ./6A C" 2 r° so *. I 5700�r f f t t '• i p e\ • • 'f ' » 4900 aI 5500 5600 1 �` Iao 11 3.11 600 . 4 2400 moo 1RT 5 .26wc 2401 i 1 170 C–.1 ' W a 1 I AT Mr' 3 :: 1 .� f.• Cal : .Iswc l Z . 13*. ! /s �. G Z s 1111* f I a+ ��J / > /` , T� .+r ■11rr s11'. :laoo I 9 ; 1702 - R . I7Ac. fI 113 E Qty. C.S. 0 AP « i 1� 37�.1t.C� 2000 0-: « i • 1200 I is 3.0/ we . C.S. 7863 . •+ w (CSno.10909) •��.. o ° i c ,•. - — — - I T00%f' 9 . :..::.:... .. City of Tigard TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION . - Commonly Developed JUNE 16, 1997 - 7:30 PM slwyin6 A Bcttcr Crmmnnity 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 HEARINGS 4.1 APPEAL OF TRI- COUNTY CENTER DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION Continued from 5 -19 -97 Planning Commission Meeting 4.2 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97 -0002 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES REQUEST: A proposal to amend the Community Development Code (Title 18) by establishing standards for wireless communication facilities by creating a new Chapter 152 (18.152). The purpose of these regulations are to ensure that wireless communication facilities are regulated in a manner which minimizes visual impacts, promotes universal service to all customers, encourages collocation of facilities to minimize the number of new facilities, ensures structural safety, and ensures all providers are fairly treated. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 11; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1.a, 2.1.1, 2.1.3 and 7.7.1; and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. LOCATION: Citywide 4.3 APPEAL OF MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97 -0002 AMENDED DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION Continued from 6 -2 -97 Planning Commission Meeting 5. OTHER BUSINESS 6. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA ITEM #5.1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Co Community �pm ent S6apingA B&twConmuniry TO: Planning Commission FROM: Mark Roberts ° Of• R.e. DATE: May 8, 1997 SUBJECT: Appeal of A Director's decision to approve °Amended" Minor Land Partition (MLP) 97 -0002 • Background On March 27, 1997, the Director issued a decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97 -0002 subject to • Conditions of Approval. Because a new private street was proposed to serve the partition, the land use decision either should have been issued as a Major Land Partition or should have required a revision for an access easement type of accessway. Alternative methods of access could have also been required. The applicant has requested that the Minor Land Partition be re- issued with revised Conditions of Approval that reflects the limitations of a Minor Land Partition. On April 4, 1997 the Director reissued an Amended Decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97 -0002 subject to Conditions of Approval. On April 23, 1997 Mr. Terry Smith appealed this decision with concerns that the application was incomplete and that the decision was incorrectly processed as a Minor Land Partition instead of a Major Land Partition. Basis For Appea( The appellant states that the application was incorrectly processed as a Minor Land Partition instead of a Major Land Partition. The appellant states that this application was a Major Land Partition because a separate Tract A was proposed for private street purposes to Lots 2 and 3. For this reason, Condition . • of Approval #14 of the amended decision required that the proposed private street be incorporated into Lot 3 as a flag lot. Through this condition the applicants Minor Land Partition met the limitations of the Minor Land Partition process. The amended decision also allowed the applicant the option to combine access for Lots 2 and 3 through the pole area of the Lot 3 flag pole. It is recommended that the Planning Commission make a finding within the Final Order that this option is not allowed because Lot 3 would then be providing access to two (2) lots. In the Director's opinion, this type of access situation would then meet the current definition of a street. The appellant states that the flag portion of a flag lot serves only for access purposes and that the Development Code specifically excludes this area from meeting the net lot area requirement of the underlying zoning district. The Development Code excludes this area from the net lot area requirement, however, a flag lot in this case was not created for street purposes, it was created as a building site. If a flag lot access driveway is defined as a street, then all driveways meet the definition of a street. Many Page 1 of 4 • .• parcels throughout the City that meet the minimum size standard of their underlying zoning district would then be non - conforming as to size because their driveways must be taken out of the net lot area. The appellant states that the amended decision was issued as a Minor Land Partition with an additional Condition of Approval, apparently as a way for the City to avoid requiring the controls of the standards that are in place for Major Land Partitions. _ This is a false statement. The applicant filed a Minor Land Partition and throughout the process, has requested that the City process the application as a Minor Land Partition. The appellant also stated that the application was incomplete based on lack of the following pieces of information that were not, in his opinion, included in the application file. The following is a list of the information he claimed was missing and the status of the information: 1. The appellant states that the application was incomplete because existing trees were not shown on the preliminary plat map. Within the application materials the Director did not require that trees in excess of six (6) inches in caliper be shown on the preliminary plat. Section 18.150.025 Tree Plan Requirements exempts Minor Land Partitions from this submittal requirement and any requirement for mitigation of trees that are removed through the development process. This is set forth in Section 18.150.125 (B)(2). It is recommended that a specific finding stating this be included in the Final Order for the appeal. 2. The appellant states that the application is incomplete because a cross section was not provided for the proposed street right -of -way. A street cross section was provided on the preliminary plat for the proposed private street. Because the applicant's SW Greenburg Road . frontage is fully improved, no street cross section was required for this street frontage. Proposed . street improvements on the SW 92nd Avenue frontage were shown on the preliminary partition - plat. Detailed improvement plans were required as a Condition of Approval for the SW 92nd Avenue frontage. A street cross section was not required for the flag pole because staff believes it is not a street. 3. The appellant states that minutes of the neighborhood meeting were not found from the meeting that was held with the developer on December 23, 1996. No neighborhood meeting is required to be conducted for a Minor Land Partition. The applicant conducted a Neighborhood Meeting because at one point, duplexes were proposed for some or all of the lots that were to be created. Conditionally Permitted Uses such as a duplex in the R-4.5 Zoning District requires a Neighborhood Meeting. 4. Three letters from the appellant to myself regarding the application. Of the three letters the appellant refers to, one of the letters is in the file. This letter dealt with the original decision that was issued. This decision proposed to create a private tract for street purposes to serve Lots 2 and 3. The Director found that the decision was issued in error and an amended decision was issued to specifically address this issue. The two other letters that were sent by the appellant were clarifications of Development Code requirements. The appellant had questions related to the definition of streets and whether a flag lot was a street. These letters cannot be located but were addressed specifically with Mr. Smith. These letters concern issues that were raised by the appeal that was filed. The fact that these letters are missing does not relieve the responsibility of the City to issue a decision based on the application that has been filed. Pace 2 of 4 5. Letter from Mr. Terry Smith to Mr. John Hadley dated February 26, 1997. This letter has not been located. This letter dealt with whether the subject property was technically a single parcel . or two parcels. 6. Letter from Mr. John Hadley to Mr. Terry Smith dated March 4, 1997. A copy of this letter is in the file. The City surveyor confirmed with the County Surveyor that the subject property was a • single parcel. This issue was addressed with the applicant who revised the application from a request to partition two lots into four lots, to one lot into three lots. The applicant submitted a revised application to this effect. 7. A copy of the written notice sending the application back to the applicant as per Mr. Hadley's letter. This letter dealt with the legal description for the property that described the property as two (2) parcels. Mr. Hadley's findings were discussed with the applicant and a revised Minor Land Partition application was filed. Mr. Hadley's letter did not state that the previous application was to be sent back to the applicant. 8. A written request from the applicant to revise the application to incorporate the street into _ Lot three (3). The applicant has provided a letter to this effect that is in the file. Initially, the applicant had orally requested that the decision be reissued. Within the appeal narrative, Mr. Smith referred to repeated written requests for information conceming the City Council's decision not to require tree removal plans for Minor Land Partitions. Mr. Smith states that he repeatedly asked for written demonstration as to the City Council direction. Mr. Smith has not repeatedly in writing, or orally, asked for this information. Upon review of the issues listed within the appeal materials, this information was faxed to Mr. Smith. The materials that were faxed to Mr. Smith are in the land use file for this application. Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal finding that the application was complete based on the materials submitted by the applicant and that the application was correctly processed under the limitations set forth for a Minor Land Partition. Section 18.26 of the Community Development Code defines a street as, "a public or private way that is created to provide ingress or egress for persons to one or more lots, parcels, areas or tracts of land, excluding a private way that is created to provide ingress or egress to such land in conjunction with the use of such land for forestry mining or agricultural purposes ". Section 18.26 of the Community Development Code defines a flag lot as, "a lot located behind a frontage lot, plus a strip out to the street for an access drive. A flag lot results from the subdivision, partitioning of a residential lot or parcel which is more than twice as large as the minimum allowed in the underlying zone but without sufficient frontage to allow two dwellings to front along a street. There are two distinct parts to a flag lot: the "flag" which comprises the actual building site located at the rear portion of the original lot, and the "pole" which provides access from a street to the flag ". It is staffs recommendation that the Planning Commission interpret these definitions to mean that a flag pole is not a street and was not ever intended to be a street. Page 3 of 4 • • Attachments: 4/23/97 memo from the City Recorder to the Planning Manager • Appeal filing form 4/23/97 letter from appellant supporting the appeal 4/23/97 C.D. counter "sign -in" sheet 12 page "Amended" MLP 97 -0002 Notice of Decision Site Plan Map Vicinity Map i:kurpInlmark_r1m1p97 -02.api • • Page 4 of 4 NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION : A • MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97 -0002 crry or no,►ao DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION ..;::;;, .': � SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: • DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION Minor Land Partition MLP 97 -0002 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested to partition one (1) parcel of 1.02 acres; into three (3) parcels of 8,115, 14,700 and 17,017 square feet respectively. _ - APPLICANT: Mr. Miles Downing - OWNER: Mrs. Dorothy Shaw 9757 SW McDonald Street • • - • • • • - 11600 SW Greenburg Road __ Tigard, OR 97224 - - • - Tigard, OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE - • PLAN ..• - - • • DESIGNATION: • • Low Density Residential; 1 -5 Dwelling Units Per Acre. - ZONING •• ...: • _ ; ,- : = - DESIGNATION: . Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. The R-4.5 Zoning District Allows Low Density Detached, Single - Family Residences. - • LOCATION: 11600 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 06700. - • APPLICABLE • . - : _ • . . -...._ _ . .. REVIEW - . - - • - _ CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.162 'and 18.164. SECTION II: DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development: Direr's cto designee • has APPROVED the above request subject to conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION . • . MLP 97 70002 - DOWNING/SHAW PARTITION . . - • • PACE 9 ~ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT, THE FOLLOWING • CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: • • (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Brian Rager In the Engineering Department (503) 639 - 4171.; , Y :; >:,.,: • 1. Prior to approval of the final plat, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Five (5) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department Once redline comments are addressed and the plans are revised, the design engineer shall then submit eight (8) sets of revised drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate for final review and approval. (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 name, address, and telephone' number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. 3. Any necessary off -site utility easements shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and shall be submitted to, and accepted by the City prior to construction. : • . 4. Additional right -of -way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW 92nd • Avenue to increase the right -of -way (ROW) to 25 feet from the centerline. A ROW , radius of 25 feet shall also be dedicated at the intersection of SW 92nd Avenue and • SW Greenburg Road to provide room for the curb return, sidewalk, and wheelchair ramp. These dedications shall be shown on the face of the final plat 5. The applicant shall construct standard half (iii) street improvements along the frontage of SW 92nd Avenue. 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. curb; d. storm drainage, including any off -site storm drainage necessary to convey subsurface runoff _ e. a five (5) -foot concrete sidewalk; • f. street striping; g. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer h. underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay a fee in -lieu of undergrounding existing overhead utilities); _ i. street signs; j. driveway apron (if applicable); and PAGE 2 NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97.0002 - DO INGSHAW PARTmON M t • k. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 92nd Avenue safely, as approved by the Engineering Department. • 6. The applicant shall place a joint driveway easement on the final plat to indicate any shared driveways. • 7. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connections prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. 8. The applicant's proposed storm drainage design shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. 9. 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 ". 10. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 92nd Avenue underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in -lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot If the fee option is chosen, it shall be paid prior to recording of the final plat. : _- 1.:t ... • 11. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: = • . . a. Three (3) mylar copies of the partition plat prepared by a land surveyor • licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. b. The partition plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum • standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. • • c. The right -of -way dedication . for SW 92nd Avenue shall be made on the partition plat • 12. The Tualatin Valley Fire District reviewed this application and stated that the plans were not approved. Plans reflecting the changes listed under the agency comments' section of this report shall be submitted to the Tualatin Valley Fire District. CONTACT: Gene Birchill, Tualatin Valley Fire District (503) 526 -2469. 13. The applicant shall provide a street tree planting plan. - The applicant shall also bond for or provide another acceptable form of assurance for the planting of street trees. The street trees shall be planted prior to the release of the bond. Where possible, existing trees that are to be preserved may serve as the required street tree plantings. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division (503) 639 -4171. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION • - WP 97-0002 - DOWNING/SHAW PARTTON • - PAGE 3 •. 14. The applicant shall revise the partition plat to eliminate the private street. The applicant may provide an access and/or utility easement for Lot 2 instead of directly accessing SW 92nd Avenue. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division • (503) 639 -4171. :.; \PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, THE • CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED. >,��,,,.� 15. Prior to issuance of building permits on this site, the applicant shall obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all grading for the lots, all on -site private utility installation (water, sewer, storm, etc.), and all driveway construction. (NOTE: this permit is separate from any permit issued by the Engineering Department for _ work in the public right-of-way.) . 16. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with one (1) recorded mylar copy of the partition plat. _ . - 17. Prior to issuance of any building permits within this project, the public improvements .. shall be deemed substantially complete by the City Engineer._ Substantial completion `' shall be when: t. 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. 18. Prior to issuance of the building permits for. Lots 2 and 3, the applicant shall pay the standard water quality fee of $180.00 per lot - ; 19. Flag lot access screening shall be provided along the affected portions of the access easement. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division (503) 639 -4171. \.r S APPROVAL SHALL BE VAUD FOR :18 MONTH . ::'`° z . k:: .s:: FROM THE EFFECTNE DATE OF THIS DECISION: > >- ::::_:' ..:::::: SECTION III: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History, . . The site is presently developed with a detached, single - family residence and garage. The site has approximately a five (5) percent slope towards SW Greenburg Road. The site has large, mature fir trees throughout the portion of the property that is to be developed. The applicant states that Mr. Shaw planted these trees years ago on the property. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION - LIP 974002 - DOWNING/SHAW PARTITION - . - - . PAGE 4 • IP On March 27, 1997 the City issued a Decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97 -0002 subject to Conditions of Approval. Because a new private street was proposed to serve the partition, the land use decision either should have been issued as a Major Land Partition or have required a revision for an access easement type of accessway or other acceptable method for the lots that are being created. The applicant has requested that the Minor Land Partition be re- issued with revised Conditions of Approval that reflects the limitations of a Minor Land Partition. For these reasons, an amended decision has been issued based on the criteria set forth for approval of a Minor Land Partition.. Site Information and Proposal Description; • The applicant proposes to develop the areas that were planted with fir trees with a private street and utilities in order to develop two (2) new single- family, detached residences. SECTION IV: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS • COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: • • Impact Study: Section 18.32.050 states the applicant shall either specifically with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts • of the - development : _ Alternatively, an 'applicant may ?..: specifically concur with the-requirement for dedication of right - of-way to the public .. and waive the impact study analysis by dedicating .the„right -of way and completion of a waiver statement An impact study waiver was provided. The applicant proposes to develop under existing required system development fees and construct full half- street improvements for their property frontage on SW 92nd Avenue. The proposed half street • improvements would connect with and continue the existing street improvements on SW Greenburg Road, and are being developed to comply with current Local. Street standards : • as reviewed within this report. The applicant also proposes to construct a private street to serve this development. • Through this amended decision, the private street will • be _ incorporated into one (1) or more of the lots as an access easement - The easement may be a shared accessway at the applicants' discretion. 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% of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial street system. Presently, the TIF for each trip that is generated is $169.00 The total TIF for a detached, single- family dwelling is $1,690.00. - Because the applicant has proposed to construct improvements on a Local Street, no TIF credits are applicable in conjunction with the development of these streets. Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's of approximately 53,380.00 (51,690 x 2 dwelling units). Based on the estimate NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION _. _ . . MLP 97- 0002 - DOWNINGISHAW PARTETION . � . _ PAGE 5 •,� • that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of the project traffic impact on major streets is $10,560.00 ($5,280 x 2 dwelling units). Therefore the development of this project will result in an unmitigated traffic impact of $7,180.00. • • For this reason, the cost of all required and potential future 'street improvements (as discussed within this report), are less than the impact and, therefore; roughly proportional to the impact of the development. • Minor Land Partition - Approval Standards; Section 18.162.040 contains the following • general approval criteria for a Minor Land Partition: 1. The proposal conforms with the City's Comprehensive Plan; • • 2. The proposed partition complies with all statutory and .ordinance requirements and regulations; _ 3. Adequate public are available to serve the proposal; - • • • • - ' 4. All proposed lots conform to the size and dimensional requirements of this title; and 5. All proposed improvements meet City and applicable agency standards (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83 -52).. .,..:. _ ., a .... - _ . • .; _ , • The proposed lot size and type of development conforms with the type of density range allowed by the Comprehensive Plan as required by Criteria 1. The applicable standards that implement the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property are reviewed elsewhere within this report.. • - - - •- - • .... . _ _ f , • Each of the proposed parcels would exceed the 7,500 square foot minimtim.:f The proposed • parcels would also exceed the 50 -foot average width requirement, as required by Section 18.50. The parcels, as proposed, would allow the development of up to two (2) additional • detached, • single-family . residential dwelling units. ; . The applicant can choose to file a Conditional Use Permit application to develop a duplex on Lot 3. - It may also be possible to partition Lot 3 in the future to develop an additional dwelling unit or duplex. The partition, as proposed, does not preclude any future partition(s). • ' The development, as proposed, does not exceed the maximum residential density allowed under Chapter 18.92 for a 1.02 acre parcel within the R -4.5 Zoning District. After subtraction of 7,500 square feet for the minimum lot size of the zoning district, for the existing home that • is to be preserved, a net site area of 36,931 square feet remains. By dividing the net area by 7,500 square feet, this site yields the opportunity to develop up to four (4) dwelling units. . Because the site has in excess of 100 feet of frontage on SW Greenburg Road and SW . 92nd Avenue Section 18.100 requires the planting of street trees. Prior to recording the Final Plat the applicant shall provide a street tree planting plan. The - applicant shall also bond, or provide another acceptable form of assurance, for the planting of street trees. The street trees shall be planted prior to the release of the bond. Where possible existing trees that are to be preserved may serve as the required street tree plantings. Upon completion of the appeal period, the development will have complied with NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION M1.P 97-0002 - DOINNINGISHAW PARTTTION PAGE 6 • the statutory requirements of the City of Tigard for development review, as required by Criteria 2. Adequate public facilities are available, or have been required to be provided to serve this site, as set forth in Sections 18.164.03Q (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer) and 18.164.100 (Storm Drain), as required by Criteria 3. These requirements are reviewed by the Engineering Department in this report. • . . • ' v . .._ :1/44 The new parcels do not exceed a two and one -half, to one, length to depth ratio. The 50-_ . foot average width requirement is also met by these parcels. For these reasons,. the proposed parcel configurations conform with size and dimensional requirements of the R-4.5 Zoning District, as required by Criteria 4. - . _ - . . • As proposed, the improvements will comply with City and applicable' agency standards in ` satisfaction with Criteria 5, as reviewed through the Budding Permit Plan Check process: All three (3) parcels comply with the Basic Solar Access requirements because the north to south lot dimension of these parcels would exceed 90 feet in length. Future development of structures on the new parcels will require compliance with Solar Balance Point Standards of the Solar Accessibility requirements of the Community Development Code: '..•' - • • -- • - - Section 18.162.050 contains the following special provisions for lots created through the Partition Process: - - ten - 1. Lot Width: The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot - requirement of the applicable zoning district - • - 2. Lot Area: The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district.* In • the case of a flag lot, , the accessway may not be included in the lot 'area calculation. , 3. Lot Frontage: Each lot created through the partition process shall front a _ public right- of-way by at least 15 feet -or have a legally recorded minimum 15- foot -wide access easement - - - . - _ - _ 4. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district = 5. Front Yard Determination for Flag Lot When the partitioned lot is a flag lot,•the • developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided that no side •- yard is less than 10 feet Structures shall generally be located so as to - maximize separation from existing structures. • • '1 • 6. Screening on Flag Lots: A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.100.080 and 18.100.090. ' = Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development 7. Fire Protection: The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire fighting capabilities. . _ 8. Reciprocal Easements: Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement that will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. = . NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION • MLP 97-0002 - DOWNING1SHAW PARTITION - - PAGE 7 9. Accessway: Any accessviray shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.108, Access, Egress, and Circulation. 10. Floodplain: Where landfill andlor development is allowed within or adjacent to • the one - hundred -year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction �f a pedestrian and or bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian and or bicycle pathway plan. Criterion's 1, 2, 3 and 4 are satisfied. The parcels will exceed the area requirement of 7,500 square feet required for properties zoned R -4.5. The newly created parcels would have, in excess of 15 feet of direct frontage on a public street or fifteen feet of frontage on an access easement Lot 1 has direct frontage on SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue, in satisfaction of the lot frontage requirement Lots 2 would either have a minimum of 68 feet of direct access frontage on SW 92nd Avenue or be accessed through a shared access easement with Lot 3 in satisfaction of Criteria 3. The standards for setbacks, landscaping, and clear vision requirements will be reviewed for new structures at the time of Building Permit Plan Check Review. The existing residence complies with the front, rear, and sideyard setback requirements after the creation of a new lot line in the : rear yard, in satisfaction with Criteria 4. Criterion's 5 and 6 have been addressed. Because it does not meet the definition a flag lot, Lot 2 is not required to take access separately from an access easement Because SW 92nd Avenue is a Local Street, Lot 2 can take direct access through SW 92nd Avenue. However, the applicant can elect to combine access for these lots. Depending on the access easement configuration a flag lot setback determination will be necessary for Lot 3. l• Flag lot setback standards will be applied, where applicable, .through the Building Permit Plan Check process. • Through the Building Permit review, fire hydrants shall be consistent with Uniform Fire Code • standards, thereby, satisfying Criteria 7. Criteria 8, requiring a reciprocal access and maintenance agreement, has been addressed through the recommended Conditions of Approval. A shared maintenance and access easement shall be provided where combined access for Lots 2 and 3 is requested by the applicant. - Criteria 9 will be satisfied through the requirement for a 10-foot-wide minimum paved driveway to serve Lot 3; or if desired, up to two (2), of the three (3) lots. Criteria 10 has been met because the parcel is not located within the 100 -year flood plain or in areas with slopes exceeding 25 percent. Because the site does not adjoin the 100 -year flood plain, dedication of areas for pathway purposes is not applicable. • PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: ; . - Section's 18.164.030(E1(1)(a) (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), 18.164.100 (Storm Drains) shall be satisfied. Development Code provisions related to Storm Water Quantity, Storm Water Quality, Existing Utility Line Undergrounding, Water Service, Site Permits, Grading and Erosion Control are also addressed below: NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97-0002 - DOWNING/SHAW PARTmON • PAGE 8 Street This site is adjacent to SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue. Southwest Greenburg Road is classified as a major collector street and is fully improved adjacent to this site. No additional right -of -way dedications or street improvements are necessary (except for the 92nd Avenue intersection, which will be discussed next). • SW 92nd Avenue Southwest 92nd Avenue is a local residential street that is paved, but not improved, to City standards. The existing ROW width is approximately 40 feet. The applicant proposes to dedicate an additional five (5) feet to give 25 feet from centerline. This ROW dedication will be adequate. In addition, the applicant will need to dedicate additional ROW at the intersection to make room for the curb return. City design standards call for a ROW radius of 25 feet. This dedication shall also be shown on the face of the final plat. The roadway surface of SW 92nd Avenue is paved, but the structural section does not appear to meet City standards for a local residential street In order to mitigate the additional traffic that will be generated from this development, the applicant will construct half- street improvements on SW -92nd Avenue adjacent to this site. ,These improvements . will also include installation of a curb return at the northeast corner of the intersection at Greenburg Road, which will result in a much safer intersection. = . _The applicant will be : , . required to design and construct the street improvements to City standards. Any necessary pavement taper required to tie the new improvement into the existing edge of pavement shall be accomplished beyond the site frontage. _ : ; _ r .. ; _ Access will be provided to the new lots through a new paved driveway onto SW 92nd Avenue. If the driveway will be shared, the applicant will need to place a joint driveway easement on the final plat. • Sanitary Sewer There is an existing 8 -inch public sewer line in SW 92nd Avenue that can adequately serve this site. The location of the sewer taps shall be approved by the City prior to construction. - _ Storm Drainage There is an existing public storm drainage line in SW Greenburg Road that collects street runoff, including the catch basin at the northeast corner of the SW 92nd Avenue intersection. The applicant proposes to extend a public storm line in SW 92nd Avenue in order to pick up the street drainage and potential runoff from this site. The plan also indicates the lot drainage may be piped directly south through an easement over Lot 1 to the storm pipe in SW Greenburg Road. • NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION . MI.P 97-0002 • DC.W4INGISHAW PARTITION - PAGE 9 The design of this storm system shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant may need to adjust the location of the existing catch basin at the street corner in order to complete the new curb return. 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. For small sites such as this, the R&O makes an exception that would allow the applicant to pay a fee in -lieu of constructing an on -site facility. Staff recommends that the applicant pay the fee in -lieu. Grading and Erosion Contra( _ - • USA R&O 91-47 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 that accelerates erosion. Per R&O 91-47, the applicant is required to submit an erosion , control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. =• • •• • Existing Overhead Utility Lines • • - . • • . • I .:.t.. - There are existing overhead utilities on SW 92nd Avenue. Section 18.164.120 of the TMC requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in -lieu of undergrounding can be paid. If the fee in -lieu is proposed, it is equal to $27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the • overhead lines. - Site Permit Required The applicant is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on- site private utility installations (water, sewer, storm, etc.),•and driveway construction. This permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of the permit from the Engineering Department to allow work in the ROW. Water This site lies within Tualatin Valley Water District's (TVWD) service area. The applicant's plan indicates that there is an existing public water line in SW 92nd Avenue.. Any proposed connections to, or extensions of, the public water line shall be reviewed and approved by TVWD. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97-0002 - DOWNINGISHAW PARTITION PAGE 10 • SECTION V: QJHER STAFF COMMENTS The Building Division reviewed this application and had the following comment: Lots 2 and 3 can easily drain through the easement at east side of Lot 1 to SW Greenburg Road. The Police Department reviewed this application and had the following comment: Addresses are needed to be marked for each home on SW 92nd Avenue, so we can locate the homes easily. No other Staff comments or objections have been received. • SECTION VI: AGENCY COMMENTS - ..... -. • - • - The Tualatin Valley Fire District reviewed this application and stated that the plans were IIQt approved. Plans reflecting the following comments shall be submitted to Gene Birchill of the Fire Marshall's office: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (15 • feet for not more than two (2) dwelling units), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not • • less than 13 feet, 6 inches. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.1). Where fire apparatus access roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and maintain the minimum 20-foot-wide unobstructed driving surface, 'No .. Parking' signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and in tumarounds as needed. (UFC Sec. 902.2.4). Signs shall read 'NO PARKING -• FIRE LANE - TOW • AWAY ZONE, ORS 98.810' and shall be installed with a clear space above ground level of seven (7) feet. Signs shall be 12- inches -wide by 18 inches high and shall have black or red letters and border on a white background. (UFC Sec. 901.4.5.(1)(2) & (3). No other Agency comments or objections have been received. • • • SECTION VII: PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance • X Affected government agencies • NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING/SHAW PARTITION PAGE 11 • Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON WEDNESDAY APRIL 23, 1997 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Sections 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.340 of the Community Development Code that provides that a written appeal must be filed within ten (10) days after notice has been given and sent. The deadline for filing an appeal is specified below. The appeal fee schedule and • appeal form are available from the Community Development Department or Planning Division at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. I THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 P.M. ON APRIL 23, 1997. . I Questions: _ • If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division or Community Development Department of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 6394171. : • - - 7 /4,44 • April 4.1997 '. PREPARED BY: Mark Roberts • DATE . , Associate Planner, AICP . • �� •��� April 4. 1997 APPROVED`BY: Richard Bewersd • . DATE • Planning Manager t1CURPt.NMMRK_RVIALP97.02 DEC NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97-0002 - DOWNING/SHAW PARTITION PAGE 12 i Aft CC j W CJ CDR MTN 3 J NEIGHBORS nom. IDS HOUSE 3 a I _ v. 4, 97.51 9751 NON LOT 2 vl 8115 SO FT LOT 3 17,017 SO FT .1 L.! lac • W t 6•c� 0 J • LIIE • • 3 VAT !EMI - - 416 i g . ... , - 0.1 2 •• _ l i , „......,.,...:-,- ... �orT a p „R:-../ataegi_ ./// '!.' 416 la. ii ntar 1 I I I I il I I I 4111; U-1- _. -.. . . . 4/ I -, , .....:..-.. eb z A. 4. -"li g"' = •;. 0 p# was: Weft vi an to in 4 1 0 a ' 1 • l,1., o LOT 1 ^� .�R ba ti 14,700 � }I"' • SO FT N ! , ` • t• Cr j�' ��i P sr � zaco is * . ■ � ` .0 �: j o J el O /1 / 4. �� 'II , 1 STORM DRAINS TO CURB G V PLOT PLAN ) C A$E HO. EXHIBIT MA P s Downing/Shaw Partition 1� MLP 97 -0002 1 0 - • 1 - ! I f I_____ 1 , 1 i i t 1111■ _ • I I i . I 1 i l 11 1110-111 1116,, -; 1 I ' li" I a _ I \ $1 gm n -=1 vr WA - ,., , _.___ e. as _ ' • ,,,,I • - ,. - , ' • - Ng ''' ', • — W • gom I 1 I h 7S11 1 E1 1% ' 4 S • -: . 1 E 1 li■AS LA V ‘V ' ' ' LOA/1MA I CZ i db. .,, 5 II - --I - .lif • ' 6 : Ai N\ LN 1. . .L..I I T,,,,_ ,:a • Ark , ,. - • ! 0) 1 -t Ph a ei4/ 1 1117-7 ' 0 1 I al i 6 * ' 1 71 i---I-- 11//, 4 ;...?;i. Maw mar IP -, 7■04;\<:00! f■ ,;'k. kz(T ■ i* 4 vii■ s ,'. . [clay Map Ivr , 1 ._ . ilLP 97-0002 T 6 : Dovming/Shaw Partition oa e MLp en7-oa • i • S ®rL Y14L.._ it r new. 5 -19 -1997 (Revised and submitted 5 -27 -1997) fl� ° a To: Planning Commission, City of Tigard From: The property owners of the SW 92nd Ave Neighborhood. Thank you for takeing the time to understand our position Because The comprehensive plan for the City of Tigard states, that the purpose of the plan is to maintain and improve the quality of life for the residents, by prohibiting development which would cause a diminution in the existing quality of life, and by providing for the retention of natural and cultural resources which contribute to the livability of the community. Please see (Comprehensive plan. Introduction A.1,4,10 Purpose) And because The Tigard municipal code states that part of its purpose is to ensure that the development of property is commensurate with the physical characteristics of the land, and in general, to promote and protect the public welfare; To conserve needed open space and protect historic, cultural, natural and scenic resources; and to provide for the review of those uses which may have a detrimental impact on the community. Please see 18.02.010 (a,m,n) And because the decision of this approval authority is based on proof by the applicant that the application fully complies with the Comprehensive plan and that consideration may be given to proof of a mistake in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application . And because this commission may adopt findings and conclusions submitted by our neighborhood which would demonstrate conditions we will request as being reasonable, consistent with the comprehensive plan, and as beneficial to the residents of Tigard. (Conditions concern minimum lot sizes; Larger setbacks; Preservation of significant natural features and dedication of easements) 18.32.250 Please see that the application must fully comply with the comprehensive plan and the relevant standards of the applicable ordinances. The city has only addressed some of the standards and has not addressed the comprehensive plan We respectfully request that if after considering our position the commission would adopt those findings, conclusions and recommendations it deems to be reasonable and consistent with the purpose and priorities of the Comprehensive plan. We assert that the following findings are true and reasonable. 1. That due to the fact our street serves a number of properties which are predominantly and characteristically consistent with each other; and that our street has no outlet or alternate point of entry, and that it was created specifically to serve those properties, that our neighborhood /development is well defined as being those properties using SW 92nd as access to Greenburg Rd. 2. The subject development application proposes to access Greenburg by SW 92nd which was initially a private drive until the city took it over. We hold that any new lots such as those pioposed will be a part of our neighborhood not only by its acdess'and proximity, but also bX it4 social, scenic/visual, economic, and environmental impact.• . . - , . . 3. The existing development (Those properties accessing SW 92nd) is over forty years old, it was developed as 9 premier development which was distinguished by it's beauty, privacy (houses orientated facing SW 92nd), unique stand of trees and other amenities. 14.lots are 18,900 SF or larger, 2 lots are 16,262 SF and one pre - existing lot is 10,890 SF , all of these lois are marked by one residence and fir trees forming a common and mutually Beneficial open, and natural area. Residents of this street have chosen this neighborhood because of it's character and its beauty which is unique to this part of the city. The properties in this neighborhood hold a higher residential value than most along Greenburg. The Comprehensive plan states that it has found that this part of Tigard along Greenburg is struggling against a decline in the livability due in part to the declining residential land and property values and overall noise, congestion and high levels of activity in residential areas caused by the proximity of commercial and office uses. We understand that a public /private partnership has established an urban renewal plan in order to implement commercial development in this area. We agree with the finding that • • • • buffering is needed to ensure protection from the visual, noise and other adverse impacts which will °result from this redevelopment of the strip along Greenburg road. Please see the Comprehensive plan 11.8 We also find, that the reason that we have been able to escape or remain secluded for the most part from the decline in livability that others have suffered is because: Consistent character as described above has been maintained through out what we have defined as our neighborhood. This consistency offers privacy, reinforces values and livability from one property to the next. 4. The proposed application as approved by the director will not be consistent/harmonious with our existing neighborhood and will violate its existing character which will cause a lessening of values, environmental amenities, livability and welfare to those residents because it: A. Allows the developer to develop at a higher density than that which is demonstrated as predominant in our neighborhood. B. Allows for the complete deforestation of that property. C. Provides for 1/2 street improvement which will be more detrimental than beneficial due to the following reasons: 1. Because the street does not, and is not likely to have an outlet, and because accessing properties have more value and potential to remain as they are, there is no other foreseeable development likely which would bring about further improvement on either side of the street. We find that the 1/2 street improvement will bring about a sense of oddness and great contrast, it will only make the rest of our street and particularly adjoining and facing properties look unimproved.. We will have a sidewalk and widened section of street, on one side only, at what marks the introduction to our neighborhood , this improvement will stop at the property line with no real hope of ever being finished. We find no demonstration of a hazard existing or need for capacity which would justify the diminution of the quality of life which we have concluded will result from this action. 2. We discovered from the developer at the meeting he held on December 23, 1996 to disseminate information regarding the application, that he would have proposed development consistent with the existing neighborhood but the 1/2 street improvement was to onerous on him. The conclusion is that this requirement by the city is the essential factor in the overall diminution this development threatens to bring to the welfare of the residents. It does not serve any purpose or bring any benefit that justifies its impact on the existing neighborhood. 18.164.030 Streets (c, iii). Please see ordinance provisions for waiving 1/2 street improvement. The city has not demonstrated the need for this which would justify the adverse impact which we have demonstrated will occur. This is not consistent with the purpose of the plan which is for the City to ensure that development is prohibited which would cause diminution to the quality of life. 5. Because the Statewide planning goals are to conserve open space and protect natural resources; And because the comprehensive plan has found that: "Vegetation contributes to the aesthetic quality of the community. Vegetation controls erosion, absorbs sound and moderates temperatures. It also affects the flow and moisture content of the air, reduction of the air pollution and glare, and softens the impact of the urban environment "; and because it is the Plan policy that the city shall designate, by definition not by location, areas that are valued for their fragile character as habitats for plants, animals or aquatic life, or having endangered plant or animal species, or specific natural features, valued for the need to protect natural areas; and because the plan has established as an implementation strategy that: Where there exists large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land, the city shall ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of vegetation areas through the planned development process and the tree cutting ordinance. And because the ordinance states that the commission may take notice of comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances of other planning authorities within the Metropolitan Service district boundary, we refer to the City of Beaverton's definition of a "significant grove" of trees as being significant if: a. The grove is relatively mature and evenly aged and b. The grove has a purity of species composition or is of rare or unusual nature, and c. The grove is in a healthy growing condition, or • • • • d. The grove has a crucial functional and/or aesthetic relationship to a natural resource And because the trees stand out on the horizon as you approach from any direction they mark the landscape and because they do consist of a purity of species, we find that groves like this area are not common in our part of the city and are unique. Regardless, The City council has ordained that strategy 4 does not require that the tree removal ordinance necessarily be circumscribed to those areas (large and unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas) which it describes. Rather, it requires that the ordinance must carry out the strategy by ensuring that the development proposals do not substantially alter the character of the described areas. So what this is saying is that it applies to more than just the Little Bull Mountain area, it is by definition, not by location. We also find that our area is a natural area characterized by observable animal life (Squirrels, raccoons, a variety of birds, waterfowl, rabbits, nutria, etc.) which is supported by the stand of trees. Please see aerial photo. These areas are valued by the residents and provide value to those properties. Please see State wide planning goal #5, Comprehensive plan 3.4 findings, policies 3.4.1.c, Implementation strategy 4, Tigard municipal code 18.32.210, City of Beaverton ordinance 2050, section 266. We have demonstrated that there exists a large and unique stand of trees and major vegetation within the planning area on undeveloped land (land capable of further partitioning) however the applicant nor the city has proved that they will ensure that the development application does not substantially alter the character of the vegetation area by the tree cutting section of the ordinance. To the contrary, the director has processed the development application without the location of trees over six inches accurately shown on the partition map. This is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, it does not comply. Please see 18.162.070(c) application submission requirements for partitioning. We Find that under the administrative action which approved this application that: If the proposed lots were forty acres each, fully wooded with a purity of tree species which were mature and supported animal life that it would have been approved with no requirement to identify or protect the trees. They could be clear cut as part of the development application and then the developer after harvesting the timber could then apply for anything which requires site review but it would be to late for that process to offer any protection of those areas. There is no proof from the applicant or the city that this action complies with the comprehensive plan in this regard. 6. Because as we have asserted the application as proposed and approved is not consistent with the characteristics of our existing development (density, open and natural areas), we find it to be a major modification to our existing development which will diminish it's livability. Again the street was created specifically to serve our existing development. This will be part of our development because it proposes access to SW Greenburg by access to SW 92nd. We do not argue whether or not it has the right to access our street, only that it will be part of our development and should be consistent with our development to the degree it will support its welfare and not by its inconsistency introduce adverse impacts or diminution to our existing quality of life. 7. We find the reason for delineating major partitions from minor partitions as applying to the tree ordinance is because the difference between the two is the creation of a road or street, there is no other difference. We find the City's definition of a Road or Street to include that of a private street which is "An accessway which is under private ownership ". We find that because the creation of an accessway is the only difference between a minor and major partition as currently written in the code, the accessway becomes the hinge point for the tree ordinance applicability, this intent is because accommodating the accessway will potentially require the removal of trees which structures and driveways would not necessarily require. • • • 0 We find that the creation of a flag lot should be considered a major partition because the creation of the private accessway whether it stands alone or whether it is incorporated into the lot it has the same: a. Purpose or uses, which is to: 1. To provide vehicular access to SW 92nd 2. To provide a right of way for the utilities b. Impact, which will be the potential necessity for the removal of trees c. Capacity d. Agency access /emergency requirements e. Restrictions and use limitations, the area for the accessway cannot be used for lot area calculations. f. Definition, an accessway which is under private ownership We find that a driveway is not the same thing as an accessway because it a. Can be used for lot area calculations b. Its use is for off street parking whereas in most cases (And specifically this case) flag lot accessways require the restrictions placing no parking signs along its length. As a result we conclude that the accessway portion of a flag lot meets the definition of a private street because it is an accessway under private ownership, and that a driveway and accessway are not reasonably consistent with each other in their purposes, restrictions, and requirements. Therefore we find that since nothing has changed between the first decision and the amended decision regarding purpose, impact, capacity, agency requirements, restrictions or definition, that his application should be processed under the controls of a major partition. We find that the history of this application shows clearly that the City has incorporated the street into the lot solely for the purposes of evading the control of a major partition. Please see the first decision and the amended decision. In this case the protection that is intended is being be routed 8. What the comprehensive plan has applied as appropriate density for our development is not what it essentially is, or what the owners of those properties understood, or want. The two are not compatible for the same reasons the application is not consistent with the development pattern of our neighborhood (Diminution in livability, general welfare and quality of life for the existing residents). We find the classification as a mistake and not consistent with the purpose, priorities or goals of the ORS, Statewide planning goals or the Plan itself. Therefore the application does not comply with the comprehensive plan, the applicant is required to prove that it does. We therefore recommend that the planning commission deny the application because it does not comply with the comprehensive plan, or at a minimum place the following conditions on its approval . Remove the requirement for the complete 1/2 street improvement. (This action alone will save one significant tree as the sidewalk would cause its removal.). Require that the developer only widen it to match the approximate width and contour of the majority of the existing street nearby going up the street away from Greenburg road and to provide for the drainage needs on that side of the street. But under no circumstances harm the significant fir tree at the NW corner of the lot. Require that no parking signs be placed along the subject property line with SW 92nd. On both sides of the street to satisfy any concern the City may have regarding safety or capacity. Require that any development be consistent with the predominant character and density of our neighborhood as we have defined and that at a minimum require that the city take steps ensure that the character of this stand of trees remain substantially unaltered by requiring the identification of trees on the partition map and full compliance with the tree plan. • • • • We find that the creation of a flag lot should be considered a major partition because the creation of the private accessway whether it stands alone or whether it is incorporated into the lot it has the same: a. Purpose or uses, which is to: 1. To provide vehicular access to SW 92nd 2. To provide a right of way for the utilities b. Impact, which will be the potential necessity for the removal of trees c. Capacity d. Agency access /emergency requirements e. Restrictions and use limitations, the area for the accessway cannot be used for lot area calculations. f. Definition, an accessway which is under private ownership We find that a driveway is not the same thing as an accessway because it a. Can be used for lot area calculations b. Its use is for off street parking whereas in most cases (And specifically this case) flag lot accessways require the restrictions placing no parking signs along its length. As a result we conclude that the accessway portion of a flag lot meets the definition of a private street because it is an accessway under private ownership, and that a driveway and accessway are not reasonably consistent with each other in their purposes, restrictions, and requirements. Therefore we find that since nothing has changed between the first decision and the amended decision regarding purpose, impact, capacity, agency requirements, restrictions or definition, that his application should be processed under the controls of a major partition. We find that the history of this application shows clearly that the City has incorporated the street into the lot solely for the purposes of evading the control of a major partition. Please see the first decision and the amended decision. In this case the protection that is intended is being be routed. 