Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PDR1996-00006 Decision - APPLEWOOD PARK SUB.
I . s r 14 CITY OF TIGARD 110 Community ; , Shaping o il '/attire Community CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon - NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09PC a BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Case Number(s): SUBDIVISION (SUB) 96- 0006 /PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 96 -0006 Case Name(s): APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION Name of Owner(s): Edward & Lillian Sattler Name of Applicant: Matrix Development 0/0 Larry York. Project Manager Address of Applicant: 6900 SW Haines Street, Suite 200 City: Tigard State: Oregon Zip: 97223 Address of Property: Southwest corner of SW Sattler Street and SW Hall Boulevard City: Tigard State: Oregon Zip: 97224 Tax Map(s) & Lot No(s).: WCTM 2S1 11 DA. Tax Lot 00100. 00200. and 00300. Request: > A request for Subdivision approval to divide three (3) lots of 27.52 total acres into 175 lots ranging in size from 3,966 to 9,190 square feet. In conjunction with the request is a proposal to create a 28,200 square foot water quality tract. The applicant has also requested Conceptual and Detailed Planned Development review to create lots less than the 5,000 square foot minimum allowed in the R -7 zoning district. Zc Residential, 7 units per acre (R - 7). The R - zoning district provides development sites for single - family attached and detached residential units for medium density development. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.80, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. Action: > ❑ Approval as requested © Approval with conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: © Owners of record within the required distance © Affected governmental agencies a The affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator © The applicant and owner(s) Final Decision:9 THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON JANUARY 15, 1997 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290 (B) and Section 18.32.370, which provides that a written appeal may be filed within ten (10) days after notice is given and sent. The appeal may be submitted on City forms and must be accompanied by the appeal fee(s) of $1,745.00 plus transcript costs, not in excess of e $500.00. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 P.M. ON JANUARY 15, 1997. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Dept. at (503) 639 -4171. SUB 96- OOO6iPDR 96-0006 (COVER SHEET} NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO 96-OSPC APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION BY THE PLANNING CMMISISON • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON PLANNING COMMISSION TY O CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 PC Siaptng)1 (Better Community A ANAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION Subdivision SUB 96 -0006 Planned Development Review PDR 96 -0006 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested Subdivision approval to divide three (3) parcels of 27.52 total acres into 175 lots ranging in size from 3,966 to 9,190 square feet. In conjunction with the request is a proposal to create a 28,200 square foot water quality tract. The applicant has also requested Conceptual and Detailed Planned Development Review to create lots less than the 5,000 square foot minimum allowed in the R -7 zoning district. APPLICANT: Matrix Development OWNER: Edward and Lillian Sattler Larry York, Project Manager 15245 SW Hall Boulevard 6900 SW Haines Street, Suite 200 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (7 -12 dwelling units per acre). ZONING R -7 (Residential, 7 units per acre) with a Planned Development Overlay DESIGNATION: (PD). LOCATION: The property is located at the southwest corner of SW Sattler Street and SW Hall Boulevard; WCTM 2S1 11 DA, Tax Lots 100, 200 and 300. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.80, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160, and 18.164. SECTION II: DECISION The Planning Commission APPROVED this development request finding that the proposed development will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City. FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96-0006 /PDR 96 -0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, THE STAFF CONTACT FOR ALL CONDITIONS IS BRIAN RAGER IN THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (503) 639 - 4171. 1. Prior to approval of the final plat, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Once redline comments are addressed and the plans are revised, the design engineer shall then submit nine (9) 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. Additional ROW (ROW) shall be dedicated to the public along the frontage of SW Sattler Street to increase the ROW to 30 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing ROW centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 4. Additional ROW shall be conveyed to the State of Oregon by and through its Department of Transportation Highway Division, along the frontage of SW Hall Boulevard to increase the • ROW to 45 feet from centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing ROW centerline. Verification that the conveyance has been submitted to the State shall be provided to the City Engineering Department. (For additional information, contact: Myron Melick; Oregon Department of Transportation, Right -of -Way Section, 7165 SW Fir Loop, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 503 - 684 - 1510). 5. The applicant shall construct a three - quarter (3/4) street improvement along the frontage of SW Sattler Street. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: a. City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 20 feet, plus any additional paving needed on the north side of centerline to ensure that there will be a 14 -foot eastbound curb lane and a 12 -foot eastbound left -turn lane, both of which shall be at least 250 feet in length from SW Hall Boulevard, and a westbound travel lane a minimum of ten feet wide; b. Curb and gutter (or standard curb if slope is greater than 1%); c. Storm drainage, including any off -site storm drainage necessary to convey subsurface runoff; d. A five -foot concrete sidewalk; FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96-0006 /PDR 96-0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 2 i t e. Street striping f. Streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; , g. Underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay a fee in -lieu of undergrounding existing overhead utilities); h. Street signs; and Adjustments in vertical and /or horizontal alignment to construct SW Sattler Street safely, as approved by the Engineering Department. 6. Because this is a phased project, the SW Sattler Street improvements shall be constructed, at a minimum, to the following schedule: Phase I: From SW Hall Boulevard to the west boundary of Phase I. Phase II: Adjacent to limits of Phase II. Phase III: Adjacent to limits of Phase III to west -end of project. 7. As a part of Phase I, the applicant shall construct at least enough widening in SW Hall Boulevard to provide a left turn lane refuge for northbound traffic at the SW Sattler Street. intersection. Design of the widening and improvements shall be approved by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). _ 8. The applicant shall construct standard half ('/2) street improvements along the frontage of SW Hall Boulevard as a part of Phase II of the development. The improvements shall be constructed to meet ODOT standards and shall include: a. ODOT standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 25 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. An eight (8) foot concrete sidewalk; f. Street striping; g. Streetlights as determined by the City and ODOT; . h. Underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay a fee in -lieu of undergrounding existing overhead utilities); Street signs; and FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96-0006/PDR 96 -0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 3 j. Adjustments in vertical and /or horizontal alignment to construct SW Hall Boulevard safely, as approved by ODOT. 9. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the State of Oregon Highway Division, to perform work within the ROW of SW Hall Boulevard. A copy of the permit shall be provided to the City Engineering Department prior to issuance of a Public Improvement Permit. 10. Prior to issuance of a permit to construct the public improvements in Phase Ill, the applicant - shall submit a supplemental traffic study to evaluate the anticipated level of service and traffic signal warrants at the SW Hall Boulevard /SW Sattler Street intersection, based on the transportation network that exists in the area at that time. If it is determined by either ODOT or the City that installation of the traffic signal is warranted and desirable at that time, the design and construction of the signal would be required as a part of construction of Phase III. In addition, based on the applicant's recent traffic study, signalization of this intersection will necessitate realignment of SW Ross Street across from SW Sattler Street. That realignment, if not completed by that time, will also be the responsibility of the applicant as a part of constructing Phase III. The intent of this. condition is to ensure that there will be a .safe, usable, and appropriately designed street and intersection at SW Hall Boulevard. The City will need to work with the applicant at that time to determine an appropriate design for the realignment and to determine the extent of the construction work that will be required of the applicant. 11. Full -width street improvements including: traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the subdivision._ Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. 12. The narrow streets proposed for this project shall be constructed within a 40 -foot minimum width ROW and have a curb -to -curb pavement width of at least 28 feet. 13. a. Street connections through this project that provide a continuous route should be constructed to a 50 -foot ROW and a 32 -foot curb -to -curb pavement section. Based on the applicant's proposed street names on the preliminary plan, the following streets shall be constructed to this standard: SW 89th Avenue (at southwest corner of site); SW 89th Avenue; SW 88th Avenue (from Rome Beauty to Sattler); SW 90th Avenue (from Rome Beauty to Sattler); and SW Ashford Street (street stub from 89th Avenue to east). b. Street connections through this project that provide a continuous route should be constructed to a 45 -foot ROW and a 32 -foot curb -to -curb pavement section. Based on the applicant's proposed street names on the preliminary plan, the following streets shall be constructed to this standard: SW McIntosh Avenue; - SW Cortland Avenue; SW Granny Smith Street; and SW Rome Beauty Street (from 88th to 90th). FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96- 0006 /PDR 96 -0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION - PAGE 4 14. The applicant shall select revised names for the following streets: a. Change SW Granny Smith and SW Rome Beauty to one -word names; b. Change SW 89th Avenue to SW 88th Avenue (at SW corner of site); c. Change SW Newton Lane to avoid confusion with SW Newton Loop; and d. Change SW Jonathan Lane to avoid confusion with SW Jonathan Loop. 15. Lots within this development shall not be permitted to access directly onto SW Sather Street or SW Hall Boulevard. 16. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed public improvement construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water and Engineering Departments. 17. Sanitary sewer and storm drainage details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. Calculations and a topographic map of the storm drainage basin and sanitary sewer service area shall be provided as a supplement to the public improvement plans. Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable area. The location and capacity of existing, proposed, and future lines shall be addressed. 18. The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer stubs to the adjacent undeveloped property. 19. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department as a part of the public improvement plans for Phase I. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract to the City of Tigard on the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facilities shall be maintained by the developer for a three (3) year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements (after completion of Phase Ill). A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. 20. The applicant shall provide maintenance access to the facility and any drainage structures within the facility to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. 21. 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. 22. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots that are to be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). _J. The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report shall be incorporated into the final grading plan. A final construction supervision report shall be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96-0006/PDR 96-0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 5 24. The applicant shall obtain a 1200 -C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. 25. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along both SW Hall _ Boulevard and SW Sattler Street 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 is chosen, it shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat. 26. The developer shall submit plans to the Water Department for review and approval of the water system layout. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Miller, Water Department. 27. All existing buildings shall be demolished or removed. A demolition permit is required. STAFF CONTACT: Development Services Technicians. 28. All utilities and wells shall be removed or satisfactorily abandoned. STAFF CONTACT: Development Services Technicians 29. The final plat shall be revised to indicate which lots are to be developed with zero lot line homes. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 30. The applicant shall submit plans to the Tualatin Valley Fire District that address the comments listed under the agency comments provided by the Fire District. STAFF CONTACT: Gene. Birchill, Tualatin Valley Fire District. 31. A total of 194 caliper inches must be mitigated on -site, at another site, or payment for the cost of purchasing and planting 194 caliper inches shall be made into a city -wide tree fund. The applicant may choose to upsize street trees from a two (2) inch caliper to a three (3) inch caliper tree for mitigation purposes. With approval from the Engineering Department, street trees can also be provided along the SW Hall Boulevard and SW Sattler Street frontages. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 32. The plat shall be revised to provide a pedestrian/bicycleway to SW Hall Boulevard from the easterly end of SW Jonathon Loop. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 33. The applicant shall post a bond or other similar instrument to ensure completion of planting the required street trees. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 34. The applicant shall pay a final plat review fee of $295 to the Planning Division. STAFF CONTACT: Development Services Technicians. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 35. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the subdivision plat. Since the project is phased, a separate plat will need to be recorded prior to issuance of building permits in each phase. FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96-0006 /PDR 96-0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 6 • 36. Prior to issuance of any building permits within the subdivision, the public improvements shall be deemed substantially complete by the City Engineer. Since this project is phased, the public improvements within each phase shall be substantially complete prior to issuance of building permits in each phase. Substantial completion shall be when: a. All utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities; b. All local residential streets have at least one (1) lift of asphalt; c. Any off -site street and /or utility improvements are completely finished; and d. All street lights are installed and ready to be energized. 37. The application shall provide a typical "worst case" type site plan indicating compliance with the 20% minimum landscape percentage requirement. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 38. Street trees shall be planted according to the approved street tree plan. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST: 8.160.170 Improvement Agreement: 1. Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: a. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and b. Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider. 2. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract. 18.160.180 Bond: 1. As required by Section 18.160.170, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: a. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96-0006/PDR 96-0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 7 b. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it may be terminated; or c. Cash. 2. The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer, an itemized improvement estimate certified by a registered civil engineer to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the - performance assurance. 3. The subdivider shall not cause termination of, nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 18.160.190 Filing and Recording: 1. Within 60 days of the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. 2. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City, a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. 18.162.080 Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: 1. Three (3) copies of the subdivision plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. 2. The subdivision plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. 3. Street centerline monumentation shall be provided as follows: A. Centerline Monumentation 1. In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights -of -way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. 2. The following centerline monuments shall be set: a. All centerline - centerline intersection points; b. All cul -de -sac center points; and c. Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). 3. All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. B. Monument Boxes Required 1. Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul -de -sac center points, and curve points. FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96- 0006/PDR 96 -0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 8 2. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 18.164 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: . 18,164.120 Utilities A. All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface- mounted transformers, surface- mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 2. 18.164,130 Cash or Bond Required A. All improvements installed by the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City. B. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. C. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.160.180. 3. 18.164.150 Installation: Prerequisite /Permit Fee A. No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefore have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 4. 18.164.180 Notice to City Required A. Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. B. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 5. 18.164.200 Engineer's Certification Required A. The land divider's engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to the City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96- 0006 /PDR 96 -0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 9 SECTION III: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: --- The original Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1983 designated approximately one -third (1/3) of the site as Medium Density with an R -12 zoning designation. The remaining two- thirds (2/3) were designated as Low Density Residential, with an R-4.5 zoning designation. Through Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 96 -0004) and Zone Change (ZON 96- 0003), the property owner requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the entire property to Medium Density Residential with an R -7 Zoning Designation. As part of this application, a Planned Development Overlay (PD 96 -0001) was also applied to the property. These applications were approved by the City Council and became effective September 12, 1996. Vicinity Information; Adjoining properties to the north, south, east and west are all developed with detached single - family residences except for the northeast corner of the property. The northeast corner of the property at the intersection of SW Sattler Street and SW Hall Boulevard is presently undeveloped. Site Information and Proposal Description: The property is currently being used for farming purposes. The applicant has proposed to demolish or remove the existing residential and other accessory farm buildings on the property and subdivide the property to develop 175, detached single - family residences. The property owner has proposed to utilize the existing Planned Development Overlay to reduce the lot size below the 5,000 square foot minimum and to allow greater flexibility with building setbacks. On December 16, 1996 the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing and approved this proposal subject to revised Conditions of Approval as stated within the Final Order. 