The URL can be used to link to this page

Hearings Officer Packet - 02/14/2005HEARINGS OFFICER MONDAY - FEBRUARY 14, 2005 - 7:00 PM Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Hearings Officer meetings by noon on the Friday prior to the meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, Fact. 2438 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments and qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. To request such services, please notify the City of Tigard of your need(s) by 5:00 p.m., no less than one (1) week prior to the meeting date at the same phone numbers listed above so that we can make the appropriate arrangements. Hearings are held in Town Hall at the City of Tigard at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Staff reports are available to the public 7 days prior to the hearing date 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 "APPEAL" OF GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2004-00012 ITEM ON APPEAL: On December 7, 2004 the Director issued a decision to approve a request for a 25-lot single-family attached home Subdivision on approximately 1.92 acres, an Adjustment to reduce the minimum density from 31 to 25 units, and an Adjustment to reduce the street spacing along a collector from 200 to 50 feet. On December 20, 2004 an appeal was filed concerning the close proximity of the proposed single-family homes to the rear yards of the neighboring properties to the south. The appellant is also appealing the City's interpretation of the Community Development Code regarding yard location. LOCATION: 13900 SW Barrows Road; WCTM 1 S133CA, Tax Lot 2100. ZONE: R-25: Medium High-Density Residential District. The R-25 zoning district is designed to accommodate existing housing of all types and new attached single-family and multi-family housing units at a minimum lot size of 1,480 square feet. A limited amount of neighborhood commercial uses are permitted outright and a wide range of civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.510, and 18.745. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT Page 1 of 1 Depending on the number of people wishing to testify, the Tigard Hearing's Officer may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Hearing's Officer may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Hearing's Officer to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO.: 2.1 DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 2005 PAGE 1 OF FILE NAME: "APPEAL" OF GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION CASE NOS.: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2004-00012 DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS (VAR) 2004-00055 & 85 IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY ON THE ITEM INDICATED ABOVE, PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS & INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE PROPONENT - (Speaking In Favor or Neutral) OPPONENT - (Speaking Against Na e, Addres ip Code and Ph ne No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 119'1-7544) 7W4-z-"/'001f> 17 61 %5 S W 'rAc c, ~-l aoO tN~ Tides P4 5-7 T1 Or-l*v , o K~ -m---s------------------------- Na e, Addres, ZipCode and Phone No. I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. -\-=Co\ ---1- Name-,Address, Zip deand Phone No. I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone N;. . 1 Name, Address, Zip Code and Phon Igo. 1 Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 1 Name, Address, Zip Cod and Phone No. 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 1 I 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - COMMUNITY NEWSPAPEY~S 1325 SW Caster Drive, Portland, OR 97219 • PO Box 370 • Beaverton, OR 97075 Phone: 503.684.0380 Fax: 503.020.3433 Email: IegaladverOsino@commaewspapers.com AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Accounting Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of general circulation, published at Beaverton, in the aforesaid county and state, as defined by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that City of Tigard - Appeal of Gabriel Wood Subdivision SUB2004-00012, ADJ2004-00055, VAR2004-00085 CNI TT10525 a copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for successive and consecutive weeks in the following issues January 27, 2005 aavl c Charlotte Allsop (Accounting anager) Subscribed and sworn to before me this • CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING ITEM The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Monday February 14, 2005 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.390. Testimony may be submitted in writing prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on that issue. Failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. If you want to inspect the file, please call and make an appointment with either the project planner or the planning technicians. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Mathew Scheidegger at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 503-639-4171. SUBDIVISION SUB 2004-000121ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2004-00055/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2004-00085- > APPEAL OF GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION < ITEM ON APPEAL: On December 7 2004 the Director issued a decision to approve a request for a 25-lot single-family attached home Subdivision on approximately 1.92 acres, and Adjustment to reduce the minimum density from 31 to 25 units, and an Adjustment to reduce the street spacing along a collector from 200 to 50 feet. On December 20, 2004 an appeal was filed concerning the close proximity of the proposed single-family homes to the rear yards of the neighboring properties to the south. The appellant is also appealing the City's interpretation of the Community Development Code regarding yard location. LOCATION: 13900 SW Barrows Road; WCTM IS133CA, Tax Lot 2100. ZONE: R-25: Medium High-Density Residential District. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.510, 18.745, and 18.810. January 7, 2005 NOTARY PUBLIC FOR O ON My My commission expires Acct # 10093001 City of Tigard Attn: Accounts Payable 13125 SW Hall.Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Size sl /O Amount Due $ 10 00 • remit to address above TT 10525 Publish January 27, 2005 NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDR VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED-TO THE PURCHASER Cm OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2005 AT 7:00 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NOS.: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2004-00012 ADUSTMENT (VAR) 2004-000SS ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2004-00085 FILE TITLE: APPEAL OF GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION APPLICANT: Barry Sandhorst OWNER: Windfall Design and Construction, Inc. 23281 SW Boskey Dell Lane West Linn, OR 97068 APPLICANT'S Lee Leighton, AICP REP.: Westlake Consultants, Inc. 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150 Tigard, OR 97224 Evelyn M. Karts TR 12954 SE 128 Avenue Clackamas, OR 97015 APPELLANT: Kenneth F. MacDonald Pebble Creek Home Owners 11563 SW Tallwood Drive Tigard, OR 97223 ITEM ON APPEAL: On December 7, 2004 the Director issued a decision to approve a request for a 25-lot single-family attached home Subdivision on approximately 1.92 acres, an Adjustment to reduce the minimum density from 31 to 25 units, and an Adjustment to reduce the street spacing along a collector from 200 to 50 feet. On December 20, 2004 an appeal was filed concerning the close proximity of the proposed single-family homes to the rear yards of the neighboring properties to the south. The appellant is also appealing the City's interpretation of the Community Development Code regarding yard location. LOCATION: 13900 SW Barrows Road; WCTM 1S133CA, Tax Lot 2100. ZONE: R-25: Medium High-Density Residential District. The R-25 zoning district is designed to accommodate existing housing of all types and new attached single-family and multi-family housing units at a minimum lot size of 1,480 square feet. A limited amount of neighborhood commercial uses are permitted outright and a wide range of civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.510, 18.745, and 18.810. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.390 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER AND CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL 503-639-4171, EXT. 2438 (VOICE) OR 503-684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT \.A.IREN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOb-OACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE HEARINGS OFFICER MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS LESS THAN 7 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE, THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY MAY ALLOW A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING, SUBJECT TO ORS 215.428 OR 227.178. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ORS 197.763(6). INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL BE BASED UPON THE CRITERIA LISTED OR OTHER CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH THE PERSON BELIEVES TO APPLY TO THE DECISION. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST, ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AND ALL PARTIES TO RESPOND PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25C) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. IF YOU WANT TO INSPECT THE FILE, PLEASE CALL AND MAKE AN APPOINTMENT WITH EITHER THE PROJECT PLANNER OR THE PLANNING TECHNICIANS. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25C) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER MATHEW SCHEIDEGGER AT 503-639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. • BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an appeal of an administrative decision ) FINAL ORDER approving an application for a 25-lot subdivision and ) SUB2004-00012, VAR2004- adjustments on a 1.92 acre parcel in the R-25 zone at ) 00055 & VAR2004-00085 13900 SW Barrows Road in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Gabriel Woods) A. SUMMARY 1. The applicant, Windfall Design and Construction, Inc., requests approval of a preliminary plan for a 25-lot subdivision of a 1.92-acre parcel located at 13900 SW Barrows Road; also known as Tax Lot 2100, WCTM 1S133CA (the "site"). The site and surrounding properties are zoned R-25 (Medium High Density Residential). Surrounding properties are developed with multi-family units to the north and east, single-family homes to the south and a Verizon switching facility to the west. The applicant proposes to remove an existing dwelling and outbuilding from the site and to develop each of the 20 new lots with a single-family attached dwelling. The applicant will extend a new public street, proposed SW Anna Lane, into the site from SWpBarrows Road, terminating in a cul-de-sac near the east boundary of the site. The applicant will extend new private streets along the east and west boundares of the site, south of Anna Lane. The applicant will also dedicate right of way and construct frontage improvements along the site's SW Barrows Road frontage. The applicant proposes to collect storm water from imperious areas of the site and convey it to a stormwater facility in the northeast corner of the site for treatment, detention and discharge to the existing storm sewer in Barrows Road. All proposed lots will be served by public water and sanitary sewer systems. The applicant also requests approval of two Adjustments: to reduce the street spacing along a collector from 200 to 50 feet and to reduce the minimum density from 31 units to 25 units due to the irregular lot size, surrounding development and existing trees. 2. On December 7, 2004, the Tigard Planning Manager (the "manager") issued a Type II decision approving the application subject to conditions of approval. On December 16, 2004, the City received an appeal of the Director's decision on behalf of Kenneth F. MacDonald and the Pebblecreek Homeowners Association (the "appellants"). The appeal alleged that the applicant and the City "manipulated the Code" to allow a 6-foot side yard setback on the south boundary of the site, which will have a significant adverse impact on existing homes within the abutting Pebblecreek subdivision. 3. On February 14, 2005, Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer Joe Turner (the "hearings officer") conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal. City staff recommended the hearings officer deny the appeal and affirm the manager's decision. See the Memorandum to the Hearings Officer dated January 28, 2005 (the "Memorandum"). Representatives of the applicant testified in support of the application. Three persons testified in support of the appeal. The principal issues in the appeal include the following: a. Whether the applicant can reduce the development density on the site to increase the setback between the site and abutting homes to the south; b. Whether the proposed development complies with the dimensional requirements of the R-25 zone; c. Whether the proposed buffer along the south boundary of the site complies with the requirements of TMC 18.745.030; 0 • d. Whether the applicant is required to modify the tentative plan to reduce the impact of the development on adjacent residents; e. Whether the proposed development will impact the existing fence on the south boundary of the site and whether such impacts are relevant to the applicable Code criteria; and f. Whether the proposed development complies with the off-street parking requirements of TMC 18.765. 4. Based on the findings and conclusions contained herein and the testimony and evidence in the public record, the hearings officer denies the appeals and affirms the administrative decision conditionally approving the application with certain modifications for the reasons provided herein. B. HEARING AND RECORD HIGHLIGHTS 1. The hearings officer received testimony at the public hearing about this application on February 14, 2005. All exhibits and records of testimony are filed with the Tigard Department of Community Development. At the beginning of the hearing, the hearings officer made the declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected testimony and evidence offered at the hearing. 2. City planner Matt Scheidegger summarized the appeal and his January 28, 2005 Memorandum in response to the appeal. 3. Lee Leighton testified on behalf of the applicant. He testified that the applicant's representatives met with the appellants and tried to arrive at a compromise solution. He testified that the applicant proposed to align the buildings with the side yards facing south to reduce the impact of rear yard balconies facing towards abutting homes and yards. a. He testified that the applicant held a neighborhood meeting prior to submitting the application as required by the City. The development plans presented at the neighborhood meeting were expressly identified as a work in progress and subject to change. The applicant submitted the same plan to the City. City staff informed the applicant that the plans did not meet the Code requirements and would be denied. The applicant revised the development design to address staff's concerns. The revised plan approved by the City complies with all applicable approval criteria, as modified by the density adjustment. b. He noted that the applicant proposed to provide additional landscaping along the south boundary of the site to buffer the adjacent subdivision and soften the visual Impact vi U11, Yroposcu 0u u~ ~u►w. 11c uleuuvuvu 1.c1a11U L yIJ1 UJ as all exa111P1C U1 L110 Lype of tall columnar evergreen tree the applicant intends to plant in the buffer area. The applicant's landscape architect will propose specific plant species based on the specific planting conditions including soils, light, hydrology etc. that occur in the buffer area. c. He noted that many of the issues raised at the hearing exceed the scope of the appeal, because the issues were not raised during the initial comment period. d. He opined that the Code allows building eaves to project two to three feet into the setback area. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00012, AR2004-00055 & VAR2004-00085(Gabriel Woods) Page 2 • e. He testified that the proposed development will not impact the existing fence on the south boundary of the site. The applicant will construct the required masonry wall behind the fence. The wall will support and strengthen the fence. i. He argued that the wall is unnecessary and could be replaced with denser landscaping. The top of the wall will be roughly three feet below the top of the fence, due to the elevation difference between the site and the abutting properties. He requested the hearings officer allow the applicant to replace the wall with additional landscaping if the Code allows. f. He argued that Mr. Goodrich's plan to shift the development to the north would reduce the size of many of the proposed lots below the minimum dimensions allowed by the Code. The City would be unlikely to approve a variance to allow smaller lots, because the current development plan demonstrates that it is feasible to comply with the Code. g. He testified that the building envelopes shown on the plans are the maximum potential building envelopes. The actual buildings may be smaller. Garages will be designed to provide a 20-foot setback as required by the Code. The applicant can cantilever the upper story over the garage if necessary. 4. Harold Carpenter noted that the applicant's original plans proposed a 20-foot setback along the south boundary of the site, abutting the Pebblecreek subdivision. The plans approved by the City provide a 6-foot setback. The reduced setback will have a significant impact on abutting homes. The Leland Cyprus trees the applicant proposed to plant within the setback area will not survive in the wet soil condition that will occur in that area. He questioned whether and to what extent building roof eaves may extend into the setback. He noted that there is an existing fence located on the common boundary between the site and the Pebblecreek development. However the site is lower than the adjacent lots in Pebblecreek. Grading on the site may undermine the supporting posts and cause the fence to fall. 5. Ken MacDonald questioned whether the applicant has a right to remove the existing fence on the boundary between the site and the Pebblecreek development. The fence supports landscaping, lights and other amenities on his property. He questioned how the City measures the height of the required six-foot wall. Given the elevation difference between the site and the Pebblecreek development, a six-foot wall on the site will appear as a three-foot wall on his property south of the site. a. He argued that the applicant should have provided a revised plan that included all of the changes required by the City in order to facilitate the public's review of the development. 6. City Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff testified that the applicant is required to construct a wall along the south boundary of the site. The applicant can build the wall behind the existing fence, leaving the fence in place. He noted that the alternative plan proposed by Mr. Goodrich does not provide adequate setbacks between the garage door and the street. Vehicles parked in the driveways would hang over the sidewalk in violation of the Code. 7. Architect and neighboring resident Dan Goodrich argued that the applicant could modify the proposed development to reduce its impact on residents of the Pebblecreek development. The applicant could shift the development towards the north to provide a Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00012, AR2004-00055 & VAR2004-00085(Gabriel Woods) Page 3 greater setback along the south boundary of the site. He submitted an alternative plan for the site. He argued that the applicant "should be sensitive" to the neighbors. a. He opined that the spread footings for the building and wall foundations will leave a two-foot wide planting area along the south boundary of the site, which is inadequate to support the proposed Leland Cyprus trees. b. He testified that there is a roughly 3-foot grade difference between the site and the Pebblecreek development. 8. At the end of the hearing, the hearings officer closed the public record, and announced his intention to deny the appeal and affirm the manager's decision. C. DISCUSSION 1. TDC 18.390.040.G authorizes the hearings officer to hear appeals of Type II decisions, such as the city's decision conditionally approving the subdivision application. TDC 18.390.040.G.2.b provides that appeals: [S]hall be limited to the specific issues raised during the written comment period, as provided under Section 18.390.040.C, unless the Hearings Officer, at his or her discretion, allows additional evidence or testimony concerning any other relevant issue. The Hearings Officer may allow such additional evidence if he or she determines that such evidence is necessary to resolve the case. The intent of this requirement is to limit the scope of Type II Administrative Appeals by encouraging persons with standing to submit their specific concerns in writing during the comment period. The written comments received during the comment period will usually limit the scope of issues on appeal. Only in extraordinary circumstances should new issues be considered by the Hearings Officer on appeal of a Type II Administrative Decision. 2. The hearings officer finds that the proposed development complies with the setback, building height and other requirements of the zoning district. a. The site is zoned R-25 (Medium Density Residential), which requires a minimum density of 31 dwelling units on this 1.92-acre site. The applicant requested and the City approved an adjustment to reduce the density to 25 units due to the irregular lot size, surrounding development and existing trees pursuant to TMC 18.370.020.C.2. Absent the adjustment the applicant would be required to develop the site with at least 31 dwelling units, which would likely require multi-family (apartment) units. The applicant could not provide 31 single family attached homes on this site. i. The applicant cannot reduce the number of dwelling units on the site. The applicant must demonstrate that the adjusted development provides "[t]he maximum number of residential units ...while complying with all applicable development standards of the underlying zone." TMC 18.370.020.C.2(c). The proposed tentative plan, as modified, demonstrates that it is feasible to develop the site with 25 dwelling units while maintaining compliance with the setback requirements of the R-25 zone. Therefore the applicant cannot eliminate additional lots in order to increase the setback along the south boundary of the site without violating TMC 18.370.020.C.2(c). Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00012, AR2004-00055 & VAR2004-00085(Gabriel Woods) Page 4 • • b. The R-25 zone requires a minimum five-foot side yard setback and a minimum 15-foot rear yard setback. See TMC Table 18.510.2. As originally proposed by the applicant the private streets abutted the northern boundaries of proposed lots 20 and 25. Therefore the south boundaries of these lots constituted the "rear lot line" as defined by the Code.1 The applicant was required to provide a 15-foot setback from the south (rear) boundary of these lots. However by extending the private streets 15 feet further south as required by condition of approval 1, the east and west boundaries of these lots become the "front" property line and the south boundary becomes the "side" boundary, requiring a minimum 5-foot setback from the south boundary of these lots. This modification is necessary to maintain the maximum number of dwellings on the site as required by TMC 18.370.020.C.2(c). L The applicant and staff did not "manipulate" the Code. The hearings officer finds that the applicant is required to make this minor modification to the tentative plan in order to comply with the density requirements of TMC 18.370.020.C.2(c). The applicant cannot provide a 15-foot setback from the south boundary of the site without reducing the development density in violation of TMC 18.370.020.C.2(c). ii. Setback requirements are measured from the building wall.2 "Cornices, eaves, belt courses, sills, canopies or similar architectural features..." may extend into up to 36-inches into the proposed six-foot side yard setback. TMC 18.730.050.D.1.3 c. The applicant proposed to provide a Type C-3 buffer along the south boundary of the site, between the proposed development and the existing single-family residences. This is consistent with the requirements of Table 18.745.1. A Type C-3 buffer consists of a six-foot wide landscaped buffer and a six-foot high wall. Table 18.745.2. The applicant must increase the side yard setback to six feet in order to accommodate the required buffer. i. The applicant is required to plant the buffer with trees spaced between 15 and 30 feet apart and a minimum 10 five-gallon shrubs or 20 one-gallon shrubs per 1,000 square feet of buffer area. TMC 18.745.050.B.4. The applicant is required to install or bond the landscaping prior to occupancy approval. TMC 18.745.030.D. ii. The applicant did not propose to plant the buffer with specific plant species. Condition of approval 3 requires that the applicant provide a planting plan prior to commencing any onsite construction. The applicant is required to provide for the ongoing maintenance of all required landscaping on the site. TMC 18.745.030.A. Therefore 1 TMC 18.120.030.A.89.o defines "rear lot line" as "The recorded lot line or lines most distant from and generally opposite the front lot line..." TMC 18.120.030.A.89.d defines "front lot line" as "[A] property line which abuts the street..." 2 TMC 18.120.030.A 125.provides: "Setback" (front, rear, side, street and garage entrance) - the minimum allowable horizontal distance from a given point or line of reference, which shall be the property line unless otherwise stated to the nearest vertical wall of a building or structure, fence or other elements as defined by this title. 3 TMC 18.730.050.D.1 provides: Cornices, eaves, belt courses, sills, canopies or similar architectural features may extend or project into a required yard not more than 36 inches provided the width of such yard is not reduced to less than three feet. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00012, AR2004-00055 & VAR2004-00085(Gabriel Woods) Page 5 0 • it is in the applicant's best interest to select and plant landscaping that can survive in the specific conditions that exist within the buffer area. iii. As discussed at the hearing, the site is downhill from the abutting single-family residences to the south. Therefore TMC 18.745.050.B.7 requires that the applicant provide a six-foot high wall measured from the actual grade of the adjoining property.4 (A) The hearings officer finds that this provision is ambiguous. The first part of the provision is mandatory.5 "[T]he prescribed height ...shall be measured from the actual grade of the adjoining property..." The second part is permissive. The height "may exceed the permitted six foot height at the discretion of the director as a condition of approval." The rules of statutory construction provide that mandatory provisions prevail over permissive provisions. Therefore the hearings officer finds that the applicant is required to provide a six-foot high wall, measured from the adjacent (uphill) property. Condition of approval 3 should be modified to that effect. (B) The appellants did not raise this issue during the initial comment period. However the hearings officer finds that the appellants cannot be required to point out all Code obligations in order to preserve their right to raise the issue on appeal. Failure to require compliance with the plain meaning of the Code in this case would be ultra vires (beyond the City's authority). Therefore the hearings officer finds that the appellants must be allowed to raise the issue on appeal in order "[t]o resolve the case." TDC 18.390.040. G.2. b. iv. The applicant argued that a wall should not be required, because it will be entirely screened by the existing six-foot high fence on the abutting property. TMC 18.745.050.A.3 authorizes the applicant to vary from the specific screening standards of the Code if the applicant provides a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening plan that "[a]ffords the same degree of buffering and screening as required by this code." In this case the hearings officer finds that it is not feasible to provide landscaping within the proposed six-foot wide setback that affords the same degree of buffering and screening as the required six-inch thick, six-foot high wall. Therefore the applicant should be required to provide a wall. d. The hearings officer finds that it is feasible for the applicant to comply with the minimum 20-foot garage setback requirement of TMC Table 18.510.2. The applicant can alter the building designs as necessary to accommodate the unique constraints of individual lots. The City can ensure compliance with this and other setback requirements through the building permit review process on individual lots. 4 TMC 18.745.050.B.7 provides: When the use to be screened is downhill from the adjoining zone or use, the prescribed heights of required fences, walls, or landscape screening shall be measured from the actual grade of the adjoining property. In this case, fences and walls may exceed the permitted six foot height at the discretion of the director as a condition of approval. When the grades are so steep so as to make the installation of walls, fences or landscaping to the required height impractical, a detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted for approval. 5 TDC 18.120.020.D provides that "the words `shall' and `will' are mandatory and the word `may' is permissive." Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00012, AR2004-00055 & VAR2004-00085(Gabriel Woods) Page 6 0 • e. The proposed three-story buildings clearly comply with the maximum 45 foot height allowed in the R-25 zone. 3. The hearings officer must review the application as proposed. If the subdivision as proposed complies with the Code, it must be approved. Whether other alternative plat designs would be "better" is irrelevant. In addition, the hearings officer finds that the alternative design proposed by Mr. Goodrich would not comply with applicable lot size and setback requirements of the Code. 4. The hearings officer understands residents' displeasure with the growth around them, but this growth was foreseeable and is in the broader public's interest. This area has been zoned R-25 for several years. As large lots are sold, presumably they will be developed. The hearings officer finds that objections to the proposed setbacks and density are not relevant, because the density and dimensions of proposed lots comply with the comprehensive plan map designation and zoning of the property, as modified by the density adjustment. a. Even if the subdivision will have an adverse impact on property value and there is no substantial evidence to that effect in the record protection of property value is not relevant to the applicable State or City standards. The hearings officer must base the decision on the laws of the City of Tigard and the State of Oregon. 5. The applicant is not required to create a revised tentative plan showing changes required by the conditions of the City's approval. This would be inefficient and is not necessary to protect the public interest. The applicant is required to incorporate all of the required changes into the design of the final plat. The final plat is a public record that can be reviewed by interested parties. 6. The applicant is required to demonstrate that the proposed parking lot provides adequate vehicle maneuvering area. See condition of approval 32. The hearings officer finds that the applicant can comply with the parking requirements of TMC 18.765. Table 18.765.2 requires that the applicant provide one off-street parking space per dwelling unit. The City can ensure compliance with this provision during the building permit review stage for each lot. The applicant is not required to provide guest parking on the site. 7. Several persons expressed concern that grading on the site may impact the existing fence on the south boundary of the site. However the hearings officer finds that this issue was not raised during the initial comment period and therefore is beyond the scope of the appeal. In addition, the City does not regulate boundary fences. That is a matter of property law. In this case the applicant agreed to maintain the existing fence and construct the required wall north of the fence. D. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings adopted and incorporated herein, the hearings officer concludes that the appeal should be denied, because the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed subdivision does or will comply with the applicable approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code, subject to conditions adopted by the manager, and the appellants failed to provide substantial evidence or evidence of equal or greater probative value to the contrary and/or failed to persuade the hearings officer that the application violates the applicable approval standards based on such evidence. Therefore the hearings officer should affirm the manager's decision. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00012, AR2004-00055 & VAR2004-00085(Gabriel Woods) Page 7 i • E. DECISION In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained and incorporated herein, the hearings officer hereby denies the appeals, affirms the decision of the planning manager and approves SUB 2004-00010 (Gabriel Woods) subject to the conditions of approval in the manager's decision dated December 7, 2004 with the following modifications: 1. Condition of approval 3 is hereby amended to read as follows: 3. The applicant will be required to provide and implement a plan showing the proposed screening on the southern property line. The wall height shall be measured from the actual grade of the adjoining property. DATED th~§ 28`h day of February 2005. 16e Turner, Esq., AICP City of Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00012, AR2004-00055 & VAR2004-00085(Gabriel Woods) Page 8 • "TAB A" Testimony Received at the Public Hearing. TABLE 18.510.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES STANDARD R-1 R-2 R-3.5 R4.5 R-7 Minimum Lot Size - Detached unit 30,000 sq.ft. 20,000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft. 7,500 sq.R. 5,000 sq. ft. - Duplexes 10,000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft. - Attached unit 1 5,000 s .ft. Average Minimum Lot Width - Detached unit lots 100 ft. 100 ft. 65 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. - Duplex lots 90 ft. 90 ft. 50 ft. - Attached unit lots 40 ft. Maximum Lot Coverage - - - - 80% 2 Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 30 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. - Side facing street on corner & through lots 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. 10 ft. - Side yard 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. - Rear yard 25 ft. 25 ft 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district 30 ft. - Distance between property line and front of garage 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Maximum Height 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 35 ft. Minimum Landscape Requirement 20% [1] Single-family attached residential units permitted at one dwelling per lot with no more that five attached units in one grouping. [2] Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. TABLE 18.510.2 - (Cont'd.) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE4k~ R-12 R-25 R-40 STANDARD MF DU* SF DU** MF DU* SF DU** MF DU* SF DU** Minimum Lot Size - Detached unit ' 3,050 sq.ft.per unit 3,050 sq.ft. per unit 1.480 sq.8. 3,050 sq.ft. per unit None None - Attached unit 1,480 sq.ft. None - Duplexes 6,100 sq.ft. or 3,050 sq.ft. per unit None - Boarding, lodging, rooming house 6,100 s .ft. Average Lot Width None None None None None None Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 20 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft 20 ft 15 ft. - Side facing street on comer & through lots 20 R 10 ft. 20 ft. 10 ft. 20 ft. 10 ft. - Side yard 10 ft. 5 ft [1) 10 ft. 5 ft. [1] 10 ft. 5 ft. [1] - Rear yard 20 ft. 15 & 20 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. 15 R - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district 30 ft. 30 R. 30 ft. 30 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. - Distance between property line and garage entrance 20 ft. 20 & 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Maximum Height 35 ft. 35 ft 45 ft. 45 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft. Maximum Lot Coverage 2 80%• 80% 80% 80% 80% 800/0 Mimimum Landscape Requirement 20% ' 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% [1] Except this shall not apply to attached units on the lot line on which the units are attached. [2) Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. * Multiple-family dwelling unit Single-family dwelling unit Residential Zoning Districts . 18.510-6 Code Update. 06102 67. "Face" - To front upon. 68. "Fence, sight-obscuring" - A barrier consisting of wood, metal, masonry or similar materials, which obstructs vision. 69. "Final action," "final decision" or "final order" - A determination reduced to writing, signed and filed by the appropriate approval authority. 70. "Findings" - A written statement of the facts determined to be relevant by the approval authority as the basis for making its decision. The approval authority applies the relevant facts to the approval criteria or standards in order to reach its decision. 71. Flood-related definitions: a. "Base flood" - The flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Also referred to as the "one-hundred-year flood." b. "Floodplain" - The zone along a watercourse enclosed by the outer limits of land which is subject to inundation in its natural or lower revised contours by the base flood. c. "Floodway" - The normal stream or drainage channel and that adjoining area of the natural floodplain needed to convey the waters, including the zero-foot rise floodway area defined by the U.S. Corps of Engineers Flood Insurance Study, February, 1984. Floodways must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation. d. "Floodway fringe" -'The area of the floodplain lying outside of the floodway. 72. "Floor area" - The gross horizontal area, under a roof, of all floors of a building, measured from the exterior walls, excluding vents, shafts, courts and space devoted to off-street parking. The floor area of a building, or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior walls shall be the usable area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above. 73. "Floor area ratio" - The gross floor area of all buildings or structures on a lot divided by the total lot area. -1 0' *74. "Frontage'- That portion of a development site which abuts a public or private street. Jor 75. "Garage" - A building or portion thereof in which a motor vehicle is stored, repaired or kept. 76. "Glare" - The effect produced by brightness sufficient to cause annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility. 77. "Habitable floor area" - The total floor area of all the habitable rooms in a dwelling unit. 78. "Home occupation" - When a dwelling unit in a residential, commercial or industrial zone is used for a for-profit business purpose. 79. "Homeowners association" - An association operating under recorded land agreements through which each lot owner of a planned development, condominium development, subdivision or Definitions 18.120-7 Code Update: 10102 • full street connection is exempted by B.1 above. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. (Ord. 02-33) 18.810.050 Easements A. Easements. Easements for sewers, drainage, water mains, electric lines or other public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and where a development traversed by a watercourse, or drainageway, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of the watercourse. B. Utility easements. A property owner proposing a- development shall make arrangements with the City, the applicable district and each utility franchise for the provision and dedication of utility easements necessary to provide full services to the development. The City's standard width for public main line utility easements shall be 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company, applicable district, or City Engineer. 18.810.060 Lots A. Size and shape. Lot size, width, shape and orientation shall be appropriate for the location of the development and for the type of use contemplated, and: 1. No lot shall contain part of an existing or proposed public right-of-way within its dimensions; 2. The depth of all lots shall not exceed 2-1/2 times the average width, unless the parcel is less than 1-1/2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district; 3. Depth and width of properties zoned for commercial and industrial purposes shall be adequate to provide for the off-street parking and service facilities required by the type of use proposed. 4"L '_'B. Lot frontage. Each lot shall abut upon a public or private street, other than an alley, for a width of at least 25 feet unless the lot is created through a minor land partition in which case Subsection 18.162.050 (C) applies, or unless the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit, in which case the lot frontage shall be at least 15 feet. C. Through lots. Through lots shall be avoided except where they are essential to provide separation of residential development from major traffic arterials or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation, and: 1. A planting buffer at least ten feet wide is required abutting the arterial rights-of-way; and 2. All through lots shall provide the required front yard setback on each street. D. Lot side lines. The side lines of lots, as far as practicable, shall be at right angles to the street upon which the lots front. E. Lar eg lots. In dividing tracts into large lots or parcels which at some future time are likely to be redivided, the Commission may require that the lots be of such size and shape, and be so divided into building sites, and contain such site restrictions as will provide for the extension and opening of Street Utility Improvement Standards 18.810-17 Code Update: 10102 59Nmv)jG 1 l a: tI`:1t, i ` y - - - - - - - - - - - - - • s q~p N'dld 31 f S ~ •w. 4y ; ;~v 4v sf,'m wn~.i9 fy.~no'ti7o33fdDSk !n tf {~I:e 6c) -,utmoo NQIoNIHs" 'G8V911 Ally IIt~ ~gg sp~i'a 3+ - _D,~•~~ MOO ws,, n:utiauDa ~3wa m,+' 44X1! ;?IFl`I~ 5111 S(300/v\ 01.0, vi 4 i i R 1•~F ~ai1iL:Tltz~y~n ,nor,, •/u i .z--.... ~ 2D•o t 1 d~ F",v'P, -37 Ara % i5 :i • .w XV, i ~.u • r ~ •r, ~ .4 ~ g 4E1 ~ ` } .vD•a I ~k-t ~ ~ aD' z .1D q~ y M , e ~d~~ ~ i { ~ y ~x I ~ {,oo $ yscy .,c % 4 ~ ti 7 as ~ ec IP~CC ~ # r_ ~Ei Kqa :t ~ g s •f N t o K w•ef. 94 i t a q :m 1 y QQyy` ss vo/wo.-".; SoNovan La.•^ ry jU 'kilo N003210 '.11Nf100~Nt/~~lJNIHSVM -1 -3 `,333 I.Lrs tat 6~ s Q o o / V ~ o W 0 W , fl J v° e (lA■ p y ~A ~ 0 w J P~ ~I gA o s he ti of ,ail, l..•,!7?, ~ J'/.?.ir ~ it ~Wj 4 e~1 0 "TAB B" Applicant's Materials & All Correspondence Filed with Hearings Officer Prior to the Public Hearing. AGENDA ITEM NO, 2.1 CITY OF TI©ARD Community Devefopment Shaping ,4 Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 6394171 Fax 684-7297 TO: Joe Turner, City of Tigard Hearings Officer FROM: Mathew Scheidegger, Associate Planner DATE: January 28, 2005 SUBJECT: Gabriel Woods Subdivision (SUB 2004-00012) Appeal Kenneth MacDonald and neighbors of the proposed Gabriel Woods Subdivision, have filed an appeal with the City of Tigard in regard to the approval of the aforementioned subdivision. The appellants have requested your review of the City's approval based on particular issues in their letter of appeal received December 20, 2004. The issues concern the close proximity of the attached single-family homes to the rear yards of the appellants' properties to the south. The appellants are also appealing the City's interpretation of the Community Development Code regarding yard location. The subject site is located on the east side of SW Barrows Road, between SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. within the R-25 residential zone. The appellant's issues and staffs responses are identified below. Issue #1 Variances and Adiustments (18.370) The appe an ave argue a , y gran ing an adjustment to allow the applicant to develop below the minimum densi ty, the City is allowing the potential construction of three story structures, six feet from the appellants adjoining rear yards. Allowing this type of structure will seriously violate personal privacy, neighborhood livability and the value of the appellants homes. If the applicant is allowed to reduce the minimum density to 25 units, the applicant should be required to reduce the number by two more in order to create a greater separation from the proposed development and the existing. Chapter 18.370.020.C.2 (Adjustment to minimum residential density requirements) allows an applicant to develop their property below the minimum density if the approval criteria have been met. This section does not limit the number of units an applicant can reduce, or dictate the placement of homes. 02/14/2005 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 1 of 2 RE: SUB2004-00012/Gabriel Woods Subdivision Appeal Issue #2 Residential Zoning Districts 18.5101 The appellants understand that, "What Should be considered a rear yard of 15'-0" along our contiguous property lines, is being represented as a 6'-0" side yard, through manipulations of the planning code language." The applicant has proposed the eastern property line of lot #25 and the western property line of lot #20 to be the front. Front lot line is defined by the Development Code (Chapter 18.120) as a property line which abuts the street. The applicant proposed the streets to abut lots #20 and #25 at their northern property lines. Therefore, the applicant was conditioned to extend the streets into the subject parcels by 15 feet in order to consider the southern property line a side yard. The required 15 feet is to satisfy the minimum frontage requirement for attached single-family units on a public or private street (18.810.060. B. Lot Frontages). Issue #3 Landscaping and Screening (18.745) The propose southern se atb cks of~lotss #20 and #25 will, "seriously violate our personal privacy, our neighborhood livability and impact our homes values." According to table 18.745.1 (Buffer Matrix in the Tigard Development Code, five attached units have a choice between two levels of buffering: 1. An "A" buffering standard, which requires a 10-foot setback with lawn/living ground cover. 2. A "C" buffering standard that gives three different widths of buffer, six, eight or ten with a mix of landscaping frees shrubs). The applicant has chosen to propose the six-foot buffer with trees, shrubs and a six-foot wall, which is consistent with the requirement. After further review, the appellants' argument is only relative to the sections addressed above. Staff believes that the proposed subdivision request satisfies the general approval criteria and standards of the Tigard Development Code, and that the appeal should be denied. Arguments supporting the development will be provided by the applicant. Attachments: Attachment 1: Appellants' Supplemental Information Presented at 1/27/05 meeting with staff. Attachment 2: Appeal Filing Form Attachment 3: Notice of Decision Attachment 4: Applicants' Application Materials 02/14/2005 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 2 of 2 RE: SUB2004-00012/Gabriel Woods Subdivision Appeal 0 ATTACHMENT "GABRIEL WOODS" Appellants' Supplemental information presented at 01/27/05 meeting (Attached). 