8. What the comprehensive plan has applied as appropriate density for our development is not what it essentially is, or what the owners of those properties understood, or want. The two are not compatible for the same reasons the application is not consistent with the development pattern of our neighborhood (Diminution in livability, general welfare and quality of life for the existing residents). We find the classification as a mistake and not consistent with the purpose, priorities or goals of the ORS, Statewide planning goals or the Plan itself. Therefore the application does not comply with the comprehensive plan, the applicant is required to prove that it does. We therefore recommend that the planning commission deny the application because it does not comply with the comprehensive plan, or at a minimum place the following conditions on its approval . Remove the requirement for the complete 1/2 street improvement. (This action alone will save one significant tree as the sidewalk would cause its removal.). Require that the developer only widen it to match the approximate width and contour of the majority of the existing street nearby going up the street away from Greenburg road and to provide for the drainage needs on that side of the street. But under no circumstances harm the significant fir tree at the NW corner of the lot. Require that no parking signs be placed along the subject property line with SW 92nd. On both sides of the street to satisfy any concern the City may have regarding safety or capacity. Require that any development be consistent with the predominant character and density of our neighborhood as we have defined and that at a minimum require that the city take steps ensure that the character of this stand of trees remain substantially unaltered by requiring the identification of trees on the partition map and full compliance with the tree plan. Thank you for your time to carefully consider the basis of our findings. Please find the attached list of signatures indicating those property owners on SW 92nd Ave which these findings represent. 5 -19 -1997 To: Planning Commission, City of Tigard From: The property owners of the SW 92nd Ave Neighborhood. Because The comprehensive plan for the City of Tigard states, that the purpose of the plan is to maintain and improve the quality of life for the residents, by prohibiting development which would cause a diminution in the existing quality of life, and by providing for the retention of natural and cultural resources which contribute to the livability of the community. Please see (Comprehensive plan. Introduction A.1,4,10 Purpose) And because The Tigard municipal code states that part of its purpose is to ensure that the development of property is commensurate with the physical characteristics of the land, and in general, to promote and protect the public welfare; To conserve needed open space and protect historic, cultural, natural and scenic resources; and to provide for the review of those uses which may have a detrimental impact on the community. Please see 18.02.010 (a,m,n) And because the decision of this approval authority is based on proof by the applicant that the application fully complies with the Comprehensive plan and that consideration may be given to proof of a mistake in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application . And because this commission may adopt rutdines and conclusions submitted by our neighborhood which would demonstrate conditions we will request as being reasonable, consistent with the comprehensive plan, and as beneficial to the residents of Tigard. (Conditions concern minimum lot sizes; Larger setbacks; Preservation of significant natural features and dedication of easements) 18.32.250 Please see that the application must holly comply with the comprehensive plan and the relevant standards of the applicable ordinances. The city has only addressed some of the standards and has not addressed the comprehensive plan We respectfully request that if after considering our position the commission would adopt those findings, conclusions and recommendations it deems to be reasonable and consistent with the purpose and priorities of the Comprehensive plan. We assert that the following findings are true and reasonable. 1. That due to the fact our street serves a number of properties which are predominantly and characteristically consistent with each other, and that our street has no outlet or alternate point of entry, and that it was created specifically to serve those properties, that our neighborhood /development is well defined as being those properties using SW 92nd as access to Greenburg Rd. 2. The subject development application proposes to access Greenburg by SW 92nd which was initially a private drive until the city took it over. We hold that any new lots such as those proposed will be a part of our neighborhood not only by its access and proximity, but also by its social, scenic/visual, economic, and environmental impact. 3. The existing development (Those properties accessing SW 92nd) is over forty years old, it was developed as a premier development which was distinguished by it's beauty, privacy (houses orientated facing SW 92nd), unique stand of trees and other amenities. 14 lots are 18,900 SF or larger, 2 lots are 16.262 SF and one pre - existing lot is 10,890 SF , all of these lots are marked by one residence and fir trees forming a common and mutually Beneficial open, and natural area. Residents of this street have chosen this neighborhood because of it's character and its beauty which is unique to this part of the city. The properties in this neighborhood hold a higher residential value than most along Greenburg. The Comprehensive plan states that it has found that this part of Tigard along Greenburg is struggling against a decline in the livability due in part to the declining residential land and property values and overall noise. congestion and high levels of activity in residential areas used by the proximity of commercial and office uses. We understand that the a public/private partnership has established an urban renewal plan in order to implement commercial development in this area. We agree with the finding that buffering is needed to ensure protection from the visual, noise and other adverse impacts which will result • from this redevelopment of the strip along Greenburg road. Please see the Comprehensive plan 11.8 We also find, that the reason that we have been able to escape or remain secluded for the most part from the decline in livability that others have suffered is because: Consistent character as described above has been maintained through out what we have defined as our neighborhood. This consistency offers privacy, reinforces values and livability from one property to the next. 4. The proposed application as approved by the director will not be cons istent ha monious with our existing neighborhood and will violate its existing character which will cause a lessening of values, environmental amenities livability and welfare to those residents because it: A. Allows the developer to develop at a higher density than that which is demonstrated as predominant in our neighborhood. B. Allows for the complete deforestation of that property. C. Provides for 1/2 street improvement which will be more detrimental than beneficial due to the following reasons: 1. Because the street does not, and is not likely to have an outlet, and because accessing properties have more value and potential to remain as they are there is no other foreseeable development likely which would bring about further improvement on either side of the street. We find that the 1/2 street improvement will bring about a sense of oddness and great contrast, it will only make the rest of our street and particularly adjoining and facing properties look unimproved.. We will have a sidewalk and widened section of street, on one side only, at what marks the introduction to our neighborhood , this improvement will stop at the property line with no real hope of ever being finished. We find no demonstration of a hazard existing or need for capacity which would justify the diminution of the quality of life which we have concluded will result from this action. 2.. We discovered from the developer at the meeting he held on December 23, 1996 to disseminate information regarding the application, that he would have proposed development consistent with the existing neighborhood but the 1/2 street improvement was to onerous on him. The conclusion is that this requirement by the city is the essential factor in the overall diminution this development threatens to bring to the welfare of the residents. It does not serve any purpose or bring any benefit that justifies its impact on the existing neighborhood. 18.164.030 Streets (c, iii). Please see ordinance provisions for waiving 1/2 street improvement. The city has not demonstrated the need for this which would justify the adverse impact which we have demonstrated will occur. This is not consistent with the purpose of the plan which is for the City to ensure that development is prohibited which would cause diminution to the quality of life. • 5. Because the Statewide planning goals are to conserve open space and protect natural resources; And because the comprehensive plan has found that: "Vegetation contributes to the aesthetic quality of the community. Vegetation controls erosion, absorbs sound and moderates temperatures. It also affects the flow and moisture content of the air, reduction of the air pollution and glare, and softens the impact of the urban environment "; and because it is the Plan policy that the city shall designate. by definition not by location• areas that are valued for their fragile character as habitats for plants, animals or aquatic life, or having endangered plant or animal species, or specific natural features, valued for the need to protect natural areas; and because the plan has established as an implementation strategy that: Where there exists large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land the city shall ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of vegetation areas through the planned development process and the tree cutting ordinance. And because the ordinance states that the commission may take notice of comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances of other planning authorities within the Metropolitan Service district boundary. We refer to the City of Beaverton's definition of a "significant grove" of trees as being significant if: a. The grove is relatively mature and evenly aged and b. The grove has a purity of species composition or is of rare or unusual nature, and c. The grove is in a healthy growing condition, or IIP d. The grove has a crucial functional and/or aesthetic relationship to a natural resource • And because the trees stand out on the horizon as you approach from any direction they mark the landscape and because they do consist of a purity of species, we find that groves like this area are not common in our part of the city and are unique. Regardless, The City council has ordained that strategy 4 does not require that the tree removal ordinance necessarily be circumscribed to those areas (large and unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas) which it describes. Rather, it requires that the ordinance must carry out the strategy by ensuring that the development proposals do not substantially alter the character of the described areas. So what this is saying is that it applies to more than just the Little Bull .Mountain area, it is by definition, not by location. We also find that our area is a natural area characterized by observable animal life (Squirrels, raccoons, a variety of birds, waterfowl, peacocks, nutria etc.) which is supported by the stand of trees. Please see aerial photo. These areas are valued by the residents and provide value to those properties. Please see State wide planning goal #5, Comprehensive plan 3.4 findings, policies 3.4.1.c, Implementation strategy 4, Tigard municipal code 18.32.210, City of Beaverton ordinance 2050, section 266. We have demonstrated that there exists a large and unique stand of trees and • major vegetation within the planning area on undeveloped land (land capable of further partitioning) however the applicant nor the city has proved that they will ensure that the development application does not substantially alter the character of the vegetation area by the tree cutting section of the ordinance. To the contrary, the director has processed the development application without the location of trees over six inches accurately shown on the partition map. This is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, it does not comply. Please see 18.161.070 (17) application submission requirements for partitioning. We Find that under the administrative action which approved this application that: If the proposed lots were forty acres each, fully wooded with a purity of tree species which were mature and supported animal life that it would have been approved with no requirement to identify or protect the trees. They could be clear cut as part of the development application and then the developer could afterward to then apply for anything which requires site review but it would be to late for that process to offer any protection of those areas. There is no proof from the applicant or the city that this action complies with the comprehensive plan in this regard. 6. Bemuse as we have asserted the application as proposed and approved is not consistent with the characteristics of our existing development (density, open and natural areas), we find it to be a major modification to our existing development which will diminish it's livability. Again the street was created specifically to serve our existing development. This will be part of our development because it proposes • access to SW Greenburg by access to SW 92nd. We do not argue whether or not it has the right to access our street, only that it will be part of our development and should be consistent with our development to the degree it will support its welfare and not by its inconsistency introduce adverse impacts or diminution to our existing quality of life. 7. We find the reason for delineating major partitions from minor partitions as applying to the tree ordinance is because the difference between the two is the creation of a road or street, there is no other difference. We fmd the Cities definition of a Road or Street to include that of a private street which is "An accessway which is under private ownership ". We find that because the creation of an accessway is the only difference between a minor and major partition as currently written in the code, the accessway becomes the hinge point for the tree ordinance applicability, this intent is because accommodating the accessway will potentially require the removal of trees which struczures and driveways would not. 411. We find that the creation of a flag lot should be considered a major partition because the creation of the • private accessway whether it stands alone or whether it is incorporated into the lot it has the same: a. Purpose or uses, which is to: 1. To provide vehicular access to SW 92nd 2. To provide a right of way for the utilities b. Impact, which will be the potential necessity for the removal of trees c. Capacity d. Agency access/emergency requirements e. Restrictions and use limitations, the area for the accessway cannot be used for lot area calculations. F. Definition, an accessway which is under private ownership We find that a driveway is not the same thing as an accessway because it a. Can be used for lot area calculations b. Its use is for off street parking whereas in most cases flag lot accessways require the restrictions placing no parking signs along its length. As a result we conclude that the accessway portion of a flag lot meets the definition of a private street because it is an accessway under private ownership, and that a driveway and accessway are not reasonably consistent with each other in their purposes, restrictions, and requirements. Therefore we find that since nothing has changed in purpose, impact, capacity, agency requirements, restrictions or definition, that his application should be processed under the controls of a major partition. We find that the history of this application shows clearly that the City has incorporated the street into the lot solely for the purposes of evading the control of a major partition. Please see the first decision and the • amended decision. In this case the protection that is intended is being be routed. 8. What the comprehensive plan has applied as appropriate density for our development is not what it essentially is, or what the owners of those properties understood, or want. The two are not compatible for the same reasons the application is not consistent with the development pattern of our neighborhood (Diminution in livability, general welfare and quality of life for the existing residents). We find the classification as a mistake and not consistent with the purpose, priorities or goals of the ORS, Statewide planning goals or the Plan itself. Therefore the application does not comply with the comprehensive plan. the applicant is required to prove that it does. We therefore recommend that the planning commission deny the application because it does not comply with the comprehensive plan, or at a minimum place the following conditions on its approval . Remove the requirement for the complete 1/2 street improvement (This action alone will save one significant tree as the sidewalk would cause its removal.). Require that the developer only widen it to match the approximate width and contour of the majority of the existing street nearby going up the street away from Greenburg road and to provide for the drainage needs on that side of the street But under no circumstances harm the significant fir tree at the NW corner of the lot Require that no parking signs be placed along the subject property line with SW 92nd. On both sides of the street to satisfy any concern the City may have regarding safety or capacity. Require that any development be consistent with the predominant character and density of our neighborhood as we have defined and that at a minimum require that the city take steps ensure that the character of this stand of trees remain substantially unaltered by requiring the identification of trees on the partition map and full compliance with the tree plan. Thank you for your time to carefully consider the basis of our findings. Please find the attached list of signatures indicating those property owners on SW 92nd Ave which these findings represent. 06/06/97 07:30 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 0 001 ****•*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *$ * * * * * * * *• * ** ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT REPORT TX * ** ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ACTY# MODE CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START TIME USAGE T. PAGES RESULT *9554 TX G3 503 226 0424 06/05 09:11 02'21 4 OK *9558 TX G3 503 526 0775 06/05 09:51 01'04 2 OK *9568 TX G3 6920137 06/05 13:36 02'18 4 OK *9572 TX G3 06/05 14:22 00'32 0 NG 0 # #280 *9572 TX G3 06/05 14:25 00'56 2 OK *9571 TX 6363128 06/05 14:27 00'00 0 NG 0 #018 *9575 TX G3 7385514 06/05 14:29 01'26 2 OK *9577 TX G3 503 526 0775 06/05 14:41 00'41 1 OK *9579 B'CAST G3 503 620 5963 KEN SCHECKLA 06/05 14:52 01'52 3 OK *9579 B'CAST G3 6208759 PAUL HUNT 06/05 14:55 01'47 3 OK *9579 B'CAST G3 503 620 2086 NICOLI ENG.,Inc. 06/05 14:57 01'25 3 OK *9579 B'CAST G3 5907654 BOB ROHLF 06/05 15:03 01'49 3 OK *9580 TX G3 503 6934795 WASH CO HSNG SVC 06/05 15:05 00'09 0 NG 0 STOP *9582 TX G3 503 6934795 WASH CO HSNG SVC 06/05 15:07 00'15 0 NG 0 STOP *9579 B'CAST 6030461 BRIAN MOORE 06/05 15:13 00'00 0 NG 0 #018 *9587 TX G3 503 6934795 WASH CO HSNG SVC 06/05 15:36 01'17 2 OK *9589 TX G3 503 526 0775 06/05 15:39 05'59 9 NG 9 # #283 *9589 TX G3 503 526 0775 06/05 15:47 07'58 13 NG 13 # #285 *9589 TX 5260775 06/05 16:04 00'00 0 NG 0 #018 *9593 TX G3 503 526 0775 06/05 16:14 07'30 13 OK *9596 TX G3 503 749 4950 06/05 16:29 02'36 5 OK *9599 TX G3 503 656 0782 06/05 16:35 01'49 3 OK *9601 TX G3 7143622469 06/05 16:39 00'57 2 OK *9603 TX G3 6542698 06/05 16:42 04'37 7 OK *9605 TX G3 503 226 9836 06/05 16:52 02'57 7 OK 9609 TX G3 503 6930432 06/05 16:57 19'55 27 OK ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT REPORT RX * ** ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ACTY# MODE CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START TIME USAGE T. PAGES RESULT *9553 AUTO RX G3 06/05 09:04 01'00 2 OK *9556 AUTO RX G3 503 526 0775 06/05 09:40 01'49 4 OK *9560 AUTO RX G3 6542772 06/05 09:59 01'39 1 OK *9562 AUTO RX G3 06/05 10:43 01'48 3 OK *9563 AUTO RX G3 503 620 2086 NICOLI ENG.,Inc. 06/05 10:55 01'08 2 OK *9564 AUTO RX G3 503 797 1794 06/05 11:33 00'41 1 OK *9565 AUTO RX G3 206 728 1179 06/05 11:57 01'41 1 OK *9566 AUTO RX G3 5038617870 06/05 13:12 01'04 2 OK *9567 AUTO RX G3 503 639 4673 06/05 13:18 00'45 1 OK *9570 AUTO RX G3 503 243 2944 06/05 13:51 01'52 3 OK *9586 AUTO RX G3 06/05 15:26 01'27 2 OK *9591 AUTO RX G3 503 654 2699 VAST PLUMBING 06/05 16:03 00'59 2 OK 06/06/97 07:30 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD Cj002 9611 AUTO RX G3 • 06/05 1.3 01'42 3 OK 9612 AUTO RX G3 06/05 17:39 01'41 3 OK JUN -11 -97 WED 21:46 MILES DOWNING 9685798 P.01 MILES DOWNING ' 684-1334 11600 SW GREENBURG RD 598 -8629 fax TIGARD OR 97223 TO: CITY OF TIGARD ATTN. MARK ROBERTS RE: SHAW WOODS MARK, PLEASE ACCEPT MY DEEPEST APOLOGY FOR ERRORS I MADE IN THE APPLICATION(SHAW WOODS) FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION. I HEREBY WITHDRAW THAT APPLICATION IN MY EFFORT TO MAKE THINGS EASIER ON ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. A NEW AND HOPEFULLY ERROR FREE APPLICATION (CONSTITUTION HILL) IS FORTH COMING. THANK YOU fl i� MILES DOWNIN /V41 /2, /997 • • RECEIVED JUN 12 1997 To: Mr. Mark Roberts, City of Tigard Planner COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT From: Residents of SW 92 Avenue (North of SW Greenburg Road) Date: June 12, 1997 . Re: MLP 97 -0002 (Tax Lot 6700) Please find enclosed the recommendations that our neighborhood is making to Mr. Miles Downing for the partition and development of the undeveloped portion of the lot located at 11600 SW Greenburg Road, in Tigard, Oregon. The purpose of this letter is to inform the City of Tigard Planning Staff of our recommendations, so that you can advise the Planning Commission and the City Council of our position, as appropriate. We believe that our recommendations are consistent with the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code, for the reasons outlined in our attached recommendations. Please note that it is our sincere desire to reach a reasonable solution, which would be profitable for Mr. Downing and can also become a welcome addition to our community by upholding the quality of life we enjoy as well as maintaining our current property values. We are once again asking you to reconsider your position regarding our appeal of "Amended" Minor Land Partition MLP 97 -0002. As you know, the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to prohibit development which would cause a diminution in the existing quality of life. Please let us know what information you believe is missing to make the case that our community would be harmed by Mr. Downing's current proposal. We look forward to your response. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Terry Smith at 684 -1460 or Kerry Gavett at 624 -7180. C: James N.P. Hendryx Dick Bewersdorff • • Recommendations for Partition and Development of Undeveloped Portion of 11600 SW Greenburg Road Tigard, OR 97223 (MLP 97 -0002) Below are recommendations that our neighborhood (residents of SW 92 Avenue, north of SW Greenburg Road) is making to Mr. Miles Downing for the partition and development of the undeveloped portion of the lot located at 11600 SW Greenburg Road, in Tigard, Oregon. We believe our recommendations are consistent with the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code, as discussed below. If Mr. Downing proposes development consistent with our recommendations, we will agree not to pursue our appeal any further. It is not our intention to stop Mr. Downing from developing his property. However, we believe that it is our responsibility to make sure that any partition and construction he proposes will not reduce the quality of life enjoyed by the residents of the City of Tigard or our neighborhood, or reduce the value of our properties. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS Any plan proposed by Mr. Downing should be in conformance with the goals and purposes of the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the Municipal Code. Specifically, the plan should comply with the following: 1. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan to maintain and improve the quality of life for the residents, by prohibiting development which would cause a diminution in the existing quality of life, and to provide for the retention of the stand of fir trees which contribute to the livability of the community. 2. The purpose of the Municipal Code to ensure that this development is commensurate with the physical characteristics of the land, to promote and protect the public welfare, to conserve needed open and green space and to protect natural and scenic resources. Page 1 • • 3. The purpose of Implementation Strategy 4 of the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that the grove of fir trees will remain substantially unaltered by this development through the tree removal ordinance. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Preparation of Tree Mitigation Plan: The undeveloped portion of Tax Lot 6700 contains a large grove of Douglas Fir Trees which extends onto nearby properties. We believe that a Tree Mitigation Plan should be prepared before any development occurs on the subject site. The purpose of the plan would be to assure that development will not substantially alter the character of the grove of trees, and to be sure that any trees proposed to be removed will not affect the integrity of the remainder of the grove on nearby properties. Strategy 4 of the Comprehensive Plan states that "Where there exists large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land, the city shall ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of vegetation areas through the planned development process and the tree cutting ordinance." In the preamble to Ordinance 95 -19 (revisions to the tree removal ordinance), the City Council `finds that the proposed ordinance satisfies Strategy 4 because the ordinance as amended will continue to protect large and unique stands of trees and major vegetation areas as called for by that strategy." In the preamble, the City Council defines developed land as "only those lots or parcels with an existing use which are not capable of being subdivided or partitioned." Since Tax Lot 6700 can be subdivided or partitioned, it is by definition an undeveloped lot. Therefore, to be in compliance with the Municipal Code and to assure the integrity of the grove of trees on nearby properties, we believe that a Tree Mitigation Plan must be prepared, and any proposed development must be designed to minimize the removal of Douglas Fir Trees. Number of Lots and Approximate Locations of Dwellings: We believe that one (1) single or two -story (detached, single - family) house could be located facing SW 92 Avenue, approximately 15 to 20 feet back from the street. This location would require the removal of only 2 to 3 trees, and the set -back would be consistent with all other homes in our neighborhood. It may also be Page 2 • • possible to locate a second single or two -story (detached, single- family) house in the southeast corner of the undeveloped portion of the site, where there is a natural clearing of trees. This would only require the removal of a few trees for the house and driveway. However, it is difficult to know how feasible this is without an accurate location of the trees on the Partition map. A second house should not be constructed if the grove of fir trees cannot remain substantially unaltered. For several reasons, the neighborhood opposes the creation of more than two lots on the undeveloped portion of the site. We do not believe that more than two dwellings can be built without removing a large number of trees and substantially altering the character of the grove of trees. Furthermore, if Mr. Downing creates three lots in the undeveloped portion of the site, each lot would be less than 8500 square feet. This would not be consistent with the character of our neighborhood, in which most of the lots are in excess of 18,000 square feet. Half - Street Improvements: We recommend that the City of Tigard not require Mr. Downing to make half - street improvements as part of the development. The improvements would not be consistent with the character of our neighborhood. Furthermore, Mr. Downing informed us at a meeting he held on December 23, 1996 that he would have proposed development consistent with our neighborhood, if the City of Tigard would not have required the half -street improvements. He informed us that he needed to construct three lots on the undeveloped portion of the lot, to pay for the cost of the half -street improvements. In conclusion, if Mr. Downing proposes development which is consistent with our recommendations and the goals and purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code, we would be happy to withdraw our appeal. Page 3 • • To: Miles Downing From: Residents of SW 92nd Avenue, north of Greenburg Road Date: June 11, 1997 Re: Appeal of MLP 97 -0002 Please find enclosed our neighborhood's (residents of SW 92 "d Avenue, north of SW Greenburg Road) recommendations for the partition and development of your property located at 11600 SW Greenburg Road, in Tigard, Oregon. We believe that our recommendations are consistent with the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code, for the reasons outlined in our attached proposal. We urge you to give serious consideration to our proposal. Our recommendations are reasonable in that you will be well compensated financially, and the new dwellings will be a welcome addition to our community by upholding the quality of life we enjoy and maintaining current property values. It is our desire to find reasonable common ground with you. However, if we cannot reach a satisfactory solution, we intend to appeal to the next level beyond the City of Tigard Planning Commission. We understand that you intend to clear -cut the lot because: it is easier to develop, harvesting the trees provides income for you, and it allows you to develop the highest density possible. However these reasons are not sufficient to alleviate our concerns regarding the impact you will cause to our neighborhood. Although we understand you have rights to develop the property, we are convinced that your rights end when your gain is at our expense. We are concerned about the loss in property values for people who already reside here. We believe that a developer should consider the impact that his actions will have on nearby homeowners. Current values for our homes are approaching, and in some cases, exceeding $200,000. However this is not the case for many homes in this part of Tigard. We have noticed that new homes built on smaller lots on Commercial Street have been on the market for well over a year. The developer has had to lower his price significantly and they still do not appear to be selling. If new houses are built on small lots in our neighborhood with the same predictable results, then your failure to sell at prices close to ours will drastically lower the value of our homes. A general reduction in property value would be disastrous for both • • you and the residents of this street. Smaller lots cannot support trees and privacy with large rear set - backs; these amenities are the only reason our properties hold comparatively higher values in this part of Tigard. In this neighborhood, if your houses are built on large lots you will ultimately sell your homes quickly at a high price. If you consider nearby properties on Greenburg, you will not be able to obtain the prices you are planning on, without the amenities and buffers we are suggesting, and you /we will not be able to disassociate our neighborhood from the influence of the struggling and deteriorating properties in the Greenburg area. We are stunned and saddened by your recent offer to save one tree if we withdraw the appeal. We know that this tree cannot be removed without the permission of the City, since it is partially located within the City's proposed right -of -way. Furthermore, we all know (including you) that if the City does not require the half-street improvements, it is because we lobbied on your behalf, and not because of your efforts. Therefore, we do not believe that your offer was a serious step toward reaching a solution. It appears that you were not telling us the truth about being willing to create a development consistent with our neighborhood, if the City did not require you to construct the half -street improvements. Our efforts to ask the City to remove the half - street improvements demonstrate that we sincerely want to reach a solution that can be beneficial to both you and our neighborhood. We understand that you are concerned about the liability of leaving trees standing. However we believe that this issue can be simply solved using appropriate indemnification language in yours sales agreements. Furthermore, the risks of leaving the trees standing can be minimized with a little effort, including planning and thinning of the tree limbs, etc. Your proposal to us contained an offer to sell the undeveloped portion of the site for $200,000. As you know, John Drennan has expressed an interest in buying the property. Mr. Drennan is presently out of town, and we have not been able to convey your offer to him. However, we believe that this offer is well above fair - market -value for a lot of this size. Page 2 • • As we have stated in our attached proposal, we believe that the trees should be plotted on a map in order to plan development that will minimize the removal of trees. We may be able to help you with this effort, as we have the skill and equipment to do that without charge. We believe that our recommendations can achieve development that would be beneficial to both you and our neighborhood, and more importantly, to the people who will ultimately purchase your properties. We are sincere in our desire to reach a solution whereby you can build a profitable venture, which can also become a welcome addition to our neighborhood. We look forward to discussing our proposal with you and hearing your concerns and questions. Page 3 • MEMORANDUM :���� • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON C Inv ofMord t Shaping )1 (Better Community - TO: - Planning Commission FROM: Mark Roberts DATE May 8, 1997 SUBJECT: Appeal of A Director's decision to approve "Amended" Minor Land Partition (MLP) 97 -0002 • Backai ind On March 27, 1997, the Director issued a decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97 -0002 subject to • Conditions of Approval. Because a new private street was proposed to serve the partition, the land use decision either should have been issued as a Major Land Partition or should have required a revision for an access easement type of accessway. Alternative methods of access could have also been required. The applicant has requested that the Minor Land Partition be re- issued with revised Conditions of Approval that reflects the limitations of a Minor Land Partition. On April 4, 1997 the Director reissued an Amended Decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97 -0002 subject to Conditions of Approval. On April 23, 1997 Mr. Terry Smith appealed this decision with concerns that the application was incomplete and that the decision was incorrectly processed as a Minor Land Partition instead of a Major Land Partition. Basis For Appeal The appellant states that the application was incorrectly processed as a Minor Land Partition instead of a Major Land Partition. The appellant states that this application was a Major Land Partition because a separate Tract A was proposed for private street purposes to Lots 2 and 3. For this reason, Condition • of Approval #14 of the amended decision required that the proposed private street be incorporated into Lot 3 as a flag lot. Through this condition the applicants Minor Land Partition met the limitations of the Minor Land Partition process. • The amended -decision also allowed the applicant the option to combine access for Lots 2 and 3 through the pole area of the Lot 3 flag pole. It is recommended that the Planning Commission make a finding within the Final Order that this option is not allowed because Lot 3 would then be providing access to two (2) lots. In the Director's opinion, this type of access situation would then meet the current definition of a street. The appellant states that the flag portion of a flag lot serves only for access purposes and that the Development Code specifically excludes this area from meeting the net lot area requirement of the underlying zoning district. The Development Code excludes this area from the net lot area requirement, however, a flag lot in this case was not created for street purposes, it was created as a building site. If a flag lot access driveway is defined as a street, then all driveways meet the definition of a street. Many • Page 1 of 4 • • parcels throughout the City that meet the minimum size standard of their underlying zoning district would then be non - conforming as to size because their driveways must be taken out of the net lot area. The appellant states that the amended decision was issued as a Minor Land Partition with an additional Condition of Approval, apparently as a way for the City to avoid requiring the controls of the standards that are in place for Major Land Partitions. This is a false statement. The applicant filed a Minor Land Partition and throughout the process, has requested that the City process the application as a_ Minor Land Partition. The appellant also stated that the application was incomplete based on lack of the following pieces of information that were not, in his opinion, included in the application file. The following is a list of the information he claimed was missing and the status of the information: 1. The appellant states that the application was incomplete because existing trees were not shown on the preliminary plat map. Within the application materials the Director did not require that trees in excess of six (6) inches in caliper be shown on the preliminary plat. Section 18.150.025 Tree Plan Requirements exempts Minor Land Partitions from this submittal requirement and any requirement for mitigation of trees that are removed through _the development process. This is set forth in Section 18.150.125 (B)(2). It is recommended that a specific finding stating this be included in the Final Order for the appeal. 2. The appellant states that the application is incomplete because a cross section was not provided for the proposed street right -of -way. A street cross section was provided on the preliminary plat for the proposed private street. Because the applicant's SW Greenburg Road frontage is fully improved, no street cross section was required for this street frontage. Proposed street improvements on the SW 92nd Avenue frontage were shown on the preliminary partition plat. Detailed improvement plans were required as a Condition of Approval for the SW 92nd Avenue frontage. A street cross section was not required for the flag pole because staff believes it is not a street. 3. The appellant states that minutes of the neighborhood meeting were not found from the meeting that was held with the developer on December 23, 1996. No neighborhood meeting is required to be conducted for a Minor Land Partition. The applicant conducted a Neighborhood Meeting because at one point, duplexes were proposed for some or all of the lots that were to be created. Conditionally Permitted Uses such as a duplex in the R-4.5 Zoning District requires a Neighborhood Meeting. 4. Three letters from the appellant to myself regarding the application. Of the three letters the appellant refers to, one of the letters is in the file. This letter dealt with the original decision that was issued. This decision proposed to create a private tract for street purposes to serve Lots 2 and 3. The Director found that the decision was issued in error and an amended decision was issued to specifically address this issue. The two other letters that were sent by the appellant were clarifications of Development Code requirements. The appellant had questions related to the definition of streets and whether a flag lot was a street. These letters cannot be located but were addressed specifically with Mr. Smith. These letters concern issues that were raised by the appeal that was filed. The fact that these letters are missing does not relieve the responsibility of the City to issue a decision based on the application that has been filed. Page 2 of 4 I 5. Letter from Mr. Terry Smith to Mr. John Hadley dated February 26, 1997. This letter has not been located. This letter dealt with whether the subject property was technically a single parcel or two parcels. 6. Letter from Mr. John Hadley to Mr. Terry Smith dated March 4, 1997. A copy of this letter is in the file. The City surveyor confirmed with the County Surveyor that the subject property was a • single parcel. This issue was addressed with the applicant who revised the application from a - request to partition two lots into four lots, to one lot into three lots. The applicant submitted a revised application to this effect. 7. A copy of the written notice sending the application back to the applicant as per Mr. Hadley's letter. This letter dealt with the legal description for the property that described the property as two (2) parcels. Mr. Hadley's findings were discussed with the applicant and a revised Minor Land Partition application was filed. Mr. Hadley's letter did not state that the previous application was to be sent back to the applicant. 8. A written request from the applicant to revise the application to incorporate the street into Lot three (3). The applicant has provided a letter to this effect that is in the file. Initially, the applicant had orally requested that the decision be reissued. Within the appeal narrative, Mr. Smith referred to repeated written requests for information concerning the City Council's decision not to require tree removal plans for Minor Land Partitions. Mr. Smith states that he repeatedly asked for written demonstration as to the City Council direction. Mr. Smith has not repeatedly in writing, or orally, asked for this information. Upon review of the issues listed within the appeal materials, this information was faxed to Mr. Smith. The materials that were faxed to Mr. Smith are in the land use file for this application. Recommendation • It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal finding that the application was complete based on the materials submitted by the applicant and that the application was correctly processed under the limitations set forth for a Minor Land Partition. Section 18.26 of the Community Development Code defines a street as, "a public or private way that is created to provide ingress or egress for persons to one or more lots, parcels, areas or tracts of land, excluding a private way that is created to provide ingress or egress to such land in conjunction with the use of such land for forestry mining or agricultural purposes ". Section 18.26 of the Community Development Code defines a flag lot as, "a lot located behind a frontage lot, plus a strip out to the street for an access drive. A flag lot results from the subdivision, partitioning of a residential lot or parcel which is more than twice as large as the minimum allowed in the underlying zone but without sufficient frontage to allow two dwellings to front along a street. There are two distinct parts to a flag lot: the "flag" which comprises the actual building site located at the rear portion of the original lot, and the "pole" which provides access from a street to the flag ". It is staffs recommendation that the Planning Commission interpret these definitions to mean that a flag pole is not a street and was not ever intended to be a street. Page 3 of 4 • Attachments: 4/23/97 memo from the City Recorder to the Planning Manager Appeal filing form 4/23/97 letter from appellant supporting the appeal 4/23/97 C.D. counter "sign -in" sheet 12 page "Amended" MLP 97 -0002 Notice of Decision Site Plan Map Vicinity Map i:\curpinkniark_ftlp97-02.apl • Page 4 of 4 • r • MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorde t DATE: April 23, 1997 SUBJECT: MLP #97 -0002 Attached is a completed "Appeal Filing Form for Land Use Decision" for the proposal referenced above. Please schedule this for a Planning Commission Hearing date as early as possible and advise the applicant and appellant of that date. Thanks. Attachment i :\adm\cathy\correspAap197002.doc APPEAL FILING FA IM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd.. Tigard. OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 FAX: (503) 684 -7297 The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code, therefore, sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal proceem, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phone /fax listed at the top of this form. GENERAL INFORMATION • FOR STAFF USE ONLY • Property Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the Application Being L, r N . Case No.(s): .:.- Appealed: I I �c> S . BebZ- _ Case Name(s): pew 5. 44.:( 1) (PQ, • _ Receipt No.: 7+ o� p 9 9 6 7 How Do You Qualify As A Party ?: t l r ► o r / ► rt LSD Application Accepted By: Ci4 /'O. A. : : Date: 1 /'9 , 5 1� Approved As To Form By: lit) • • • Appellant's Address: 1 I 1 4 464) S L , 12,n ; -we_ , Date: • City/State: T1-s. Tip: C)tL 1-12 Denied :• As To Form By: • Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached :(Sc) a 32-"S- 41% • • • Date: • Scheduled Date Decision Is To Be Final: ){ / 22, f 4, Rev. 1013I96 clartpinvt>asterslappea(.doc Date Notice of Final Decision Was Given: 1- fi I 1 11 _ Specific Grounds For Appeal or Review: REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS A `, - , - 1 o l Application Elements Submitted: T ❑ Appeal Filing Form (completed) 1'1/ A- i P 1. L.14-40 T( - i�y,i ❑ Filing Fee (based on criteria below) • Directors Decision to Planning Cann s:ion $ 250.00 Hearing Referee S 500.00 L , % Plamrg CamrssionMeamg's Officer to CSy Comsat $1,713.00 ? Q r I a G u. „a-4 (. Tranfapl Signature(s) of Appellant(s): V ' APOSAL FLUNG FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS (OVER FOR ADDITIONAL WRITING SPACEI PAGE 1 OF I 4 -23 -1997 To: Mr. Jim Hendryx, City of Tigard 639 -4171, fax 684 -7297 From: Terry Smith, 684 -1460 - Re: Application #MLP 97 -002 Dear Mr. Hendryx Thank you for calling me yesterday. I have put in writing most of the concerns we have. We would be grateful if you would please review the following issues and let me know this a.m. whether or not they would justify the city initiating another review of this application before the appeal deadline expires today at 3:30. The elderly neighbor Mrs. Shaw wants to sell her property we do not want to hold • her up or even stop development. We just feel that since it will be part of our neighborhood by accessing our street then it will impact us as to whether it blends in and compliments or whether it conflicts with and detracts from the character of our existing neighborhood. The neighborhood is characterized by large lots with significant fir trees. If the city agrees with our positions below we would rather not have to file this appeal because it pits neighbor against neighbor to enforce a codes which the planner should be upholding. 1. Is the application properly classified? It appears that since the applicant proposes to partition the subject tax lot into 3 lots which includes the creation of a road or street it should be applied for as a major land partition and meet the respective standards. The following will demonstrate that a road or street is being created. And that the application exceeds the limitations of a minor land partition. A. The definition of "Road or Street" includes a private street which is an "accessway under private ownership ". The planner in order to facilitate the approval of this application as a minor land partition incorporated the street as a part of one of the lots. However whether it is under private or public ownership does not make a difference, or whether it is part of a lot or stands alone does not make a difference, the partition still includes its creation. 18.162.020 states that "A major land partition review is required when a division of land creates a street or road" B. All proposed improvements are to meet city and applicable agency standards (Ord 89 -06; Ord 83 -52). The fire department requires the creation of an access roadway and that it meet the specific standards. It has specified that this applications plans are not approved without the creation of an access roadway as laid out in the agency comments as described in the original and amended decision. This applicant is required when it is evident that the subject property can be further partitioned to show that the partition will not preclude the efficient division of land in the future. It would appear that this would of necessity need to meet private street standards for lot access so as not to preclude future partitioning potential. C. The definition of a flag lot describes the purpose of the "Pole" as being to provide access. D. The code does not allow the accessway portion of a flag lot to be included in the lot area calculation because it only serves as an accessway which is under private ownership. E. The partition map shows 3 water meters when only two are needed, the history of this application shows that the applicant in order to meet the requirements of a minor land partition removed one lot line division leaving what is now lot 3 large enough to be partitioned again. The planner in his amended decision narrative has demonstrated his awareness of the potential for as many as (4) additional dwelling units being served by this accessway. As it is, the intentions are clear that this will be a right -of -way for more than one dwelling unit which also is described as being what determines this as a major land partition (see 18.162.070.b.7). The question is, does the application more resemble the definition of a major or minor land partition. A minor land partition is limited to the creation of 3 lots, if you include the creation of an accessway it must be reviewed as a major land partition. To do otherwise may demonstrate an appearance of no regard for the Comprehensive plan; the code for community development, and our neighborhood which this Tax lots abuts and will become a part of by its access on to SW 92nd. The reason it appears as such is because the primary objective of the amended decision is to evade the control of a major land • partition, and this is because it will require the meeting of additional standards like the provisions for tree removal. 2. Is the application complete ?. The code states that the director is to review the application for • compliance with the requirements for submittal. If it is not, the applicant is to be notified of the - deficiencies. The application is not to be deemed complete for administrative review to approve or deny until it is in compliance. It appeared that upon our review the partition map: A. Was highly inaccurate with regard to the reflection of the numerous and significant first growth trees over 6 inches in caliper which are on the site. Mr. Roberts or one of the planners has visited the site and is aware of the size and general quantify of these trees. B. Did not provide a scaled cross section of the proposed right -of -way. 3. Is the file complete? Upon our review of the application file it was noticed that several items may be lacking from the file which is to be complete and made available to the public upon notice of the decision. It could be that they are simply misplaced. The problem is it gives the appearance that the planner is operating according to his own agenda instead of upholding the duties of his position whether that is true or not. The following was not found. A. Minutes from the meeting which the developer held at city hall Dec. 23rd. 7:00 p.m. 1996 B. Correspondence (3) letters from Terry Smith to Mr. Mark Roberts (January 21, 1997, April 1, 1997, April 4, 1997,) Also included should be Mark's response to these letters. (1) letter from Terry Smith to Mr. John Hadley February 26th, 1997. (1) Letter from Mr. John Hadley responding to Terry Smith March 4th, 1997. Written notice sending the application back to the applicant as per Mr. Hadleys letter. Written request from applicant to revise the application incorporating the street in to lot 3 4. Mr. Roberts has stated policy changes were made by the council to eliminate the tree removal standards from applying to small infill sites under these circumstances. We have repeatedly in writing asked him to demonstrate this to us and explain how we can find these resolutions, orders, or code changes so that we can understand his statements but these questions have not been responded to. Thank you for your time. Cordially Terry Smith WELCOME TO THE r7 MUNITY DEVELOPME EPARTMENT PL ASE SIGN -IN AND HAVEASEAT YOU WILL BE HELPED IN THE ORDER OF YOUR ARRIVAL BY THE NEXT AVAILABLE •DEVELOPMENT SERVICE TECHNICIAN (DST). (The last sign -in time is 5:45 p.m. daily) J. PLEASE SIGN IN BELOW 4 <k< FOR OFFICE USE:: TE TIME I (PRINT ME 4RL� PURPOSE :'FIME� ASSISTED (pnnq ;35 in iC k, J t ZQ-F rf,c u 51 M4. j L4 C 2� -�-2 1 ry / 4. f g t 1 11/1 /r.;I /,•' /` (S4.L'f9.Z/ i 2 7 D„Q L-1 .3(eve zl,, `r'» /2:56 t!' 1 '' V (ilit I V M' t w "' t J m4 A v . / e c : f3 LA— lNc'r2_. 6 n')- /72- , Pc e/Y1 ! d� lJ� 1 I (pant) 1 T3 I . S nc, : o PLCCr fit-- -� a. r� cc ��?✓ �� (pnntl /Z3 1 : I f 0 ek- Pe'( I t rx 1a- s c- 1 7 /• J/Ged- b.tz..es, `'ce•>« "s�iln.Ii�TI� 3 01\ (pnnt) t tin r.w,.�.4 r ,.,mot /� u d �ryc�.t G�e_�� �r>� erL 1: 53 , / a — V (Print) Ipnntt .? /Q 7)/0 / ins i� vD,e E•;s q ?Ct/&-1 (p t 9) ;9n )42,e uwe C/1/ ► 6 1 w'l • • (pnnt) 7 4 4 C+61- .24 (pang Al / 414 '4 2C- eq- 727 3 t. � ,�Y w t � �.