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 was provided. The impact study states that they will pay all required system development fees, construct half (' /2) street improvement on SW Sattler Street, and construct internal street improvements and utilities. FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96- 0006 /PDR 96 -0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 10 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 xpansion /Dolan II /Resolution 95 -61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32% of the traffic impact of _ .yew development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Presently, the TIF for each trip that is generated is $169. The total TIF for a detached, single - family dwelling is $1,690. The applicant has proposed to construct half (' /:) street improvements on SW Sattler Street. Southwest Sattler Street is designated as a Minor Collector Street facility that is designated to accommodate traffic from adjoining local neighborhoods to access Major Collector and Arterial Streets. The applicant did not provide a preliminary half ('h) street section or commit to construct a half ('/7) street section and left turn lane along the SW Hall Boulevard frontage. Southwest Hall Boulevard is designated as an Arterial Street and is a regional access facility. Assuming a cost $150 per lineal foot, it is estimated that the total cost of the half (' //) street improvements to SW Sattler Street is $219,000. Improvements to SW Sattler Street are not currently listed as eligible for a Transportation Impact Fee credit. It is estimated that the totalcost of the recommended half ('/:) street improvements and left turn lane on SW Hall Boulevard is $127,250. If a traffic signal and realignment work is required, the cost of improvements to SW Hall Boulevard is estimated to be an additional $225,000. Due to the limited distance between the intersections of SW Ross Street and SW Sattler Street at SW Hall Boulevard, the installation of a signal will also require the realignment of SW Ross Street. The _total cost of the street improvements to SW Hall Boulevard is estimated to range between $127,250 and $352,250. portion of the street improvements to SW Hall Boulevard are listed as eligible for a TIF credit. A IF credit of approximately $100,985 would be due for half (1/2) street improvements and the center left turn lane. A supplemental traffic report may also require the installation of a traffic signal at SW Sattler Street and SW Hall Boulevard. It is estimated that this realignment will cost approximately $75,000. A traffic signal at this intersection is estimated to cost $150,000. Because only a portion of the cost of this work is eligible for a TIF credit, approximately $202,250 is creditable if the signal and street realignment are later required. Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $295,750 ($1,690 x 175 dwelling units). Including the range of probable street improvement costs on SW Sattler Street and SW Hall Boulevard, the project developer will be required to mitigate approximately $346,500 to $571,250 of the transportation impact of this development. Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $924,000 ($5,280 x $175). If the signal and realignment work is not required, the unmitigated traffic impact of the development is approximately $540,750. With signalization of SW Hall Boulevard at SW Sattler Street and realignment of SW Ross Street, the unmitigated traffic impact would be reduced to approximately $316,000. For this reason, the cost of all required and potential future street improvement requirements, as discussed within this report, are less than the impact and therefore, isily roughly proportional to the impact of the development. FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96-0006/PDR 96 -0006 - APPLEWOOO PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 11 Use Classification: The applicant is proposing to build detached residential dwellings. This use is classified in Section 18.42 (Use Classifications) as Single- family detached residential. Section 18.42 lists detached single family residences, as a permitted use in the R -7 zone. The applicant proposes to develop 175 detached, single - family residences which is one of the permitted uses within the R -7 Zoning District. The applicant states that they may utilize zero lot line setbacks on certain units but do not propose to develop attached dwelling units. If attached dwelling units are later developed, the applicant is limited to groupings of no more than five (5) attached dwelling units in a row. Dimensional Requirements: Section. 18.52 states that the minimum lot area for each dwelling unit in the R -7 zoning district is 5,000 square feet. An average width of 50 feet is required in the R -7 Zoning District. The proposed 175 dwelling units require a minimum net site area of square feet. Developments within the R -7 zone are required to provide a minimum of 20% ., landscaping. The net site area standard is not applicable because a Planned Development Overlay is implemented through this subdivision. Prior to recording the plat, the applicant shall provide a sample "worst case" floor plan to demonstrate compliance with the 20% minimum landscaping standard. Continuing compliance with this requirement is also the responsibility of the applicant and /or subsequent property owners. Development Standards: Section 18.52 contains standards for the R -7 zone. Single- family detached residential units are a permitted use in the zone, and must comply with the following dimensional requirements: Minimum lot size 5,000 Square Feet Average lot width 50 Feet Front setback 15 Feet Garage setback 20 Feet Interior sideyard setback 5 Feet Corner sideyard setback 10 Feet Rear setback 15 Feet Maximum building height 35 Feet Maximum lot coverage 80 percent Minimum landscape area 20 percent The Planned Development approach to development does not require that a minimum lot size be maintained. The applicants narrative states that all lots on the perimeter of the project are proposed to comply with the standard R -7 setbacks as listed above. The applicant proposes to comply with all other development criteria, but to allow lots located internally to be developed with reduced setbacks as set forth below: Front setback 10 Feet Garage setback 20 Feet Interior sideyard setback 0 Feet Corner sideyard setback 10 Feet Rear setback 0 Feet Maximum building height 35 Feet • FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96-0006 /PDR 96-0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 12 • The applicant states that zero lot line setbacks may be developed on certain lots depending on the future design of the floor plan. In order to avoid confusion by subsequent owners of any lots that are developed with zero lot line residences, the final plat shall be revised to indicate the specific lots that re to be developed with zero lot line setbacks. Planned Development: Section 18.80 allows the option for an applicant to create a more efficient, economically viable development that preserves natural land features while • implementing the density range provided through the Comprehensive Plan. This type of subdivision normally permits higher density than would be possible given the minimum lot size requirement for the zoning district. Section 18.80.130(A)(1) (Planned Development Review - Approval Standards) requires that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of other Community Development Code Sections. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters 18.54, 18.80, 18.88, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.160 and 18.164. The proposal's consistency with these sections has been reviewed within this report. The Planned Development Code Section 18.80 lists Section 18.160 (Subdivisions) as an applicable review criterion for Planned Developments that has been reviewed elsewhere within this report. The Planned Development Review is a three step process as follows: 1) Approval of a planned development overlay zone; 1 The second step is the approval of the planned development concept plan; and J) Approval of a Detailed Development Plan is also required. The Planned Development Overlay. zone was previously done for this site through PD 96 -0001 that was filed in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications that were recently approved for these properties. Because this application is for a subdivision, Section 18.80.015(E) allows the Conceptual and Detailed portions of the Planned Development Review to be consolidated, as is proposed through this action. Section 18.80.120(A)(3) provides further review standards for Planned Development that have been addressed below as follows: Relationship to the natural and physical environment: (i) The streets, buildings, and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography, and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible; (ii) Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and sliding; (iii) There shall be adequate distance between on -site buildings and other on -site and off - site buildings on adjoining properties to provide for adequate light and air circulation and for fire protection; o v) The structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where possible; and (v) Trees with a six inch caliper measured at four feet in height from ground level, shall be saved where possible; FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96- 0006/PDR 96-0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 13 • • The provisions related to adequate light and air are addressed elsewhere within this report by the requirements for the maintenance of minimum setbacks. The Fire District has been provided with a copy of this plan and has provided comments concerning this development. The Tualatin Valley Fire District will conduct a Fire and Life Safety Review prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the site. Solar accessibility is addressed elsewhere within this report. The applicant has proposed to remove trees as part of this development. The tree removal is discussed elsewhere within this report. • Buffering, screening, and compatibility between adjoining uses: (i) Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses (for example, between single - family and multiple- family residential, and residential, and commercial); (ii) In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix, the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under