0 Barrows Grove Appeal Arguments of the Pebble Creek Homeowners The planning for the site has been insensitive to the surrounding homes because it has failed to take advantage of the available site area in a manner that is both sensitive and efficient to the new development and the existing new single family homes to the south. Our argument is simple. The applicant has been granted adjustments without thoroughly considering the options. The attached diagram is an indication that with a little effort on the part of the applicant, planners and planning staff a compromise can be achieved which will provide at least a 16-0" "side" yard buffer along our contiguous property lines. To do this, they simply move units 16 thru 25 north at least 9'-0". This is done via adjusting the lot line placement & reducing the side yard requirements for units 16 &21, which are contiguous to lots 11 thru 15 which already have the back yard separation and by reducing the "paved" front yards of units 11 thru 15, which is done permitting the sidewalk to encroach as an easement within the front yard of the property. This type of arrangement is done all the time, with little resistance by the Planning Commission and has been ignored here at our expense, which is unfair. If they must have the density indicated then let them bear the impacts fairly. We will reluctantly live with a 16-0" separation but we cannot live with 6-0". Particularly knowing that with some simple & fair planning adjustments on their part we would not have to suffer the environmental and financial burden. It is also important to note that the footprint indicated provides enough area for the 1400 SF 2 STORY unit, with the garage included, that was presented rather than 3 story units. Further, the little landscaped "island to the east of the guest parking is a very poor idea. It obstructs the use of the guest parking by forcing the users to make a very tight, if not impossible, turn off of a very narrow °private drive". If you review the average turning radius you will see that it is nearly unusable. This one problem alone is adequate justification for the appeal. If they are required to provide onsite guest parking, which is the opinion of the city, then it must be usable. This combined with the possibility that the island may be necessary to satisfy the required landscaped area make its presence all the more questionable. If this is the case it is an indication that the development did not explore all possibilities, that it is poorly planned and improperly approved. To be proactive; move the units forward to allow 2 guests spaces, totaling 16-0" wide, at the ends of each of the private drives in the "side yard". Then the at least the users can turn around. Moreover this idea will solve the separation issue giving both the existing and new owners the necessary separation. As an added bonus there will still be room for a few guest spaces at the °cul-de-sac". These are just few examples of the arguments to be presented at the appeal hearing. All of this will be supplemented with presentation drawings of the redesign and the necessary site calculations clearly proving that a more equitable solution can be had. ~ 1_OI 73f. 1. 4. Stl r.l ':It ' . 4.4 f_ :'3 ~a ~ r•,r i '.1 rl•` ~•+i,Bx sa. 1': W,.I{'R <~~j' •-~~r• f, ~"~'711!, T Y B 3 ~ ~i~ ORr.Lnl t 7 :Ae•.ITY i~•. _ ;Ira. 34 r.tN Gar . 4.'i•1 + 3'' . ; 3. t '1•t:d SJ. r ,eo] 60. • B M1 So. T. 34B fA. 31. ; { „1- SB.'..1';G" 33':.tr•• w]u:')!') SS,.r ,L, JI'#" fT:rr':i .•.11r1'f rU!•.1S p!'L ~1v3'DN+! 3 ~ / j, f • 74 r.a... :--'t--e^ 1? ~.'_~'_-'33 f,:•,~ dS3t~.. J._s.'.ni"_ o-' _ 7:.~3.. ,.-.~tl j ca•Y•T+~ ti;: U ' Y rtpD tlDET T 1~>r t r r 0,41. 4k +S i• r 11V~, 45, AlbA, Vol B~ " • % ..Yx L`~i3'\ :DDS' .Dn - SM' tl.l: n`D. i ~ ~ \ pew l~:%~~ • r ,I _ 1~ \ ~y~/1 X11 _ ~e it • Tl t. ,B n t• r y~ S i . GD rr. ] x, t xt w. 3 SBI sD. r Ym co. r T Syr r~' =--r ~h Abp a S~~n•'. ,I (r'aOmSPiiull n17 t DR41W or lY,(wa - - I 77 ` fff!!!~ - V ~ _.,eB J)irt Saa'>rtr•1 4r,~!'+YI t.ee:.1'tY ~if~a~'f'• WJ AEMM MOM 5,w j •8 -wan 'r.D .-~i~~ ~ ff e r 3 e 1y1B ~ i. rp naBOr l `Y ~e71 4f 4 M t NC~~ , { ' ' _ Tie. r r ' +~y12Y1 via lNt~u' M' , Ai; k CITY OF TIGARD 1101 . ATTACHMENT 2 APPEAL FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code, therefore, sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phone/fax listed at the top of this form. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Property Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the Application Being Appealed: Z t1-\ ~,\D~c►c~r203 1-~~1 - How Do You Qualify As A Party?:m1~ cu-h1~lEC~! Appellant's Address: -1 IS S. >t1 la~l kV~~ bp_ City/State: k jc;K-jyc1, , fir Zip: < Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached:(5~~3) -7 C, O"1 Q.(;_ Scheduled Date Decision Is To Be Final: Date Notice of Final Decision Was Given: Specific Grounds For Appeal or Review: Case No.(s): ~5Ck,8-7QZQ - LL U( Case Name(s): Receipt No.: ~~-j -5"Vyc~) Application Accepted By: JC Date: 1 L/ 2_,) / Q Approved As To Form By: Date: Denied As To Form By: Date: Rev. 15-Aug-02 i:\curpIn\mastersVevised\appeal.doc REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS ✓ Application Elements Submitted: ❑ Appeal Filing Form (completed) ❑ Filing Fee (based on criteria below) Director's Decision to Planning Commission $ 250.00 ➢ Expedited Review (deposit) $ 300.00 ➢ Hearing Referee $ 500.00 D Planning Commission/Hearing's Officer to City Council $1,952.00 Transcript) Signature(s) of Appellant(s): APPEAL FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS (OVER FOR ADDITIONAL WRITING SPACE) %-LL 1 Vl' LLkytv^V" 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Receipt 27200400000000005442 Date: 12/20/2004 12/20/2004 11:34:38AM Line Items: Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid SUB2004-00012 [LANDUS] Appeal DD to HO 100-0000-438000 250.00 Line Item Total: $250.00 Payments: Method Payer User ID Acct./Check Approval No. How Received Amount Paid CreditCard KENNETH F MACDONALD KJP 645455 - In Person 250.00 Payment Total: $250.00 0 • cReceipt.rpt Page 1 of 1 l • Mr. Matt Scheidegger - Planner City of Tigard Planning 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Gabriel Woods Multifamily Development City of Tigard Subdivision Application # 2004-00012 Dear Matt, On behalf of our neighborhood of single family homes in Pebblecreek, the Pebblecreek Homeowners Association and the many Pebblecreek Home Owners, particularly those adjacent to your proposed development, we submit the following. We here at Pebblecreek, after having met a number of times, have made it no secret that we oppose this development. Our opposition is firmly grounded in the fair and practical use of the subject property, what we feel is the manipulation of the intent of the city's planning code and the profit of one Developer at the expense of the City of Tigard and many families in our neighborhood. While we appreciate that every landowner has the right to develop their property we do not believe it is the intent of those responsible for approval of these types of developments, the Planning commission and stewards of Tigard City Planning Code, to permit an application such as this through special conditions and interpretive manipulations. With approval of their request of adjustments to develop to less then the minimum density they would be permitted to potentially construct three story structures only 6'-0° from our rear property lines. This will dwarf our two story homes; seriously violating our personal privacy, our neighborhood livability and impact our homes values. Pebblecreek is a new single family home development and not something that will be torn down and recycled into a similar high density complex. From the Developers agent; we understand that the requested reduction to develop below the minimum density requirements is forced upon them by the city's own planning regulations and that they are only trying to be "more compliant". We also understand that what should be considered a rear yard of 16-0% along our contiguous property lines, is being represented as a 6-0" side yard, through manipulations of the planning code language. In particular, these manipulations include the extension of a narrow private drive by 15' to allow the rear yard to be considered a side yard. It is apparent that while the developer claims to be doing this to be "more compliant" they, in fact, are gaining the profit of the two additional units. If the Developer is truly only"doing this just because of the city's requirements and they must have an adjustment to the minimum density rule then allow them two less units for a total of no more than 23 units and remove the, two units on the south end, parcels 20 & 25. This would provide for a wider separation between the remaining units giving a true separation from their neighbors, real usable outdoor living areas, not force them up against the south fence and a project that would be profitable because of these assets, for everyone not just the one developer. The city would then also provide, what we believe, to be the true intent of the planning code. Offering a solution with flexibility that will not be manipulated by a developer at the city's expense, the expense of the its neighborhoods, the fire department in trying to negotiate such narrow access ways and the many natural features including a number of large trees, just for the profit of the one developer. In closing, we were not ignorant to the potential development that could occur adjacent to our properties but we do expect you, the City of Tigard, to protect our understanding and our neighborhoods. Please don't let us down. Respectfully, I ► se3 ~J~v~~ The Pebble Creek Home Owners Contact K. F. MacDonald 11563 SW Tallwood Dr. Tigard, OR 97223 503-579-0796 Cc: City of Tigard Planning Commissioners Westlake Development, inc. S. Sindoni - esq. • 0 Mr. Matt Scheidegger - Planner City of Tigard Planning 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Gabriel Woods Multifamily Development City of Tigard Subdivision Application # 2004-00012 Dear Matt, On behalf of our neighborhood of single family homes in Pebblecreek, the Pebblecreek Homeowners Association and the many Pebblecreek Home Owners, particularly those adjacent to your proposed development, we submit the following. We here at Pebblecreek, after having met a number of times, have made it no secret that we oppose this development. Our opposition is firmly grounded in the fair and practical use of the subject property, what we feel is the manipulation of the intent of the city's planning code and the profit of one Developer at the expense of the City of Tigard and many families in our neighborhood. While we appreciate that every landowner has the right to develop their property we do not believe it is the intent of those responsible for approval of these types of developments, the Planning commission and stewards of Tigard City Planning Code, to permit an application such as this through special conditions and interpretive manipulations. With approval of their request of adjustments to develop to less then the minimum density they would be permitted to potentially construct three story structures only 6-0" from our rear property lines. This will dwarf our two story homes; seriously violating our personal privacy, our neighborhood livability and impact our homes values. 'Pebblecreek is a new single family home development and not something that will be torn down and recycled into a similar high density complex. From the Developers agent; we understand that the requested reduction to develop below the minimum density requirements is forced upon them by the city's own planning regulations and that they are only trying to be "more compliant". We also understand that what should be considered a rear yard of 15'-0°, along our contiguous property lines, is being represented as a 6-0' side yard, through manipulations of the planning code language. In particular, these manipulations include the extension of a narrow private drive by 15' to allow the rear yard to be considered a side yard. It is apparent that while the developer claims to be doing this to be 'more compliant" they, in fact, are gaining the profit of the two additional units. If the Developer is truly only doing this just because of the city's requirements and they must have an adjustment to the minimum density rule then allow them two less units for a total of no more than 23 units and remove the two units on the south end, parcels 20 & 25. This would provide for a wider separation between the remaining units giving a true separation from their neighbors, real usable outdoor living areas, not force them up against the south fence and a project that would be profitable because of these assets, for everyone not just the one developer. The city would then also provide, what we believe, to be the true intent of the planning code. Offering a solution with flexibility that will not be manipulated by a developer at the city's expense, the expense of the its neighborhoods, the fire department in trying to negotiate such narrow access ways and the many natural features including a number of large trees, just for the profit of the one developer. In closing, we were not ignorant to the potential development that could occur adjacent to our properties but we do expect you, the City of Tigard, to protect our understanding and our neighborhoods. Please don't let us down. Respectfully, I /S''77 Sot e,2>~- I 4~~ The Pebble Creek Home Owners Contact. K. F. MacDonald 11563 SW Tallwood Dr. Tigard, OR 97223 503-579-0796 Cc: City of Tigard Planning Commissioners Westlake Development, inc. S. Sindoni - esq. Mr. Matt Scheidegger - Planner City of Tigard Planning 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE. Gabriel Woods Multifamily Development City of Tigard Subdivision Application # 2004-00012 Dear Matt, On behalf of our neighborhood of single family homes in Pebblecreek, the Pebblecreek Homeowners Association and the many Pebblecreek Home Owners, particularly those adjacent to your proposed development, we submit the following. We here at Pebblecreek, after having met a number of times, have made it no secret that we oppose this development. Our opposition is firmly grounded in the fair and practical use of the subject property, what we feel is the manipulation of the intent of the city's planning code and the profit of one Developer at the expense of the City of Tigard and many families in our neighborhood. While we appreciate that every landowner has the right to develop their property we do not believe it is the intent of those responsible for approval of these types of developments, the Planning commission and stewards of Tigard City Planning Code, to permit an application such as this through special conditions and interpretive manipulations. With approval of their request of adjustments to develop to less then the minimum density they would be permitted to potentially construct three story structures only 6-0° from our rear property lines. This will dwarf our two story homes; seriously violating our personal privacy, our neighborhood livability and impact our homes values. Pebblecreek is a new single family home development and not something that will be torn down and recycled into a similar high density complex. From the Developers agent; we understand that the requested reduction to develop below the minimum density requirements is forced upon them by the city's own planning regulations and that they are only trying to be "more compliant". We also understand that what should be considered a rear yard of 15'-0°, along our contiguous property lines, is being represented as a 6-0" side yard, through manipulations of the planning code language. In particular, these manipulations include the extension of a narrow private drive by 15' to allow the rear yard to be considered a side yard. It is apparent that while the developer claims to be doing this to be "more compliant" they, in fact, are gaining the profit of the two additional units. If the Developer is truly only doing this just because of the city's requirements and they must have an adjustment to the minimum density rule then allow them two less units for a total of no more than 23 units and remove the two units on the south end, parcels 20 & 25. This would provide for a wider separation between the remaining units giving a true separation from their neighbors, real usable outdoor living areas, not force them up against the south fence and a project that would be profitable because of these assets, for everyone not just the one developer. The city would then also provide, what we believe, to be the true intent of the planning code. Offering a solution with flexibility that will not be manipulated by a developer at the city's expense, the expense of the its neighborhoods, the fire department in trying to negotiate such narrow access ways and the many natural features including a number of large trees, just for the profit of the one developer. In closing, we were not ignorant to the potential development that could occur adjacent to our properties but we do expect you, the City of Tigard, to protect our understanding and our neighborhoods. Please don't let us down. Res ppc Ily, PS-'7 V S,,/ 7NL// 7i q 7 The Pebble Creek Home Owners Contact: K. F. MacDonald 11563 SW Tallwood Dr. Tigard, OR 97223 503-579-0796 Cc: City of Tigard Planning Commissioners Westlake Development, inc. S. Sindoni - esq. 0 Mr. Matt Scheidegger - Planner City of Tigard Planning 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Gabriel Woods Multifamily Development City of Tigard Subdivision Application # 2004-00012 Dear Matt, On behalf of our neighborhood of single family homes in Pebblecreek, the Pebblecreek Homeowners Association and the many Pebblecreek Home Owners, particularly those adjacent to your proposed development, we submit the following. We here at Pebblecreek, after having met a number of times, have made it no secret that we oppose this development. Our opposition is firmly grounded in the fair and practical use of the subject property, what we feel is the manipulation of the intent of the city's planning code and the profit of one Developer at the expense of the City of Tigard and many families in our neighborhood. While we appreciate that every landowner has the right to develop their property we do not believe it is the intent of those responsible for approval of these types of developments, the Planning commission and stewards of Tigard City Planning Code, to permit an application such as this through special conditions and interpretive manipulations. With approval of their request of adjustments to develop to less then the minimum density they would be permitted to potentially construct three story structures only 6-0" from our rear property lines. This will dwarf our two story homes; seriously violating our personal privacy, our neighborhood livability and impact our homes values. Pebblecreek is a new single family home development and not something that will be torn down and recycled into a similar high density complex. From the Developers agent; we understand that the requested reduction to develop below the minimum density requirements is forced upon them by the city's own planning regulations and that they are only trying to be "more compliant". We also understand that what should be considered a rear yard of 16-0", along our contiguous property lines, is being represented as a 6-0" side yard, through manipulations of the planning code language. In particular, these manipulations include the extension of a narrow private drive by 15' to allow the rear yard to be considered a side yard. It is apparent that while the developer claims to be doing this to be "more compliant" they, in fact, are gaining the profit of the two additional units. If the Developer is truly only doing this just because of the city's requirements and they must have an adjustment to the minimum density rule then allow them two less units for a total of no more than 23 units and remove the two units on the south end, parcels 20 & 25. This would provide for a wider separation between the remaining units giving a true separation from their neighbors, real usable outdoor living areas, not force them up against the south fence and a project that would be profitable because of these assets, for everyone not just the one developer. The city would then also provide, what we believe, to be the true intent of the planning code. Offering a solution with flexibility that will not be manipulated by a developer at the city's expense, the expense of the its neighborhoods, the fire department in trying to negotiate such narrow access ways and the many natural features including a number of large trees, just for the profit of the one developer. In closing, we were not ignorant to the potential development that could occur adjacent to our properties but we do expect you, the City of Tigard, to protect our understanding and our neighborhoods. Please don't let u down. Res I , T e Pe ble Creek Home Owners Contact K. F. MacDonald 11563 SW Tallwood Dr. Tigard, OR 97223 503-579-0796 Cc: City of Tigard Planning Commissioners Westlake Development, inc. S. Sindoni - esq. Mr. Matt Scheidegger - Planner City of Tigard Planning 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Gabriel Woods Multifamily Development City of Tigard Subdivision Application # 2004-00012 Dear Matt, On behalf of our neighborhood of single family homes in Pebblecreek, the Pebblecreek Homeowners Association and the many Pebblecreek Home Owners, particularly those adjacent to your proposed development, we submit the following. We here at Pebblecreek, after having met a number of times, have made it no secret that we oppose this development. Our opposition is firmly grounded in the fair and practical use of the subject property, what we feel is the manipulation of the intent of the cities planning code and the profit of one Developer at the expense of the City of Tigard and many families in our neighborhood. While we appreciate that every landowner has the right to develop their property we do.not believe it is the,intent of those responsible for approval of these types of developments, the Planning commission and stewards of Tigard City Planning Code, to permit an application such as this through special conditions and interpretive manipulations. With approval of their request of adjustments to develop to less then the minimum density they would.be permitted to potentially construct three story structures only 6'-0" from our rear property lines. This will dwarf our two story homes; seriously violating our personal privacy, our neighborhood livability and impact our homes values. Pebblecreek is a new single family home development and not something that will be torn down and recycled into a similar high density'complex. From the Developers agent; we understand that the requested reduction to develop below the minimum density requirements is forced upon them by the cities own planning regulations and that they are only trying to be "more compliant". We also understand that what should be considered a rear yard of 16-101", along our contiguous property lines, is being represented-as a 6'-0" side yard, through manipulations of the planning code language. In particular, these manipulations include the extension of a narrow private drive by 15' to allow the rear yard to be considered a side yard. It is apparent that while the-developer claims to be doing this to be "more compliant" they, in fact, are gaining the profit of the two additional units. If the Developer is truly only doing this just because of the cities requirements and they must have an adjustment to the minimum density rule then allow them two less units for a total of no more than 23 units and remove the two units on the south end, parcels 20 & 25. This would provide for a wider separation between the remaining units giving a true separation from their neighbors, real usable outdoor living areas, not force them up against the south fence and a project that would be profitable because of these assets, for everyone not just the one developer. The city would then also provide, what we believe, to be the true intent of the planning code. Offering a solution with flexibility that will not be manipulated by a developer atthe cities expense, the expense of the it's neighborhoods, the fire department in trying to negotiate such narrow access ways and the many natural features including a number of large trees, just for the profit of the one developer. In closing, we were not ignorant to the potential development that could occur adjacent to our properties but we do expect you, the City of Tigard, to protect our understanding and our neighborhoods. Please don't let us down. Respectf y, The Pebble Creek Home Owners Contact: K. F. MacDonald 11563 SW Tallwood Dr. Tigard, OR 97223 503-579-0796 Cc: City of Tigard Planning Commissioners Westlake Development, inc. S. Sindoni - esq. 0 • Mr. Matt Scheidegger - Planner City of Tigard Planning 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Gabriel Woods Multifamily Development City of Tigard Subdivision Application # 2004-00012 Dear Matt, On behalf of our neighborhood of single family homes in Pebblecreek, the Pebblecreek Homeowners Association and the many Pebblecreek Home Owners, particularly those adjacent to your proposed development, we submit the following. We here at Pebblecreek, after having met a number of times, have made it no secret that we oppose this development. Our opposition is firmly grounded in the fair and practical use of the subject property, what we feel is the manipulation of the intent of the cities planning code and the profit of one Developer at the expense of the.City of Tigard and many families in our neighborhood. While we appreciate that every landowner has the right to develop their property we do not believe it is the intent of those responsible for approval of these types of developments, the Planning commission and stewards of Tigard City Planning Code, to permit an application such as this through special conditions and interpretive manipulations. With approval of their request of adjustments to develop to less then the minimum density they would be permitted to potentially construct three story structures only 6'-0" from our rear property lines. This will dwarf our two story-homes; seriously violating our personal privacy, our neighborhood livability and impact our homes values. Pebblecreek is a new single family home development and not something that will be torn down and recycled into a similar high density complex. From the Developers agent; we understand that the requested reduction to develop below the minimum density requirements is forced upon them by the cities own planning regulations and that they are only trying to be "more compliant". We also understand that what should be considered a rear yard of 16-0", along our contiguous property lines, is being represented as a 6-0" side yard, through manipulations of the planning code language. In particular, these manipulations include the extension of a narrow private drive by 15' to allow the rear yard to be considered a side yard. It is apparent that while the developer claims to be doing this to be "more compliant" they, in fact, are gaining the profit of the two additional units. If the Developer is truly only doing this just because of the cities requirements and they must have an adjustment to the minimum density rule then allow them two less units for a total of no more than 23 units and remove the two units on the south end, parcels 20 & 25. This would provide for a wider separation between the remaining units giving a true separation from their neighbors, real usable outdoor living areas, not force them up against the south fence and a project that would be profitable because of these assets, for everyone not just the one developer. The city would then also provide, what we believe, to be the true intent of the planning code. Offering a solution with flexibility that will not be manipulated by a developer at the cities expense, the expense of the it's neighborhoods, the fire department in trying to negotiate such narrow access ways and the many natural features including a number of large trees, just for the profit of the one developer. In closing, we were not ignorant to the potential development that could occur adjacent to our properties but we do expect you, the City of Tigard, to protect our understanding and our neighborhoods. Please don't let us down. Respectfully, The Pebble Creek Home Owners Cc: City of Tigard Planning Commissioners Westlake Development, inc. S. Sindoni - esq. Contact: K. F. MacDonald 11563 SW Tallwood Dr. Tigard, OR 97223 503-579-0796 L ap~rO4-) Mr. Matt Scheidegger - Planner City of Tigard Planning 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Gabriel Woods Multifamily Development City of Tigard Subdivision Application # 2004-00012 Dear Matt, On behalf of our neighborhood of single family homes in Pebblecreek, the Pebblecreek Homeowners Association and the many Pebblecreek Home Owners, particularly those adjacent to your proposed development, we submit the following. We here at Pebblecreek, after having met a number of times, have made it no secret that we oppose this development. Our opposition is firmly grounded in the fair and practical use of the subject property, what we feel is the manipulation of the intent of the cities planning code and the profit of one Developer at the expense of the City of Tigard and many families in our neighborhood. While we appreciate that every landowner has the right to develop their property we do not believe it is the intent of those responsible for approval of these types of developments, the Planning commission and stewards of Tigard City Planning Code, to permit an application such as this through special conditions and interpretive manipulations. With approval of their request of adjustments to develop to less then the minimum density they would be permitted to potentially construct three story structures only 6'-0" from our rear property lines. This will dwarf our two story homes; seriously violating our personal privacy, our neighborhood livability and impact our homes values. Pebblecreek is a new single family home development and not something that will be torn down and recycled into a similar high density complex. From the Developers agent; we understand that the requested reduction to develop below the minimum density requirements is forced upon them by the cities own planning regulations and that they are only trying to be "more compliant". We also understand that what should be considered a rear yard of 16-0", along our contiguous property lines, is being represented as a 6-0" side yard, through manipulations of the planning code language. In particular, these manipulations include the extension of a narrow private drive by 15' to allow the rear yard to be considered a side yard. It is apparent that while the developer claims to be doing this to be "more compliant" they, in fact, are gaining the profit of the two additional units. If the Developer is truly only doing this just because of the cities requirements and they must have an adjustment to the minimum density rule then allow them two less units for a total of no more than 23 units and remove the two units on the south end, parcels 20 & 25. This would provide for a wider separation between the remaining units giving a true separation from their neighbors, real usable outdoor living areas, not force them up against the south fence and a project that would be profitable because of these assets, for everyone not just the one developer. The city would then also provide, what we believe, to be the true intent of the planning code. Offering a solution with flexibility that will not be manipulated by a developer at the cities expense, the expense of the it's neighborhoods, the fire department in trying to negotiate such narrow access ways and the many natural features including a number of large trees, just for the profit of the one developer. In closing, we were not ignorant to the potential development that could occur adjacent to our properties but we do expect you, the City of Tigard, to protect our understanding and our neighborhoods. Please don't let us down. 4FR,es ectfully, The Pebble Creek Home Owners Contact: K. F. MacDonald 11563 SW Tallwood Dr. Tigard, OR 97223 503-579-0796 Cc: City of Tigard Planning Commissioners Westlake Development, inc. S. Sindoni - esq. k. . it Mr. Matt Scheidegger - Planner City of Tigard Planning 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Gabriel Woods Multifamily Development City of Tigard Subdivision Application # 2004-00012 Dear Matt, On behalf of our neighborhood of single family homes in Pebblecreek, the Pebblecreek Homeowners Association and the many Pebblecreek Home Owners, particularly those adjacent to your proposed development, we submit the following. r~' r We here at Pebblecreek, after having met a number of times, have made it no secret that we oppose this development. Our opposition is firmly grounded in the fair and practical use of the subject property, what we feel is the manipulation of the intent of the cities planning code and the profit of one Developer at the expense of the City of Tigard and many families in our neighborhood. While we appreciate that every landowner has the right to develop their property we do not believe it is the intent of those responsible for approval of these types of developments, -the Planning commission and stewards of Tigard City Planning Code, to permit an application such as this through special conditions and interpretive manipulations. With approval of their request of adjustments to develop to less then the minimum density they would be permitted to potentially construct three story structures only 6-0" from our rear property lines. This will dwarf our two story homes; seriously violating our personal privacy, our neighborhood livability and impact our homes values. Pebblecreek is a new single family home development and not something that will be torn down and recycled into a similar high density complex. From the Developers agent; we understand that the requested reduction to develop below the minimum density requirements is forced upon them by the cities own planning regulations and that they are only trying to be "more compliant". We also understand that what should be considered a rear yard of 16-0", along our contiguous property lines, is being represented as a 6-0" side yard, through manipulations of the planning code language. In particular, these manipulations include the extension of a narrow private drive by 15' to allow the rear yard to be considered a side yard. It is apparent that while the developer claims to be doing this to be "more compliant" they, in fact, are gaining the profit of the two additional units. If the Developer is truly only doing this just because of the cities requirements and they must have an adjustment to the minimum density rule then allow them two less units for a total of no more than 23 units and remove the two units on the south end, parcels 20 & 25. This would provide for a wider separation between the remaining units giving a true separation from their neighbors, real usable outdoor living areas, not force them up against the south fence and a project that would be profitable because of these assets, for everyone not just the one developer. The city would then also provide, what we believe, to be the true intent of the planning code. Offering a solution with flexibility that will not be manipulated by a developer at the cities expense, the expense of the it's neighborhoods, the fire department in trying to negotiate such narrow access ways and the many natural features including a number of large trees, just for the profit of the one developer. In rlncinn wp wprp not innnrant to the nntpntial rlpvplnnmpnt that mulct nrrur arlinrpnt to nur nrnnprtips but we do expect you, the City of Tigard, to protect our understanding and our neighborhoods. Please don't let us down. Respectfully, The Pebble Creek ome Owners Contact: K. F. MacDonald 11563 SW Tallwood Dr. Tigard, OR 97223 503-579-0796 Cc: City of Tigard Planning Commissioners Westlake Development, inc. S. Sindoni -esq. ATTACHMENT 3 ~EH r' `z u ~ F ;T1(PE ~ClSiON , t g- e 5 e'~ yFra ts.,Kkw atr.~ cvi 4 i• im s y... e; k $ $IJQl1~~OC~SU~~ 2004- N ~Y~ r t t 5s~ S' a ` ' ~s i 4 / cRl( OF T10ARD',. Ariz' ~{d:tr..'7"'~~t ~'y F4•~ v - _ l t1L17lIt1Lity Ofvefppment a r~ fF ' ` ~ f Y GAB# E II~Qh kil aniviS101~::>:Y 120 DAYS= 1/15/2005 (Includes a 58-day extension) SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION CASE NOS.:. Subdivision (SUB) SUB2004-00012 Adjustment AR) VAR2004-00055 Adjustment ~AR VAR2004-00085 REQUEST: The 'applicant is requestinapproval for a 25-lot single-family attached home bdi i 92 su vis on on approximately 1. acres. The applicant is also requesting l f Ad t t t d approva or an jus men o re uce the street spacing along a collector from 200 to 50-feet. A second adjustment has been requested to reduce the minimum density from 31. units to 25 units due to the irregular lot size, surrounding development and existing trees. The existing single-family residence and outbuildings will be removed. APPLICANT: Windfall Design and Construction, Inc. OWNER: Evelyn M. Kar[~ TR Attn: Barry Sandhorst 12954 SE 128 Avenue 23281 SW Boskey Dell Lane Clackamas, OR '97015 West Linn, OR 97068 APPLICANT'S Westlake Consultants, Inc. AGENT: Attn: Lee Leighton, AICP 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150 Tigard, OR 97224 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: R-25; Medium High-Density Residential. ZONE: R-25; The R-25 zoning district is designed to accommodate existing housing of ll d h d a types an new attac e single-family and multi-family housing units at a minimum lot size of 1,480 square feet. A limited amount of neighborhood commercial uses are permitted outright if limited to the ground floor level of multi- f il t d t d- am y projec s an not o excee 10% of the gross square footage of the building, and - a wide range -of civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally. LOCATION: 13900 SW Barrows Road; WCTM 1 S133CA, Tax Lot 2100. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. DECISION ~ce;e;X giv~n fhaatfe Clt of iTfgad Commun'itty Development Di~ecto~'s:fesignee bl?FtOVSkre SubctlvRSion: wa:d two.:Actjustments . Ttie firidings :and conclusions on which the Tkecrsloci s'based are rlotedV in Sectran Vl: of{this Decision NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 1 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION approval: 1. Extend the private streets 15 feet in order to consider the eastern and western property lines of lots #20 and #25 as the front yards. 2. Provide a revised tree protection/removal/mitigation plan to be reviewed and approved by the City's Forester and a member of the City's Current Planning staff. 3. The applicant will be required to provide and implement a plan showing the proposed screening on the southern property line. 4. The applicant shall submit a final Tree Protection Plan that shows exactly how far the tree protection fencing will be from the face of each protected tree (including those on neighboring properties where construction occurs within the trees' driplines) that will be impacted by construction activities within its dripline. The applicant, through their Project Arborist, shall justify the close proximity of the construction activities to the trees. He shall certify that the activities will not adversely impact the overall and long-term health and stability of each tree. Any construction that occurs within the neighboring trees' driplines should be justified by the .applicant and approved by the City Forester and neighboring property owners). Work may proceed within the driplines only with the approval of the City Forester. The Project Arborist shall submit written reports to the City Forester at least once every two weeks as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports should include any. changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and. location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall. justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall and long term ealth and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. 6. Only those trees authorized for removal by this decision, and any trees that are exempt may be removed. by the applicant. If in the process of constructing improvements, it is found that removal of a tree designated for preservation must occur, as determined by the City Forester and Project Arborist, the applicant will be subject to an additional Type II approval. Any additional trees other than those mentioned on the removal plan are damaged or removed without prior City authorization will constitute a violation, subject to ordinance penalties. Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext 2642) for -6View and approval: 7. Prior to commencing onsite improvements, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this pppro.ect to cover street & utility improvements and any other work in the public right-of-way.. Eight 8) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to u6fic improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.ti ard.or.us). NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 2 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 01 0 8. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the We legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate enti~tyublic who will edeSignated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, L, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 9. The applicant shall apply for a Type II Adjustment to the cul-de-sac length and number of units accessing -Anna Lane. The applicant must obtain approval for this adjustment prior. to the issuance of the PFI permit. 10. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 11. Any necessary off-site utility permits shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and shall be submitted to and accepted by the City prior to issuance of the PFI. This includes sewer connection and extension work in Barrows Road, which may require permits from WACO, City of Beaverton and CWS. 12. The applicant's Public Facility Improvement permit construction drawings shall indicate that full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, street trees; streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the interior, subdivision streets. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. 13. The applicant's PFI permit construction drawings shall include the improvements required to achieve adequate sight distance. The improvements shall reflect the recommendation (s) as outlined in the letter from Westlake Consultants, dated 10-27-04. 14. The driveways for Lots 1, 2 & 3 shall be located as far east from the intersection of Barrows Road and Anna Lane as possible. 15. The applicant's PFI permit construction drawings shall include the proposed meandering sidewalk location along the Barrows Road frontage for review and approval. 16. The applicant's PH permit construction drawings shall indicate the installation of "No Parking" signs along one side of Anna Lane. 17. The PFI. construction drawings shall indicate the cul-de-sac curb as mountable and the sidewalk as reinforced for fire truck loads. 18. Prior to issuance of the PFI, the applicant shall provide an approval letter from TVFD for the reduced size cul-de-sac. 19. The applicant shall obtain a facility permit from the Department of Land Use and Transportation of Washington County, to perform work within the right-of-way of Barrows Road. A copy shall be provided to the City Engineering Department prior to issuance of a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit Permit. 20. No lots shall be permitted to access directly onto Barrows Road. 21. The applicant's construction drawings shall show that the pavement and rock section for the proposed private street(s) shall meet the City's public street standard for a local residential street. 22. The applicant shall provide connection of proposed buildings to the public sanitary sewerage system. A connection permit is required to connect to the existing public sanitary sewer system. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 3 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION • 0 23. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed Public Facility Improvement PFI) permit construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the PFI permit plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 24. The public water line must be terminated at the public ROW of Anna Lane. All meters for lots 16 through 25 shall be banked at the ROW of Anna Lane. 25. Final design plans and calculations for the pro osed public water quality/detention facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department Kim McMillan) as a part of the Public Facility Improvement plans. Included with the plans s all be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City, Engineer. The proposed facility all be dedicated in a tract to the City of Tigard on the final pat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the three-year maintenance penod is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 26. The applicant shall provide a maintenance access road to the facility and any drainage structures within the facility to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. The access road shall be paved and have a structural section capable of accommodating a 50,000-pound vehicle. The paved width shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide, and there shall be two-foot rock shoulders provided on each side. If the maintenance roadway is over 150 feet in length, a turnaround shall be provided. 27.. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, February 2003 edition. 28. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions. of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain' and convey runoff from each lot. 29. 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. ....::.:•.=_r..u,c°c/~r.l...!'\\'A'I4~1/~:•A11~f1:1tT1A►1C'CL1Af 1: ~C QATI@CICI'1 • ti 1'17C rVLLVYY11rV •4VI~II:/LIJVIr~7:~7n11LL..oG.~7M.1.1~7C1L- r a~ _RfOR Z2 APPROVaLOF THE FINAL, PLAT t . - Submit to ffie anning epartment (Mathew c eiegger, 639-4171, ext. or review an approval: 30. The ownership and maintenance agreement for the proposed private streets will be required to be reviewed and approved by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. 31. The applicant is required to provide one ADA accessible parking stall within the proposed parking area. 32. The applicant must prove that the backing movement of vehicles parked in the northern parking stall of the proposed parking area will not encroach into the public right-of-way or eliminate that stall. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 4 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDNISION 33. The following text shall be included in all construction documents: Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of the tree removal chapter (including but not limited to removal or damage to trees not approved for removal) shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: A. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 18.790.060 (D) of the Tigard Development Code; and B. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal 34. The applicant shall record a deed restriction (either separately or as part of the CC&R's) that any tree preserved or retained in accordance with the approved tree plan may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. 35. A note will be laced on the final plat that. restricts fences to be placed in the visual clearance intersections ofpSW Anna Lane andthe proposed private streets. Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 36. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall pay the addressing fee. (STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat, Engineering). 37. The applicant shall provide signage at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses thhat are served by the given driveway or street. 38. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private street(s) will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from it (them). 39. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private street(s). The CC&R's shall obligate the private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the street(s). The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) prior to approval of the final plat. 40. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have formed and incorporated a homeowner's association. 41. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Barrows Road underground as a art of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding The fee shall be calculatedby the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $35.00 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $4,571.76 and it shall be paid prior to final plat approval. 42. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant's engineer shall provide post-street construction sight distance certification. 43. The final plat shall show the ROW width for Anna Lane to be 50 feet. The final plat shall also show the tracts for the private streets to be 21 feet. 44. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall comply with the conditions listed in the 10/27/04 transmittal from WACO. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 5 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION te 0 45. The plat shall contain a non-access restriction along the frontage of Barrows Road, except at the approved access location. 