— - "41 U . Ipn � �P � - 3( `J , %Z/ 7 &ZkeL )) i (Print) 7 j -' i1 r,U'4ckre 'eh?' r :h a't`e CASjj • gnin.dac (DST) / / 41, u 9 . y 7 Vii"-' ✓ 4-V fYC6 r p e r °7l e) r, o 4— 0 ,3L-,, F ., ` ° ci oo®; Y Y ?r-q, o "h'Q— AL() J° /j Oa -J¢. — ��/�, 471 A , 1 1 1 - d 7 " . " � r a mi • . y ok..q. d • LL, T J fi;) f� '� A. 0 , „,r, . eatkj rX ( 5- e 14, r t a G 6 4ff t^ ® d' u 0 � .1 G' r 4 + i 4,r ,'� G 4c3 c e r, p"' `' P, ; �� fia�v `, c, p y 410 ` 4 ,' b P 520 d rr t 2- ,ems . kzt i� � �� � - ®� 7 - 1 f as 27 a y'O v C� a 3 � c � mac / � Sl w +-A [ D :14 too 4." A i • • C J d--� scv p cl p ter° � 04 ( - J`ter .41 L (5 4 • 1 ? -1 73- �& gip d ® prop e 42(0 c:;•tz 4 PA 445 c: ,4-- m - s- . F f n Pre- 6q_ 7 -3-4v4A, v 1 - ? ,„ l0, /Al acv �- ,� ,-, • • (,Q.J - FA Ct. q, 'ffN cA..)0z,i+ Qj ? or i d o!v v V F [i ice_ + r 1�1 'f� r v • 05 -07 -1997 01 :57PM FROM Beaverton Foursquare CM TO 6847297 P.01 cr q 106T'l --- )( ' ' '..- '. - - ._ , - , - -''' ' V �/ J � 0. • May7,1997 �t� ` � � A To: Mr. Richard Bewersdorf Planning Manager, city of Tigard_ ,,,s,,, � � , G From: Terry Smith 11480 SW. 92nd aye. Tigard, Oregon. 684 -1460, pager 323 -4214 .... - o> 4• Re: Dowraing'Shaw Partition # 97 -002 - 9 j.$ (' „ I • Dick, 6 en d Thank you very much for the time you and Jim Hend yx spent with me, I found your attention t these matters to be helpful and your concern genuine. ' If your are able would your please respond to the following new questions or direct them to those ' who may be more appropriate. h - � .•� I. By what means does the city ensure that more than the threshold of ten trees per year per acre are not ; C. '' '''' being removed and sold, especially as part of development since that is illegal ?, By what means would the k v ,f1 director monitor this through the development me process? co--p $4 i • cQ C- $ p c '.4'vr G.r..y ' ... � � 2. Doe the r City have a system or program to � N" "p � 6 1 P I Pr 1 regulations rzcognizc significant tree(s) ?�If so how are they identified? . T1 What would be the criteria used? What measures are taken once they are identified ?, or what r �� 'B•r 'Po } \ impact any trees that are identified? If there is not any existing program for significant Tree(s) would that y \ be because the city would feel there is not any call for this in the comprehensive plan even though other 4- 1K :2 \F ti jurisdictions do feel obligated under the statewide planning goals? WO ' 0 c,,, a' .. 3. We understand that the implementation strategy 4 of Plan policy 3.4 provides "Where there exists large and unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land, the city shall ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of the vegetation areas through the planned 'development process a , Ord the tree cutting code". Does the city have an ye inventory of areas such as these? What are the criteria for identification? By what means does the city 6 l > • • l's S b ensure that applications they have approved will not allow for the complete deforestation of a site? Can the city demonstrate that it has ensured that our neighborhood/street and this development is not a large 6 , and unique stand of trees? We feel that we can demonstrate that it is and that its character will be s substantially altered, however it is the city who is to know whether this is or not in order to properly > `9 _ 1 " p, I • - -) vs- process any development because it says "The city shall ensure ". Even though an ordinance system has been estab �c' lashed, it maybe letting harmful mistakes C ,.,, C � . E � . through the cracks, in that case the city still has the revised statues, the statewide planning goals and the A 1.,_ ° city's comprehensive plan to administrate and uphold. In this ease the city has incorporated the street r .. `� • 9 cs 1/2' — ,,. '' into a flag lot solely for the purpose of evading the control of a major partition (this will be clearly • s ,„..."..v...-u ►-A)- demonstrated by the history of the application). It is d a` � n 1 especially true here because the fl ag can be further a a , partitioned. We believe there is a flaw in the ordinance, this ao way is more than a driveway. I would y c,, , Vs' °' 5' eV fk propose for the purposes of interpretation that when a flag can be further partitioned that the accessway be QJ o oorasidered a private street because of the damage and violation that can � � CL.- °I.. r d ` alternate proposal would be that a tree plan be happen in a case hi lots this. Oran � / J p required when any minor partition creates lotis which will ultimately provide for more than a total of three lots. Who is to say that the flab in this case could not have hY 1- e °�� been twenty times larger, the applicant gets his application approved as an minor land partition, does not ftl' „ n '' - ' - have to respond to the tree standard, cuts down all the trees and then applies for a subdivision. You would o' �' have applied the ordinance and still not ensured that the unique and large stand of trees remained p � p 1,, , t_--) substantially unaltered; this is not proper. The problem is that the ordinance as written allows for an end 4-4'6)d) r — tun to be made around the comprehensive plan. Do you agree that there is a flaw in the ordinance? I� ' a then who is to address its correction? If not then lease SO .� �o---- maintain the submittal P explain. Do you think that the director should requirement that the trees be accurately indicated on the partition map before he NO I 1 --.‘N presents if for review to the hearings officer or is he going to include a written waiver in the file? �, IF.=.� t Dick thank you for your time. r Cordially `■Nova 4,--"-- • 05 -13 -1997 04 :02PM FROM Beaverton Foursquare CM TO 6847297 P.01 • • May 7, 199'7 To: Mr. Richard Bewersdorf, Planning Manager, city of Tigard. From: Terry Smith 11480 SW. 92nd ave. Tigard, Oregon. 684 -1460, pager 323 -4214 Re: Downing/Shaw Partition # 97-002 Dick, Thank you very much for the time you and Jim Hendryx spent with mc, I found your attention to these matters to be helpful and your concern genuine. If your are able would your please respond to the following new questions or direct them to those • who may be more appropriate. 1. By what means does the city ensure that more than the threshold of ten trees pct year per acre arc not MMaved and sold, wilily i15 pm[ of dGYQ!Opiliii ow that is iueoal ? 87 what means would the director monitor this through the development process? 2. Dees the City have a system or program to mogaiii O8ai scant treecs? ? if so how are they identified? What would be the criteria used? What measures are taken once they are identified?, or what regulations impact any trees that are identified? If there is not any existing program for significant Tree(s) would that be because the city would feel there is not any call for this in the comprehensive plan even though other jurisdictions do feel obligated under the statewide planning goals? 3. We understand that the implementation strategy 4 of Plan policy 3.4 provides "Where there exists large And unique Mande gins or major relelauon areas tali Pleb area on undeveloxod land, the city shall ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of the vegetation areas through the planned development pry and the tree cutting code ", Does the city have an inventory of areas such as these? What are the criteria for identification? By what means does the city ensure that applications they have approved will not allow for the complete deforestation of a site? Can the city demonstrate that it has ensured that our ucighborhood/street and this development is not a large and unique stand of trees? We feel that we can demonstrate that it is and that its character will be substantially altered, however it is the city who is to know whether this is or not in order to properly process any development because it says "The city shall ensure ". Even though an ordinance system has been established, it may be letting harmful mistakes through the cracks, in that case the city still has the revised statues, the statewide planning goals and the city's comprehensive plan to administrate and uphold. In this case the city has incorporated the street into a flag lot solely for the purpose of evading the control of a major partition (this will be clearly demonstrated by the history of the application). It is especially true here because the flag c:ui be further partitioned. We believe there is a flaw in the ordinance, this ace essway is more than a driveway. 1 would preps; for the purposes of interpretation than when a flag can be further partitioned that the aoccssway be considered a private street because of the damage and violation that can happen in a case like this. Or an alternate proposal would be that a tree plan be required when any minor partition creates lots which will ultimately provide for more than a total of three lots. Who is to say that the flag in this case could not have been twenty times larger, the applicant gets his application approved as an minor land partition, does not have to [Gould to the trot r� go down the Ines then applies fora subdivision. You would have applied the ordinance and still not ensured that the unique and large stand of trees remained substantially unaltered, this is not proper. The problem is that the ordinance as written allows for an end run to be made around the comprehensive plan. Do you agree that there is a flaw in the ordinance? If so then who is to address its correction? If not then please explain. Do you think that the director should maintain the submittal requitement that the trees be accurately indicated on the partition map before he presents if for review to the hearings officer or is he going to include a written waiver in the filet Dick thank you for your time. Cordi TOTAL P.01 I Q u T 5 1 I EMI ' 1 DAKOTA 7 t 1 0 ! ' 1 , •• EN mil -1 --\ - - - c - 1 �•. MI Mar \--, i ? 1 M' ! - ---) Its ► co 1 cli - - - 1 --i---7 .. . . t _ -_ ......, ..:, 1 , ,, , 18 i C r t i - N. - '_.,. ,_ .. . - �� . t.'9 a .‘ fir .,\,::::•-;:o . . , ,-- . . I. - . — ---" Os . ' ' ‘ P.4-c - - 6 . - . La . IAL . V - y • -.:-L . : LOMTA I CD' _, ' . I ' 7 LI A • 1- -.,,..--. ,a.i.- . . . :a• • 1 - -0 ! W r t .. P � C, I 1---- � o I2 i I 111111.1111111.11.11 I =1 I' f i 1 r * . '''''cd44.., s7. icin�ty Map - -- - v ?M LP 97 -0002 --- _ . . . w E ....- Downing /Shaw Partition - S . . • 0 CY WW 1 3 J NEIGHBORS was in, leo HOUSE $ 0 I �� 97.51 ©, • *I 97.51 - LOT 2 `' 8115 SQ FT LOT 3 1 17,017 SQ FT • ca - ,:;1 is :: - C � PRERTY .•• •• • • • 3 VATER METERS '1, -- - - -•,; ,X �► - Z , I .... R-- 68 -31 tozdzmmum:41.---..-,.. .. _ . -- - 1%. �� p. Fr S • • 1.......„-: t er �, --� � •a : -. _ - �. -,, , nth �ttr � � _. Ahlit16,. I _ , • �.:. Q � OA S j ;4W e ' Qu 9 , 13 •• 0 Off' aw�r • L:.. was. mow. :. 3 a u. TV aicaaaa o �•, / o : C - . ► .. . ~, L OT 1 _ �• _ c r 14,700 �^� 5 Nz' ' Sid FT ' 4!" . =' ': le vWL JUN 31000 L. - . X09 .. �� 0 / � I �� G TO CURB S TORM DRAINS G IIMINII U PLOT PLAN J CASE KO. E X H 161 T MAP s Downing/S Partition MLP 97 -0002 • I • , • Final Decision: - - - • • - - THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON WEDNESDAY APRIL 23, 1997 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. -peal: Any party to - the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Sections 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.340 of the Community Development Code that provides that a written appeal must be filed within ten (10) days after notice has been given and sent. The deadline for filing an appeal is specified below. The appeal fee schedule and • • appeal form are available from the Community Development Department or Planning Division at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. I THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 P.M. ON APRIL 23,1997, . Questions: .... If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division or Community Development Department of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639 - 4171. -:- ,.. - _. • ; . - _ - _ �.. _ • .. April 4. • • .. PREPARED BY • Mark Roberts - • • - -' • DATE ' ' - Y • • Associate Planner, AICP - • �� •��� April 4.1997 APPROVED BY: Richard Bewersd • • DATE • Planning Manage t'CURPUNIMARK RVNLP97-02.DEC NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MlP 97-0002 - DOWNING/SHAW PARTITION PAGE 12 ( SECTION V: OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Building Division reviewed this application and had the following comment Lots 2 and 3 can easily drain through the easement at east side of Lot 1 to SW Greenburg Road. 0 The Police Department reviewed this application and had the following comment Addresses are needed to be marked for each home on SW 92nd Avenue; so`we can locate the homes easily.. No other Staff comments or objections have been received. . SECTION VI: AGENCY COMMENTS — -• - - - - - - - The Tualatin Valley Fire District reviewed this application and stated that the plans . not approved. Plans reflecting the following comments shall be submitted to Gene Birchill : .: - - - - - of the Fire Marshall's office: ai ..i a: s _ - ter ..:.. .: • ..�. _; A ..... ; : .. ::... ..;.+. , Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet feet for not more two dwelling units), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not ~:.;: less than 13 feet, 6 inches. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.1). • Where fire apparatus access roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and maintain'.,the _ minimum 20-foot-wide .- unobstructed:. driving surface, . 'No Parking' signs shall be installed on one or both sides the" roadway,,and in tumar�ounds`' - as needed: (UFC - Sec. 902.2.4). Signs shall read 'NO PARKING -. FIRE LANE - TOW - AWAY ZONE, ORS 98.810' and shall be installed with a clear space above ground level of seven (7) feet Signs shall be 12- inches -wide by 18 inches high and shall have black or .red letters and border on a white background. (UFC.Sec. 901.4.5.(1)(2) & (3). ° " • No other Agency comments or objections have been received.. ' • SECTION VII: PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice; Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance • X Affected government agencies NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION hi .P 97 -0002 - DOWNING/SHAW PARTITION - PAGE 11 . • The design of this storm system shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant may need to adjust the location of the existing catch basin at the street corner in order to complete the new curb return. 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. For small sites such as this, the R &O makes an exception that would allow the applicant -., • to pay a fee in -lieu of constructing an on -site facility. Staff recommends that the applicant • - pay the fee in -lieu. - • Grading and Erosion Control • - ::.• - - - USA R8O 91-47 also regulates erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and a - other • pollutants 'reaching -the public and _ surface•water ; system resulting from, development, construction, grading,-.excavating, clearing, and any other activity that - ac accelerates erosion. Per R &O 91-47, • the applicant is required .to submit an erosion _ • control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits.` :` ' . `, Existing Lines -: :;r 411 Overhead , . �� . Overhead Utili _ + _ . '- i - -, , :;: �. ; - • ;. • There are existing overhead utilities on SW 92nd Avenue. Section 18.164.120 of the TMC requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, - at the election of the developer, a fee in -lieu . of undergrounding can be, paid.: If the fee in-lied is proposed, it is • equal to $27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the: overhead lines. • - . _ . ' Site Permit Required The applicant is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on- . site private utility installations (water, sewer, storm, etc.), driveway construction. This permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of the permit from the Engineering Department . . to allow work in the ROW. Water This site lies within Tualatin Valley Water District's (TVWD) service area. ,The applicant's plan indicates that there is an existing public water line in SW 92nd Avenue :. Any proposed connections to, or extensions of, the public water line shall be reviewed and approved by TVWD. • NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNINGISHAW PARTITION PAGE 10 ' • (r . • . This site is adjacent to SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue. Southwest Greenburg Road is classified as a major collector street and is fully improved adjacent to this site. No additional right -of -way dedications or street improvements are necessary - • (except for the 92nd Avenue intersection, which will be discussed next). SW 92nd Avenue : t • Southwest 92nd Avenue is a local residential street that is paved, but not improved, to standards. The existing ROW width is approximately 40 feet The applicant proposes to . ^ dedicate an additional five (5) feet to give 25 feet from centerline. This ROW dedication . • will be adequate. In addition, the applicant will need to dedicate additional ROW at the intersection to make room for the curb return. City design standards call fora ROW radius . of 25 feet This dedication shall also be shown on the face of the final plat. • The roadway • " surface of v �. •:: �• ._ :r ...:, �-.,� :• ..,,;� �,-.. {.: ..�.: - , : - .:�' '� • .. • Y A enue is paved, but the, structural `section does not • appear - to meet City standards for a local residential, street In .order to‘ mitigate • • additional traffic that will be generated from this development, the applicant will construct _ half - street improvements on SW_92nd Avenue adjacent to this.site.: { These improvements.__._ will also include installation a curb rehim at the northeast c omer of the intersection' at Greenburg Road, which will result in a much safer intersection. The..applicant will . - be'::. required to design and construct the street improvements to "'City standards. - Any necessary pavement taper required to tie the new improvement into the existing edge of • . - pavement shall be accomplished beyond the site frontage. ir k _ c .:iii.'_. .. �+: —'. . _ .:1 . .. iV4 +•• • A] . y ..� _ . �.'0. ". .. - .~ ;. ,, :. .•-. .. ,• • Access will be provided to the new lots through . a: new paved driveway onto - SW 92nd Avenue. If the driveway will be shared, the applicant will need to place a joint driveway easement on the final plat. Sanitary Sewer - . . There is an existing 8 -inch public sewer fine in SW 92nd Avenue that can adequately serve this site. The location of the sewer taps shall be approved by the City prior to construction. Storm Drainage There is an existing public storm drainage line in SW Greenburg Road that collects street runoff, including the catch basin at the northeast corner of the SW 92nd Avenue intersection. The applicant proposes to extend a public storm line in SW 92nd Avenue in order to pick up the street drainage and potential runoff from this site. The plan also indicates the lot drainage may be piped directly south through an easement over Lot 1 to the storm pipe in SW Greenburg Road. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION • . MP 97-0002 • DOMNINGISHAW PARTRION _ PAGE 9 • . 9. Accessway: • Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth In Chapter 18.108, Access, Egress, and Circulation. • 10. Floodplain: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the one- hundred -year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. • - This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the'construction of a pedestrian- and or bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance With the ° adopted pedestrian and or bicycle pathway plan. N. • • . -.. . •... - .••-.._. - • . • Criterion's 1, 2, 3 and 4 are satisfied. The parcels will exceed the area requirement of 7,500 square feet required for properties zoned R -4.5. • The newly created parcels would have, in excess of 15 feet of direct frontage on a public street or fifteen feet of frontage on an access • easement. Lot 1 has direct frontage on SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue, in satisfaction of. the lot frontage requirement : Lots 2 would either have a minimum of 68 feet of direct access frontage on SW 92nd Avenue or be accessed through a shared access easement with Lot 3 in satisfaction of Criteria 3. The standards for setbacks, landscaping, . and dear vision requirements will be reviewed for new structures at the 'time of Building'' Permit Plan Check Review. The existing • residence •complies with the front; rear, - and sideyard setback requirements after the creation of a new lot line in the rear yard, in • satisfaction with Criteria 4. ..u• "�2 �; .`)'�i' -+•l -i ci1� �. _. ° �. =' - r ra y .:' ��•N 91!. t o 5:gt 8:nzt:-'• . .4 Criterion's 5 and 6 have been addressed. Because it does not meet the definitionfof a - flag V • • lot, Lot 2 is not required to take access separately from an access easement Because SW 92nd Avenue is a Local Street, Lot 2 can take .dined access'through :SW 92nd Avenue. -• However, the applicant can elect to combine' access :for`.these lots: Deperidini'on the access easement configuration a flag lot setback determination Will be necessary for Lot Rag lot setback standards will be applied, where applicable . , .through • the Building' Permit Plan Check process. Through the Building Permit rev iew, fire hydrants shall be consistent with Uniform Fire Code standards, thereby, satisfying Criteria 7. Criteria 8, requiring a reciprocal access and maintenance agreement, has been addressed through the recommended Conditions of Approval. A shared maintenance and access easement shall be provided where combined access for Lots 2 and 3 is requested by the applicant - • - • Criteria 9 will be satisfied through the requirement for a 10-foot-wide minimum paved driveway to serve Lot 3; or if desired, up to two (2), of the three (3) lots. Criteria 10 has been met because the parcel is not located within the 100 -year flood plain or in areas with slopes exceeding 25 percent ' Because the site does not adjoin the 100 -year flood plain, dedication of areas for pathway purposes is not applicable.: • - • PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: - - • Section's 18.164.030(E)(1)(a) (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), 18.164.100 (Storm Drains) shall be satisfied. • Development Code provisions related to Storm Water Quantity, Storm Water Quality, Existing Utility Line Undergrounding, Water Service, Site Permits, Grading and Erosion Control are also addressed below: NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION • I&P 97-0002 • DOWNINGISHAW PARTITION PAGE 8 • - the statutory requirements of the City of Tigard for development review, as required by • Criteria 2. • • - . • Adequate public facilities are available, or have been required to be provided to serve this . site, as set forth in Sections 18.164.03Q (Streets),_. 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), and 18.164.10Q (Storrs Drain), as required. bY-Criteria .3.. These requirements are reviewed. by _ the Engineering Department in this report �_ '+: .,ate :: +. :1i•:..i'i'. p• :s`b.'. •t�Y�v The new parcels do not exceed a two and one -half, to one, length to depth ratio. The 50-. . foot average width requirement is also met by these parcels. For these reasons; l'the proposed parcel configurations conform with size and dimensional requirements of the R-4.5 Zoning District,•as required by Criteria 4. = • : - • - - -._ As proposed, the improvements will comply with .City,and applicable•agency standards in satisfaction with Criteria 5, .,as reviewed through the Building Permit Plan .Check process: ••All = ` three parcels comply.with the Basic Solar Access requirements because rtorth:to ==� south :lot dimension of these parcels wouid_exceed 90.feet in length: = Future-development - structures on the new parcels will require compliance with Standards:cf - 1 ' °t the Solar Accessibility requirements of the Community Development Code:.: - • - •0 'vdi r'�li�LJr Section 18.162.050 contains the following special provisions for Tots created through -- ti r Pation : the Pr��iesg... . �i t - � 1 i aG.. ' t; <. .- -a. _> o fi aA` 5• ,,1 p r y•• iT� JE i'i J. '.cam t4, +. e • + • 'D - ��. r - L - �r 1. Lot Width: The minimum width of the building envelope. area shall meet the lot - .requirement of the applicable zoning districtt<::-t,.y_t.• :.:;. ;. ., :R -; 2. : ` ' Lot Area': ....The lot area shall_ be as required. by. the` applicable ioriing districtlri • :the case o a • flag. lot; • -the accessway. •may.: not be 'included =in`` the =lot "area - r - calculation. 3. Lot Frontage: Each lot created through- the partition process shall front a • public right - of-way by at least 15 feet or :have legally recorded iiminlrnum '15. `n = - • • .. :foot wide access easement. .: w - .;_-.... 1 :.. _- • - - - 7:77 - .. . 4. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district'•= 5. Front Yard Determination for Flag Lot When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the •••• developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet. Structures shall generally be located so as to • maximize separation from existing structures.- 6. Screening on Flag Lots: A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot In accordance with Sections 18.100.080 .and 18.100.090..: Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting' lots rand ' to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development. 7. Fire Protection: The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant • where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire fighting capabilities. - _; :. _ • . • . • 8. Reciprocal Easements: Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement that will ensure access and maintenance • rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. •: . ' - - ' • . • NOTiCE OF AMENDED DECISION Mt.P 97-0002. DOWN NGISHAW PARTTON - • -- • PAGE 7 • that total T1F fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of the project traffic impact on major streets is _ • 510,560.00 (35,280 x 2 dwelling units). Therefore the development of this project will result in an unmitigated traffic impact of 37,180.00. . = • For this reason, the cost of all required and potential fu ture 'street improvements discussed within this report), are less than the impact and, therefore; roughly proportional , to the impact of the development. • " t - • " f Minor Land Partition - Approval Standards; Section.18.162.040 contains the following . general approval criteria for a Minor Land Partition: ._ • .. . . - _ . *._ 1. The proposal conforrns with the City's Comprehensive Plan; 2. The proposed partition complies with all statutory and .ordinance requirements and regulations; ' : • . A 3. Adequate public are available tro serve proposal; . = • •- • 4. All proposed lots_ ,conform to =the size and dimensional requirements of this ; • title; and . . = .. �_ • - 5. All proposed improvements meet City and applicable agency standards (Ord. "r 89-06 Ord. 83-52). Tv •a�.;i . . _ :: d -,d .:.. • .4 �.. — 'l.•'Y •J .{^.. �. Z._':1. s' . of develo m m with h The proposed lot t ¢e - and type p Lint conforms type , of ity rangge � • , , allowed by the Comprehensive Plan as required by Criteria 1.- The applicable'development, - standards that implement '•the Comprehensive Plan designation for ,.this,property , are reviewed elsewhere within this report. * . • .S. .-• "ri':w. �." .7- - . 1 . `7C - -.p" by.: �li.yt t'.� '.�'� ;•R,~�•s�u •„ :. • 1 ._'�L : ' -' :: :;•.. ,... .. ....� .- 'a °' : im ':i• . ._ _ •. , •. t ..'^ J• �y� . •,. •.. Each of the proposed parcels would exceeed the 7,500 sq uare m." The proposed • parcels would also exceed the 50 -foot average width • requirement, as required by Section . 18.50. • .The parcels,: as proposed, would allow the development of up to two (2) additional detached, single-family residential dwelling • unrls: The applicant can ' choose to file : a ' Conditional Use Permit application to'develop a'duplex on Lot 3. It may also be, possible to partition Lot 3 in the future to develop an additional dwelling unit or duplex. The partition, as • • proposed, does not preclude any future partition(s). "' • ..•' ' . The development, as proposed, does not exceed the maximum residential density allowed .: under Chapter 18.92 for a 1.02 acre parcel within the R-4.5 Zoning District. After subtraction of 7,500 square feet for the minimum lot size of the zoning district, for the existing home that is to be preserved, a net site area of 36,931 square feet remains. ' By dividing the net area by 7,500 square feet, this site yields the opportunity to develop up to four (4) dwelling units. - - Because the site has in excess of 100 fleet of frontage on SW Greenburg Road and SW. 92nd Avenue Section 18.100 requires the planting of street trees. • . Prior to recording the Final Plat the applicant shall provide a street tree planting plan. The applicant shall also bond, or provide another acceptable form of assurance, for the planting of street trees. The street trees shall be planted prior to the release of the bond. • Where possible - existing trees that are to be preserved may serve as the required street tree . plantings. Upon completion of the appeal period, the development will have complied with NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97-0002 _ DOWN1NGfSHAW PARTmfN DLit= • On March 27, 1997 the City issued a Decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97 -0002 subject to Conditions of Approval. Because a new private street was proposed to serve . the partition, the land use decision either should have been issued as a Major Land Partition or have required a revision for an access easement type of accessway or other • acceptable method for the Tots that are being created. The applicant has requested that the Minor Land Partition be re- issued with revised Conditions of Approval that reflects the . limitations of a Minor Land Partition. "For these reasons, an :amended decision has been issued based on the criteria set forth for approval of a Minor Land .Partition. :; Site Information and Proposal Description: : The applicant proposes to develop the areas that were planted with fir trees with a private street and utilities in order to develop two (2) new single- family, detached residences. SECTION IV APPLICABLE R = EVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS .� - COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: ' jmpact Study: Section 18.32.050 states the applicant shall either specifically. concur - with a requirement for public right -of -way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property. dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected , impacts' of the - development ,:= Alternatively, d an . applicant --. may :a .specifically concur with the requirement for dedication of right -of -ray, to the public and waive the impact study 'analysis by dedicating . the:. right- of- way completion.}, of a waiver statement. An impact study waiver was provided. The applicant proposes to - develop under existing required .system development fees and construct full half - street'= improvements for their property frontage on SW 92nd Avenue. The proposed half street improvements would connect wit h and continue the existing street improvements *on SW . • Greenburg Road, and_are being developed to comply with current Local Street standards as reviewed within this report The applicant also proposes to construct a private street to serve this development _• 'Through this amended decision, the . private street •will be ,,: - incorporated into one (1) or more of the lots as an access easement. The easement may - be a shared accessway at the applicants' discretion. Any required street improvements to "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 .11 (Resolution 95 -61), TIFs are - expected to recapture 32% of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial street system. Presently, the TIF for each trip that is generated is 3169.00 The total TIF for a detached, single- family dwelling is 31,690.00. Because the applicant has proposed to construct improvements on a Local Street, no TIF credits are applicable in conjunction with the development of these streets. Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIFs of approximately 53,380.00 (31,690 x 2 dwelling units). Based on the estimate , NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION . ? , MLP 97-0002 - DOMANGiSHAW PARTITION 7 . PAGE 5 .,. • I • , 14. The applicant shall revise the partition plat to eliminate the private street. The applicant may provide an access and/or utility easement for Lot 2 instead of directly • accessing SW 92nd Avenue. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division (503) 639 -4171. b • . T• • • •••PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE FOLLOUVING"`K W' r:. CONDITIONS SHALL' BE SATISFIED • A, • 15. Prior to issuance of building permits on this site, the applicant shall obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all grading for the lots, all on -site private utility installation (water, sewer, storm, etc.), and all driveway construction. (NOTE: this permit is separate from any permit issued by the Engineering Department for work in the public right -of -way.) - • - • 16. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with one (1) recorded myiar ; :,copy of the partition plat. - y:t .., ' T -.. 4 , t troy . ,!ti'' �'/ -, _ _ ;,,. 17. .. Prior to issuance o f any building permits within this project, the public improvements shall be deemed substantially complete by the City Engineer. Substantial completion shall be when: _ w . 1. all utilities are installed and • irispected for compliance, induding . 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. 18. Prior to issuance of the building permits for Lots . 2 and 3, the applicant shall pay the standard water quality fee of $180.00 per lot - - - :,_:._ ` • • 19. • • ,Flag lot access screening shall be provided along the affected portions of the access easement. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning . Division (503) 639 -4171. 4 4.... •� THIS:APPROVA HALL E VAUD.,FOR:18 •> : : • ;•• • FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF:THIS SECTION 111: BACKGROUND INFORMATION : Site History, _ • The site is presently developed with a detached, single - family residence and garage. The site has approximately a five (5) percent slope towards SW Greenburg Road. The site has large, mature fir trees throughout the portion of the property that is to be developed. The applicant states that Mr. Shaw planted these trees years ago on the property. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION - ' ' - Ps.P 97-0002 • DONNING/SHAW PARTITION - • ' PAGE 4 .4111 k. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 92nd Avenue safely, as approved by the Engineering Department - 6. The applicant shall place a joint driveway easement on the final plat to indicate any shared driveways. 7. The applicant shall 'obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valleji Water District for the proposed water connections prior td issuance �of the City's public improvement permit 8. The applicant's proposed storm drainage design shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. _ . 9. An erosion control plan shall be provided as pait of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994'. 10. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines' along W 92nd = underground as a art of this project: g - - - - Avenue unde � P p led: or they shall pay the fee in -lieu of undergrounding. . The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines will be $27.50 per lineal foot If the fee option is chosen, it shall be paid prior to recording of the final plat • 11.. • Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: v.. • a. Three (3) mylar copies of . the -partition plat • prepared by a land surveyor - • licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative:-.7s b. The partition plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05); Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. ' • • c. The right -of -way dedication for SW 92nd Avenue shall be made on the partition plat. • • 12. The Tualatin Valley Fire District reviewed this application and stated that the plans - were tat approved. Plans . reflecting the changes listed under the agency comments' section of this report shall be submitted to the Tualatin Valley Fire District. CONTACT: Gene Birchill, Tualatin Valley Fire District (503) 526 -2469. 13. The applicant shall provide a street tree planting plan. The applicant shall also bond for or provide another acceptable form of assurance for the planting of street trees. The street trees shall be planted prior to the release of the bond. Where possible, existing trees that are to be preserved may serve as the required street tree plantings. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division (503) 639 -4171. • NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION - - MLP 97-0002 - DOWNING/SHAW PARTITION - PAGE 3 • • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT, THE FOLLOWING • ' CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: :. - (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Brian Rager In the :... Engineering Deparbnent (503) S39171 .4 •' ° y, 1. Prior to approval of the final plat, a public improvement permit and compliance ; . agreement is required for this project. Five (5) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Once redline comments are addressed and the plans are revised, the design engineer shall then submit eight (8) sets of revised drawings • and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate for final review and approval. (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 'name, address, and - telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who vl l be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing 'the finanaal assurance for the public improvements. 3. Any necessary off -site utility easements shall be the responsibility of the applicant to . obtain and shall be submitted to,.and accepted by the City prior to construction. 4. Additional right - of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW 92nd Avenue to increase the right - of-way (ROW) to 25 feet from the centerline.' A ROW , radius of 25 feet shall also be dedicated at the intersection of SW 92nd Avenue and SW Greenburg Road to provide room for the curb retum, sidewalk, and wheelchair • ramp. These dedications shall be shown on the face of the final plat ' - 5. The applicant shall construct standard half (Iii) street improvements along the frontage of SW 92nd Avenue. The improvements adjacent to this site shall indude: - 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. curb; d. storm drainage, including any off -site stomi drainage necessary to convey subsurface runoff, e. • a five (5) -foot concrete sidewalk, , . _. - • f. street striping; g. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer - h. underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay a fee in -lieu of undergrounding existing overhead utilities); - _ • - _ i. street signs; . - j. driveway apron (if applicable); and • NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97-0002 - DOWNING/SHAW PARTTT)ON PAGE 2 • • . — NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION . . MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97 -0002 cm Of TIGAao .... D OWNING /S HAW; PARTI. ON. A � �+ SECTION I: • APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: • FILE NAME: • • • . DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION Minor Land Partition MLP 97-0002 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested to partition one (1) parcel of 1.02 acres; _ into three (3) parcels of 8,115, 14,700 and 17,017 square feet respectively. - APPLICANT: Mr. Miles Downing :. - OWNER: Mrs. Dorothy Shaw •• • 9757 SW McDonald Street 2_ '. 11600 SW Greenburg Road <,. .Tigard, .OR 97224 ; - : - •_ Tigard OR '97223 -. . - • COMPREHENSIVE __ .... _ _ a . . t . PLAN ... , DESIGNATION: , '_ Low Density Residential; .1 -5 Dwelling Units Per Acre. ° ZONING • - - • :. _ - , DESIGNATION: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; • R-4.5. The R-4.5 - Zoning District Allows Low Density Detached, Single - Family Residences. . . LOCATION: 1 1600 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1 S135DC, Tax Lot Y ' - APPUCABLE . • • : .. _ ... _ REVIEW - - - - CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.92, 18.100, • 18.102, 18.108, 18.162 and 18.164. • • SECTION I1: DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director',s designee;;: • has APPROVED the above request subject to conditions - of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV. . NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION .. . , IK.P 97-0002 - DOWNING/SHAW PARTTTION - . . _ . PAGE 1 • • Attachments: 4/23/97 memo from the City Recorder to the Planning Manager Appeal filing form t 4/23/97 letter from appellant supporting the appeal 4/23/97 C.D. counter "sign -in" sheet 12 page "Amended" MLP 97 -0002 Notice of Decision Site Plan Map Vicinity Map OcurvInVnark_rv„lp97- 02.a134 • .r: • Deno d of d 411 • Letter from Mr. Terry Smith to Mr. John Hadley dated February 26, 1997. This letter has not been located. This letter dealt with whether the subject property was technically a single parcel - or two parcels. . Letter from Mr. John Hadley to Mr. Terry Smith dated March 4, 1997. A copy of this letter is in the file. The City surveyor confirmed with the County Surveyor that the subject property was a single parcel. This issue was addressed with the applicant who revised the application from a request to partition two lots into four Tots, to one lot into three Tots. The applicant submitted a revised application to this effect. A copy of the written notice sending the application back to the applicant as per Mr. Hadley's letter. This letter dealt with the legal description for the property that described the property as two (2) parcels. Mr. Hadley's findings were discussed with the applicant and a revised Minor Land Partition application was filed. Mr. Hadley's letter did not state that the previous application was to be sent back to the applicant. A written request from the applicant to revise the application to incorporate the street into Lot three (3). The applicant has provided a letter to this effect that is in the file. Initially, the applicant had orally requested that the decision be reissued. /ithin the appeal narrative, Mr. Smith referred to repeated written requests for information concerning le City Council's decision not to require tree removal plans for Minor Land Partitions. Mr. Smith states at he repeatedly asked for written demonstration as to the City Council direction. Mr. Smith has not ceatedly in writing, or orally, asked for this information. Upon review of the issues listed within the 1peal materials, this information was faxed to Mr. Smith. The materials that were faxed to Mr. Smith re in the land use file for this application. );.ommendation 's recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal finding that the application was nplete based on the materials submitted by the applicant and that the application was correctly . ccessed under the limitations set forth for a Minor Land Partition. ecticn 18.25 of the Community Development Code defines a street as, "a public or private way that is reated to provide ingress or egress for persons to one or more lots, parcels, areas or tracts of land, xcluding a private way that is created to provide ingress or egress to such and in conjunction with the se of such land for forestry mining or agricultural purposes'. ecttion 18.26 of the Community Development Code defines a flag lot as, "a lot located behind a ontage lot, plus a strip out to the street for an access drive. A flag lot results from the subdivision, artitioning of a residential lot or parcel which is more than twice as large as the minimum allowed in the nderiying zone but without sufficient frontage to allow two dwellings to front along a street. There are vo distinct parts to a flag lot: the "flag" which comprises the actual building site located at the rear orticn of the original lot, and the "pole" which provides access from a street to the flag'. is staffs recommendation that the Planning Commission interpret these definitions to mean that a flag cle is not a street and was not ever intended to be a street Page 3 of .s • • . __ • parcels throughout the City that meet the minimum size standard of their underlying zoning district ` would then be non - conforming as to size because their driveways must be taken out of the net lot area. The appellant states that the amended decision was issued as a Minor Land Partition with an additional �• Condition of Approval, apparently as a way for the City to avoid requiring -the controls of the standards that are in place for Major Land Partitions. This is a fal statement. The applicant filed a Minor Land Partition and throughout the process, has requested that the City process the application as a Minor Land Partition. The appellant also stated that the application was incomplete based on lack of the following pieces of information that were not, in his opinion, included in the application file. The following is a list of the information he claimed was missing and the status of the information: • • 1. The appellant states that the application was incomplete because existing trees were not shown on the preliminary plat map. Within the application materials the Director did not require that trees in excess of six (6) inches in caliper be shown on the preliminary plat. Section 18.150.025 Tree Plan . Requirements exempts .,Minor, Land Partitions from this submittal requirement and any `requirement for .mitigation of trees that are removed . through the . _ development process. This is set forth in Section 18.150.125 (B)(2). It is recommended that a specific finding stating this be included in the Final Order for the appeal. 2. • The appellant states that the application is incomplete becaus e a cross section was not ' provided for the proposed street right -of -way. A street cross section was provided on the preliminary plat for the proposed private street. Because the applicant's SW Greenburg Road frontage is fully improved, no street cross section was required for this street frontage.. Proposed street improvements on the SW 92nd Avenue frontage were shown on the preliminary partition_ _ ,1 plat. Detailed improvement plans were required as a Condition of Approval for the SW 92nd - Avenue frontage. A street cross section was not required for the flag pole because staff believes it is not a street. 3. The appellant states that minutes of the neighborhood meeting were not found from the meeting that was held with the developer on December 23, 1996. No neighborhood meeting is required to be conducted for a Minor Land Partition. The applicant conducted a Neighborhood Meeting because at one point, duplexes were proposed for some or all of the lots that were to be created. Conditionally Permitted Uses such as a duplex in the R-4.5 Zoning District requires a Neighborhood Meeting. 1. Three letters from the appellant to myself regarding the application. Of the three letters the appeilant refers to, one of the letters is in the file. This letter dealt with the original decision that was issued. This decision proposed to create a private tract for street purposes to serve Lots 2 and 3. The Director found that the decision was issued in error and an amended decision was issued to specifically address this issue. The two other letters that were sent by the appellant were clarifications of Development Code requirements. The appellant had questions related to the definition of streets and whether a flag lot was a street. These letters cannot be located but were addressed specifically with Mr. Smith. These letters concem issues that were raised by the appeal that was filed. The fact that these letters are missing does not relieve the responsibility of the City to issue a decision based on the application that has been filed. �- -- n _: . AGENDA ITEM t5.1 MEMORANDUM - CITY OFTIGARD, OREGON lkswipagent • .SiaposA claw C • TO: Planning Commission - FROM: Mark Roberts 47 1/ 1 f. • BATE May 8, 1997 SUBJECT: Appeal of A Directors decision to approve *Amended° Minor Land Partition (MLP) 97 -0002 Background Dn March 27, 1997, the Director issued a dec to app Minor Land Partition 97 -0002 subject to ' onditions of Approval. Because a new street was proposed to serve the partition, the land se decision either should have been issued as a Major Land Partition or should have required a evision for an access easement type of accessway. Alternative methods of access could have also :een The applicant has requested that the Minor Land Partition be.re- issued with revised conditions of Approval that reflects the limitations of a Minor Land Partition.... On April 4, .1997.the irector reissued an Amended Decision to approve Minor Land Partition subject to Conditions ,f Approval. On April 23, 1997 Mr. Terry Smith appealed. this decision with concems that the Ipplication was incomplete and that the decision was incorrectly proce a Mino L ssed . as and Partition stead of a Major Land Partition.` :,, _r , _ .... asis For Appeal • le appellant states that the application was incorrectly processed as a Minor Land Partition instead of Major Land Partition. The appellant states that this application was a Major Land Partition because a parate Tract A was proposed for private street purposes to Lots 2 and 3. .For this reason, Condition Approval #14 of the amended decision required that the proposed private street be incorporated into ;t 3 as a flag lot. Through this condition the applicants Minor Land Partition met the limitations of the ,nor Land Partition process. - le amended decision also allowed the applicant the option to combine access for Lots 2 and 3 rough the pole area of the Lot 3 flag pole. ft is recommended that the Planning Commission make a ding within the Final Order that this option is not allowed because Lot 3 would then be providing ess to two (2) lots. In the Director's opinion, this type of access situation would then meet the e vent definition of a street. • +e appellant states that the flag portion of a flag lot serves only for access purposes and that the ;velopment Code specifically excludes this area from meeting the net lot area requirement of the .denying zoning district. The Development Code excludes this area from the net lot area requirement, wever, a flag lot in this case was not created for street purposes, it was created as a building site. If lag lot access driveway is defined as a street, then all driveways meet the definition of a street Many • • AGENDA ITEM #5.1 MEMORANDUM • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ClIy Community ' � g � ro ent Shaping}i (Better Community TO Planning Commission FROM: Mark Roberts ° 1/14. se •4', DATE May 8, 1997 SUBJECT: Appeal of A Director's decision to approve "Amended" Minor Land Partition (MLP) 97 -0002 • Background On March 27, 1997, the Director issued a decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97 -0002 subject to • Conditions of Approval. Because a new private street was proposed to serve the partition, the land use decision either should have been issued as a Major Land Partition or should have required a revision for an access easement type of accessway. Alternative methods of access could have also been required. The applicant has requested that the Minor Land Partition be re- issued with revised Conditions of Approval that reflects the limitations of a Minor Land Partition. On April 4, 1997 the Director reissued an Amended Decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97 -0002 subject to Conditions of Approval. On April 23, 1997 Mr. Terry Smith appealed this decision with concerns that the application was incomplete and that the decision was incorrectly processed as a Minor Land Partition instead of a Major Land Partition. Basis For Appeal The appellant states that the application was incorrectly processed as a Minor Land Partition instead of a Major Land Partition. The appellant states that this application was a Major Land Partition because a separate Tract A was proposed for private street purposes to Lots 2 and 3. For this reason, Condition of Approval #14 of the amended decision required that the proposed private street be incorporated into Lot 3 as a flag lot. Through this condition the applicants Minor Land Partition met the limitations of the Minor Land Partition process. The amended decision also allowed the applicant the option to combine access for Lots 2 and 3 through the pole area of the Lot 3 flag pole. It is recommended that the Planning Commission make a finding within the Final Order that this option is not allowed because Lot 3 would then be providing access to two (2) Tots. In the Director's opinion, this type of access situation would then meet the current definition of a street. The appellant states that the flag portion of a flag lot serves only for access purposes and that the Development Code specifically excludes this area from meeting the net lot area requirement of the underlying zoning district. The Development Code excludes this area from the net lot area requirement, however, a flag lot in this case was not created for street purposes, it was created as a building site. If a flag lot access driveway is defined as a street, then all driveways meet the definition of a street. Many • Page 1 of 4 • • parcels throughout the City that meet the minimum size standard of their underlying zoning district would then be non - conforming as to size because their driveways must be taken out of the net lot area. The appellant states that the amended decision was issued as a Minor Land Partition with an additional Condition of Approval, apparently as a way for the City to avoid requiring the controls of the standards that are in place for Major Land Partitions._ This is a false statement. The applicant filed a Minor Land - Partition and throughout the process, has requested that the City process the application as a Minor Land Partition. The appellant also stated that the application was incomplete based on lack of the following pieces of information that were not, in his opinion, included in the application file. The following is a list of the information he claimed was missing and the status of the information: 1. The appellant states that the application was incomplete because existing trees were not shown on the preliminary plat map. Within the application materials the Director did not require that trees in excess of six (6) inches in caliper be shown on the preliminary plat. Section 18.150.025 Tree Plan Requirements exempts Minor Land Partitions from this submittal requirement and any requirement for mitigation of trees that are removed through the development process. This is set forth in Section 18.150.125 (B)(2). It is recommended that a specific finding stating this be included in the Final Order for the appeal. 2. The appellant states that the application is incomplete because a cross section was not provided for the proposed street right -of -way. A street cross section was provided on the preliminary plat for the proposed private street. Because the applicant's SW Greenburg Road frontage is fully improved, no street cross section was required for this street frontage. Proposed street improvements on the SW 92nd Avenue frontage were shown on the preliminary partition plat. Detailed improvement plans were required as a Condition of Approval for the SW 92nd Avenue frontage. A street cross section was not required for the flag pole because staff believes it is not a street. 3. The appellant states that minutes of the neighborhood meeting were not found from the meeting that was held with the developer on December 23, 1996. No neighborhood meeting is required to be conducted for a Minor Land Partition. The applicant conducted a Neighborhood Meeting because at one point, duplexes were proposed for some or all of the lots that were to be created. Conditionally Permitted Uses such as a duplex in the R-4.5 Zoning District requires a Neighborhood Meeting. 