Chapter 18.100: (a) The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier; (b) The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose; (c) The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; (d) The required density of the buffering; and (e) Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile; (iii) On -site screening from view from adjoining properties of such things as service areas, storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: • (a) What needs to be screened; (b) The direction from which it is needed; and (c) Whether the screening needs to be year- round; Screening and buffering are not required where detached, single - family residential uses adjoin other detached, single - family residential uses. Privacy and noise: (i) Non - residential structures which abut existing residential dwellings shall be located on the site or be designed in a manner, to the maximum degree possible, to protect the private areas on the adjoining properties from view and noise; This criteria is not applicable because the applicant has proposed to create future residential building sites. Private outdoor area: residential use: (i) In addition to the requirements of subparagraph (iii), each ground level residential dwelling unit shall have an outdoor private area (patio, terrace, porch) of not less than _ 48 square feet; FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96-0006 /PDR 96-0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 14 (ii) Wherever possible, private outdoor open spaces should be oriented toward the sun; and • ''ii) Private outdoor spaces shall be screened or designed to provide privacy for the use of the space; Provision of common outdoor open space areas is not required because the applicant has proposed to create building sites for single - family residences rather than a multiple - family residential development such as an apartment complex. Shared outdoor recreation areas: residential use: (i) In addition to subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) of this section each multiple- dwelling development shall incorporate shared usable outdoor recreation areas within the development plan as follows: (a) Studio units up to and including two bedroom units, 200 square feet per unit; and (b) Three or more bedroom units, 300 square feet per unit; (ii) Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable from adjacent units for reasons of crime prevention and safety; (iii) The required recreation space may be provided as follows: (a) It may be all outdoor space; or _ (b) It may be part outdoor space and part indoor space; for example, an outdoor tennis court and indoor recreation room; or (c) It may be all public or common space; or (d) It may be part common space and part private; for example, it could be an outdoor tennis court, indoor recreation room, and balconies on each unit; or (e) Where balconies are added to units, the balconies shall not be less than 48 square feet; The provision of common outdoor open space areas is not required because the applicant has proposed to create building sites for single - family residences. Access and circulation: (i) The number of allowed access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.108; (ii) All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles; and (iii) Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways if such facilities are shown on an adopted plan; Three (3) points of access have been proposed to be provided to existing streets through the development of the subdivision. Section 18.108 requires a minimum of two (2) points of access to serve up to 200 dwelling units. Due to the provision of two (2) access points with the development of FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96- 0006/PDR 96 -0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 15 • Phase II, the proposed phasing plan also complies with this standard. The design of the proposed street improvements has been reviewed by the Engineering Department, the Police Department and the Fire District. The Engineering Department reviewed street improvement requirements in detail elsewhere within this report. Completion of the streets throughout the development as specified through the Conditions of Approval will comply with the standards of the Community Development _ Code, as has been reviewed elsewhere within this report. Landscaping and open space: (i) Residential Development: In addition to the requirements of subparagraphs (iv) and (v) of section A of this subsection, a minimum of 20 percent of the site shall be landscaped; (ii) Commercial Development: A minimum of 15 percent of the site shall be landscaped; and (iii) Industrial Development: A minimum of 15 percent of the site shall be landscaped; Section (i) is applicable to this request. Although the lot sizes are expected to be reduced below the 5,000 square foot minimum, the Planned Development review still requires that a minimum of 20% of each site be landscaped. This may limit the unit type under certain circumstances to a two (2) story unit or a smaller one (1) story plan. Section (ii) and (iii) are not applicable because no commercial or industrial development is proposed. Public transit: (i) Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on: (a) The location of other transit facilities in the area; and (b) The size and type of the proposed development; Southwest Hall Boulevard is a transit served facility. Bus stops exist at four (4) locations in the immediate vicinity of the project site. TRI -MET has reviewed this application but has not requested that additional transit facilities be constructed specifically for this development. (ii) The required facilities shall be limited to such facilities as: (a) A waiting shelter; (b) A turn -out area for loading and unloading; and (c) Hard surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area; N• Southwest Hall Boulevard is a transit served facility. Again, bus stops exist at four (4) locations in the immediate vicinity of the project site. TRI -MET has reviewed this application but has not requested that additional transit facilities be constructed specifically for this development. FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96- 00061PDR 96-0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 16 Signs: (i) In addition to the provisions of Chapter 18.114, Signs: (a) Location of all signs proposed for the development site; and (b) The signs shall not obscure vehicle driver's sight distance; All future signage at the site will be reviewed through the sign permit process for conformance with the provisions.of Chapter 18.114. Parking: (i) All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.106; Each of the residences to be developed on these parcels will be reviewed during the Building Permit review process to verify the provision of required off- street parking spaces. Drainage: (i) All drainage provisions shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.84 and the criteria in the adopted 1981 master drainage plan; The Engineering Department reviewed this application and required that the applicant determine that - opacity exists within storm drainage facilities upstream and downstream of the development to .andle the increase in runoff caused by additional impervious surfaces to be developed on this site. Floodplain dedication: (i) Where landfill and /or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100 -year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian /bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. This site does not adjoin areas within the 100 -year floodplain. The City recently updated park system development fees such that the fee that is currently assessed will fund planned park improvements. Park system impact fees will be assessed for each dwelling unit prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Solar Access: Section 18.88.040(C)(1) contains solar access standards for new residential development A lot meets the basic solar access lot standard if it has a north -south dimension of 90 feet or more and has a front lot line that is oriented within 30 degrees of a true east -west axis. A subdivision complies with the basic requirement if 80% or more of the newly created parcels meet this standard. .)iernatively, an applicant can meet the City's Solar Access Standards by complying with the protected Solar Building Line Option or the Performance Option. Energy efficiency is ensured through the location of the residence with sufficient solar access or through the design of the homes that incorporates window glazing with solar orientation. An applicant FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96-0006 /PDR 96-0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 17 • can request an exception to the solar access standards based on the following development constraints: Site topography in excess of a 10 percent slope, shade from existing on -site or off -site vegetation or structures, significant natural features, existing street public easement - patterns, impacts to density, cost or amenities of the project that adds five percent or more to the cost of each lot. As proposed, four (4) of the 175 lots comply with the aforementioned subdivision design alternatives of the Solar Access requirements. The Basic Standard is not met because the Solar Access provisions require that a north -south dimension of 90 feet or more be provided. The applicant has provided a north -south dimension of approximately 50 to 70 feet for the majority of the 175 lots. Due to the applicants use of a Planned Development in conjunction with the approved Planned Development Overlay for the property, it is recommended that the applicant not be required to reconfigure the subdivision to comply with this standard. Based on the north -south dimension of the property, the applicant would likely lose approximately 15% of the project density as stated in the applicant's narrative. For this reason, it is recommended that the Planning Commission allow a 136 lot adjustment to the Solar Access standard. - Solar Balance Point: Section 18.88.050(B) requires that one and two family residences that are developed on lots that were exempted from Compliance with the Basic Solar Access standards comply with the Solar Balance Point requirements. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the developer of each building site will be required to provide calculations that demonstrate compliance with the Solar Balance Point provisions. ' Density: Section 18.92.020 contains standards for determining the permitted project density. - The number of allowable dwelling units is based on the net development area. The net area . is the remaining area, excluding sensitive lands and land dedicated for public roads or parks. The net area is then divided by the minimum parcel size permitted by the zoning district to determine the number of lots that may be created on a site. The applicant has provided calculations concerning the allowed density for this site. The total site area is 27.52 acres or - 1,198,771 square feet. With a 20 percent square footage reduction from this site for public roads, 959,016 square feet is remaining. No floodplain, wetlands, drainageways or steep slopes exist on the property. By dividing the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet into the total buildable area, the applicant is permitted to - develop up to 191 dwelling units. Landscaping : - Section 18.100 contains landscaping standards for new development. The applicant must also comply with the standards set forth in Section 18.100.035 that requires that all development projects fronting on a public or private street, or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length plant street trees. A street tree planting plan was provided with this application. Based on the species size at maturity, the planting plan complies with the spacing standards for species defined as large trees. Section 18.100.035(B) states the specific spacing of street trees by size of tree shall be as follows: 1. Small or narrow stature trees (under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart; 2. Medium sized trees (25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; 3. Large trees (over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart; FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96-0006/PDR 96-0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 18 The preliminary plat map proposes street trees along the street frontage of each of the newly created local street frontages. The applicant proposes to plant 430 Red Sunset Maples at 30 feet on center. A bond or other method of assurance shall be provided ensuring the planting of these trees prior to " the final plat map. Visual Clearance Areas: Section 18.102 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right -of -ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30 foot distance along the street right -of -way and the driveway and then connecting these two 30 foot distance points with a straight line. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, signs, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three feet in height. The height is measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. Through the Building Permit review process, setbacks of the structures will be checked. Based o the location of the buildable areas on this property, it is expected that future site improvements can comply with this requirement. Tree Removal: Section 18.150.025 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be . used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. An arborist report was 'rovided with this application. The report states that; of the 50 total trees in excess of 12 inches in aliper, 22 are healthy trees. Of these 22 healthy trees, none are proposed to be preserved. The 22 healthy trees that are to be removed are a combined 194 caliper inches. The mitigation plan proposes to plant a total of 430 two -inch caliper street trees as replacement. Because a minimum of a two (2) inch caliper street tree is required to be planted regardless of whether the site has existing trees or not, these trees as proposed do not mitigate the loss of the existing healthy trees. This means that a total of 194 caliper inches must also be mitigated on -site, at another site, or payment for the cost of purchasing and planting 194 caliper inches shall be made into a city -wide tree fund. The applicant may also choose to upsize street trees to a three (3) inch caliper as mitigation or plant street trees along the project frontage on SW Hall Boulevard and SW Sather Street. Subdivision Design: Section 18.160.060(A) contains standards for subdivision of parcels into four or more lots. To be approved, a preliminary plat must comply with the following criteria: 1. The proposal must comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations; 2. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92; 3. Streets and roads must be laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of partitions or subdivisions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern; and 4. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96- 0006 /PDR 96 -0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 19 Compliance with the standards listed in Criterion 1 are addressed elsewhere within this staff report. The proposed Applewood Park plat name is not duplicative of other plats. New public streets are proposed through this development. Their compliance with the applicable development standards has been reviewed elsewhere within this report. The applicant also proposes to finish required street frontage improvements along SW Sattler Street, as well as along the public streets that are to serve the development. Through the Conditions of Approval, street improvements of SW Hall Boulevard have been required. An explanation has been provided for the water quality treatment facility. No common areas or other open space facilities have been proposed. Street and Utility Improvements Standards: Section 18.164 contains the following standards for streets and utilities serving a subdivision: Street Improvements: Section 18.164.030(A) requires streets within and adjoining a development to be dedicated and improved based on the classification of the street. The applicant has-been required to complete street improvements such as; curb, gutter and sidewalk along the property frontage on all public streets through the recommended Conditions of Approval. Minimum Rights -of -Way and Street Widths: Section 18.164.030(E) requires a local street to have from 36 to 50 feet of right -of -way and a 24 to 32 foot paved section between curbs and sidewalks depending on the number of dwelling units to be served by the development. The proposed rights -of -way throughout the development comply with the range of permitted widths. It is recommended that the use of the narrowest width (24 -foot) shown throughout the subdivision on the internal local streets, be revised to a 28 -foot width to allow on street parking on one (1) side of the street. As proposed, the development would not allow any on- street parking throughout the development given the minimum clear width requirements of the Uniform Fire Code. A 32 -foot paved width is also recommended for the through streets from SW 88th Avenue to SW Sattler Street due to increased through traffic that will use these streets. Additional street ROW dedications have been required as part of this development in order to complete the required ROW improvements along the development's frontage on SW Hall Boulevard and SW Sattler Street. Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.164.030(F) states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul -de -sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. The applicant has demonstrated compliance with this section by providing this plan. The subdivision as proposed connects to an existing stubbed -out street to the south. Two (2) streets are stubbed -out to the north. No street stubs are possible to the west given the existing buildout condition of the Summerfield Development. Two (2) streets have been stubbed -out to the southeastern portion of the project in order to connect with potential development of this area. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.164.030(G) requires all local streets that abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96-0006/PDR 96 -0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 20 • • precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere _ presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. his site is not precluded from compliance with these standards. The applicant complies with these standards through their future streets plan as addressed above. Curbs. Curb Cuts. Ramps. and Driveway Approaches: Section 18.164.030(N) requires the following: 1. Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with standards specified in this chapter and Section 15.04.080, and; a. Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except b. Where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval; and c. Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to City configuration standards. The listed finish street improvements have been addressed through the Engineering Department's review of the requisite street improvements. Block Design: Section 18.164.040(A) states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall ''e designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, ..onsideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. The block design, as proposed, complies with the applicable dimensional criteria as reviewed below. The dimensional criteria address the needs for convenience in circulation and traffic safety. The site does not have topography or environmental constraints that restrict access options. Block Sizes: Section 18.164.040(B)(1) states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right -of -way line except: 1. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre - existing development or; 2. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. 3. For non - residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. The block sizes, as proposed, comply with this standard. The applicant has provided for future street connectivity, to the extent possible, as discussed under the exceptions listed in Criterion 1. Criterion 2 is applicable because SW Hall Boulevard is an Arterial Street and access is generally restricted to situations where no alternative access is available. For this reason, no direct access has been quested to SW Hall Boulevard. Criteria 3 is not applicable to this development because the site is .. _Jned for residential use. ANAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96- 0006/PDR 96 -0006 - APPLEW00D PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 21 • Block Lengths: Section 18.164.040(B)(2) states that when block lengths greater than 600 feet are permitted, pedestrian /bikeways shall be provided through the block. The blocks, as designed, comply with this requirement except for the likely future block that would be created with development of the vacant property to the southeast of the site. The street plan, as proposed, • appears to be a viable option for development of this property and because the proposed (and future) block length would exceed 600 feet, a pedestrian/bikeway connection shall be provided from SW Jonathon Loop to SW Hall Boulevard. • Development Phasing: Section 18.160.050 provides the following - development approval criteria for phasing of a subdivision: 1) The public facilities shall be scheduled to be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase to ensure provision of public facilities prior to building occupancy; 2) The development and occupancy of any phase shall not be dependent on the use of temporary facilities: a. For purposes of this subsection, a temporary public facility is an interim facility not constructed to the applicable City or district standard; and 3) The phased development shall not result in requiring the City or other property owners to construct public facilities that were required as a part of the preliminary plat. The applicant has proposed to develop the subdivision in a total of three (3) phases. Phase I would have 14 lots. Phase II would have 67 lots. Phase III would develop the remaining 94 lots. The applicant will need to complete certain public facilities such as the permanent sanitary sewer service - connection to SW 88th Avenue prior to development of Phase I. Conditions of approval related to the minimum requirements for timing of street improvements have been provided elsewhere within • this report. Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.164.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. This standard is not applicable to this development because the applicant is subdividing through a Planned Development Overlay for the property. This design approach does not require the applicant to comply with minimum lot size standards, therefore, the lot depth -to -width ratio requirements do not apply. Lot Frontage: Section 18.164.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley for detached single family residences. The minimum frontage width standard is met through this proposal because each lot would have a • minimum of 50 feet of frontage. Sidewalks: Section 18.164.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all residential streets. The Conditions of Approval require that a sidewalk be provided along the property frontage of all Public Streets throughout the development. Sanitary Sewers: Section 18.164.090 requires sanitary sewer service. Sanitary Sewer facilities exist in SW 88th Street south of the site which are expected to have sufficient capacity to meet the additional demand that will be created by the development. FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96- 0006 /PDR 96-0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 22 Storm Drainage: Section 18.164.100 requires adequate provisions for storm water runoff and dedication of easements for storm drainage facilities. Existing storm drainage facilities are in place to serve this site. The applicant is required to demonstrate though the Conditions of Approval that the downstream facilities have sufficient capacity to serve this site. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: Sections' 18.164.030(E)(1)(a) (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), and 18.164.100 (Storm Drains) are required to be addressed through the development review process. A review of other utilities and development requirements related to Grading and Erosion Control, Water Quality, Above Ground Utility Lines and project Phasing are also addressed below: STREETS: Traffic Study Findings A traffic study was prepared by Douglas B. McCollum, PE, dated October 16, 1996. The study considered the potential impact from this development on the existing transportation system. Specifically, the study analyzed five major intersections in the vicinity of this site: SW Hall Boulevard /SW Bonita Road (signalized); SW Hall Boulevard /SW Ross Street (unsignalized); SW Hall Boulevard /SW Sattler Street (unsignalized); SW Hall Boulevard /SW Durham Road (signalized); and N Durham Road /SW 88th Avenue (unsignalized). It was found that with full development of this site, there will be approximately 1,728 new trips per day added to the system. McCollum's report considered a three -phase breakdown for development of this project. Under existing conditions, all intersections function at acceptable levels of service (LOS). For signalized intersections, a LOS of "D" is considered acceptable. For unsignalized intersections, a LOS of "E" is considered acceptable. When taking into consideration the impacts from Phases I and II, which are assumed to be built out by Fall 1997, the report indicates that all intersections will continue to operate at acceptable LOS. However, once Phase Ill is completed, the LOS at SW Hall Boulevard and SW Sattler Street is expected to fall to LOS "F ". The critical movement is eastbound left turns from SW Sattler Street to SW Hall Boulevard. McCollum presented data which analyzed the potential need for a traffic signal at the SW Hall Boulevard /SW Sattler Street intersection. Using criteria from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, McCollum looked at three possible warrants: 1) Warrant 1: Minimum Volume, 2) Warrant 2: Interruption of Continuous Flow and 3) Warrant 11: Peak Hour. For a signal to be warranted, one or more of the above criteria would have to be met. McCollum made a few assumptions that have a direct impact on the warrant analysis: He assumed the 8th highest hour traffic volumes are approximately 70 percent of PM peak hour volumes; FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96- 0006 /PDR 96 -0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 23 2) He assumed right turning volumes can be reduced by 50 percent since right turning vehicles gain very little from signalization; and 3) He assumed that there will be separate eastbound left and right turning lanes on SW Sattler Street at the intersection. - Regarding his first assumption. Both Warrants 1 and 2 consider the 8 highest volume hours in an average day. The 8 hours can be any 8 hours during the day. Short of taking a series of traffic counts, traffic engineers typically assume based on what they know to be peak hour volumes and come up with the 8th highest hour volume of the day. Knowing the 8th highest hour volume will tell the engineer if the warrants can be met. McCollum indicates that PM peak hour volumes are "typically" used in determining the 8th highest hour condition. However, at this intersection, the ., AM peak hour volumes are higher, especially for eastbound traffic on SW Sattler Street. . Therefore, by using the PM peak hour volume, McCollum may have underestimated the 8th highest hour volume. In discussing this assumption with Mr. McCollum, he acknowledged that the AM peak hour appears to be higher in volume and if the AM peak is used to estimate the 8th highest hour, a warrant for the signal may be met after Phase II is constructed. Basically, the intersection is very close to meeting signal warrants. However, the analysis indicates the intersection will function at an acceptable LOS through Phases I and II. Only with the addition of Phase III will the intersection drop to LOS F. Another factor to consider is the potential of a west leg addition at the Hall Boulevard /Ashford Street intersection. The applicant's future street's plan indicates the likely addition of this west leg as part of development of the vacant parcel adjacent to this site. If the west leg is added, the volumes at the SW Sattler Street intersection will likely be reduced and signal warrants may not be met. Mr. McCollum indicated that because the warrant for a signal is very close to being met now, and since there are several assumptions that must be made to try to project how traffic in the vicinity may grow in the next several years, he was uncomfortable in making a recommendation for a signal at this time. ODOT staff had a good suggestion to help with this. analysis. Since the LOS of the intersection _ will be acceptable until build out of Phases I and II (roughly, in year 1997), the applicant should be required to conduct a supplemental traffic study prior to development of Phase III. At that time, it will be possible to better determine if the traffic volume impacts from Phase III will warrant signalization of the intersection. City staff concur with this recommendation and have included an appropriate condition in this decision. The second assumption is acceptable and is based on good engineering judgment as to the impact of right turning vehicles at an intersection. . The third assumption has the most effect on the warrant analysis. McCollum has assumed that there will be separate right and left- turning lanes on SW Sattler Street. At present, there is only one eastbound lane. However, since SW Sattler Street is a minor collector, which will result in a 40 -foot curb -to -curb width when completed, a left turn lane can easily be achieved. Now, if the applicant constructs two separate turning lanes, the warrants for the signal will not be met according to the report. ODOT recommends the separate turning lanes be at least 250 feet in length, to accommodate right- turning vehicles and to minimize the delays imposed while the intersection is operating under unsignalized conditions, and to help ensure efficient operation of the intersection if and when it is signalized. Based on the data contained in the applicant's traffic report, Staff concurs with ODOT's recommendation and has included a condition in this decision. FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96.0006/PDR 96 -0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 24 McCollum also looked at the potential need for a northbound left turn lane in SW Hall Boulevard at SW Satt ler Street. He found that under existing peak hour conditions, the warrant for a left turn lane is met. The applicant is recommending that the left turn lane be constructed as a part of Thase II of the development. However, ODOT has indicated that the left turn lane should be built - -as a part of Phase I, since the warrant is met under existing conditions and the addition of Phase I ' will only make the condition worse. Staff concurs with ODOT's recommendation and has included a condition in this decision. • Finally, McCollum's report addresses the existing offset condition between SW Ross Street and SW Sattler Street on SW Hall Boulevard. At present. the two streets are approximately 100 feet apart. McCollum indicates that there no conflicts between left- turning vehicles at either intersection. If the intersection of SW Sattler Street and SW Hall Boulevard remains unsignalized, there will likely continue to be no conflicts in the left- turning vehicles. However, if SW Sattler Street and SW Hall Boulevard is signalized, the queues on SW Hall Boulevard will likely back up to block SW Ross Street, which indicates the two streets would either have to be aligned or moved farther apart. The City recently purchased ROW east of SW Hall Boulevard and south of SW Ross Street to accommodate the future realignment