46.. The applicant's final plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to the City's global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control network (GC 22). These monuments shall be on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be established by: GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey. By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. 47. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Submit for City review four (4) paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. B: Attach a check in the amount of the current final plat review fee (Contact Planning/Engineering Permit Technicians, at (503) 639-4171, ext. 2421). C. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. D. The right-of-way dedication for Barrows Road shall be made on the final plat. E. NOTE: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive notice from the Engineering Department indicating that the City has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor. F. After the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer signature (for partitions), or City Engineer and Community Development Director signatures (for subdivisions). "T 7 HE O Q1 N?G EQII~ti~iT1QNS S!(A-Lt BE :SATISFIED { ' 1'IOR TESA1QE OFU1Li31NG PERMITS: Submit tote anning Department (Mathew c ei egger, 639-4171, ext. or review an approval: 48. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit final construction drawings that indicate street tree type and spacing, to be approved by the City Forester. 49. Provide visual clearance triangles at the entrance and exit of the parking area on the final construction drawings. 50. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall sign a copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. 51. Prior to issuance of building permits the Project Arborist shall submit to the City Forester a report describing how the Tree Protection Plan was implemented and detailing any failures to comply with the Tree Protection Plan. The report shall also describe the health of all remaining trees on the site, with details provided as to any tree that has had its root system disturbed or that has otherwise been damaged. Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 52. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a "photomylar" copy of the recorded final plat. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 6 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION 1 1 . 1 • • 53. Prior to issuance of building permits within the subdivision, the City Engineer shall deem the public improvements substantially complete. Substantial completion shall be when: 1) all utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities, '2) all local residential streets have at least one lift of asphalt, 3 any off-site street and/or utility improvements are substantially completed, and 4) all street lights are.installed and ready to be energized. (NOTE: the City apart from this condition, and in accordance with the City's model home policy may issue model home permits). 54. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features)) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). IN A MllT404--- I "I ~P)2LIC G. SNOI~ ~E AWARE OF THE FOLLOWJNO SEG.TIONS: OF THE :COMM NI Y bE1~ELO~ A NT GO©Er I-[tS IS VOT AN'EXCLUSIVE .LIST w18.430.080 Improvement Agreement: Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: 1. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and 2. Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under speck conditions therein stated in the contract. 18.430.090 Bond: As require y Section 18.430.080, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: 1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; 2. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it may be terminated; or 3. Cash. The subdivider shall furnish to the, City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer. to assist the Citv Enaineer in calculatina the amount nf the nerformance assurance. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 18.430.100 Filin and Recordin : Within 60 days o the i review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant. shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 7 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION 0 0. 18.430.070 Final Plat A lication Submission Requirements: Three copies o the Subdivision plat prepare by a an surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. The subdivision plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: Centerline Monumentation. In accordance wit regon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. The following centerline monuments shall be set: 1. All centerline-centerline intersection points; 2. All cul-de-sac centerpoints; and 3. Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. Monument Boxes Required onument boxes con ormmg to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center.points, and curve points. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 18.810 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: 18.810.120 Utilities All utility lines inc udbut not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.810.130 Cash or Bond Required Improvements installed y t e subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City. Such guarantee shall be secured. by cash deposit or. bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.810.180. 18.810.150 Installation Prerequisite Nn land diiv~s~nn improvements- Includina sanitarv sewers- storm sewers- streets. sidewalks. curbs. lighting or other requirements shall be un ertaken except after the plans therefore have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.810.180 Notice to City Required or shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 18.810.200 En ineer's Certification e an divider's engineer s a 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. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 8 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION , , ,r, , t THIS APPROVAL SHA:~.L BE VAL1D F:OR 48 MONTHS . FROM THE EFFECTIVE QATE OF THIS DECISION = SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Histo : No land-use cases were found to be associated with the subject property. Site Information and Pro osal Descri tion: e applicant is requesting approva or a 25-lot single-family attached home subdivision on approximately 1.92 acres. The applicant is also requesting approval for an Adjustment to reduce the street spacing along a collector from 200 to 50 feet. A second adjustment has been requested to reduce the minimum density from 31 units to 25 units due to the irregular lot size, surrounding development and existing trees. The existing single-family residence and outbuildings will be removed. Vicinity Information: The propose development is on the east side of SW Barrows Road, south of SW Scholls Ferry Road and north of SW Springbrook Lane. The abutting parcels are zoned R-25 and developed with multi-family units to the east,.single-family homes to the south and a Verizon facility to the west. SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET The City sent notice to property owners within 500 feet of the subject proposal. Three letters were received from neighbors with the following concerns: Since the neighborhood meeting, the applicant has changed the development substantially. Instead of a '(5 foot setback from the proposed southern units, the plans now: show six. It appears that the plans call for complete removal of all trees on the site. A second neighborhood meeting is definitely called for. Staff Response: According to procedures of the neighborhood meeting, applicants are not required to submit exactly what was presented at the neighborhood meeting if it generally follows the type of development proposed. The applicant has not changed the type of development. The applicant has always proposed attached single-family dwellings.. The addition of units and decreased setbacks are not cause for a new neighborhood meeting The development has to meet ordinance standards or approval cannot be granted. The setback requirement is five feet for a side yard. The fact that single famil dwellings were built adjacent to the site does not change the fact that the zone in which those houses were built is a multi-family R-25 zone. The required landscape buffer provides a minimum option of six feet. The applicant has chosen the six foot buffer to allow for the construction of the units pro osed. In any case, notice of decision is sent to property owners within 500 feet of the proposeddevelopment allowing them the opportunity to appeal. Placing the attached units six feet from our property lines, borders on total disrespect for adjacent property owners. The current design will devastate our property values as well as the aesthetic value. Staff Response: The Tigard Development Code allows a six-foot buffer between attached dwelling units and detached dwelling units with appropriate screening and landscaping. The applicant has proposed to screen the project with a six foot wall, trees and shrubs. The R-25 zoning district is a medium to high density residential zone which allows attached dwelling units at a higher density. Therefore, the applicant's proposal is within the boundaries of Tigard's Development Code. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 9 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA A summary o the applicable criteria in this case in the Chapter order in which they are addressed in this decision are as follows: A. Subdivision 18.430 B. Applicable I 16.3/U Variances ana Hajustments) 18.510 Residential zoning districts) 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation) 18.715 Density) 18.745 Landscaping and screenin ) 18.765 Off-street parking and loading requirements) 18.775 Sensitive Lands Review) 18.790 ree removal) 18.795 ision clearance) C. Street and Utility Improvement ree an III mprovement Standards) D. Decision Makin Procedures (impact Study) The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of these Specific Development Standard Code Chapters: 18.710 (Accessory Residential Units), 18.730 (Exceptions to Development Standards), 18.740 (Historic Overla, 18.742 (Home Occupations), 18.750 (Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations), 18.755 (Mixed Solid Waste & Recyclable Storage) 18.760 (Nonconforming situations), 18.785 (Temporary Uses), and 18.798 (Wireless Communication Facilities). These chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A - SUBDIVISION GENERAL PROVISIONS: Future Re-Division. When subdividing tracts into large lots, the Approval Authority shall require that the lots be of such size and shape as to facilitate future re-division in accordance with the requirements of the zoning district and this title. The minimum lot size of the R-25 zoning district for attached dwelling units is 1,480 square feet. The largest lot in the subdivision is 2,752 square feet and therefore cannot be re-divided. Lot Size Averagingg. Section 18.430.020.D states Lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed in the underlying zoning district as long as the average lot area for all lots is not less than allowed by the underlying zoning district. No lot created under this provision shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the underlying zoning district. The applicant has not proposed to average the lot sizes. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Phased Development: The Approval Authority may approve a time schedule for developing a subdivision in phases, but in no case shall the actual construction time period for any phase be greater than two years without reapplying for a preliminary plat; The criteria for approving a phased site development review proposal are: a.)The public facilities shall be scheduled to be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase to ensure provision of public facilities prior to building occupancy; b.) The development and occupancy of. any phase shall not be dependent on the use of temporary public facilities:. For purposes of this subsection, a temporary public facility is an interim facility not constructed to the applicable City or district standard; and The phased development shall not result in requiring the City or other property owners to construct public facilities that were required as a part of the approval of the preliminary plat. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 10 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION The application for phased development approval shall be reviewed concurrently with the preliminary plat application and the decision may be appealed in the same manner as the preliminary plat The applicant has not proposed a phased development; therefore, this standard does not apply. Determination of base flood elevation. Where base flood elevation has not been provided or is not available from another authoritative source, it shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed developments which contain at feast 50 lots or five acres whichever is less). This proposal is for 25 lots and is 1.92 acres in size; therefore this standard does not apply. Approval Standards - Preliminarv Plat: Me propose pre iminary p a complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations. Compliance with the specific regulations and standards of the zoning ordinance will be addressed further within this decision. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92. The applicant has provided evidence that the plat name "Gabriel Woods" has been approved by the Washington County Surveyor's office and is reserved for this property. This standard is met. The Streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions or subdivisions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern. Streets and roads are discussed in greater detail under Tigard Development Code (TDC) Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation) and - Chapter 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards). An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. The applicant has provided an explanation for all common improvements as required and, therefore, satisfied this criterion. Specific details of the proposed improvements are discussed later in this decision under the Street and Utility Improvement Standards section. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Subdivision criteria have been met. B- APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS Variances and Adjustments (18.370) Ad us men o minimum residential density ,requirements (Chapter 18.510). The Director is authorized -to grant an adjustment to the minimum residential density requirements in Section 18.510.040, by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030 as follows: a. For development on an infill site as follows: (1) In the R-25 zone, sites of .75 acre or smaller. (2) In the R-40 zone, sites of .75 acre or smaller. For development on sites larger than those contained in 1 above, if the applicant can demonstrate by means of detailed site plan that the site is so constrained that the proportional share of the required minimum density cannot be provided and still meet an of the development standards in the underlying zone. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 11 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION 0 0 To be ranted an adjustment in either Subsections a or b above,. the applicant must demonsTrate that the maximum number of residential units are being provided while complying with all applicable development standards in the underlying zone. There is nothing in this section which precludes an applicant for applying to a variance to these standards, as governed by Section 18.370.010. The applicant is requesting an. adjustment to reduce the minimum density from 31 units to 25 units based on the irregular shape of the subject parcel, surrounding development and existing trees. The applicant argues that the limited size of the subject property and its irregular L-shape ..limit potential street layout options for individually owned units. The proposed design is driven by the access from SW Barrows Road, which brings an east-west street into the property. The most efficient circulation while providing the maximum number of livable lots is a system of parallel streets extending to the south off of the proposed public street. Because of the narrow width of the private streets, the applicant has proposed a small parking area in order to minimize on-street parking. The proposed parking area could have been an additional lot. The subject site is further constrained by surrounding development that precludes current or future street connectivity. Lot layouts are based on minimum lot dimensions (for example, 1,480 square feet corresponds to a 20-foot by. 74-foot area) certain threshold dimensions are needed in order to produce an efficient plat. The specific dimensions of the property limit the number and location of rowhouse buildings that can be accommodated, as well as the number of units the buildings can contain. The applicant has proposed rowhouses in order to provide a somewhat subtle transition from the neighboring multi- family complex to the east to the detached single-family homes to the south. They feel this type of use is more appropriate than multi-family apartment structures. Several trees, including a large sequoia tree located on the northwest corner of the property, fronting SW Barrows Road, have been identified for preservation. The sequoia has been identified as worthy of special protection not only because of the health of the tree but also for its beauty. In an effort to preserve the large sequoia and other existing trees in the northwest corner of the property, this area has been set aside in a tract. The proposed tract provides an entry gateway, as well as common space for local residents to enjoy. This area could have been developed as one or possibly two more lots, but the applicant prefers to retain these trees as a form of entrance feature at the public street intersection. in attempting to save the large sequoia tree, it became necessary to orient the street such that it does not interfere with the drip line of the tree. Given the resulting location of the street, a small unusable strip of land remained adjacent to the neighboring Verizon site to the south which will also be put in a tract (Tract C). Tract G has been set aside for surface water treatment of storm water runoff, which is not taken out of the density calculation. Tract G could have possibly been developed as buildable lots. FINDING: The above findings have all been shown on the proposed site plan submitted by the applicant.. Based on the argument above, staff is satisfied that the adjustment to drop below the minimum density (31 units to 25 units) is warranted. 18.370.020.0.5 Adjustment to access and egress standards (18.705). In all zoning districts where access and egress drives cannot be readily designed to conform to Code standards within a particular parcel, access with an adjoining property shall be considered. If access in conjunction with another parcel cannot reasonably be achieved, the Director may grant an adjustment to the access requirements of Chapter 18.705 through a Type II procedure, as governed in Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Susection 2b below. The applicant has requested an adjustment to the street spacing standards of Section 18.705.030H, which requires driveways and streets along a collector to be 200 feet apart. The Director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment from the access requirements contained in Chapter 18.705, based on the following criteria: It is not possible to share access; NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 12 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION A shared access with an adjacent parcel cannot be achieved at this location. The access directly north is an emergency access only, which accesses the adjacent multi-family complex to the east of the subject site. -The adjacent property to the south (Verizon) has its access approximately 115 feet from the subject property. Therefore, I is not possible to share access with adjacent properties. There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another street; The subject property is surrounded on its north, east and south sides by existingg developments that provide no extensions of streets to the site. The only access rights derive from the frontage onto SW Barrows Road. This standard has been satisfied. The access separation requirements cannot be met. There are three other access points within 200 feet of the proposed Anna Lane: 1 The Verizon facility driveway is appproximately 115 feet to the south* 2) An emergency access only, driveway is located immediately to the north; and 3 An existing as ha t driveway is located on the opposite side of Barrows Road approximately 50 feet to the north. he subject parcel has approximately 130 feet of frontage onto barrows Road Therefore, access separation cannot be met no matter where the access is proposed. This criterion has been satisfied. The request is the minimum adjustment required to provide adequate access; The proposed Anna Lane is as far south as possible along the Barrows Road frontage. The adjustment is the least needed in order to provide adequate access while maintaining the furthest separation from all adjacent access points. The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access; and Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposed street and has not indicated that it will result in an unsafe access; TVFR's comments are located under Section VIII (Agency Comments). Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.795 will be met. Visual clearance will be met as outlined in Chapter 18.795 (Visual Clearance) which is addressed later in this decision. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the adjustment standards have been met. Residential Zoning Districts (18.510) is the description o a rest en ial Zoning District. The site is located in the R-25: Medium-High residential zoning district. The R-25zoning district has the following dimensional reauirements: rekrTO r µ - mimum o ize Detached unit 3,050sq. ft. Attached unit 1,480 sq. ft. Duplexes 6,100 sq. ft. or 3,050 sq. ft. per unit. Average Minimum o Width - one NIffinimurn Setbacks Front yard 15 ft. Side facing street on corner & through lots 10 ft. Side yard 5 ft. Rear yard 15 ft. Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district 30 ft. Distance between property line and front of garage 20 ft. aximum Heiqnt 45 . ximum o Coverage u 11 Minimum Landscape e uiremen o I1] Single-family attached residential units permitted at one dwelling per lot with no more that five attached units in one grouping. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 13 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION 0 0 The proposed lots range in size from 1,564 square feet to 2,752 square feet. The applicant has shown the southern yard setback for lots #20 and #25 to be six feet. However, the southern lot line is actually the rear lot line because the lots front onto the proposed private streets to the north. In order to consider the eastern and western property lines to be the front yards the applicant is required to extend the private streets 15 feet to the south in order to consider the eastern and western property lines as the front yards. The applicant is required to comply with all other setbacks, height and lot coverage/landscape requirements during the building permit review process for the homes on individual lots. The applicant is proposing landsca a tracts at the entrance of the subdivision (tract A and tract C), which will be maintained by the prope owners of the subdivision as required below under Chapter 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement S andards). FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the residential zoning district standards are not satisfied. If the applicant complies with the condition below, the zoning standards will be met. CONDITION: Extend the private streets 15 feet in order to consider the eastern and western property lines of lots #20 and #25 as the front yards. Access Egress and Circulation (18.7051: ap er 18.705 establishes s n ar s and regulations for safe and efficient vehicle access and egress on a site and for general circulation within the site. Table 18.705.1 states that the minimum vehicular access and egress for single-family dwelling units on individual lots shall be one, 10-foot paved driveway within a 15-foot-wide accessway. The minimum access width for 3-6 dwelling units is 20 feet with 20 feet of pavement. The access and egress into the site itself is discussed later in this decision under the Street and Utility Improvements Standards section of this decision. Access to individual lots will be reviewed for compliance during the building permit phase. Access plan. requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. Scaled site plans have been submitted that indicate how the requirements of access, egress, and circulation are met. Joint access. Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, eases or contracts to establish the joint use; and Copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. Joint access has not been proposed. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Public street access. All vehicular access and eqress as required in Sections 18.705:030H and 18.705.0301 shall connect directly with a public of private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. All lots access and egress shall be via a new public and private street which connect to SW Barrows Road. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N. Curb cuts will be addressed under Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvements Standards later in this decision. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 14 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION r ! Walkways: On-site pedestrian walkways shall compli with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or rom the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-buildng commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots such crossingls shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Re,~uired walkways Gall be physics ly separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for.distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings or contrasting avement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards* Required walkways- shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete asphalt, stone, brick, etc. -Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. Public sidewalks are proposed on both sides of. the proposed public street and one side for each of the pprivate streets. Sidewalks shall be constructed per city standards (i.e. hard-surfaced, 4-foot widAr Inadequate or hazardous access: Applications for building permits shall be referred to the Commission for review when, in the opinion of the Director, the access proposed would cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or would provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or would in any other way cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety and general welfare. Based on the preliminary plan submitted by the applicant, the intersection of SW Barrows Road and proposed Anna Lane does not appear to have any hazardous attributes. Sight distance certification will be required to assure that hazards at this intersection are minimized. Direct individual access to arterial or collector streets from single-family dwellings and duplex lots shall be discouraged. Direct access to major collector or arterial streets shall be considered only if there is no practical alternative way to access the site. All lots will take access from local residential public and private streets. Direct access to, SW Barrows Road has been addressed later in this decision (18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards). In no case shall the design of the service drive or drives require or facilitate the backward movement or other maneuvering of a vehicle within a street, other than an alley. Single-family and duplex dwellings are exempt from this requirement. No service drives are associated with this development. This criterion does not apply. Access Management (Section 18.705.030.H) Section states a an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stackin needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington Couny, the City and AASHTO. SW Barrows Road is a County facility. The Washington County FACO) 2020 Transportation Plan classifies Barrows Road as a Neighborhood Route, while the City s TSP classifies it as a Collector. The applicants engineer has provided preliminary sight distance certification with a list of improvements in order-to meet the standard. The posted speed is 40 mph, requiring a minimum sight distance of 400 feet in each direction. According to. the engineer, 380 feet of sight. distance is available to the north of the proposed intersection and 1500 feet to the south. The engineer states that in order to meet the sight. distance requirements to the north a slightly elevated access point and/or a minimal pavement grind will be required. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 15 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION 0 0 The applicant's engineer shall provide a post-street construction, final sight distance certification. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. Because the City of Tigard's TSP classifies Barrows Road as a Collector, this criterion applies. Lots 1, 2 & 3 will have driveways located within 150 feet of the proposed intersection of Barrows Road and Anna Lane. These driveways shall be placed as far east from the intersection as possible, as each lot has less than 150 feet of frontage. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. The applicant has applied for an .adjustment to this standard. The proposed location of Anna Lane is as far south as possible along the Barrow Road frontage in order to avoid damaging the root zone of an existing sequoia tree. There are also three other access points within 200 feet of the proposed Anna Lane: 1) A Verizon facility driveway is approximately 115 feet south; 2) An Emergency Access Only driveway is located immediately north; and 3) An existing asphalt driveway is located. on the opposite side of Barrows Road, approximately 50 feet north. The applicant states there is no feasible location. for a shared access point. There is also no other possible way to serve the site and meet the spacing standards. The applicant has selected the best ocation for SW Anna Lane and staff agrees that an adjustment to the standard is acceptable. Minimum access requirements for residential use: Vehicular access and egress for single-family, duplex or attached single-family dwelling units on individual lots and multi-family residential uses shall not be less than as provided in Table 18.705.1 and Table 18.705.2; All of the proposed lots have frontage to a public or private street, individual access will consist of standard driveways to each house. This will be reviewed as part of the building permit application. Vehicular access to multi-family structures shall be brought to within 50 feet of the ground floor entrance or the ground floor landing of a stairway, ramp, or elevator leading to the dwelling units; No multi-family structures are proposed with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Private residential access drives shall be provided and maintained in accordance with -the provisions of the Uniform fire Code; The proposed private streets will be owned and maintained by the home owners that take access from them. Maintenance will be provided by the required Home Ownership Association. The ownership and maintenance agreement for the proposed private streets will be required to be reviewed and approved by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. Section 18.705.030.1.4 states that Access drives in excess of 150 feet in .length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus by one of the following: a circular, paved surface having a minimum turn radius measured from center point to outside edge of 35 feet or a hammerhead-configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead havin a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet. The maximum cross slope 01 a required turnaround is 5%. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 16 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDNISION r !I The proposed subdivision has two private streets. The western private street is approximately 197 feet in length and has been provided with an approved hammerhead turn-around. The proposed turn around is the intersection of SW Anna Lane and the proposed private street. Proposed Anna Lane is 36 feet in width for a minimum of 40 feet in length in either direction of the intersection. Cit staff had the applicant verify with Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue that the turn-around was sufficient Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue's Fire Marshall, Eric McMullen, provided approval of the proposed hammerhead, which can be found under Section VIII (Agency Comments). The eastern private street is approximately 135 feet in length. No fire apparatus turn-around is required. This criterion has been met. To provide for increased traffic movement on congested streets and to eliminate turning movement problems, the Director may restrict the location of driveways on streets and require the location of driveways be placed on adjacent streets, upon the finding that the proposed access would cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety, and general welfare. Staff does not foresee any need to restrict the location of access. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposed access and has no objections to it. Comments are provided under Section VIII (Agency Comments). FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have not been met. If the applicant complies with the conditions below, this section will be met. CONDITIONS: The applicant's engineer shall provide a post-street construction, final sight distance certification. The ownership and maintenance agreement for the proposed private streets will be required to be reviewed and approved by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. Density Computations and Limitations: 18.715 limp emen a omprehensive Plan by establishing the criteria for determining Za_gter umber of dwelling units permitted. The number of allowable dwelling units is based on the net development area. The net area is the remaining parcel area after exclusion of sensitive lands and land dedicated for public roads or parks. The net area is then. divided by the minimum lot size permitted by the zoning district to determine the number of dwelling units that may be developed on a site. Based on the formulas in Chapter 18.715 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code, the maximum and minimum number of units permitted on the site is based on the net developable area, subtracting sensitive land areas, land dedicated to public parks, land dedicated for public right-of-way, and land for private streets from the total site area. According to the Residential Density Calculation provisions within the code, the number of dwelling units permitted on this site can be calculated by dividing the net area by the minimum lot size, which in this case is 1,480 square feet. The net area, in this development, is derived by subtracting the public right-of-way from the gross acreage. The density computations for Gabriel Woods are as follows: Net Area Calculation for Subdivision Plat Gross square eet 83,635 square feet (1.92 acres) Minus ri hts-of-wa 25,700 square feet qua s e Area subtotal square eet/1,480 square feet Maximum Dwelling Units = 39 units Minimum Dwelling Units Required: 39 X.80 = 31 units NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 17 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION 0 0 Total Units Proposed: 25 units FINDING: The applicant has applied for an adjustment to build six units less than the required minimum density. Adjustments have been addressed above under 18.370 (variances and Adjustments). Environmental performance standards (18.725): These standards require that federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 (Performance Standards) regulates: noise, visible emissions, vibration and odors. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through 7.40.210 oTIFe-Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Visible Emissions. Within the commercial zoning districts and the. industrial park (IP) zoning district, ere shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a proper line. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-015 and 40-28-070) apply. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is perms a in any given zoning district which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily Ttecfable at any point beyond the lproperty line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply. Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted, and; 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2) these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. This is a detached single-family proect, which is permitted within the R-25 zone. There is nothing to indicate that these standards Willi not be met. However, ongoing maintenance to meet these standards shall be maintained and any violation of these standards will be addressed by the City of Tigard's' Code Enforcement Officer. Compliance with state, federal, and local environmental regulations are the continuing obligation of the property owner, and will abide by the applicable standards. FINDING: The Environmental Performance standards are met. Landscaping and Screening (18.745): apter U.7 5 contains landscaping provisions for new development Section 18.745.100 requires that street trees be Fong. in conjunction with all development that fronts a street or driveway more than 100 feet (on . A proposed planting list must be submitted for review by the Director since certain trees can damage utilities, streets and sidewalks or cause personal injury. Section 18.745.030.E states that existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible (for example, areas not to be disturbed can be fenced as in snow fencing which can be around individual trees). NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 18 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION The applicant has shown Zelkova Serrata (Green Vase) and Acer Platanoides (Crimson King) as street trees. The City Forester will need to review and approve the street trees on the final construction drawings. Section 18.745.040.C contains specific standards for spacing of street trees as follows: • Small or narrow stature trees (under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart; Medium sized trees (25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no-greater than 30 feet apart; and • Large trees (over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart; The applicant has been conditioned above to provide street trees on the final construction drawings, which are to be approved by the City's Forester. Therefore, this standard will be met. Section 18.745.050 contains the provisions and requirements for buffering and screening. The proposed subdivision is attached single-family. Adjacent properties to the north and east are considered multi-family, which does not require screening. The properties to the south are single-family detached, which require buffering. The applicant has proposed a minimum of a six foot buffer with a six foot wall, trees and shrubs. The adjacent property to the west is developed with a commercial building, and is separated by the proposed private street. Streets are not required to be buffered. The applicant will be required to provide and implement a plan showing the proposed screening on the southern property line. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the proposed buffering is consistent with the Buffering and Screening Matrix (Section 18.745.1) of the Tigard Development Code. CONDITIONS: Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit final construction drawings that indicate street tree type and spacing, to be approved by the City Forester. The applicant will be required to provide and implement a plan showing the proposed screening on the southern property line. rkinq and Loading Requirements (18.765): parking space for each dwelling ily residences be` provided with one (1) Compliance with this standard will be enforced during the building permit review process. The proposed units will be provided with driveways, which will ensure at least one parking space for each unit. In addition to individual parking, the applicant has roposed an off-street parking area with five additional stalls. Therefore, the following criteria and find ngs pertain to the proposed parking area. Disabled-accessible parkin .All parking areas shall be provided with the required number of ar ing spaces or Asa e%* persons as specified by the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as required by these regulations. According to Oregon's Uniform Building Code, parking lots with 1-25 parking stalls are required to provide one ADA accessible parking stall. The applicant has not provided an DA accessible parking stall; therefore, it will be required. Maintenance of arkin areas. All parking lots shall be kept clean and. in good repair at all times. Breaks in pave su aces shall be repaired promptly and broken or splintered wheel stops shall be replaced so that their function will not be impaired. Ongoing maintenance to meet these standards shall be maintained and any violation of these standards will be addressed by the City of Tigard's' Code Enforcement Officer. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 19 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION • w Access drives. With regard to access to ublic streets from off-street arkin : Access rives from the s ree o o -s ree parking or loading areas Shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; The proposed access to the parking area is approximately 35 feet from the nearest residence and facilitates one-way access to and from the area. The parking area is separated from the proposed eastern private street by a sidewalk and planter well in order to provide safety for pedestrians. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. The number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements. of Chapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; Chapter 18.705 (Access Egress and Circulation) does not provide standards for parking areas within attached single-family developments. However, Chapter 18.705 does provide standards for one-way vehicular access points, which the applicant has proposed. According to 18.705.030.K One-way vehicular access points); "Where a proposed parking facility indicates only one-way traffic ow on the site, it shall be accommodated by a specific driveway serving the facility; the entrance drive shall be situated closest to oncoming traffic and the exit drive shall be situated farthest from oncoming traffic." The access drive into the proposed parking area is located on SW Anna Lane. Southwest Anna lane is the main entrance to the subdivision. The exit from the parking area is located on the proposed eastern private street, which is considered the furthest away from oncoming traffic into the subdivision. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; The access to the proposed parking area is shown to be marked with an arrow that directs traffic in a one-way fashion. The applicant has also shown the entrance to be provided with a driveway apron. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; Visual clearance has not been addressed at the entrance or exit of the parking area. Therefore, the applicant is required to provide visual clearance triangles at the entrance and exit of the parking area on the final construction drawings. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and The applicant has shown the parking area to be constructed with the same material as the proposed streets. Streets are required to be improved with asphalt. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Excludina single-family and duplex . residences. except as prov_ id_ ed by Subsection 18.810.03-OP, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. It appears that the northern proposed parking stall will require vehicles to back into the public right-of-way of SW Anna Lane. Therefore, the applicant must prove that the backing movement of vehicles parked in the northern parking stall of the proposed parking area will not encroach into the public right-of-way or eliminate that stall. FINDING: Each individual home will be reviewed for compliance with this standard during the building permit phase. However, staff is not satisfied that the provisions regarding the proposed parking area have been met. If the applicant complies with the conditions below, the Off-Street Parking Standards will be met. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 20 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS: • The applicant is required to provide one ADA accessible parking stall within the proposed parking area. • Provide visual clearance triangles at the entrance and exit of the parking area on the final construction drawings. • The applicant must prove that the backing movement of vehicles parked in the northern parking stall of the proposed parking area will not encroach into the public right-of-way, or eliminate that stall. Signs (18.780): Chapter 18.730 regulates the placement, number and design criteria for signage. No signs are proposed in conjunction with this development. The applicant ma applyy for sign permits to erect subdivision entry signs as authorized in Section 18.780.130(A)3). Rny future signage will be subject to the sign permit requirements in Chapter 18.780. There has been a proliferation of sign violations from new subdivisions. In accordance with a new policy adopted by the Director's Designee, all new subdivisions must enter into a sign compliance agreement to facilitate a more expeditious court process for citations. FINDING: To expedite enforcement of sign violations, a sign compliance agreement will be required. CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall sign a copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. . Tree Removal (18.790 Chapter 18.790 requires mitigation of trees over 12-inch diameter at breast height (dbh) removed as part of the development of the site. A tree plan has been developed and reviewed by a certified arborist, which includes the location and species of all existing trees six inches or greater. The plan identifies individual trees for removal or retention. There are 96 trees on-site that are greater than 12-inches equaling 1169 inches. The applicant has indicated in the narrative that, "Specific determination of the applicable mitigation requirements should be performed at the time of construction, when a factual determination of trees actually retained or removed can be made." However, the City's current tree mitigation procedures require the applicant to determine tree protection/removal and mitigation prior to construction. A preliminary tree protection plan has been provided, to which the City will hold the applicant responsible. The apTlicant may need to extend the roposed private streets 15 feet to the south, which may require additional removal of trees. Therefore, the applicant is re Vired to provide an updated removal and mitigation plan that will reflect the removal of trees greater than 12 inches in diameter prior to site work. In the event any additional trees are needed to be removed after the tree protection/removal plan has been revised for reasons such as they are found to be dead, dying, diseased, dangerous by way of a more thorough arborist evaluation, they may be removed without additional mitigation. If in the process of constructing improvements, it is found that removal of a tree designated for preservation must occur, as determinedpby the City Forester and Project Arborist, the applicant will be subject to an additional Type II approval. Any additional trees other than those mentioned on the removal plan that are damaged or removed without prior City authorization will constitute a violation. Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 21 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION The applicant will need to record a deed restriction for all trees to remain on-site, either independently or for all lots in the subdivision. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Tree Removal standards will be met, if the applicant complies with the conditions of the City Forester listed under "Other Staff Comments" and the conditions listed below: CONDITIONS: Provide a revised tree protection/removal/mitigation plan to be reviewed and approved by the City's Forester and a member of the City's Current Planning staff. The applicant shall submit a final Tree Protection Plan that shows exactl how far the tree protection fencing will be from the face of each protected tree Ncludinq those on neighboring properties where construction occurs within the trees driplines) that will be impacted by construction activities within' its dripline. The applicant, through their Project Arborist, shall justify the close proximity of the construction activities to the trees. He shall certify that the activities will not adversely impact the overall and long-term health and stability of each tree. Any construction that occurs within the neighboring trees' driplines should be justified by the applicant and approved by the City Forester and neighboring property owner(s). Work may proceed within the driplines only with the approval of the City Forester. The Project Arbodst shall submit written reports to the City Forester at least once every two weeks as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall and long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the protect until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborst. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. Prior to issuance of building permits the Project Arborist shall submit to the City Forester a final .report describing how the Tree Protection Plan was implemented and detailing any failures to comply with the Tree Protection Plan. The report shall also describe the health of all remaining trees on the site, with details provided as to any tree that has had its root system disturbed or that has otherwise been damaged. Only those trees authorized for removal by this decision, and any trees that are exempt may be removed by the applicant. If in the process of constructing improvements, it is found that removal of a tree designated for preservation must occur, as determined by the City Forester and Project Arborist, the applicant will be subject to an additional Type II approval. Any additional trees other than those mentioned on the removal plan are damaged or removed without prior City authorization will constitute a violation, subject to ordinance penalties. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 22 OF 36 SUB2004-00012-GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION A A The following text shall be included in all construction documents: Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of the tree removal chapter (including but not limited to removal or damage to trees not approved for removal) shall be, subiect to a civil penalty of up to $500 pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 'r 1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 18.790.060 (D) of the Tigard Development Code; and 2. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. • The applicant shall record a deed restriction (either separately or as part of the CC&R's) that any tree preserved or retained in accordance with the approved tree Ian may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certAed arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. Vision Clearance: Chapter applies to all development and requires that clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways and at the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A visual clearance area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, signs, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three feet in height. Construction plans for the streets will need to be reviewed and approved that satisfies the visual clearance requirements. Subsequent grading and vegetative removal may be imposed during infrastructure construction to assure that this standard is met. A note will be placed on the final plat that restricts fences to be placed in the visual clearance intersections of SW Anna Lane and the proposed private streets. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the vision clearance criteria have not been met. If the applicant complies with the condition below, the vision clearance criteria will be met. CONDITION:A note will be placed on the final plat that restricts fences to be placed in the visual clearance intersections of SW Anna Lane and the proposed private streets. C - STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS (SECTION 18.810): Chapter 10.010 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030:E requires a Collector street to have a 70 right-of-way width and 46-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks. and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 23 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION This site lies adjacent to SW Barrow Road, which is classified as a Collector on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 37 feet of ROW from the centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. While no additional ROW dedication is required, the applicant shall be required to record a non-access restriction along the site's frontage of Barrows Road, except at the approved access location. SW Barrows Road is currently a Washington CounMC10 ACO) facility. In order to mitigate the impact from this development, the applicant shall obtain a Facility Permit for improvements along the Barrows Road frontage. The subdivision includes construction of a public, local street, Anna Lane. The applicant has proposed a 50 foot ROW for a local street with <500 vehicles per day. Based on an average of 10 vehicle trips per day per household, the development will create approximately 250 additional vehicle trips per day. This meets the criterion for the reduced 50 foot ROW section. The paved width for Anna Lane is proposed to be 28 feet from curb to curb. The plans indicate there will be a 5 foot planter strip and 5 foot sidewalks on each side. Parking is allowed on one side only. The permit drawings shall show "No Parking" signs installed on one side of Anna Lane. The applicant has proposed a reduced cul-de-sac ROW radius of 36.5 feet. The paved surface radius is proposed to be 30 feet to face of curb. The curb shall be mountable and the sidewalk shall be reinforced to handle the weight of a fire truck. The sidewalk in the cul-de-sac bulb will be curb- tight in order to provide the additional turning area for emergency vehicles. A letter of approval from the Tualatin Valley Fire Department will be required for this reduced size cul-de-sac. Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030.F states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sacs since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the. street construction cost Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de- sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub streets in excess of 150 feet in length. The applicant has stated that due to existing development on all sides of the project there is no opportunity for a future street extension. They have proposed construction of a cul-de-sac at the end of Anna Lane, as required for the termination of a public street. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18:810.030.H.1 states that full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, preexisting developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. Section 18.810.030.H.2 states that all local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15% for a distance of 250 feet or more. 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. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 24 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION The applicant has stated that an extension of Anna Lane is not feasible due to the existing development patterns. Staff concurs. Cul-de-sacs: 18.810.030.1L states that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long, shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental or topographical constraints, existing develojpment pattern, or strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation: All cul-de-sacs shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other than circular, shall be approved by the City Engineer; and • The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured from the centerline intersection point of the two streets to the radius point of the bulb, and • If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the City. The applicant has stated that the length of the cul-de-sac is approximately 300 feet. This exceeds the 200 foot maximum length; therefore, an adjustment is required. The applicant has also stated that the cul-de-sac provides access to 15 homes, but staff does not agree. All units will have to access SW Anna Lane in order to reach Barrows Road.' The applicant shall apply for, and obtain approval of, a Type II Adjustment to the cul-de-sac length and number of units accessing Anna Lane. The applicant must obtain approval of this adjustment prior to the issuance of the PFI permit. Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.N states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet). Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer. The proposed profiles for Anna Lane *and the private streets are much less than 12%, thereby meeting this criterion. Private Streets: Section 18.810.030.T states that design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer. The City shall require legal assurances for the continued maintenance of privaje streets, such as.a recorded maintenance agreement Private streets serving more than six dwelling units are permitted only within planned developments, mobile home parks, and multi-family residential developments. The applicant has proposed two private streets in tracts. The applicant's plans indicate that the tracts will be 21 feet wide to accommodate 20 feet of paving and 0.5 feet curbs on each side. The plans also indicate that sidewalks will be constructed along one side of each private street. The sidewalks shall be placed in an easement. The applicant shall place a statement on the face of the final plat indicating the private street(s) will be owned and maintained by the properties that will be served by it/them. In addition, the applicant shall record., Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) alon with the final plat that will clarify how the prate property owners are to maintain the private street s). These CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City =tto approval of the final plat. he City's public improvement desigstandards require private s to have a pavement section equal to a public local street. The applicant will need po provide this type of pavement section. Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.B.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: • Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development or; NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 25 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major. collectors or railroads. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. No blocks are created with this application. The applicant has submitted a future streets plan that indicates future connections are not possible. This standard does not apply. Section 18.810.040.6.2 also states that bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is not possible. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. The proposed public street (Anna Lane) is 300 feet in length. The longer of the proposed private streets (the western private street ) is 197 feet in length. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.810.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district The minimum lot size of the R-25 zoning district is 1,480 square feet. Based on the standard above, none of the proposed parcels can be more than 2.5 times the average lot width unless they are less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size (1,480 sof uare feet). The largest of the proposed lots (lot #4) has an average lot width of 61 feet and a depth 136 feet. Therefore, none of the proposed lots are 2.5 times the average lot width. This criterion is satisfied. Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley. In the case of a land partition, 18.420.050.A.4.c applies, which requires a parcel to either have a minimum 15-foot frontage or a minimum 15-foot wide recorded access easement In cases where the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit, the frontage shall be at least 15 feet The proposed subdivision is for attached dwelling units. According to the standard, attached units are required to have 'a minimum of 15 feet of frontage. The smallest of the lots (lot 20) has 16 feet of frontage. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. U Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. Private streets and industrial streets shall have sidewalks on at least one side. The aplicant's plans indicate they will construct sidewalks on both sides of Anna Lane and on one side Of each of the private streets. The applicant also indicates that they will construct sidewalk along the frontage of Barrows Road. The applicant has requested they be allowed to meander the sidewalk to save a tree along the Barrows Road frontage. A planter strip is required, but a portion of the improvements can eander to save the tree. The sidewalk layout must be approved with the PFI submittal and the WACO Facility Permit. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section .18.810.090.C states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 26 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION The applicant has indicated that they intend to connect to the public sewer in Barrows Road to the north of the project site. The existing public sewer is maintained by the City of Beaverton. The applicant will be required to get a sewer connection permit from the City of Beaverton. The extension of the 8 Inch sewer line to the south and then east into the project will require review and approval by CWS and the City of Tigard. The applicant will also need approval from WACO for utility work within the ROW. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.C states that a culvert or other drainage, facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside .the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). There are no upstream drainage basin impacts on this project. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to anno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. The applicant has proposed to construct an on-site detention system within Tract G, thereby meeting this criterion. Final plans and calculations shall be submitted for review and approval by City Engineering staff. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. Barrows Road is a WACO facility. The applicant shall submit half-street improvements plans to WACO for approval of a Facility Permit. Bike lanes shall be included if required by the County. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, 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, and: The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; NOTICE OF DECISION SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION PAGE 27 OF 36 0 0 All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.C states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical:-difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW Barrows Road. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 130.62 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $4,571.70. TY AND/OR AG A Public Water System: e City of I igar provides service in this area. The applicant's plans show an 8-inch water line extension from the line in Barrows Road to the east in Anna Lane. The plans also show an 8-inch line in both private streets. A public water line is not allowed outside of public ROW, therefore the meters for lots 16-25 must be placed in the ROW of Anna Lane. Storm Water Qualitv: The qty as agree to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of. the CWS Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. Prior to the City accepting this facility as a public facility, the developer shall maintain it for a minimum of three years after construction is completed. The pond shall be placed in a tract and conveyed to the City on the final plat. The developer will be required to submit annual reports to the City which show what maintenance operation's were conducted on the facility for that year. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will' take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. Gradin and Erosion Control: Design an ons ruc ion Standards also regulate 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 CWS regulations, the.applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 28 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDESland. erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb one or more acre of Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot. The applicant will also be required to provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report will need to be incorporated into the final grading plan and a final construction supervision report must be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. The design engineer shall also indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. An NPDES 1200-C permit is required because more than 1.0 acre of the site will be disturbed. Site Permit Required: e app Ican is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on-site private utility installations (water, sewer, storm, etc.) and driveway construction. This permit shall be obtained prior to approval of the final plat. Address Assi nments: e I y o Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee in the amount of $50.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to final plat approval. The developer will also be required to provide signage at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served by the given driveway or street. This will assist emergency services personnel to more easily find a particular home. Surve Re uirements e app Ican s ina p at shall contain State Plane Coordinates [NAD 83 (91] on two monuments with a tie to the City's global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control network ( C 22). These monuments shall be on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be established by: GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey. By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. In addition, the applicant's as-built drawings shall be tied to the GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system. features in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). E. - IMPACT STUDY Section 18.390.050 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 29 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.390.050 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt fndinggs which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. Any required street improvements to certain collector or higher volume streets and the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures that are required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Presently, the TIF for a detached, single-family dwelling is $2,530. The internal streets within the subdivision are needed to allow the subdivision to develop and the need for these streets is created by the subdivision. Because the need for the internal streets is created by the development, the impact of the private streets is directly proportional to the cost of dedication and construction of the internal streets. Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF s totaling approximately $63,250 ($2,530 x 25 dwelling units). Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $197,656 ($63,250 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact, is considered as unmitigated impact. Since the TIF paid is $50,600, the unmitigated impact can be valued at $134,406 ($197,656 - $63,250). Given that the estimated cost of the half-street improvements on SW Barrows Road is $20,000, the value of these improvements is..less than the value of the unmitigated impacts, the exactions are proportionate. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. City of Tigard Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: • Possibility of eliminating Water Quality Facility, routing storm water on Anna Lane to a vault possibly using tract "B". • I he water system will need redesigned so that no public water lines will be located in private streets. City of Tigard Urban Forester has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.745.030.C, Installation Requirements The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures. 2. The plant material shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock (ANSI Z-60, 1-1986, and any other future revisions); and 3. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 30 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION The accepted planting procedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as the standards set forth in the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards, loth edition. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications. In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following, guidelines be followed: No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite. No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite. 'No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite. 18.745.030.E Protection of Existin Landscaping. Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible: 1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and 2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on.. the landscape plans (e.g., areas not to .be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed around the individual trees). See comments under Tree. Removal". 18.745.030.E Conditions of A roval of Existin Ve etation. The review procedures and s n ar s or require landscaping an screening s a e specified in the conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less than that required for conventional development. See recommended conditions of approval at the end of this memorandum. 18.745.040 Street Trees Protection o existin vegetation. All development projects fronting on a public street, private street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040.C. The accepted planting procedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as t be standards set forth in the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards, 10ihh edition. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications. In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed: No more than 30% of anyone family be planted onsite. No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite. No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite. 2. TREE REMOVAL 18.790.030, Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree plan required. . A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees preparec y a certified ar orist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 31 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION B. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; 2. Identification of a.program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; C. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. As required, the applicant submitted a tree plan that was conducted by Stephen Goetz. The plan contains four out of the four required components of a tree plan, and, is therefore; acceptable. However, I strongly disagree with the project arborist's recommendations for the use of 23-0-0 fertilizer to be applied to the trees that suffer from construction impacts. Before any type of fertilizer is added to the soil I strongly recommend a soil test to determine what the make-up of the soil is and how to best use soil amendments so the trees can maximize the benefits of any supplements. Adding any type of fertilizer is unjust unless a deficiency of certain nutrients exists. Once a soil test has been completed then fertilizers can be considered, but only to help the trees recover from construction trauma. Nitrogen, if deficient in the disturbed soil, can be used to promote root and shoot growth. It should only be added, though, if necessary. The use of fertilizers, when unnecessary, can have adverse effects on the trees such as root and foliage burn, reduction of tolerance to environmental stresses, increase susceptibility to certain insects and contaminate local water resources. If the project arborist wants to promote root growth I suggest adding supplements to the soil that are beneficial to the roots such as mycorrhizae. Oftentimes, construction impacts such as soil compaction or grading can render the existing mycorrhizae in the soil useless. Adding these fungi to the soil can have very beneficial effects for the trees. Street Trees: The applicant must change-the species of street use to avoid using Acer platanoides of any kind. This species of maple is not on the street tree list and may not be used as a street tree. If construction does occur within the driplines, the Project Arborist must explain or set guidelines for how the tree roots will be protected. Any tree that is located on property adjacent to the construction project that will have more than 15% of its root system disturbed by construction activities should be protected . These trees should be identified, and a plan on how to protect the trees' critical root zones should be completed. recommend the following if there are trees on neighboring properties that should be protected: NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 32 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDMSION A note shall be placed on the final set of plans indicating that equipment, vehicles, machinery, grading, dumping, storage, burial of debris, or any other construction-related activities shall not be located inside of any tree protection zone or outside of the limits of disturbance where other trees are being protected. - . All tree protection devices shall be: • Visible. • Constructed of 11 Gauge steel chain-link fencing supported on at least 2" O.U.' steel posts. Each post shall be no less than four feet high from the top of grade. Each post shall be driven into the ground to a depth of no less than two and a half feet below grade. Each post shall be spaced no further apart than four feet. • Between each post, securely attached to the chain-link fencing, shall be a sign indicating that the area behind the fencing is protected and no construction activity, including material storage, may occur behind the fencing. • Inspected and approved in the field by the project arborist and City Forester prior to clearing, grading, or the beginning of construction. Remain in place and maintained until all construction is completed and a final inspection is conducted. To determine the size of the tree protection zone (TPZ) the project arborist should follow the guidelines listed below: • For individual trees follow the trunk diameter method. For every one-inch of diameter at breast height~DBH), or 4 %2 feet above the ground, allow 12 inches of space from the trunk of the tree. or example, a tree that is 15" at DBH must have at least 15' of tree protection zone around the entire canopy of the tree. • For groups of trees the tree protection zone must be outside of the drip line of the trees on the edge of the stand. If there are conifers with narrow crowns on the edge of the stand follow the trunk diameter method or the drip line method, whichever is greater. Calculate and follow the Optimal Tree Protection Zone calculation as shown in "Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development" by Nelda Matheny and James R. Clark. • The project arborist may propose an alternate method for the establishment of the TPZ, provided the effort is coordinated with the City Forester. If it is necessary to enter the tree protection zone at any time with equipment (trucks, bulldozers, etc.) the project arborist and City Forester must be notified before any entry occurs. Before entering the TPZ, the project arborist and City Forester shall determine the method by which entry can occur, along with any additional tree protection measures. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Arborist shall submit a final certification indicating the elements of the Tree Protection Plan were followed and that all remaining trees on the site are healthy, stable and viable in their modified growing environment. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The applicant shall submit a final Tree Protection Plan that shows exactly how far the tree protection fencing will be from the face of each protected tree (including those on neighboring properties where construction occurs within the trees' driplines) that will be impacted by construction activities within its dripline. The applicant, through their Project Arborist, shall justify the close proximity of the construction activities to the trees. He shall certify that the activities will not adversely impact the overall and long-term health and stability of each tree. Any construction that occurs within the neighboring trees' driplines should be justified by the applicant and approved by the At Forester and neighboring property ownes). Work may proceed within the driplines only the approval of the City Forester. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 33 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION 2. The Project Arborist shall submit written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. 'If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall and long-term Health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the.,City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits the Project Arborist shall submit to the City Forester a final report describing how the Tree Protection Plan was implemented and detailing any failures to comply with the Tree Protection Plan. The report shall also describe the health of all remaining trees on the site, with details provided as to any tree that has had its root system disturbed or that has otherwise been damaged. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the proposed and has no objection to it. Beaverton School District #48 Demographics and Planning Department has reviewed the proposal and offered comments. • Comments can be found under the Request for Comments tab located in the land-use file. City of Beaverton Planning Manager has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed the proposal and has offered no objection to it. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: Access roads shall be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. An approved turnaround is required if the remaining distance to an approved intersecting roadway, as measured along the fire apparatus access road, is greater than 150 feet. (UFC Sec. 9.2.1) No turnarounds will be required at the ends of the private access roads. The intersections with Anna Lane will provide the required turnarounds. • When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinklers stem, the requirements for fire apparatus access may be modified as approved by the Chief. (UFC Sec. 902.2.1 Exception 1) • Where there are 25 or more dwelling units, vehicle congestion, adverse terrain conditions or other factors as determined by the Chief of the fire department not less than two a proved means of access shall be provided to the city/county roadway or access easement. Exceptions may be allowed for approved automatic sprinkler system. (UFC Sec. 902.2.1) • Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (15 feet for one or two dwelling units and out buildings), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.1) NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 34 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION 0 Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather surface that is easily distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load (wheel load) and 50,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle weight). You may need to provide documentation from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of supporting such loading. Documentation from a registered engineer that the finished construction is in accordance with the approved plans or the requirements of the Fire Code may be requested. (Design criteria on back) (UFC Sec. 902.2.2) • The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall be not less than 25 feet and 45 feet respectively, measured from the same center point. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.3) - (See diagrams on back) • Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and 20 feet of unobstructed driving surface, "No Parking" signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. UFC Sec. 902.2.4 Signs shall read "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - TOW AWAY ZONE, ORS 98.810 - 98.812" and shall be installed with a clear space above grade level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and shall have black or red letters and border on a white background. (UFC Sec. 901.4.5.1) The private drives shall both be posted as fire lanes on both sides of their entire length. • Private fire apparatus access roadway grades shall not exceed an average grade of 10 percent with a maximum ggrade of 15 percent for lengths of no more than 200 feet. Intersections and turnarounds shall be level (maximum 5% with the exception of crowning for water run-off. Public streets shall have a maximum grade of 15%. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.6) • Fire hydrants for single family dwellings, duplexes and sub-divisions, shall be placed at each intersection. Intermediate fire hydrants are required if any portion of a structure exceeds 500 feet from a hydrant at an intersection 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)' • Fire hydrants shall be located not more than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.4) • Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access road way that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. (UFC Sec. 901.4.3) The minimum available fire flow for single family dwellings and duplexes shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. If the structure(s) is (are) 3,600 square feet or larger, the required fire flow sTiall 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) SECTION IX. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: olq e was posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners -_5(_- Owner of record within the required distance -X_ Affected government agencies NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 35 OF 36 SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION 0 0 Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON DECEMBER 7, 2004 AND EFFECTIVE ON DECEMBER 22, 2004 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. LEE-. I Appeal: he (rector's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.39Q.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the Notice of Decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted by any party during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to time y the appellate body. LL THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON DECEMBER 21, 2004. Questions: if y-o~e any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171-. PREP athew c degger Assoc ate lanner December 7, 2004 DATE v December 7, 2004 APPROVED BY: Richard Bewers DATE Planning Managbf is\curpln\mathew\sub\sub2004-00012(GabrieI Woods)\sub2004-00012decision.doc NOTICE OF DECISION SUB2004-00012 -GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION PAGE 36 OF 36 CMD MID cry GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM vicimily M" SUB2004-00012 VAR2004-00055 VAR2004-00085 GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION 4-r • . N URY LN 0 100 zoo 300 400 Feet NGBR OK LN a ¢ o a 310 feet z Rf OOK LN On 0 0 0 0 p FIRING Z LN 0 0 o o z d o 0 0 Z 1~ o a o EAU Infortnallon a10ds map is for general IGCauan only and ° °o g Q Jj RMONT C7 should be verifies N1th the telognent SeMces DfvLsiar. o o SW CRANE CT U ,Z 13125 SW Hall SW ° 00000 0000 00000 tr-- Tigard. OR 97223 M (503) 639-4171 a r http:/A I .d.tigardor.us 00000 00000 Plot date: Nov 2, 2004; C:\magic\MAGlG03.APR a • . Q / / . 1 a /o .1.` no ~ - .ar.111n ua Ml,I0Y10 MIS or a ua - - - - n,rwm tun- - Ar for Jsa - - INDUO SnSAR ISR ' .Wf, pat rYm ]x00' ar - Q aonAU (tO,YAn(J xaP L - , _ • ta. fCaojro u,n,rx AKA j - 6L~1 o+atAr ,rtw x/e• ,.m r r Ir ~ !w -1 ~ ~ r d Y k a o I j 8 {r r Ir If~ x.o 1 STPE r AooFEss eo. m n. + I Y IC ~I A z I I ROAD f.LOO,a ,anl S i j~ I ~ WAn ' ` ~L-- 1 ea n. ~ ruby iAQLlr7 1 a~,q• 1.1 ,aot,•JY•1 ,.r....w. ' ')t „e 'uY ]e.I,' ! r«•w' .«.d- y 1 \ )101'1 . . . JI;L ' f; . fp f w YM lit Jr • `T iN lAf YOt. „00 ~ otoJS AAG.SJ.l.r m. rx -g---SW ANNA LANE-.~ B ,e1t,u a ' iC PROPEM OWNER ,x. • • _ - 10.01' 10.01' .l! . 1. J' , • ~'Q'O~' IMa l,"WnS~1NfT 1 110. n 1 1 I YAtlOt IJI00 St A .l1aJ f 1 taAt0. "tIDE 'W" vt~ M. P4 14 ) ii i e NF Ipa A w,.nJ'%i I .4 So, rc .ne'ix r 'fa ¢.a1'ia I¢ . 111. " ` E7J00~ / SURVEYOR r L - ,...J'W. 1 TJNtx .tt. - - - - J 1 -e..a QQ 11 ply ,m, xa tcala.Y rNttAr L t A d +MGOC Ja/YYJTI 1~J Y ; fun',fO IYJAD. difCp1 r11f1 1. r l• r ' r - - - 1 rrloo (((au11 .wnlJ ,SaC Im~ilrJCl,wlf[Ilb~e1.01m1 A,v !I.lp' t0.0Y I0.0d MNt, 1 Irr Y N.,Y 1 1 a tOCG L, If rt r p AtiS IAAbNAAWMlM 6oac - ~I Gm I uW, ot f I a.J r a.aY n.m• m:r r u0°~ ~ 'i APPUCAW 8 I I o1 Jr 1 I rolor~uA oLpo+ .w Calrvucmu .c R I,Gifm rr. .j G I 11 Jlu v onst u.a l . r. icmwtl, OR time 1 u+Y r ~ ~ I 'M't~ lL I ~ 1 reoir.eh~i~JUiJe-oifila I u.n «.lo• I . ! n -'n ¢ I I MALT o ' a..e 1y9~ •tl I ,,tulle. n. I I tooin rt. I R J i f r Ixad I lour M. •L I a.m 1 L.u rr. U FIb ! t1 i PAIL/ sun 1 THE SUNSET GROUP INC. REALTORS Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Attn: Mathew Scheidegger, Associate Planner I recently met with a few property owners on Tallwood Drive which share the border of 13900 SW Barrows Rd, WCTM 1 S133CA, tax lot 2100. 1 was upset to see that a new or revised plat map now shows buildings within 6 feet of the fence instead of the 15 feet that owners saw who attended the Aug. 19 meeting. In addition, there appears to be other significant changes in the developments' plans that have been kept from owners that they have a right to see and make known their objections if any. The Director of the Planning Division should immediately authorize another notice to the property owners, for the purpose of making known the changes that will place the buildings right up against the fence, and cause what appears to me to be a complete removal of all trees on the site. Another meeting is definitely called for. Sincerely, Harold Carpenter 11577 SW Tallwood Drive Tigard, OR 97223 503-521-1928 harold@thesunsetgroup.com 14817 SW TEAL BOULEVARD • BEAVERTON, OREGON 97007 • 503-579-3000 01 . G FROM: Ken MacDonald 11563 S. W. Tallwood Dr. Tigard, OR 97223 TO: Lee Leighton Westlake Consultants 15115 S. W. Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150 Tigard. OR 97224 DATE: 11/13/04 &(Wob4-w0o. / U01 I*& C1 5 RECEIVED PLANNING NOV 1 5 2004 CITY OF TIGARD RE: Barrows Creek Subdivision I attended your public meeting on 3/18/04 and wrote you a letter expressing a few of my concerns. On or about 7/02/04, I received a letter from Kristy Kelly, in which she also included four copies of the proposed plans of the Gabriel Woods development, dated 6/15/04. For obvious reasons, I was not too thrilled about the plan Then I was provided with the revised plan, dated 9/15/04 which shows the condo/apartment complex six feet from our fence line. (Until then f didn't know this plan existed.) I realize the developer feels he must squeeze every dollar out of this property but this borders on total disrespect for adjacent property owners. There must be a better plan. The current one would devastate our property value: as well as the aesthetic value and it's not likely to reflect on our property taxes. I feel, since 9/15/04 revised proposal was not circulated, (at least I didn't receive one.) I request another public meeting should be held and definite and specific concerns should be addressed. There are many homeowners in Pebble Creek who feel as I do. Respectfully, J:~t- V-1 M;jr_-: LphVA6 Ken MacDonald . 579 0796 cc: Mathew Scheidegger City of Tigard V From: "Hal Carpenter" <howdy56@usol.com> To: ."Matt Scheidegger" <MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 11115/2004 2:30:47 PM Subject: RE: Subdivision (SUB) 2004-00012 Gabriel Woods Subdivision Thank you for reply. Actually I'm not sure it's up to me to go around the nieghborhood and ask who wants to see the layout, or otherwise do your legwork. I was trying to be courteous. The project has changed in a major way insofar as its encroachment to the homes along the southern boarder. Your email seems to stress that the high unit density is the issue bothering me. It is not. The issue as far as I am concerned is the quality of life as it may likely be affected by the closeness of the buildings to the fence. Those buildings should be as far away from the fence as our homes are, approximately 20. There was previously a layout that put the Gabriel Woods building more than 20 ft. from our fence. I'm outraged! If Tigard planners think that these kinds of designs benefit our kids, or focus on developments that enhance the good life, then they are sadly mistaken. This project and others like it spinging up all around the area are cramped, stress generating mistakes that will be the planning division's legacy. Urban Sprawl is much preferred to what you people think we need. This planning policy is the kind of thinking that is mistakenly thought to be in the best interests of the people, by keeping housing costs down. The average person pays more and more regardless of the densities that city planners tell us help keep costs down. The real cost, measured in terms of stress, drug traffic, crime, broken homes, neglected pets, and kids without a little elbow room are things we can't cope with now. The consequenses cost too. We are at a point right now where there isn't enough money to house criminals, so they are let right back into the nieghborhood to do whatever they feel like. This project, as it is designed, will do nothing to help. Is anyone paying attention to the harm created for families along Barrows, that would like to walk to the store or the bus stop, by not building sidewalks? 0 0 ATTACHMENT 4 Westlake consultants, inc PLANNING I ENGINEERING I SURVEYING ~r Gabriel Woods Subdivision 1 f October 28', 2004 i 1 t f 1 r Pacific Corporate Center 15115 sw sequoia parkway, suite 150, tigard, oregon 97224 www.westlakeconsultants.com I PH 503.684.0652 1 Fx 503.624.0157 k 1 i I Gabriel Woods Subdivision 1 I Prepared for: Barry Sandhorst Windfall Design and Construction, Inc. 23281 SW Bosky Dell Lane West Linn, OR 97068 Phone: 503.638.5068 17-: cn1 i')') 1 CIA. ✓V✓. %J41-;Q4 V.V1GL Prepared by: f Westlake Consultants, Inc. 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150 Tigard, Oregon 97224 Phone: 503.684.0652 Fax: 503.624.0157 Westlake Consultants Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS DATA SHEET ......................................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 SUBJECT SITE AND ABUTTING PROPERTY INFORMATION 4 Subject Site 4 Abutting Properties 4 SERVICES AND FACILITIES 4 Sanitary Sewer/Septic Water Supply and Fire Protection 4 4 Storm Drainage 5 Other Utilities: Power - Telephone - Gas - Cable Television 5 SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE APPLICATION REQUEST 6 TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 6 1 11 i I~ .P ~j i i t' i~ CHAPTER 18.370 -VARIANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS ..............................................................................................6 CHAPTER 18.390 - DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES/IMPACT STUDY 6 Section 18.390.040 - Type HProcedure 6 CHAPTER 18.430 - SUBDIVISIONS ..7 Section 18.430.020 - General Provisions 7 Section 18.430.030 -Approval Process 9 Section 18.430.040 - Approval Criteria: Preliminary Plat 9 Section 18.430.050 - Submission Requirements: Preliminary Plat 10 CHAPTER 18.510 - RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 11 Section 18.510.020 - List of Zoning Districts 11 Section 18.510.030 - Uses 11 Section 18.510.040 - Minimum and Maximum Densities I I Section 18.370.020 -Adjustments 13 Section 18.510.050 -Development Standards 16 Section 18.510.060 - Accessory Structures 17 CHAPTER 18.705 - ACCESS/EGRESS/CIRCULATION 18 Section 18.705.020 - Applicability of Provisions 18 Section 18.705.030 - General Provisions 19 CHAPTER 18.715 - DENSITY COMPUTATIONS 26 Section 18.715.020 - Density Calculation 26 Section 18.715.030 -Residential Density Transfer 26 CHAPTER 18.720 - DESIGN COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS 27 Section 18.720.010 - Purpose 27 Section 18.720.020 -Applicability of Provisions 28 Section 18.720.030 -Design Standards 28 CHAPTER 18.725 - ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 30 Section 18.725.020 - General Provisions 30 Section 18.725.030 - Performance Standards 31 CHAPTER 18.745 - LANDSCAPING & SCREENING STANDARDS 32 Section 18.745.020 -Applicability 32 Section 18.745.040 - Street Trees .......................................................................i.................................................. 32 Section 18.745.050 -Buffering and Screening 34 Section 18.745.060 - Re-vegetation 39 CHAPTER 18.755 - MIXED SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING STORAGE 40 Section 18.755.010 - Purpose and Applicability 40 GABRIEL WOODS WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 SUBDIVISION OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consul is Inc. • CHAPTER 18.765 - OFF-STREET PARKING/LOADING REQUIREMENTS 40 Section 18.765.020 -Applicability of Provisions 40 ` Section 18.765.030 - General Provisions Section 18.765.070 - Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parkin Requirements 41 41 CHAPTER 18.780 -SIGNS 42 Section 18.780.020 -Permits Required CHAPTER 18.790 -TREE REMOVAL.......... 42 43 Section 18.790.030 - Tree Plan Requirement 43 Section 18.790.050 -Permit Applicability 45 CHAPTER 18.795 - VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS Section 18.795.020 - Applicability of Provisions 45 45 Section 18.795.030 - Visual Clearance Requirements 46 Section 18.795.040 - Computations CHAPTER 18.810 - STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 46 47 Section 18.810.030 - Streets 47 Section 18.810.040 - Blocks 58 = Section 18.810.050 -Easements Section 18.810.060 - Lots 59 59 Section 18.810.070 - Sidewalks 60 Section 18.810.080 - Public Use Areas 61 1 Section 18.810.090 - Sanitary Sewers 62 Section 18.810.100 - Storm Drainage 62 Section 18.810.110 - Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways 63 Section 18.810.120 - Utilities CONCLUSION 64 66 i 1 j I 1 1 7 GABRIEL WOODS SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No.1741-01 11 OCTOBER 28, 2004 r r a, Z I A I I Westlake Consupants, Inc. • LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Contents A Tax Map B 500-foot Surrounding Property Owner List C Neighborhood Meeting Materials D Clean Water Services Stormwater Management Service Provider Letter E Title F Tree Assessment & Letters from Stephen Goetz of The Pacific Resources Group G Preliminary Storm Drainage Study H Subdivision Plat Naming (Reservation) I Pre-application Conference Notes J Future Street Plan K Impact Study L City of Tigard Land Use Permit Application M Parcel Size and Yield Calculations N City of Tigard Transportation Systems Plan Figure 8-3: Proposed Functional Classification System O Access Report P Preliminary Intersection Sight Distance Certification GABRIEL WOODS WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 SUBDIVISION OCTOBER 28, 2004 1 1 1 1 i a~ P ~J , • Westlake Consultants, Inc. DATA SHEET APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: APPLICANT: Barry Sandhorst Windfall Design and Construction, Inc. 23281 SW Bosky Dell Lane West Linn, OR 97068 Phone: 503 638-5068 Fax: 503 638-6122 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE SIZE: ZONING DESIGNATION: • Westlake Consultants, Inc. 