4. Three letters from the appellant to myself regarding the application. Of the three letters the appellant refers to, one of the letters is in the file. This letter dealt with the original decision that was issued. This decision proposed to create a private tract for street purposes to serve Lots 2 and 3. The Director found that the decision was issued in error and an amended decision was issued to specifically address this issue. The two other letters that were sent by the appellant were clarifications of Development Code requirements. The appellant had questions related to the definition of streets and whether a flag lot was a street. These letters cannot be located but were addressed specifically with Mr. Smith. These letters concem issues that were raised by the appeal that was filed. The fact that these letters are missing does not relieve the responsibility of the City to issue a decision based on the application that has been filed. Page 2 of 4 • • 5. Letter from Mr. Terry Smith to Mr. John Hadley dated February 26, 1997. This letter has not been located. This letter dealt with whether the subject property was technically a single parcel or two parcels. 6. Letter from Mr. John Hadley to Mr. Terry Smith dated March 4, 1997. A copy of this letter is in the file. The City surveyor confirmed with the County Surveyor that the subject property was a • single parcel. This issue was addressed with the applicant who revised the application from a request to partition two lots into four Tots, to one lot into three lots. The applicant submitted a revised application to this effect. 7. A copy of the written notice sending the application back to the applicant as per Mr. Hadley's letter. This letter dealt with the legal description for the property that described the property as two (2) parcels. Mr. Hadley's findings were discussed with the applicant and a revised Minor Land Partition application was filed. Mr. Hadley's letter did not state that the previous application was to be sent back to the applicant. 8. A written request from the applicant to revise the application to incorporate the street into _ Lot three (3). The applicant has provided a letter to this effect that is in the file. Initially, the applicant had orally requested that the decision be reissued. Within the appeal narrative, Mr. Smith referred to repeated written requests for information concerning • the City Council's decision not to require tree removal plans for Minor Land Partitions. Mr. Smith states that he repeatedly asked for written demonstration as to the City Council direction. Mr. Smith has not repeatedly in writing, or orally, asked for this information. Upon review of the issues listed within the appeal materials, this information was faxed to Mr. Smith. The materials that were faxed to Mr. Smith are in the land use file for this application. Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal finding that the application was complete based on the materials submitted by the applicant and that the application was correctly processed under the limitations set forth for a Minor Land Partition. Section 18.26 of the Community Development Code defines a street as, "a public or private way that is created to provide ingress or egress for persons to one or more lots, parcels, areas or tracts of land, excluding a private way that is created to provide ingress or egress to such land in conjunction with the . use of such land for forestry mining or agricultural purposes ". Section 18.26 of the Community Development Code defines a flag lot as, "a lot located behind a frontage lot, plus a strip out to the street for an access drive. A flag lot results from the subdivision, partitioning of a residential lot or parcel which is more than twice as large as the minimum allowed in the underlying zone but without sufficient frontage to allow two dwellings to front along a street. There are two distinct parts to a flag lot: the "flag" which comprises the actual building site located at the rear portion of the original lot, and the "pole" which provides access from a street to the flag ". It is staffs recommendation that the Planning Commission interpret these definitions to mean that a flag pole is not a street and was not ever intended to be a street. Page 3 of 4 • • Attachments: 4/23/97 memo from the City Recorder to the Planning Manager Appeal filing form 4/23/97 letter from appellant supporting the appeal 4/23/97 C.D. counter "sign -in" sheet 12 page "Amended" MLP 97 -0002 Notice of Decision Site Plan Map Vicinity Map i:lcurpinlmark_r\m1p97 -02. apI • Page 4 of 4 - - NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION • • A MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97 -0002 cmr o. nowRc DOWNING /SHAW. PARTITION sr - SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION Minor Land Partition . MLP 97 -0002 PROPOSAL: • . The applicant has requested to partition one (1) parcel of 1.02 acres; into three (3) parcels of 8,115, 14,700 and 17,017 square feet respectively. APPLICANT: Mr. Miles Downing OWNER: Mrs. Dorothy Shaw 9757 SW McDonald Street • • ' - 11600 SW Greenburg Road Tigard, OR 97224 - - ` Tigard, OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential; 1 -5 Dwelling Units Per Acre. ZONING • DESIGNATION: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. The R-4.5 Zoning District Allows Low Density Detached, Single- Family Residences. • LOCATION: 11600 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 06700. APPLICABLE REVIEW - CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.162 . and 18.164. SECTION II: DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request subject to conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION . MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING/SHAW PARTITION PAGE 1 • • • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL . PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT, THE FOLLOWING • CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: . (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Brian Rager in the . . , ,Engineering ..........:. � ::.,:::::.:.;;:::.: < Elgin ng Department (503) 639 - 4171.' 1. Prior to approval of the final plat, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Five (5) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Once redline comments are addressed and the plans are revised, the design engineer shall then submit eight (8) sets of revised drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate for final review and approval. (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 name, address, and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. 3. Any necessary off -site utility easements shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and shall be submitted to, and accepted by the City prior to construction. . . 4. Additional right -of -way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW 92nd - • Avenue to increase the right -of -way (ROW) to 25 feet from the centerline. A ROW radius of 25 feet shall also be dedicated at the intersection of SW 92nd Avenue and SW Greenburg Road to provide room for the curb return, sidewalk, and wheelchair • ramp. These dedications shall be shown on the face of the final plat. 5. The applicant shall construct standard half (1i) street improvements along the frontage of SW 92nd Avenue. 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. curb; d. storm drainage, including any off -site storm drainage necessary to convey subsurface runoff; e. a five (5) -foot concrete sidewalk; - f. street striping; g. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer, h. underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay a fee in -lieu of undergrounding existing overhead utilities); _ _ i. street signs; j. driveway apron (if applicable); and NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION - - • MLP 9T -0002 - DOWNING/SHAW PARTITION PAGE 2 • • k. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 92nd Avenue safely, as approved by the Engineering Department. - 6. The applicant shall place a joint driveway easement on the final plat to indicate any shared driveways. 7. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connections prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. 8. The applicant's proposed storm drainage design shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. 9. 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 . 10. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 92nd Avenue underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in -lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, it shall be paid prior to recording of the final plat. - • • 11. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: - a. Three (3) mylar copies of the partition plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. - b. The partition plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum • standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington • County, and by the City of Tigard. c. The right -of -way dedication for SW 92nd Avenue shall be made on the partition plat. • 12. The Tualatin Valley Fire District reviewed this application and stated that the plans were not approved. Plans reflecting the changes listed under the agency comments' section of this report shall be submitted to the Tualatin Valley Fire District. CONTACT: Gene Birchill, Tualatin Valley Fire District (503) 526 -2469. 13. The applicant shall provide a street tree planting plan. The applicant shall also bond for or provide another acceptable form of assurance for the planting of street trees. The street trees shall be planted prior to the release of the bond. Where possible, existing trees that are to be preserved may serve as the required street tree plantings. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division (503) 639-4171. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION . . MLP 97-0002 - DOWNING/SHAW PARTITION PAGE 3 • • 14. The applicant shall revise the partition plat to eliminate the private street. The applicant may provide an access and /or utility easement for Lot 2 instead of directly accessing SW 92nd Avenue. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division (503) 639 -4171. : • ; :;,;PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING, PERMITS,THE CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATIS .:.... .:.:..... 15. Prior to issuance of building permits on this site, the applicant shall obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all grading for the Tots, all on -site private utility installation (water, sewer, storm, etc.), and all driveway construction. (NOTE: this permit is separate from any permit issued, by the Engineering Department for work in the public right -of -way.) • . • - .. r� , 16. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with one (1) recorded mylar copy of the partition plat. - . , 17. Prior to issuance of any building permits within this project, the public improvements shall be deemed substantially complete by the City Engineer. Substantial completion . shall be when: `_ _.... ; . :S . _ .. 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. 18: Prior to issuance of the building permits for. Lots 2 and 3, the applicant shall pay the • standard water quality fee of $180.00 per lot - 19. Flag - lot access screening shall be provided along the affected portions of the access easement. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division (503) 639 -4171. .;.THIS.APPROVALSHALL BE.VALID.FOR18 MONTHS: =: »:<x ` <:: THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF:THIS E ISION ::> :;<.:::::::':.::: >:.> SECTION III: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History; • The site is presently developed with a detached, single - family residence and garage. The site has approximately a five (5) percent slope towards SW Greenburg Road. The site has large, mature fir trees throughout the portion of the property that is to be developed. The applicant states that Mr. Shaw planted these trees years ago on the property. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION •_ • - MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING/SHAW PARTITION • - - - - - - • - PAGE 4 • i.. On March 27, 1997 the City issued a Decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97 -0002 subject to Conditions of Approval. Because a new private street was proposed to serve the partition, the land use decision either should have been issued as a Major Land Partition or have required a revision for an access easement type of accessway or other acceptable method for the lots that are being created. The applicant has requested that the Minor Land Partition be re- issued with revised Conditions of Approval that reflects the limitations of a Minor Land Partition. For these reasons, an amended decision has been issued based on the criteria set forth for approval of a Minor Land Partition. . Site Information and Proposal Description; • The applicant proposes to develop the areas that were planted with fir trees with a private street and utilities in order to develop two (2) new single - family, detached residences. SECTION IV: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS , • COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Jmpact Study: Section 18.32.050 states the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right -of -way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development . Alternatively, an applicant may specifically concur with the- requirement for dedication of right -of -way to the public and waive the impact study analysis by dedicating .the . right -of -way and completion of a waiver statement. An impact study waiver was provided. The applicant proposes to develop under existing ,required system development fees and construct full half - street improvements for their property frontage on SW 92nd Avenue. The proposed half street improvements would connect with and .continue the existing street improvements on SW Greenburg Road, and. are being developed to comply with current Local Street standards . as reviewed within this report. The applicant also proposes to construct a private street to serve this development. Through this amended decision, the private street will be incorporated into one (1) or more of the lots as an access easement. The easement may be a shared accessway at the applicants' discretion. 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% of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial street system. Presently, the TIF for each trip that is generated is $169.00 The total TIF for a detached, single- family dwelling is $1,690.00. Because the applicant has proposed to construct improvements on a Local Street, no TIF credits are applicable in conjunction with the development of these streets. Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $3,380.00 ($1,690 x 2 dwelling units). Based on the estimate NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97-0002 - DOWNING/SHAW PARTTIION . PAGE 5 41 • • that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of the project traffic impact on major streets is $10,560.00 ($5,280 x 2 dwelling units). Therefore the development of this project will result in an unmitigated traffic impact of $7,180.00. • For this reason, the cost of all required and potential future' street Irilprovements (as discussed within this report), are less than the impact and, therefore; roughly proportional to the impact of the development. • Minor Land Partition - Approval Standards; Section 18.162.040 contains the following general approval criteria for a Minor Land Partition: 1. The proposal conforms with the City's Comprehensive Plan; ' • 2. The proposed partition complies with all statutory and .ordinance requirements and regulations; 3. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposal; • • • 4. All proposed lots conform to the size and dimensional requirements of this title; and . ' :. • .. - 5. All proposed improvements meet City and applicable agency standards (Ord. . 89 -06; Ord. 83 -52). ae, . , _ r .. • .. • s The proposed lot size and type of development coriforins with the type of density range .• allowed by the Comprehensive Plan as required by Criteria 1. . The applicable standards that implement the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property are reviewed elsewhere within this report., — - • = • y _ • = ° = • Each of the proposed parcels would exceed the 7,500 square foot minimum. The proposed parcels would also exceed the 50 -foot average width requirement, as required by Section 18.50. The parcels, as proposed, would allow the development of up to two (2) additional • detached, single- family residential dwelling units... The applicant can choose to • file a Conditional Use Permit application to develop a duplex on Lot 3. • It may also be possible to partition Lot 3 in the future to develop an additional dwelling unit or duplex. The partition, as proposed, does not preclude any future partition(s). r .... • . . The development, as proposed, does not exceed the maximum residential density allowed under Chapter 18.92 for a 1.02 acre parcel within the R-4.5 Zoning District. After subtraction of 7,500 square feet for the minimum lot size of the zoning district, for the existing home that is to be preserved, a net site area of 36,931 square feet remains. By dividing the net area by 7,500 square feet, this site yields the opportunity to develop up to four (4) dwelling units. Because the site has in excess of 100 feet of frontage on SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue Section 18.100 requires the planting of street trees. Prior to recording the Final Plat the applicant shall provide a street tree planting plan. The applicant shall also bond, or provide another acceptable form of assurance, for the planting of street trees.. The street trees shall be planted prior to the release of the bond. Where possible existing trees that are to be preserved may serve as the required street tree plantings. Upon completion of the appeal period, the development will have complied with NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION -' • MLP 97.0002 • DOWNING/SHAW PARTMON - PAGE 6 the statutory requirements of the City of Tigard for development review, as required by • Criteria 2. Adequate public facilities are available, or have been required to be provided to serve this site, as set forth in Sections 18.164.030 (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer)• and - 18.164.100 (Stomp Drain), as required by Criteria 3. These requirements are reviewed by the Engineering Department in this report. . The new parcels do not exceed a two and one -half, to one, length to depth ratio. The 50- . foot average width requirement is also met by these parcels. For these reasons, the proposed parcel configurations conform with size and dimensional requirements of the R-4.5 Zoning District, as required by Criteria 4. _ ..- As proposed, the improvements will comply with City and applicable' agency standards in satisfaction with Criteria 5, as reviewed through the Building Permit Plan Check process. All three (3) parcels comply with the Basic Solar Access requirements because the north to south lot dimension of these parcels would exceed 90 feet in length. Future development of structures on the new parcels will require compliance with Solar Balance Point Standards of the Solar Accessibility requirements of the Community Development Code: Section 18.162.050 contains the following special provisions for lots created through the Partition Process: "; - - - • •- 1. ' Lot Width: The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district. • -• - 2. Lot Area: The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district In the case of a flag lot, • the accessway may not be included in the lot area calculation. 3. Lot Frontage: Each lot created through the partition process shall front a • . public right -of -way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15- foot -wide access easement. . • - - - -. ' - • 4. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district = • 5. Front Yard Determination for Flag Lot When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location Of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet. Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from existing structures. -, xr... ' M a ' : = ". -- 6. Screening on Flag Lots: A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.100.080 and 18.100.090. ' Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development. 7. Fire Protection: The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire fighting capabilities. . . 8. Reciprocal Easements: Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement that will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION - . • • • MLP 97-0002 - DOWNING/SHAW PARTITION • -- PAGE 7 • , • 9. Accessway: Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.108, Access, Egress, and Circulation. 10. Floodplain: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the one - hundred -year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction Of a pedestrian and or bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian and or bicycle pathway plan. Criterion's 1, 2, 3 and 4 are satisfied. The parcels will exceed the area requirement of 7,500 square feet required for properties zoned R-4.5. The newly created parcels would have, in excess of 15 feet of direct frontage on a public street or fifteen feet of frontage on an access easement Lot 1 has direct frontage on SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue, in satisfaction, of the lot frontage requirement. Lots 2 would either have a minimum of 68 feet of direct access frontage on SW 92nd Avenue or be accessed through a shared access easement with Lot 3 in satisfaction of Criteria 3. The standards for setbacks, landscaping, and clear vision requirements will be reviewed for new structures at the time of Building Permit Plan Check Review. The existing residence complies with the front, rear, and sideyard setback requirements after the creation of a new lot line in the rear yard, in satisfaction with Criteria 4. Criterion's 5 and 6 have been addressed. Because it does not meet the definition of a flag - lot, Lot 2 is not required to take access separately from an access easement Because SW 92nd Avenue is a Local Street, Lot 2 can take direct access through SW 92nd Avenue. However, the applicant can elect to combine access for. these 'lots. Depending on the access easement configuration a flag lot setback determination will be necessary for Lot 3. - Flag lot setback standards will be applied, where applicable, _through the Building Permit Plan Check process. Through the Building Permit review, fire hydrants shall be consistent with Uniform Fire Code standards, thereby, satisfying Criteria 7. Criteria 8, requiring a reciprocal access and maintenance agreement, has been addressed through the recommended Conditions of Approval. A shared maintenance and access easement shall be provided where combined access for Lots 2 and 3 is requested by the applicant. Criteria 9 will be satisfied through the requirement for a . 10- foot -wide minimum paved driveway to serve Lot 3; or if desired, up to two (2), of the three (3) Tots. Criteria 10 has been met because the parcel is not located within the 100 -year flood plain or in areas with slopes exceeding 25 percent. Because the site does not adjoin the 100 -year flood plain, dedication of areas for pathway purposes is not applicable. • PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: ; Section's 18.164.030(E)(1)(a) (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), 18.164.100 (Storm Drains) shall be satisfied. Development Code provisions related to Storm Water Quantity, Storm Water Quality, Existing Utility Line Undergrounding, Water Service, Site Permits, Grading and Erosion Control are also addressed below: NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MAP 97-0002 - DOWNING/SHAW PARTITION . • . PAGE 8 • Streets This site is adjacent to SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue. Southwest - Greenburg Road is classified as a major collector street and is fully improved adjacent to this site. No additional right -of -way dedications or street improvements are necessary _ (except for the 92nd Avenue intersection, which will be discussed next). SW 92nd Avenue Southwest 92nd Avenue is a local residential street that is paved, but not improved, to City standards. The existing ROW width is approximately 40 feet. The applicant proposes to dedicate an additional five (5) feet to give 25 feet from centerline. This ROW dedication will be adequate. In addition, the applicant will need to dedicate additional ROW at the intersection to make room for the curb retum. City design standards call for a ROW radius of 25 feet. This dedication shall also be shown on the face of the final plat. The roadway surface of SW 92nd Avenue is paved, but the structural section does not appear to meet City standards for a local residential street. In order to mitigate the additional traffic that will be generated from this development, the applicant will construct half- street improvements on SW 92nd Avenue adjacent to this site. ,These improvements will also include installation of a curb retum at the northeast comer of the intersection at Greenburg Road, which will result in a much safer intersection. The applicant will be • required to design and construct the street improvements to City standards. Any necessary pavement taper required to tie the new improvement into the existing edge of pavement shall be accomplished beyond the site frontage. : .:,. ,. . Access will be provided to the new lots through a new paved driveway onto SW 92nd Avenue. If the driveway will be shared, the applicant will need to place a joint driveway easement on the final plat. Sanitary Sewer There is an existing 8 -inch public sewer line in SW 92nd Avenue that can adequately serve this site. The location of the sewer taps shall be approved by the City prior to construction. Storm Drainage There is an existing public storm drainage line in SW Greenburg Road that collects street runoff, including the catch basin at the northeast comer of the SW 92nd Avenue intersection. The applicant proposes to extend a public storm line in SW 92nd Avenue in order to pick up the street drainage and potential runoff from this site. The plan also indicates the lot drainage may be piped directly south through an easement over Lot 1 to the storm pipe in SW Greenburg Road. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNINGISHAW PARTrr1ON PAGE 9 • , • The design of this storm system shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant may need to adjust the location of the existing catch basin at the street comer in order to complete the new curb return. 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. For small sites such as this, the R &O makes an exception that would allow the applicant to pay a fee in -lieu of constructing an on -site facility. Staff recommends that the applicant pay the fee in -lieu. • Grading and Erosion Control - -• - - USA R &O 91-47 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 that accelerates erosion. Per R &O 91-47, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. "' - • • Existing Overhead Utility Lines • , ; w - • ° - - • There are existing overhead utilities on SW 92nd Avenue. Section 18.164.120 of the TMC requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in -lieu of undergrounding can be paid. If the fee in -lieu is proposed, it is equal to $27.50 per lineal foot of street front that contains the overhead lines. Site Permit Required The applicant is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on- site private utility installations (water, sewer, storm, etc.), driveway construction. This permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of the permit from the Engineering Department to allow work in the ROW. - . . Water This site lies within Tualatin Valley Water District's (TVWD) service area. The applicant's plan indicates that there is an existing • public water line in SW 92nd Avenue.. Any proposed connections to, or extensions of, the public water line shall be reviewed and approved by TVVVD. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97-0002 - DOWNING/SHAW PARTITION - • • • • PAGE 10 ( • SECTION V: OTHER STAFF COMMENTS _ The Building Division reviewed this application and had the following comment: Lots 2 and 3 can easily drain through the easement at east side of Lot 1 to SW Greenburg Road. The Police Department reviewed this application and had the following comment: Addresses are needed to be marked for each home on SW 92nd Avenue, so we can locate the homes easily. No other Staff comments or objections have been received. SECTION VI: AGENCY COMMENTS The Tualatin Valley Fire District reviewed this application and stated that the plans were mit approved. Plans reflecting the following comments shall be submitted to Gene Birchill of the Fire Marshall's office: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (15 • feet for not more than two (2) dwelling units), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet, 6 inches. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.1). Where fire apparatus access roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and maintain the minimum 20-foot-wide unobstructed driving surface, "No Parking" signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. (UFC Sec. 902.2.4). Signs shall read NO PARKING FIRE LANE - TOW • AWAY ZONE, ORS 98.810" and shall be installed with a clear space above ground level of seven (7) feet. Signs shall be 12- inches -wide by 18 inches high and shall have black or red letters and border on a white background. (UFC Sec. 901.4.5.(1)(2) & (3). No other Agency comments or objections have been received. SECTION VII: PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance X Affected government agencies • NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97 -0002 - DOWNING/SHAW PARTITION PAGE 11 • Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON WEDNESDAY APRIL 23, 1997 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Sections 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.340 of the Community Development Code that provides that a written appeal must be filed within ten (10) days after notice has been given and sent. The deadline for filing an appeal is specified below. The appeal fee schedule and appeal form are available from the Community Development Department or Planning Division at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 P.M. APRIL 23, 1997. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division or Community Development Department of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639 -4171. . 1; - - "4/14 41,„t-- April 4. 1997 PREPARED BY: Mark Roberts DATE Associate Planner, AICP • ji • .fe` April 4. 1997 • APPROVED BY: Richard Bewersd • • ' DATE Planning Manage( I:ICURPLNWMARK RVNLP97 -02.DEC NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MLP 97-0002 - DOWNING/SHAW PARTITION PAGE 12 0 CZ MAIM ` lJ tJ wct actN 3 J NEIGHBORS$ IMO .so HOUSE , 0 • • 97.51 &MSG 11116. 97.51 \RR .. �• LOT 2 - W ;.vl 8115 SO FT LOT 3 z '' 17,017 SO FT . u , a �1 • W • -o •� 6 OFF J CZ i - • • LAME •� 4 • 3 VATER METER /� ' • SEVER V i � _ SEVER •... 2a _ • j S 1 • ��, ^ L II /::.: ft FT '� - V, 1� .4 9 �• - A TE ST- ° y : -- . .. ;. 1 .... , I _ 4. .• • � 1i . MAIM :`.�. vac* woman 1: 1 - i D A !Y CRY'• Mill a ► LOT 1 , , t , ti 14 70 • ;: 'er SO FT M noe -% O t I .%'k,,, -- L 9 -1 ? O • / 1 ,z5) 4. G STORM DRAINS TO CURB V PLOT PLAN ) I CASE NO. EXHIBIT MAP s Downinglshaw Partition t•�% i MLP 97 -0002 1 • • . - ------- --- - ------- • ._ 1 - I I i Q - l DA KOTA 7 IN mil — h - -r -- ).F_ IIML MI 'AIN - \ E co NW MI \ e 't ___., , MI w WA • < MI I — Ili 1_ 0 al ,__ 411 ,1 ---,. .. Jw . w - ww _______ _____ e - .... I *,-KN. ‘17-7_, i _ - E imr cE . E , is ,., S Li, a LONBTA CO All N raw i ct 1 • Tkk-p , C AI 0_, !,IA or-7 2.) 1 - 1 I a„ ;�� � _ c7,41.1.,11 w . p . • I II. I I • ! }+ - � ' 1 11,11Mr m/4w w ...— ■ U tR?,,t, ♦ r r A...WS ,,$). Vicinity Map v i 97 -0002 Se•••- - W S E - Downing /Shaw Partition MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON - TO: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorders ^` s t DATE: April 23, 1997 SUBJECT: MLP #97 -0002 Attached is a completed 'Appeal Filing Form for Land Use Decision" for the proposal referenced above. Please schedule this for a Planning Commission Hearing date as early as possible and advise the applicant and appellant of that date. Thanks. Attachment c'admtnth cornesptap197002doc • • • 1 • A EAL FILING FM r'"' FOR LAND USE DECISIONS CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hail SMd. Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX (503) 684 - 7297 tie City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate In local government Tigard's Land Use Code, erefore, sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. le following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To 'tarmine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal procera, ease contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phonelfax listed at the top of this form. ENERAL INFORMATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY cperty Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the Application Being • • '" : A - .. -4:. ~; ALP �. 7. Z . Case N 4� b )pealed: I I Apo S. L I ri,.. r. 6 0 r `' Case Name(s): pew Skald Re, 1441 . 5 Receipt No.: c! 7- 9 .le (d 7 •• nw Do You Qualify As A Parry?: L I.0 _1 o L,,o - L.-VI LSO Aoelicatton Accepted Bv: C.Lc, A, Elf} _ .. - Date: if- a3' 9""? P 1 L 4 S . 2..,,, l -viz- AJ:.:: . . . As To Form By: G GJ • � ellanCs Address: 1 .Date: `//03/ t7 ty /State: - 1 - 7 . 7-.,1. Zip: Dot 1 Ill.n_ ' As To Form By: - •• iy Phone Where You Can Be Reached(�31 a 32-"N- 42.1 L `' . Date: •. : .heduled Date Decision Is To Be Final: 4- / 2& I' "i = e"' - 1013196 ate Notice of Final Decision Was Given: it 1 * 1 In ecfic Grounds For Appeal or Review: REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENT 0 L.1 L.A-r''. aVI 1/10+ Cron" Q t.aj y, • Application Elements Submitted: ❑ Appeal Filing Form (completed) 1-1 p . At. L1-1.40 P i - 4 0 F?urg Fee (based an arter►a below) C'..00rs 0.oa+a, ea Mawg can.nsaa, $ 250.00 '+.:*,v Rarer.* $ 500.00 1. L *m9 s CCkar to 1:15Y d 3V Caa 51.14&00 Signature(s) of Appeliant(s): e:---;...t..._.......,..v.. L.....14--jt v . Ell =lL3NG FORM FOR '...U40 USE;.ECS:CNS !OVER FOR ACOmCNAL WRmNG 3PACEI E 1 CF I • .. • 4-23 -1997 _ To: Mr. Jim Hendryx, City of Tigard 639 -4171, fax 684 -7297 From Terry Smith, 684 - 1460 - Re: Application #MLP 97-002 Dear Mr. Hendry i Thank you for calling me yesterday. I have put in writing most of the concerns we have. We would be grateful if you would please review the following issues and let me know this a.m. whether or not they would justify the city initiating another review of this application before the appeal deadline expires today at 3 :30. The elderly neighbor Mrs. Shaw wants to sell her property we do not want to hold her up or even stop development. We just fat that since it will be part of our neighborhood by accessing our street then it will impact us as to whether it blends in and compliments or whether it conflicts with and detracts from the character of our existing neighborhood The neighborhood is characterized by large lots with significant fir trees. If the city agrees with our positions below we would rather not have to file this appeal because it pits neighbor against neighbor to enforce a codes which the planner should be upholding. 1. Is the application properly classified? It appears that since the applicant proposes to partition the subject tax lot into 3 lots which includes the creation of a road or street it should be applied for as a major land partition and meet the respective standards. The following will demonstrate that a road or street is being created. And that the application exceeds the limitations of a minor land partition. A. The definition of "Road or Street" includes a private street which is an "accessway under private ownership ". The planner in order to facilitate the approval of this application as a minor land partition incorporated the street as a part of one of the lots. However whether it is under private or public ownership does not make a difference, or whether it is part of a lot or stands alone does not make a difference, the partition still includes its creation. 18.162.020 states that "A major land partition review is required when a division of land creates a sweet or road" B. All proposed improvements are to meet city and applicable agency standards (Ord. 89-06; Ord 83 -52). The fire department requires the creation of an access roadway and that it meet the specific standards. It has specified that this applications plans are not approved without the creation of an access roadway as laid out in the agency comments as described in the original and amended decision. This applicant is required when it is evident that the subject property can be further partitioned to show that the partition will not preclude the efficient division of land in the fume. It would appear that this would of necessity need to meet private street standards for lot access so as not to preclude future partitioning potential C. The definition of a flag lot describes the purpose of the "Pole" as being to provide access. D. The code does not allow the away portion of a flag lot to be included in the lot area calculation because it only serves as an accessway which is under private ownership. E.: he partition map shows 3 water meters when only two are needed, the history of this application shows that the applicant in order to meet the requirements of a minor land partition removed one lot line division leaving what is now lot 3 large enough to be partitioned again. The planner in his amended decision narrative has demonstrated his awareness of the potential for as many as (4) additional dwelling units being served by this accessway. As it is, the intentions are clear that this will be a right - of-way for more than one dwelling unit which also is described as being what determines this as a major land partition (sce 18.162.070.b.7). The question is, does the application more resemble the definition of a major or minor land partition. A minor land partition is limited to the creation of 3 lots, if you include the creation of an acccssaay it must be reviewed as a major land partition. To do otherwise may demonstrate an appearance of no regard for the Comprehensive plan; the code for community development, and our neighborhood which this Tax lots abuts and will become a part of by its access on to SW 92nd The reason it appears as such is because the primary objective of the amended decision is to evade the control of a major land • • partition. and this is because it will require the meeting of additional standards like the provisions for tree removal. 2. Is the application complete ?. The code states that the director is to review the application for compliance with the requirements for submittal. If it is not. the applicant is to be notified of the deficiencies. The application is not to be deemed complete for administrative review to approve or deny until it is in compliance. It appeared that upon our review the partition map: A. Was highly inaccurate with regard to the reflection of the numerous and significant first growth trees over 6 inches in caliper which are on the site. Mr. Roberts or one of the planners has visited the site and is aware of the size and general quantify of these trees. B. Did not provide a scaled cross section of the proposed right-of-way. 3. Is the file complete? Upon our review of the application file it was noticed that several items may be lacking from the file which is to be complete and made available to the public upon notice of the decision. It could be that they are simply misplaced. The problem is it gives the appearance that the planner is operating according to his own agenda instead of upholding the duties of his position whether that is true or not. The following was not found. A. Minutes from the meeting which the developer held at city hall Dec. 23rd. 7:00 p.m. 1996 B. Correspondence (3) letters from Terry Smith to Mr. Mark Roberts (January 21, 1997, April 1, 1997, April 4, 1997,) Also included should be Mark's response to these letters. (1) later from Terry Smith to Mr. John Hadley February 26th, 1997. (1) Letter from Mr. John Hadley responding to Terry Smith March 4th, 1997. Written notice sending the application back to the applicant as per Mr. Hadleys letter. Written request from applicant to revise the application incorporating the street in to lot 3 4. Mr. Roberts has stated policy changes were made by the council to eliminate the tree removal standards from applying to small infill sites under these circumstances. We have repeatedly in writing asked him to demonstrate this to us and explain how we can find these resolutions, orders, or code changes so that we can understand his statements but these questions have not been responded to. Thank you for your time. Cordially Terry Smith W TO THE rlliMUNITY DEVELOPME "WEPARTMENT PL ASE SIGN -IN ANDHAVEASEAT (OU WILL BE HELPED IN THE ORDER OF YOUR ARRIVAL BY THE EXT AVAILABLE•DEVELOPMENT SERVICE TECHNICIAN (DST). (The last sign -in time is 5:45 p.m. daily) 4. PLEASE SIGN IN BELOW ; iFOR' OFFICE: USE: v itONLY.::: T E I TIME I NAME i PURPOSE :I1ME : ASSISTED ( PRINT CLE4RLY) I 5 I(.35 m iC hlt (.e ZO t r 116-e �t 5� r ��1 Ca (.24-44-2 1i _ %j fs5 ��rCic�'u,�r�'%i., & //C,G' 4 3evezo, /4 - Q-44 /2:5e, jet„,34f � 1 /:off Sts" 6 Z.kn,er.... 6 AW PL.sc , P V eolo 5 1: kc 7 yVt, 5 �r c PerY14-c. • 'FA] ; 1111 61 Pe-kly 1 %-) ta�+o ' / • /V //4ed. i.,. ow Winn° s r k ) ? :/d Ditv,0 i N.►4 1` /C i O a//L 0n WeMbt et Gil Gti'l t . Ca/- 62 04 ylt-s ,er= s 3'. 1.v Ft -• ."),3 a,71 5;,,ef» . 3:5v _ 41 Li L i4z-iC£e /'2L'*, .' °r`'"`e �.a-- :cc tCS f 1 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal TT 8813 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit Accounts Payable • f:° > APPEAL , OF MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97-0002 < • • . f• • _ ::�; ;� %. ;. DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION `The Directors proved, subject to conditions, a request to partition one (1) lot of,1.02 acres into three (3) lots ranging in size from 8,115 to 17,017 square feet: On March 27,1997, the City issued a Decision to approve AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Minor Land Partition 97 -0002 subject W Conditions of Approval. Because a new private street was proposed to serve the partition, the land use all STATE OF OREGON, 4i' decision either.'should have been issued as a Major Land Partition, or COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) have required id revision for an access easement type of accessway or i : method for the lots that are being created. The applicant I, _Kathy Snyder • has requested that the Minor Land Partition be re- issued with revised being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Conditions ofAp royal that reflects the limitations of a Minor Land Parti- Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard Tualatin Times pp lion. On Appril 23,`1997, an appeal was filed of the Director's Decision to a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 approve t he a mended decision. The basis for the appeal is that the appel- and 193.020; published at Tigard in the lant states that he application is incomplete and should have been aforesaid county and state; that the , processed as a Major Land Partition. LOCATION: 11600 S.W. Green - ■ _NLP _D • burg•Road; WOTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 6700. The'site is located at the a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the northeast comef of S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. 92nd Avenue. ZONE: entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and R - 4.5; Residential, 4.5 units per acre. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.92, consecutive in the following issues: 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.162 and 18.164. . , 1 • May 8,1997 —• .-- - -' ._ ._ _ i ' 1 . , 1.1,-',.a . 1 1 ! `� +� a ■ 1 �1� M ,• ter. I 7 Subscribed and sworn to : ore me this ay k Pta, 19! . ___ i ,= tIMI : r \ itl• f ' . Notary,: ublic for Oregon - W My Commission Expires: ®i .. • AFFIDAVIT • 1 •, .� 1 • _ 'n. ! ‚•• � 1 '''----... - Ile vi l :: ...a 7:,- - ..% iir \ .. • 1.1 I--- • • um i I ■ N 1 .- ...:.:.....:.... .:..::.::::: v:vi:::.;�•:: : ii; ?'::::::..:vii. • .... : ::.::...: Clty of Tlgard TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Community 'Development JUNE 2, 1997 - 7:30 PM Shaping A Better Community TIGARD CIVIC CENTER - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS 4. APPROVE MINUTES 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97 -0002 DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION - Continued from 5/19/97 Planning Commission Public Hearing The Director approved, subject to conditions, a request to partition one (1) lot of 1.02 acres into three (3) Tots ranging in size from 8,115 to 17,017 square feet. On March 27, 1997 the City issued a Decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97 -0002 subject to Conditions of Approval. Because a new private street was proposed to serve the partition, the land use decision either should have been issued as a Major Land Partition, or have required a revision for an access easement type of accessway or other acceptable method for the lots • that are being created. The applicant has requested that the Minor Land Partition be re- • issued with revised Conditions of Approval that reflects the limitations of a Minor Land Partition. On April 23, 1997, an appeal was filed of the Director's Decision to approve the amended decision. The basis for the appeal is that the appellant states that the application is incomplete and should have been processed as a Major Land Partition LOCATION: 11600 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1 S135DC, Tax Lot 6700. The site is located at the northeast comer of SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue. ZONE: R-4.5; Residential, 4.5 units per acre. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.162 and 18.164. 5.2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS UPDATE Gus Duenas, City Engineer 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7. ADJOURNMENT • 0 P . - ,J) C . -Dpkv‘b J•--e----) ca2Alc s- 21- -9 7 11 Li z_o Sw 92No A i f. icile 0 c>R G7ZZ3 I r an 5' 6 11 've . 1 .61 0' 0 q aas . ,,, i - -, >,....- 1 s 90 2 o `:_.? AU d ).64,i- Ma SO itert,, ; , „ - _ 4, i 4_ tsi q 22_2-z i fr , 141r..70 v - A I R , - - / - 7 - A c c) . ,, s- ( oi. 2__ , .r.--t- - 7 -' ,.-:,:rz_4(0 1 ' 411111 ..C-+.c 2. 1-, c- // 0 11'/ . - c 1 l w 6"a 5co dt 7..I.E. c) ; . - a , / 7‘,`— .: -_ .� A i-4 11 `f 35 sus) ?aND _ ' ovo/ 97223 MI l4 S S:.,. a T■ 4._,-� � a REMIKVAW:titti lir , S • If * artYKINAV23 �� .., ii. et �- v' 1 l/ ! s� AW 376 5C-3 - ,1-- ,. 0 7z7/ M t /� . S llriMFP ' . 'ni' :ii ��� .r� 0 97z23 ada) I . / /si/8o ato. ?z''Ve. td or P7 • Mitj.ar I .' „LW . it o ;a_4 1 ok 7 ,4 ` co s e d,e,I A,A 7T65-& t- /(/, A' 1/33o Stir/ q2 ka u c €0142Z * bail h Sodom' c,c. • 5� " z. »M A), �r,7 ..�-- 3 11 sc AJ °!a J-�i� Tr r �}- 1� ry 762..24 Br'nl te y (: • ��FX'I PX' i S �' - �G'Q ■S\0,erGAii> 113151 sU) q j re Ticar-d, 97 R // a- 70 S Lei. ; . 1 re . - 7 — ;4? .v- 4l 1n, 97,1 „ - 3 S 5) - Ad "•ard o 77.,1,13 FL5 e' • • 1 • co o • Try? To: The Tigard Planning Commission We the undersigned are concerned about the cities approval of the Downing /Shaw development application #97 -002. We respectfully request that this commission please take the time to fully understand the basis for the recommendations presented to this commission by the property owners of SW 92nd Ave. Name (Print) Signature Address Date V ,7 R 14 3 W j L 'tic N ti 4, 3a S w G Ri= �,oet/2 3 -79 7 L tzeA. 4 r r • , s ). ", < y , ��, - �zz� *i 47 e.,Li ' / / //bob S. w. '/ Vf /. . v7z -z3.S -)393 ('44 4 54c " Mr19121 4 t. r- 6177 *47 wt . pi}.•ti„j-e; rl'i j i 1( 55S 507l T 5 -z,( o l-tK SGt Ntt6 119 Si v e jl 51- T1 � avct Oi- z �, MAy t Amy 1 Tytpf74 //.57.s s 52.. A-=' � � Om2 ,211, " 97 i o ga- PlAikike 447 N p svl •Y Q - • 1 , • i . _�? :,�'_ r o ?,A , o - ' Qa` + uP e ar l S ' s _ 26-'17 C� — / /V mss' / , -w ' O S'/Z67 • To: The Tigard Planning Commission We the undersigned are concerned about the cities approval of the Downing /Shaw development application #97 -002. We respectfully request that this commission please take the time to fully understand the basis for the recommendations presented to this commission by the property owners of SW 92nd Ave. Name (Print) Si ,, ature Address Date INTRODUCTION 410 III f n A. PURPOSE (( The Comprehensive Plan is the document through which the citizens of Tigard have made the basic choices on how land development and redevelopment should occur, , and hcw it will be managed. After many years of segmented planning, •the seven ' separate Neighborhood Planning Organization plans comprised the communities' t planning efforts. This Comprehensive Plan is intended to aggregate the L ' communities' planning efforts into one *Community Wide Comprehensive Plan' for the Tigard Urban Planning Area. s The purpose of the plan is to maintain and improve the existing quality of life v for the residents by: a \ l:. Prohibiting development which would cause a diminution in the existing quality of life for the residents of Tigard; R 2. Protecting individuals from the negative impact of developing land which has R natural hazards and is subject to natural disasters; • 3. Identifying and protecting resource lands from urban development ` encroachment; 9 . . 4 Providing for the retention of natural and cultural resources which [ contribute to the livability of the community; 5. Providing adequate land to meet anticipated future demands for urban development in a logical and orderly manner; 6. Encouraging flexibility and innovation in development techniques to permit diversity within the community and to slow the increase in development I costs; 7. Reducing the uncertainty of the development process; o 8. Cent =ibuting to a healthy, stable and diversified economy within Tigard; C - (:: 9. Providing for an orderly and timely arrangement and provision of public facilities and services to function as the framework for urban development; 101 t and j I I 10? Facilitating citizen participation in all phases of the planning process. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan is the plan on which land use decisions will be u� made for the area within the Tigard Urban Planning Area during the planning period (1980 - 2000). In areas outside the Tigard city limits, Washington County, o _ retains legal jurisdiction over development proposals and public improvement [ projects. The City, however, reviews and makes recommendations on proposals and projects inside the Urban Planning Area, and often coordinates with the County on related projects. D p 0 An Urban Planning Area Agreement between Tigard and Washington County regarding I planning in the Tigard Urban Planning Area has been adopted. This agreement includes recognition of an Urban Planning Area boundary and related policies which are intended to: I • I D .. 1 J E-P . PLA-• , ( 1 • II _ 1 I. 1. GENERAL POLICIES • The purpose of this section is to establish the relationship between the City of ' Tigard's Comprehensive Plan and: • 1. Chapter 197 of the Oregon Revised Statutes and the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines of the Land Conservation and Development Commission; 2_ The Regional Plan set forth by the Metropolitan Service District; 3. The Comprehensive Framework Plan and policies of Washington County; 4. The requirement that plans be updated. The plan will be updated to ensure that the plan, as the land use policy for Tigard, reflects the changing needs and circumstances of the community. Findinas • Each plan adopted under the Land Conservation and Development Commission's . Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines must meet the following: 1. Goal #1: Develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to get involved in all aspects of the planning process; da r • 2. Goal #2: Establish a land use planning process and policy framework !l as the basis of all land use decisions and actions, and ensure an adequate factual data base•to substantiate those decisions and actions; 3. Goal 43: Preserve and maintain agricultural lands beyond the Urban Growth Boundary of the community; 4. Goal 44: Conserve forest lands, noc committed for urban uses, for strictly forest uses; ° 5. Goal #S $Conserve 'open space and protect natural and service resources; 6. Goal 46: Maintain and improve the quality of air, water and land o resources; .ti 7. Goal *7: Protect the community's life and property from natural disaster and hazard areas; 8. Goal *8: Meet the recreational needs of residents of the community, I t State, and visitors; • 9. Goal *9: Diversify and improve the economy of the community and the l State; • 10. Goal *10: Provide adequate housing for the needs of the community, region and state; 1 • • 1 PLA-1.4 II - 5 i. Light Industr' - Refers to areas deemed appr for industrial activities wlph include manufacturing, pr assembling, packaging or treatment of products from previously prepared materials and which are devoid of nuisance factors that would adversely affect ( 4110 [-.- other properties. The appropriate zoning districts are Light Industrial (I -L) and Industrial Park (I -P) which also permit offices and related uses. j. Heavy Industrial - Those areas deemed appropriate for intensive • • - manufacturing, processing, or assembly of'semi- finished or finished products, including fabrication, and whose operating characteristics are potentially incompatible with most other land uses. k. Public /Institutional - Refers to areas deemed for municipal uses, school uses or other public uses, e.g., Durham Treatment Plant. 1. Open Space - Areas designated for retention in a natural state and for development for recreational uses, e.g., floodplain, parks, etc. r . The Community Development Code (C.D.C.) shall provide quasi- judicial changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map which may be initiated by affected parties on a semi - annual basis and approved if the City Council finds: f: a. The change is consistent with applicable plan policies; b. A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation; or • c. A mistake was made in the original land use designation. 3. Functional master plans shall be prepared and implemented in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Tigard Community Development Code. • 7 ' 45% II - 8 • There is one active eral or aggregate resource wit the Tigard Planning , Area, known as the .ham Pits, which is operated by shington County. POLICY 1 • 3.3.1 THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL SUPPORT THE EFFORTS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, > ( BEAVERTON AND THE METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT TO ENSURE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ROCK MINERAL RESOURCES. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 1. The City shall encourage those jurisdictions regulating rock extraction to closely monitor the relationship between the demand for the resource and the amount of land planned for rock and gravel extraction and processing. 3.4 NATURAL AREAS Findings • • There are a variety of plants, animals and water fowl within the Tigard planning area which add greatly to the quality of life within the community. • Each species requires a complex and,often, a narrowly specific set of conditions with respect to food, water and vegetative cover or other natural features necessary for escape and reproduction. • The significant plant communities and animal habitat areas are the riparian vegetation adjacent to the water resources in the community, and various stands of timber and brush. • Development adjacent to existing wildlife areas can adversely affect these areas and in some instances can virtually eliminate these needed wildlife . habitat areas. • Vegetation contributes to the aesthetic quality of the community. 40 Vegetation controls erosion, absorbs sound and moderates temperatures. It also affects the flow and moisture content of the air, reduction of air pollution and glare, and softens the impact of the urban environment. POLICIES 3.4.1 THE CITY SHALL DESIGNATE, BY ;EFINITION NOT BY LOCATION, THE FOLLOWING ✓4 AS AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRON`ENTAL CONCERN. a. SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS; b. AREAS HAVING EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH VALUE, SUCH AS GEOLOGICALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY SIGNIFICANT LANDS; AND l 1 • • (. 1 II - 16 1 ,/ c. AREAS VAL. .D FOR THEIR FRAGILE CHARACTER • - :ITATS FOR PLANTS . 