of SW Ross Street to align with SW Sattler Street. The City will require this realignment as a part of development when either the property east of SW Hall Boulevard, adjacent to SW Ross Street develops, or as part of development on the west side of SW Hall Boulevard if a signal at SW Sattler Street and SW Hall Boulevard is warranted. SW Hall Boulevard SW Hall Boulevard is classified as an arterial street and is under ODOT jurisdiction. At present, •Lie ROW (ROW) on SW Hall Boulevard measures 30 feet from centerline. The arterial street ..tandard requires a minimum of 45 feet from centerline. The applicant is proposing to dedicate additional ROW to provide 45 feet from centerline. ODOT provided comments to the City in response to the traffic report discussed in the previous section. ODOT recommends the applicant construct a half- street improvement in SW Hall Boulevard, along with the left -turn lane widening, as a part of Phase I. Since the left turn lane is warranted under existing conditions, Staff concurs with ODOT's opinion and recommends the applicant be required to construct the improvements in SW Hall Boulevard as a part of Phase I. SW Sattler Street SW Sattler Street is classified as a minor collector street and currently is paved, but not fully improved adjacent to this site. The minimum ROW required for a minor collector street is 30 feet from centerline; the existing ROW measures 25 feet. The applicant proposes to dedicate additional ROW to provide 30 feet from centerline. The applicant will be required to construct a half - street improvement adjacent to this site. Since the project will be phased, the applicant will likely build Sattler in phases, which is acceptable to the City provided the portion from SW Hall Boulevard to the western boundary of Phase I is constructed as a part of Phase I. The street improvement shall be wide enough to provide two istbound travel lanes at least 250 feet in length, and also allow for a westbound travel lane. FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96-0006/PDR 96 -0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 25 Proposed Interior Street System The applicant is proposing an interior street system that contains some narrower streets. TMC 18.164.030(E), Figure 23, provides the required ROW and pavement widths for public streets in the City. The standard ROW width for a residential street is 50 feet and the pavement width is 32 feet. The 32 feet allows for two travel lanes and room to park adjacent to both curbs. Figure 23 also provides for a narrower street under certain conditions. For example, for a through street serving less than 50 homes (less than 500 trips per day), the ROW width can be reduced to as low as 40 feet and the pavement width between 24 feet and 28 feet. That reduction eliminates parking on one side of the roadway. The applicant is proposing several narrow streets within the project that would have a 40 -foot ROW and a 24 -foot pavement width. The City recommends a pavement width of 28 feet minimum unless topographic constraints absolutely necessitate a reduction in width to 24 feet. The applicant's site does not pose any topographic constraints that would require • the minimum width. The applicant could provide a 28 -foot pavement section, 5 -foot sidewalks on both sides and still fit within a 40 -foot ROW. Therefore, Staff recommends the applicant's narrow streets provide a minimum of 28 feet of pavement curb -to -curb. It is Staffs opinion that street connections that can provide a continuous route through this site should be constructed to the full residential street width (50 -foot ROW, 32 -foot pavement). Based on that opinion, the following streets in the project should be of the standard width (using applicant's proposed names): SW 89th Avenue (at southwest corner of site); _ •_ SW McIntosh Avenue (shown narrow on plan); SW Cortland Street; SW 89th Avenue (from Cortland to Rome Beauty); SW Granny Smith Street (shown narrow on plan); SW Rome Beauty Street (from 90th to 88th); SW 90th Avenue (from Rome Beauty to Sattler); SW 88th Avenue (from Rome Beauty to Sattler); and SW Ashford Street (stub street to east from 89th Avenue). This will require three of the applicant's proposed streets to be wider (SW McIntosh, SW Granny Smith, SW Rome Beauty and the SW Ashford Street stub to the east). The remainder of the - streets can be built to the narrower width discussed previously. Proposed Street Names '" . In reviewing the proposed street names for the project, a few challenges were encountered. Staff consulted with the Washington County Surveyor's office who indicated that two- word'street names _- are not allowed. Therefore, the applicant will need to select different names for the streets shown as "SW Granny Smith" and "SW Rome Beauty ". These changes should be made prior to recording the final. plat. The other challenge is with respect to existing streets with the name "SW 88th Avenue ". There is a street at the southwest corner of the site named "SW 88th Avenue" and a street near the northeast corner across from Sattler named "SW 88th Avenue ". There is also SW 91st Avenue _ near the northwest corner of the site. This presents a difficult problem in naming north /south streets within the project. The applicant has done a good job of "fitting" streets into the naming FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96-0006 /PDR 96-0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 26 • constraints. However, the street proposed to be called "SW 89th Avenue" at the southwest corner should be revised to be "SW 88th Avenue" since it is an extension of SW 88th Avenue from the south. This change should be made prior to recording the final plat. ne Police Department suggests SW Newton Lane be renamed because there will likely be confusion between it and SW Newton Loop. The same holds true for SW Jonathan Lane. It should also be renamed to avoid confusion with SW Jonathan Loop. Staff recommends the applicant also make these changes prior to recording the final plat. SANITARY SEWER: There is an existing eight inch sanitary sewer line in SW 88th Avenue across from Sattler Street that has capacity to serve this site. The applicant's plan indicates the sanitary sewer system will flow toward this existing line. The plan also indicates that sanitary sewer main -line stubs will be provided in SW 88th Avenue and SW Ashford Street to the vacant parcel adjacent to this site. STORM DRAINAGE: The topography of this site is gentle and falls primarily toward the east. The applicant is proposing to convey the storm water from this project to a water quality and detention pond and then tie into an existing public storm drainage pipe in SW 88th Avenue across from SW Sattler Street. The applicant's engineer is proposing the detention facility because he has determined that the additional storm water from this development will exceed the capacity of the downstream system. preliminary calculations indicate the applicant will have ample area on the site to provide the 3cessary pond size. Final design and calculations for the storm system and detention pond will be reviewed by the City prior to construction of Phase I. WATER: There are existing public water lines in SW Hall Boulevard, SW Sattler Street, and SW 88th Avenue (at southwest corner of site). The applicant's plan indicates public water lines will be extended through this site to serve the new lots. The public improvement plans shall include details of the proposed water system extensions. 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. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan is required to be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of R &O 91-47. In addition, the applicant shall submit ^ maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to .nstruction. Once all of the public improvements in the entire project (all three phases) are constructed and accepted by the City, the applicant will be required to maintain the facility for a period of three (3) years. FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96- 0006/PDR 96-0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 27 The applicant is proposing to construct one water quality /detention pond on this site to treat the storm water. 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. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. PHASING OF PROJECT: • The applicant is proposing to break this project into three phases, which is allowed under TMC 18.160.050. The public improvements associated with each phase in this project shall be substantially complete prior to recording of the plat and issuance of building permits in each • particular phase to ensure_ adequate public facilities are available for home construction. EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES: 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. There are existing overhead utility lines along both SW Hall Boulevard and SW Sattler Street. The lines on SW Hall Boulevard are adjacent to the eastern ROW line, and the lines on SW Sattler Street are adjacent to the northern ROW line. It is likely that the applicant will not be able to underground the portions of these lines adjacent to the project frontage; therefore, a fee will likely be required. The fee will be calculated by the Engineering Department and will be payable prior to approval of the final plat. • SECTION V: OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Building Department reviewed this proposal and have offered the following comments: 1) All existing buildings shall be demolished. A demolition permit is required. 2) All utilities and wells shall be removed or satisfactorily abandoned. The Water Department reviewed this proposal and provided the following comment: The developer shall submit plans to the water department for review and approval of the water system layout. FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96-0006 /PDR 96-0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 28 . • • Other affected departments have reviewed this application and have offered no comments - or objections. SECTION VI: AGENCY COMMENTS The Tualatin Valley Fire District reviewed this proposal and offered the following comments: 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, "No Parking" signs shall be installed on one (1) 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.(l)(2) & (3). 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. 