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150 Tigard, Oregon 97224 Contact: Lee Leighton, AICP Phone: 503 684-0652 Fax: 503 624-0157 Parcel 2, Partition Plat No. 1992-009 Washington County Tax Map 1 S 1 33CA, Tax Lot # 2100 Evelyn M. Karls 13900 SW Barrows Road Tigard, OR 97223 1.92 Acres R-25 PROPOSAL: ■ 25-Lot Subdivision ■ Adjustment for reduced minimum density ■ Adjustment for reduced street/intersection spacing on a Collector GABRIEL WOODS WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 PAGE 1 SUBDNISION OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. I PROJECT OVERVIEW Project Description The applicant, Barry Sandhorst of Windfall Design & Construction, Inc. is proposing a subdivision consisting of 25 single-family residential lots, with a public street, two private street and several tracts containing landscaping, shared parking, and a water quality facility. The subject property is located at 13900 SW Barrows Road. This existing single-family residence will be removed. This application addresses the applicable requirements for approval of a subdivision in the City of Tigard Community Development Code. The proposed subdivision will be entitled Gabriel Woods Subdivision. The type of housing product proposed for the 25 lots is single-family attached units. All utilities are available to service the proposed subdivision. Lot sizes range between 1,564 square feet and 2,752 square feet. According to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan the subject site is designated R-25, medium density residential. Access to the site will be from a system of a public street and two private streets. The public street, "Anna Lane," will enter the site easterly from SW Barrows Road. A system of parallel private streets will run southerly, generally along the east and west property lines, providing access to proposed lots 16 through 25 (See Sheet P200 - Site Plan). All the streets will be designed and constructed to the city standards, including five-foot wide sidewalks along both sides of the public street and a sidewalk on one side of each of the private streets (within an easement along the fronts of the proposed lots), providing uninterrupted pedestrian circulation. All lots will have direct access onto either the public street or a private street. A City of Tigard application has been prepared and is included in this application. The original signed application forms are being submitted separately from this bound narrative, along with the following: • Narrative Addressing Applicable Approval Criteria; • Existing Conditions (Sheet P100); • Site Plan (Sheet P200); • Grading Plan (Sheet P300); • Master Utility Plan (Sheet P400); • Profiles (Sheet P500); • Tree Preservation Plan Sheet P600); . , • Landscape & Mitigation Plan (Sheet P700); • Basin Map (Sheet E1); • Tax Map (Exhibit A); • 500-foot Surrounding Property Owner List (Exhibit B); • Neighborhood Meeting Materials (Exhibit C); • Clean Water Services Stormwater Management Service Provider Letter (Exhibit D); • Title (Exhibit E); GABRIEL, WOODS PAGE 2 SUBDIVISION WESSTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 2B, 2004 1 1 a 1 1 ~J A , J ~W • • Westlake Consultants, Inc. • Tree Assessment & Letters from Stephen Goetz of the Pacific Resource Group (Exhibit F); • Preliminary Storm Drainage Study (Exhibit G); • Subdivision Plat Naming Reservation (Exhibit H); • Pre-Application Conference Notes (Exhibit I); • Future Street Plan (Exhibit J); • Impact Study (Exhibit K); • City of Tigard Land Use Permit Application (Exhibit L); • Parcel Size and Yield Calculations (Exhibit M); • City of Tigard Transportation Systems Plan Figure 8-3: Proposed Functional Classification System (Exhibit N) • Access Report (Exhibit O) • Preliminary Intersection Sight Distance Certification (Exhibit P) GABRIEL WOODS WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 PAGE 3 SUBDIVISION OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. a SUBJECT SITE AND ABUTTING PROPERTY INFORMATION SUBJECT SITE The subject property contains approximately 1.92 acres located on the east side of SW Barrows Road, in the R-25 (Residential -1,480 SF) zone. It is legally described as parcel 2, partition Plat No. 1991-009, and identified in tax records as tax lot 2100, tax map 1S1 33CA, Washington County. There is an existing single-family structure and accessory buildings that will be removed per the development proposal. ABUTTING PROPERTIES The subject site has residential uses in close proximity. The abutting property to the south is the Pebble Creek 3 subdivision, with detached single-family residences on lots ranging in size from 11 acres to .19 acres. Property to the east of the site contains an apartment complex, including . garages and an emergency access drive north of the subject property. To the north of that lies a 1.35 acre parcel that currently has a single family detached residence. On the west side of SW ' Barrows Road, across from the project site, there are several residential lots located within the City of Beaverton. SERVICES AND FACILITIES SANITARY SEWER/SEPTIC Public sanitary sewer is available through a gravity system to the north of the project that is maintained by the City of Beaverton; this is the preferred route for making a connection. A gravity line will be extended from an existing manhole in SW Barrows Road, southerly and easterly where it will be extended into the site. Alternatively, public sanitary sewer is also available a similar distance to the south of the site. The location to the south is more difficult to connect to, making it less desirable as a connection point. The sanitary sewer main line facilities are proposed to be eight-inch pipe gravity system. The proposed sanitary sewer system is illustrated on Sheet P400 - Master Utility Plan. WATER SUPPLY AND FIRE PROTECTION The site will be served by the City of Tigard Water Department. The proposed water system improvements will consist of eight-inch pipes. The primary connection will be at the intersection of proposed Anna Lane and SW Barrows Road. The proposed water system is shown on Sheet P400 - Master Utility Plan. Fire hydrants will be provided on-site to meet fire department requirements. GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 4 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No.1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. STORM DRAINAGE Storm water runoff from the proposed lots and streets will be directed into a water quality and detention facility within proposed Tract "G' (See Sheet P400 - Master Utility Plan), which is designed to mimic pre-development conditions. Surface water will be piped to a 100-foot grassy swale within proposed Tract G, after which it will flow into a pipe conveying stormwater west, along the north property line, to the SW Barrows Road right-of-way. Within the right-of-way, the public line will be extended north from its existing terminus at a field inlet in front of the neighboring Verizon property to make the connection. a OTHER UTILITIES: POWER - TELEPHONE - GAS - CABLE TELEVISION Portland General Electric and Verizon provide electrical power and telephone services, respectively. Northwest Natural Gas and Comcast provide natural gas and cable television, respectively. All of these utilities will be provided to the site and coordinated with the appropriate utility. a ai ~i 'i ~i r, d i GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 5 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 I r • • Westlake Consultants, Inc. SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE APPLICATION REQUEST The following sections of this narrative address the approval criteria that apply to this proposed subdivision. Quoted provisions appear in italics, followed by findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law. TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.370 - VARIANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS (This application includes an access spacing adjustment request. Compliance with the requirements of Section 18.370.020.C.5 is discussed below in the discussion of Chapter 18.705.030.H, Access Management.) CHAPTER 18.390 - DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES/IMPACT STUDY ' SECTION 18.390.040 -TYPE II PROCEDURE A. PreaPPlication conference. A PreaPPlication conference is requiredfor Type II actions. Preapplication conference requirements and procedures are set forth in section 18.390.080C. Response: A pre-application conference was held on February 27, 2004 with the City of Tigard staff. The city staff s notes are attached as Exhibit I. This standard is satisfied. B. Application requirements. ' 1. Application Forms. Type II applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director as provided by Section 18.390.080 El; 2. Submittal Information. The application shall: a. Include the information requested on the application form; b. Address the relevant criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; c. Be accompanied by the required fee; d Inrludo turn cote of nro-emmnod and nro-nddroccorl onvolnnoc fnr nll property owners of record as specified in Section 18.390.0400 The records of the Washington County Department of Assessment and Taxation are the official records for determining ownership. The applicant shall demonstrate that the most current assessment records have been used to produce the notice list; e. Include an impact study. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise q GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 6 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 i Westlake Consultants, Inc. i - r impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically i concur with the dedication requirements, or provide evidence, which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Response: The required forms for this Type II application for a 25-lot subdivision have been included with this application. This application addresses the applicable requirements for approval of a subdivision in the City of Tigard Community Development Code. The required fees for subdivision review have been submitted with this application. Two sets of stamped and addressed envelopes have been submitted with this application. An impact study addressing the effect of the development on public facilities and services is attached in Exhibit K. The design of the proposed subdivision includes all required dedications and meets all public facilities construction requirements. This standard is satisfied. CHAPTER 18.430 - SUBDIVISIONS SECTION 18.430.020 - GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Approval through two-step process. An application for a subdivision shall be processed through a two-step process: the preliminary plat and the final plat. 1. The preliminary plat shall be approved by the Approval Authority before the ' final plat can be submitted for approval consideration; and 2. The final plat shall reflect all conditions of approval of the preliminary plat. Response: A Preliminary Plat map is included with this subdivision application. It shows the 1 proposed division of land into lots and roadways and includes all of the information required by the applicable standards of this Code (See Sheet P200 - Site Plan). B. Compliance with ORS Chapter 92. All subdivision proposals shall be in conformity t3' with all state regulations set forth in ORS Chapter 92, Subdivisions and Partitions. Response: The Gabriel Woods Subdivision, through the processing of this application and the recording of a subdivision plat, will comply with the applicable standards of ORS Chapter 92. This standard is satisfied. C. Future re-division. When subdividing tracts into large lots, the Approval Authority shall require that the lots be of such size and shape as to facilitate future re-division in accordance with the requirements of the zoning district and this title. GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 7 SUBDIVISION ' WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 1 r r r Westlake Consultants; Inc. Response: No large tracts suitable for future development will be created within the boundary of this subdivision. This standard is satisfied. D. Lot averaging, Lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed in the underlying zoning district as long as the average lot area for all lots is not less than allowed by the underlying zoning district. No lot created under this provision shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the underlying zoning district. Response: The minimum lot size for parcels within the R-25 zone is 1,480 sq. ft. Incorporating the lot averaging allowance, no lot may be less than 1,184 sq. ft. Lot sizes range between 1,564 square feet and 2,752 square feet, which exceeds the minimum of 1,480 sq. ft. No lot averaging for purposes of minimum average lot size compliance is proposed. This standard is not applicable. ' E. Temporary sales office. Temporary sales offices in conjunction with any subdivision may be granted as set forth in Chapter 18.785, Temporary Uses. Response: If the proposed subdivision requires an on-site temporary sales office, it will meet the standards in Chapter 18.785. F. Minimize flood damage. All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage. Response: The Gabriel Woods subdivision does not lie within a 100-year flood plain. Therefore, this standard is not applicable. G. Floodplain dedications. Where land filling and/or development is allowed within and adjacent to the 100 year floodplain outside the zero foot rise floodway, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. Response: The subject site is not within the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, this standard is not applicable. H. Need for adequate utilities. All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage. GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 8 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. Response: This proposal includes the full complement of utilities appropriate to serve the development and address its proportional impacts on existing systems and facilities. To minimize flood damage and adequately drain the property, storm water runoff from the proposed lots and streets will be directed into a water quality and detention facility within proposed Tract `G', which is designed to mimic pre-development conditions. I. Need for adequate drainage. All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to. reduce exposure to flood damage; and Response: To adequately drain the property, storm water runoff from the proposed lots and streets will be directed into a water quality and detention facility within proposed Tract `G' (See Sheet P400 - Master Utility Plan), which is designed to mimic pre-development conditions. Surface water will be piped to a 100-foot grassy swale within proposed Tract G, after which it will flow into a pipe that convys the flow west generally along the north property line. The existing public storm drain line in SW Barrows Road will be extended north from its existing terminus, a field inlet in front of the Verizon property, to reach the site drain pipe. J. Determination of base flood elevation. Where base flood elevation has not been i : provided or is not available from another authoritative source, it shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed developments, which contain at least 50 lots or five acres (whichever is less). Response: The site does not lie within a 100-year flood plain. Therefore, this standard is not applicable. SECTION 18.430.030 - APPROVAL PROCESS ' A. Review of preliminary plat. Review of a preliminary plat for subdivision shall be processed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.430.040. An application for subdivision may also be reviewed concurrently with an application for a planned development, as governed by Chapter 18.350. Response: The proposed Gabriel Woods Subdivision is for 25 lots. Subdivision applications are processed as a Type II application, which will be decided by the Planning Director. The proposed subdivision is not a planned development. This standard is satisfied. SECTION 18.430.040 - APPROVAL CRITERIA: PRELIMINARY PLAT A. Approval criteria. The Approval Authority may approve, approve with conditions or deny a preliminary plat based on the following approval criteria: 1. The proposed preliminary plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations; 13ABRIEL WOODS PAGE 9 SUBDIVISION ' WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. Response: The Gabriel Woods Subdivision is consistent with all applicable ordinances within the City of Tigard Community Development Code. The lots to be created meet or exceed the minimum lot standards of the R-25 zone, and public services will be provided to each lot. r Surface water runoff will be treated in a water quality facility per CWS standards. This standard is satisfied. 2. The proposed plat name is not duplicative or otherwise satisfies the provisions of DRS Chapter 92; Response: The Gabriel Woods Subdivision is consistent with the applicable standards of ORS Chapter 92. A subdivision naming request has been approved by the Washington County Surveyor's office (See Exhibit H - Subdivision Plat Naming). This standard is satisfied. 3. The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions already approved for adjoining property as to r 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 Response: The proposed streets have been designed to match existing road patterns in the immediate area. Access from the SW Barrows Road to the development is proposed at a single ' public street intersection. Due to surrounding development and lack of adjacent stub streets, Anna Lane is designed to terminate in a cul-de-sac and both of the private streets have been stubbed to the north property line of the southernmost proposed lots. Both of the private streets have been designed according to the City of Tigard Private Street Standards, Section 18.810.T.3 ' of the City of Tigard Community Development Code This criterion is satisfied. 4. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. Response: Seven common areas are proposed for this development. Tracts A, B, and F will be set aside as open space for tree preservation and landscaping. Tract E will be devoted to shared ' parking. Tracts C and D include the private streets. A Homeowner's Association will maintain these tracts. Tract G has been set aside for surface water treatment of storm water runoff. It will be maintained by the developer for 2 years and then conveyed to the City or CWS as appropriate. SECTION 18.430.050 - SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: PRELIMINARY PLAT A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of the general information required for a Type II procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390. B. Additional information. In addition to the general information described in Subsection A above, the preliminary plat shall contain specific information, the ' detailed content of which can be obtained from the Director. GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 10 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No.1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 I Westlake Consultants, Inc. Response: All requirements for a Type II application have been submitted with this application, as discussed above. This standard is satisfied. ' CHAPTER 18.510 - RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS SECTION 18.510.020 - LIST OF ZONING DISTRICTS R-25: Medium High-Density Residential District. The R-25 zoning district is designed to accommodate existing housing of all types and new attached single-family and multi family housing units at a minimum lot size of 1,480 square feet. A limited amount of neighborhood commercial uses is permitted outright and a wide range of civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally. Response: The subject site for the proposed Gabriel Woods Subdivision is in the City of i Tigard's R-25 zoning district. The proposed 25 single-family residential lots meet or exceed minimum width, depth and lot size standards (See Site Plan, Sheet P200). Average lot size for the proposed development is 1,886 square feet. This criterion is met. SECTION 18.510.030 - USES B. Use table. A list ofpermitted, limited, conditional and prohibited uses in residential zones is presented in Table 18.510.1. Response: Single-family residential homes are allowed by this Section of the City of Tigard Community Development Code. The applicant intends to utilize the subdivision lots for single- family attached dwellings as of right; therefore this criterion is met. SECTION 18.510.040 - MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DENSITIES I A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish minimum and maximum densities in each residential zoning district. To ensure the quality and density of development y envisioned, the maximum density establishes the ceiling for development in each zoning district based on minimum lot size. To ensure that property develops at or near the density envisioned for the zone, the minimum density for each zoning district ' has been established at 80% of maximum density. B. Calculating minimum and maximum densities. The calculation of minimum and maximums densities is governed by the formulas in Chapter 18.715, Density Computations. Chapter 18.715 - Density Computations Section 18.715.020 - Density Calculation A. Definition of net development area. Net development area, in acres, shall be determined by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 11 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 i ~ • Westlake Consultants, Inc. acres, which is all of the land included in the legal description of the property to be developed: 1. All sensitive land areas: a. Land within the 100 year floodplain; b. Land or slopes exceeding 25%; ' c. Drainage ways; and d. Wetlands. 2. A11 land dedicated to the public for park purposes; 3. All land dedicated for public rights-of-way. When actual information is not available, the following formulas may be used: a. Single-family development: allocate 20% of gross acreage; b. Multi family development: allocate 15% ofgross acreage. 4. All land proposed for private streets; and 5. A lot of at least the size required by the applicable base zoning distract, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site. C. Adjustments. Applicants may request an adjustment when, because of the size of the site or other constraint, it is not possible to accommodate the proportional minimum ' density as required by Section 18.715.020. C and still comply with all of the development standards in the underlying zoning district, as contained in Table 18.510.2 below. Such an adjustment may be granted by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.020. C. 2. ' Response: The gross area for the proposed development is 1.92 acres. Area devoted to public street right-of-way and private streets is 0.59 acre; the resulting net development area is 1.33 acres. Based on this area, the maximum density allowed (at the R-25 minimum lot size of 1,480 ' square feet for attached single-family units) would be 39 units. The minimum, if calculated at 80% of that figure, would be 31 units. However, the R-25 zone is unique within the City's Development Code in that it provides different minimum lot sizes for attached and detached single-family residential development: 1,480 and 3,050 square feet, respectively. Therefore, if detached single-family development were proposed, the 1.33-acre net area would yield a maximum of 18 lots; the minimum yield, at 80% of that figure, would be 14 lots. Note that if the density provisions were interpreted strictly using the 1,480 square foot minimum lot size, it would literally be impossible to obtain approval for any detached single-family development, because the minimum density cannot be reached by any proposal meeting the ' minimum lot size requirement. This conflict indicates that such an interpretation would be contrary to the City's clear intention to allow a broad range of residential densities in the R-25 zone, as provided for in the Tigard Development Code. Therefore, the density calculation provisions must be interpreted in a way that avoids such conflict. Specifically, in the R-25 zone, the maximum density should be defined as net area divided by the minimum lot size for attached single-family residential development (1,480 square feet), but the minimum density should be interpreted as net area divided by the minimum lot size for detached single-family residential GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 12 SUBDIVISION ' WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 • Westlake Consultants, Inc. development (3,050 square feet), then multiplied by 80%, representing the minimum allowable density in the zone. In the case of the subject property, this produces a range of potential development densities between 39 units maximum and 14 units minimum. The proposed development, with 25 units, falls generally in the middle of the range. Therefore, the proposed development complies with ' the maximum and minimum allowed density requirements of the R-25 zone. (See Exhibit M, Parcel Size and Yield Calculations.) Alternatively, and without waiving the compliance argument presented above, the Applicant can demonstrate that the proposed development should be eligible for a special adjustment in accordance with Section 18.370.020, because the small size, irregular shape, existing trees worthy of conservation, and surrounding development complicate the effort to produce a workable development design. Findings for such an Adjustment pursuant to Section 18.510.040.C are provided below. SECTION 18.370.020 -.ADJUSTMENTS C. Special adjustments. 1. Adjustments to development standards within subdivisions (Chapter 18.430). The Director shall consider the application for adjustment at the same time he/she considers the preliminary plat. An adjustment may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied provided the Director finds: a. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting-the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated; Response: There are several special circumstances or conditions peculiar to this parcel of land, which affect its usability and development pattern. The following conditions need to be considered when determining an appropriate minimum yield for the subject property: ' The Irregular L-shape. The dimensional characteristics of the lot as well as its limited size hinder an efficient layout in creating minimum size lots. This is due to dimensional requirements as well as street standards. Residences in the northern part of the property can be oriented around a public cul-de-sac street extending east from SW Barrows Road, but i access to the southern portion of the property requires the extension of one or two streets to the south. (The proposed design, with two private streets extending south, is actually more efficient than an alternative using a centrally located public street, whether stubbed to the south property line or terminated in a cul-de-sac bulb.) Because lot layouts are based on required minimum lot dimensions (for example, 1,480 square feet corresponds to a 20-foot by 74-foot area) certain threshold dimensions are needed in order to produce an efficient plat. The specific dimensions of the property limit the number and locations of rowhouse buildings that can be accommodated, as well as the number of units the buildings can contain. GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 13 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 0 • Westlake Consultants, Inc. Surrounding Development. The lot is further constrained because it is surrounded on all sides by existing development that precludes current or future street connectivity. In such situations, City staff has advised the Applicant that a round, cul-de-sac terminus (rather than a hammerhead or other turnaround structure) is required for all public streets. The radius requirements for a cul-de-sac bulb conflict with providing adequate lot depths at the bulb location. Existing Trees. Several trees, including in particular a large sequoia tree located on the northwest corner of the property, fronting Barrows Road, have been identified for preservation. The sequoia has been identified as worthy of special protection not only because of the health of the tree but also for its beauty. In response to these conditions, the Applicant's site plan has these features: • Design for the L-shaped infill lot: The design is driven by access from Barrows Road, which brings in an east-west road, Anna Lane. To allow for development in the southern portion of the site, the most efficient street structure is a system of parallel north-south private streets. Both streets have been stubbed to the north property line of proposed lots 20 and 25, located in the southwestern and southeastern corners of the site, respectively. • Tract A: In an effort to preserve a large sequoia tree and other existing trees in the northwest corner of the property, and to accommodate landscape requirements, this area has been set aside in a tract. The sequoia, as well as proposed plantings, provides an entry gateway, as well as common space for local residents to enjoy. This area could have been developed as one or possibly two more lots, but the Applicant prefers to retain these trees as a form of entrance feature at the public street intersection. • Tract C: In attempting to save the large sequoia tree it also became necessary to orient the street such that it does not interfere with the drip line of the tree. Given the resulting location of the street, a small unusable strip of land remained adjacent to the neighboring Verizon site to the south. The Applicant requests that any conditions of approval allow such a transfer to occur in the future. • Tract G: Tract G has been set aside for surface water treatment of storm water runoff. It will be maintained by the developer for 2 years and then conveyed to the City or CWS as appropriate. These factors, and the land area allocations that are needed in response, are "special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated." b. The adjustment is necessaryfor the proper design or function of the subdivision; . GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 14 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 • • Westlake Consultants, Inc. Response: Access to subdivision lots must be by public or private streets meeting City design standards. The limited size of the subject property and its irregular L-shape limit potential street layout options. Only one ingress/egress location is available. The design is driven by the access from Barrows Road, which brings an east-west road in. The most efficient structure is a system of parallel streets that extend to the south. This allows for efficient circulation and lot layout. Additional properties within the southern portion of the subject property would not be accessible without the north-south roads. Therefore, "the adjustment is necessary for the proper design [and] function of the subdivision." C. The granting of the adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property; and Response: The granting of the adjustment will in no way be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare for the following reasons: The subject property has been designed with a network of streets providing good access and circulation within the development. The proposed development locates attached single-family between detached single-family to the south and apartments to the east, creating a well-managed density transition. Edge conflicts have been reduced by landscape tracts and buffer yards, as well as orientation of buildings with sidewalls facing neighboring homes' rear yards. The Applicant has identified a large sequoia tree for preservation as an entry gateway features and usable common open space. It might have been possible to create more lots but the Applicant believes that an adjustment is a modest request compared to the public welfare trade-off of conserving the tree. d. The adjustment is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this title. Response: Row house development is allowed as of right within the R-25 zone and is favored in the marketplace, as compared to multifamily construction. It is well established that a property owner has the right to choose how to develop property within the context of its zoning. Without the adjustment, the property owner would be forced to do a form of development that is not as attractive as row houses on separate fee ownership lots. The right to develop property with any of the allowed forms and uses in the R-25 zone is a substantial property right. In addition, seeking to save unique property features, i.e., the sequoia tree, is also a substantial property right. Conceivably, the developer could have inserted one or two more lots in place of Tract A, increasing density and yield. This would, however, deprive the owner of rights to determine attractive property features, while creating lots that meet city standards. GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 15 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 I I I 1 1 J a i i J Westlake Consultants, Inc. 2. Adjustment to minimum residential density requirements (Chapter 18.510). The Director is authorized to grant an adjustment to the minimum residential density requirements in Section 18.510.040, by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030 as follows: a. For development on an infill site as follows: (1) In the R-25 zone, sites of. 75 acre or smaller. (2) In the R-40 zone, sites of. 75 acre or smaller. b. For development on sites larger than those contained in 1 above, if the applicant can demonstrate by means of detailed site plan that the site is so constrained that the proportional share of the required minimum density cannot be provided and still meet all of the development standards in the underlying zone. Response: The subject property contains 1.92 acres. As described previously, it is constrained by its irregular shape, making it difficult to meet city design and landscape standards. Despite these constraints, the subject property has been designed pursuant to all other development standards of the R-25 zone. That is, the proposed development complies with R-25 standards, except for the minimum density standard. C. To be granted an adjustment in either Subsections a or b above, the applicant must demonstrate that the maximum number of residential units are being provided while complying with all applicable development standards in the underlying zone. There is nothing in this section which precludes an applicant for applying to a variance to these standards, as governed by Section 18.370.010. Response: As discussed above, a detailed site plan has been submitted and the Applicant has demonstrated that, given landscape and development standards, the maximum number of residential units has been provided. Therefore, the Applicant has met the criteria for granting a special adjustment from the minimum density requirements to allow 25 lots. SECTION 18.510.050 - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Compliance required. All development must comply with: 1. All of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapters 18.370; 2. All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. B. Development Standards. Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2. GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 16 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No.1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 1 r 1 r r r r r r i! Westlake Consultants, Inc. TABLE 18.510.2 (excerpt) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES STANDARD R-25 Zone Minimum Lot Size - Attached unit 1,480 s q. ft. Average Minimum Lot Width - Attached unit lots None Maximum Lot Coverage 80% 2 Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 15 ft. - Side facing street on corner & through lots 10 ft. - Side yard 5 ft. - Rear yard 15 ft. - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district 30 ft. - Distance between property and front of garage 20 ft. Maximum Height 45 ft. Minimum Landscape Requirement 20% Response: Future construction of single-family attached dwellings will be required to comply with these standards. No variances or adjustments are being requested with respect to these standards. This criterion is met. SECTION 18.510.060 - ACCESSORY STRUCTURES A. Permitted uses. Accessory structures are permitted by right in all residential zones subject to the following: 1. Dimensional requirements: a. On sites containing less than 2.5 acres, an accessory structure may not exceed 528 square feet. On sites 2.5 acres or larger, an accessory structure may not exceed 1, 000 square feet; b. An accessory structure may not exceed 15 feet in height; c. In no case shall the primary structure and accessory structure(s) exceed the maximum lot coverage allowed in the base zone; d. An accessory structure may not be located within the front yard setback; o J" nnnoocnr>> VtraJntalro mart rraniaatniia n misaimaivn Villa n»il ronr vnrd setback of five feet; 2. Non-dimensional requirements: a. No accessory structure shall encroach upon or interfere with the use of any adjoining property or public right-of-way including but not limited to streets, alleys and public and private easements; b. An accessory structure shall comply with all of the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. All accessory structures except those less than 120 square feet in size require a building permit; GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 17 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 I Westlake Consultants, Inc. C. An accessory structure which is non-conforming is subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.760, Non-Conforming Situations, when an alternation, expansion or reconstruction is requested; d. The erection of television receiving dishes on the roof of a structure is not permitted in any residential zone. 3. All freestanding and detached towers, antennas, wind-generating devices and TV receiving dishes, except as otherwise regulated by Wireless Communication Facilities (Chapter 18.798), shall have setbacks equal to or r greater than the height of the proposed structure. Suitable protective anti- 1 climb fencing and a landscaped planting screen, in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening, shall be provided and maintained around ' these structures and accessory attachments. Response: At the time of construction, any accessory structures will be required to meet the above requirements. This standard is satisfied. CHAPTER 18.705 - ACCESS/EGRESS/CIRCULATION SECTION 18.705.020 - APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS r~ A. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures (see Section 18.360.050), and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking ' or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. B. Change or enlargement of use. Should the owner or occupant of a lot or building change or enlarge the use to which the lot or building is put, thereby increasing ' access and egress requirements, it is unlawful and is a violation of this title to begin or maintain such altered use until the provisions of this chapter have been met if required or until the appropriate approval authority has approved the change. C. When site design review is not required. Where the provisions of Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, do not apply, the Director shall approve, approve with a conditions, or deny an access plan submitted under the provisions of this chapter in 'j conjunction with another permit or land use action. D. Conflict with subdivision requirements. The requirements and standards of this 1 chapter shall not apply where they conflict with the subdivision rules and standards of this title. Response: The proposed Gabriel Woods Subdivision complies with the subdivision rules and the ' standards of this chapter. The proposed 25-lot subdivision is for construction of new attached single-family homes. Therefore, the provisions of this chapter apply, except where they may conflict with the subdivision rules and standards of this title. c~ GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 18 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 1 Westlake Consultants, Inc. SECTION 18.705.030 - GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Continuing obligation of property owner. The provisions and maintenance of access and egress stipulated in this title are continuing requirements for the use of any structure or parcel of real property in the City. Response: All roadways within the proposed development will be constructed to city standards and dedicated to the city for public use. All of the proposed lots will have direct access onto public local access streets. No private streets are being proposed. This criterion is met. B. Access plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. Response: Preliminary development plans are included with this application. Included are a preliminary plat map of roadways and lots and preliminary design of infrastructure improvements. This criterion is met. C. Joint access. Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: Response: Access to proposed lots 16 through 20, and 21 through 25, will be provided by two private streets extending south from the proposed public street, SW Anna Lane. These private ' streets are identified as Tract `C' and `D' on the preliminary plat (See Preliminary Plans, Sheet ' P200 - Site Plan). D. Public street access. All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.0301 shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the Cityfor public use and-shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. Response: All vehicular access and egress points will connect directly to the proposed system of i public and private streets. This standard is satisfied. E. Curb cuts. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N. Response: The curb cuts within the proposed subdivision will meet the standards in Section " 18.810.030.N, as discussed below. This standard is satisfied. F. Required walkway location. On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the " following standards: GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 19 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. G ' 1. Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and ' egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing ' developments and neighboring developments; 2. Within all attached housing (except two-family dwellings) and multi family developments, each residential dwelling shall be connected by walkway to the vehicular parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities; 3. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6- inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3 -foot ' horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways ' shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; 4. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. ' Response: No walkways are required for the proposed single-family residential subdivision because sidewalks are proposed within the proposed public street right-of-way, and along the private streets within a pedestrian easement adjacent to the private street tracts, meeting the t standards of this title. G. Inadequate or hazardous access. ' 1. Applications for building permits shall be referred to the Commission for review when, in the opinion of the Director, the access proposed: a. Would cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or b. Would provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or c. Would in any other way cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety, and ' general welfare. 2. Direct individual access to arterial or collector streets from single-family dwellings and duplex lots shall be discouraged. Direct access to collector or ' arterial streets shall be considered only if there is no practical alternative way to access the site. If direct access is permitted by the City, the applicant will be required to mitigate for any safety or neighborhood traffic management ' (NTM) impacts deemed applicable by the City Engineer. This may include, but GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 20 SUBDIVISION ' WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. will not be limited to, the construction of a vehicle turnaround on the site to eliminate the need for a vehicle to back out onto the roadway. 3. In no case shall the design of the service drive or drives require or facilitate the backward movement or other maneuvering of a vehicle within a street, other than an alley. Single-family and duplex dwellings are exempt from this requirement. Response: There are no hazardous or inadequate access points into the proposed Gabriel Woods Subdivision. Each of the 25 lots will have access onto the proposed internal street system consisting of both public and private streets. No lot will have direct access onto SW Barrows Road. H. Access Management 1. An access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO (depending on jurisdiction of facility) Response: An Access Report addressing stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards is provided in Exhibit O. This requirement is met. 2. Driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that ' area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setbackfrom a collector or arterial street intersection shall be 150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting ' street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a ' case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. 3. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. Response: Each of the proposed 25 lots will have access onto the proposed internal street system. No lot will have direct access onto SW Barrows Road. The'proposed new public street, a SW Anna Lane, is located as far south as possible along the SW Barrows Road frontage in an ' effort to avoid damaging the root zone of the existing sequoia tree, which is a prominent, visible feature along SW Barrows Road. This alignment is in the vicinity of three existing accesses on SW Barrows Road: ~J GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 21 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. 1. The driveway of the Verizon communication facility, immediately to the south, approximately 100 feet from the proposed SW Anna Lane right-of-way, measured edge-to- edge. 2. An existing Emergency Access Only driveway, immediately to the north, that connects to the drive aisle of the garage/storage buildings belonging to the apartment development located east of the subject property. The garage/storage building is within a "panhandle" part of that property that extends to the SW Barrows Road right-of-way. There is a sign indicating that only emergency access is allowed, and a cable across the driveway, generally at the right-of- way line, to deny non-emergency access. The edge of this driveway will be approximately 60 feet north of the tangent point of the proposed right-of-way radius at the SW Anna Lane intersection. 3. An existing asphalt driveway is located on the opposite (west) side of SW Barrows Road, ' generally opposite the northwest corner of the subject property. The edge of this driveway will be approximately 50 feet north of the tangent point of the proposed right-of-way radius at the SW Anna Lane intersection. rAccording to Tigard Transportation Systems Plan Figure 8-3, Proposed Functional Classification System (See Exhibit L), the segment of SW Barrows Road adjacent to the subject property is designated a Planned Neighborhood Route. South of the subject property, a realignment of the collector will divert northbound traffic north to intersect Scholls Ferry Road at the Murray Road intersection, relieving this segment of traffic volumes. A corresponding collector realignment, several hundred feet north of the subject property, will link the Neighborhood Route to SW 135`t' Avenue rather than SW Scholls Ferry Road, relieving this segment of southbound traffic as well. Subsection H, quoted above, provides no specific standard with respect to driveway spacing on a Neighborhood Route. However, City staff has advised the Applicant that until construction of the proposed realignment of SW Barrows Road is completed, the segment adjacent to the subject property must be considered a Collector. (We note that this instruction from City staff conflicts with information provided by the City in the Pre-application Conference Notes, Engineering Section, which ' identified this segment of SW Barrows Road as a "Neighborhood Route with bike lanes.") If it is correct that SW Barrows Road is a collector for purposes of this application, the Applicant needs relief from certain provisions of Section 18.705.030., quoted above, because there is in a , fact no part of the property's frontage on SW Barrows Road that is more than 200 feet from the three existing driveways identified above. Without waiving the argument that the segment of SW Barrows Road should be considered a Neighborhood Route, the Applicant provides the i following findings to demonstrate compliance with the criteria for a Special Adjustment from ' I certain street design and improvement requirements in the TDC, particularly with reference to the following features: 1 1. Conservation of mature Douglas fir tree at the southwestern corner of the proposed SW Anna Lane intersection. An adjustment to allow a modification of the street improvement requirements in Chapter 18.810 is allowed pursuant to TDC 18.370.020. C. 11, discussed below. GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 22 SUBDIVISION i WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 • Westlake Consultants, Inc. 2. 