0 QUATIC LIFE, OR HAVING ENDAN m• PLANT OR ANIMAL • SPECIES, SPEC _ r . V •t • M' FOR THE NEED TO PROTECT NATURAL AREAS. ( l 3.4.2 THE CITY SHALL: ( a. PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ALONG STREAM CORRIDORS BY ( MANAGING THE RIPARIAN HABITAT AND CONTROLLING EROSION, AND BY REQUIRING THAT AREAS OF STANDING TREES AND NATURAL VEGETATION ALONG NATURAL DRAINAGE COURSES AND WATERWAYS BE MAINTAINED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE; b. REQUIRE THAT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS IN DESIGNATED TIMBERED OR TREE AREAS BE REVIEWED THROUGH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROCESS TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF TREES REMOVED; AND c. REQUIRE CLUSTER TYPE DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS HAVING IMPORTANT r WILDLIFE HABITAT VALUE AS DELINEATED ON THE •FISH AND WILDLIFE I HABITAT MAP' ON FILE AT THE CITY. (Rev: Ord. 85 -13) IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The City shall consider the inclusion of an adequate amount of land adjacent to a flcodplain or drainageway for dedication to the City's natural greenway system, which allows the area to continue to support existing habitats. . 2. The City shall encourage, through the Planned Development Process, the retention of large, varied habitat areas on private and public lands including inventoried plant and animal communities. 3. The City shall review all development proposals adjacent to wildlife habitat areas to ensure that adverse impacts on any wildlife habitat areas are minimized and, if need be, request that other federal, state and local agencies review the development proposals. 4. Where there exist large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land, the City shall ensure that [. development proposals do not substantially alter the character of the vegetation areas through the Planned Development Process and the 'Tree Cutting" section of the Community Development Code. 3.5 PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE [- Findings • In Tigard, public and private organizations can play an important role in providing leisure and recreational opportunities and cultural activities. L • Many of the Tigard School District sires provide recreational needs not found within many of Tigard's parks. • (ID sai=s-t-A �. L II - 17 L I - a. THE AREA IS GENERALLY WITHIN ONE - QUARTER MILE OF A MAJOR TRANSIT CENTER OR e ROUTE. '- ' ..\ b. AREAS WITH EXISTING USES WHICH ARE FREQUENT BY PEDESTRIANS, OR VACANT LAND WHICH COULD SUPPORT USES WHICH WOULD BE PATRONIZED BY PEDESTRIANS AND /OR TRANSIT RIDERS. t • c. AREAS WHICH ARE CURRENTLY AUTOMOBILE ORIENTED MAY BE INCLUDED IN ANTICIPATION OF A CHANGE OF USE OR REDESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN WAYS TO • - BETTER INTEGRATE THE USE INTO THE ACTION AREA. r • 11.6.2 DETERMINE PERMITTED USES THROUGH ZONING. FURTHER REGULATION OF USES IN ACTION AREAS SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH AN OVERLAY ZONE WHICH LIMITS • SPECIFIC AUTOMOBILE ORIENTED USES AS PERMITTED USES AND ENCOURAGES A HIGHER LEVEL OF USES WHICH ARE PEDESTRIAN AND PUBLIC TRANSIT ORIENTED. I 11.6.3 REQUIRE THAT ALL DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED IN ACTION AREAS BE DESIGNED TO FACILITATE PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT WITHIN THE CENTER AND TO TRANSIT. 11.6.4 REVIEW AND UPDATE CITY PARKING ORDINANCES TO RECOGNIZE PARKING NEEDS IN ACTION AREAS. • 11.6.5 DEVELOP A DESIGN PLAN FOR EACH ACTION AREA TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR ( FINANCING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND INTEGRATING VARIOUS LAND USES. PLANS I FOR AUTOMOBILE, TRANSIT, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CIRCULATION, OPEN t SPACE, STORM DRAINAGE, SEWERAGE AND LIGHTING WILL BE INCLUDED. THE CITY WILL HAVE THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEVELOPING THE DESIGN PLAN BUT WILL COORDINATE WITH OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND TRI -MET. 1 11.6.6 DEVELOPMENT IN THE ACTION AREAS MAY BE SUBJECT TO SPECIAL CIRCULATION AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS DURING DESIGN REVIEW PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THE DESIGN PLANS. 11.6.7 ENCOURAGE FORMATION OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DII STRICTS OR OTHER SUITABLE PROGRAMS FOR EACH ACTION AREA TO FINANCE_ IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DESIGN Li, PLANS. (Rev. Ord. 87 -55) C 11.8 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION 48 In 1989, a major real estate development company, together with interested 1 residents and property owners, proposed to the city a redevelopment concept for the area generally bounded SW Locust, SW Hall Boulevard, Highway 217 and SW Gylenbura Road, The development concept would require the redevelopment of an existing single family area to a commercial office campus, and would require that the city establish an urban renewal plan to help fund needed public improvements and other projects. The development concept also required that the Comprehensive Plan designations L for portions of the area be changed from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional, followed by corresponding zone changes from R -4.5 or R -12 to C -P in conjunction with the approval of a conceptual development plan. 1. . L nij . . . II - 76 L Findinas i •. The City of Tigard together with a major real estate development company recognize the potential for a major planned commercial and office 1 i development in the area. A public /private partnership has been established • and an urban renewal plan, entitled the President's Parkway Development Plan, has been prepared y in order to implement the commercial development > (7! concept. Preliminary studies completed for the President's Parkway Development Plan have identified needed transportation, public facility, flood control and other improvement projects which will be necessary to serve commercial and office development expected for the area. l • Additional studies will be needed as more specific development plans are approved which refine projects which are already identified, and identify other projects which are not now known. • The area is characterized as transitional, that is an existing single family district that is converting to commercial use. Characteristics of the area which support this conversion and contribute to the decline in livability for single family residents include: - Poor condition of residential streets not built to city standards - Lack of sidewalks, parks and other recreational facilities - Poor drainage conditions and occasional flooding - High traffic volumes on residential streets causing congestion and safety problems - An elementary school in the area which is at the very edge of its service area, is inappropriately located, and is in proximity to congested streets with high traffic volumes • - Overall noise, congestion and high levels of activity in residential areas caused by the proximity of commercial and office use; - Declining residential land and property values, • Adjacent neighborhoods north of SW Locust and east of SW Hall are I. predominately single family residential. Residents of these areas have expressed concern about the potential traffic, noise visual and other impacts which may result from the redevelopme of t e subject area_ Detailed planning and impact assessment is needed to ensure these neighborhoods are adequately buffered from these potential impacts. • • In order to obtain a sound, development of high quality, an overall r • development plan for the entire area is needed. A zone change, consistent l with the commercial- professional Comprehensive Plan designation will not create an overall development plan and, therefore, an instrument other than a simple zone change is needed. I 1 • f • ( II - 76 -1 Z CITY SIP BEAVERTON , 4755 S.W. Griffith Drive. P.O. Box 4755. Beaverton. OR 97078 General Information (503) 526 -2222 V /'tDD r es) TREE INVENTORY ASSESSMENT (TIA) csFn,reNN%t' Submittal Requirements A tree inventory assessment shall be conducted by the applicant on all property annexed to the City of Beaverton. The purpose of the tree inventory is to identify trees on annexed properties so that the Board of Design Review may judge which are significant due to their age, beauty, representation of native or non - native tree species, or associated with historic preservation. The inventory of trees shall provide the following information: 1. The location, size, and species of all trees. A. The applicant shall submit a site drawing (24" x 36 "sheet size) (scale 1" to 20' or a scale approved by the Development Services Division) that will identify the location, size, and species of the trees, and shall illustrate the approximate canopy of individual trees and groves. B. The site drawing shall also illustrate the location of natural features such as streams, ponds, wetlands, riparian vegetation, and topography. C. The site drawing shall note the existence of tree farms, orchards, wind- breaks, or landscaping that has been added to the site. D. The site drawing shall include a vicinity map. F. The applicant shall also provide a table summarizing the species and size of the trees. 2. The health and condition of the trees. 3. The wildlife habitat value. • 4. The relationship of the trees to the other natural resources on the site. Items 2, 3, and 4 shall be described in a written statement provided by an arborist, biologist or other qualified professional. In addition, the written statement shall evaluate the criteria for individual trees and groves as stated in Sections 266.B and 266.0 of the City ofBeaverton Development Code. City of Beaverton Development Code Definitions (Ordinance 2030): Section 266.B. states an individual tree shall be considered significant if the Board finds: 1. The tree has a distinctive size, shape, or location which warrants significant status; or 2. The tree possesses exceptional beauty which warrants a significant status; or 3. The tree is significant due to a functional or aesthetic relationship to a natural resource. • Section 266.C. states a grove as defined in Section 261 shall be considered significant if the Board finds: 11.7\1E 1. The grove is relatively mature and evenly aged; and 2. The grove has a purity of species composition or is of a rare or unusual nature; and 3. The grove is in a healthy growing condition; or 4. l grove has a crucial functional and/or aesthetic relationship to a natural resource. Note: The Board of Design Review is referred to as the Board. The definition for Tree is found in Section 261.A. and the definition of Grove is found in Section 261.C. of the City of Beaverton Development Code. Trees less than ten (10) inches in height and fifty -four (54) inches in diameter may be classified as Significant. • For further information about a Tree Inventory Assessment (TI.k), please contact the Development Services Division at 526 -2420. Information is also available on trees located in the City designated Significant or Historic through the Significant Tree Inventory conducted in 1984. C:'tT 6 WGl LS aA-11 4 Mr. Smith further contends :hat the City could avoid Goal 5 by • adopting ordinances teat meet the cbjec:Jve of the ?crest Practices Act (?PA). The City Council :rods that: 1) when the original drafts were reviewed, the Department of Poreatey said it would no longer administer the PTA within City limits and the City's regulations (including erosion cont_o1 requirements adopted by the City and required by the Unified sewerage Agency) were more restrictive than the ?PA. (See letter from FCevin Si=ch dated January 25, 1993) ; 2) the City Council prefers to retain local control rather thee .;etera to general state regulation; and 3) this amendment is eureuant to the FPA. The proposal is consis=erz with the City's ac Comprehensive Plan based on the fol1'cwing findings: 1. Policies 1.1.1 a. and c. are satisfied because the proposed code changes are consistent with Statewide Planning Coals as indicated above and the changes help to keep the development code current with local needs. 2. Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 are satisfied because the proemial has been reviewed at multiple public hearings, work sessions and neighborhood groupe `.eginnieg in January, 1993 through the present. 3. she Council has reviewed the argument concerning Icaplementation strategy 4 of Plan Policy 3.4 (hereinafter referred to as Stray_,: 4) centaieed in tie letters of David Smith dated January 17, 1994, July 11, 1994, and October 4, 1994. The Council adoet3 by his ee -ee the analysis of this issue provided La the city Attorney's memorandum ot March 1, 1994. We concluded thee St,amegy 4 is sat.islied by the amended ordinance. The Ceunci1 finds the _reposed erdinaace tc satisfy Strategy 4 because the ordi anee 33 amended will continue to crctec_ large and unigt:e stands cf twee and major vegetation areas as called for by that strategy. That strategy provides: 'wbere there exists ?a=ge - r untrue stands o: trees or majce ' vegetation areas with_e the ?fanning area on undeveloced land, • the City shall ensure =nay de•re_lcpeene proposals do not substantially 3' . : a characeer cf the vegetation areas ';hrcuch the plarned.devele me ne - _ccess and the 'tree cutting' section of the Community Tevelepment Code. In his Letter January _', .994 Ler-er, me. smith suggests that this policy is c Y vel_r amended because the proposed new ordinaece addresses 'all _tees cm undeveloped land . . .. The Council finds this _e_se nin, a he unpersuasive. Steateg_: 4 does not ea;r.i_a eat the tree removal ordinance :'ecesseeeey oe cercumeerezed _o these areas, (Large or urine stands o.' trees or major vece_aeicr. areas) which it describes. Bat e= , it requires t. a _ err . a nce must car ✓ out the strata, by 'ensuring that deee.__nari eecmcsa_s do not substantially alter :he c arac ar -= • e eTeseribed areas. The Ceencii finds that the eme.^.dez _= :mace C': es se in :hat it requi_ es • deeeieteent p_opcsa's, beeeg t u doe the rest__otions of the o :d'eance by the site eevelepmen= Peview pieces, 519. 3'7.100.._.1.1, ee etmaie Termite fc= tree removal 510.1: J . 0:0 . A . Te beeei : such a eermit = eq•__res a shcwi ng that, among steer e.._ :• the =eeeval is necessary' far the develcpme^t v take 515.1!0.:4C.C. This requi ernene Le t.: changed _em =ea ce _amt o_ei:.ance. Score of mho applicable -_a have changed. :notably, _easo:iab .3 ai_er:.ative to the : ecv;_ cannot exist:. Also clanged is _ ne • 41 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE • Chapter 18.02. PURPOSE. L Protect the quality of air and water resources of the City; 18.02.010 Purpose. J. Protect life and property in areas subject 18.02.010 Purpose. to floods, landslides and other natural disasters and hazards; As a means of promoting the general health, safety and welfare of the public, this title is K. Provide for the recreational needs of designed to set forth the standards and residents of Tigard and visitors to the City; procedures governing the development and use of land in Tigard and to implement the Tigard L Provide the means for citizens to be comprehensive plan. To these ends, it is the involved in all aspects of the planning process; purpose of this title to: M. Conserve needed open space and protect A. Ensure that the development of property historic, cultural, natural and scenic resources; le within the City is commensurate with the physical and characteristics of the land, and in general, to promote and protect the public health, safety, * N. Provide for the review of those uses convenience and welfare; which may have a detrimental impact on the community. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 83 -52)■ B. Promote and diversify the economy of the City; C. Ensure the continued provision of an • adequate type and supply of land for various uses sufficient to accommodate future growth; D. Encourage the provision of affordable housing in quantities adequate to allow all persons some reasonable choice in the selection of a place to live; E. Conserve all forms of energy through sound economical use of land and land uses developed on the land; F. Provide for the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use; G. Afford an efficient and orderly development and arrangement of public services and facilities within the City; H. Provide for and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system • within the City; • • 18 -02 -1 Reformatted 1994 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE • "Lot line, side" - any lot boundary not a of which is to rent space or keep space for rent to front or rear lot line. any person for a charge or fee paid or to be paid for the rental or use of facilities or to offer space "Lot of record" - a lawfully created lot free in connection with securing the trade or which existed prior to the effective date of the patronage of such person. code codified in this title. "Mobile home subdivision" - a subdivision "Lot, through" - an interior lot of record designed and approved for the sale of lots for which has both frontages on two streets. residential occupancy in mobile homes only. "Lot width" - the average horizontal "Negotiation" - any activity preliminary to distance between the side lot lines measured at the execution of a binding agreement for the sale the building line. of land in a subdivision or partition, including but not limited to, advertising, solicitation and "Major partition" - a partition of land promotion of the sale of such land. which creates three lots or less within one calendar year and includes the creation of a road "Net acres" - the total amount of land o.. r street. which can be used for development. See Chapter 18.92. "Manufactured home" - a structure constructed for movement on the public highways "Nonconforming use or structure" - a that has sleeping, cooking, and plumbing lawfully existing structure or use, or one in the facilities, that is intended for human occupancy, process of being constructed at the time of the that is being used for residential purposes and adopting of this title, which does not conform to a l that was constructed in accordance with federal the setback, coverage, height, use or other similar manufactured housing construction and safety requirements of the district in which it is located. standards regulations in effect at the time of construction. "Oregon Administrative Rules" (OAR) - The Oregon State administrative rules. "Minor partition" - a partition of land which creates three lots or less within one "Oregon Revised Statutes" (ORS) - The calendar year, and does not include the creation of Oregon State law references. a road or street. "Owner" - any person, agent, firm or "Mobile home" - a structure constructed corporation having a legal or equitable interest in for movement on the public highways that has the property. sleeping, cooking, and plumbing facilities, that is intended for human occupancy, that is being used 'Parcel" - a unit of land that is created by for residential purposes and that was constructed partitioning land. between January 1, 1962, and June 15, 1976, and met the construction requirements of Oregon "Park" - any tract of land set apart and mobile home Iaw in effect at the time of devoted to the purposes of pleasure, recreation, construction. ornament, light and air for the general public. "Mobile home park" - any place where "Parking space" - an area within a private four or more mobile homes are located within 500 or public parking area, building or structure for feet of one another on a lot, tract or parcel of land the parking of one vehicle: under the same ownership, the primary purpose • 18 -26 -8 Rev. 05/30/95 •" • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE • "Review" - to re- examine administratively, and the upper surface of the floor next above, a reconsideration of a decision by a lower except that the topmost story shall be that portion approval authority. of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. "Right -of -way" - a strip of land occupied If the finished floor level directly above a or tended to be occupied by a street, crosswalk, basement or unused underfloor space is more pedestrian and bike pa , rai road, road, electric than six feet above grade as defined in this section transmission line, oil or gas pipeline, water for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter or sanitary or storm sewer mam, s ee trees or other is more than 12 feet above grade as defined in this special use. The us ge of the term right -of -way section at any point, such basement or unused for land division purposes shall mean that every underfloor space shall be considered right -of -way hereafter established and shown on a as a story. plat or map is to be separate and distinct from the lots or parcels adjoining such right -of -way an,,. d not "Story, first" - the lowest story m a included within the dimensions or areas of such building which qualifies as a story, as defined in lots or parcels. this section, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor shall be classified as a first "Road" or "street" - a public az., private story, provided such floor level is not more than 4 way that is created to provide ingress or egress for four feet below grade, as defined in this section, - persons to one or more lots, parcels, areas or tracts for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter, or of land, excluding a private way that is created to more than eight feet below grade, as defined in provide ingress or egress to such land in this section, at any point. conjunction with the use of such land for forestry, • mining or agricultural purposes. "Story, half' - a story under a gable or roof, the wall plates of which on at least "Setback" - the minimum allowable two opposite exterior walls are not more than two horizontal distance from a given point or line of feet above the floor of such story. If the finished reference, which shall be the property line unless floor level directly above a • basement or unused otherwise stated to the nearest vertical wall of a underfloor space is not more than six feet above building or structure, fence or other elements as grade, as defined in this section, for more than 50 defined by this title. percent of the total perimeter or is not more than 12 feet above grade as defined in this section, at "Specified anatomical areas" - uncovered any point, such basement or unused underfloor or less than opaquely covered, postpubertal space shall be considered as a half story. human genitals, pubertal human genitals, pubic areas, postpubertal human female breasts below a "Street" or "road" - a public or private way point immediately above the top of the areola, or that is created to provide ingress or egress for the covered human male genitals in a discernibly persons to one or more lots, parcels, areas or tracts turgid state. of land, excluding a private way that is created to provide ingress or egress to such land in "Specified sexual activities" - human conjunction with the use of such land for forestry, • genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal, mining or agricultural purposes. acts of masturbation, sexual intercourse, sodomy, flagellation, torture or bondage either real or "Street, private" - an accessway which is • simulated. under private ownership. "Story" - that portion of a building "Structure" or "building" - that which is included between the upper surface of any floor built or constructed, an edifice or building of any • 18 -26 -10 Rev. 05/30/95 • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 1 D. This section shall not apply to Director B. Evidence received at any hearing shall be of a decisions made under Subsection 18.32.090.A. quality that reasonable persons rely upon in the conducting of their everyday affairs. E. A communication between the City staff and the Commission or Hearings officer or Council C. No person shall present irrelevant, shall not be considered an ex parte contact. immaterial, or unduly repetitious testimony or evidence. F. Subsection (B) of this section does not apply to an ex parte contact with a Hearings Officer. D. Evidence shall be received and notice may be (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 83 -52) taken of those facts in a manner similar to that provided for in contested cases before state 18.32.180 Continuation of the Hearing. administrative agencies pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute 183.450, except as otherwise A. An approval authority may continue the provided for in this title. hearing from time to time to gather additional evidence, to consider the application fully or to E. Formal rules of evidence, as used in courts of give notice to additional persons. law, shall not apply. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 83 -52) B. Unless otherwise provided by the approval 18.32.210 Judicial Notice. authority, no additional notice need be given of . the continued hearing if the matter is continued to The approval authority may take notice of a date, time, and place certain. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. the following. 83-52) 1. All facts which are judicially noticeable. • 18.32.190 Subpoena or Deposition of Such noticed facts shall be stated and made part Witnesses. of the record; A. Any party to an appeal or petition for review 2. The statewide planning goals adopted who wishes to subpoena or depose witnesses may pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; do so by application to the Director not less than and seven days prior to the hearing and a showing that the witness resides in Oregon, is unable or i 3. The comprehensive plan and other unwilling to appear and the testimony is material officially adopted plans, implementing and relevant. ordinances, rules and regulations of the City of Tigard, and the comprehensive plans and B. Upon approval by the Director, application implementing ordinances of other planning for subpoenas or depositions shall be made after authorities within the Metropolitan Service proper completion and payment of those fees District oundary. applicable to civil cases, to the Washington County circuit court. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 83 -52) B. Matters judicially noticed need not be established by evidence and may be considered 18.32.200 Evidence. by the approval authority in the determination of the application. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 83 -52) A. All evidence offered and not objected to may be received unless excluded by the approval authority on its own motion. , • 18 -32 -14 Rev. 6/11/96 • 0 • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 7. A copy of the notice which was given as • provided by Section 18.32.130, accompanying 1. Adopt findings . and conclusions affidavits and list of persons who were sent contained in the staff report; mailed notice. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 83 -52) 2. Adopt findings and conclusions of a 18.32.250 The Decision Process of the lower approval authority; Approval Authority. 3. Adopt its own findings and conclusions; A. The decision shall be based on: 4. Adopt findings and conclusions 1. Proof by the a licant that the submitted by any party provided all parties have application fully comp ies with: had an opportunity to review the findings and comment on the same; or a. The City of Tigard comprehensive plan; and * 5. ikdoot findings and conclusions from another source, either with or without b. The relevant approval standard modification, having made a tentative decision, found in the applicable chapter(s) of this title or and having directed staff to prepare findings for other applicable implementing ordinances; review and to provide an opportunity for all parties to comment on the same. 2. The standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the application was E. The decision may be for denial, approval, or determined to be complete at such time as the approval with conditions, pursuant to subsection • City's plan and applicable ordinances are 2 of this section. acknowledged. 1. Conditions ma .be intp_wed where such B. Consideration may also be given to: conditions are necessary to: 1. Proof of a change in the neighborhood * a. Carry ` out a plicable provisions of or community or mistake in the comprehensive ,the Tigard comprehensive plan; Plan or zoning map as it relates to the property • which is the subject of the development b. Carry out the applicable application; and ^' implementing ordinances; and 2. Factual oral testimony or written c. Ensure that adequate public statements from the parties, other persons and services are provided to the development or to other governmental agencies relevant to the ensure that other required improvements are existing conditions, other applicable standards made; and criteria, possible negative or positive attributes of the proposal or factors in Subsections A. 2. Conditions may include, but are not A or B.1 of this section. limited to; — — C. In all cases, the decision shall include a a. Minimum lot sizes; statement in a form addressing the requirements of Subsection 18.32.060.A.3.b which refers to the b. Larger sr tbacks; Director's staff report. c. Preservation of significant natural D. The approval authority may: features; and • 18 -32 -16 Rev. 6/11/96 • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 18.150. TREE REMOVAL. C. The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may 18.150.010 Purpose. be necessary to remove certain trees in order to 18.150.020 Definitions. accommodate structures, streets, utilities, and 18.150.025 Tree Plan Requirement. other needed or required improvements within 18.150.030 Permit Requirement. the development. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 83 -52) • 18.150.040 Permit Criteria. 18.150.045 Incentives for Tree Retention. 18.150.020 Definitions. 18.150.050 Expiration of Approval - Extension of Time. A. Except where the context clearly indicates 18.150.060 Application Submission otherwise, as used in this chapter: Requirement 18.150.070 Illegal Tree Removal - Violation- 1. "Canopy cover" shall mean the area • Replacement of Trees. above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree. 18.150.010 Purpose. 2. "Commercial forestry" shall mean the A. After years of both natural growth and removal of ten or more trees per acre per calendar planting by residents, the City now benefits from year for sale. a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the 3. "Hazardous tree" shall mean a tree community, help clean the air, help control which by reason of disease, infestation, age, or erosion, maintain water quality and provide noise other condition presents a known and immediate • barriers. hazard to persons or to public or private property. B. The purposes of this chapter are to: 4. "Pruning" shall mean the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent 1. Encourage the preservation, planting with recognized tree maintenance practices. and replacement of trees in the City; 5. "Removal" shall mean the cutting or 2. Regulate the removal of trees on removing of 50 percent (50%) or more of a crown, sensitive lands in the City to eliminate trunk or root system of a tree, or any action which unnecessary removal of trees; results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability or causes the tree to fall or be in 3. Provide for a tree plan for developing immediate danger of falling. "Removal" shall not properties; include pruning. 4. Protect sensitive lands from erosion; 6. 'Tree" shall mean a standing woody plant, or group of such, having a trunk which is 5. Protect water quality; and six inches or more in caliper size when measured four feet from ground level. 6. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection; 7. "Sensitive lands" shall mean those lands described at Chapter 18.84 of the Code. 7. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment. B. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, words in the present tense shall include • 18 -150 -1 Rev. 9/12/95 • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE the future and words in the singular shall include the plural. 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the 18.150.025 Tree Plan Requirement. applicant to protect trees during and after construction. A. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist C. Trees removed within the period of one year shall be provided for any lot, parcel or prior to a development application listed above combination of lots or parcels for which a will inventoried as part of the tree plan above and development application for a subdivision, major will be replaced according to Section 18.150.070 D. 1 partitiorl, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. 18.150.030 Permit Requirement. Protection is preferred over removal where possible. A. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or B. The tree plan shall include the following: in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.84. 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees B. A tree removal permit shall not be required designated as significant by the city; for the removal of a tree which: 2. Identification of a program to save 1. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 Cnapter 18.102 of the Code; di inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the MP replacement guidelines of Section 18.150.070.D. 2. Is a hazardous tree; according to the following standards: 3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as a. Retainage of less than 25 percent of defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Code; existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 4. Is used for Christmas tree production, or 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees. land registered with the Washington County Assessor's office as property tax deferred tree b. Retainage of from 25 to 50 percent farm or small woodlands, but does not stand on of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires sensitive lands; that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070.D. C. Commercial Forestry as defined by 18.150.020.A.2. and excluding B.4 above is not c. Retainage of from 50 to 75 percent permitted. of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be 18.150.040 Permit Criteria. mitigated according to Section 18.150.070D. A. The following approval standards shall be d. Retainage of 75 percent or greater used by the Director or designee for the issuance of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires of a tree removal permit on sensitive lands: no mitigation. 1. Removal of the tree must not have a 3. Identification of all trees which are measurable negative impact on erosion, soil proposed to be removed; stability, flow of surface waters, or water quality • 18 -150 -2 Rev. 9/12/95 1 6 III TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE as evidenced by an erosion control plan which Chapter 18.160, lot size may be averaged to allow precludes: lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for a. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or all lots and private open space is not less than that similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall volume on public or private streets, adjacent be less than eighty percent (80 %) of the minimum property, or into the storm and surface water lot size allowed in the zone. system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action of erosion. 3. Lot Width and Depth. In order to retain existing trees over twelve inches in caliper in the • b. Evidence of concentrated flows of development plan for any land division under water over bare soils; turbid or sediment laden . Chapter 18.160, lot width and lot depth may be flows; or evidence of on site erosion such as reduced up to twenty percent (20 %) of that rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of required by the underlying zone. water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington 4. Commercial /Industrial /Civic Use County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Parking. For each two percent (2 %) of canopy Protection and Erosion Control rules. cover provided by existing trees over twelve inches in caliper that are preserved and B. Within stream or wetland corridors, as incorporated into a development plan for defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream commercial, industrial or civic uses listed in or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less Section 18.106.030, Minimum Off - Street Parking than a 75 percent canopy cover or no less than the Requirements, a one percent (1 %) reduction in the 0 existing canopy cover if the existing conopy cover amount of required parking may be granted. No is less than 75 percent. more than a twenty percent (20 %) reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for 18.150.045 Incentives for Tree Retention. any one development. A. In order to assist in the preservation and 5. Commercial /Industrial /Civic Use retention of existing trees, the Director may apply Landscaping. For each two percent (2%) of one or more of the following incentives as part of canopy cover provided by existing trees over development review approval and the provisions twelve inches in caliper that are preserved and of a tree plan according to Section 18.150.025: incorporated into a development plan, a one percent (1 %) reduction in the required amount of 1. Density Bonus. For each two percent landscaping may be granted. No more than (2 %) of canopy cover provided by existing trees twenty percent (20 %) of the required amount of over twelve inches in caliper that are preserved landscaping may be reduced for any one and incorporated into a development plan, a one development. percent (1 %) bonus may be applied to density computations of Chapter 18.92. No more than a 6. Setback Adjustment. The Director may twenty percent (20 %) bonus may be granted for grant a modification from applicable . setback any one development. The percentage density requirements of this Code for the purpose of bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling preserving a tree or trees on the site of proposed units allowed in the underlying zone. development. Such modification may reduce the required setback by up to 50 %,_ but shall not be 2. Lot Size Averaging. In order to retain more than is necessary for the preservation of existing trees over twelve inches in caliper in the trees on the site. The setback modification development plan for any land division under described in this section shall supersede any III 18-150-3 Rev. 9/12/95 II III TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE • special setback requirements or exceptions set out elsewhere in this Code, including but not limited 18.150.060 Application Submission to Chapters 18.96, 18.146, and 18.148, except Requirement Section 18.96.020. A. Application for a tree removal permit shall B. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance be on a form provided by the Director. with this section may thereafter be removed only Completed applications shall consist of this form, for the reasons set out in a tree plan according to two copies of the supplemental data and narrative Section 18.150.025 or 18.130.B., and shall not be set out in Subsection B or this section, and the subject to removal under any other section of this required fee. Applications shall not be accepted Chapter. The property owner shall record a deed unless they are complete as defined herein. • restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit impacted by this section to B. The supplemental data and narrative shall the effect that such tree may be removed only if include: the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be 1. The specific location of the property by removed or will be considered invalid if a tree address, assessor's map number, and tax lot; preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The 2. The number, size, type and location of form of this deed restriction shall be subject to the tree(s) to be cut; approval by the Director. 3. The time and method of cutting or C. A modification to development requirements removing the tree(s); 0 granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property, 4. Information concerning any proposed including but not limited to easements and landscaping or planting of new trees; and conditions of development approval. 5. A narrative as to how the applicable D. The City Engineer may adjust design criteria of this chapter, for example, Section specifications of public improvements to 18.130.040.A, are satisfied. accommodate tree retention where possible and where it would not interfere with safety or C. In accordance with Section 18.32.080, the increase maintenance costs. Director may waive any of the requirements in Subsection B above or request additional 18.150.050 Expiration of Approval - information. Extension of Time. 18.150.070 Illegal Tree Removal- Violation- A. A tree removal permit shall be effective for Replacement of Trees. one and one -half years from the date of approval. A. The following constitute a violation of this B. Upon written request by the applicant prior chapter to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree removal permit shall be extended for a period of 1. Removal of a tree: up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in compliance with all prior a. without a valid tree removal conditions of permit approval and that no permit; or material facts stated in the original application have changed. • 18 -150 -4 Rev. 9/12/95 • • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 18.162. LAND DIVISION: MAJOR B. A minor land partition review is required AND MINOR LAND 9 --when three lots or fewer are created without the PARTITIONING -LOT LINE creation of a street or road, within one ca1en ar ADJUSTMENT. year. 18.162.010 Purpose. C. A lot line adjustment is any adjustment to a 18.162.020 Partition Required. property line by the relocation of a common 18.162.030 Administration and Approval boundary where an additional parcel of land is Process. not created. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 83 -52) 18.162.035 Expiration of Approval - Standards for Extension of Time. 18.162.030 Administration and Approval • 18.162.040 Partition Approval Criteria. Process. 18.162.050 Special Provisions for Lots Created through Partition A. The applicant of a partition or lot line Process. adjustment proposal shall be the recorded owner 18.162.060 Lot Line Adjustments: Approval of the property or an agent authorized in writing Standards. by the owner. 18.162.070 Preliminary Application Submission Requirements. B. Any application for a major or minor land 18.162.080 Final Application Submission partition or lot line adjustment shall be in Requirements. conformity with all state regulations set forth in 18.162.085 Final Application Submittal ORS Chapter 92, Subdivision and Partitions. Requirements - Lot Line Adjustment. C. No lot or parcel to be created through the • 18.162.090 Additional Information partitioning process shall be sold until approval Required and Waiver of and filing of the final partition plat. Requirements. 18.162.100 City Acceptance of Dedicated D. When partitioning tracts into large parcels, Land. the Director shall require that the parcels be of 18.162.110 Centerline Monumentation: such size and shape to facilitate future Monument Box Requirements. repartitioning of such parcels in accordance with 18.162.120 Recording of Partitions: Lot Line the requirements of the zoning district and this Adjustments. title. 18.162.130 Variances to Standards. E. The applicant is required to meet with the 18.162.010 Purpose. Director for a preapplication conference in accordance with Section 18.32.030: A. The purpose of this chapter is to provide rules, regulations, and standards governing 1. Another preapplication conference is approval of major and minor land partitions and required if an application is submitted more than • lot line adjustments. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 83 -52) six months after the preapplication conference; and 18.162.020 Partition Required. 2. Failure of the Director to provide any of • 4 . A. A major land partition review is required the information required by this section shall not when a division of land creates a street or road constitute a waiver of the standard, criteria, or within one calendar year. requirements of the applications. • 18 -162 -1 Reformatted 1994 • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE C. A lot line adjustment is not considered a 6. Other important features, to include: • development action for purposes of determining • whether floodplain, greenway, or right -of -way a. The location of all permanent dedication is required. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89 -06; buildings on and within 25 feet of all property Ord. 83 -52) lines; 18.162.070 Preliminary Application b. The location and width of all water Submission Requirements. courses; A. All applications shall be made on forms c. Any trees having a six inch caliper provided by the Director and shall be or greater at four feet above ground level; accompanied by: d. All slopes greater than 25 percent; 1. Copies of the preliminary partition map and or lot line adjustment map (number of copies determined at pre- application conference) and e. The location of existing utilities and necessary data or narrative; and utility easements; 2. The required fee. " 7. In the case of a major land partitiop, the applicant shall include the proposed right -of - B. The preliminary partition map and necessary location and width, and a scaled cross section of data or narrative shall include the following: thosed street (to include any reserve strip); 1. The name(s), addresses, and phone 8. Any deed restrictions that apply to the • numbers of the following: existing lot; and a. The owner(s) of the subject parcel; 9. Where it is evident that the subject parcel can be further partitioned, the applicant b. The owner(s)' authorized agent (if must show that the land partition will not applicable); and preclude the efficient division of land in the future. c. The land surveyor and engineer (if applicable); C. The preliminary partition plat or lot line adjustment map shall be as accurate as possible to 2. The map scale, north arrow, and date; ensure proper review by affected agencies. 3. Sufficient description to define the D. Upon receipt of an application, the Director location and boundaries of the proposed area to shall review it for compliance with the be partitioned or adjusted; requirements for submittal (see Subsections A and B above). If the application is found to be 4. The scale shall be an engineering scale incomplete, the Director shall within 30 days sufficient to show the details of the plan and notify the applicant of the reasons therefor and related data; advise the applicant of the requirements for an acceptable application. 5. The location, width and names of streets or other public ways and easements within and E. Upon acceptance of a complete application, adjacent to the proposed partition; the Director shall transmit copies of the preliminary land partition application or lot line • 18 -162 -4 Reformatted 1994 . . • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 18.164 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT C. The provision of Section 7.40 of the Tigard STANDARDS. Municipal Code shall apply to this chapter. (Ord. 94 -07; Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 83 -52) 18.164.010 Purpose. 18.164.020 General Provisions. 18.164.030 Streets. 18.164.030 Streets. 18.164.040 Blocks. A. Improvements: 18.164.050 Easements. 18.164.060 Lots. 1. No development shall occur unless the 18.164.070 Sidewalks. development has frontage or approved access to a 18.164.080 Public Use Areas. public street: 18.164.090 Sanitary Sewers. 18.164.100 Storm Drainage. a. Streets within a development and 18.164.110 Bikeways. streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance 18.164.120 Utilities. with this title; 18.164.130 Cash or Bond Required. 18.164.140 Monuments. b. Any new street or additional street 18.164.150 Installation: Prerequisite /Permit width planned as a portion of an existing street Fee. shall be dedicated and improved in accordance 18.164.160 Installation: Conformation with this code; and Required. 18.164.170 Plan Checking Required. c. The Director may accept a future • 18.164.180 Notice to City Required. improvement guarantee in lieu of street 18.164.190 City Inspection Required. improvements if one or more of the following 18.164.200 Engineer's Certification conditions exist: Required. (i) A partial improvement is not 18.164.010 Purpose. feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design standards; A. The purpose of this chapter is to provide construction standards for the implementation of (ii) A partial improvement may public and private facilities and utilities such as create a potential safety hazard to motorists or streets, sewers, and drainage. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. pedestrians; 83 -52) (iii) Due to the nature of existing 18.164.020 General Provisions. .velooment on adjacent vroverties it i unlikely that street improvements would be extended in A. Unless otherwise provided, the standard the foreseeable and the improvement specifications for construction, reconstruction or associated with withWejlEfinder review does not, repair of streets, sidewalks, curbs and other public by itself, provide a significant improvement to improvements within the City shall occur in eet safety or ca acy; • accordance with the standards of this title. (iv) The improvement would be in B. The City Engineer may recommend changes conflict with an adopted capital improvement or supplements to the standard specifications plan; consistent with the application of engineering principles. • 18 -164 -1 Rev. 7/96 • • . WESTON C. AND KERRY L. GAVETT 11435 SW 92 AVENUE TIGARD, OREGON 97223 May 24, 1997 Tigard Planning Commission 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Appeal of a Director's decision to approve "Amended" Minor Land Partition (MLP) 97 -0002 Dear Sus: We are writing to respectfiuly request that the City of Tigard Planning Commissioners carefully consider the appeal filed on April 23, 1997 for the above referenced "Amended" Minor Land Partition. The appeal was filed on the basis that the application was incorrectly processed as a Minor Land Partition instead of a Major Land Partition. At the public hearing on May 19, 1997 there appeared to be some confusion regarding the history of the site. The purpose of this letter is to present our understanding of the events that have occurred because this may impact your decision. Below are some definitions important to understanding the history of the site. DEFINITIONS (Tigard Municipal Code): Major Land Partition: A partition of land which creates three lots or less within one calendar year and includes the creation of a road or street. Minor Land Partition: A partition of land which creates three lots or less within one calendar year, and does not include the creation of a road or street. Subdivision: a partition of land which creates four lots or more within one calendar year. A tree mitigation plan is required to be submitted with the applications for a Subdivision and a Major Land Partition, but not for a Minor Land Partition. As you know, preservation of the trees at the subject site is of great importance to our neighborhood. HISTORY OF SITE: • On February, 4, 1997, Mr. Miles Downing submitted an application for a Minor Land Partition for the property at 11600 SW Greenburg Road (Tax Lot 6700), in Tigard, Oregon. Mr. Downing contended that the subject site (Tax Lot 6700) consisted of - two separate properties which he was proposing to divide into four new lots. Figure 1 shows the locations of the proposed new lots. Page 1 • Ken Bauer of the Washington County Surveyors office indicated that Tax Lot 6700 must be considered a single parcel of land. Therefore, Mr. Downing was actually proposing to construct a subdivision (the partitioning of a single lot into four or more lots), and not a Minor Land Partition. Mr. Downing revised his application to partition Tax Lot 6700 into three lots instead of four. Figure 2, from his second submission, shows that Lots 3 and 4 were combined to form a single lot (Lot 3). • On March 31, 1997, Mr. Terry Smith submitted a memorandum to Mr. Mark Roberts, City of Tigard planner, stating that Mr. Downing's Minor Land Partition was processed incorrectly, since it included the creation of a "road or street." Mr. Roberts agreed, and the decision was amended requiring the private street to be included as part of Lot 3. • The current "Amended" Minor Land Partition proposes to partition Tax Lot 6700 into three lots. One lot will contain the existing house, and two lots will be created in the undeveloped area, containing a grove of mature fir trees. The "Amended" decision states that "the applicant proposes to develop the areas that were planted with fir trees with a private street and utilities in order to develop two (2) new single - family, detached residences." Note: The application states that Mr. Shaw planted these fir trees. However, we believe them to be 100 or more years old, similar to other fir trees in the neighborhood. • The Amended Decision clears the way for Mr. Downing to further develop Lot 3. The decision states that "The applicant can choose to file a Conditional Use Permit application to develop a duplex on Lot 3. It may also be possible to partition Lot 3 in the future to develop an additional dwelling unit or duplex. The partition, as proposed, does not preclude any future partition(s)." The plot plan included in the Amended Minor Land Partition (Figure 2) shows that 3 water meters will be constructed to service lots 2 and 3, therefore indicating that Mr. Downing proposes to eventually include two dwellings on Lot 3. BASIS FOR ACCEPTING THE APPEAL FINDING THAT APPLICATION WAS INCORRECTLY PROCESSED AS MINOR LAND PARTITION As you know, there as been much debate as to whether the pole portion of Lot 3 should be considered a `road or street ". In the memorandum from Mr. Roberts to the Planning Commission dated May 8, 1997, Mr. Roberts states that "if the pole portion of Lot 3 were to provide access to two (2) lots, in the Director's opinion, this type of access situation would then meet the current definition of a street." Therefore, it is our contention that because Lot 3 can be partitioned into two lots at a later date, or a duplex can be constructed on the site, the accessway is not a "driveway" but certainly meets the definition of a "street or road ". It is clear that it is Mr. Downing's intention to ultimately partition Tax Lot 6700 into four lots by further subdividing Lot 3 into two lots (which meets the definition of a subdivision if done within a calendar year), or he proposes to place a duplex on Lot 3, which means that the pole portion of Lot 3 must be considered a "road or street "(which meets the definition of a Major Land Partition). His intentions are clear based on the history of his submissions, and the fact that three water Page 2 4 meters are proposed to serve Lots 2 and 3. Mr. Downing's approach to apply for a Minor Land Partition appears to be designed to circumvent the rigorous requirements of a subdivision or the requirements for a tree mitigation plan as part of a Major Land Partition. It is our opinion that Mr. Downing's "Amended" Minor Land Partition should be rejected in its present format, as it clearly exceeds the limitations of a Minor Land Partition. The application as it presently stands, is in iholation of the City of Tigard ordinances, as well as the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states that the City of Tigard should maintain and improve the quality of life for residents by prohibiting development which would cause a diminution in the existing quality of life. The lot sizes proposed in the Amended Minor Land Partition are not consistent with the character of our neighborhood, in which lot sizes are generally in the range of 16,000 to 19,000 square feet. It is our opinion that the present zoning of R -4.5 is in error and inappropriate given the existing land use in our neighborhood. The Tigard Municipal Code gives the Planning Commission the authority to impose conditions where necessary to carry out the applicable provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan (16.32.250(D)(5)). Conditions may include, but are not limited to minimum lot sizes (16.32.250(E). It is also our opinion that a tree mitigation plan is critical for this development. The stand of trees located on the subject site is situated upwind of our development given the prevailing wind direction from the southwest. Therefore the grove of trees presently acts as a buffer to fir trees on the east side of 92' Avenue and the west side of 91 Avenue. Any plan to remove the trees from the subject site, must consider the impact to adjacent trees on other nearby properties. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any question, please feel free to contact us at 624- 7180. Sincerely, l e_ t _„„ cy __ 1 __e (--e, Kerry L. Gavett Weston C. Gavett, P.E. Parra 02: %97 15:31 $501 884 1:91 CITY OF TIGARD 21OO7i001 - 4 . 1 --- -50.110 r cc f�LL pQTN 004M W W UM sy 921m ROOMY Jum Guns 1 — s NEIGHBORS 1°" Pi MT 3 -I HOUSE a T YARD ili 97.51 t 97.51 F':• LOT • t in 8115 SQ FT LOT 3 i m- W •• 8326 SQ FT 2 . ..- Cr1 0 1,.• U7 a. d • � t t 1'• W V �. OC 2 ��� GAS LINE 6' OFF • ,.� CURRENT PRAPERTY LINE / • 3 WATER METERS MOOR it ko- !� 1141110'- S EWER M ko 0 % .% Tr u y SEVER n i :•; LOT 4 E '��ur � � R � 1 8 3 . 3j °' , uE9 ' �� . _ T .49 � 1/ mom . Iii_. r� - :: STR ° ,Q - A. - = - o- r Ear nr r SZ .�.� , E r a. f$ 8 O D RD 5� • TINS_ s 1 3 ... •:, 63. - k'V - r o 1129- t , 4) 14,700 y'� c7 ti� � }� Pa BOX riwaa .: \•tip.� � C� � �/ 639 -5792 76::, 4. ■ 0, if '4% Cl LL. cl o� 210 -c...) 0/., II I A ' . - 1 G.' . . V - FIG�� 1 - P ic V PLAN �Kovr �t :- LT►at. PLOT PLAN C N 4 __ s `�B rn tss lo i y MAP 1 DOVVNING'S GREENBURG SITE EXHIBIT MAP s MLP97 -0002 r La avm t • F-1 LIMN IV > 3 NEIGHBORS HOUSE $ mu O • I K ANtOa 1 97.51 97.51 r: iii ; LOT2 z I u� 8115 SO FT LOT 3 • ' • 17,017 50 FT i•�• • ci 1•4'; 1 . :•;1 W : :•i GAS UNE 6' OFF L. i • J F tP LINE 3 VATER FETES / r( SEV '`J ��r SEVER �. -' R; Z itil 0 � y Fr '''��IiI • a- 2 7- - - - -- , - � IVq r _ C` E Sr- I . `?� ApP /// �� .e J.,.. 4 X.-c 4 '8� % 't' �r� Or i /. b 9" ' d� 9 13 Q van* Inuamsow ; � i'/ � d a:ma�aec as a` t LOT 1 ^b V �; : ��• ti 14,700 ^ I • ,; b SO FT � � .ximm atom '/'ix --:,t ‹3 '4.- 4. `Z � � °J 0 N //a . 6 -N‘ STORM DRAIN.S TO CURB U J II n t F; ore. 2— PLOT PL A N L O L A N /� FRO cirt h ►tit C �DEp CASE KO. DEclStok/ 1 EXHIBIT A p ,y Downing/Shaw Partition �l MLP 97 -0002 • .. • ;/z !« z7 - Pe61/4-14-AA-1-v-2 0 5 14) q14") avg.- - ryk.t.) Or, '111,1.1 aAr A40AL-11-11- tAL -. ..tt444- i4 w 24 . MA. VA 4L. 041A.Mia,kLi ( PA4, tyks4icy ;IL 4.Lzd. A.)4 4tt.t.4.4) c4-tL144 L.L ;141-k- 4,1.4\444 -g-L1 L . ,141.4.4w-e) 4.4a-111A tA..s-t4." 1.14, 7J . 04 14, Pvt -1...,„1,-...1L) yyt ,P--L4t1 gi-A-0,1 /u-emilvva kt.§ At41- Lo4.. L, 24\4.. AA-/i9.. L)-tite‘.41 6t.AJ__ t.Ariev-i-JA MA-4•t4--ttA-- k\A-4ieu- e1 1-4) PeNev OWN-1./LA-4- 44— Le."11- /144-t,u_A.4- ern pitArp.42--L,CL:49? • - 1-tig---+N-1 blea 4A4 p 1 t 4t-e cA) • •• In the light of the following, does the existing tree ordinance succesfully impliment the Comprehensive plan stratagey #4? It states that "Where there exists large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land, the City shall ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of the vegetation areas through the planned development process and the Tree cutting section of the community development code ". As it is now, current administrative actions would approve the following hypothectical applications (All with large stands of trees) in the City of Tigard without the tree ordinance being applied as being a standard which the application must address 1 1 1 1 1 1 This application is to partition an existing 1 acre parcel into three equal parcels. _ I I I . . 0 1 1 0,e..,f- '51 e.er _1 This application is to partition an existing 30 acre parcel into three equal parcels. S 1 L 1 I " 1 I This application is to partition an existing 45 acre parcel into three equal +( -) parcels with one as a flag lot • Mom -0 ,---- 19 . II ' - e 1/44 . t irlti,/,v,1 6,1401/s.s/a AI /1_,/J41-01-14131:11,86 J 1 4 4-to err)/ l- .1-1 / 42-f:5 C,bo.9;-41 77 /4-ica,Ole. 97 / 3/ 2..5 .S" C t . : Ali VOR AM) 1 7 - - - 1) '''' ulil* ' 111-11) • 4 c_bL/12-1,u-ol-ai- i ,i 0 0 ) • • ... , • . A,v• L...-,t6) / ,-ax_ ar., x ti-cfv (li -L-C-- r 14- ` 1 % (1 1 _ ,,-)--,,,,,,,-,Ae.A,_ ()1/4--.J-1,,*AzLT---,.0-., . , • J-/tL4-_:- .. .. .. ,,, . - - cic1--- , - 6 1 A . rz.,k) /-1,‘,4 Le .,c(7J-e—L, • y ./. , , , : . . .. • ..: 1 i i i C___. vi"-- L ;(4._L, • ,4---t-7-cv:_'- c,"cla----,-e-a-r-- ",:, , • ir .9 j ( • . A if----- j ,f • ,4 A - {4 l ,/... 67--(A.,77.---61-/ t....( ,-.4.4 t... (--e-(-64-47-i-c 4--(4-- (..../ 0.,ti•-t.71--erC/13-14-"tJ..e.c.__.07 -_U----- ctc.A.,1/4..2 /7 .K if ,•1 1 y 1 I /. tv:?: )• ) :.A<7 ji/5iwJ I` a r *'t t ar 1 / • RECEIVED f n4,11-M/ 006 • • MAY 2 3 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -1 1.4E.Se PNo A- c c)P. 124 ArvE dPp. fiir.t.L4t a yip r ar n M v p.�.+r► h► i r O G V ► r:, 't"n S ot.1 6 717i Stns' P c 114 q Kike D v 41, floe fly k,14.1 u p srr F V .24..) 415 Sou it, 'ova &LAI) 4144 tp Y1 p v" j tl ea-el o.vt V l&k o to lArY k a A a -1 LA I C:, t o 1 'k w wp crc rn (gru.hb%-> , Via.,) ttp ,;n o e f'Yt * 1 /4 v.� t� ak. - u Svc „H uv► u,r 4, d SA-n^ d a `` (11 " Y. V I .zw - 111 Y1 f 1•?•4:;fr clepve 1 /3 ,,J o., y a42, ti b t) L,- V t a w r• 1 t� r ��.A 3 !rte ate., ,�,.ae Pity inn ,t i.etb ►v l A \i i J Vv HH„ cir. 4 00, - .0 V it fit ` : cr t„+rL Y � , 1 r' V\ \I 1 i- S rw � gi` IAA /1 w a.t,,, 40rvt (pi r a,9.4A 6 r . 0 ` V ► h) Sin u I * t nn "I V cr p ► I��-. t� e�-� ,<-, ��11 Y4_o.� �� . r r� Q ViLAO Sw u fy 1 /3 Jr- w� c IS rnvv1 laig.41-�b Q � yw•� .r e-f•,�2.�, Pt) Y 4 4- t.76_1)6 r5j k r 0, • RECEIVED 4 3t? 2 3 1997 � I/ LL, 0000 46 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 77 -1Est Plaorn8 A420. or- ,.t,,..) 't24 ave oFF l .4 b%) y 1. 4 V ► n„i a t/\. r I-1r1 t p,' A tr t' 1o4t up 124 t d �t n e t . 3 Y " - , hD r1 Arnw1 ( til)rq . _ G Y t r-r..) tl S 111..1 6 173 . A{/124•0 p cynVO 11 44 0 .1 ,.►i G IA( D V14,4) +I, .1 1 I1ywti u�1 Srr C. V ! J ) 411 SAU 'hi P't,v►n .. AIL4 ) \/1244.J p ,r 14 D P A zoLdat aI/1 ci. . kt l +i0 ►�1,r oA ao.4.41 LY [ R(:\ m ..4 /4 ww, VA? 46 NA (4:1r es-116-4 1-4 VtA) t inipef'Y1 ( iK wab a ar stn LiY4s Ater` IA 2 VI on,,) +0 A r 4-1,1 P� na.t von c o, v +mti �r awl a W i g:14A kv.gi 1 tho Sa-mp. 4..41-- `` C�' ; I c V t .1 '1''0 V 1 ' f"N 1p.j a pheI I1 tom.? aL`. 1.4.e (i‘ y ag.141! U v GG L• V% e. 1 1m Y\ r fin e 1 /'? �,.' Il ^A V'' kV444461°v I 41 p b Y\ V / k. y C(1 r" 4 I Jeu^ Li ►'t' t vet t► /-1-N 10`- Y\ Vt2,,.-1' 1_p Ste) a►nn t /3 1/...141t 41t ►,,,0 n t ( v r V∎ e t 5,06,1-i., Cvao 1 ./2.,. 10-14.4 (,,. p wt (.4 u r t p V leA.0 4-0 h. w Q.,04w+ 1 14.+ wai. L4 ernnel LAV' -4, bOY't Q tt t,1) h"D Sw `f Aram I /3 s. t.S1 PYAtvl �! '110 v 013 . 14 ...2.► .- �vr 1 ".44., 74-se\ ff r S V t Gu..3 1-,,w Sa rte ` �' 4.11./1 ' 1 °t.1. 1 _ r .' /. A -- • • RECEIVED PLANNING WESTON C. AND KERRY L. GAVETT MAY 2 7 1997 11435 SW 92 AVENUE cnY OFTIGARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 24 1997 May , CC� '�J of Tigard Planning Commission \��� • 13125 SW Hall Boulevard �' Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Appeal of a Director's decision to approve "Amended" Minor Land Partition (MLP) 97 -0002 Dear Sirs: We are writing to respectfully request that the City of Tigard Planning Commissioners carefully consider the appeal filed on April 23, 1997 for the above referenced "Amended" Minor Land • Partition. The appeal was filed on the basis that the application was incorrectly processed as a Minor Land Partition instead of a Major Land Partition. At the public hearing on May 19, 1997 there appeared to be some confusion regarding the history of the site. The purpose of this letter is to present our understanding of the events that have occurred because this may impact your decision. Below are some definitions important to understanding the history of the site. DEFINITIONS (Tigard Municipal Code): Major Land Partition: A partition of land which creates three lots or less within one calendar year and includes the creation of a road or street. Minor Land Partition: A partition of land which creates three lots or less within one calendar year, and does not include the creation of a road or street. Subdivision: a partition of land which creates four lots or more within one calendar year. A tree mitigation plan is required to be submitted with the applications for a Subdivision and a Major Land Partition, but not for a Minor Land Partition. As you know, preservation of the trees at the subject site is of great importance to our neighborhood HISTORY OF SITE: • On February, 4, 1997, Mr. Miles Downing submitted an application for a Minor Land Partition for the property at 11600 SW Greenburg Road (Tax Lot 6700), in Tigard, Oregon. Mr. Downing contended that the subject site (Tax Lot 6700) consisted of two separate properties which he was proposing to divide into four new lots. Figure 1 shows the locations of the proposed new lots. Page 1 • • • Ken Bauer of the Washington County Surveyors office indicated that Tax Lot 6700 must be considered a single parcel of land. Therefore, Mr: Downing was actually proposing to construct a subdivision (the partitioning of a single lot into four or more lots), and not a 1Vfmor Land Partition. Mr. Downing revised his application to partition Tax Lot 6700 into three lots instead of four. Figure 2, from his second submission, shows that Lots 3 and 4 were combined to form a single lot (Lot 3). • On March 31, 1997, Mr. Terry Smith submitted a memorandum to Mr. Mark Roberts, City of Tigard planner, stating that Mr. Downing's Mmor Land Partition was processed incorrectly, since it included the creation of a "road or street" Mr. Roberts agreed, and the decision was amended requiring the private street to be included as part of Lot 3. • The current "Amended" Minor Land Partition proposes to partition Tax Lot 6700 into three lots. One lot will contain the existing house, and two lots will be created in the undeveloped area, containing a grove of mature fir trees. The " Amended" decision states that "the applicant proposes to develop the areas that were planted with fir trees with a private street and utilities in order to develop two (2) new single-family, detached residences." Note: The application states that Mr. Shaw planted these fir trees. However, we believe them to be 100 or more years old, sinmlar to other fir trees in the neighborhood. • The Amended Decision clears the way for Mr. Downing to further develop Lot 3. The decision states that "The applicant can choose to file a Conditional Use Permit application to develop a duplex on Lot 3. It may also be possible to partition Lot 3 in the future to develop an additional dwelling unit or duplex. The partition, as proposed, does not preclude any future partition(s)." The plot plan included in the Amended Minor Land Partition (Figure 2) shows that 3 water meters will be constructed to service lots 2 and 3, therefore indicating that Mr. Downing proposes to eventually include two dwellings on Lot 3. BASIS FOR ACCEPTING THE APPEAL FINDING THAT APPLICATION WAS INCORRECTLY PROCESSED AS MINOR LAND PARTITION As you know, there as been much debate as to whether the pole portion of Lot 3 should be considered a `road or street". In the memorandum from Mr. Roberts to the Planning Commission dated May 8, 1997, Mr. Roberts states that "if the pole portion of Lot 3 were to provide access to two (2) lots, in the Director's opinion, this type of access situation would then meet the current definition of a street." Therefore, it is our contention that because Lot 3 can be partitioned into two lots at a later date, or a duplex can be constructed on the site, the accessway is not a "driveway" but certainly meets the definition of a "street or road ". It is clear that it is Mr. Downing's intention to ultimately partition Tax Lot 6700 into four lots by further subdividing Lot 3 into two lots (which meets the definition of a subdivision if done within a calendar year), or he proposes to place a duplex on Lot 3, which means that the pole portion of Lot 3 must be considered a `road or street "(which meets the definition of a Major Land Partition). His intentions are clear based on the history of his submissions, and the fact that three water Page 2 • • meters are proposed to serve Lots 2 and 3. Mr. Downing's approach to apply for a Minor Land Partition appears to be designed to circumvent the rigorous requirements of a subdivision or the requirements for a tree mitigation plan as part of a Major Land Partition. It is our opinion that Mr. Downing's "Amended" Minor Land Partition should be rejected in its present format, as it clearly exceeds the limitations of a Minor Land Partition. The application as it presently stands, is in violation of the City of Tigard ordinances, as well as the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states that the City of Tigard should maintain and improve the quality of life for residents by prohibiting development which would cause a diminution in the existing quality of life. The lot sizes proposed in the Amended Minor Land Partition are not consistent with the character of our neighborhood, in which lot sizes are generally in the range of 16,000 to 19,000 square feet. It is our opinion that the present zoning of R-4.5 is in error and inappropriate given the existing land use in our neighborhood. The Tigard Municipal Code gives the Planning Commission the authority to impose conditions where necessary to carry out the applicable provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan (16.32.250(DX5)). Conditions may include, but are not limited to minimum lot sizes (16.32.250(E). It is also our opinion that a tree mitigation plan is critical for this development. The stand of trees located on the subject site is situated upwind of our development given the prevailing wind direction from the southwest. Therefore the grove of trees presently acts as a buffer to fir trees on the east side of 92 Avenue and the west side of 91 Avenue. Any plan to remove the trees from the subject site, must consider the impact to adjacent trees on other nearby properties. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any question, please feel free to contact us at 624- 7180. Sincerely, Kern, ,e/Ci GP.7tt L. Gavett Weston C. Gavett, P.E. Page 3 a 02,'25 15:31 $`503 684 OT CITY OE TIGARD • �OOi %OOi i. CC va a.n. Ma u.w $v tam • _ a ? N EIGHBORS, 11313 TV WIT 3—i HOUSE ° 1 _ I , f 97.31 T 97.51 LOT 2 • W VI 8115 SO FT LOT 3 8326 SO FT Z �. _3 i • :, N a • w 3, ' :-1 • c.► . • .• GAS UNE 6 CIFF ..' .. • •• CURRENT PROPERTY :.. °. V • 3 WATER METERS. aro i► N. : r SE V ER a ` s v. 'm " Z , �" a; 3 si SEVER LOT 4 l ''' R 6 8 .32 i U*zrr, - 90 - N. /' ••• _18 5 Z Y //Ai ~ '~ r rte— Y_- 10. ar fiA,T + r _. Ablha.... oc, TI -�� �' -t Al ..‘\ A. &Asia Aio 47 1:1 •' ' '4 -1 . ' uao SV GRWAISC RD ;P C. V ``► r c.. � 0 LOT O � h� _ G? • • "'� l , ,' k : to SO FT ~�� — � ... 63,...sme (.,,p_1, . _ , , ion Mt 2:1114:1 MAIO 1--- ,,,,, .... \ S �tJ � / 41 ,0 210 0/c::) d G.. . 0 FtGo2E 1 - 9Lor PLAN �ov� T �.t ` DOWNING 'S ♦ NO_ S �BYfltSSJON I PLOT PLAN �{� c� S GREENBURG SITE EXHIBIT MAP 3 MLP97 -0002 a. W W comae WWII iv ISO 3 J NEIGHBORS HOUSE $ 0 I . t . ®, i t 9751 9751 LOT 2 • � 8115 FT LOT3 In 17 ,07SQFT c V •la Ii W '• CrlT �b'QF'F D J . CURRENT pin :� • � VATER PETERS r R $. ;• a ER V i mint r1 - • II 8 K R� /B 3 1 0 * 8s r �� ' �_ Ake` '_ == --W _ . •49-1� L 7. EST - ir /A::: ' ill "'", :kr zr -. _:.. ■ All CtIo ar... • • : • :- a i. o Or s r tee f� " iv CMCR !•' y walla v<,m®, 134.10 TV GMCDOUIG ItO t o LOT 1 • r 14,700 (, c-) i''' t .�v. a e Q .OM • • 7 Cr Ci � ~ �w � 17 Q J /a �t MUM TEM. • 1 : . • X09 ` �~ r � O J O 0,6 . G J/\, fii STORM DRAIN.S TO CURB V F re. 2 — PLOT PC. A N I PLOT PLAN Y C t+... N o. - Fio rrt �! ►ti+ -?J 1 A C � DEcrsr EXHIBIT MAP s Downing/Shaw Partition MLP 97 -0002 • D Appea-C ECEIVED /14Z7/1 0061c3 MAY 2 3 1997 * COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7 N ESC PNO a2.4 dpp. Gtrt.A.4+ r 4 ! o tA 0 r /1 0..07 oat up 12.YA A VI r rp ArAIM kv.a.444 h!1r flt..0 Alet ..41' P r c II 440 q ui41 C 114 P V 144) ill f !-tom fly km IA p *'y fip noel it Akita 4.46 d. , G4 / t +b Vvlr I* aA • grIA Pi a w\ S �! W trawl (41r/116At 1 VI Q. + Y p►r p•P (1a1 1kbPrI^OOd Aesetwl Ae.tr'a44 vtdiibLi i, • k \ I m . ) 4- r 1 4 i46 cprvt ��t'�w r c,, � 0 V ■ P.w 1 51G I * PftS 1 ��w. 14-1 c'QVN1 Vi24144 fa u Yy _ V 1 P.N„) T h, w 0404 1M i / 9 LAI) PrAvM1 kY.tiN L f aa Q V t ems) t Sw Pr(�4V1 'i3 �4- Pv &wt 1 strta.tib y r , V S +10 SD (LA-4 4,v, DIMEZMIVEZZTEZWYMAIIIVII Dr; ft, ides r re vi - • • RECEIVED PLANNING MAY 2 7 1997 CITY OFTIGARD N May 22, 1997 Tigard Planning Commission 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: 5.1 Appeal of Minor Land Partition (MLP) 97 -0002 Downing/Shaw Partition Planning Commission: Please give consideration to the appeal set forth by Terry Smith and our neighborhood. We feel it an error to approve the Minor Land Partition. In developing this site some major considerations need to be made. I live directly across from the proposed site and am amazed by the %2 street improvement idea. I believe this affects adversely the continuity of the neighborhood. The trees have been a drawing card for Tigard. They are a major buffer for us but very visible and viable. The findings brought up in the hearing do not need to be reiterated in this letter but I urge you to come visit the site and consider the usage of this lot. We wish to see consistency in not violating the livability of our neighborhood. Sincerely, • Barbara Knauss r 4 . ;- ; '1193 8.w 92ix:.Av�w e 75 OR 972 L3 ; • • • 0 .. t . 1 � � wI s ion/ tii Lrpfng Aii8UR • 1 /4,freb , ''�')'ti 0 ) 4 r .r RECEIVED PLANNING K4-n'o C fry -4 L MAY 2 7 1997 t).. 7744 z3 S; fie« 84. vb . � \ . ,3/5 � ari OF TIGARD � 002 buieil 4 1 /1-19-11) . . 'R_E: HbA/og 1-4 Pilierivo axieuri_e_.„( j3/4_evato,us, a ) fr //2---Y5 '. • 4 -7--e.,.rezt-4--- • 4 ' 0 f _bL /1-2-tx4-vv-s- - :::.:.::,:::::.:.::::::::::.,::: ,..:,:::.:::.::::::::::::_::.,::: . Id, ,,„„(2.,( ,,,„,,v)--,,,„(.., i?-(1:-o-ax, ey- #.--a /)-1-1.4,1, 444)(A-ixL erek i i::::::: . r . . 6ii_e__.9,,44— , ., „ / . / %,& U zi/ 4 1 %44 ipmC i )4.'"-iLe, . / , . . / . / a A - 6 A 6 ..)--cz ' . ( / [ a "9-- id---Xtra.c.U/1"--a. le-e- .■?-</J--e--k_ i / e / :' is C 671A-- 24--- °.-e--t--' 2A-{-er.---le.' & ( fr - - / A7---`21614/`-e-tA-e-A-e— . . -)-fie , - 4-4_, , . . „. ' Ide . 9 ' • ,. : ; y 4 f- c t ,- -,t6t-/R-ts'2_,. ..44„, ,e62-e.- ',,mod-_ G z- ti s .. ... . ..:.: .• :: •.:•. „ii-v-x---)127/2.,e„.„ e,y--sm,--e------c--.,e-_-1L--4. . • • ..• • ... , ,_, ,::: - iketizet,r.z6.N(Wii ' • . .. • • • MEMORANDUM Aik CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON -�,�- •� • • • TO: Dick 8ewersdorff, Planning Manager FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder(-` DATE: April 23, 1997 SUBJECT: MLP #97 -0002 Attached is a completed 'Appeal Filing Form for Land Use Decision' for the proposal referenced above. Please schedule this for a Planning Commission Hearing date as early as possible and advise the applicant and appellant of that date. Thanks. Attachment 7o02aoe • • • • • AP EAL FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS :mr of TtG.> 13123 SrvNaJ aid, r Tgant. CR 97223 (.03) 639 -1171 FAX (.03) 684.7297 • :Ity of Tigard supports the ciltzen's right to participate In focal government Tt gardes Land lJsa Code 'ore. "sets out specific requimments for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. !!lowing form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision In proper form. To nine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have ardln the a cantac: the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phonertax listed at the top of this form. pace , SA L INFORMATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY • 7 Application and Name(s) of the Appon Being • ��.. ...i , i.: • r. .. • — • . • lad: 1 po • S , Li ��..rn v r • Case N0(0 _.rnGf�– 'C+Cb - G s i Name(sk Q Fita.41¢r„1 -- -- _ Receipt No.: q f 7 o You Cuaiity As d► Party? ll J ol^ is �r W/i n %5 _ _ ...L. CU.) • • - ' . Date; y`? inn Address 1 1 �-}. 4 A S . t,.. 1 _ A1zzsza d As To Farm By. G 1. • Zim c i 3 • - - _ _ : °ate: 4 f/3 1ci 7 Dr As To Form By: • - cne Where You Can Be Reacted:(Sc3i 8 12--S- 42.14 • .'= Date: • • • • • Iced Cate Cedsicn Is To Be Fnat / Zs. " = rrs,�,ors� Vairomnamerstmovemucc vice at Final Cecsicrt Was Given: it 14. 11 : Grounds Fcr Appeal cr Review RECtITQ SUBMrr'A - zfaITS 1 ..1.4 C"-` Qt: � p: oc -�4s -� 1.4 # ' ca n Eerttents SuermiCec� 0 1 -•- •- r mod- !--1. (l4r+� -t'r-. ,1 0 Appeal Fang Fora (compfc Q F ing Fee Masao an cintna *wow) rest rs Comm a Panning Ga ma:as S =n.00 . mrstirq Ramie $ slam ita""nq Camsocnotisamrs CStara Car Cas+ea $T___ Signature(s) of Appellant(s): irG FORA FGt :JAG t E iEC'SCraS tCVER FCR ACCST CNAI. W T G 3P ACII • • • - ..;1.1997 To: Mr. lam Hearkm City, of Tigard 639 —t 171. fax 634 -7:97 • From: Terry Smith. 634 -160 • Re; Application MNQ.P 97.002 - • • • Dear Mr. Headryx Thank you grateful for ailing me yesterday. I have put in writing most of the concerns we have. We would be you would please review the followin tux g issues and !et me know this a.m, whether or em= tcday ir the u 0 the city initiating another review of this application before the appeal deadline her up or eves her neighbor Mtn Shaw wan to all ha ptopaty we do not wan to hold _ stop development. We just feel that since it will be pan of our neighborhood by agi a tree then from impact us as to whether it blends in and compliments or whether it conflicts with lots with significant fir once- If the existing n°�hOOd The neighborhood is d by large tots appeal nifica it a with oar positions below we would rather not have to ale upholding. 1 neighbor against neighbor to i which the ptaaaer -hoard be _ . • • • �� And that the application cc the Is the applicatio . classified? It . �.. ... • � - subjea tax lot into 3 lots which it:chrdies the =anal aof toad or Dma G0 tw partition a major land partition and meet the respective The street u should that >lor u a • . street is being cre ated, eab the limitations ° tit a toad or : A. The definition • ..... : _ a mtaoR land partition.. : i : r of or Street ririte -` :: e = .. . " ine a p sued which is a o p • The planer in order to faci itate the under. r land private incorporate the street as a part of one of the lots approval that as i a minor land n doer not make a or whether it is whether it is tinder private .or public ownership . .�..:.� partition stall includes its 1&162.020 pan of a lot or stands alone does not make a the : _. " -; _ • a division (gland aeaces .stater that A major 1aa,d a review is required whet. c 13. All proposed p is are to im meet m cry and applicable agency standards (Ore. 39-06; Ord 33•S2), The fire department requires the creation of an woo ss roadway and that it meet the sp=ific standards It has specified that this applications plans are not approved without the an=ion of an access laid out in the agency comments as d in the and ceded This p1i i s as _ . _._ required when it is evident that the subject will not preclude the efficient division eland the lore M cm be Anther It would nod to show that the pi need to meet private street standards for lot aa= so as not to preclude this would of xc qr C. The definition of a flag lot describes the purpose of the 'Pole' as partitioning potential. D. The le does not allow the bang to �� acres a es berme it only serves as an roc h� ti re to included in the lot area calculation E. The partition map shows 3 water meters when only two p. shows that the applicant in order ;o m ' ni=t the . �e� the history of this application eaguir�=eats of a minor land partition removed one lot line division leaving what is now tot 3 Large =ugh to be partiticalei again The planner in his am=ded duce arrazive has demonstrated his awareness of the potential for as many as (4) additional dwelling =its being sewed by this a way. As it is. the intentions are tear that this will be a right-of-way more than one dwelling unit which also is described as beia what for partition (sr I3. I62.0 %0.b.7), 3 detesmiaes as a major land The question is, does the application more resemble the definition of a major or minor !and rtition. A minor and partition is limited to the ce:aaon of 3 lots if you include the cation of an away it must be reviewed as a major land partition. To do otherwise may demoasaate an acpearanc of to regard for the Comprehensive plan; the code for community development. and our neighborhood which this Tax lots abuts and will berme a pan of by its acct an to SW such is because the 92: d The reason it appears as • Primary objet ve of the amended d=.sion is to evade the conncl of a major land 'El,COME TO THE r1MaJNITY DEVELOPME 'T 111PARTMENT ' ' PLEASESIGNUSIN ANDHAVEASEAT U. WILL BE HELPED IN THE ORDER OF YOUR ARRIVAL BY THE CT AVAILABLE DEVELOPMEN T SERVICE TECHNICIAN (DST). (The last sign -in time is 5:45 p.m. daily) J. PLEASE SIGN IN BELOW 4 ; FOR'OFFTCEUSEir; TIME NAME PURPOSE TIME = ASS ISTED CLEARLY) 1 f = 1 :35 m lc 61 tart V, -S • 1. z_..4 ' 7 .4.7)5 14. 4f I Ze ta A :e :7( bel A 36■87,1, , 0 114 2. cle& .34 �v f , 5 6 c kr ' 6 Al Paso % id-- - /: , _ EtyJ I • Lc nG : +ctn,5 91-g 6 cia.c+r:r_rA PO ' c IR PIS I :1 f 6.140 �k_ . Pe -rev weclA it c A.�.�ac_ 1 ` (� ?J . /�L�� � }T reed. r�p r L i f �: q. , u 44d crt ut 0rc) c — 1 1: S3 getiL) _.,.._ _ ° h V vi 4 ;1. n 2eW L 1i 16 1/14141. l 3 ol ? *'_ 411 4 , i e.e'V ' f fe , .... ".-----J\ __ I V 1 ? 1.t) , _ il 1 �, NjA a,V ‘1471 - 1if)) i A c• /l'1 r.C. %•cC1Lf ,e ; 42 4- I S:1 - . . ' - • " - ' . - • - • ' - ' ::: : :::- • • :-. . . ' ' -.• -.: • • : • : - . . . . • . • - . . . . . - . . - . . ' . . .. . . _ . . . . . . • .S.;::: ..- 5 I) i Crko .".". M4. 1 vs is A e-Pp j . • • . 0; Ou { ra-A/ i 'S1-.41 1 --i LAAA 1 ft A4' • • ere- Cw‘A-t.4...>f 41 i.An LA..) r t 1 vi 0 Yt 5 i 1 1/91. • • ... s , ..• • :... :•• ::: . • • : ...:::::::•••:: • .: . : • : " . . ..........:-....••••:, - ..-....• ., ::::::.::: •.:::::•:: : w a... 0A41 u e i e 1 y% +rp .,,jii g rese...14. 4 :: : • A . c h. to /11 4.4:111.6, P; "fliL. L/4- 4 t v■v.:flore../z itic 4 I • • (!trlo (44 V LAM14213. . .. .. . ... .... . • • . . :•-.•—•••••• :::.:: :::-.: .,•-•,:::::::: :::::•. :.::;...: • ::::, •.: ,:::•:: .: • :: ,:::::„.:-.:: : .......-. ; :.... : .......- . ..s : •:,::-....::.:::::::•,,.•,....:,::.:..,..... -..:;:-..: : .::::.:: :: .i. ... :i . : . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • " . .. . . .. '. •. . • CITY OF TIGARD May 23, 1997 OREGON Terry Smith 11480 SW 92nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 (Fax) 526 -0244 RE: Deadline to Submit Appeal Information Dear Terry: _ This letter is to confirm our earlier conversation regarding the date and time deadlines for submitting information for consideration of the appeal of Minor Land Partition (MLP) 97 -0002 "Downing /Shaw Partition ". Information must be submitted to the City of Tigard, Community Development Department. The deadline for submitting information is Tuesday May 27, 1997, by 3:30 PM. If you have any further questions conceming this information, please feel free to contact me at (503) 639 -4171. Si erel , niff\--Y-m James N.P. Hendryx Community Development Director i:\curpin\tery.let c: MLP 97 -0002 land use file Dick Bewersdorff Mark Roberts Planning Commission 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772 05/23/97 15:55 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 0 001 III 410 * ** ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT REPORT TX * ** ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** AOTY# MODE CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START TIME USAGE T. PAGES RESULT *9112 TX G3 503 693 4412 05/22 15:30 00'55 2 OK *9113 TX G3 503 684 0954 CARLSON TESTING 05/22 15:42 00'45 1 OK *9114 TX G3 503 223 6083 DAMES & MOORE 05/22 15:43 00'36 1 OK *9116 TX G3 5032571892 05/22 16:44 02'21 4 OK *9117 TX G3 5036840337 05/22 16:59 00'45 1 OK *9119 TX G3 503 790 7872 05/22 19:12 00'57 2 OK *9122 TX G3 503 790 7872 05/23 07:53 02'06 5 OK *9128 TX G3 503 223 2701 05/23 09:42 03'18 8 OK *9133 TX G3 503 452 6152 WOODLAND PROP. 05/23 10:30 00'35 1 OK *9136 TX G3 642 +9762 05/23 11:44 00'58 1 NG 1 # #283 *9136 TX G3 642 +9762 05/23 11:47 01'34 2 OK *9138 TX 5988692 05/23 12:02 00'00 0 NG 0 STOP *9140 TX G3 503 245 7374 CONTINENTAL PDX 05/23 12:04 11'39 8 OK *9142 TX G3 6679891 05/23 12:46 00'42 1 OK *9145 TX G3 05/23 13:50 00'33 1 OK 9148 TX 5988692 05/23 14:39 00'00 0 NG 0 STOP 9152 TX G3 503 968 6061 05/23 14:47 01'06 2 OK 9154 TX G3 503 620 2086 NICOLI ENG.,Inc. 05/23 15:13 00'59 2 OK 9159 TX G3 1 503 526 0244 05/23 15:54 00'43 1 OK ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT REPORT RX * ** ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ACTY# MODE CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START TIME USAGE T. PAGES RESULT *9115 AUTO RX G3 505883284545 05/22 15:56 01'21 2 OK *9120 AUTO RX G3 05/23 03:52 01'35 1 OK *9124 AUTO RX G3 5036561772 05/23 09:14 01'02 1 OK *9125 AUTO RX G3 15036577200 05/23 09:16 01'13 2 OK *9126 AUTO RX G3 503 691 9871 05/23 09:24 01'36 2 OK *9127 AUTO RX G3 503 234 4304 05/23 09:33 00'48 1 OK *9130 AUTO RX G3 +1 503 639 7297 05/23 09:56 02'53 2 OK *9131 AUTO RX G3 5032432944 05/23 10:04 02'32 4 OK *9132 AUTO RX G3 5032432944 05/23 10:21 07'17 13 OK *9134 AUTO RX G3 239 5094 05/23 10:54 02'14 3 OK *9135 AUTO RX G3 5032432944 05/23 11:27 01'52 3 OK *9141 AUTO RX G3 05/23 12:23 01'37 2 OK *9143 AUTO RX G3 503 620 2086 NICOLI ENG.,Inc. 05/23 13:14 02'21 4 OK *9144 AUTO RX G3 503 682 1015 CITY OF WILSONVI 05/23 13:27 00'38 1 OK *9146 AUTO RX G3 15036577200 05/23 14:10 02'11 3 OK 9150 AUTO RX G3 1 503 693 4854 05/23 14:29 04'17 7 OK 9153 AUTO RX G3 05/23 15:07 01'22 2 OK 9155 AUTO RX G3 503 639 4673 05/23 15:33 00'40 1 OK 9156 AUTO RX G3 5032432944 05/23 15:35 03'10 6 OK 9157 AUTO RX G3 487 4971 800624 4927 05/23 15:38 01'23 2 OK 9158 AUTO RX G3 05/23 15:52 01'07 2 OK } • • 5 -19 -1997 To: Planning Commission, City of Tigard From: The property owners of the SW 92nd Ave Neighborhood. Because The comprehensive plan for the City of Tigard states, that the purpose of the plan is to maintain and improve the quality of life for the residents, by prohibiting development which would cause a diminution in the existing quality of life, and by providing for the retention of natural and cultural resources which contribute to the livability of the community. Please see (Comprehensive plan. Introduction A.1,4,10 Purpose) And because The Tigard municipal code states that part of its purpose is to ensure that the development of property is commensurate with the physical characteristics of the land, and in general, to promote and protect the public welfare; To conserve needed open space and protect historic, cultural, natural and scenic resources; and to provide for the review of those uses which may have a detrimental impact on the community. Please see 18.02.010 (a,m,n) And because the decision of this approval authority is based on proof by the applicant that the application fully complies with the Comprehensive plan and that consideration may be given to proof of a mistake in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application . And because this commission may adopt findings and conclusions submitted by our neighborhood which would demonstrate conditions we will request as being reasonable, consistent with the comprehensive plan, and as beneficial to the residents of Tigard. (Conditions concern minimum lot sizes; Larger setbacks; Preservation of significant natural features and dedication of easements) 18.32.250 Please see that the application must Hilly comply with the comprehensive plan and the relevant standards of the applicable ordinances. The city has only addressed some of the standards and has not addressed the comprehensive plan We respectfully request that if after considering our position the commission would adopt those findings, conclusions and recommendations it deems to be reasonable and consistent with the purpose and priorities of the Comprehensive plan. We assert that the following findings are true and reasonable. 1. That due to the fact our street serves a number of properties which are predominantly and characteristically consistent with each other; and that our street has no outlet or alternate point of entry, and that it was created specifically to serve those properties, that our neighborhood /development is well defined as being those properties using SW 92nd as access to Greenburg Rd. 2. The subject development application proposes to access Greenburg by SW 92nd which was initially a private drive until the city took it over. We hold that any new lots such as those proposed will be a part of our neighborhood not only by its access and proximity, but also by its social, scenic/visual, economic, and environmental impact. 3. The existing development (Those properties accessing SW 92nd) is over forty years old, it was developed as a premier development which was distinguished by it's beauty, privacy (houses orientated facing SW 92nd), unique stand of trees and other amenities. 14 lots are 18,900 SF or larger, 2 lots are 16,262 SF and one pre - existing lot is 10,890 SF , all of these lots are marked by one residence and fir trees forming a common and mutually Beneficial open, and natural area. Residents of this street have chosen this neighborhood because of it's character and its beauty which is unique to this part of the city. The properties in this neighborhood hold a higher residential value than most along Greenburg. The Comprehensive plan states that it has found that this part of Tigard along Greenburg is struggling against a decline in the livability due in part to the declining residential land and property values and overall noise, congestion and high levels of activity in residential areas caused by the proximity of commercial and office uses. We understand that the a public/private partnership has established an urban renewal plan in order to implement commercial development in this area. We agree with the finding that • • buffering is needed to ensure protection from the visual, noise and other adverse impacts which will result from this redevelopment of the strip along Greenburg road. Please see the Comprehensive plan 11.8 We also find, that the reason that we have been able to escape or remain secluded for the most part from the decline in livability that others have suffered is because: Consistent character as described above has been maintained through out what we have defined as our neighborhood. This consistency offers privacy, reinforces values and livability from one property to the next. 4. The proposed application as approved by the director will not be consistent/harmonious with our existing neighborhood and will violate its existing character which will cause a lessening of values, environmental amenities livability and welfare to those residents because it: A. Allows the developer to develop at a higher density than that which is demonstrated as predominant in our neighborhood. B. Allows for the complete deforestation of that property. C. Provides for 1/2 street improvement which will be more detrimental than beneficial due to the following reasons: 1. Because the street does not, and is not likely to have an outlet, and because accessing properties have more value and potential to remain as they are there is no other foreseeable development likely which would bring about further improvement on either side of the street. We find that the 1/2 street improvement will bring about a sense of oddness and great contrast, it will only make the rest of our street and particularly adjoining and facing properties look unimproved.. We will have a sidewalk and widened section of street, on one side only, at what marks the introduction to our neighborhood , this improvement will stop at the property line with no real hope of ever being finished. We find no demonstration of a hazard existing or need for capacity which would justify the diminution of the quality of life which we have concluded will result from this action. 2.. We discovered from the developer at the meeting he held on December 23, 1996 to disseminate information regarding the application, that he would have proposed development consistent with the existing neighborhood but the 1/2 street improvement was to onerous on him. The conclusion is that this requirement by the city is the essential factor in the overall diminution this development threatens to bring to the welfare of the residents. It does not serve any purpose or bring any benefit that justifies its impact on the existing neighborhood. 18.164.030 Streets (c, iii). Please see ordinance provisions for waiving 1/2 street improvement. The city has not demonstrated the need for this which would justify the adverse impact which we have demonstrated will occur. This is not consistent with the purpose of the plan which is for the City to ensure that development is prohibited which would cause diminution to the quality of life. 5. Because the Statewide planning goals are to conserve open space and protect natural resources; And because the comprehensive plan has found that: "Vegetation contributes to the aesthetic quality of the community. Vegetation controls erosion, absorbs sound and moderates temperatures. It also affects the flow and moisture content of the air, reduction of the air pollution and glare, and softens the impact of the urban environment "; and because it is the Plan policy that the city shall designate, by definition not by Location, areas that are valued for their fragile character as habitats for plants, animals or aquatic life, or having endangered plant or animal species, or specific natural features, valued for the need to protect natural areas; and because the plan has established as an implementation strategy that: Where there exists large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land, the city shall ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of vegetation areas through the planned development process and the tree cutting ordinance. And because the ordinance states that the commission may take notice of comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances of other planning authorities within the Metropolitan Service district boundary. We refer to the City of Beaverton's definition of a "significant grove" of trees as being significant if: a. The grove is relatively mature and evenly aged and b. The grove has a purity of species composition or is of rare or unusual nature, and c. The grove is in a healthy growing condition, or • 1111P d. The grove has a crucial functional and/or aesthetic relationship to a natural resource And because the trees stand out on the horizon as you approach from any direction they mark the landscape and because they do consist of a purity of species, we find that groves like this area are not common in our part of the city and are unique. Regardless, The City council has ordained that strategy 4 does not require that the tree removal ordinance necessarily be circumscribed to those areas (large and unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas) which it describes. Rather, it requires that the ordinance must carry out the strategy by ensuring that the development proposals do not substantially alter the character of described areas. So what this is saying is that it applies to more than just the Little Bull Mountain area, it is by definition, not by location. We also find that our area is a natural area characterized by observable animal life (Squirrels, raccoons, a variety of birds, waterfowl, peacocks, nutria etc.) which is supported by the stand of trees. Please see aerial photo. These areas are valued by the residents and provide value to those properties. Please see State wide planning goal #5, Comprehensive plan 3.4 findings, policies 3.4.1.c, Implementation strategy 4, Tigard municipal code 18.32.210, City of Beaverton ordinance 2050, section 266. We have demonstrated that there exists a large and unique stand of trees and major vegetation within the planning area on undeveloped land (land capable of further partitioning) however the applicant nor the city has proved that they will ensure that the development application does not substantially alter the character of the vegetation area by the tree cutting section of the ordinance. To the contrary, the director has processed the development application without the location of trees over six inches accurately shown on the partition map. This is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, it does not comply. Please see 18.161.070 (17) application submission requirements for partitioning. We Find that under the administrative action which approved this application that: If the proposed lots were forty acres each, fully wooded with a purity of tree species which were mature and supported animal life that it would have been approved with no requirement to identify or protect the trees. They could be clear cut as part of the development application and then the developer could afterward to then apply for anything which requires site review but it would be to late for that process to offer any protection of those areas. There is no proof from the applicant or the city that this action complies with the comprehensive plan in this regard. 6. Because as we have asserted the application as proposed and approved is not consistent with the characteristics of our existing development (density, open and natural areas), we find it to be a major modification to our existing development which will diminish it's livability. Again the street was created specifically to serve our existing development. This will be part of our development because it proposes access to SW Greenburg by access to SW 92nd. We do not argue whether or not it has the right to access our street, only that it will be part of our development and should be consistent with our development to the degree it will support its welfare and not by its inconsistency introduce adverse impacts or diminution to our existing quality of life. 7. We find the reason for delineating major partitions from minor partitions as applying to the tree ordinance is because the difference between the two is the creation of a road or street, there is no other difference. We find the Cities definition of a Road or Street to include that of a private street which is "An accessway which is under private ownership ". We find that because the creation of an accessway is the only difference between a minor and major partition as currently written in the code, the accessway becomes the hinge point for the tree ordinance applicability, this intent is because accommodating the accessway will potentially require the removal of trees which structures and driveways would not. • • We find that the creation of a flag lot should be considered a major partition because the creation of the private accessway whether it stands alone or whether it is incorporated into the lot it has the same: a. Purpose or uses, which is to: 1. To provide vehicular access to SW 92nd 2. To provide a right of way for the utilities b. Impact, which will be the potential necessity for the removal of trees c. Capacity d. Agency access /emergency requirements e. Restrictions and use limitations, the area for the accessway cannot be used for lot area calculations. F. Definition, an accessway which is under private ownership We find that a driveway is not the same thing as an accessway because it a. Can be used for lot area calculations b. Its use is for off street parking whereas in most cases flag lot accessways require the restrictions placing no parking signs along its length. As a result we conclude that the accessway portion of a flag lot meets the definition of a private street because it is an accessway under private ownership, and that a driveway and accessway are not reasonably consistent with each other in their purposes, restrictions, and requirements. Therefore we find that since nothing has changed in purpose, impact, capacity, agency requirements, restrictions or definition, that his application should be processed under the controls of a major partition. We fmd that the history of this application shows clearly that the City has incorporated the street into the lot solely for the purposes of evading the control of a major partition. Please see the first decision and the amended decision. In this case the protection that is intended is being be routed. 8. What the comprehensive plan has applied as appropriate density for our development is not what it essentially is, or what the owners of those properties understood, or want. The two are not compatible for the same reasons the application is not consistent with the development pattern of our neighborhood (Diminution in livability, general welfare and quality of life for the existing residents). We find the classification as a mistake and not consistent with the purpose, priorities or goals of the ORS, Statewide planning goals or the Plan itself. Therefore the application does not comply with the comprehensive plan, the applicant is required to prove that it does. We therefore recommend that the planning commission deny the application because it does not comply with the comprehensive plan, or at a minimum place the following conditions on its approval . Remove the requirement for the complete 1/2 street improvement. (This action alone will save one significant tree as the sidewalk would cause its removal.). Require that the developer only widen it to match the approximate width and contour of the majority of the existing street nearby going up the street away from Greenburg road and to provide for the drainage needs on that side of the street. But under no circumstances harm the significant fir tree at the NW corner of the lot. Require that no parking signs be placed along the subject property line with SW 92nd. On both sides of the street to satisfy any concern the City may have regarding safety or capacity. Require that any development be consistent with the predominant character and density of our neighborhood as we have defined and that at a minimum require that the city take steps ensure that the character of this stand of trees remain substantially unaltered by requiring the identification of trees on the partition map and full compliance with the tree plan. Thank you for your time to carefully consider the basis of our findings. Please find the attached list of signatures indicating those property owners on SW 92nd Ave which these findings represent. 4 %01.97 09:31 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 0001:001 03- 31 -tsg7 Q3t lapf't FRO't Seauerton Foursgu 1111- Post -it' Fax Note 7. Date J :/-1 ' j ►yy1 To Te Iry S From �4-l< VRobei✓ Co./Cept. / • L o�'gQ � March 31, 1947 Phone * Ph0"e x (0-0 - 1 -014 Fax* 5 Zb 0 2_,`te-1, Fax x Toe M. Most Roberts, City of need d plmtaa d39- From retry Sneaks* 644-2601, fa: 326-0244 Appikstiete H IMP 97 -0002 Thar Dom, Yon have sent information to me regarding this application for which I would like to thank you. i also would bike to ask for cIarideorioa on the classification of this application. The ordinance gnu thst s minor Psttition detined as " A partition of land which ctcaCt s three lots or bps within coo calendar year and does not include the oration of a road or street" A "Rood or sta=r is dcaaed as "A public or private way that is orated to provide lags= or egress for persons to one or more lad, parcels, ate or tracts ((land". Boaose this application ptflpr m the creation of a private o street would it not be more corredly classified as a major partition which is 3eaaed as "A partition eland which trestles throe Lou or less within cute tiler year and Includes the aeadan of a road or sh= k is my amdarstaading that the standards are diffract for major partitions itions than fbr miner 0 • partitions. t'tu asample, dots the standards for tree tumoral apply m a major partition what it world not apply W signor partition? If m tut the appeal= is ire atteetly tinseled lad Madam do roc address the appropriate standards than 1 maid bloc to suggest that the city amend its derision and iafarm the agplicmrt of the cttrttxt smndatda whkh must be sashed. Please also notify us of the applicable =dards. nay aasZnding is blear= then please clarify bow so. Please icspond in ni itmg so that I mo use this in =min with nor neighbors, make it a part of the mond, and finally to use in dismonion with the city administrator. One edthe cue=res of out aeightethood is the saving of as many edsdng . Wits as in pomtbk, weat the large arm sr the common line beweca the Shags awl my lot at: rind Sian than sidewalk *iU lady neves be =ended up 92nd. Depending your region= and if needed ded 1 will appeal the decision. so please resca=d in a dmcly fashion. Thank you very mach *era time and help. Terry Smith • • PS-Please fax any diges is this oo. • purciAlLst, for 0 v- eel/ — U 12 ezLA. w\P4 7' ouV aua Y �- I � W . LQ I h L2 tae SSu�,�� t Qv Ndr SPrze4Fia ..y atnot as q +re5� .s CA QC d S Can . k ej dZiclGi" L(J'(( lrefeet- i K.< � vs .ia�e s1 rapt •'d o � ¢ _� � i G� k G':f� a r - i L03 3 ;,.t r.� u.4€8/ 7 i tuAI yo u-v- GaulCQt/(e rev- 1 e _ (o SS o F - * * ( L e c 4 e i 'I'kz25 � w.12 u&— i G147 Cou H U' ( d41 I (,.¢,, , QO( a — le 44 o� p o P I SSu2 P-42 ed 'h w�(o w � QC • 5 (444 i' P+ l( s 14 . . o(,a -'f' tied'" d`o are. u l ve r `C. I at.e w• O r d e5 ,.r, t/' ` 4 44.S.r_ c fit: SLQ . 14 ` Q4 02;97 11:00 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 2 001 /001 • ea -01 -1997 06; 4'7PM P. Beaver-ten Foursouat Post -ir Fax No 7671 Date Ly 47 P T : - - From ' t CoJOept / Co. Phone C �, a April 1, 1997 Phone u b Ct^ Faxes 57.61 Fax To 3L. Mark Roberts, City of Tigard Amer 639-4 • From: Terry Snritk, wk 644-2801, fax 526-0244 Re Application 0IMLP 974002 • Dear Maur, with this Thank new you for your quick response, When you say that you are going to re-issue your decision requirement we are sure that is with the intent to make the application apprvvable, if so will this be as a minor or major partition? What. we want to know is what does this change, because as far as we can sec it is a major partition by definition even if the street is part of lot 3, it is still by this action creating a privy way for means of ingress and egress along with the cmadon of these Iots. As you have stated the council has deliberated Wig the standards for developing small Will for however if they have changed the standards this should be reflected somewhere II, the Tigard cock ° community development. We are sure it must r it but are not aware of the paper trait. Please give us the specific codes, council amendments to the ordinances or what ever th jmisdieficallSes to make such changes because the only relevant ordinances we know of in my copy of the Ti municipal definitions of major and minor partitions and the paragraph 18. LS0.025 A. whichssiat code ar the r the pig, removal and proteenon of tree pry by a =tided arborirt shall be provided for any lot, parcel or cornbination dicta or parcels for whiCb a development application for a subdivision, stajor partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use i s filed Protection is preferred aver removal where possible." We can see that minor pa titioos has either been left out of this list or was removed and that would seem to fit with what you have said about pity toward ittfill tom however major partitions is to =plain requiring a tree plan unless it is otherwise legally removed. The applicant has referred to this why a tree plan is not required due to the fact his classified as a minor partition. Because his application cstates what � is not listed since a rt is street it must be a major plaid= ° defines as a rand or We are not trying to stop Ibis development from happening at all but rather we would bite to se the code upheld which doer apply with regard to saving ai least some of the trees Please respond with specific refetrncis, 'I"hanl _ _ _ y � 2'lt/' i Q �.t,�. p� � � ' Lt / 4 r WoufGl • Terry Smith I • ( t2-‘2. doyte u (Adv.- et I owe"' 1 � Q -4, 4 �a, t. P 0,4 , l.� � � o w 4.04 uv" w 410 ye/10-h a14— a Pia 1 d 1C Ye al-e5 . • a. ee� o' e� W;1 2v 2 104- $ 60.1190 i T14+ woKidl Iv2 fk� (04 C4 et v‘e-s4eLtee vedt4)"vd 114"e p".0 Glo .. y A- f1.,, (A- 1 � 5 /� Crr j ,-o 4�e�o ci Q vt S�G� , PttC�Z '10 i') s hgca a ` � Cvc�✓` LA o Ica , 4 `f�t,e ' X vt/l o. 110 — in or- q > ; Lu e`ve I o'de —Fars] ssu9--'1'' S t O u V � r �; Wau / -CGW 4 0.4 at Orjt t wY1.i't0 04;07/97 1 1 : 1 0 ' ' 3 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 01001. 001 • e4 -H4 -1597 10� 20RPf FR�Beaverton Foursquar post - it' Fax Uot 7671 Coate 47 "ages 1 . To Ter i- 4i-, :4,/ From Mir stall ,611424 Co1DOot. j Co. e Wy .4 i p Fhone b Phone * / 3 ` �/ April 4, 1997 Fax * C ^ 6 - O Z I ' y Fax * Cf Ta': . . My of rigor, plainer 63941 7 ( O �i From: Tway &with, 1vk 64(-280X. fax 526-0244 lite: 4pplOadiar MAUP97 -pion Dear Mark, I understand that you with the applicant feel that by using a flag Int this aeon does not create a "street or road ", but eve.0 the definition of a flag lot describes the "strip as means of access which is the same definition of private street as being an access way. frirate F a areas the "pole" as a e included in the definition of "road or shut' which is in turn the di$ereace also by deiYnition a major and minor partition. A driveway is for off art a parking, Ingress street, or Way as shown by the definitions. Please refer to and s arc prided n: by a road, development_ definitions is the code for amity Also it is clear that when the issue was raised as to whether this was one or two lots as it exists now that the applicant dropped one lot line which eliminated one let and will 'be ' 1 near future. In the written decision sion already mailed out the �a Y applied for e. 4 the for this and d evert to for duplexes. C that the way is made lot . Even the uplex S o it is obvious you understand that this is not just a flag for one proposin o a major for community development as I have said detru r . , at you and th: .- pli.ani. are P, which is required to meet the standard for tree removal. This is true unless you can as I have asked, demonstrate the legal champs you have stated the council has adopted to alter these requirements for major . I do not want to needlessly hold up this gentleman's application . ti5NI.al so please continue to clarify the things for me. Thank ycu Teat' Smith i �Ss we. 1.u1 t • 1,1 a °e ' ' 0 vet. `*"O 6 tl iP,& it 0 i_e___44...z_. oviti_e„. !L & h 1 site. 714 t 11`14 ec)cotelies w ►41, `i2 of awl II ee -- _.. .... ` - tc,, Cots �► d u, r� 0 lit tAl+ c a 64 ra yr , std y P ! ktev o LA ac e.Ss €. 1 44 c! " Ci Q`1Cu s04 (� a 1 . V I _ IC- p- : G.- -o wv . -/ k l s l's a._.< p 13. !`Z. Se. (.-) aJ I g. lob. o7a�q�, Galt; _. .. e,Jc yoKag GQi• :vesu,.ty Q 1i1ti4.4.k am.47 ore. w 1 °µt e. lei oPr- i'li e wi,1 wt erle c , Lc z-a 1 dP �,�-- / Lo- trar i i v�o �a� 1�1,� C�Aoa W aning Neighboring property owner Mr. Terry Smith appealed the Director's Decision to approve an Amended Decision for Minor Land Partition 97 -0002 subject to Conditions of Approval. The appeal states that the application was incorrectly processed as a Minor Land Partition and should have instead been processed as a Major Land Partition. The appeal also states that the application was incomplete due to missing information within the project case file. The Minor Land Partition versus Major Land Partition issue was reviewed with the applicant who repeatedly asked that the decision be issued to reflect the limitations of a Minor Land Partition. The amended decision requires the deletion of a proposed private street and in terms of what was required by the applicant was within the limitations of a Minor Land Partition. However, related to this issue it is recommended that Condition of Approval #6 that allows the applicant the option of utilizing shared access for Lots 2 and 3 from SW 92nd Avenue be deleted. Shared access in this manner would in the Director's view meet the Development Code's current definition of a street. The appe states that a flag lot also meets the definition of a street. Because a flag lot is'''Ereated exclusively for street purposes, the Director has not previously defined the access pole of a flag lot as a street. The appellant also states that the application was incomplete due to missing items within the file. It is recommended that the Planning Commission find that the application was complete based on the information that was filed by the applicant. The missing information that was addressed by the appellant has been reviewed on Pages 3 and 4 of the memorandum concerning this appeal. Related to this information it is recommended that the Planning Commission make an additional finding that providing the location of existing trees on the property is not required. This is because the tree removal provisions of Section 18.150 of the Community Development Code exempts Minor Land Partitions from mitigation of trees that are removed due to development. apl.mem 4.. . \. \. .. .