903.4.2.2). (he 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). The Plans Examiner for the Tualatin Valley Fire District also states that on all streets. with less than a 28 -foot paved ROW section that the requirement for "No Parking" signs can be waived where the homes are sprinklered. Parking is allowed on one (1) side of the street where the pavement width is a minimum of 28 feet. The "No Parking" sign requirement can also be waived for the other side of the street where the homes are sprinklered as provided below: 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). The Unified Sewerage Agency reviewed this proposal and provided the following comments: unitary Sewer: Each lot within the development must be provided with a means for sanitary sewer disposal. The means of disposal shall be in accordance with R &O 96-44 (Unified Sewerage Agency's FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96- 0006/PDR 96 -0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 29 Construction Design Handbook, July 1996 edition). Verify that public sanitary sewer is available to uphill adjacent properties or extend service as required by R &O 96-44. Storm Sewer: —� Each lot within the development shall be provided with access to public storm sewer. Verify that public storm sewer is available to up hill adjacent properties or extend storm service as required by R & 0 96-44. Hydraulic and hydrological analysis of storm system conveyance is required. If downstream storm conveyance does not have capacity to convey the volume during a 25 -year, 24 -hour storm event, the applicant is responsible for mitigating the flow. Water Quality: The existing ponds are sensitive areas as defined in R & 0 96-44. The applicant intends to -. request credit for water quality. Credit is only available for improvements to pond which create . additional water quality treatment. Developer must provide a water quality facility to treat the new impervious surface being constructed as part of this development. ODOT: SW Hall Boulevard is under State jurisdiction and any improvement will require their approval and permits. Note: The existing ponds on this site were apparently created years ago for livestock watering and other agricultural purposes. That applicant has provided a statement from a wetlands biologist that the existing ponds do not contain the requisite soil type, flora, and fauna to be defined as a wetlands. A water quality facility is proposed to be developed within the subdivision. The water quality facility is reviewed elsewhere by the Engineering Department within this report. TRI -MET reviewed this proposal and provided the following comments: Provide pedestrian links to destinations adjacent to the site. Paths are recommended in order to encourage pedestrian use by improving accessibility to the site and to off -site destinations such as transit stops. Including these paths will provide "shortcuts" for pedestrians and will reduce the travel distance to local destinations. . :,. Mark street crossings with a change in paving materials where sidewalks and interior streets •- intersect. Painted crossings wear off with use and are generally not maintained over time. Providing a change in paving materials delineates the pathway and distinguishes the pedestrian network from car, bike, or transit circulation. This makes crossing safer by alerting drivers to approaching pedestrians. Stub streets and .sidewalks to the property line where future phased development is expected. The parcel to the southeast of the site is marked for future phased development and is proposed to tie in with the current phase of the Applewood Park Subdivision. We recommend that all roads and sidewalks adjacent to this future development be extended to and stubbed at the property lines. FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96-0006 /PDR 96 -0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 30 The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) reviewed this proposal and provided the following comments: The applicant shall design and construct a left turn lane on SW Hall Boulevard at SW Sattler Street prior to Phase 1 of the development. As part of these k- nprovements, the applicant shall design and construct half- street improvements along their ighway frontage to provide curb and sidewalk, a six (6) foot bike lane, and a seven (7) foot half - median. The applicant shall design and construct half- street improvements on SW Sattler Street prior to Phase 1 of the development as directed by the City. These improvements shall include the design and construction of two (2) eastbound travel lanes on the approach to SW Hall Boulevard, a minimum of 250 feet long. Prior to initiating Phase 3 of the development, the applicant shall conduct a supplementary traffic study to evaluate the anticipated level of service and traffic signal warrants at the SW Hall Boulevard /SW Sattler Street intersection, based on the transportation network that exists in the area at that time. (The primary factors would be whether additional development had occurred along SW Ross Street and whether a roadway existed connecting Phase 3 to• the SW Hall Boulevard /SW Ashford Street intersection.) If ODOT determined the installation of a traffic signal at SW Hall Boulevard and SW Sattler Street was warranted and desirable at that time, the design and construction of the signal would become a condition of approval for Phase 3. (It is anticipated that the signal installation would include the realignment of SW Ross Street across from SW Sattler Street, if such realignment had not taken place by that time, and interconnection with the signals at SW Bonita Road and SW Durham Road.) None of the development's lots will be allowed direct access to SW Hall Boulevard. The traffic ,pact study indicates a left turn lane is currently warranted on SW Hall Boulevard at SW Sattler Street. Therefore, we recommend it be constructed prior to Phase 1, rather than the report's recommendation of Phase 2. The recommendation for two (2) lanes approaching the SW Hall Boulevard intersection on SW Sattler Street is intended to minimize the delays imposed on the side street traffic while the intersection is operating under stop control and to help ensure efficient operation of the intersection if and when it's signalized. The recommended length of the two (2) lanes is intended to ensure adequate storage is provided for signalized and unsignalized control. In the signal warrant analysis, the report assumes the 8th highest hour traffic volume would be 70% of the PM peak. However, for residential streets such as SW Sattler Street, the peak hour for traffic entering the highway is often the AM peak. Therefore, using 70% of the PM peak may underestimate the 8th highest hour side street volume. • According to the report, the intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable level of service through Phase 2 of the development. Therefore, even if the intersection did meet signal warrants, signalizing the intersection would not be necessary at that time. Assuming no additional accesses to SW Hall Boulevard are created, the level of service for the eastbound left turn is expected to reach "F" with Phase 3. In that case, signalization should be considered if the traffic volumes • •'arrant it. FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96-0006 /PDR 96 -0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 31 In addition, our Maintenance District staff will need to review drainage plans. On -site detention or filtration may be required. Curb and sidewalk to ADA standards, and provisions to accommodate stormwater will be required along the Hall Boulevard frontage. r ,. All work in the SW Hall Boulevard ROW will require an ODOT permit. Other affected agencies have reviewed this application and have offered no comments or objections. SUBDIVISION APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID ONLY IF THE FINAL PLAT IS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF TIGARD WITHIN EIGHTEEN MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. It is further ordered. that the applicant and the parties to these proceedings be notified of the entry of this order. • • PASSED: This 16 day of December, 1996 by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard, Oregon. {Signature box below} Nick 1/Mk son, President City of Tigard Planning Commission i:curpinksub96-06.fo . FINAL ORDER NO. 96-09 BY THE P.C. SUB 96- 0006/PDR 96 -0006 - APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 32 i. ( ' ) t•\ !---- -.1 I- - - .-i . ; r rrTT 1 1. �, r �- , , , . .i - 1 _.�'I4}J 1 '1 , �p • p •I, , LL ra ` l / / 'I 1 II 1 1 • 1 •t 1 1 1 � 1 11611 ' I. ,'I 'VIII • ; ''I 'I el ''I 'I II.' I, , 1 p . \,�/ N I _ , 1;1 1 ' 1.1 ' 1 n1 1'I • I ryas • 1'I • ,1 ,1 1'1.1 ' ,/ 111 I 1 • - _— � ,I, . I . ; 1 1It•l /i'1• 1 � ,I,•1,,1 't1 / 1.1,1as fll I —i j -u 1 / I {� ili'l _ 1 1 • - -I 1 h ' 11, 1• ,Il, •, , � y ,l , :i1-17.1 1. } 1. ��� 1 N _ _ ,'I, I `'111'1 .1 1 1 '.'1 ,1 I ,'I' ,'I I 1 I I / 1 ' I 1 1'1'1,1 1 I :1.I. '1 II 1 [uii'i. 1,111'1• r I "1 _ I- s- --11 ' I I •• 11)4 I �; •, •l y� , I1 I '111111 1 • 1 I 1• � j • 1 I , `d I 1 --._ ._.- _ I • 1, 1 1 w 11 • I 1 I E . 'L ' }L' •'1 1 'I' '� '1 I . • 1 :.�_L.� -- - I. • :old I I' 'I ' '1• i 'I' • I J '. .., 1 i NI I / ; ; � 1_ J , Imo_ i w __ 1 1 ....... If : ,'1• 1 �1 1 I` f . . I ( - • /� 1 ( iii 1 • 1 D '� I �.._,... — _ A Alt -f7 ' • CD CD fD "" r 1 - 1 , �I 1! I c o ° o i ; f-- 1 . . \ \ /l• 1! ' / ' �' 1 , =1 00 0 _ O 1 1 it \\ \'' "I' 111 1 I II C Ch 13 -- S -,_-_,......:::-• • ,---- 7. r---- f •-•-_-:- , ..t,,----- ji - •., - ..„ _ I ,� U) _________6 . I ii. , ... . .. ,E . , .... j , I .. .J., I •Z a 4_ -- _ 1.4.. MAIL iouirvARO - - - -- L co7uNi_►_ i ROA � Narp;y— I I I 1 1" 11 1 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DEPT A: \ . Ti -r- ` cJ -I L- L ' 1 - __ _ — - f_ �,1_t -- , 4 S !tPii ► ■ —_ . / _� _ - - - -,_ ism% . .,...,,, win i , • � 1 MI IN ■ . __ . 1 ipi1 I r ♦ I" _ 1 . ■1♦ . #j` -40 4 Pf; J, . I TJI'! .. u I L . • 1 . woo • ' k L I , Q i i i i ��� ■ � ■ i ", - , I ∎ . . y � � �,` ' 1��� v � � = : ► O' 40 r a I. _ UN X111 `\ IMO MI - 71111P %Mild 2 _ _ Al IA II 11_ . II C O'. ■ •0 ' 1 ■. r C i • III MN = E 1, • • 4 / i l / i4 I 1 - ]1:.1 1 1 111 11 i:a1L '� I i l e1 1 � - 4, ni l `:�:� �I �I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■�■ ri yid �41 4 I II I 11. rd 111/: in am„,... - ! LE — I T to rs■ as gr.,,,,:ollialigh aismsewellAk.w.‘1, - ISmi i : : z1;> IN .11 AV lialdragral �'t' ;;. PAW 4 film ■■ CfD O : "YYr " 4 , '9' i C !ii aka ��� • - - '- �`'► �� ~ " a": `.'_' All b; I • - IL IM li alms so ,_... g ■p ,- - - - - -- -- _ ��. - - - -- � -W =' ■L� C /�� g� ��A rt��,� ;;� p !f��l ►� ii l � ■ ■ � =Omit §. 'S' \ iv - =-�� 4 i lei O N Zit= =� : ` - � i Cs inn = - ingot_ 111 _ =1 11. � - 11111 ?am p . �c ---- � - rrrrnnf -- - - m —_�i∎• " - .r 'ram : iiiiiiif ■ 1 �� our iL ■ � -� 1 = ■II 111 r �-y �• I ■■■ IIIIIIw— ■ ..1. --, � . 4�.IIIII.�1 i 1111111\. Inv .'1 I„r '�� 1 • S• ,I' -- C 1111 �� I- U P 8 9\ X11 = : e ���� ®® ® c) ortiiim" / 11 si 1, ,,, i n ii- -40- ____ City of d PhnningDepame _ _. ., , .. . 4 ___„.., „....,