150-foot driveway setback from a collector intersection [TDC 18.810.030.0.21._ On SW Anna Lane, the nearest driveway to SW Barrows Road will be approximately 100 feet from the intersection, because the tract for conservation of the existing sequoia and other trees is located between SW Barrows Road and the westernmost building. Due to the limited number of residences with access via SW Anna Lane (25), this street segment provides adequate distance for stacking needs and sight distance at residential driveways; however, it does not meet the requirement that the minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection be 150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. A Preliminary Intersection Sight Distance Certification is provided in Exhibit P. 3. 200-foot minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector [TDC 18.810.030.C.31._ There is in fact no point along the subject property's frontage on SW Barrows Road where the proposed new public street intersection could be located more than 200 feet from all of the existing driveways. The following findings support this Special Adjustment request. 18.370.020 Adjustments C. Special adjustments. 5. Adjustment to access and egress standards (Chapter 18.705). a. In all zoning districts where access and egress drives cannot be readily designed to conform to Code standards within a particular parcel, access with an adjoining property shall be considered. If access in conjunction with another parcel cannot reasonably be achieved, the Director may grant an adjustment to the access requirements of Chapter 18.705 through a Type II procedure, as governed in Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Subsection 2b below. Response: Access in conjunction with another parcel cannot be achieved at this location because the Applicant has no such rights with respect to neighboring properties. Moreover, even if such a right were obtained, attempting to consolidate an access with the existing A_;- ♦1. ,..,....-Fl... ..1.7 - --....:4-1. -4.- _ ..._1__:__1_1.. _ 1:.-1-..._.. c.__ A.. Li11vGway w L11G 11V1111 --JA aF,l vJJa111y G1L11G1 %aFatG an u11uuzaia Jiv avw 1111K2 giz 11V111 L11G apartment site to SW Barrows Road, or cut off access between the apartment units and their own garage/storage units. Finally, proposed new residences would have the existing low- slung garage building as their across-the street neighbor. For these reasons, the proposed new street alignment should be granted an adjustment. b. The Director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment from the access requirements contained in Chapter 18.705, based on the following criteria: (1) It is not possible to share access; GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 23 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. Response: As cited above, the Applicant has no right to consolidate access with a neighboring property. Moreover, doing so would have unavoidable and undesirable side effects, such as redirecting traffic from the apartments site to the new intersection, adding to congestion on SW Barrows Road. This criterion is met. (2) There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another street; Response: The subject property is surrounded on its north, east and west sides by existing developments that provide no corridor for the extension of a street into it. Its only access rights derive from its frontage on the SW Barrows Road right-of-way. This criterion is met. (3) The access separation requirements cannot be met; Response: There is in fact no point along the subject property's limited frontage on SW Barrows Road where it would be possible to meet the access separation requirement of Section 18.705.030.H.3 as it applies to the SW Barrows Road collector street, in relation to existing driveways. Similarly, disallowing driveways within 150 feet of SW Barrows Road would effectively deny access to proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3, because no alternative to direct ~j access to SW Anna Lane is available. This criterion is met. (4) The request is the minimum adjustment required to provide ' adequate access; Response: Because no other potential access location is available, the request is the minimum adjustment required to provide adequate access. This criterion is met. (5) The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access; and Response: Construction plans for the proposed new street location, including driveway locations, will be required to meet intersection sight distance and other design requirements prior to construction; this approval procedure will provide for safe operations. A Preliminary Intersection Sight Distance Certification is provided in Exhibit P. It is noteworthy in this connection that the neighboring driveways along D W Barrows tcoad are low Mp generators: J the Verizon site houses a utility facility, with only infrequent visits by service personnel; the driveway to the north is limited to emergency access; and the driveway on the opposite side of SW Barrows Road serves a single family residence. In light of the very low incidence of access at these locations, the proposed new street intersection will operate safely. This criterion is met. 1 (6) The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.795 will be met. ~a GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 24 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. Response: This narrative and findings document includes responses addressing the provisions of Chapter 18.795, below under that heading. This criterion is met. [18.370.020.C.J 11. Adjustments for street improvement requirements (Chapter 18.810). By means of a Type ll procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the street improvement requirements, based on findings that the following criterion is ~I satisfied: Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards. ' Response: The Applicant requests an adjustment to the street improvement requirements along SW Barrows Road, to allow an alternate sidewalk configuration on the southwestern corner of SW Anna Lane. A linear extension of the existing sidewalk in front of the Verizon ' facility (neighboring property to the south) is impractical from the standpoint of matching grade between the two properties, due to an approximately 2-foot difference at that location. Moreover, it is likely that root damage requiring the removal of an existing, generally healthy 18" Douglas fir tree would occur. The Applicant has proposed to meander the sidewalk away from the tree to the curbline, to make a good transition to the ADA-accessible ramp location and (hopefully) protect the tree. This is a minor, modest diversion from strict sidewalk design requirements, with virtually no potential adverse impacts. The public benefit of attempting to save the existing Douglas fir tree therefore exceeds the small risk of adverse impact, and the adjustment should be approved. [18.705.030.H.] 4. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be ' 125 feet. Response: This provision is not applicable. I. Minimum access requirements for residential use. 1. Vehicular access and egress for single-family, duplex or attached single- family dwelling units on individual lots and multi family residential uses shall i not be less than as provided in Table 18.705.1 and Table 18.705.2; 2. Vehicular access to multi family structures shall be brought to within 50 feet a of the ground floor entrance or the ground floor landing of a stairway, ramp, or elevator leading to the dwelling units; 3. Private residential access drives shall be provided and maintained in r accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code; r.~ I GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 25 SLIBOMSION WESTLAKE No.1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. 4. Access drives in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved - provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus by one of the following: a. A circular, paved surface having a minimum turn radius measured from center point to outside edge of 35 feet; b. A hammerhead-configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet; . c. The maximum cross slope of a required turnaround is 5%. 5. Vehicle turnouts, (providing a minimum total driveway width of 24 feet for a distance of at least 30 feet), may be required so as to reduce the need for excessive vehicular backing motions in situations where two vehicles traveling in opposite directions meet on driveways in excess of 200 feet in length; 6. Where permitted, minimum width for driveway approaches to arterials or collector streets shall be no less than 20 feet so as to avoid traffic turning from the street having to wait for traffic exiting the site. Response: Each of the proposed 25 lots will have a driveway allowing access to the proposed ,f internal street system. No lot will have direct access onto SW Barrows Road. Fire and emergency access compliance is accomplished by the design of the private street intersections, such that they satisfy turnaround requirements of Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, through coordination with Deputy Fire Marshal Eric McMullen. CHAPTER 18.715 - DENSITY COMPUTATIONS SECTION 18.715.020 - DENSITY CALCULATION (These provisions are quoted and addressed above within the findings for Section 18.510.040, Minimum And Maximum Densities.) SECTION 18.715.030 - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TRANSFER ' A. Rules governing residential density transfer. The units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Section 18.715.020 A. 1 a - c from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following limitations: 1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on 25 percent of the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; and 2. The total number of units per site does not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. B. Additional rules governing residential density transfer. Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Section 18.715.030 A. Id. from the gross acres may GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 26 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE NO. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas on land zoned R-12, R-25, and R-40 subject to the following limitations: 1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on the wetland area, if not for these regulations; 2. The total number of units per site does not exceed the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. C. Underlying development standards. All density transfer development proposals shall comply with the development standards of the applicable underlying zoning district unless developed under the provisions of Chapter 18.440, Planned Development. r Response: No density transfer is being proposed for this development. These standards are not applicable. CHAPTER 18.720 - DESIGN COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS SECTION 18.720.010 -PURPOSE A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards and regulations for design compatibility between multi family residential or attached single-family residential when abutting detached single-family districts to achieve the following objectives: 1. Ensure that structures that do not present excessive visual mass or bulk from public rights-of-way or to adjoining properties; 2. Achieve building design that relates to human scale; ' 3. Encourage aesthetically pleasing, interesting and functional architecture and site design; and 4. Encourage architectural design that integrates well with adjoining development. Response: The proposed Gabriel Woods Subdivision abuts "Rock Creek 3 Subdivision" which is located in the same zone (R-25) and contains one- and two-story detached single-family dwellings. Gabriel Woods Subdivision will consist of a series of two- and possibly three-story attached single-family dwellings. Lots in the southern part of the development have been oriented east-west so as to present the side of the building to the adjacent property, rather than presenting rear yards to neighbor's rear yards. Typically the new homes will be built with upstairs balconies, which if oriented south would provide a direct view over the neighboring rear yards. The east-west orientations will provide a better relationship by presenting the sidewall as opposed to the rear. (See Sheet P200 - Site Plan.) Building design will be addressed during the permit process and will be required to meet city standards. 41 t GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 27 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. SECTION 18.720.020 -APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS A. When provisions apply. These provisions apply to all multi family and attached single-family residential projects in zoning districts R-4.5 through R-40 that abut property zoned for single-family residential development. B. Site desi-an review. All residential development to which these provisions apply shall be subject to site design review. In addition to the design standards of this chapter, the development requirements of the underlying zone and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, shall apply. C. Conflict with subdivision requirements. The requirements and standards of this chapter shall not apply where they conflict with the regulations contained in Chapter 18.430, Subdivisions. Response: The subject property is surrounded on all sides by properties within the R-25 zone. The abutting property to the south is the Pebble Creek 3 subdivision, with detached single-family residences in the R-25 zone. The R-25 zone designation accommodates all housing types, being specifically designed for single-family attached and multi-family housing as outlined in Section 18.510.020. Therefore, the subject property does not abut property zoned specifically or exclusively for single-family residential development, and therefore this section does not apply. SECTION 18.720.030 - DESIGN STANDARDS A. Density transition. When a multi family or attached single-family project abuts property zoned for detached single-family, the following design standards shall apply: 1. Building height shall not exceed two stories or 25 feet within 30 feet of the property line or three stories or 35 feet within 50 feet of the property line; 2. Building planes for multi family dwellings within 50 feet of the common ' property line(s) and abutting public rights-of-way shall be subject to the following standards: a. No building plane that faces the common property line shall exceed 960 square feet within 30 feet or 1, 400 square feet within 50 feet of the property line; b. No building plane shall have a dimension greater than 40 feet in length or 35 feet in height; c. If more than one building plane faces a property line and building planes align at a common distance from the line, the building planes shall be .I horizontally separated by at least 20 feet. For purposes of this standard, "common distance" shall be defined as within 12 feet; d. Building plane is defined as a surface that includes a building wall that extends from the ground to the top of each wall of a structure. Area is determined by multiplying the length of each wall by the height. The plane does not include roof area. When a structure along a wall juts out from the wall, or is off-set from an adjacent part less than four feet, the structure is considered part of the building plane of the wall behind it. If the structure protrudes more than four feet, it represents a separate GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 28 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 1 1 i 0 • Westlake Consultants, Inc. building plane. If a building plane is at an angle in relation to the property line, the midpoint of the wall shall provide the point at which the plane and related distances are measured. These concepts are illustrated in Figure 18.720.1. Response: All properties abutting the subject site are within the R-25 zone. The R-25 zoning district is designed to accommodate existing housing of all types, and new attached or detached single-family and multi-family housing units. These provisions do not apply. B. Front facades. All primary ground floor common entries or individual unit entries of street frontage units shall be oriented to the street, not to the interior or to a parking lot. The front elevation of large structures must be divided into smaller areas or planes of 500 square feet or less. Projecting features such as porches, balconies, bays and dormer windows and roof pediments are encourages for structures facing a street to create visual interest. C. Main entrance. Primary structures must be oriented with their main entrance facing ' the street upon which the project fronts. If the site is on a corner, it may have its main ' . entrance oriented to either street or at the corner. D. Unit de nition. Each dwelling unit shall be emphasized by including a roof dormer or bay windows on the street facing elevation, or by providing a roof gable or porch that faces the street. Groundlevel dwelling units shall include porches that shall be at least 48 square feet in area with no dimension less than six feet. E. Roo lines. Roof-line offsets shall be provided at intervals of 40 feet or less to create variety in the massing of structures and to relieve the effect of a single, long roof. Roof line offsets shall be a minimum 4 -foot variation either vertically from the gutter line or horizontally. , F. Trim detail. Trim shall be used to mark all building roof lines, porches, windows and doors that are on a primary structure's street facing elevation(s). G. Mechanical equipment. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment, other than vents or i ventilators, shall be located and constructed so as to be screened from ground -level view. Screening shall be integrated with exterior building design. i i Response: All lots have been designed such that the dwellings shall be oriented to the street. Actual building design will be addressed during the permit process and will be required to meet applicable City standards. H. Parking. Parking and loading areas may not be located between the primary structure(s) and the street upon which the structure fronts. It there is no alley and motor vehicle access is from the street, parking must be provided: ' 1. In a garage that is attached to the primary structure; GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 29 SUBDIVISION t WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. 2. In a detached accessory structure located at least 50 feet from the front property line; or 3. In a parking area at the side or rear of the site. Response: Each unit will provide at least a one-car garage, with a parking space between the r sidewalk and garage door. Additional on- and off-street parking will be provided as noted on the submitted site plan (See Sheet P200). These standards have been met. I. Pedestrian circulation. i 1. The on-site pedestrian circulation system shall be continuous and connect the ground-level entrances of primary structure(s) to the following: a. Streets abutting the site; . b. Common buildings such as laundry and recreation facilities; c. Parking areas; ' d. Shared open space and play areas; e. Abutting transit stops; and f. Any pedestrian amenity such as plazas, resting areas and viewpoints. ' 2. There shall be at least one pedestrian connection to an abutting street frontage for each 200 linear feet of street frontage. Response: Anna Lane has been designed according to the City of Tigard Local Residential Street, Figure 18.810.5, for streets with volumes of less than 500 vehicles per day (vpd), with sidewalks on both sides. Pursuant to Section 18.810.070 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code, both private streets have been designed with a sidewalk on one side, provided in an easement on the lots served by each street. The system of sidewalks works together to provide continuous circulation between the proposed lots and the public street ' system, the open spaces located in Tracts A and B, and the shared parking area. These standards are met. 1 CHAPTER 18.725 - ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SECTION 18.725.020 - GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Compliance with applicable state and federal regulations. In addition to the regulations adopted in this chapter, each use, activity or operation within the City of Tigard shall comply with the applicable state and federal standards pertaining to noise, odor and discharge of matter into the atmosphere, ground, sewer system or a stream. Regulations adopted by the State Environmental Quality Commission pertaining to non point source pollution control and contained in the Oregon f4dministrative Rules shall by this reference be made a part of this chapter. B. Evidence of compliance. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Director may 3 require submission of evidence demonstrating compliance with state, federal and local environmental regulations and receipt of necessary permits; these include Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (ACDP) or Indirect Source Construction Permits (ISCP). GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 30 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. ' C. Continuing obligation. Compliance with state, federal and local environmental regulations is the continuing obligation of the property owner and operator. Response: The proposed subdivision will be required to meet the applicable state and federal environmental regulations at the time of construction. All property owners will be obligated to continue compliance with state, federal and local environmental regulations. This standard is satisfied. SECTION 18.725.030 - PERFORMANCE STANDARDS A. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.40.130 through 7.40.210 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Response: The proposed subdivision will be required to meet the applicable standards in Sections 7.40.130 through 7.40.210 at the time of construction. This standard is satisfied. B. Visible emissions. Within the commercial zoning districts and the industrial park (Y) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the ' emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a property line. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-015 and 340-28-070) apply. Response: The subject site is zoned R-25; therefore, this standard is not applicable. C. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is permitted in any given zoning district, which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. Response: The proposed subdivision will be required to meet this standard at the time of construction. No uses are proposed on-site that would cause vibration. This standard is satisfied. D. Odors. The emission of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be i readily detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply. Response: No uses are proposed on-site that would emit odors. The construction of this proposed subdivision will be required to meet this standard. This standard is satisfied. a`1 E. Glare and heat. No direct or sky-reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot ' line shall be permitted, and; J 1. There shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 31 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 r ~ • Westlake Consultants, Inc. 2. These regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Response: The proposed subdivision will be required to meet this standard at the time of construction. No uses are proposed on-site that would cause glare and heat issues. This standard is satisfied. F. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner, which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. Response: The proposed subdivision will be required to meet this standard at the time of construction. No uses are proposed on-site that would attract insects or rodents or create a health hazard. This standard is satisfied. ' CHAPTER 18.745 - LANDSCAPING & SCREENING STANDARDS ' SECTION 18.745.020 -APPLICABILITY A. Applicability. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, remodeling of existing structures where the landscaping is nonconforming (Section 18.760.040. C), and to a change of use which results in the need for increased on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. B. When site development review does not apply. Where the provisions of Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, do not apply, the Director shall approve, approve a~ with conditions, or deny a plan submitted under the provisions of this chapter by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the applicable standards in this chapter. C. Site plan requirements. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. a~ Response: The proposed Gabriel Woods Subdivision is for 25 lots of new residential ' construction. Individual lots will be landscaped by the future builder/owner of each parcel. The Existing Conditions (Sheet P 100) and the Tree Preservation and Mitigation Plan (Sheet P600), together, specify which of the existing trees will be retained or removed. Additionally, a Landscape Plan (Sheet P700) is included, which identifies existing trees to be retained and the locations and species of trees to be planted. These submitted plans demonstrate that compliance with this requirement can be assured through a condition of approval. SECTION 18.745.040 - STREET TREES A. Protection of existing vegetation. All development projects fronting on a public street, private street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved after the ,f GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 32 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. ' adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040. C. B. Street tree planting list. Certain trees can severely damage utilities, streets and sidewalks or can cause personal injury. Approval of any planting list shall be subject to review by the Director. C. Size and spacing of street trees. 1. Landscaping in the front and exterior side yards shall include trees with a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet in height as specified in the requirements stated in Section 18.745.040. C.2 below; 2. The specific spacing of street trees by size of tree shall be as follows: a. Small or narrow-stature trees under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart; b. Medium-sized trees 25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; c. Large trees over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart; d. Except for signalized intersections as provided in Section 18.745.040.H, trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet from a street intersection, nor closer than two feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants or utility poles to maintain visual clearance; e. No new utility pole location shall be established closer than five feet to any existing street tree; f. Tree pits shall be located so as not to include utilities (e.g., water and gas ` meters) in the tree well; g. On premises utilities (e.g., water and gas meters) shall not be installed within existing tree well areas; h. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards; ' i. New light standards shall not be positioned closer than 20 feet to existing street trees except when public safety dictates, then they may be positioned no closer than 10 feet; j. Where there are overhead power lines, the street tree species selected shall be rt 1 of a type which, at full maturity, will not interfere with the lines; k. Trees shall not be planted within two feet from the face of the curb; and ` 1. Trees shall not be planted within two feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway: (1) Space between the tree and the hard surface may be covered by a nonpermanent hard surface such as grates, bricks on sand, paver blocks and cobblestones; and (2) Sidewalk cuts in concrete for tree planting shall be at least four by four feet to allow for air and water into the root area. D. Pruning requirements. Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least eight feet of clearance above sidewalks and 13 feet above local street, 15 feet above collector street, and 18 feet above arterial street roadway surfaces. a , E. Cut and fill around existing trees. Existing trees may be used as street trees if no cutting or filling takes place within the drip-line of the tree unless an adjustment is GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 33 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 i • • Westlake Consultants, Inc. approved by the Director by means of a Type 1 procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.020. C. 4. a. F. Replacement of street trees. Existing street trees removed by development projects or ' other construction shall be replaced by the developer with those types of trees approved by the Director. The replacement trees shall be of a size and species similar to the trees that are being removed unless lesser sized alternatives are approved by the Director. G. Granting of adjustments. Adjustments to the street tree requirements may be granted by the Director by means of a Type I procedure, as regulated in Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.020. C. 4. b. H. Location of trees near signalized intersections. The Director may allow trees closer to specified intersections which are signalized, provided the provisions of Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance, are satisfied. Response: The proposed public street improvements within the development include planter strips in compliance with City standards, to accommodate street trees. A Landscape Plan (Sheet P700) has been included that identifies the species and locations of trees to be planted. This ' standard is therefore satisfied. SECTION 18.745.050 - BUFFERING AND SCREENING ' A. General provisions. 1. It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution at a development site, without unduly interfering with the view from neighboring properties or jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and vehicles; . 2. Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses ' which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter (Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). The owner of each proposed development is responsible for the installation and effective maintenance of buffering and i , screening. When different uses would be abutting one another except for separation by a right-of-way, buffering, but not screening, shall be required as specified in the matrix; 3. In lieu of these standards, a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening plan may be submitted for the Director's approval as an alternative to the buffer area landscaping and screening standards, provided it affords the same degree of buffering and screening as required by this code. B. Buffering and screening requirements. 1. A buffer consists of an area within a required setback adjacent to a property line and having a depth equal to the amount specified in the buffering and screening matrix and containing a length equal to the length of the property line of the abutting use or uses; 2. A buffer area may only be occupied by utilities, screening, sidewalks and bikeways, and landscaping. No buildings, accessways or parking areas shall GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 34 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 i Westlake Consultants, Inc. r ' be allowed in a buffer area except where an accessway has been approved by the City; 3. A fence, hedge or wall, or any combination of such elements, which are located in any yard is subject to the conditions and requirements of Sections 18.745.050.B.8 and 18.745.050.D; 4. The minimum improvements within a buffer area shall consist of combinations for landscaping and screening as specified in Table 18.745.1. In addition, improvements shall meet the following specifications: ' a. At least one row of trees shall be planted. They shall have a minimum ' caliper of two inches at four feet in height above grade for deciduous trees and a minimum height of five feet high for evergreen trees at the time of ' planting. Spacing for trees shall be as follows: (1) Small or narrow-stature trees, under 25 feet tall or less than 16 feet wide at maturity shall be spaced no further than 15 feet apart; (2) Medium-sized trees between 25 feet to 40 feet tall and with 16 feet to i , 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; (3) Large trees, over 40 feet tall and with more than 35 feet wide branching at maturity, shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart. b. In addition, at least 10 five-gallon shrubs or 20 one-gallon shrubs shall be planted for each 1, 000 square feet of required buffer area; ' c. The remaining area shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover. 5. Where screening is required the following standards shall apply in addition to those required for buffering: ' a. A hedge of narrow or broad leaf evergreen shrubs shall be planted which will form a four foot continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years of planting; or b. An earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials shall be provided which will form a continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years. The unplanted portion of the berm shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover; or c. A fence or wall of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 shall be ' . constructed to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen. 6 Buffering and screening provisions shall be superseded by the vision clearance requirements as set forth in Chapter 18.795; 7. When the use to be screened is downhill from the adjoining zone or use, the prescribed heights of required fences, walls, or landscape screening shall be measured from the actual grade of the adjoining property. In this case, fences and walls may exceed the permitted six foot height at the discretion of the I director as a condition of approval. When the grades are so steep so as to make the installation of walls, fences or landscaping to the required height impractical, a detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted for approval; 8. Fences and walls t 1 GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 35 SUBOMSION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 1~ I 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 i A f ~ d 1 ~J o ~ A I 4 ~ • • Westlake Consultants, Inc. a. Fences and walls shall be constructed of any materials commonly used in the construction offences and walls such as wood, stone, rock or brick, or otherwise acceptable by the Director; b. Such fence or wall construction shall be in compliance with other City regulations; c. Walls shall be a minimum of six inches thick; and d. Chain link fences with slats shall qualify for screening. However, chain link fences without slats shall require the planting of a continuous evergreen hedge to be considered screening. GABRIEL WOODS WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 PAGE 36 SUBDIVISION OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. ' 9. Hedges a. An evergreen hedge or other dense evergreen landscaping may satisfy a requirement for a sight-obscuring fence where required subject to the height requirement in Sections 18.745.050. C.2. a and 18.745.050. C.2. b; b. Such hedge or other dense landscaping shall be properly maintained and shall be replaced with another hedge, other dense evergreen landscaping, or a fence when it ceases to serve the purpose of obscuring view; and c. No hedge shall be grown or maintained at a height greater than that permitted by these regulations for a fence or wall in a vision clearance area as set forth in Chapter 18.795. C. Setbacks for fences or walls. 1. No fence or wall shall be constructed which exceeds the standards in Section 18.745.050. C.2 except when the approval authority, as a condition of approval, allows that a fence or wall be constructed to a height greater than ' otherwise permitted to mitigate against potential adverse effects; 2. Fences or walls: a. May not exceed three feet in height in a required front yard along local streets or eight feet in all other locations and, in all other cases, shall meet ' vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.795; b. Are permitted up to six feet in height in front yards adjacent to any designated arterial or collector street. For any fence over three feet in height in the required front yard area, permission shall be subject to administrative review of the location of the fence or wall. 3. All fences or walls shall meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter ' 18.795; 4. All fences or walls greater than six feet in height shall be subject to building 9 f ' permit approval. ' D. Height restrictions. 1. The prescribed heights of required fences, walls or landscaping shall be measured from the actual adjoining level off located above finished grade, the height offences, walls or landscaping required to screen such areas or 1 space shall be measured from the level of such improvements; } 2. An earthen berm and fence or wall combination shall not exceed the six-foot height limitation for screening. F. Buffer Matrix. 1. The Buffer Matrices contained in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2 shall be used 1 in calculating widths of buffering/screening and required improvements to be 1 installed between proposed uses and abutting uses or zoning districts; 2. An application for a variance to the standards required in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2, shall be processed as a Type II procedure, as regulated by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.010. (Ord. 02- 33) ! I 1 GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 37 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 '..i 1 i 1 t IA t i r ~ e ~ 1li 1-~ Westlake Consultants, Inc. Response: The proposed 25-lot subdivision is for construction of new single-family attached homes. The subject property abuts the Pebble Creek 3 Subdivision, which contains single-family detached homes. According to Table 18.745.1, Buffer Matrix, and the. corresponding Buffer Combinations for Landscaping and Screening, Table 18.745.2 (see below), the proposal is required to comply with Buffer Combination C. The developer will comply with Buffer Combination C3, which requires a 6-foot wide buffer containing trees planted between 15 and 30 feet apart, shrubs, and a 6-foot tall masonry wall. The Applicant has provided a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening plan, for approval by the Director as part of this application, to demonstrate compliance with these provisions. Y.;m tr i&;i5.1 HtrTliA 3idI3nX Xi42'6~C:.'.8L'I7L'~GiSL FRMSW shw-Cnit4 Q edi Mft& W = AMwWSEVU Vros Ow Wl oh" itr. Airft&d sogbithm wd 5«SA4u ..t CsmtTa+cisi 11" (Cr_ rp,tp. .MCy)p.q(ik.E C4*"$Rw 2!m?{S~{i fA3eid trio r?URa+•- [.tg1s W=W zcna Hpny In1.bt(i V semi Pet~tte ,tcK. 3.'.* W +,{ec. t,{spa AriAndSiety.k tllti~tLuwtiuanud tltid - A C C k C £ H 9 A I-$ umts, P **=6 A 2a49=Vlt'tW44"VWtirm*. A A - C 1) C C 6 F C D 5* ikio I*16$trii RAS A A R - D C C 8 6 4 A Ckme Rnu zmlb (0K C% CI; CM C C C C - A A R t} - - 8&iWnnftA CtWnp 'ZAtm gCtl) C C C C A - A 1Y P - - WWI TAW 4*pM)n tZa "0AEP C C C A A - D U - - i iyln3n 7tdari+l Tart BP (k} p P I3 D A A A - @ - - Hunt1hugeFil.9AcasriH1 LY 6 A l3 0 IY !F D _ _ AMWWsw b A A A A A I1 t>Zctx 8mt Tin i8.7t5.: fae nAmediip.ciitrtticxua 6:e me¢ting nws ia,~ni~g i~.:kca~rma. GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 38 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 1 1 1 s e ; t ~I • TABLE 18.7461 BUFF'ERC4I.\ffiNATION3 FOR I.,t31'DSCAFLNGAND SCRE£Nn, G [11 • Westlake Consultants, Inc. 0Psians iwidch (im) 'c (per Ham feet of bcfer} Shruor CrmmilM -a` Screening A - 143 - h~t! 'A B - 1o 10' tmaro' M= RM Mg Lawty ammdwver - 3 1#1 Shavbs 4' --edges C 2 S 1S mLm/30' =zx.gciag SL-ibs S' fe=e 3 6 Shmbs d' van 1 20 simbs 6'he6?ee D 2 15 10' aft00' m= W xing Shruha 6' fence 3 141 Sheaths 6" Wa11 1 3 10' min 2Q Max wciag Shmbs 6' badge er feme - 2 25 Shahs S' Bardeen tam or-well F - 40 10'.Miz120' ma tgtxibg Sb u s 6' hedge. force. wag. ocherm [9j Sufis are not requimd between abutting use. that are of a diftmi type when the uses are regu. ted by a sweet as specified s Semon 15.745.050 Al [2j Adjummms from d3rse teguaemecits can beubtz ned: see Secran 18.3-7&0210 C4. SECTION 18.745.060 - RE-VEGETATION A. When re-vegetation is required. Where natural vegetation has been removed through grading in areas not affected by the landscaping requirements and that are not to be occupied by structures, such areas are to be replanted as set forth in this section to prevent erosion after construction activities are completed. B. Preparation for re-vegetation. Topsoil removed from the surface in preparation for grading and construction is to be stored on or near the sites and protected from erosion while grading operations are underway; and 1. Such storage may not be located where it would cause suffocation of root systems of trees intended to be preserved; and 2. After completion of such grading, the topsoil is to be restored to exposed cut and fill embankments or building pads to provide a suitable base for seeding and planting. C. Methods of re-vegetation. 1. Acceptable methods of re-vegetation include hydro-mulching or the planting of rye grass, barley, or other seed with equivalent germination rates, and: GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 39 . SUBDIVISION f. 1 WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 r 1 Westlake Consultants, Inc. a. Where lawn or turfgrass is to be established, lawn grass seed or other appropriate landscape cover is to be sown at not less than.fourPounds to each 1, 000 square feet of land area; b. Other re-vegetation methods offering equivalent protection may be approved by the approval authority; c. Plant materials are to be watered at intervals sufficient to ensure survival and growth; and d. The use of native plant materials is encouraged to reduce irrigation and maintenance demands. Response: A Landscape Plan (Sheet P700) has been included that specifies the location and type of plantings. Areas disturbed during construction of the site improvements will be re- planted and/or covered per standards as established by Clean Water Services (CWS). Measures will be implemented to reduce erosion of surface materials until homes are constructed and final landscaping is in place. This standard can be satisfied through compliance with appropriate condition(s) of approval. CHAPTER 18.755 - MIXED SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING STORAGE SECTION 18.755.010 -PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that certain new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source-separated recyclable materials prior to ' pick-up and removal by haulers. B. Applicability. The mixed solid waste and source separated recyclable storage standards shall apply to new multi-unit residential buildings containing five or more units and non-residential construction that are subject to full site plan or design review; and are located within urban zones that allow, outright or by condition, for such uses... ~I Response: The proposed subdivision is for single-family attached units, not for multi-family units or non-residential construction. Therefore this Chapter is not applicable. o CHAPTER 18.765 - OFF-STREET PARKING/LOADING REQUIREMENTS SECTION 18.765.020 -APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS A. New construction. At the time of the erection of a new structure within any zoning ' district, off-street vehicle parking will be provided in accordance with Section 18.765.070. Response: A detailed discussion and findings are located under the Section 18.765.070 heading below. GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 40 SUBDIVISION I WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. E. Building permit conditions. The provision and maintenance of off-street vehicle parking and loading spaces are the continuing obligation of the property owner: 1. No building or other permit shall be issued until plans are presented to the Director to show that property is and will remain available for exclusive use ' as off-street vehicle parking and loading space; and 2. The subsequent use of property for which the building permit is issued shall be conditional upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the i amount of vehicle parking and loading space required by this title; 3. Required vehicle parking shall: a. Be available for the parking of operable passenger vehicles of residents, patron and employees only; b. Not be used for storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conduct of the business or use; and c. Not be rented, leased or assigned to any other person or organization. Response: The road and lot plan has been designed to accommodate the driveway width and off- , , street parking standards. Compliance with residential driveway width and length standards will be confirmed for each parcel at the time each lot applies for building permit. This standard is ' satisfied. " SECTION 18.765.030 - GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Vehicle parking plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be.fulfilled. The applicant shall ' submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. B. Location of vehicle parking. The location of off-street parking will be as follows: 1. Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and single- family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwelling(s); Response: The lot layout has been designed to accommodate the driveway width and off-street parking standards. Compliance with residential driveway width and length standards will be '.l confirmed for each parcel at the time each lot applies for building permit. This standard is satisfied. SECTION 18.765.070 - MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS Table 18.765.2 Minimum and Maximum Required Off-street Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Requirements Single-family attached 2 bedroom: 1.51DU (M) " 3 bedroom: 1.751DU (M) GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 41 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No.1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 1-~ • • Westlake Consultants, Inc. Response: Each residence will include at least a single-car garage as well as a residential driveway. According to Table 18.765.2 (see below), the minimum off-street parking standard for single-family attached dwellings varies by the number of bedrooms per dwelling. Per table 18.765.2, the minimum number of off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit is 1.5 for two bedroom units and 1.75 for three bedroom units. At least two off-street parking spaces will be provided on each of the proposed 25 lots as well as designated on-street parking. This standard is satisfied. Table 18.',65.2 Minimum and Maximum Required Off-street Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Requirements z ;13. L34lZtllUa! " • iiCtiIum- ' • ZONE.A Z0NZB!' BIC)<CLEJ`t, , RESIDE:'vMAL Household Living Sinsle Unin. A*.atched SIN.Multifamul •!AI) none M) none M11 none ,r wum M. uet m!I s t cone AD none nano Acxess Units 1.0:DU EMU none boos none Slultifnmilp Units DU<500 sq ft: 1.111DU (M) Zane Of) i bedroom: 1.25W (Nf) 2 bedroom: i 5ZU (M) 3 bedroom: 1..U5aD43(M) none (M) l .on DUs except eidetly. wn eh is 16.W20 DM Mae (M) none {M1. nou! Mobile Rome Disk. 1.A DU t?!f) none (NI) none (M) none Croup Living 1.0hoom come 1.0,12,5 beds 2:.:.lAOOt't mane none £V3 e s Irassitional Housing .0Q.5 beds name none Lo'S beds Rome Occupation tome cane n011e none CTFIC Basic Utilities none cote none F- none Colleges .o?5 imdenwitaff R5 1.0'3.3 stmdectslstaft t4f1 LQi3.3 i:tdecitVuaR7,qj 1.x:"3.0 studmi'(smir Comsounits Recreation 2.011;000 233.400 4.0111,C00 '33,1100 Ctlltural.Institutions 2511,600 3Sti.000 4.:,'lA00 LVI.000 My Care Home: none C'ontmerfsai:2A'duaroom Lane 2'1.000 none 311000 Haute: none iozatnercal:1S.tc5sumom £me eacvServices 3.011.00D 3.S1i.0"r] U00 0.5!i.0010 A edirai C'eaters ? 