\���C, \ \. .:� :. ..\ � tai >2 Ja.. \.�: :•::::: .:..:. '•a�i A 46.4.11 11 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION C Tigard Commmuu nitty y �Dtuefopment • JUNE 2, 1997 - 7:30 PM Shaping (Better Community TIGARD CIVIC CENTER - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS 4. APPROVE MINUTES 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97 -0002 DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION - Continued from 5/19/97 Planning Commission Public Hearing The Director approved, subject to conditions, a request to partition one (1) lot of 1.02 acres into three (3) Tots ranging in size from 8,115 to 17,017 square feet. On March 27, 1997 the City issued a Decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97 -0002 subject to Conditions of Approval. Because a new private street was proposed to serve the partition, the land use decision either should have been issued as a Major Land Partition, or have required a revision for an access easement type of accessway or other acceptable method for the Tots that are being created. The applicant has requested that the Minor Land Partition be re- issued with revised Conditions of Approval that reflects the limitations of a Minor Land Partition. On April 23, 1997, an appeal was filed of the Director's Decision to approve the amended decision. The basis for the appeal is that the appellant states that the application is incomplete and should have been processed as a Major Land Partition LOCATION: 11600 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 6700. The site is located at the northeast comer of SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue. ZONE: R-4.5; Residential, 4.5 units per acre. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.162 and 18.164. 5.2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS UPDATE Gus Duenas, City Engineer 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7. ADJOURNMENT ' WEINSTEIN, KATHLEEN • • 11520 SW 91ST AVENUE TIGARD OR 97223 DAVID CRAIG & VICKI CRAIG 11420 SW 92ND AVENUE ALLEN, ALMA ( TIGARD OR 97223 11640 SW 91ST AVENUE TIGARD OR 97223 • STRAUGBAGH & JOHNSON 11390 SW 92ND AVENUE WHITE, SANDRA TIGARD OR 97223 11595 SW GREENBURG ROAD • TIGARD OR 97223 • GLAUBKE, JOHN & MARTHA CO TRUSTEES PROPERTY OWNER TIGARD SW 92ND AVENUE TIGARD OR 97223 11675 SW 91ST AVENUE TIGARD OR 97223 PROPERTY OWNER 11555 SW 91ST AVENUE -.. • KOLMODIN, NORMAN & MARY LOU TIGARD OR 972233 11450 SW 92ND AVENUE • TIGARD OR 97223 • GAVETT, WESTON & KERRY 11435 SW 92ND AVENUE PROPERTY OWNER ! TIGARD OR 97223 • 11555 SW 91ST AVENUE TIGARD OR 97223 STRONG, THOMAS & ROXANN 11465 SW 92ND AVENUE SANDBO, JOHN TIGARD OR 97223 • 11475 SW 91ST AVENUE • • TIGARD OR 97223 JUNGWIRTH, RANDY 1 11515 SW 91ST AVENUE TIGARD OR 97223 • • • • • • • • . • RAMI JOSE C /MARIA DAWN SODERQUIST 11560 91ST AVENUE 11315 SW 92ND AVENUE TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 SIMONSEN, RORY L & BEATRICE B. SHEUMAKER 1, CI91 L 111 SW 91SS T AVENUE 11270 SW 92ND AVENUE _ TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 PAULSON'S RESIDENCE 11345 SW 92ND AVENUE TIGARD OR 97223 KARL C. BOWERSOX PROPERTY OWNER 11360 SW 92ND AVENUE 11375 SW 92ND AVENUE TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 Y WILKINSON, V. BARBARA KNAUSS 11630 SW GREENBURG ROAD 11495 SW 92ND AVENUE TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 BELL, CARROLL & FLORENCE FRECHETTE, JACK & KIMBERLY 11600 SW 91ST AVENUE 11300 SW 92ND AVENUE TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 WILLIAM B. WEBBS 11285 SW 92ND AVENUE • TIGARD OR 97223 • PROPERTY OWNER 11330 SW 92ND AVENUE • TIGARD OR 97223 • • • ` - DIA\4•D c R A► G S- ZZ -9 7 1147...o Sw '2o 1Z - E 22--77 • ': P . • i -ac _d&-,.. 9 ^U I , _ 1( r� 4 22-2-3 r - ,naD i S 4J - 2_ art- r iklarriat -4.--A / / • or--(1 - fl----, a...-- - .--.... - 7 2...--4_,,,, �.+• -_�=�- °Ct l,/ 1 l M (_0 5c.) -tot--.4 • - A _ �.— l r 1 s t..., gap -r c ro/ 912 z 3 • � �3� ffi ► l '-l Ski eta, 1 r- rt� p e ..,.. "erwii- v ,- - 74 " f z= st-.) - . it i NH 0 IVA ►T ' . 11/12M!" ri • g 7z.2.. _ 11440 dw 1. 7144AD r �rz1.3 �n�., 4 . / /SIgo so ,z"', r. rd fk-�l�t� . • • ti i�rAI�/il�l� � �rr .9Q. 04 t 7 � ' S p ec-i Act, ` //3. 0 Stir/ 92 .e/ it .: 4.0( 1lS .scn1 ` % 2 '9 ' - Tir -4fD c-r q 7 3 . • ' - as J ►. -r, 1131 _st) , 7. 4.11 41Le : ?,...1c....— /1 x yo S /,i j. . f i'e , T ....- A3 i O., • 97. .2 9 jit 3 5 Si..) ,.d i/ • . .. 0 ' 9 . a3 .\ ._ 1 • , • • L To: The Tigard Planning Commission We the undersigned. are concerned about the cities approval of the Downing /Shaw development application #97 -002. We respectfully request that this _ commission please take the time to fully understand the basis for the recommendations presented to this commission by the property owners of SW 92nd Ave. Name (Print) Signature Address Date /, W i Lt.( i �/S /I 3e 5 G 4 zi =6,11gatt.4 S= 23 - / 99 7 / /iv a) 9/ sr , y 7a �3s� �/' 2 i/ o� 5 `z�. 4 /mot � /.c e. ( � 97zZ3 g117 1 i/ boo 4. . Qi s / [ T t /' g2. 47:r4.4 ' A.t . _ , i • t ' � y S S S'-''?l - . • -Zb --9 C/tt/& ,Q / i�f /� / - d S <S'.9z)Q ' . f A1/?"_.6- o -1 ii St v q l s1' T I lat or 16 : '�y'' ye Vr y r //sissy. /, f D ,7�2 why Q ? •14.- QM. (ar ' 6 - s� 2•Z w . Q � i _ . ! •, = %� � �'�! • -- • - Ids au- _ 0 ' - _ 24 -” JUN- 2 -97 MON 16:38 HANS J VATHEUER 2241513 P.01 !I!LES • DOWNING , 6844334 11600 SW GREENBURG RD 598 -8629 fax TIGARD OR 97223 TO: CITY OF TIGARD ATTN: MARK ROBERTS RE: APPEAL OF MLP 97 -0002 PLEASE EXTEND TO JUNE 16TH THE REPLY PERIOD OF THE APPLICANT TO ANSWER THE APPEAL. REFERENCE ORS 197.763. I AGREE THAT THIS CONTINUANCE WOULD EXTEND THE 120 DAY REVIEW PERIOD BY 2 WEEKS. THANK YOU A15/17--- M LES DOWN • Development (PD) Overlay. The C -G zone allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, special and administrative services, financial, insurance and real - estate services, business support services, and eating and drinking establishments, among - other uses. The PD Overlay provides a means for creating planned environments through the application of flexible standards. 5.3 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97 -0001 WATER RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT A request to amend the Tigard Community Development Code to add a new section to protect significant wetlands and riparian corridors, which meets the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 and the "safe harbor" provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule. This new section will be titled the "Water Resources Overlay District ". 6, OTHER BUSINESS 7. ADJOURNMENT • AGENDA TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION May 19, 1997 - 7:30 P.M. � ! '1 1 TIGARD CIVIC CENTER - TOWN HALL � --'' 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL • 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS 4. APPROVE MINUTES 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 APPEAL OF MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97 -0002 DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION The Director approved, subject to conditions, a request to partition one (1) lot of 1.02 acres into three (3) lots ranging in size from 8,115 to 17,017 square feet. On March 27, 1997 the City issued a Decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97 -0002 subject to Conditions of . Approval. Because a new private street was proposed to serve the partition, the land use decision either should have been issued as a Major Land Partition, or have required a revision for an access easement type of accessway or other acceptable method for the lots that are being created. The applicant has requested that the Minor Land Partition be re- issued with revised Conditions of Approval that reflects the limitations of a Minor Land Partition. On April 23, 1997, an appeal was filed of the Director's Decision to approve the amended decision. The basis for the appeal is that the appellant states that the application is incomplete and should have been processed as a Major Land Partition LOCATION: 11600 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 6700. The site is located at the northeast corner of SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue. ZONE: R-4.5; Residential, 4.5 units per acre. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.162 and 18.164. 5.2 APPEAL OF TRI- COUNTY CENTER DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION APPEAL OF A REQUEST FOR A DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT. On March 25, 1997, the Director declined to accept Site Development Review, Planned Development Review, and Sensitive Lands applications. The Director did not accept these applications because a required neighborhood meeting onceming these requests had not taken place. LOCATION: 11985 to 12235 SW 72nd venue; WCTM 2S101BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402. sPPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapter 18.32. .;omprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.2. ZONE: General Commercial (C -G); with a Planned • PARCEL 2 a A,�� �Z C 1 ,/>. c F G i \,\, I si k A c , c • VAR 1S 1 3511C TAX LOT 6700 • y0 6 `' / si / /,6) ^ v} • cc • 3 • cz, 0, yO � SF G /1 I, C ,e I ' I AWNING O. 0 o O o O O • o ° 0 0 o ° ° o O 0 0 O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 `� 0 0 $ 1 . . O o O O • . o 0 ' YARD \\ / SHED r.. I -------. f p--„,./ � ti f oYg R I. O STI _ ;. stie 0 S4 VG C / •SA NEIGHB ❑RS HOUSE o ir, T YARD YARD 1 �: SHED AWNING o 1 8000 .. 7589 _ _ � ■ so 'M \ - RTH JN �, 1 J �.` / Z N „ ` ,`` -,' \. ti CO � 8812 818 YARD SHED • //O6/ C� < y O S7' j i ' ' Sy / / / -... `rr I� / c2 C ` YARD i SHED \ I AWNING • \ =RT • oD- YARD SHED 7 ti C IS \ y4a, �� TI C ,/ SA > � G ''Ibi JUN— 2 -97 MON 16:28 HANS J VATHEUER 2241513 P.O3 1 me • qo _.-_ -� -� 60 , ? e'•"4 / -‘1) *? & I / ..._ .._ _ __- z i ----.- r e:: " ) 4 '4). 4 1 / / ---- .._, / 7 •-..„J - C. / fr1 0 / / 0 ,-. , to • Ap / � --+ -- 1o,00 I 3 C xh 0 A 47 4 n y , .c D S v to D N 6i ms Z Ali T_ I,, p . , 1 b.! I5LY,I�� • 1 • • • NEIGHBORS 200D HOUSE o r 2" PAVEMENT i SHED / AW 1I G ' 1 t 2' OF 3/4' - GRAVEL O� O� `O 6' TO 8° OF 2-1/2°- GRAVEL � O ��'; O _ZOOM E a \ � , O 0 ° J • ] o 0 ° 0 0 Y �� ° 0 J ,J +, ` n O o ' 1�� Iffir o 0 YARD o . SHED yO(/S TI `�--„ � O sN FO JC E O ;1 20 ''s s . • o o to 4111,1-.6"''66- • .... 4.. Q Q 04 ' 4,./''''' v • _ T OJ STORM WATER CATCH BASIN • tr SCALE 1" =50' NORTH • NEIGHBORS. HOUSE o YARD SHED AVNING ;: 9 7.51 9 7.51 ': LOT 3 1 C M 8326 SQ FT I0 i♦i • % i LOT 2 , to 8115 SO FT 4 i ♦i 68 .31 L0T 4 m 0 8690 S0 FT • PRIVA 4 9 TE STRE E 9 T n YARD ��� ^ SOT 1 14 119'' u SHED ('/. , so FT i 00 :��� Q�S TJ� \ .. OSyFO f J c J / '4. • h C/ `4o4 �� li, / Tr i ,„ C V / c a z SCALE 1 " =50' NORTH • t CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development Shaping Community PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE If NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY. MAY 19. 1997 AT MQ PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO: APPEAL OF MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97 -0002 FILE TITLE: AMENDED DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION APPLICANT: Miles Downing OWNER: Dorothy Shaw 9757 SW McDonald Street 11600 SW Greenburg Road Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST > An appeal was filed concerning the Director's Decision to approve Amended Minor Land Partition (MLP 97- 0002). The basis for the appeal was that the application was incomplete and should have been processed as a Major Land Partition. LOCATION: 11600 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1 S135DC, Tax Lot 06700. The site is located at the northeast corner of SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 8.32 and 18.162. ZONE: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. - THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. 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 WRITINQ 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. APPEAL SF MLP 91-0002 DOWIIIU/SNAW PAITInIN NITRE OF 5 -19-91 P.C. PUBLIC HEARING IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN oUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFIPR APRIL 28. 1997, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO 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 (250 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 (250 PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER MARK ROBERTS AT (503) 639 -4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. ' i Z! = i I i i li • , � i i I �II it I (\ DAKOTA _ f ! �--, I i i \ 4„ /-1 I I i P I / \ • • I II �r -- I I H rc ;Th —1 `�� (1 `0 Via! I 1 I F__ _ i i a I i i LA ; 11 s �Y �' L -' -- y MS LN I CW�� �f ! I I I LOMTA • .. 1 ! / . 1 1 1 ; I TANi 1 ;/ . . I 11 _p , i I; r I ST f _ I r r— • m I APPEAL OF NIP 91 -0002 U910010B1AW PALM =O NM IF 5-19-91 PA. PUBLIC REAM I } • • MEMORANDUM Ad, CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder( -k-tkyy DATE: April 23, 1997 SUBJECT: MLP #97 -0002 Attached is a completed "Appeal Filing Form for Land Use Decision" for the proposal referenced above. Please schedule this for a Planning Commission Hearing date as early as possible and advise the applicant and appellant of that date. Thanks. Attachment is \ad m \cathy \corresp\ap197002.doc ADPEAL FILING ARM • "'� •• " , FOR LAND USE DECISIONS CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code, therefore, sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal procees, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phone/fax listed at the top of this form. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Property Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the Application Being Case No.(s): Appealed: 1.1.Y- ry� L 1 ,��� n! ,� 12_4 Case Name(s): I?ewK $ PetA444 ( • • Receipt No.: 97- 9 67 How Do You Qualify As A Party ?: i.1 4—t h6d. IA-3/114 1.50 Application Accepted By: C.I,v AOAA Date: • 1 / - 9 , 5 - 17 Approved As To Form By: fit) • • : Appellant's Address: 1 14 .° S, 1 12An 3 .1)Ve Date: • City/State: T, Zip: l)yL. 1-12.2S Denied As To Form By Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached:(5 € 32Z- Date: Scheduled Date Decision Is To Be Final: j- / 2' PA/ ::• Rev. 10/3/96 i:lrxrplrAmasterslappeal.doc Date Notice of Final Decision Was Given: it I 1 4. Pr) Specific Grounds For Appeal or Review: REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS p L c�-i- °� cwt op*" Co,w►p 1 Application Elements Submitted: Z� L.► a+v Eae. 6 ^or - f�S ❑ Appeal Filing Form (completed) V1/1 A S ®)2. L10.40 PA-11-1 ❑ Filing Fee (based on criteria below) Director's Decision to Planning Commission S 250.00 Hearing Referee 3 500.00 Plannng CommissionlHeanng's Omar to City Council $1.745.00 4 )4.-r „ A- G I4..Q4 (4. Transcript) Signature(s) of Appellant(s): APPEAL FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS COVER FOR ADDITIONAL WRITING SPACE! PAGE 1 OF 1 • • • 4 -23 -1997 • To: Mr. Jim Hendryx, City of Tigard 639 -4171, fax 684 -7297 From: Terry Smith, 684 -1460 Re: Application #MLP 97 -002 Dear Mr. Hendryx Thank you for calling me yesterday. I have put in writing most of the concerns we have. We would be grateful if you would please review the following issues and let me know this a.m. whether or not they would justify the city initiating another review of this application before the appeal deadline expires today at 3:30. The elderly neighbor Mrs. Shaw wants to sell her property we do not want to hold her up or even stop development. We just feel that since it will be part of our neighborhood by accessing our street then it will impact us as to whether it blends in and compliments or whether it conflicts with and detracts from the character of our existing neighborhood. The neighborhood is characterized by large lots with significant fir trees. If the city agrees with our positions below we would rather not have to file this appeal because it pits neighbor against neighbor to enforce a codes which the planner should be upholding. 1. Is the application properly classified? It appears that since the applicant proposes to partition the subject tax lot into 3 lots which includes the creation of a road or street it should be applied for as a major land partition and meet the respective standards. The following will demonstrate that a road or street is being created. And that the application exceeds the limitations of a minor land partition. A. The definition of "Road or Street" includes a private street which is an "accessway under private ownership ". The planner in order to facilitate the approval of this application as a minor land partition incorporated the street as a part of one of the lots. However whether it is under private or public ownership does not make a difference, or whether it is part of a lot or stands alone does not make a difference, the partition still includes its creation. 18.162.020 states that "A major land partition review is required when a division of land creates a street or road" B. All proposed improvements are to meet city and applicable agency standards (Ord. 89 -06; Ord 83 -52). The fire department requires the creation of an access roadway and that it meet the specific standards. It has specified that this applications plans are not approved without the creation of an access roadway as laid out in the agency comments as described in the original and amended decision. This applicant is required when it is evident that the subject property can be further partitioned to show that the partition will not preclude the efficient division of land in the future. It would appear that this would of necessity need to meet private street standards for lot access so as not to preclude future partitioning potential. C. The definition of a flag lot describes the purpose of the "Pole" as being to provide access. D. The code does not allow the accessway portion of a flag lot to be included in the lot area calculation because it only serves as an accessway which is under private ownership. E. The partition map shows 3 water meters when only two are needed, the history of this application shows that the applicant in order to meet the requirements of a minor land partition removed one lot line division leaving what is now lot 3 large enough to be partitioned again. The planner in his amended decision narrative has demonstrated his awareness of the potential for as many as (4) additional dwelling units being served by this accessway. As it is, the intentions are clear that this will be a right -of -way for more than one dwelling unit which also is described as being what determines this as a major land partition (see 18.162.070.b.7). The question is, does the application more resemble the definition of a major or minor land partition. A minor land partition is limited to the creation of 3 lots, if you include the creation of an accessway it must be reviewed as a major land partition. To do otherwise may demonstrate an appearance of no regard for the Comprehensive plan; the code for community development, and our neighborhood • which this Tax lots abuts and will become a part of by its access on to SW 92nd. The reason it appears as such is because the primary objective of the amended decision is to evade the control of a major land ' J • • 4111 partition, and this is because it will require the meeting of additional standards like the provisions for tree • removal. 2. Is the application complete ?. The code states that the director is to review the application for compliance with the requirements for submittal. If it is not, the applicant is to be notified of the deficiencies. The application is not to be deemed complete for administrative review to approve or deny until it is in compliance. It appeared that upon our review the partition map: A. Was highly inaccurate with regard to the reflection of the numerous and significant first growth trees over 6 inches in caliper which are on the site. Mr. Roberts or one of the planners has visited the site and is aware of the size and general quantify of these trees. B. Did not provide a scaled cross section of the proposed right -of -way. 3. Is the file complete? Upon our review of the application file it was noticed that several items may be lacking from the file which is to be complete and made available to the public upon notice of the decision. It could be that they are simply misplaced. The problem is it gives the appearance that the planner is operating according to his own agenda instead of upholding the duties of his position whether that is true or not. The following was not found. A. Minutes from the meeting which the developer held at city hall Dec. 23rd. 7:00 p.m. 1996 B. Correspondence (3) letters from Terry Smith to Mr. Mark Roberts (January 21, 1997, April 1, 1997, April 4, 1997,) Also included should be Mark's response to these letters. (1) letter from Terry Smith to Mr. John Hadley February 26th, 1997. (1) Letter from Mr. John Hadley responding to Terry Smith March 4th, 1997. Written notice sending the application back to the applicant as per Mr. Hadleys letter. Written request from applicant to revise the application incorporating the street in to lot 3 • 4. Mr. Roberts has stated policy changes were made by the council to eliminate the tree removal s tandards from applying to small infill sites under these circumstances. We have repeatedly in writing asked him to demonstrate this to us and explain how we can find these resolutions, orders, or code changes so that we can understand his statements but these questions have not been responded to. / Thank you for your time. Cordially C Terry Smith • WELCOME TO THE •MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLEASE SIGN -IN AND HAVEASEAT YOU WILL BE HELPED IN THE ORDER OF YOUR ARRIVAL BY THE NEXT AVAILABLE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE TECHNICIAN (DST). (The last sign -in time is 5:45 p.m. daily) 4 PLEASE SE SIGN IN BELOW O 4 • DATE TIME NAME PURPOSE >TIME: ASSISTED (PRINT CLEARLY) > .> (print) 4- 11?3 II ;35 ler 16214 z,-r, ri-s. ?)u,..n) fu2m I �.�( Ca-tc,44_ 0 it f‘chief / /%;i z l i� D t1 .(8d87 ,,� J Q ( ring . A41K' rint) q /-; /o Dui f3 LMarr . /40 PL2ra /mil .rc d— l '01( TS (print) k rtiki (print) l ;1 al° Perk aw wecla (t tx. A- I i 16/, (print) L'//7 t • d . r4 z (print) I , 3 ) � � ) . ,.v►�.c r w e- -J Lt,;1.1 m 9 1k !'/ 'A J ll / 1- i (print, ( ; ( ,"� (print) /.� 3 :/ / ./tb /D / .r✓) //adRES5,, c 4 / 9 3 9)19`? (A):117414 C 14 - 1 r Mai So-rut. Ode° (print) (print) (pn J - (pnnt) ^^ aa I:lsignin.doc (DST) 05 -07 -1997 01 :57PM FROM Beaverton Foursquare CM TO 0 6847297 P.01 May 7, 1997 To: Mr. Richard Bewersdorf, Planning Manager, city of Tigard. From: Terry Smith 11480 SW. 92nd ave. Tigard, Oregon. 684 -1460, pager 323 -1214 Re: Downing/Shaw Partition # 97 -002 Dick, Thank you very much for the time you and Jim Hendtyx spent with me, I found your attention to these matters to be helpful and your concern genuine. If your are able would your please respond to the following new questions or direct them to those who may be more appropriate. 1. By what means does the city ensure that more than the threshold of ten trees per year per acre are not being removed and sold, especially as part of development since that is illegal ?, By what means would the director monitor this through the development process? 2. Does the City have a system or program to recognize significant tree(s) ? If so how are they identified? What would be the criteria used? What measures are taken once they are identified ?, or what regulations impact any trees that are identified? If there is not any existing program for significant Tree(s) would that be because the city would feel there is not any call for this in the comprehensive plan even though other jurisdictions do feel obligated under the statewide planning goals? 3. We understand that the implementation strategy 4 of Plan policy 3.4 provides "Where there exists large and unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land, the city shall ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of the vegetation areas through the planned development process and the tree cutting code ". Does the city have an inventory of areas such as these? What are the criteria for identification? By what means does the city ensure that applications they have approved will not allow for the complete deforestation of a site? Can the city demonstrate that it has ensured that our neighborhood/street and this development is not a large and unique stand of trees? We feel that we can demonstrate that it is and that its character will be substantially altered, however it is the city who is to know whether this is or not in order to properly process any development because it says "The city shall ensure ". Even though an ordinance system has been established, it may be letting harmful mistakes through the cracks, in that case the city still has the revised statues, the statewide planning goals and the city's comprehensive plan to arbnihristrate and avhold. In this case the city has incorporated the street into a flag lot solely for the purpose of evading the control of a major partition (this will be clearly demonstrated by the history of the application). It is especially true here because the flag can be further partitioned. We believe there is a flaw in the ordinance, this accessway is more than a driveway. I would propose for the purposes of interpretation that when a flag can be further partitioned that the accessway be considered a private street because of the damage and violation that can happen in a case like this. Or an alternate proposal would be that a tree plan be required when any minor partition creates lots which will ultimately provide for more than a total of three lots. Who is to say that the flag in this case could not have been twenty times larger, the applicant gets his application approved as an minor land partition, does not have to respond to the tree standard, cuts down all the trees and then applies for a subdivision. You would have applied the ordinance and still not ensured that the unique and large stand of trees remained substantially unaltered, this is not proper. The problem is that the ordinance as written allows for an end run to be made around the comprehensive plan. Do you agree that there is a flaw in the ordinance? if so then who is to address its correction? If not then please explain. Do you think that the director should maintain the submittal requirement that the trees be accurately indicated on the partition map before he presents if for review to the hearings officer or is he going to include a written waiver in the file? Dick thank you for your time. Cordially SETTING THE STANDARD FOR SERVICE EXCELLENCE Facsimile To: Terry Smith Company: Phone: Fax: 526 -0244 From: Mark Roberts Company: City of Tigard Phone: (503) 639 -4171 Fax: (503) 684 -7297 Date: May 6, 1997 • Pages including this page: 22 COMMENTS: This information is related to your statement within the appeal materials for the Downing /Shaw Minor Land Partition that you had repeatedly in writing asked me for materials related to the tree removal standards. While I don't recall numerous letters where you repeatedly asking me for this information enclosed is information related to the adoption of tree removal standards. I've discussed issues having to do with tree plans for Minor Land Partitions with Dick Bewersdorff who indicates that this was the direction the City Council elected to take. I have found no specific documents which state this direction other than the adopted Ordinance. Mark City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 ** PLEASE DELIVER THIS FAX IMMEDIATELY ** • • • AGENDA ITEM # I For Agenda of a CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE /AGENDA TITLE: Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 92 -0004 (Tree Removal) PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff . DEPT HEAD OK /l /l (- L CITY ADMIN OK • • ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL, Should the City revise the Community Development Code by adopting a revised Code Section 18.151 regarding tree removal? • STAFF RECOMMENDATION _ Adopt the attached ordinance amending the Community Development Code and the attached resoluticr adopting a fee for tree removal permits. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Planning Division began drafting a new Community Development Code Section 18.150 concerning tree removal in 1991. Original drafts included relatively minor amendments to the existing code Because of increased citizen interest, the scope of changes increased. After Planning Commissior deliberations, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance in July, 1994 and a late! work session in August, 1994. An ordinance was drafted to reflect changes made as a result of those meetings as well as an additional public hearing on October 11, 1994 and work sessions on September 27, 1994 and November 15, 1994. On November 15, 1994 the City Council passed a resolution to appoint a Tree Task Force Membership was composed of a cross - section of community interests including those favoring tre€ protection regulations and those representing property rights concerns. Working with staff, the Tasr Force met numerous times to develop a consensus approach of when to protect trees without unduly infringing on property rights. The Task Force worked hard to overcome many polarized issues. A February 28, 1995 memo from the Tree Task Force to the City Council outlined a tree protectior program that differed in approach from previous draft ordinances. The program centered on identifying when tree protection is important to the community and when these goals deserve to be weighted more than property rights and vice- versa. The February 28 memo is attached. Tree removal permits would be required only on sensitive lands. A tree plan would be required for the development process. The Task Force was directed to complete their work on the draft ordinance. This culminated on April 26, 1995 with the Task Force completing their review of the draft ordinance. The Task Force presentee the draft ordinance to the City Council on June 20, 1995. The attached ordinance is the result of th Task Force's review. Exhibit 1 A 1 of the attached ordinance covers the new tree removal perry procedures. Exhibit "B° covers new stop work order provisions reviewed by City Council in previoi. drafts. • • Besides the tree removal permit for sensitive lands and the tree plan for development, the draft ordinance dated April 27, 1995 also indudes a prohibition against commercial forestry (ten or more trees per acre, per calendar year for sale). Commercial forestry does not include Christmas tree production or land registered as tax deferred tree farms, or small woodlands which are permitted. The new draft also indudes a range of mitigation based on the amount of trees removed; approval standards for tree removal on sensitive lands that incorporate the Unified Sewerage Agency erosion control standards applicable to all development; and the incentive and penalty provisions that the Council requested in their previous review. The proposed ordinance will substantially reduce the number of tree removal permits from previous ordinance drafts. The tree protection plans will be incorporated into project plan review without the need for a permit. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Revise the attached ordinance. 2. Leave the existing code as is and move to reject the ordinance. = __ = _____ FISCAL NOTE$ The average estimated cost of processing a tree removal permit was $180 with previous drafts. Since the proposed the ordinance proposed by the Task Force does not require notification of adjacent property owners and is administrative in nature, the average estimated processing cost of a tree removal permit under the April 27, 1995 draft is expected to be $72. Based on the 1984 Council resolution establishing planning fees at 80 percent of cost, the proposed fee should be $58 plus $1 for each additional tree over 5 removed. 1 • *I* MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TO: Tigard City Council FROM: Tree Task Force DATE: February 28, 1995 SUBJECT: Tree Protection Program Based on our discussions. the Tree Task Force has developed a tree protection program that differs in approach from the original proposed ordinance. We have developed our approach by identifying when tree protection is important to the • community and when these goals deserve more weight than private property interests and vice- versa. 1) ON SENSITIVE LANDS (which would include steep slopes, lands within a stream corridor or lands within the buffer and area of a wetlands) the City will require a tree permit. The applicant must prove that removal of the tree or removal and mitigation will not decrease the level of erosion control or water quality protection the tree provided. The City will produce a map showing which areas are affected. 2) The City will conduct a SIGNIFICAtiT TREE study including review of other cotrmunities' work, deanition, identiu cation and inventory. This information will be used differently during the development process than it will be when development is not occurring. In the later category, the City will not prevent the removal of the tree but will offer incentives such as maintenance services and recog*_..it;on. During development, the City may not allow removal of a signiiicanc zee, but will provide incentives such as those proposed in the e draft =se ordinance. This study will also include an evaluation of when and where the City should apply commertial forestry practices. 3) DT=iG DE ELOPti.CNT, the City should require a tree plan which will include an arborist analysis of e:dsting t+ ees, strategies for saving etsting t: ees or mitigating tree removal for a goal of no net tree loss. Si; .incsnt trees and gees in sensitive lands would be protected. The City will offer incentives such as the lessening of other development restrictions, as appropriate. .!=:..125 SW c. _� .�.� 1 :� ��V . � C�:v �.il< y /wv � C.:9 171 77.0 wl:vj O8 72 2 i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 95 -/ AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING A REVISED CODE CHAPTER 18.150 REGARDING TREE REMOVAL (ZOA 92 -0004) AND NEW SECTIONS 18.24.070. - WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed proposals for revising Section 18.150 at public hearings on January 4, 1993, October 4, 1993, and January 17, 1994 and at work sessions September 20, 1993, October 18, 1993, December 28, 1993 and February 7, 1994; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission voted to recommend the revised Section 18.150, which was revised by the City Council and then revamped after review by a City Council appointed Tree Task Force as shown in Exhibit 'A'; and • WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings on July 12, October 11, 1994 and January 24, 1995 to consider the drafts of a proposed amendment and a further public hearing on September 12, 1995 to consider a revised ordinance as recommended by the Tree Task Force. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as noted below: The relevant criteria is this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 5, City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a. and c., 2.1.1, 2.1.3 and 3.4.2.b. and Implementation Strategy 4 of Policy 3.4 and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. The proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Goals based on the following findings: 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the City has followed its adopted citizen involvement program which involved review by neighborhood planning organizations and • public hearings as listed above. The City's citizen involvement policies, in the comprehensive plan have been acknowledged to be in compliance with Goal 1. Notice for all hearings was provided in the Tigard Times which summarized and outlined the amendments being made to existing code provisions and was done so for each public hearing. Copies of the latest revised ordinance drafts have always been available at least seven days prior to the hearings which follow Community Development Code procedure. 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City has applied all relevant Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code requirements in review of this proposal. 3. The Council has reviewed the Goal S questions and arguments raised by David Smith (in letters dated January 17, 1994, July 11, :994, and October 4, 1994), and understands the concern raised by DLCD that the ordinance is part of the City's Goal implementation program. • The Council adopts by this reference the analysis of these issues provided by the City Attorney (in memoranda dated March 1, 1994 and August 3., 1994). We conclude that the amendments to the Tree Removal Chapter of the Community Development Code do not require amendment of the City 's Goal S implementation program or a new Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy • (ESEE) inventory and analysis under Goal • 5 and its implementing rules. The Council recognizes that the City's Goal 5 implementation program references the tree removal ordinance. However, the Council notes that the specifically identified function of the ordinance under that plan is to protect 'major vegetation on undeveloped land' in the Little Bull Mountain Forest. Volume 1, Page 1 -97, Natural Features and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Report. By showing that the amended ordinance will continue to provide this protection, the Council finds compliance with the City's Goal 5 ESEE plan. Since that plan itself is acknowledged as in compliance with the goal, the ordinance _does not require a new ESEE analysis. Many ordinances may be referenced as part of a Goal 5 implementing program. However, to require a new ESEE analysis upon any amendment to such ordinances would produce an absurd result which is not required under the Oregon land use system. Under that system, the various implementing measures of the comprehensive plan, including the Goal 5 implementation plan, are the guiding documents of the development ordinances. Upon acknowledgement, the plan is presumed to be in compliance with the goal. Ordinances, thus, must show compliance with the plan. The key issue for the Council to determine is whether the amended ordinance continues to fulfill its requirement under the implementing program. Mr. Smith contends that under Goal 5, 'the City must first inventory the location, quality and quantity of the trees it wants to protect.' He thus reasons that upon such inventory, the City must follow the rest of the Goal 5 process, including an ESEE analysis. The Council finds Smith's premise, that trees are a resource required to be inventoried under Goal 5, to be faulty. Reference to the goal makes clear that trees per se are not a listed resource. The City Attorney's memorandum of August 31, 1994 more fully sets out this reasoning. The Council finds that the amendments will serve to maintain or increase the protection provided by the existing language. The Tree Removal Chapter as amended will continue to protect 'major vegetation on undeveloped land' within the Little Bull Mountain Forest, the only such requirement in the City's Goal 5 ESEE analysis in Volume 1, Appendix I of the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. The identified resource areas will not change, and need not be re- inventoried or re- analyzed because of these amendments. The Council finds no other reference to the Tree Removal chapter in the City's acknowledged Natural Features and Open Spaces Report. Therefore, we find also that the amended Tree Removal Chapter will serve the same Goal 5 function as the existing acknowledged Tree Removal Chapter. The Council finds that, in fact, these amendments have the effect of increasing protection for 'major vegetation on undeveloped land.' Under the existing ordinance, developed land is exempted form the permit requirement. Since the term 'developed land' was not defined in the ordinance, it became a matter of staff interpretation. That interpretation was made as including any lot or parcel with an.existing use. By setting out a definition which includes in developed . residential land only those lots or parcels with an existing use which are not capable of being subdivided or par - 'oned, the amended ordinance will place more land under the permit requirement. The Council finds that such a result increases the level of resource protection sought by the implementation program. • Mr. Smith further contends that the City could avoid Goal S by adopting ordinances that meet the objective of the Forest Practices Act (FPA). The City Council finds that: 1) when the original drafts. were reviewed, the Department of Forestry said it would no longer administer the FPA within City limits and the City's regulations (including erosion control requirements adopted by the City and required by the Unified Sewerage Agency) were more restrictive than the FPA. (See letter from Kevin Birch dated January 25, 1993); 2) the City Council prefers to retain local control rather than return to general state regulation; and 3) this amendment is pursuant to the FPA. The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: 1. Policies 1.1.1 a. and c. are satisfied because the proposed code changes are consistent with Statewide Planning Goals as indicated above and the changes help to keep the development code current with local needs. 2. Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 are satisfied because the proposal has been reviewed at multiple public hearings, work sessions and neighborhood groups beginning in January, 1993 through the present. 3. The Council has reviewed the argument concerning Implementation Strategy 4 of Plan Policy 3.4 (hereinafter referred to as Strategy 4) contained in the letters of David Smith dated January 17, 1994, July 11, 1994, and October 4, 1994. The Council adopts by this reference the analysis of this issue provided in the City Attorney's memorandum of March 1, 1994. We concluded that Strategy 4 is satisfied by the amended ordinance. The Council finds the proposed ordinance to satisfy *Strategy 4 because the ordinance as amended will continue to protect large and unique stands of trees and major vegetation areas as called for by that strategy. That strategy provides: 'where there exists large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land, the City shall ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of the vegetation areas through the planned development process and the •tree cutting' section of the Community Development Code.' In his letter January 17, 1994 letter, Mr. Smith suggests that this policy is effectively amended because the proposed new ordinance addresses 'all trees on undeveloped land . . .. The Council finds this reasoning to be unpersuasive. Strategy 4 does not require that the tree removal ordinance necessarily be circumscribed to those areas (large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas) which it describes. Rather, it requires that ordinance must carry out the strategy by 'ensuring that development proposals do not substantially alter the character' of the described areas. The Council finds that the amended ordinance does so in that it requires development proposals, brought under the restrictions of the ordinance by the Site Development Review proces, $18.120.180.A.1.1, to obtain permits for tree removal. 518.150.030.A. To obtain such a permit requires a showing that, among other things, the removal is 'necessary' for the development to take place. 518.150.040.C. This requirement is unchanged from the current ordinance. Some of the applicable criteria have changed. Notably, reasonable alternative to the removal cannot exist. Also changed is the • • amount of land falling under this permit requirement. Previously, the ordinance excluded developed residential property. That term was left undefined by the ordinance; staff interpreted it as including any residential property, 3 acres or less in area with an existing use. It now includes all land which either contains no existing use or which is capable of further subdivision or partitioning. The Council finds this to improve the effectiveness of implementation of Strategy 4 by placing more land under the term 'undeveloped,' and providing vegetation thereon with better protection. 4. Community Development Code Section 18.30 which establishes procedures for legislative code changes is satisfied according to the above findings. SECTION 2: Community Development Code Chapter 18.150 shall be revised as shown in Exhibit 'A', and Section 18.24.070 and shall be added as shown in Exhibit . SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By Una!'G -`ZC/) vote of all Council members resent after being read by number and title only, this fol '21 day of ..e , 1995. GZ�li.z ttv� G(�/1.�CL Catherine Wheatley, Ci APPROVED: This i-161 day of $ p1=:r10■.ls vi , ss ,Ia icoli, Mayor Approved as to form: / 4 /14./ (/ City Attorney / I Date • • • • • • August 22, 1995 CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 4 64 4 9 CHAPTER 18.150 TREE REMOVAL Sections: 18.150.010 Purpose 18.150.020 Definitions 18.150.025 Tree Plan Requirement 18.150.030 Permit Requirement 18.150.040 General Permit Criteria - Discretionary - Mitigation 18.150.045 Incentives for Tree Retention 18.150.050 Expiration of Approval - Extension of Time 18.150.060 Application Submission Requirements 18.150.070 Illegal Tree Removal - Violation - Replacement of Trees 18.150.010 Purpose. A. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help clean the air, help control erosion, maintain water quality and provide noise barriers. B. The purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Encourage the preservation, planting and replacement of trees in the City; 2. Regulate the removal of trees on sensitive lands in the City to eliminate unnecessary removal of trees; 3. Provide for a tree plan for developing properties; 4. Protect sensitive lands from erosion; 6. Protect water quality; and 7. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection; 8. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment. C. The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDI No. 95- / Page 1 trees in order to accommodate structures, s ets utilities, and other needed or required improvements within the development. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 83 -52) 18.150.020 Definitions. A. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, as used in this chapter: 1. "Canopy cover" shall mean the area above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree. 2. "Commercial forestry" shall mean the removal of ten or more trees per acre per calendar year for sale. 3. "Hazardous tree" shall mean a tree which by reason of disease, infestation, age, or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property. 4. "Pruning" shall mean the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with recognized tree maintenance practices. 5. "Removal" shall mean the cutting or removing of 50 percent (50 %) or more of a crown, trunk or root system of a tree, or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability or causes the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. "Removal" shall not include pruning. 6. "Tree" shall mean a standing woody plant, or group of such, having a trunk which is six inches or more in caliper size when measured four feet from ground level. 7. "Sensitive lands" shall mean those lands described at Chapter 18.84 of the Code. B. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, words in the present tense shall include the future and words in the singular shall include the plural. 18.150.025 Tree Plan Requirement A. A tree plan 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. B. The tree plan shall include the following: EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE No. 95- l Page 2 410 411 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; 2. 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: a. Retainage of less than 25 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.0. of no net loss of trees. b. Retainage of from 25 to 50 percent 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. c. Retainage of from 50 to 75 percent of existing trees over • 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070D. d. Retainage of 75 percent or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. - C. Trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.150.070 D. 18.150.030 Permit Requirement. A. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.84. 3. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which: 1. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.102 of the Code; EXHIBIT "a" TO ORDI`LANCE No. 95 -(C Page 3 • 2. Is a hazardous tree; 3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Code; 4. Is used for Christmas tree production, or land registered with the Washington County Assessor's office as property tax deferred tree farm or small woodlands, but does not stand on sensitive lands; C. Commercial Forestry as defined by 18.150.020.A.2. and excluding B.4 above is not permitted. 13.150.040 Permit Criteria. A. The following approval standards shall be used by the Director or designee for the issuance of a tree removal permit on sensitive lands: - 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets, adjacent property, or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action of erosion. b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment laden flows; or evidence of on site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. B. Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75 percent canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75 percent. 18.150.045 Incentives for Tree Retention. A. In order to assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees, the Director may apply one or more of the following incentives as part of development review approval and the provisions of a tree plan according to Section 13.150.025: EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE No. 95- ( Page 4 • • 1. Density Bonus. For each two percent (2 %) of canopy cover provided by existing trees over twelve inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a one percent (1 %) bonus may applied to density computations of Chapter 18.92. No more than a twenty percent (20 %) bonus may be granted for any one development. The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. 2. Lot Size Averaging. In order to retain existing trees over twelve inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.160, lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than eighty percent (80 %) of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone. 3. Lot Width and Depth. In order to retain existing trees over twelve inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.160, lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to twenty percent (20 %) of that required by the underlying zone. 4. Commercial /Industrial /Civic Use Parking. For each two percent (2 %) of canopy cover provided by existing trees over twelve inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan for commercial, industrial or civic uses listed in Section 18.106.030, Minimum Off - Street Parking Requirements, a one percent (1 %) reduction in the amount of required' parking may be granted. No more than a twenty percent (20 %) reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development. 5. Commercial /Industrial /Civic Use Landscaping. For each two percent (2 %) of canopy cover provided by existing trees over twelve inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a one percent (1 %) reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be granted. No more than twenty percent (20 %) of the required amount of landscaping may be reduced for any one development. 6. Setback Adjustment. The Director may grant a modification from applicable setback requirements of this Code for the purpose of preserving a tree or trees on the site of proposed development. Such modification may reduce the required setback by Up to 50 %, but shall not be more than is necessary for the preservation of trees on the site. The setback modification described in this section shall supersede any special setback requirements EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE No. 95- ' q Page 5 • • or exceptions set out elsewhere in this Code, including but not limited to Chapters 18.96, 18.146, and 18.148, except Section 18.96.020. B. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan according - to Section 18.150.025 or 18.130.B., 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 impacted 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 deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. C. A modification to development requirements granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property, including but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval. D. The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of public improvements to accommodate tree retention where possible and where it would not interfere with safety or increase maintenance costs. 18.150.050 Expiration of Approval - Extension of Time. A. A tree removal permit shall be effective for one and one -half years from the date of approval. B. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree removal permit shall be extended for a period of up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in compliance with all prior conditions of permit approval and that no material facts stated in the original application have changed. 18.150.060 Application Submission Requirements. A. Application for a tree removal permit shall be on a form provided by the Director. Completed applications shall consist of this form, two copies of the supplemental data and narrative set out in Subsection B or this section, and the required fee. Applications shall not be accepted unless they are complete as defined herein. B. The supplemental data and narrative shall include: 1. The specific location of the property by address, assessor's map number, and tax lot; EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE No. 95-i Page 6 • . 2. The number, size, type and location of the tree(s) to be cut; 3. The time and method of cutting or removing the tree(s); 4. Information concerning any proposed landscaping or planting of new trees; and 5. A narrative as to how the applicable criteria of this chapter, for example, Section 18.150.040.A, are satisfied. C. In accordance with Section 18.32.080, the Director may waive any of the requirements in Subsection B above or request additional information. 18.150.070 Illegal Tree Removal - Violation - Replacement of Trees. A. The following constitute a violation of this chapter: 1. Removal of a tree: - a. without a valid tree removal permit; or b. in noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit; or c. in noncompliance with any condition of any City permit or development approval; or d. in noncompliance with any other section of the Code. 2. Breach of a condition of any City permit or development approval, which results in damage to a tree or its root system. B. If the Director has reason to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred, then he or she may do any or all of the following: 1. Require the owner of the land on which the .tree was located to submit sufficient documentation, which may include a written statement from a qualified arborist or forester, showing that removal of the tree was permitted by this chapter. 2. Pursuant to Section 18.32.390, initiate a hearing on revocation of the tree removal permit and /or any other permit or approval for which this chapter was an approval standard. 3. Issue a stop order pursuant to Section 18.24.070 of the Code. EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE No. 95- / c l Page 7 • • 4. Issue a citation pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Code. 5. Take any other action allowed by law. C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Section 1.16 of the Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Subsection D of this section; and 2. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. D. Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the - following guidelines: 1. A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. 2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. - 3. 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 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. 4. The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. E. 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. F. The remedies set out in this section shall not be exclusive. EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE No. 95- 1 Page 8 • • CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 5. 14 SECTION 18.24.070 1. Chapter 18.24 is amended by adding Section 181.24.070 to read as follows: "18.24.070 Stop Order Hearing. A. Whenever any work is being done in violation of the provisions of the Code or a condition of any permit or other approval granted pursuant hereto, the Director may order the work stopped by notice in writing served on persons engaged in doing such work or causing such work to be done. All work under the permit or approval shall cease until it is authorized to continue. B. The Director shall schedule a hearing on the stop order for the soonest practicable date, but not more than seven (7) days after the effectiveness of any required notice. At the discretion of the Director, such hearing may be: 1. Part of a hearing on revocation of the underlying permit or approval pursuant to Section 18.32.390; or - 2. Solely to determine whether a violation has occurred. The Hearings Officer shall hold this hearing and shall make written findings as to the violation within seven (7) days. Upon a - finding of no violation, the Hearings Officer shall require the issuance of a resume work order. Upon finding a violation, the stop order shall continue to be effective until the violating party furnishes sufficient proof to the Hearings Officer that the violation has been abated. The Hearings Officer's decision is subject to review under Section 18.32.310.B." EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE No. 95 -/ C August 22, 1995 Page 1 • • f. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to continue the hearing to September 26, 1995. Mayor Nicoli advised that on September 26 testimony would be limited to the two issues identified. (as stated above.) Council meeting recessed at 10:02 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 10:16 p.m. 11. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE): ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 92 -0004 TREE REMOVAL LOCATION: Citywide. A request by the City of Tigard to replace Chapter 18.150 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code with new code provisions pertaining to tree removal and to provide amended provisions for a stop work order hearing in Section 18.24.070. The proposed amendments to section 18.150 call for the following: 1. Tree removal permits only on sensitive lands as defined by Chapter 18.84; 2. A tree plan prepared by a certified arborist to be provided with any development application for a subdivision, major partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use; 3. Mitigation requirements for tree removal in developments; 4. The prohibition of commercial forestry (removal of ten (10) trees or more, per acre, per calendar year for sale); 5. Permit exemption for land used for Christmas tree production or if registered as property tax deferred tree farms or small woodlands; 6. Permit criteria including erosion control standards and seventy -five (75) percent canopy cover within fifty (50) feet of stream or wetland; 7. Provisions for incentives and setback adjustments to allow for tree retention; 8. Penalties for the illegal removal of trees; 9. Replacement tree provisions. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 5; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1 (General Policies), 2 (Citizen Involvement), 3.4.b (Natural Areas), and Implementation Strategy of Policy 3.4; and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30.120. a. Public Hearing opened. b. Staff Report. Senior Planner Bewersdorff reviewed the staff report which was contained in the Council packet material. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Tree Ordinance as submitted in the Council packet. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 14 • • c. Public Testimony. Proponents: • Ken Steele, 8035 SW Churchill, Oregon, 97225 commended the City • Council for the proposal which was before them. Mr. Steele spoke of his concerns with the commercial forestry section, noting that the intent of the ordinance was to prevent people from clearing land. He said he believes the commercial forestry portion, allowing cutting of ten trees per acre, presented a loophole to the ordinance's intent. He recommended this language be tightened to allow the removal of five trees per acre per year. • Christie Herr, 11386 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, advised she was a member of the Task Force and supported the ordinance. However, Ms. Herr advised she had some issues with the commercial forestry portion of the ordinance. She stated the Task Force had decided not to present a minority report; therefore, Ms. Herr advised her testimony was being presented as an individual. Ms. Herr noted that ten trees per acre per year should be reconsidered as proposed in the commercial forestry section of the tree ordinance. She recommended a reduction to five trees. • Malcolm F. Kirsop, 11323 SW Basswood Court, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, advised the ordinance represented a good plan and said it was an excellent concept. He did share the concern that ten trees per acre (commercial forestry) was not definitive enough. • Doug Smithey, 11396 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, advised he served on the Task Force and supported the ordinance. He advised he felt that concerns expressed by individuals with regard to the commercial forestry were legitimate, noting that the Task Force did not talk about an average number of trees removed on acreage owned by individuals. He advised this deserved additional review. Opponents: • Joseph Schweitz, 12505 SW North Dakota, No. 1604, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, testified with regard to concerns of cost which would be passed on to private property owners. He referred to restrictions placed on developers building houses. However, once a private property owner purchases one of these homes, the property owner would have to remove or care for the trees; this would represent additional costs. -CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 15 • • • Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, testified with regard to wording on two different sections of the ordinance. He referred to Page 2, 18.150.025(a), noting an exception when no trees would be affected. He - also requested that the words "when such a permit is required," be added to a paragraph on Page 7. Mr. Bledsoe advised that the law appeared to be applied more broadly than was needed. • Mr. Bob O'Dell, member of the Task Force, responded to an inquiry from Councilor Hawley: Tree removal had been discussed for sensitive lands only. Doug Smithey also referred to the regulations that were for commercial forestry only. People cutting down trees for landscaping were not affected by the tree ordinance. There was reference to a letter submitted by the Fans of Fanno Creek with regard to protection of the tree canopy. Upon request of Council, Mr. Smithey reviewed the importance of tree canopies to the eco- system. d. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommended approval of the tree ordinance as written. e. Council Discussion In response to a question from Councilor Hawley, Senior Planner Bewersdorff responded that the "ten trees," as cited in the commercial forestry section of the ordinance, was selected by the Task Force through a consensus process. The Task Force did not want to be overly restrictive on private property rights. There was brief discussion on Mr. Bledsoe's suggestions for wording changes. Mr. Bewersdorff advised he believed some of the wording was implied, but said he did not object to the additional words suggested by Mr. Bledsoe. f. Public Hearing was closed. g. Council Consideration. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 16 • • h. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to change the number of . trees from ten to five as the number of trees per acre in the definition of commercial forestry; to add the words "when such permit is required" as suggested by Mr. Bledsoe, and to incorporate the Fans of Fanno Creek verbiage on tree canopy as submitted in their letter, which is contained in the Council packet material. Discussion on the motion followed. Councilor Rohlf was reluctant to change any of the wording of the ordinance drafted by the Tree Task Force. He referred to a letter from Sally Christensen, member of the Tree Task Force, which stated she would object to any amendment to the tree ordinance which the Task Force had put together. Councilor Hunt noted his agreement with Councilor Rohlf, and advised he would withdraw his second to the motion on the floor. Councilor Scheckla suggested the ordinance be adopted as presented by the Task Force. Then, if problems occur, amendments could be proposed at a later date. Councilor Scheckla commended the Task Force for a fine job. Councilor Hawley made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 95 -19, with one amendment to Section 18.150.020, changing the commercial forestry trees from ten to five. There was no second to the motion. i. ORDINANCE NO. 95-19 - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING A REVISED CODE CHAPTER 18.150 REGARDING TREE REMOVAL (ZOA 92-0004) AND NEW SECTIONS 18.24.070. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance No. 95-19 as submitted. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") j. RESOLUTION NO. 95-40 - A RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 91 -01 TO ESTABLISH A FEE FOR A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Resolution No. 95-40. CITY COUNCIL MEETING M NUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 17 . • 41 Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") After brief Council discussion, it was decided that the Task Force would be asked to meet again to determine whether amendments should be considered to the ordinance with regard to the number of tree per acre, allowing for commercial forestry (reduce from ten to five), and to review the tree canopy recommendation offered by the Fans of Fanno Creek. Items 12, 13 and 14 were set over to October 10, 1995. 12. REVIEW DEPARTMENTAL SERVICE STANDARDS 13. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL COMPENSATION 14. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: COUNCIL GROUNDRULES 15. NON - AGENDA ITEMS • Award a Water Rate Study Contract Council reviewed an issue presented by City Administrator Monahan with regard to CH Hill and the Water Rate Study. The principals who made the presentation to the Intergovernmental Water Board were awarded the contract and but are no longer with the CH Hill. Minimal progress has been made on the rate study. After discussion, Council decided that CH Hill and EES will be asked to make another presentation to the Intergovernmental Water Board. CH Hill will be asked to agree to terminate their contract if Council decides to go with another consultant. 16. Executive Session - Canceled. 17. Adjournment - 11:26 p.m. C 64 -#CZ 1 1- 1 A 4 AZA. Gv Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Reco , City of Tigard • . te: / 7) / /l)/15-- cem091_95 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 18 05/06/97 15:18 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD a001 • 0 iiiiii**** **i***is**si***s********* *** *** iss ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT REPORT TX sss • * s******** s * ***iss*ii*****iii**** *s* ***** ACTY# MODE CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START TIME USAGE T. PAGES RESULT *8375 TX G3 5035251927 05/05 12:38 02'47 4 UK *8376 TI G3 503 624 7755 PACTRUST /M &T /PDA 05/05 12:46 01 3 OK *8380 TX G3 503 684 2296 05/05 13:51 01'40 2 OK *8381 TX G3 5036813909 05/05 14:13 01'10 2 OK *8384 TX 7750754 05/05 14:29 00'00 0 NG 0 ;018 *8386 TI 6847297 05/05 16:05 00'00 0 NC 0 STOP *8388 TX G3 503 693 4412 05/05 16:12 00'34 1 OK *8389 TX G3 503 693 4412 05/05 16:52 00'32 1 OK *8395 TX G3 503 620 2086 NICOLI ENG.,Inc. 05/06 07:32 01'08 2 OK *8396 TX G3 503 620 2086 NICOLI ENG..Inc. 05/06 07:35 01'18 2 OK *8404 TX G3 6848840 05/06 10:05 07'49 4 OK *8405 TI C3 1 503 981 1337 DGS GEN COST 05/06 10:15 00'36 1 OK *8407 TX G3 . 05/06 10:25 01'51 3 OK *8414 TI 684 3636 JIM NICOLI 05/06 12:39 00'00 0 NG 0 STOP *8417 TX G3 503 620 2086 NICOLI ENG.,Inc. 05/06 12:43 01'00 2 OK *8419 TX G3 5036247495 05/06 12:48 00'54 1 OK *8423 TX G3 5037354622 05/06 14:23 02'10 4 OK *8424 TX G3 5037354622 05/06 14:26 01'06 2 OK *8425 TX G3 5036840588 05/06 14:32 00'47 1 OK *8427 TX . G3 503 620 2086 NICOLI ENG.,Inc. 05/06 14:52 01'02 2 OK ;. TX - G3 •1 526.0244 . .. . _. 05/06.15:01 - :14:44:---:;7722.”7:. Ul(„ ********* s *** ** * ** ****s** ***s*s******s*** *s* ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT REPORT RI s** **i*** s*i* * * * ******** * ********s***** *** ** ACTY# MODE CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START TIME USAGE T. PAGES RESULT *8378 AUTO RI G3 05/05 13:23 07'52 7 OK *8391 AUTO RI G3 05/05 17:03 01'54 2 OK *8392 AUTO RI G3 503 986 4173 TDB ADMIN 05/05 17:11 01'22 2 OK *8393 AUTO RI G3 5036822017 05/06 00:11 02'58 4 UK *8399 AUTO RI G3 503 684 3611 05/06 08:37 01'39 2 OK *8400 AUTO RI G3 05/06 08:40 00'37 1 OK *8401 AUTO RI G3 5036990508 PHILIP J MORFORD 05/06 09:12 01'31 1 OK *8402 AUTO RI G3 05/06 09:58 00'56 2 OK *8403 AUTO RI G3 05/06 10:00 00'59 2 OK *8409 AUTO RI G3 503 643 1905 KLEINFELDER INC 05/06 11:59 02'12 3 OK *8410 AUTO RI G3 05/06 12:03 01'36 2 OK *8411 AUTO RI G3 7621823 05/06 12:05 00'49 1 OK *8412 AUTO RI G3 05/06 12:17 00'42 1 UK *8413 AUTO RI G3 503 243 2944 05/06 12:25 06 10 OK *8420 AUTO RI G3 503 624 0641 05/06 13:01 02'03 3 OK *8421 AUTO RI G3 503 626 8783 05/06 13:29 00'34 1 UK *8422 AUTO RI G3 05/06 14:01 02 2 UK 8429 AUTO RI G3 1048813059443291 05/06 14:55 00'53 2 OK 8431 AUTO RI G3 05/06 15:16 00'48 1 OK I r COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684 -0360 Notice TT 8788 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 RECEIVED Legal Notice Advertising APR 15 1997 • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit Accounts Payable • YT" AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION re STATE OF OREGON, ) t COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. I, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Ti gard -Tna 1 at i n Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the MT,P97 - 0007 nowning /Shaw a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONF successive and consecutive in the following issues: April 10,1997 Kc c iJ Subscribed and sworn to pli fore me this- 0 h day of Apr i 1 , 19 7_ OFFICIAL SEAL /614, . G 14. - R0BIA A. EURGESS V Z '�\'\ �,� ' ^LIO - OREGON Nota ublic for Oregon COMM. . V : 024552 MY CO • r' i0N 1r;,; MAY 18, 199' My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT - t 0 , >NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION< >DOWNING /SHAW PARTITION< MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97 -0002 The Director ;mss approved, subject to conditions, a request to partition I ' one (1) lot of 1.02 acres into three (3) lots ranging in size from 8,115 to ' 17,017 squ: re feet. On March 27,1997, the City issued a Decision to ap- . prove Minor Land Partition 97 -0002 subject to Conditions of Approval. Because a new private street was proposed to serve the partition, the land use decision either should have been issued as a Major Land Partition, or have required a revision for an access easement type of accessway or other acceptable method for the lots that are being created. The applicant • has requested that the Minor Land Partition be re- issued with revised Conditions of Approval that reflects the limitations of a Minor Land Parti- tion. For these reasons, an amended decision has been issued based on the criteria set forth for approval of a Minor Land Partition. Through this amended decision, the private street will be incorporated into one (1) or more of the lots as an access easement. The easement may be a shared ac- cessway at the applicant's discretion. LOCATION: 11600 S.W. Green - burg Road; WCTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 6700. The site is located at the northeast corner of S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. 92nd Avenue. ZONE: ' R -4.5; Residential, 4.5 units per acre. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.162 and 18.164. • H _ ! - -:, i I . Et ,t______„ , : ---- T -- . „ ........„1 . E j --- Ts - r-- , h. I ; ii T ___ : ..;___ : I qw pA4 L.1.. J r -, ii ___ ` � 1� I� . r l ..., Ni : ~ i ce ' i I The adopted finding of facts, decision, and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard Civic Center, 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223. The decision shall be final on April 23, • 1997. Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code, which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing an ap- peal is 3:30 P.M., April 23, 1997. TT8788 — Publish April 10, 1997. - ES DOWNING 6W-1334 9757 SW MCDONALD 598 -8629 fax TIGARD OR 97224 TO: MARK ROBERTS CITY OF TIGARD RE: SHAW WOODS THIS LETTER IS TO CONFIRM MY VERBAL REQUEST THAT YOU REISSUE THE MINOR LAND PARTITION DECISION INCORPORATION THE PRIVATE STREET INTO LOT 3 AS A FLAG LOT. THANK YOU MILES DOWNING 03 -31 -1997 03 :14PM FROM Beaverton Foursquare CM TO 6847297 P.01 • March 31, 1997 To: Mr. Mark Roberts, City of Nord planner 639 -4171, fax 684-7297 From: retry Smitk, 644-2801, fate 326-0244 Re: Application H MLP 97 -0002 .- Dear Made, You have sent information to me regarding this application for which I would like to thank you. I also would like to ask for clarification on the classification of this application. The ordinance states that a minor Partition is defined as " A partition of land which creates three lots or Iess within one calendar year and does not include the creation of a mad or street" A "Road or street" is defined as "A public or private way that Is seated to provide Ingress or egress for persons to one or more lots, parcels, areas or tracts of land". Buse this application proposes the creation of a private street would it not be more correctly classified as a major partition which is defined as "A partition of land which creates three lots or less within one calendar year and includes the creation of a road or street. • It is my understanding that the standards are different for major partitions than for minor partitions. For cxamplc does the standards for tree removal apply to a major partition where it would not apply to minor partitions? If in ffid the application is incorrectly classified and therefore does not address the appropriate standards then I would hire to suggest that the city amend its decision and inform the applicant of the correct standards which must be satisfied. Please also notify us of the applicable standards. If my understanding is incorrect then please clarify how so. Please respond in writing so that I can use this in meeting with our neighbors, make it a part of the record, and finally to use in discussion with the city administrator. One of the concerns of our neighborhood is the saving do many existing . trees as is possible, even the large tree at the common line between the Shaves and my lot at 92nd since that sidewalk will likely never be extended up 92nd. Depending your response and if needed I will appeal the decision, so please respond in a timely thshi Thank you very much for your time and help. cC _ 1.0 • Terry Smith v PS- Please fax any changes in this application. 0Co t evvy — Vie 4o0 wldLI lour atta -)5 Qv101 as Q v-e5� It we w I ( t Q ere l ssuL� t"� . der 1 sIol.,N . Tut ve.■ ck€61 (see.; slot / Lu, l ( v'eru`, I it t P v( v 5 �I " -ee� `-a toe i M c -1,41e ® 05 Gl l aA4 cs Lo 3, �2 U. 2.✓ � you GovtCev&A • a uev `fit It) SS o 6r fire (2.c.k + `fees 14 o we oer '�-In.e Gl Coto, &I ( c1 e (1 LQ Q d a l- ( 4, o,, p o (r f v. ( a lle I h A ev e�a f ` SSu e S 0' d r,, o �-- 5 (A 1' 4,, PtI( s S . H4,4 bioNI d'o ire Cf u.t fre rNelot ace kM .ek, - o e. dM¢eS ! � 4-- �.e‘.e o` 4C ukts ces . MI a TOTAL P.01 • COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684 -0360 Notice TT 8770 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising I E C E I V ED City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice APR 0 2 1997 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 'Tigard, Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit CITy - ? F IG ARD ' Payable • • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, • COUNTY OF WASHINGTON. )ss. I, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theTi gard — Tualatin T a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti gard in the aforesaid county and state; that the MLP Downing /Shaw a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: �.m March 27,1997 1 , -`�,^. OFFICIAL SEAL 'E -. ='r` ' J�clrni.i)E;�7r tks�E4..l,A :':i NOTARY PUBLIC-OF{EGON 0 �:'�0�1!ti "!SSION N0. 0'1 4 ''10 (12./(..., MY COMMISS EXUIRi:S ,IUI'ik.: 9, 1 i Subscribed and swor to be ore me this 2 th day of Mar_ch,1997 - _ _/ � / Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT _ I • MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97 -0002 > DOWNING /SHAW GREENBURG PARTITION < The Director has approved, subject to conditions, a request to partition one (1) lot of 1.02 acres into three (3) lots ranging in size from 8,115 to 17,017 square feet. LOCATION: 11600 S.W. Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S1 35DC, Tax Lot 6700. The site is located at the northeast corner of S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. 92nd Avenue. ZONE: R -4.5. Residential, 4.5 units, per acre. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.162 and 18.164. 1 ; r � a �i - i- -- � 11 • ._ coxOTA SL L T ..; j \.. :___.1 I j r El F— -i 1 i i 1 1 1._--_ -( I am 1 ' 1 ` ,, . r l I 4 * , � I ' i _____ I I T n' Ct I 1 ,' I LTH 1-J 1 I 1-1 L ' / 1 i � , I � \► � _.__, a-- The adopted finding of facts, decision, and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard Civic Center, 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223. The decision shall be final on April 9, 1997. Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code, which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing an ap- peal is 3:30 P.M., April 9, 1997. TT8770 — Publish March 27, 1997. I MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: March 17, 1997 • TO: Mark Roberts, Planning Division FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer RE: MLP 97 -0002, Downing /Shaw Partition Description: This request is to partition one lot into 3 parcels. The site is located at 11600 SW Greenburg Road, WCTM 1S1 35DC, Tax Lot 6700. Findings: 1. Streets: This site lies adjacent to SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue. SW Greenburg Road is classified as a major collector street and is fully improved adjacent to this site. No additional right -of -way (ROW) dedications or street improvements are necessary (with the exception of the 92nd Avenue intersection, which will be discussed next). SW 92nd Avenue SW 92nd Avenue is a local residential street that is paved, but not improved to City standards. The existing ROW width is approximately 40 feet. The applicant proposes to dedicate an additional 5 feet to give 25 feet from centerline. This ROW dedication will be adequate. In addition, the applicant will need to dedicate additional ROW at the intersection to make room for the curb return. City design standards call for a ROW radius of 25 feet; this dedication shall also be shown on the face of the final plat. The roadway surface of SW 92nd Avenue is paved, but the structural section does not appear to meet City standards for a local residential street. In order to mitigate the additional traffic that will be generated from this development, the applicant will construct half- street improvements on 92nd Avenue adjacent to this site. These improvements will also include installation of a curb return at northeast corner of the intersection at Greenburg Road, which will result in a much safer intersection. The ENGINEERING COMMENTS MLP 97 -0002 Downing /Shaw Partition PAGE 1 • • applicant will be required to design and construct the street improvements to City standards. Any necessary pavement taper required to tie the new improvement into the existing edge of pavement shall be accomplished beyond the site frontage. Proposed Private Street The applicant's plan indicates a proposed private street to serve the 3 lots. The Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) states that a private street design standards shall be established by the City Engineer [18.164.030(S)(a)]. The Engineering Department Public Improvement Design Standards indicate that private streets shall be constructed to have the same structural section as a public street. The proposed structural section shown on the applicant's plan (2 inches of asphalt, 2 inches leveling rock, 6 to 8 inches of base rock) does not meet public street standards, which calls for 3 1/2 inches of asphalt, 2 inches of leveling rock and 7 inches of base rock. The applicant will be required to build the private street section to meet public standards. The private street will also need to be jointly owned and maintained by the property owners of the new lots. 18.164.030(S)(2) states the developer is required to provide legal assurances for the continued maintenance of the private street, such as a bonded maintenance agreement or the creation of a homeowners association. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall provide such assurance to the City. A statement shall also be placed on the final plat indicating the private property owner's obligation to maintain the street in the future. In addition, the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CCR's) shall provide specific language as to how the private street will be maintained. 2. Water: This site lies within Tualatin Valley Water District's (TVWD) service area. The applicant's plan indicates that there is an existing public water line in SW 92nd Avenue. Any proposed connections to, or extensions of, the public water line shall be reviewed and approved by TVWD. 3. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 8 -inch public sewer line in SW 92nd Avenue that can adequately serve this site. The location of the sewer taps shall be approved by the City prior to construction. ENGINEERING COMMENTS MLP 97 -0002 Downing /Shaw Partition PAGE 2 • • 4. Storm Drainage: There is an existing public storm drainage line in SW Greenburg Road that collects street runoff, including the catch basin at the northeast corner of the 92nd Avenue intersection. The applicant proposes to extend a public storm line in SW 92nd Avenue in order to pick up the street drainage and potential runoff from this site. The plan also indicates the lot drainage may be piped directly south, via an easement over Lot 1, to the storm pipe in Greenburg Road. The design of this storm system shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant may need to adjust the location of the existing catch basin at the street corner in order to complete the new curb return. 5. 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 require the construction of on -site water quality facilities. For small sites such as this, the R &O makes an exception that would allow the applicant to pay a fee in -lieu of constructing an on -site facility. Staff recommends that the applicant pay the fee in -lieu. 6. Grading and Erosion Control: USA R &O 91 -47 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 R &O 91- 47, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. 7. Existing Overhead Utility Lines: There are existing overhead utilities on SW 92nd Avenue. Section 18.164.120 of the TMC requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in -lieu of undergrounding can be paid. If the fee in -lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. ENGINEERING COMMENTS MLP 97 -0002 Downing /Shaw Partition PAGE 3 • • 8. Site Permit Required: The applicant is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on -site private utility installations (water, sewer, storm, etc.) and driveway construction. This permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of the permit from Engineering allowing work in the ROW. 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. Five (5) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Once redline comments are addressed and the plans are revised, the design • engineer shall then submit eight (8) sets of revised drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate for final review and approval (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 name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. 3. Any necessary off -site utility easements shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and shall be submitted to and accepted by the City prior to construction. 4. Additional right -of -way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW 92nd Avenue to increase the right -of -way to 25 feet from the centerline. A ROW radius of 25 feet shall also be dedicated at the intersection of SW 92nd Avenue and SW Greenburg Road to provide room for the curb return, sidewalk and wheelchair ramp. These dedications shall be shown on the face of the final plat. ENGINEERING COMMENTS MLP 97 -0002 Downing /Shaw Partition PAGE 4 • • 5. The applicant shall construct standard half - street improvements along the frontage of SW 92nd Avenue. 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. curb d. storm drainage, including any off -site storm drainage necessary to convey subsurface runoff e. 5 foot concrete sidewalk f. street striping g. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer h. underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay a fee in -lieu of undergrounding existing overhead utilities) street signs j. driveway apron (if applicable) k. adjustments in vertical and /or horizontal alignment to construct SW 92nd Avenue in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connections prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. 9. The applicant's proposed storm drainage design shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. 10. 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. ENGINEERING COMMENTS MLP 97 -0002 Downing /Shaw Partition PAGE 5 • • 11. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 92nd Avenue underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in -lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $ 27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, it shall be paid prior to recording of the final plat. 12. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Three mylar copies of the partition plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. B. The partition plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. C. The right -of -way dedication for SW 92nd Avenue shall be made on the partition plat. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 13. Prior to issuance of building permits on this site, the applicant shall obtain a Site Permit from the Building Department to cover all grading for the lots, all on -site private utility installation (water, sewer, storm, etc.) and all driveway construction. NOTE: this permit is separate from any permit issued by the Engineering Department for work in the public right -of -way. 14. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the partition plat. 15. Prior to issuance of any building permits within this project, 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. 16. Prior to issuance of the building permit for Lots 2 and 3, the applicant shall pay the standard water quality fee of $ 180.00 per lot. /b ri a m /comments /m I p97 -02. bd r ENGINEERING COMMENTS MLP 97 -0002 Downing /Shaw Partition PAGE 6 . •EIVED PLANNING 4'0 • MAR 14 1997 CITY OF TIGARD CITY OFTIGARD Community Development Shaping Better Community REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: March 10,1991 TO: Development Services Technicians m* till: dku lean: lim: »* Bonnie: Debbie: ( ! FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts 1x311 l Phone: (5031 639-4171 Fax: (5031684-1291 RE: MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLPI 97 -0003 ➢ DOWNING /BRADY PARTITION Q A request for Minor Land Partition approval to divide one (1) lot of .43 acres into two (2) lots of approximately 9,444 square feet each. LOCATION: 9055 SW North Dakota Street; WCTM 1 S1 35DA, Tax Lot 02601. ZONE: Residential, 4.5 units per acre (R -4.5). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.88, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.162 and 18.164. 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: Thursday - March 20, 1997. 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: a v it (Please provide the following information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: Phone Number(sl: I MLP 97 -0003 DOWNING /BRADY PARTITION PROPOSAUREOUEST FOR COMMENTS RECENEO PLANNING • */ . MAR 12 1997 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS C. OF TI • C �FD Community (Development ShapingA Better Community DATE: February 26,1991 TO: Tigard Police Department Crime Prevention Officer FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: ,% Mark Roberts (011) Phone: (5031639 -4111 FaX (5031684 -1291 RE: MINOR LAND PARTITION OMLPI 97 -0002 ➢ DOWNING /SHAW GREENBURG SITE PARTITION < A request to partition two (2) lots of 1.02 acres into four (4) lots ranging in size from 8,115 to 14,700 square feet. LOCATION: 11600 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 6700. The site is located at the northeast corner of SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue. ZONE: R-4.5; Residential, 4.5 units per acre. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.162 and 18.164. 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: Monday March 10, 1997. 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. per. Written comments provided below: 72 � - —� (Please provide the following information) Name of Perseids) Commenting: p as‘ j I Phone Number(s): ' 2 MLP 97 -0002 DOWNING /SHAW GREENBURG SITE PARTITION PROPOSAUREOUEST FOR COMMENTS • • inkt3 A • � PZ IN q� ECEIVED PLANNING ct‘ TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCIJ#R 0 5 1997 c � \ FIRE PREVENTION J CITY OF TIGARD / R SG ' e 4755 S.W. Griffith Drive . P.O. Box 4755 . Beaverton, OR 97076. (503) 526 -2469 . FAX 526 -2538 R F$ To: MIe4 f2— l� f fJYJ w Date: c t S 712 ❑ WC ❑ CC ❑ MC ❑ BV TI TU ❑ DU ❑ SH Wt 0 KC Jurisdiction File Number: 9 7 Project Name: � l5 i1 k� l v43 L � J POI Project Address: � ( .d ) ( p2 1.-c TVF&R File Number. (Whenever referring to this project please include the TVF&R File Number) . Project approved . 7 Project not approved - Please address items checked below and re- submit plans for review and approval to the: A TVF&R Fire Marshal's Office ❑ Planning Department having jurisdiction for routing to the TVF &R Fire Marshal's Office — Project conditionally approved subject to correction of items checked below. • • - This is a Fire and Life Safety Plan Review and is based on the 1994 Editions of the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) and those sections of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and Uniform Mechanical Code (UMC) specifically referencing the fire department, and other local ordinances, regulations and guidelines. 1) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD DISTANCE FROM BUILDJNG AND TURNAROUNDS; Access roads shall be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. An approved turnaround is required if the remaining distance to an approved intersecting roadway, as measured along the fire apparatus access road, is greater than 150 feet. (UFC Sec. 902.2.1) 2) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD EXCEPTION FOR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER PROTECTION; When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the requirements for fire apparatus access may be modified as approved by the Chief. (UFC Sec. 902.2.1 Exception 1) 3) ADDITIONAL ACUSS ROADS; Where there are 20 or more dwellings, an approved second fire apparatus access roadway must be provided to a city/county roadway or access easement. (UFC Sec. _2(4) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE; Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (15 feet for not more than two dwelling units), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of rot l ess than i 3 feet 6 inches. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.1) 5) SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES; Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all- weather surface that is easily distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load (wheel load) and 50,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle weight). (UFC Sec. 902.2.2:2) Please provide documentation from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of supporting such loading. Please provide documentation from a registered engineer that the finished construction is in accordance with the approved plans or the requirements of the Fire Code. 6) TURNING RADIUS; The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall not be less than 25 feet and 45 feet respectfully, as measured from the same center point. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.3) 7) DEAD END ROADS: Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess 0( . 156 feet in length shall be provided with an approved turnaround. Diagrams of approved turnarounds are available from the fire district. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.4) • 8) BRIDGES; Bridges shall be designed, inspected and final construction approved by a registered engineer. The bridge shall be designed in accordance with the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials "Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges." The bridge shall be designed for a live load sufficient to carry 50,000 pounds. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.5) I 9) NO PARKING SIGNS; Where fire apparatus access roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate. parked vehicles, "No Parking" signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway an;' in turnarounds as needed. (UFC Sec. 902.2.4) Signs shall read "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - TOW AWAY ZONE, ORS 98.810" and shall be installed with a clear space above ground level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and shall have black or red letters and border on a white background. (UFC Sec. 901.4.5.(1) (2) & (3)) "Working" Smoke Detectors Save Lives 11. TVF &R File Number 10) GRADE; Fire apparatus access roadway grades shall not exceed an average grade of 10 percent with a maximum grade of 15 percent for lengths of no more than 200 feet. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.6). Intersections and turnarounds shall be level (maximum 5 %) with the exception of crowning for water run -off. 11) PAINTED CURBS; Fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted yellow and marked "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" at each 25 feet. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide by six inches high. (UFC Sec. 901.4.5.2) 12) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - MINIMUM NUMBER OF FIRE HYDRANTS; The minimum number of fire hydrants for a building shall be based on the required fire flow prior to giving any credits for fire protection systems. There shall not be less than one (1) fire hydrant for the first 2,000 gallons per minute (GPM) required fire flow and one (I) additional fire hydrant for each 1,000 GPM or portion thereof over 2,000 GPM. Fire hydrants shall be evenly spaced around the building and their locations shall be approved by the Chief. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1) 13) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - FIRE HYDRANTS; No portion of the exterior of a commercial building shall be located more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant when measured in an approved manner around the outside of the building and along an approved fire appatatus access roadway. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1) 14) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS - FIRE HYDRANTS; Fire hydrants for single family dwellings and duplexes shall be placed at each intersection. Intermediate fire hydrants are required if any portion of a structure exceeds 500 feet from a hydrant as measured in an approved manner around the outside of the structure and along approved fire apparatus access roadways. Placement of additional fire hydrants shall be as approved by the Chief. (UFC Sec. 903.422) 15) FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD; Fire hydrants shall not be located more than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway. (UFC Sec. 903.42.4) - • • 16) FIRE HYDRANT / FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION; A fire hydrant shall be located within 70 feet of a fire department connection (FDC). Fire hydrants and FDC's shall be located on the same side of the fire apparatus access roadway. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.5) FDC locations shall be as approved by the Chief. (1996 Oregon Structural Specialty Code, Sec. 904.1.1) 17) FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS ON BUILDINGS; Fire department connections shall not be located on the building that is being protected. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.5) .. ' • 18) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW; The required fire flow for the building shall not exceed 3,000 gallons per minute (GPM) or the available GPM in the water delivery system at 20 psi. A worksheet for calculating the required X fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's office. (UFC Sec. 903.3) 19) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum available fire flow for single family dwellings and duplexes shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. If the structure(s) are 3,600 square feet or larger, the required fire flow shall be determined according to UFC Appendix Table A- III -A -1. (UFC Appendix III -A, Sec. 5) 20) RURAL BUILDINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW; Required fire flow for rural buildings shall be calculated in accordance with National Fire Protection Association Standard 1231. Please contact the Fire Marshal's office for special help and other requirements that will apply. (UFC Sec. 903.3) 121) ACCESS_AND FIREFIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION; Approved fire apparatus access �/ roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any other construction on the site or subdivision. (UFC Sec. 8704) 22) KNOX BOX; A Knox Box for building access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office for an application and instructions regarding installation and placement. 23) REQUIRED INSPECTIONS; Please contact the Fire Marshal's office at the appropriate times for inspection of the following: 24) • 25) C E VI — 14 ► l✓ D F M -5L:_E Plan Reviewer Signature Title cc: 4 Pe 4_ 1 r2 -) • • ,� REQUEST FOR COMMENTS C I F A R D Community Development RECEIVED PLANNING Shaping Better Community • DATE: February 26,1991 MAR 1 0 1997 TO: David Scoff, Building Official CITY OF TIQmp FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts 1x3111 Phone: (50316394111 Fax: (5031 6847297 RE: MINOR LAND PARTITION IMLPI 91 -0002 DOWNING /SHAW GREENBURG SITE PARTITION < A request to partition two (2) lots of 1.02 acres into four (4) lots ranging in size from 8,115 to 14,700 square feet. LOCATION: 11600 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1 S135DC, Tax Lot 6700. The site is located at the northeast corner of SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue. ZONE: R-4.5; Residential, 4.5 units per acre. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.162 and 18.164. 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: Monday March 10. 1997. 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: 0..f - 3 c.U■•I■ e cl*S - X \ I ��,a � �. MibittA a e045-\1 \o--\\ G-ktRA v\iNcl \r4 il*Nz -k. \A. Na ' \S- C • A (T(case provide the farming information) Name of Person(sl Commenting: I Phone Number(s): MLP 97 -0002 DOWNING /SHAW GREENBURG SITE PARTITION PROPOSAUREOUEST FOR COMMENTS 03/10/97 MON 09:51 FAX 503 591 0986 TVWD ENGINEERING g IR t7 001 • / � I7 RECEIVED PLANNING [ 1. REQUEST FOR CO PUNTS CITY OF T10AQD MAR 111997 Community (Development Shaping )[ Better Community DATE FebriganWP CD FEB z 7 1 99' T0: Tualatin Valley Water District - Administrative Offices FROM: C1W of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts fx31A Phone: (5031 639.4 F ax: (5031684 RE MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP] 91 -0002 > DOWNING /SHAW GREENBURG SITE PARTITION < A request to partition two (2) lots of 1.02 acres into four (4) lots ranging in size from 8,115 to 14,700 square feet. LOCATION: 11600 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1 S135DC, Tax Lot 6700. The site is located at the northeast corner of SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue. ZONE: R-4.5; Residential, 4.5 units per acre. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.162 and 18.164. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement f r your r - -w. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our sta a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the propos r in the near future If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: ► o • da I t - r r, r • • 7 You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. I • _ : i - • - . res 'of. • • e - • o e date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLTi 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: • v .i l (Please provide the foffouing information) Name of Personfsl Commenting: Z 6. < Phone Number's]: `, si c_3?, MLP MLP 97 -0002 DOWNING/SHAW GREENBURG SITE PARTITION PROPOSAUREOUEST FOR COMMENTS • • ,Goa e • a ` ' � ;< TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE FIRE PREVENTION 4755 S.W. Griffith Drive . P.O. Box 4755 . Beaverton, OR 97076. (503) 526 -2469 . FAX 526 -2538 RF @ PgS March 5, 1997 RECEIVED PLANNING MAR 11 1997 Mark Roberts City of Tigard Planning Division CITY OFIARD 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Downing/Shaw Greenburg Partition 11600 S.W. Greenburg Road MLP 96 -0002 File Number: 1390 -97 Dear Mark: This is a Fire and Life Safety Plan Review and is based on the 1991 editions of the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) and those sections of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and Uniform Mechanical Code (UMC) specifically referencing the fire department, and other local ordinances and regulations. Plans for the above noted project are not approved. Please address the following items and resubmit plans to this office for review and approval. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (15 feet for not more than two dwelling units), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.1) Where fire apparatus access roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and maintain the minimum 20 foot wide unobstructed driving surface, "No parking" signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. (UFC Sec. 902.2.4). Signs shall read "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - TOW AWAY ZONE, ORS 98.810" and shall be installed with a clear space above ground level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and shall have black or red letters and border on a white background. (UFC Sec. 901.4.5(1)(2) &(3)) "Working" Smoke Detectors Save Lives Mark Roberts March 5, 1997 Page 2 The minimum available fire flow for single family dwellings and duplexes shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. If the structure(s) are 3,600 square feet or larger, the required fire flow shall be determined according to UFC Appendix Table A- III -A -1. (UFC Appendix III -A, Sec. 5) Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any other construction on the site or subdivision. (UFC Sec. 8704) If I can be of any further assistance to you, please feel free to contact me at 526 -2469 referring to the above noted file number. Sincerely, al Gene Birchill, DFM Plans Examiner GB:kw cc: Miles Downing 9757 SW McDonald Street Tigard, OR 97224 • • 4 REQUEST FOR CO NING CITY OF TI Community Deveropment MAR 101997 Shaping Better Community DATE: February 26,1991 CRYOFTIGARD TO: Development Services Technicians 1* Jill: / lean: !''1 r3� A Jim: 111 °► . Bonnie:'!! , ` Dabbler FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts 1x311) Phone: (5031 6394171 Fax: (50516841291 RE: MINOR LAND PARTITION IMLP) 97 -0002 ➢ DOWNING /SHAW GREENBURG SITE PARTITION < A request to partition two (2) lots of 1.02 acres into four (4) lots ranging in size from 8,115 to 14,700 square feet. LOCATION: 11600 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 6700. The site is located at the northeast corner of SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue. ZONE: R-4.5; Residential, 4.5 units per acre. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.162 and 18.164. 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: Monday March 10. 1997. 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: i t (Pfeease provide tkeforming information) Name of Persons) Commenting: I Phone Numberlsl: I MLP 97 -0002 DOWNING /SHAW GREENBURG SITE PARTITION PROPOSAL/REOUEST FOR COMMENTS REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CI O TI Community Development RECEIVED PLANNING Shaping Better Community DATE: February 26,1991 MAR 0 3 1997 TO: Brian Moore, PGE CITY OF TIGARD FROM: Cliv of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts [x311) Phone: (5031 639-4171 F8x: (5031664 -1291 RE: MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97 -0002 ➢ DOWNING /SHAW GREENBURG SITE PARTITION < A request to partition two (2) lots of 1.02 acres into four (4) lots ranging in size from 8,115 to 14,700 square feet. LOCATION: 11600 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1 S135DC, Tax Lot 6700. The site is located at the northeast corner of SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue. ZONE: R-4.5; Residential, 4.5 units per acre. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.162 and 18.164. 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: Monday March 10, 1997. 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: '' (lease provide the following information) Name of Person[sl Commenting: 1 -s- 2 _7_---)_0(1 I Phone Number[sl: Sip - tS) I MLP 97 -0002 DOWNING /SHAW GREENBURG SITE PARTITION PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS A1111111100 .0. Mt 111011__s , I 1 111111111101110010a. , —50,00 ►i ACCESS DRIVEWAY ��- I OWNER 1" H \ :'\ T 1 ERRENCE SMITH OWNER W 11480 SW 92ND RANDY JUNGWIRTH :\ A. A`, ;; ~ z � NEIGHB ❑RS 11515 SW 91ST � 20.00 - ` ° 3 J HOUSE ° 2" PAVEMENT I Y OWNER. DOROTHY SHAW APPLICANTS MILES D ❑WNING .:9 AWNING 11600 SW GREENBURG RD 9757 SW MCDONALD ►�.; 97.51 97,51 _ / 639 -1282 684 -1334 2' OF 3/4' GRAVEL : LOT 2 2 ►'� 8115 SQ FT LOT 3 L❑CATI❑N: MAP 1S135DC W 17,017 SQ FT TAX LOT 6700 6 T❑ 8 ❑F 2 -1/2 GRAVEL z ; ; � 12L 11 U or, 222 : I ►� _ ►�: G AS LINE 6' OFF , J ► CURRENT PROPERTY 2O w � � ® LINE 011 4 I 3 WATER METERS OWNER � RONALD AND JANICE FLEENER J N j SEWER � d 11355 SW 91ST LA/ 0 ►�!i - Tit/Ty E ASEME SEWER N �1 8 A 1; ; i I 6 NT 2� R=188,5 to " Ur r�Iry EWER i �� � "` 9 /Ly .-��- 1 ' 11 VqT o -- -- s E 216 �� � � 1 UTILI 3 S • Y frig, ^. EMENT 10' UT j " ' - SHED AS � c . � LI T E A SEMEN T i, l4� � .:= 18 0 = os qR� 9 � 1 214 1 oR� °8 p/ I ' iA , �4' ti r ho o r y G Q 1j 2/ c — CRFF A y e OWNER (1 \ OWNER N� GRG , w VARIA WILKINSON 11595 SW L91STY to ~ �� 11630 SW GREENBURG RD y -Mr 639 -2702 0: �.,,� LOT 1 i 212 � � , �`' � ` � . h° 14,700 !�� �. .../ o * �V ♦ 4 r �� � O. OWNER ���� b SQ FT $ JOHN DRENNA \j��� j � Q O � Z ti 0 P.O. BOX 23603 TIGARD �,;,..\ , iv Q 639 -5792 6/ • a • • � ∎ 4*. c-9 ' % A �� T 9 - / . F� j , �o� � 210 06..,, i tiF STORY DRAINS TO CURB 4. 2 STORK WATER CATCH BASIN to C SCALE 1'=30' NORTH I r L_.- - - p �:... -_ �_ A I ' V 1 ,0 . - --W- .� 3-°- -_ 2 � -- _ 2Z � JQ( t 3 -----7-------"-----"-------------- , kil 0_ ....„.........„ DIA itY Q O ® :1,..., : 1' -_ 4� try\ Z. 1 8 0 -- ti ...- .> I 6 ■>� ____ — _____ --/—; __ / ‘5.2. „ F _ .- o ,i` O 4'e / ', D S I ` ` T - / r • Q'D'' L� I~L' / /�O r/M 01, S G i 9 j‹. /& SD \ (- e A , K s ___ .-- 0-- --- ?---'- - 2 " ---- 7 - V NV I ''N.***e% 4'o E . ,; . i \ --- APPLICANT ,. ,, MILES DOWNING CURRENT OWNER: DOROTHY J SHAW I 9757 SW MCDONALD SITE ADDRESS: 11600 SW GREENBURG RD TIGARD OR. 97224 TIGARD OR PHONE: 684 -1334 MAP AND TAX LOT #: 1S135DC 06700 SITE SIZE: ZONE: R-4.5 DATE OF DRAWING: // -2/- j„ SCALE : 1" = 20' PROPOSED USE: ,4't) 5 /i/GLC Fffi%1 ,/E j' ,,R U /,' ///cf sii ID UU4L- IIIMMIMIMIIIr ...A/W 'r 4 . 1 ail I U W I ` _) 3 L f - .f k - - - 2o— -- -- J `'7 0 ' : : : : - „... i ...\- 0 y - _ — .. -afie' - — — — - ___ C _ ... o� ST, - 21 _ V 0 °U se, ' N ko ..CD 1 Cr ..._ 1_\,,.. _ ,21_14 )...._ ■, ks 0 6,6 ki4iit 60 i U • . ski/ . C,9,e c <4,), / f O _ , ,t ' _ f APPLICANT: MILES DOWNING CURRENT OWNER: DOROTHY J SHAW 9757 SW MCDONALD SITE ADDRESS: 11600 SW GREENBURG RD TIGARD OR. 97224 TIGARD OR PHONE: 684 -1334 AX L 1S135DC 06700 SITE SIZE: ZONE: MAP RND -4. TA X #: OF D // -a / 9 SCALE: 1 _ PROPOSED USE: 2 /YE'I ,Or/ 'LL- Lv>s / /YE<✓ s4 if F i›"cY L e77 O/D /VO&S& I ® T I •F �r CI V 1 /o0 /ooJ f Op [ .' _ v O )C 0 / s lb 1.4 1 0 13 r tY 3 1`) /0 s -- -1 , T ,,,, ®a i vim\ ^J V (.a V --42-- -- % f ..... :° `-''e r \\ X • S �� p � U S pp C / 2 ,1 S0 � D �i `7``'€c,, , // ,, v 1 '/ 1 D i fl--.,,,.....,..___I 1 - , - G61 air > U ce v Q APPLICANT: MILES DOWNING CURRENT OWNER: DOROTHY .J SHAW 9757 SW MCDONALD SITE ADDRESS: 11600 SW GREEN6URG RD TIGARD OR. 97224 TIGARD OR PHONE: 684 -1334 MAP AND TAX LOT #: 1S135DC 06700 SITE SIZE: ' ZONE: R-4.5 DATE OF DRAWING: SCALE: 1" = 20' PROPOSED USE: i'f —ie ,t i�- 7 s si L1- l = -4/ f - /7 ' 1111111111111111111 II I'ACM ' c . . . _ �•. da b c r W f ?/91z c c 1 , 15135 DC 06700 .. . 7StO 0 \<6< n • V � \ t fi p � • S � 10 . 75C0 0 / �b� N � \ J q5 iO �� , 7 — An t �,a r� �� - `` � \ �A it 1 �� 0 \ 1)2/ -0 / / \ ,,,,-___- . \ o \ \ 2 ' \ =`A , GA T 0 ' ) j ►� 5 \ 'di° D.(of4°°- --::: " \ PRO b tT us r5: , HD 9 0 3 inS t r »c.. ioT Go ' - ' " L 5 c o ur - 1 ' rx S 1 `1��`r '� Q u ? ' \ � ��( ��� �S,uc- S Soo d LOmss I \ Li ® \` ,{ ... ---- Y \ „s ,,('''Z 6 -., \\V 9' 3 \ , \ \ j 1 fti\J"r" m ILO 1 9 u Ai 1 tkgs4 \ X757 5 ,. � �, �., I\ Ciro • G. 4 17 '04 10 \ -I 39 .IRS ri EF' 1.).._cot: - 0wiefik o poRoiifY S)4f LI td ____,_______ ___-------- I P aft. Pre -Apps BCD Meetings) S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Tuesday, December-10 1996 8:00 8:30 ° )11 7-4 ‘ 9:00� 9:30 �/`0 D ' { '�'' 10:00 Dow mn. , 1S136DC 067OO-$Ua DIV$ 684 - 1334 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 12 39PM Tuesday, November 19, 1996 75 V t4 7 � ...1 5o l s v 0---, ..5 { It Lli '41 ado L , 4 Sa ' >� 3 v . . _r___ .._.� / j �� J v _1 0 i ( N/ C ` �� Q,�� 2�OOG" , r ` G : :°: Cry /8' • 0 � t-i 64°U ik/c • Sp 4,, S z` S � S G / 9 4 ‹ � e /li Q 4-d1 -51) 4 ',0 . i A l i i APPLICANT: MILES DOWNING CURRENT OWNER: DOROTHY J SHAW 9757 SW MCDONALD SITE ADDRESS: 11600 SW GREENBURG RD TIGARD OR. 97224 TIGARD OR PHONE: 684 -1334 MAP AND TAX LOT #: 1S135DC 06700 SITE SIZE: ZONE: R-4.5 DATE OF DRAWING: SCALE: 1" = 20' PROPOSED USE: ,eL-- 2 dee -/-z 8 oat 9 , 5 vf4 „, /. 4( 5 /.7 s 1 t'r "! 1--- ......... _ I w 1 4 3 7.77e G2 �D 22 -.2 - . ,_ _ w _ _ _ - -- - - /D c O 57i lb > � ...- - _ --, 1 ' VA ..�,,, - - 2 2 o - - , �.. . S '+ r r I :.; I q 1 ► N If1' f 6: ' to td /DDS �� - mo t kl .�, i � _ /Ac r 4� - - 2 , ,-- y � � , ' v 44Il 2)4:3 D �■ L /8/ 01 /- , s -■/._ ,..- __ - ,\-- .- s s 4 'do w rx • Sp �\ u <- • S ''N.. './P.,N,.N,,N l . 4 "'--e,_„,.... \ y Q /lc __ -3 _ .. t D I __ ,..., ,, - ci _,-_ _ ____ APPLICANT: MILES DOWNING CURRENT OWNER: DOROTHY J SHAW 9757 SW MCDONALD SITE ADDRESS: 11600 SW GREENBURG RD TIGARD OR. 97224 TIGARD OR PHONE: 684 -1334 MAP AND TAX LOT #: 1 S135DC 06700 SITE SIZE: ZONE: R-4.5 DATE OF DRAWING: / / -a/ -y,6 SCALE: 1" = 20' _ PROPOSED USE: 3 DO JC A .z- 7T"s 04.a %oas - 46 XF - 2ON6 r /?— 7 To 7 4 . Z,00 1O7 I /.90 5e741 SO T#47 7//e uAiiT.. G. 4N /3 E O4 . � StP /?fl 7Z Y _ / - -