01 : Qt _T.3r1.000 t 3.2%I.OQfr S.2~i,000 NA. Yoe feet sed (0 To be determined by the City of Tigardbased on Metroc&.ena. DU: Dwelling Uu9t M Required birmle parkins shall be required per the atlos below except in no case slutll there be {ever fm two spi re ptotri&d. (M): lrletto.R"t;Lvosent I11 refers to 1.000 sq. ft. of floor area, u lkss oLhern se r xeti M his not include outpadent clinics ar mediczl offices; see 32edicalMentad Ofiim. CHAPTER 18.780 - SIGNS SECTION 18.780.020 - PERMITS REQUIRED A. Compliance with regulations. No sign or sign structure shall hereafter be erected, re-erected, constructed, structurally altered or relocated within the City limits except as provided by this title, and a permit for the same sign or sign structure has been issued by the Director. B. Separate permits for each sign. A separate permit shall be required for each signor signs for each business entity and a separate permit shall be required for each group of signs on a single supporting structure. GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 42 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE NO. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. C. Compliance with UBC. Separate structural permits under the Uniform Building Code shall also apply. D. Electrical permit required. An electrical permit shall be obtained for all illuminated signs, from the enforcing agency subject to the provisions of the State Electrical Code. E. Retroactive sign permits. The Director may require application for sign permits for all signage at a given address if no existing permits previously had been approved or documented. Response: No project signs are proposed as a part of this subdivision application. Any signs needed for the development will meet the standards of this Chapter at the time of construction. This standard is satisfied. CHAPTER 18.790 - TREE REMOVAL SECTION 18.790.030 -TREE PLAN REQUIREMENT A. Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. B. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; 2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines " of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for ' landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper 1 requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 43 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 0 Westlake Consultants, Inc. C. Subsequent tree removal. Trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060D. Response: All trees over 6" in diameter within the project limits were located. Sheet P 100 shows the locations of trees within the property, and memoranda from arborist Steve Goetz provide an assessment of those trees that can potentially be saved in the development process. Because of the uncertainties inherent in the construction process, the Applicant does not represent that any particular tree will be saved in the course of development. Although the Applicant has attempted to identify trees that may potentially be saved in the development and construction process, the fact is that final determinations with respect to each tree must be made in the field on the basis of an arborist's observations as construction proceeds. This is the case because accepted "best management practices," such as erecting fencing around the dripline of a tree prior to construction, are guidelines that cannot in fact guarantee the long-term survivability of a particular tree. Therefore, the proposed tree plan for this development is as follows: 1. Mitigation pursuant to Section 18.790.030.B.2 for the removal of up to 100 percent of the trees on the subject property. The basis (i.e., 100%) for calculating mitigation consists of 96 trees larger than 12" in diameter and subject to mitigation, with combined diameter inches of 1169. 2. All of the mitigation is expected to be in the form of payment of a fee in lieu of tree conservation; however, some trees proposed for planting within landscape areas (other than street trees) may be eligible to be counted for mitigation credit. 3. No tree within the subject property is specifically identified for conservation. 4. The highest priority will be given to conservation of the large sequoia tree. This approach is in compliance with the tree mitigation requirements of Section 18.790. More particularly, the mitigation requirement in Subsection 18.790.030.B.2.a provides: "Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires mitigation program in accordance with Section 19.790.060.D of no net loss of trees." Without guaranteeing the conservation of any particular tree, however, the Applicant intends to attempt to conserve certain specimens within the subject property. Sheet P600 shows the locations of the trees that can probably be conserved, together with locations for the placement of protective fencing during construction. According to the October 4, 2004 letter provided by Steve Goetz of The Pacific Resources Group, "The trees with the best chance of survival include trees 146, 147, 149 and 117 located at the entrance to the site. In the southwest corner of the site there is the possibility that trees 349, 350, 351, and 352 might be preserved." Of these trees, 6 are over 12" dbh and represent 197 diameter inches. Based on these facts, the proposed development will be required to comply with the mitigation. provisions of Subsection 18.790.030.B.2.a. This requirement can be met through planting of GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 44 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. replacement trees within the subject property or at a remote location, or by payment of a fee in lieu of planting, pursuant to Subsection 18.790.060.D. The Applicant proposes to submit a final report of tree conservation at the end of the construction process, which will be used as the basis for determining the appropriate mitigation, including payments of a fee in lieu of replanting. These findings demonstrate that the Applicant will be able to comply with the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal, pursuant to a condition of approval. Specific determination of the applicable mitigation requirements should be performed at the time of construction, when a ' factual determination of trees actually retained or removed can be made. Mitigation combining some tree replacement with payment of a fee in lieu of planting can be determined by staff with specific reference to the clear and objective standards in Section 18.790.030.B.2 at that time. SECTION 18.790.050 - PERMIT APPLICABILITY A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree, which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the following approval criteria: 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 112 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets, adjacent property, or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action of erosion; b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment-laden flows; or evidence of on-site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. 2. Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75% canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75%. Response: None of the proposed tree removal falls within a wetland or sensitive land area. This standard is not applicable to this application. 1 CHAPTER 18.795 - VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS SECTION 18.795.020 -APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS A. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures . GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 45 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. ' and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. B. When site development review is not required. Where the provisions of Chapter 18.330, Site Development Review, do not apply, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a plan submitted under the provisions of this chapter through a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the standards in this chapter as approval criteria. Response: Clear vision areas will be maintained by respective property owners of the proposed lots on the corners of all street intersections within the proposed subdivision. This standard is satisfied. SECTION 18.795.030 - VISUAL CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS A. At corners. Except within the CBD zoning district a visual clearance area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to the intersection of two streets, a street and a railroad, or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. B. Obstructions prohibited. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, 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. C. Additional topographical constraints. Where the crest of a hill or vertical curve conditions contribute to the obstruction of clear vision areas at a street or driveway intersection, hedges, plantings, fences, walls, wall structures and temporary or permanent obstructions shall be further reduced in height or eliminated to comply ' with the intent of the required clear vision area. Response: The proposed Landscape Plan shows that no plantings that would conflict with visual clearance requirements at the proposed intersection of SW Barrows Road and SW Anna Lane are proposed. Following construction, clear vision areas must be maintained by respective property owners of the proposed lots on the corners of all street intersections within the proposed subdivision. This standard is satisfied. SECTIMI 1 R,7Q5,ndn - rnU01 IITA-Timm A. Arterial streets. On all designated arterial streets the visual clearance area shall not be less than 35 feet on each side of the intersection. B. Non-arterial streets. 1. Non-arterial streets 24 feet or more in width. At all intersections of two non- arterial streets, a nonarterial street and a driveway, and a non-arterial street or driveway and railroad where at least one of the streets or driveways is 24 feet or more in width, a visual clearance area shall be a triangle formed by the right-of-way or property lines along such lots and a straight line joining the right-of-way or property line at points which are 30 feet distance from the GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 46 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE NO. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 1 Westlake Consultants, Inc. intersection of the right-of-way line and measured along such lines. See Figure 18.795.1: 2. Non-arterial streets less than 24 feet in width. At all intersections of two non- arterial streets, a non-arterial street and a driveway, and a non-arterial street or driveway and railroad where both streets and/or driveways are less than 24 feet in width, a visual clearance area shall be a triangle whose base extends 30 feet along the street right-of-way line in both directions from the centerline of the accessway at the front setback line of a single family and two family residence, and 30 feet back from the property line on all other types of uses. Response: There are no proposed arterial streets within or near the subdivision. SW Barrows Road is designated a Neighborhood Route. The required clear vision areas will be provided at the proposed new intersections of the subdivision. This standard is satisfied. CHAPTER 18.810 - STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS SECTION 18.810.030 - STREETS A. Improvements. 1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street. 2. No development shall occur unless streets within the development meet the standards of this chapter. 3. No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the standards of this chapter, provided, however, that a development may be approved if the adjacent street does not meet the standards but half- street improvements meeting the standards of this title are constructed adjacent to the development. 4 Any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall meet the standards of this chapter; 5. If the City could and would otherwise require the applicant to provide street improvements, the City Engineer may accept a future improvements guarantee in lieu of street improvements if one or more of the following conditions exist: a. A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design standards; b. A partial improvement may create a potential safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians; c. Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties it is unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity; GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 47 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. d. The improvement would be in conflict with an adopted capital improvement plan; e. The improvement is associated with an approved land partition on property zoned residential and the proposed land partition does not create any new streets; or f. Additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards for the street and the application is for a project which would contribute only a minor portion of the anticipated future traffic on the street. 6. The standards of this chapter include the standard specifications adopted by the City Engineer pursuant to Section 18.810.020.8: 7. The approval authority may approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if compliance with the standards would result in an adverse impact on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes, or existing mature trees. The approval authority may also approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if compliance with the standards would have a substantial adverse impact on existing development or would preclude development on the property where the development is proposed. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the approval authority shall balance the benefit of the adjustment with the impact on the public interest represented by the j standards. In evaluating the impact on the public interest, the approval authority shall consider the criteria listed in Section 18.810.030 E.1. An adjustment to the standards may not be granted if the adjustment would risk public safety. Response: The proposed streets have been designed to meet the standards of this Chapter. SW Barrows Road is designated a Neighborhood Route. All of the proposed internal streets are local streets. Street sections are illustrated on P300 - Grading Plan. This standard is satisfied. B. Creation of rights-of-way for streets and related purposes. Rights-of-way shall be created through the approval of a final subdivision plat or major partition; however, the Council may approve the creation of a street by acceptance of a deed, provided that such street is deemed essential by the Council for the purpose of general traffic circulation: 1. The Council may approve the creation of a street by deed of dedication without full compliance with the regulations applicable to subdivisions or major partitions if any one or more of the following conditions are found by the Council to be present: !i a. Establishment of a street is initiated by the Council and is found to be ■ essential for the purpose of general traffic circulation, and partitioning or subdivision of land has an incidental effect rather than being the primary objective in establishing the road or street for public use; or b. The tract in which the road or street is to be dedicated is an isolated ownership of one acre or less and such dedication is recommended by the Commission to the Council based on a finding that the proposal is not an GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 48 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. attempt to evade the provisions of this title governing the control of subdivisions or major partitions. 2. With each application for approval of a road or street right-of-way not in full compliance with the regulations applicable to the standards, the proposed dedication shall be made a condition of subdivision and major partition approval: a. The applicant shall submit such additional information and justification as may be necessary to enable the Commission in its review to determine whether or not a recommendation for approval by the Council shall be made; b. The recommendation, if any, shall be based upon a finding that the proposal is not in conflict with the purpose of this title; c. The Commission in submitting the proposal with a recommendation to the Council may attach conditions which are necessary to preserve the standards of this title; and 3. All deeds of dedication shall be in a form prescribed by the City and shall name "the public, "as grantee. Response: SW Anna Lane will be dedicated to the public through the subdivision platting process. C. Creation of access easements. The approval authority may approve an access easement established by deed without full compliance with this title provided such an easement is the only reasonable method by which a lot large enough to develop can be created: 1. Access easements shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code Section 10.207; 2. Access shall be in accordance with Sections 18.705.030.Hand 18.705.0301. Response: Tracts C and D, which provide access to Lots 16-20 and 21-25, respectively, will be subject to shared access easements. D. Street location, width and grade. Except as noted below, the location, width and grade of all streets shall conform to an approved street plan and shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned streets, to topographic conditions, to public convenience and safety, and in their appropriate relation to the proposed use of the land to be served by such streets: 1. Street grades shall be approved by the City Engineer in accordance with Subsection M below; and 2. Where the location of a street is not shown in an approved street plan, the arrangement of streets in a development shall either: a. Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in the surrounding areas, or b. Conform to a plan adopted by the Commission, if it is impractical to conform to existing street patterns because of particular topographical or GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 49 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 r Westlake Consultants, Inc. other existing conditions of the land. Such a plan shall be based on the type of land use to be served, the volume of traffic, the capacity of Ail adjoining streets and the need for public convenience and safety. Response: The preliminary subdivision plan and grading plan were prepared in accordance with City standards. Street alignments and circulation are consistent with existing conditions in the vicinity. Grading of the roadways will not require any variances or adjustments to the standards. This standard is met. E. Minimum rights-of-way and street widths. Unless otherwise indicated on an approved street plan, or as needed to continue an existing improved street, street right-of-way and roadway widths shall not be less than the minimum width described below. ' Where a range is indicated, the width shall be determined by the decision-making authority based upon anticipated average daily traffic (ADT) on the new street segment. (The City Council may adopt by resolution, design standards for street construction and other public improvements. The design standards will provide guidance for determining improvement requirements within the specified ranges) These are presented in Table 18.810.1. 1. The decision-making body shall make its decision about desired right-of-way width and pavement width of the various street types within the subdivision or development after consideration of the following: ' a. The type of road as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Chapter - Functional Street Classification; b. Anticipated traffic generation; c. On-street parking needs; d. Sidewalk and bikeway requirements; e. Requirements for placement of utilities; f. Street lighting; g. Drainage and slope impacts; h. Street tree location; i. Planting and landscape areas; j. Safety and comfort for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians; ' k. Access needs for emergency vehicles. Response: Roadway improvements for Anna Lane have a paved width of 28 feet within a 50- foot public right-of-way, corresponding to the standard criteria for a Local Residential Street with traffic of less than 500 vehicles per day (VPD), pursuant to Figure 18.810.5. Both private streets will have a paved width of 20 feet within private tracts. F. Future street plan and extension o.fstreets. 1. A future street plan shall: a. Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other parcels within 530 feet surrounding and adjacent GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 50 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE NO. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 ~ a • 1 1 1 a 1 i Westlake Consultants, Inc. to the proposed land division. At the applicant's request, the City may prepare a future streets proposal. Costs of the City preparing a future streets proposal shall be reimbursed for the time involved. A street proposal may be modified when subsequent subdivision proposals are submitted. b. Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 530 feet of the site. 2. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed, and a. These extended streets or 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. b. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost. c. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub street in excess of 150 feet in length. Response: Due to existing development adjacent to the subject property, future street extension is not feasible. Neither is it required by the City's Transportation System Plan or local area circulation plans. Therefore, there is no need or basis for extending streets to stub to the edges of the property. Given this constraint the proposal includes plans for SW Anna Lane, a new public street, to terminate in a reduced size cul-de-sac. H. Street alignment and connections. 1. Full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. 2. All local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is considered precluded when it is not possible to redesign or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15% for a distance of 250 feet" or more. 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. GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 51 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. 3. Proposed street or street extensions shall be located to provide direct access to existing or planned transit stops, commercial services, and other neighborhood facilities, such as schools, shopping areas and parks. 4. All developments should provide an internal network of connecting streets that provide short, direct travel routes and minimize travel distances within the development. Response: Access to the subject property will be provided by an east-west public street and twp parallel, north-south private streets. Due to pre-existing development to the east, the proposed east-west street, Anna Lane, will terminate in a reduced size cul-de-sac, based on specific direction provided to the Applicant by City of Tigard Engineering staff. Due to pre-existing 1 development, the proposed private streets have not been stubbed to the subject property boundary. Because a through connection is precluded by pre-existing development the private streets have been stubbed to north property line of proposed lots 20 and 25. This provision is therefore satisfied. 1. Intersection angles. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect at an angle as near to a right angle as practicable, except where topography requires a lesser angle, but in no case shall the angle be less than 75° unless there is special intersection design, and: 1. Streets shall have at least 25 feet of tangent adjacent to the right-of-way intersection unless topography requires a lesser distance; 2. Intersections which are not at right angles shall have a minimum corner radius of 20 feet along the right-of-way lines of the acute angle; and 3. Right-of-way lines at intersection with arterial streets shall have a corner i radius of not less than 20 feet. Response: The proposed SW Anna Lane / SW Barrows Road intersection is designed with a curve that brings SW Anna Lane to a right-angle centerline intersection alignment. The proposed private street identified on the plan set as Tract `C' intersects Anna Lane at or very near a right angle. The proposed private street identified on the plan set as Tract `D' curves to intersect the cul-de-sac bulb of Anna Lane on a radial alignment, i.e., on axis with the center of the cul-de-sac bulb. None of the intersections has an angle of less than 75 degrees. The proposed streets meet the above requirements for minimum corner radii. These standards are ' satisfied. .i. J. Existing rights-of-way. Whenever existing rights-of-way adjacent to or within a tract are of less than standard width, additional rights-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision or development. e r GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 52 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 r 1 t 1 t 1 1 Westlake Consultants, Inc. Response: According to the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan, Figure 8-3, SW Barrows Road is identified as a Neighborhood Route (See Exhibit L - Transportation System Plan Figure. 8-3). The required right-of-way width is 29 feet from centerline, according to City Engineering Department staff. Adjacent to the subject property, the SW Barrows Road right-of-way measures 37 feet from centerline, which is more than adequate to accommodate proposed Neighborhood Route improvements. Right-of-way dedication and improvements consistent with City standards will be done at the time of plat recording and construction. This standard is satisfied. K Partial street improvements. Partial street improvements resulting in a pavement width of less than 20 feet; while generally not acceptable, may be approved where essential to reasonable development when in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations, and when it will be practical to require the improvement of the other half when the adjoining property developed. Response: No partial street improvements that would result in a pavement width of less than 20 feet are proposed. The Applicant proposes to construct SW Barrows Road improvements along the frontage of the subject property to meet applicable City standards; however, this work will tie into the existing paved width with additional paving and curb, including curb returns at the SW Anna Lane intersection. The proposal includes plans to meander the sidewalk at the southern intersection corner in order to conserve an existing fir tree at that location. This provision is not applicable. L. Cul-de-sacs. A cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental or topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation: 1. All cul-de-sac shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other than circular, shall be approved by the City Engineer; and 2. The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured from the centerline intersection point of the two streets to the radius point of the bulb. 3. If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the City. Response: Access to the site will be from a system of a public street and two private streets. The public street, Anna Lane, will enter the site easterly from SW Barrows Road and terminate in a cul-de-sac. Anna Lane is approximately 300 feet long and will serve 15 dwellings. Surrounding pre-existing development precludes a through connection. The proposed layout has been reviewed for emergency access by Deputy Fire Marshal Eric McMullen of Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue. This provision is satisfied. M. Street names. No street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the names of existing streets in Washington County, except for extensions of existing GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 53 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. 1 streets. Street names and numbers shall conform to the established pattern in the surrounding area and as approved by the City Engineer. Response: The proposed street name, SW Anna Lane, does not duplicate the name of any existing street within Washington County. It is in accordance with established patterns as governed by Washington County, and it and conforms to City standards. The proposed private i streets have not been named but will be named in accordance with established patterns as governed by Washington County. This standard is satisfied. N. Grades and curves. 1. Grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may r have segments with grades up to 1 S% for distances of no greater than 250 feet), and 2. Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer. Response: The topography of the site will allow design of the roadways to meet this standard. Preliminary design of the grades and radii are noted on the attached preliminary plat and grading plans. 0. Curbs, curb cuts, ramps, and driveway approaches. 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: 1. Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except 2. Where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval; and 3. Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to City configuration standards. Response: The proposal includes a system of continuous sidewalks, on both sides of the public street and one side of each of the private street tracts. All curbs and sidewalks, along with curb cuts for driveways, will be constructed per city standards during installation of the improvements and home construction. P. Streets adjacent to railroad right-of-way. Response: There are no proposed or existing streets adjacent to a railroad right-of-way. This standard is not applicable. Q. Access to arterials and collectors. Where a development abuts or is traversed by an existing or proposed arterial or collector street, the development design shall provide adequate protection for residential properties and shall separate residential access and through traffic, or if separation is not feasible, the design shall minimize the traffic conflicts. The design shall include any of the following: L A parallel access street along the arterial or collector; GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 54 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. 2. Lots of suitable depth abutting the arterial or collector to provide adequate buffering with frontage along another street, 3. Screen planting at the rear or side property line to be contained in a nonaccess reservation along the arterial or collector; or 4. Other treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this subsection; 5. If a lot has access to two streets with different classifications, primary access should be from the lower classification street. Response: SW Barrows Road is identified in the city's transportation plan as a Neighborhood Route. No lots within the proposed development will have direct access to this roadway. Internal streets will provide frontage and access for all lots and driveways. A note will be placed r on the final plat limiting access to SW Barrows Road. This standard is met. R. Alleys, public or private. Response: No alleys are proposed. This standard is not applicable. ' S. Survey monuments. Upon completion of a street improvement and prior to acceptance by the City, it shall be the responsibility of the developer's registered professional land surveyor to provide certification to the City that all boundary and interior t monuments shall be reestablished and protected. Response: As part of the platting process, all survey monuments will be placed for lot corners and street centerlines. The county surveyor will review and confirm that these corners have been placed. ' T. Private streets. 1. Design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer; and 2. The City shall require legal assurances for the continued maintenance of private streets, such as a recorded maintenance agreement. 3. Private streets serving more than six dwelling units are permitted only within planned developments, mobile home parks, and multi family residential developments. Response: Access to the site will be from a system of a public street and two approximately 20- foot wide private streets. The public street, "SW Anna Lane," will enter the site easterly from SW Barrows Road. The two parallel private streets will run southerly, generally along the east and west property lines, providing access to proposed lots 16 through 25. Each of the proposed private streets, identified as Tract C and D on the plan set, will provide access to five dwellings. A five-foot wide sidewalk identified on the plan set as "Sidewalk in 5.00' Easement" will be provided in an easement over the front five feet of each parcel. Maintenance of the private streets will be through a Homeowner's Association. This provision is therefore satisfied. ' U. Railroad crossings. GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 55 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. Response: There are no railroad crossings within or abutting the site. This standard is not applicable. V. Street signs. The City shall install all street signs, relative to traffic control and street names, as specified by the City Engineer for any development. The cost of signs shall be the responsibility of the developer. Response: Street signs will be installed by the contractor as part of the construction process. W. Mailboxes. Joint mailbox facilities shall be provided in all residential developments, with each joint mailbox serving at least two dwelling units. ' 1. Joint mailbox structures shall be placed adjacent to roadway curbs; 2. Proposed locations of joint mailboxes shall be designated on a copy of the preliminary plat or development plan, and shall be approved by the City Engineer/US Post Office prior to final plan approval; and 3. Plans for the joint mailbox structures to be used shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer/US Post Office prior to final approval. Response: Joint mailboxes are proposed for this subdivision. Design and location of mailboxes will be determined in the construction document design and review process. This standard is satisfied. X. Traffic signals. The location of traffic signals shall be noted on approved street plans. Where a proposed street intersection will result in an immediate need for a traffic signal, a signal meeting approved specifications shall be installed. The cost shall be included as a condition of development. ' Response: No traffic signals are proposed for this development. Y. Street light standards. Street lights shall be installed in accordance with regulations adopted by the City's direction. Response: Street lights will be placed along the frontage of the new streets within the development. A design will be provided by a lighting consultant for review and approval by the city as part of the construction permitting phase of the project. ' Z. Street name signs. Street name signs shall be installed at all street intersections. Sto P signs and other signs may be required. Response: Street-, stop- and other signs will be installed by the contractor during the construction process, AA. Street cross-sections. The f nal lift of asphalt concrete pavement shall be placed on all new constructed public roadways prior to final City acceptance of the roadway and within one year of the conditional acceptance of the roadway unless otherwise GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 56 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. approved by the City Engineer. The final lift shall also be placed no later than when 90% of the structures in the new development are completed or three years from the commencement of initial construction of the development, whichever is less. 1. Sub-base and leveling course shall be of select crushed rock; 2. Surface material shall be of Class C or B asphaltic concrete; 3. The final lift shall be placed on all new construction roadways prior to City final acceptance of the roadway; however, not before 90% of the structures in the new development are completed unless three years have elapsed since initiation of construction in the development; 4. The final lift shall be Class C asphaltic concrete as defined by A.P. W.A. standard specifications; and 5. No lift shall be less than 1-112 inches in thickness. (Ord. 99-22) Response: Placement of the final lift of asphalt will be completed per this code standard and coordinated with the City's Engineering Department. AB. Traffic calming. When, in the opinion of the City Engineer, the proposed development ' will create a negative traffic condition on existing neighborhood streets, such as excessive speeding, the developer may be required to provide traffic calming measures. These measures may be required within the development and/or offsite as deemed appropriate. As an alternative, the developer may be required to deposit funds with the City to help pay for traffic calming measures that become necessary once the development is occupied and the City Engineer determines that the additional traffic from the development has triggered the need for traffic calming measures. The City Engineer will determine the amount of funds required, and will collect said funds from the developer prior to the issuance of a certificate of ' occupancy, or in the case of subdivision, prior to the approval of the final plat. The funds will be held by the City for a period of five (S) years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy, or in the case of a subdivision, the date of final plat approval. Any funds not used by the City within the five year time period will be refunded to the developer. ` Response: The proposed development creates no street connections or conditions that would potentially create a negative traffic condition on any existing neighborhood street. Accordingly, no traffic calming is required and none has been proposed within this subdivision. AC Traffic study. 1. A traffic study shall be required for all new or expanded uses or developments under any of the following circumstances: a. When they generate a 10% or greater increase in existing traffic to high collision intersections identified by Washington County. b. Trip generations from development onto the City street at the point of access and the existing ADT fall within the following ranges: Existing ADT ADT to be added by development 0-3, 000 vpd 2, 000 vpd GABRIEL WOODS f AGE 57 SUBDIVISION ' WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. 3,001-6, 000 vpd 1, 000vpd > 6, 000 vpd 500 vpd or more c. If any of the following issues become evident to the City engineer: i (1) High traffic volumes on the adjacent roadway that may affect movement into or out of the site (2) Lack of existing left-turn lanes onto the adjacent roadway at the i proposed access drive(s) (3) Inadequate horizontal or vertical sight distance at access points (4) The proximity of the proposed access to other existing drives or intersections is a potential hazard (5) The proposal requires a conditional use permit or involves a drive- through operation (6) The proposed development may result in excessive traffic volumes on adjacent local streets. 2. In addition, a traffic study may be required for all new or expanded uses or developments under any of the following circumstances: a. When the site is within 500 feet of an ODOT facility and/or ' b. Trip generation from a development adds 300 or more vehicle trips per day to an ODOT facility and/or c. Trip generation from a development adds 50 or more peak hour trips to an ODOT facility. (Ord. 02-33) Response: Based on an average of 10 trips per day per household, the development will create approximately 250 additional vehicle trips per day. This low level of impact does not require an impact study, according to this section of the Development Code. The project is not in close proximity to an MOT facility. SECTION 18.810.040 - BLOCKS A. Block design. The length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. B. Sizes. 1. The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2, 000 feet measured along the centerline of the streets except: a. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water, or pre-existing development; or b. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, collectors or railroads. c. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. 2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is exempted by B.1 above. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 58 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. (Ord. 02-33) Response: The subject property is surrounded by existing development that precludes making through street connections consistent with these requirements. These provisions are not applicable. SECTION 18.810.050 - EASEMENTS A. Easements. Easements for sewers, drainage, water mains, electric lines or other public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and ' where a development traversed by a watercourse, or drainageway, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of the watercourse. B. Utility easements. A property owner proposing a development shall make arrangements with the City, the applicable district and each utility franchise for the provision and dedication of utility easements necessary to provide full services to the development. The City's standard width for public main line utility easements shall be 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company, applicable district, or City Engineer. Response: The proposal includes plans for private streets with 5-foot sidewalks on one side. The sidewalk will be located within a 5-foot wide easement. The sidewalks will be maintained by the Homeowners Assocation. The Applicant will transfer ownership of Tract "G" to the City or CWS, which will provide the appropriate jurisdiction to maintain the proposed water quality and detention facility. These standards are satisfied. SECTION 18'.810.060 - LOTS ' A. Size and shape. Lot size, width, shape and orientation shall be appropriate for the location of the development and for the type of use contemplated, and: 1. No lot shall contain part of an existing or proposed public right-of-way within ' its dimensions; 2. The depth of all lots shall not exceed 2-112 times the average width, unless the parcel is less than 1-112 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district; 3. Depth and width of properties zoned for commercial and industrial purposes shall be adequate to provide for the off-street parking and service facilities required by the type of use proposed. Response: All lots within the proposed development plan meet the standards of the R-25 zone. B. Lot.fronta e. Each lot shall abut upon a public or private street, other than an alley, for a width of at least 25 feet unless the lot is created through a minor land partition GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 59 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. ' in which case Subsection 18.162.050 (C) applies, or unless the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit, in which case the lot frontage shall be at least 15 feet. Response: All lots will abut a public or private street and meet the frontage requirements of the Code. i C. Through lots. Through lots shall be avoided except where they are essential to provide separation of residential development from major trajfc arterials or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation, and: 1. A planting buffer at least ten feet wide is required abutting the arterial rights- of-way; and ' 2. All through lots shall provide the required front yard setback on each street. Response: No lots are proposed with their rear yards along SW Barrows Road. This provision is not applicable. D. Lot side lines. The side lines of lots, as far as practicable, shall be at right angles to ' the street upon which the lots front. Response: The proposed lots meet this standard. ' E. Large lots. In dividing tracts into large lots or parcels which at some future time are likely to be redivided, the Commission may require that the lots be of such size and shape, and be so divided into building sites, and contain such site restrictions as will provide for the extension and opening of streets at intervals which will permit a subsequent division of any tract into lots or parcels of smaller size. The land division shall be denied if the proposed large development lot does not provide for the future division of the lots and future extension of public facilities. ' Response: The proposal does not include large lots suitable for redivision; therefore, this provision does not apply. ' SECTION 18.810.070 - SIDEWALKS A. Sidewalks. All industrial streets and private streets shall have sidewalks meeting City standards along at least one side of the street. All other streets shall have sidewalks meeting City standards along both sides of the street. A development may be approved if an adjoining street has sidewalks on the side adjoining the development, even if no sidewalk exists on the other side of the street i , B. Requirement of developers 1. As part of any development proposal, or change in use resulting in an additional 1, 000 vehicle trips or more per day, an applicant shall be required 1 to identify direct, safe (1.25 x the straight line distance) pedestrian routes within 112 mile of their site to all transit facilities and Neighborhood Activity Centers (schools, parks, libraries, etc.). In addition, the developer may be GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 60 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. ' required to participate in the removal of any gaps in the pedestrian system off-site if justified by the development. 2. If there is an existing sidewalk, on the same side of the street as the development, within 300 feet of a development site in either direction, the sidewalk shall be extended from the site to meet the existing sidewalk, subject to rough proportionality (even if the sidewalk does not serve a neighborhood activity center). Response: Sidewalks are proposed along both sides of Anna Lane and along one side of both private streets, creating an uninterrupted pedestrian system. The proposed sidewalk system will be extended along the property frontage along SW Barrows Road where it will connect to an ' existing sidewalk to the south of the subject property. A curbside alignment of the sidewalk is proposed at the cul-de-sac bulb, and also at the southeast corner of the SW Anna Lane / SW Barrows Road intersection, where the special alignment reflects the effort to conserve an existing mature fir tree. Street section drawings on Sheet P300 - Grading Plan, detail the location and width of proposed sidewalks. This provision is therefore satisfied. ' C. Planter strip requirements. A planter strip separation of at least five feet between the curb and the sidewalk shall be required in the design of streets, except where the following conditions exist: there is inadequate right-of-way; the curbside sidewalks already exist on predominant portions of the street; it would conflict with the utilities, there are significant natural features (large trees, water features, etc) that would be destroyed if the sidewalk were located as required, or where there are existing ' structures in close proximity to the street (15 feet or less)Additional consideration for exempting the planter strip requirement may be given on a case by case basis if a property abuts more than one street frontage. Response: Planter strips are proposed along both sides of Anna Lane as required by Section 18.810, Figure 18.810.5.A for Local Residential Streets serving under 500 vehicles per day. ' Street section drawings on Sheet P300 - Grading Plan detail the location and width of proposed planter strips. ' SECTION 18.810.080 - PUBLIC USE AREAS A. Dedication requirements. 1. Where a proposed park, playground or other public use shown in a development plan adopted by the City is located in whole or in part in a subdivision, the Commission may require the dedication or reservation of such area within the subdivision, provided that the reservation or dedication is roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system. 2. Where considered desirable by the Commission in accordance with adopted ' comprehensive plan policies, and where a development plan of the City does not indicate proposed public use areas, the Commission may require the dedication or reservation of areas within the subdivision or sites of a character, extent and location suitable for the development of parks or other GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 61 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. ' public use, provided that the reservation or dedication is roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system. ' Response: Six common areas are proposed for this development. Tracts A, B, and F will be set aside as open space. Tract E has been set aside as shared parking. Tracts C and D contain the proposed private streets which will provide access to proposed lots 16 through 25. Tracts A, B, C, D, E and F will be owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association. Tract G has been set aside for surface water treatment of storm water runoff. It will be maintained by the developer for 2 years and then conveyed to the City or CWS as appropriate. Therefore, the proposal does not include any public use areas, and this standard does not apply. ' SECTION 18.810.090 - SANITARY SEWERS A. Sewers required. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set ' forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. ' B. Sewer plan approval. The City Engineer shall approve all sanitary sewer plans and proposed systems prior to issuance of development permits involving sewer service. C. Over-sizing. Proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional 1 development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. Response: Sanitary sewer service will be provided to each new lot. Following approval of the ' land use application, construction documents will be prepared detailing the location and size of the service lines. Public sanitary sewer is available through a gravity system to the north of the project that is maintained by the City of Beaverton; this is the preferred route for making a ' connection, due to the topography of the vicinity and the distance the line will need to be extended. A gravity line will be extended from an existing manhole in SW Barrows Road, southerly and easterly where it will be extended into the site. The sanitary sewer main line ' facilities are proposed to be an eight-inch pipe gravity system. The proposed sanitary sewer system is illustrated on Sheet P400 - Master Utility Plan. ' SECTION 18.810.100 - STORM DRAINAGE A. General provisions. The Director and City Engineer shall issue a development permit ' only where adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff have been made, and: 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any ' sanitary sewerage system; 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and ' 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. B. Easements. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right- GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 62 SUBDIVISION ' WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER R8,2004 Westlake Consultants, Inc. 1 ' of-way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. ' C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development, and: 1. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage ' facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). ' Response: Storm drainage facilities will be provided for the development. Storm water runoff from the proposed lots and streets will be directed into a water quality and detention facility within proposed Tract `G' (See Sheet P400 - Master Utility Plan), which is designed to mimic pre-development conditions. Surface water will be piped to a 100-foot grassy swale within proposed Tract G, after which it will flow into a pipe that flows west parallel to the north property line, connecting to a public line in SW Barrows Road. The developer will extend the public line in SW Barrows Road north from its present terminus at an existing field inlet. These facilities are illustrated on Sheet P400 - Master Utility Plan. ' SECTION 18.810.110 - BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS A. Bikeway extension. 1. As a standard, bike lanes shall be required along all Arterial and Collector routes and where identified on the City's adopted bicycle plan in the Transportation System Plan (TSP). 2. Developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or rights-of-way, provided such dedication is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. 3. Any new street improvement project shall include bicycle lanes as required in this document and on the adopted bicycle plan. B. Cost of construction. Development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements in an amount roughly proportional to the impact of the development. GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 63 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No.1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 1 1 1 i 1 1 r 1 Westlake Consultants, Inc. Minimum width. 1. Minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. 2. Minimum width multi-use paths separated from the road is ten (10) feet. The width may be reduced to eight (8) feet if there are environmental or other constraints. 3. The minimum width for pedestrian only off-street paths is five (5) feet. 4. Design standards for bike and pedestrian-ways shall be determined by the City Engineer. (Ord. 02-33, Ord. 99-22) Response: There are no collector or arterial streets within the development. The existing SW Barrows Road right-of-way contains more than adequate width from centerline to accommodate a Neighborhood Route with a bike lane adjacent to the subject property. This provision can be met through compliance with a condition of approval to construct improvements in SW Barrows Road, including 18 feet of pavement from centerline to curb. SECTION 18.810.120 - UTILITIES A. Underground utilities. All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50, 000 volts or above, and: 1. The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; 2. The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; 3. All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and 4. Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. B. Information on development plans. The applicant for a development shall show on the development plan or in the explanatory information, easements for all underground utilityfacilities, and: 1. Plans showing the location of all underground facilities as described herein shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval; and 2. Care shall be taken in all cases to ensure that above ground equipment does not obstruct vision clearance areas for vehicular traffic. C. Exception to under-grounding requirement, 1. The developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 64 SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 1. Westlake Consultants, Inc. t the utilities outweighs the benefit of undergrounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for ' which undergrounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. 2. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not ' underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. ' 3. Properties within the CBD zoning district shall be exempt from the requirements for undergrounding of utility lines and from the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. 4. The exceptions in Subsections 1 through 3 of this section shall apply only to existing utility lines. All new utility lines shall be placed underground. D. Fee in-lieu of undergrounding. 1. The City Engineer shall establish utility service areas in the City. All development which occurs within a utility service area shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding for utilities if the development does not provide underground utilities, unless exempted by this code. 2. The City Engineer shall establish the fee by utility service area which shall be determined based upon the estimated cost to underground utilities within each service area. The total estimated cost for undergrounding in a service area shall be allocated on a front foot basis to each party within the service area. The fee due from any developer shall be calculated based on a front foot ' basis. 3. A developer shall receive a credit against the fee for costs incurred in the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. The City Engineer shall ' determine the amount of the credit, after review of cost information submitted by the applicant with the request for credit. 4. The funds collected in each service area shall be used for undergrounding utilities within the City at large. The City Engineer shall prepare and ' maintain a list of proposed undergrounding projects which may be funded with the fees collected by the City. The list shall indicate the estimated timing ' and cost of each project. The list shall be submitted to the City Council for their review and approval annually. ' Response: Plans will be forwarded to the local utility companies for their planning and design of this project. An easement will be provided along all of the streets for the placement of these utilities. It is feasible to provide all necessary underground utility facilities and the easements to ' support them as part of the final plat and construction phases of the project. These standards will be met through compliance with condition(s) of approval. GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 65 SUBDIVISION ' WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 Westlake Consultants, Inc. CONCLUSION The proposed Gabriel Woods Subdivision provides additional housing opportunities within the City of Tigard, consistent with the City's land use designation and zoning of the subject property. This application addresses the applicable sections of the City of Tigard Community Development Code, and in particular demonstrates how all applicable approval criteria for the requested subdivision and adjustments are satisfied. The applicant and property owners respectfully request that the Director approve the proposed subdivision and associated adjustment requests. GABRIEL WOODS PAGE 66 SUBDIVISION ' WESTLAKE No. 1741-01 OCTOBER 28, 2004 Preliminary Plans 1 1 gSpygf r o F~yq'' r ' a / EXISTIN FLOW TO /A~ tax LOT 1200, MAP 1S 1 33CA ADJACC T PROPERTY a ! 'co IICX X19&- gSpyq f T,._ / / ~ per W o`` J? ' ~ G i eTw t , 'e FIELD INLET / J~ h t FLOW BREAK ' LINE PARCEL 1, PARTITION PLAT NO. 1992-009 7 - - TRACT V LOT 40 0 LOT 41 EXISTING CURB LINE I 00 \ f N Xn \ ~ \ -7 1J a \ STORAGE \ I , p SHED \ y \ \ i r I J~ li i \ FLOW DIRECTION 'e (TYPICAL) ' \ 79 If 1 i EXISTING it CURB LINE TAX LOT 1200, MAP 1S 1 33CA t \f 9g ~ r ~ I 195- /I / ti yyy ti ~ /gym ~ 1 . E I -'V I I I Iff l LOT 42 LOT 43 I LOT 44 TAX LOT 100, M;-,p 1S 1 3300 SHEET CL Q z V) a m F 6 E1 JOB Ha 1741-001 s E ' W 0 V/z 0 Q w 0> D 0 zz O U z 0 c0 z (n -i 3 Wo N Q Llm.. W LL. Q O 00 O I N ''I^^ Y/ I N C7 Z Q } Q Z W d' a • 0 5 Aa't $ HAWS BEARD 6T1 1v ed SITE qsp a m h~rORA~E', ' Sww~ 1931 d ar / VK*M MAP N75 4 P, cC 20 /J / ~ o•w ay //r Q~► h 01 /0 / I \I 7ifrUf~B OP Ip4 h 6h : ; I P SOLD ~Nk A g6, x'67 ovc A I Ph / /I o2G /~i / 167 ~ C h ~4 ' l FIELD II.ET VERIZON 4 r COMMUNICATION FACIUTY OP (FOOTPRINT DRAWN FROM AERIAL PHOTO) l d QP r 1 WOOD FENCE 6~ \ 4, 62' SOUTH * ISO ,I ~ FBS *3 ev h i ~ SUN SNAG SOO~ST Cy4 PARCEL 1, PARTITION PLAT NO. 1992-009 6'H CHAIN UNK FENCE 0.6' WEST GARAGES (FOOTPRINT DRAWN FROM AERIAL PHOTO) TAX LOT 1200, MAP 1S 1 33CA CURB LINE ~R 286.82' 6'H WOOD FENCE 201 0.3' NORTH ' ! pp ) r ` O $ o Z r /I \ \1 \ L 6~0 ^ \ /\63 I 0 I ~I STORAG$ 9 *0-- S 1 1 HEDI \ 1 l1 \ \ \.m I 10.2' \ 93 c, PIARCEL 2, 'PARTITION PLAT NO. 1992-009\4 96 4,\ IWIP AREA= 83,5-96,\S. F. (1.92 ACRES) 1 'pa 300 / UNDERGROUND \ \ \ 67 \EL TANK VENT \ \ ~ X191-' O DOSTING CONTOUR - - - - - EbSRNG CURB -c- - UNDERGROUND GAS UWE -r - UNDERGROUND WATER LINE --I - UNDERGROUID POWER LINE -s - UNDERGROUND SANITARY SEWER LINE - UNDERGROUND STORM DRAIN LINE -OI - OVERHEAD POWER LINE -x - EXISTING FENCE 0 FOUND IRON PIPE AS NOTED • FOUND ETON ROD AS NOTED ® ELECTRIC METER 'D, POWER POLE D0 GAS VALVE ® TELEPHONE RISER FIRE HYDRANT D0 WATER VALVE ® WATER METER ® MAIL BOX - SIGH Qs SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE a CATCH BASIN 35 ~oU 05 t,M \ GARAGES (FOOTPRINT V DRAWN FROM AERIAL \ M PHOTO) TREE N0. TYPE DBH 145 CART SEQUOIA 10' 147 SITKA SPRUCE 40' 149 DOUGLAS FIR 150 WESTERN HEMLOCK 22' 256 DOUGLAS FIR 30' 257 DOUGLAS FIR 34' 255 DOUGLAS FIR 24' 259 DOUGLAS FIR 22' 2B7 WESTERN RED CEDAR 16' 288 SITKA SPRUCE B' 289 WESTERN HEMLOCK 10' 291 DOUGLAS FIR 12' 292 WHITE RR 12' 349 DOUGLAS FIR 29' 350 DOUGLAS FIR 24' 351 DOUGLAS FIR 6' 352 DOUGLAS FIR 18' 353 DOUGLAS FIR 30' 354 DOUGLAS FR IB' 355 DOUGLAS FIR 8' 356 DOUGLAS FR 8' 363 DOUGLAS FIR 16' 365 DOUGLAS FIR IB' 366 DOUGLAS FIR 18' 367 DOUGLAS FIR 18' 369 DOUGLAS FIR 14' 370 S17KA WILLOW 6' 397 DOUGLAS FIR 16' 401 DOUGLAS FIR 8' 402 DOUGLAS FIR 14 414 DOUGLAS FIR 8' 415 DOUGLAS FO 10' 416 EUROPEAN WHITE BIRCH 14' 418 DOUGLAS FIR IIf TAX LOT 100, MAP IS 133(X1 a WR V z V/ D EC 0 W Q} F- OZ U Z O I- c~ Z N WQ Q C~ in W ILL. Q O } 00 4 n S ~C97 Gp~o O Bd-o N Z O Z O U 0 Z N_ X W GRAPHIC SCALE r e • SHEET Ee rmH Ploo I w - 20 F1 ,roe NO, 1741-001 O r I V) 0 Z Q O } Q 2 m LLJ Ck: 0- ~w r~ ~ r r r r r r~~ r r r r- r r~ I , ~0+ I N \ +4 ,]y 045824' "II6 0t•\ 80.00 P ~5Y2 y m - 14.00.u c7 m Cf G ? 504'58'24m ' I TI Kl~n 1 o 80.00' I P d 4 1 f„ { . ~ ~ I mN IB.OOH ~ wI o 7•W d - - - - - - - m _ S04'99.24'W +7 ' . I N 80.00' _20. 0'LO'. • .20:OV • .2600 7'j`95'. -a d f wz: - m O+yd • N u F' m , \ S bl I ° p ~o O m rvi w. I S04U'24-W m 4 8 I r7 3.01' I I u 80_00 NOt'32'47'E I :.8 d I N s I° g w, pt I p s~ + V N I N mm I 81.09' o m _ . $ J V p p0O N N P° u u p a J lq taw- o m I R nfwi 19.00' I p N I 50458'2{'W I # nyi 14 j m N N01'3247•E I I po a e 80.00' o 6.00' I J 7 8.81' ro Y:Q rn I fell ° O dy / I I Ct" I m 1i I 0 I I (n . p S04.58'24'W + - N m m N32'47'E Z' , o d I j 80.00' i 11is w 78.74' RdW .L 44 ro NO a I ♦ iw SO g, o I o 'N01'36'33'E NOI'36'33-E NOI78'33-E NOI'36'3Y N0198'33'Ev Q p~ I ni ' m m S04'58'24'W w 28.04' 20.00' 20.00' 20.00' 29.00' ~I I I • I 21 N0,'32'47 80.00' € LIS-, I .0 77.98' 8' ' . Y o N 6.00' € 9.00' 16054 50438'24'W NRI12.47-E m 78.05' N 77.56' . ♦ • i,Nn t 1 w . _ I -13 i. fr Ni I N • m I g. i S04'58'24'W i v p~ 680 z• vv 77.ar / ~r I O m IQ I c D I U+ I V 2 C Bog % °1608' mG I u m Z>> 1-.--.- _ R a p N aN _ . _ _1 J I _ _ 1 R O H '04'58'24-E > ~s L_._.__..2a_.. ~'A~D `{7`U• 77.85' N 1 I N01`26'E NO O'[ ' f'2 '2 'tE Ol'2U''E . m N m 20.00 20.00 20.0 29.00 /C "f 4 g , N c: c rn8~ Gip -mi u~ n'rzn ' SRO m 00 I ~ N7.c~up ov yG ~r gum _ 9€ ~8vi~ ~ s; $ ~ I I I =VF p m~ '~mg `ym x1 m`z'" 0- I I J M '"C $ v < p o `=FIB li 5 °v $$g $ A 8 C) > _ . ~~gpy~CC oin 2 4 S ~ $ m Z 1 ~ k to f C > a., . y it a m F g~ a 9-101 REVISIONS G A B R I E L WOODS WESTLAKE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. CONTMTAMm Z4 a N y. Q g: f``N01NiDiIXG ~♦p~}Q8DRY6YINC • PENNING 2, ♦ PRIM e. . O OOL Pl1it/T /ORl 168 (6(791 684-O8b[ [ Q SITE PLAN ~ OQC 67[84 1889 N4-0167 DATE DESCRIPTION Ej g • ~a EXPWES: 08 0 . PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS - 10/11/04 • • J ~ ~ • ~q = 8 A N r 7 s A E 4 n } 1 4 ~ 1{ Q c O~E DESCRIA1toN PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS - 1011 /0~ I ~ J t r au 0 l Irn IG) ~ b ~r 9 ` I 1 ti i n ~ v o ~ S Sd Sc H~ E.- woo [D S 1i1 VEST. OUNTY, GAB R p'c pa MA, ecru m (58 3 § CITY OF T 1 GARD. WASHINGTON C °*,r GRADING PLAN - win~ s ~ 00- d . y ar 2 $ I to LA 7'~ 4 m q ` . I 140 1 ~ On • 1 0 1 1 s MW ~ O ADS 1VpICAI V1µ LpC►,110►~ r. O 1 10-27 0 pesCRiPTOM 0 0~~ IDa DRAW►NGS PREUMINARY '^S G N u m m m $~xm + r m, ~ ~u Y ~a \N O . G AB W L►NGTON COUNYY, ~R CITY OF TIGARD, MASTER UTILITY PLAN 0 0 i i i STL&O r r r r~ r~ r r~ rs r r r r aA r .w 0 RMR 7Y 14NE- $ o p S PM TA 4+ 0 s S PM STA ~ 4+98.04 PM E ~ 191.48 I~ m 0 w m 0 m o 0 0 0 g q+ O J 8 _ S R~sg~j 1 G A B R I E L WOODS IfI WESTLAKE s" ~ CITY OF T I GARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON CONSW"Mw- O ex~d g IDTCDJ1gM • SMVK G • Puxwnva 1 o o O R. PROFILES a ao iFi - DAIS DESCRIPTION D(PIRE4 08 2 Br. BY: g y s „b - f 1 i 0 ' PIA S ~ 5+00 PVI EL V ~ 194.74 4 u~ ur 4 m m N C , 1 1 1 6 I I m 0 0o f j PIA STA 4+48.J6 ii. PIA ELEV 1 - 193.70 aaa/~~ kk~ K~ 1 i BAR WS N of . O - N I I ~ I I I s _ a p~ I BVCS: 6+48.81 rn ~ I BVCE 191.16. ~ t =a 1 x G uz= o o G ~ f3 N b u. v Y ~ m~m -m! um ° EVC 9+08.61 EVC : 19{.75 V m ~ I I o s I IN I g r~c~n 7~_L f I i f Z8S' I I I ~P m 4k`t"i I --a- PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS - 10/11/04 i i 111111111 1101111111 IM1111111111 1111 I I I I t i I Let i S~~ b--, 7Ji 1 I I i I f z~ 1 I r. \ \ m m m m g°8 13 D I m2 MMMM rn r*T I I m « mmvzzxmg i O A +s 0 C O A D N i j b m ~i O W w Z ~ 2 ~ ZZZ a nl 8 n a c N m n M 6 REMSIONS G A B R I E I_ WOODS WESTLAKE y 0) d~ CITY OF T I GARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON coxsoTr rrrs.a P R 2, ♦ it O MGUa Mr ♦ SUBYSYM ♦ PLNMNO PICNIC C°RPORIT° CQi7fQ TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 8017"°° TAX 601 M-30 872 DATE DESCRIPTION °r. EiBr. ~q E%PIRES: O° ao Oo 'RELIMINARY DRAWINGS - 10/11/04 4 ~lp rZe, SEE INSET THIS SHEET FOR WATER 1 s c . y ~ g I.^^EzW. PQ^ • 0 Iaa az 81 . um rn z c~ O w 0 O z Z 0 a Z O U Z . . _ < ¢ O f- C7 CO Z ~ _ J= V) m - W¢ d _d. ¢ C7 W Q U ~ 0 Z GRAPHIC SCALE In < INSET: WATER QUALITY . • a - FACILITY PLANTING PLAN c IN FEET 1 O IW - ID FT } r ~ 1- U LANDSCAPE PLANT SCHEDULE TREES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME(S) QTY. SPACING ACER PLATANOIDES CRlIKSON KING' CRIMSON KING MAPLE 10 30' O.C. CORNUS KOUSA CHINEHSIS CHINESE DOGWOOD 3 15' D.C. ZELKOVA SERRATA GREEN VASE' GREEN VASE ZEIKOVA 12 3D' O.C. LEYLAND CYPRESS 6 30' O.C. I LEYLAND CYPRESS rpm 9 t DRNEWAY CORRIDOR (TYP.) I r i 1 1 1 E OVA3'EANATA j 'GREEN VASF 2 I GRAPHIC SCALE m e a m a 161 AZT ) IIN -20 FT WATER QUALITY FACILITY PLANT SCHEDULE TREES SYMB BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME(S) QTY. SPACING ACER CTRQNATUN VINE MAPLE 18 4-S O.C. FPAXINUS UIIfOW OREGON ASH 1 10, O.C. PRUNUS EMARWNATA BITTER CHERRY 3 10 O C var. NOLLfS . . SAUXLASWDRA PACIFIC WILIDW 6 lD O.C. SHRUBS SYMB BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME(S) QTY. SPACING ® AMELANOfIBt ALN1FOIU WESTERN SERVITEBERRY, 5 4-S'O C SISKATOON . . ® CORNUS STOLONIFERA_ RED-OSTER DOGWOOD 17 4.5' O.C. O HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR OCEANSPRAY 5 4-S'O.C - + PMLADEL➢M1S LEWISB MOCK ORANGE 3 8-10' O.C. 0 PHMOC4APUS C4PLTATILS PACIFIC NINEBARK 16 4-S'O.C. RIBES SAN6NNa N RED-FLOWERING CURRANT 3 4-5'0.C. ® ROSA NUTK4M NOOTKA ROSE 16 4-S, D.C. ® ROSA PISOCARAA PEAFRUIT ROSE, CLUSTERED 8 4•S O G WILD ROSE, SWAMP ROSE . i m O r r 0 2 Q F I a N V/ o Z O o: Z :T c P700 40.1741-001 gW SECTION A-A LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN LANDSCAPE STANDARD C3 Mrs Exhibit A Tax Map s / F{a;~ a - L- - r i I ~ txa,a , P - as O P ,.X'r' V 4 / Y~A/ •I 33 :I ~,!EY• w+fi- nriM ',MSw:'. wl: - ~ Go "N - 0 u5K E , . E / /i i y ,ry,r , ta,v : -4 l 41~' r t 9w 9 r r"A 1e'K /Pt 4+ ' WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON `?M _ 11114 SW 114 SECTION 33 T 1 S R1 W W.M. !F S vr~ a.r•` 4 ' GCE ;3.10 H b~~,~ ,.7 scalF 1 - tw' 200 3: X33 GCE . . F t :r• c ~ - r ~ GCE ~F' a~ v •v , ?°~r ~ ~ _ / ~ x ecE ~nt~ 9se'. ~ . y F i •',:r I Y it t.b 1x~'T-' l K .~{~11♦~ Y,,.W' ~`~.a{~SFS ) 1 - .fax ~ ,ooo 1I(r 7 / G ?G1Nfc':: 1 I NJ a I ]aos ^.Y. J 7 aI - Q _1'1T I' 7>G . 2xK ~ 7 HE) I- _ ..>5NC'` xn - •a / NNc"XA7J011 OF STAG~a w'. ` ,boo .'a z - 8 W w a 50,06 Jr, f•;: ~ :CIO: :OF,. , ° 32 FOR ADDITIONAL MA PS VISIT OUR WEB SfTE AT 58 oa ~a 33 w, N r ` Y _ it wwlr.w.wunlnpton.or.u8 51 a 9n ~.so, sta9\. rata N ° f / x. I ~..Ae':''::.:.••:.-•}}-J-AB'".` :'.71.t:':: III K" { x•, 34 400 S eaK GCE GA 35 41 ws, 1 too, h• . `:>•:':':Cd:i '•9Cr ":bb..:,. N" M , s ~N \la i ,.aSK \fl J w ~.,~m a?i'•s t i*?"o i I ~ '~1j• -mod SU "o J ' I ttl _ = s .,.m. ,ood.>., 5 .q" Cancelled TaRiots For: f S, 33CA R= aoG / A~ -85 v, xS.K rT z I, 1.02 CARTGGRAPW. 1403 ,:oo avK -I• w! / loo r ~.o... S.a,K - n` y!S` • ' °+mu+ Q a ;z. a 9 I 1? n PLOT DATE: July 29, 2003 r ? J 9 g O vT 5 FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES :ooo ONLY- DO NOT RELY ON ID FOR OTHER USE s':, ,K amvna•n.annun+rmmnrawu.n.. a .i' 'ta'w'..: - _ `t ,-.r,^-.-+......++•.+.' ,.+"+'-`-.•.w..i+,.,~:. ,/p 38 t rs . .6 { crt.,:: 4e i W - BEAVERTON _r '••u• All, .r 0 R i i Titritr. .'a' . , . ~ :man. TIGARD db,3,,r33 1S 1 33CA 1 S 1 33CA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Exhibit B 500-foot Surrounding Property Owner List } d -0 0 0 n~11111Ig o~~111SW t7RAN L1Ul>t.lU t~Lttlll 1><AAAI ~)~7III.IJ ~1 imago I~ { ~ ( H Iml) om O O V 007 ?-1D ,y 14 MCA" 14 ~ t I I CO - -A x 1 r~ CTf7CSRlq 1 i~t tvT'Y _ \ hJ ~ I u _ A a Q t1IIat10fM O p EIRING Z LN ZO z r 551 D Y 2 to r GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM N MF1® (5007 Proposed Barrows Creek Subdivision Site Property owner information is valid for 3 months from the date printed on this map. A N -ON 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet L~RMT C 1"= 391 feet MORNING City of Tigard Information on this map is for general location MY and shwW be verified with the Developmerd Services Division. 13125 SW Mall Blvd Tigard. OR 97713 (503)639-4171 http://www.d.tigard. onus Plot date: Feb 19, 2004; C:Vflagic\MAGIC03.APl Smooth Feed Sheets TM 1S133CA-92142 1S133CD-11000 AILLON SHARMAN B CLEARY TIFFANY L 13895 SW BARROWS RD #104 13789 SW ASHBURY LN ' BEAVERTON, OR 97007 TIGARD, OR 97223 i 1S133CA-92012 1S133CD-15800 ALIKHANI FLORA AMIR DELL GLEN D & JANET L 20 AQUINAS ST 11580 SW WOOD DUCK PL LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 TIGARD, OR 97223 ' 1 S 133CD-16200 1 S133CD-02700 ANDREW SHARLENE DODSON JENNIFER 11550 SW TALLWOOD DR 13725 SW ASHBURY LN ' TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S133CD-15500 BASCONCILLO ROD ALAN & 1S133CA-92022 EILITZ MARK A & JENNIFER ANNE CARY CHRISTINE N 11527 SW TALLWOOD DR 13885 SW BARROWS RD #102 ' TIGARD, OR 97223 i BEAVERTON, OR 97007 1 S 133C D-16800 11 S 133CD-16600 BEWERSDORFF RICHARD H & i FOEGLER ANDREA D ' BARON SANDRA A j 13857 SW ASHBURY LN 13832 SW ASHBURY LN TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97223 ' 1S133CA-92052 1S133CD-16300 BROOKS MARCEL L & COURTNEY B GALLOWAY MICHAEL C & CAROL A 13885 SW BARROWS RD #105 11574 SW TALLWOOD DR ' BEAVERTON, OR 97007 TIGARD, OR 97223 ' 1S133CD-02900 1S133CA-01100 BROWN LONNIE C & JUNKO I GARRISON DAVID A & AMY E 13681 SW ASHBURY LN 13818 SW BARROWS RD TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S133CC-02000 1S133CD-15600 BUI KY KHAC AND GARY EDWARD E & CHERYL J NGUYEN MAI TUONG 11566 SW WOOD DUCK PL 11629 SW TALLWOOD DR TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S133CD-03200 1 S133CD-10800 ' CAMPOS FIDENCIO GERDES DON W AND SONDA C 13621 SW ASHBURY LN 11674 SW WILTON TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 I 1S133CD-15100 j 1S133CD-16500 CARPENTER PEGGY A & HAROLD P ''11577 SW TALLWOOD DR ' ' GERWIG MARY C 13873 SW ASHBURY LN TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 AVERY® Address Labels Use template for 51610 I aSPr 59011 TM Smooth Feed SheetsTM I 0 lack Biethan ' i 1023 SW Summerfield Drive, #4 Tigard, OR 97224 Craig Smelter ' '10 Box 1467 Tualatin, OR 97062 Harold and Ruth Howland 13145 SW Benish Tigard, OR 97223 ' Kevin Hogan 14357 SW 133rd Avenue ' Tigard, OR 97224 Gretchen Buehner ' 13249 SW 1361h Place Tigard, OR 97224 Jon Sirrine ' 12761 SW 133rd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Beverly Froude 12200 SW Bull Mountain Road Tigard, OR 97224 Nathan and Ann Murdock PO Box 231265 'Tigard, OR 97281 Barry Albertson 15445 SW 150th Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Charlie and Larie Stalzer 14781 SW Juliet Terrace Tigard, OR 97224 0A4WWg WESAdhATtIjU4« I of I) (iAcurpln\setup\IabeIslCIT West.doc) John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Use template for 5161w CPO 4B 16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242 Tigard, OR 97224 CPO 4B Holly Shumway, Chair 14535 SW Woodhue Street Tigard, OR 97224 UPDATEgaSQran-04 5961TM Smooth Feed SheetsTM 1S133CD-15400 1S133CC-02100 GOODRICH DAN L KANAHELE KRISTEN L TRUST 11539 SW TALLWOOD DR BY KANAHELE KRISTEN L TR TIGARD, OR 97223 11611 SW TALLWOOD DR TIGARD, OR 97223 f 1S133CA-92042 1S133CA-02100 GRADEN DEKKER R KARLS EVELYN M TR 13885 SW BARROWS RD #104 13900 SW BARROWS RD BEAVERTON, OR 97007 TIGARD, OR 97223 ' 1S133CD-14900' 1S133CD-16400 GREENBERG SONDRA J LEAPTROTT JEFFREY RYAN 11597 SW TALLWOOD DR 11582 SW TALLWOOD DR PORTLAND, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 i 1S133CA-01000 GROSS FAMILY TRUST 1S133CD-10900 LEMENI RODNEY A & SANDRA L BY GREGORY S NUNN TR 13767 SW ASHBURY LN PO BOX 110 TIGARD, OR 97223 ' REDMOND, WA 98073 1 S 133C D-03000 1 S133CD-02800 HAMILTON JOHN B & NANCY L LESSNER CRISTINA ATENCIO 13655 SW ASHBURY LN 13705 SW ASHBURY LN TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97223 ' 1S133CA-92032 1S133CD-15200 HANEY DEWEY MACDONALD FAMILY LIVING TRUST 13885 SW BARROWS RD #103 11563 SW TALLWOOD DR ' BEAVERTON, OR 97007 TIGARD, OR 97223 4 ~ a • 1 S133CD-12300 . 1 S133CD-16100 HEIMANN SUE J MADDEN SALLY J TRUSTEE & 9166 SW 149TH AVE MADDEN SALLY J TRUSTEE ' . BEAVERTON, OR 97007 11593 SW WOOD DUCK PL TIGARD, OR 97223 i 1S133CD-11100 1S133CD-02500 ' HEINTZ ROBERT J & CAROL A MANNING JOHN P AND MARY C 13821 SW ASHBURY LN 1'N98 SW SWENDEN LOOP TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S133CD-16700 i 1S133CD-15900 40 HUDSON MARTIN L & H SUE MCALLISTER PATRI CK J & AURORA 13845 SW ASHBURY LN 11622 SW WOOD DUCK PL TIGAf7D, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S133CA-92122 1S133CA-92132 JACQUEMIN THOMAS F 13895 SW BARROWS RD #102 MCFARLAND BRADLEY 13895 SW BARROWS RD #103 BEAVERTON, OR 97007 BEAVERTON, OR 97007 ' 05-1 AVERY@ Address Labels Use template for 51610 Laser 5961 TM Smooth teed Sheets l M Use template for 5161® 1S133CA-00700 1S133CD-02600 • NELSON GARY R & PATSY A RUTLEDGE THOMAS DAVID 11 & DAWN 11295 SW 135TH 13745 SW ASHBURY LN TIGARD, OR .97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 133CA-01001 1 S 3CA-90001 NELSON GARY ROBERT & PATSY ARLE SCH LS P TE CONDOS 11295 SW 135TH AVE OWN FALL UNITS TIGARD, OR 97223 I ' 1S133CD-15000 1 133CA-9000 NGUYEN HANHrI HUY LINH i SC L OINTE CONDOS 11585 SW TALLWOOD DR OW OF ALL UNITS TIGARD, OR 97223 1 1S133CD-13000 1S133CA-01403 ' PEBBLECREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOC SCHOLLS POINTE LLC BY RAK DEVELOPMENT CO 2700 NE ANDRESEN STE D22 Q, 8625 SW CASCADE AVE STE 606 VANCOUVER, WA 98661 BEAVERTON, OR 97008 1 133CD-17300 1S CA-01402 >RAK EK EOWNERS ASSOC SCHO TE LLC OPMENT CO 2700 AN SEN ST E D22 SC AVE STE 606 V OUVER, W 98661 N, OR 9 08. 1 S 133CA-01200 1 33CA-01800 i PFI SUNFLOWER LIMITED INC SC L INTE LLC BY LNR AFFORDABLE HOUSING INC 270 DRESEN STE D22 6420 SW MACADAM #100 NCOUVE A 98661 PORTLAND, OR 97201 a~ 1i ' 154 31 -00100 1S133CA-01600 PFI S LOWER ITED INC SCHOLLS POINTE LLC BY LNR A DABLE HOUSING INC BY POLYGON NORTHWEST COMPANY ' lI 6420 MACA M #100 2700 NE ANDRESEN STE #D-22 RTLAND, OR 97 1 VANCOUVER, WA 98661 1 33CD-1740 1 33CA-01404 RAK V OPMENT COMPANY ( SCH S P TE LLC Q 0 12700 DRESEN STE D22 I COUVER, A 98661 A 1 133CD-17 1S 33CA-01501 RA LOPMENT COMPANY Sc LS POINTE C ' BY POL ORTHWEST COMPANY 2700 N SEN STE #D-22 COUVER, W 8661 J ' 1S133CD-16000 1S133CD-15700 V. RICHMOND JOHN W SHAFIEE DAVID J 8 KIMBERLY 1 11631 SW WOOD DUCK PL 11522 SW WOOD DUCK PL TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 =1 i AVERYa Address Labels Laser 5961 TM Smooth Feed Sheets TIVI ' 1S133CD-03100 STIMEK SUSAN M 13643 SW ASHBURY LN TIGARD, OR 97223 ' 1S133CA-01700 STOVER CHESTER A & GALE C 13905 SW BARROWS RD ' BEAVERTON, OR 97007 ' 1S133CC-00101 SUMMER CREEK REFLECTIONS INC BY TRAMMEL CROW RESIDENTIAL ' 2001 BRYAN ST STE 3700 DALLAS, TX 75201 133CB-00601 SU ER CREEK 50LECTIONS INC BY TR <75 OW RESIDENTIAL 2001 B TE 3700 ' S, T1 1S CB-00700 SUM R CREEK ECTIONS INC BY TRA OW RESIDENTIAL 2001 AN STE 3700 LAS, TX 75201 1 l 33CB-00500 SUM R CREE EFLECTIONS INC ' BY TRA CROW RESIDENTIAL 001 A 2 T STE 3700 LLAS,TX 75 1 ' 1S133CD-03300 VANBAEST JENE & MICHAEL J 13593 SW ASHBURY LN ' TIGARD, OR 97223 1S133CA-92112 VERDADERO DAVID & PAMELA 13895 SW BARROWS RD #101 BEAVERTON, OR 97007 1S133CA-02000 VERIZON NORTHWEST INC PO BOX 152206 IRVING, TX 75015 1 S133CO.00200 WASHINGTON COUNTY FACILITIES MGMT 111 SE WASHINGTON ST HILLSBORO, OR 97123 ' nI AVERY® Address Labels 1 S133CD-11200 WITTMANN JULIE J 11689 SW WILTON AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 1S133CD-15300 ZENNER LANCE R 11541 SW TALLWOOD DR TIGARD, OR 97223 Use template for 51610 Laser 5961 TM i i i Exhibit C ' Neighborhood Meeting Materials 1 1 1 1 1 Westlake I ENGINEERING I SURVEYING consultants, inc iPLANNING March 2, 2004 RE: Barrows Creek Subdivision Proposal Dear Neighbor: Westlake Consultants, Inc. is helping Mr. Barry Sandhorst apply for subdivision of the property located at 13900 SW Barrows Road (Tax Map 1 S1 33CA, Tax Lot 2100), as shown on the attached map. The proposal is to subdivide the 1.92-acre property, zoned R-25, into approximately 25 lots for singe-family attached housing with the possibility of some detached units. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits, we would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with surrounding property owners and residents. The purpose of this meeting is to provide a forum for the applicant and surrounding property owners/ residents to review the proposal and to identify issues so that they may be considered before the formal application is turned in to the City. This meeting gives you the opportunity to share with us any special information you know about the property involved. We will attempt to answer questions, which may be relevant to meeting development standards consistent with the City of Tigard Development Code and respective Community Plan. You are invited to attend a meeting on: March 18, 2004 at 7:00pm Our Redeemer Lutheran Church Sanctuary 13401 SW Benish Street (near the corner of SW 135' and SW Walnut) Tigard, OR 97223 Please note: this meeting will be an informational meeting on preliminary development plans as work is in progress. These plans may be altered prior to submittal of the application to the City. We look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please feel free to call us at (503) 684-0652 or fax us at (503) 624-0157 if you have questions. Sincerely, WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. Lee Leighton Director of Planning H\ ADMlN\ 174701.04\ Barrows Creek\ Plan\ NGHBRHDMEE7\ neigh m[g i1r d- Pacific Corporate Center 15115 sw sequoia parkway, I suite 150, tigard, oregon 97224 www.westiakeconsultants.com I PH 503.684.0652 1 Fx 503.624.0157 AIM AM -ANW -00 m } Q N~N ~1. C~ G ~~CJ , IImtllnM ` WK sm - M - 1t1 "i♦ - M - t . _ I=- - M- M-- MOP,, r ~gg E ~ ~ ~ itWtYOp~ 77. 77 c 1x Y _ i 1 ~`r~la~'~~ _2~ alncanOr Q- ' ~ auxurul IIlL[ft/Hl 1 LJI ~ IInlt lft Vl ` ~ i. I ~ / ~ ~ elttar r IInz/tMl nBJGIIMI ' IIWCLflr i SS 1 IIII~C,.V:1 EM ' - - - 11 nll%fif tl i:zuttrar}I , . 1 iinxral}I T a n ° ° ~yJ pR~N ROOK LN cmcnxu ° g g o g SW CRMIE T ono logo BIC M OHM ~p W S TEM LNG 1 Community Development Q F OEOORAPMIC INFORMATION SYSTEM ARMIUMMED (50W) Proposed Barrows Creek Subdivision Site Property owner information is valid for 3 months from the date printed on this map. N 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet L~RMONT C 1'= 391 feet ° MORNING ;City, of Tigard InforRlatlon an this map is for general location Only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 6394171 http://wow. cUigard.or.us Plot date: Feb 19, 2004; C:lmagic\MAGIC03.AP1 FREQUENTLY ASKED ■ NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING QUESTIONS 1 1 1 1 r r 11 1 City of Tigard Community Devc&pment 5LP1rW.1 Better Community What Is The Purpose Of This Neighborhood Meeting? The. purpose.of the meeting is to allow ..theprowective developer to share with you what they are planning to do. This is your opportunity to become informed of their proposed development and to. let them know what issues or concerns you have in regard to their proposal. What Nan as After The -Neighborhood Meeting? After the neighborhood meeting, the prospective developer finalizes their submittal package (often taking into account citizen concerns) and submits an application to the City. Sometimes it takes a while before the developer's application is ready to submit, so there could be several months between the neighborhood meeting and the submittal of an application. Once an applicatioh is submitted to the City, Staff reviews it for completeness. Once an application has been deemed complete, the formal application review begins. It takes approximately 6-8 weeks from the time the application is accepted for a decision to be made. Many types of applications require a public hearing at which citizens are given the opportunity to provide comments or concerns. ,For all types of applications, property owners within 500 feet of the subject.parcels receive notice of the public hearing (if applicable), notice of the decision, and are given the opportunity to appeal the :.:decision. What If The Proposal Presented At The Neighborhood Meeting Is Not What Is Actually Submitted? Applicants are not required to submit exactly what was presented at the neighborhood meeting if it generally follows the type of development proposed. This provides for the opportunity to address the neighborhood issues and address other changes necessitated by the development or staff. If the project is entirely different, a new neighborhood meeting would be required. In any case, notice of decision is sent to property owners within 500 feet of the proposed development allowing them the opportunity'to appeal. How.Do I Know What Issues Are Valid? A decision is reviewed based on compliance with the Tigard Development Code. Review the development code to. familiarize yourself with what 105 permitted and what may not be permitted. A copy of the development code is available for viewing at the Tigard City Library or a copy may be purchased at the Community Development Services counter. You may also contact City Planning staff and ask what the standards are for a specific issue. Be prepared, however, that you may not LIKE all the standards, but at least you know what they are. If a development meets the code standards, it can proceed. For your assistance, the Citizen Involvement Team (CIT) has compiled a list of helpful questions to ask that may assist you in determining your position on a particular proposal. The following sheet lists those questions. OCESS { What applications are you (the developer) applying for? When. do you expect to submit the application(s) so that neighbors can review it? What changes or additions are expected prior to submittal? Will the decision on the application be made by City Staff, Hearings Officer, Planning Commission or City Council? How long is the process? (timing)/ At what point in the process are citizens given notice and the opportunity to provide input? Has a pre-application conference been held with City of Tigard Staff? ✓ Have any preliminary requirements been addressed or have any critical issues been identified? ✓ What City Planner did you speak with regarding this project? (This person is generally the Planner assigned to the land use case and the one to contact for additional information). BEETS 19 Will there be a traffic study done? What are the preliminary traffic impacts anticipated as a result of the .development and how do you propose to mitigate the impacts if necessary? ' What street improvements (including sidewalks) are proposed? What connections to existing streets are proposed? Are streets proposed to be public or private? What are the proposed street and sidewalk widths? What are the emergency access requirements and what is proposed to meet those requirements? NAND DENSITY What is the current zoning? What uses are allowed under this zoning? . , Will there be a re-zone requested by the developer? If yes, to what zone? How many units are proposed for the development and what is the minimum and maximum density allowed in the zone? tJAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY What is your erosion.control and drainage plan What is the natural slope of the property? What are the grading plans? Is there a water quality facility planned within the development and where will it be located? Who will own ahd maintain the facility? ZEES AND DSCAPI UN NG What are the tree removal plans and what is proposed to mitigate for trees removed? What l What or fencing i are the landscaping plans? buffering o is required and/or proposed? T'ie following is a list of questions developed by a subgroup of the Citizen Involvement Team. These jestions are intended to aid you in formulating your own questions for proposed development in your ~rea. Feel free to ask more or alter the questions to address your own unique concerns and interests. AFFIDAVIT OF. MAILI (POSTING VE1GHBORHOA MEETING NOTICE 1 W t '`01NNIrRS'E,t CEDE ~fQTiCE~ TO THE 'sion a: MAILING I,. 1 L (.L1 1'l-Q G on r~ being duly sworn , depose and say that on the ~ day of M ~2CA , 20 l caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the t1tached list, a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (or near) 13 J 00 S LAS A-R-z O W S Rb . -T-1 a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made apart of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were de osited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at_~t (~-(Z O2~C~ with postage prepaid'thereoh. 1 1 POSTING: 4)n u 10 w do affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed sub /Ji ~~Si. iv affecting the land located at (state the approximate location(s) IF no address(s) and/or tax lot(s) currently registered) 77t LV Z 10-04W / 5- 3 C' and did on the .3 44- day of Ofwch . 20 c personally post notice indicating that the site may be proposed fora application, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. The sign was posted at 45,rf ~7~a G la4r~~ 104 y PAoea. f ,E t how ,~y~,ws ~o TA (state location you posted notice on property) 11, Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) STATE OF 10 O 'n ) County of 0,1 ) ss. Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 5124 day of l 20 L/ 7. OFFICIAL S EAL LYNN A. DUNN NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 369685 *my COMMISSION EXPIRES AUGUST 16, 2007 NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON My Commission Exoires: -VSO /b, ZeIW Applicant, please complete the information below: NAME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Address or General Location of Subject Property: Subject Property Tax Map(s) and Lot #(s): h:Vogin\paGy4nasters\affidavd of maiingposbng neighborhood meeting.doc 1 1 1 1 1 WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS 4u NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES ENGINEERING* SURVEYING • PLANNING PHONE 503.684.0652 DATE OF MEMO: March 19, 2004 PROJECT NAME: Barrows Creek Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: March 18, 2004 PROJECT NUMBER: 1741-001 MEETING TIME: 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. LOCATION: Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, Sanctuary 13401 SW Benish Street, Tigard, OR 97223 PRESENT: Lee D. Leighton, AICP (Westlake) Kristy E. Kelly (Westlake) Barry Sandhorst (Developer) Curtis Langer, GRI (R.E. Broker) Neighborhood Attendees (see attached sign-in sheets) DISTRIBUTION: All Attendees SUBMITTED BY: Lee D. Leighton, AICP Introduction This neighborhood meeting was conducted in preparation for submitting a Type II land use application to the City of Tigard, for approval of a 24-lot attached single-family residential subdivision. The meeting commenced with Leighton introducing himself as the Director of Planning for Westlake Consultants, and then introducing the prospective developer, Barry Sandhorst. Leighton then read the "Statement of Purpose" provided by the City of Tigard. He reminded attendees to please sign in on the meeting attendance sheets. Attendees had no questions regarding the statement. Leighton then gave a brief presentation of the existing conditions and proposed plans for circulation and development of the property. Existing Conditions/Proposed Development Leighton showed attendees the Existing Conditions Survey plot prepared by Westlake, which shows buildings, many trees in excess of 6" in diameter at breast height, the general contours of the site, and locations of known utility lines and facilities. The existing single-family structure ' and accessory buildings will be removed by the development. Most of the trees on the site will also need to be removed, but the developer is making every effort to save the large sequoia tree att the entrance to the property, and trees around the perimeter of the site where possible. An arborist has been retained to assess the condition of the trees and make specific recommendations. Replanting, off-site replanting, and payment of a fee may all be use to comply with the City of Tigard's tree mitigation program. Barrows Creek Attached Homes March 18, 2004 Neighborhood Meeting Notes March 23, 2004 Page 2 of 5 Leighton circulated 11" x 17" copies of the preliminary plat (work in progress). Leighton reported that the developer is proposing two public streets, one entering the site easterly from SW Barrows Road, and the other running southerly through the middle of the property. Leighton indicated that a Transportation Impact Statement (TIS) request has been sent to Washington County (which has jurisdiction over SW Barrows Road) regarding the safety of the proposed access, to ensure that site distance will be adequate for safe ingress/egress. (Update received following neighborhood meeting: Washington County returned the TIS request, indicating that the County would prefer to respond to the notice of application that the City of Tigard will send out after the.application is submitted.) Leighton reported that water lines run on both sides of SW Barrows Road, and fire hydrants are located along the existing emergency access driveway north of the subject property, serving the apartments to the east. He pointed out two possible connection points for sanitary sewer service, adding that no determination has been made as to whether or not the line will be run south along Barrows Road to the City of Tigard system or, more likely, north in Barrows Road to the City of Beaverton's system. Turning to storm drainage, Leighton explained that the site's topography indicates that it drains naturally to its northeast corner. At that point, there is a field inlet that connects to a pipe running beneath the neighboring apartment site's paved circulation aisles and a trash enclosure, daylighting to the northeast adjacent to a wooded area. If there is an easement and adequate capacity, or if the developer can obtain an easement and make needed improvements, it should be possible to convey site runoff in that direction. Alternatively, it is possible that the site's storm drainage could be routed to Barrows Road, which would require the developer to construct improvements to accommodate predicted flows there. Whatever off-site drainage alignment is used, Leighton explained that within the subject property, ' the developer will be required to install a water quality treatment facility, most likely a shallow, grassy Swale. When a storm occurs, runoff from driveways and streets will flow through that swale, where grasses or other plants will capture some nutrients and pollutants before the water enters the public storm drain system. The system may also be required to provide a detention function, limiting the rate at which runoff leaves the site to match "pre-development" flow rates. Proposed Lot Layout Leighton informed attendees that the preliminary plat is a work in progress and the layout presented is a result of a working session with the current property owner and developers. Leighton reported that the developer is proposing a 24-lot subdivision with two- to three-story attached single-family dwellings. He reported that each lot will be under individual ownership, i but that there will most likely be a Homeowners' Association for purposes of maintenance of open spaces. Leighton reported that an early lot layout" showed units backing up to the south property line, but it was pointed out that this would create an awkward relationship between those new homes (typically with upstairs balconies) and the rear yards of the adjacent single-family homes to the south. A more recent design, developed at a work session earlier in the day, 1 Barrows Creek Attached Homes • March 18, 2004 Neighborhood Meeting Notes March 23, 2004 Page 3 of 5 produces a layout based on a north-south street, placing sidewalls of two of the new homes facing the south property line, with a setback of roughly 20 feet. Leighton suggested that the current layout would also create room for additional on street parking on the south side of the entrance corridor as well as potentially additional guest parking extending east and west of a hammerhead turnaround at the south. Leighton reported that the hammerhead technique is for purposes of emergency services in accordance with Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) requirements and, while there might be room for additional parking at the ends of the hammerhead, the proposed parking would be subject to TVF&R and City of Tigard approval. In addition, the developer is trying to conserve vegetation and this would need to be weighed against providing additional parking at either end of the hammerhead. Leighton informed attendees that an arborist has been retained for purposes of tree assessment and mitigation, but that no final decision has been made as to what trees will be removed. Leighton reported that the developer is making a concerted effort to save the sequoia tree near the Barrows Road entrance. Leighton suggested that saving some of the trees on the south property line would create a nice vegetative barrier. r 1 Questions, Comments and Discussion 1. Trees/Buffering. Several attendees were concerned about the vegetation on the south property line, for both safety and cleanliness reasons. Leighton reminded attendees that the arborist has been brought on for safety reasons and that the arborist will assess the health of the trees and their virtues as specimens of a species. Leighton suggested that the fir trees located in the southern portion of the property have grown in clusters, and may never have rooted in such a way as to handle isolation, exposing them to wind shear. Leighton suggested that removal might be the best alternative, but that that would be a determination of the arborist. One attendee in particular was concerned about windfalls and stated that he preferred to see removal of the large trees, with conservation of several smaller cedar trees. Leighton responded that conserving some of the smaller cedars was a possibility. 2. Zoning. An attendee questioned the existing zoning of the property. Leighton responded that the property is currently zoned R-25, which is designed to accommodate existing housing of all types and new attached single-family and multi-family housing units at a minimum lot size of 1.480 square feet. Leighton reported that the development is actually on the low end of the density scale, but due to the City of Tigard's specific method for performing density calculations (reducing gross property area by public right-of-way dedications, drainage ways and open space areas) the proposal should be appropriate. 3. Building Heights. An attendee asked how many stories the townhouses would be. A representative of the homebuilder said that an exact determination had not been made, but that they were considering 2-story units with one-car garages. Attendees expressed that they Barrows Creek Attached Homes March 18, 2004 Neighborhood Meeting Notes March 23, 2004 Page 4 of 5 would appreciate the east-west orientation of the buildings adjacent to the south property line, as this would create more privacy for adjacent property owners. 4. Water Quality Facility and Storm water Drainage. Attendees expressed concern that the subject property currently drains to an adjacent property that is already "swampy." One attendee further suggested that the Sunflower Apartments drains onto his property, which ' abuts the 100-year floodplain. He suggested that he would like to work with the developer on a joint effort as he is most likely going to be developing a property to the north of the subject development and would benefit from a joint storm water management system. One attendee requested that the storm water quality facility be relocated. Leighton explained that due to the natural topography the property currently drains to the northeast and that it is not practical from a hydrology standpoint due to gravity and lack of corridor connectivity through ' neighboring properties. The attendee questioned whether or not the water quality facility could be reduced in size. Leighton responded that the water quality facility has to be a minimum of 100 linear feet, adding that the layout is conceptual at this point, with exact calculations yet to be performed. Leighton further explained that the water quality facility would generally be dry except during and immediately after storms. Leighton explained that the facility is used to keep pollutants out of the stream system, especially during the summer, when high concentrations of oil and other pollutants build up on dry days, then run off of improved surfaces with the next rain event. ' 5. Traffic Flow and Ingress/Egress. Several attendees were concerned about the increased traffic flow as a result of the development. There was also some discussion on future improvements to Barrows Road and the impact the development would have on it. Leighton explained that Barrows Road is considered a collector and the property was zoned for increased density in part based on that road capacity. Leighton suggested that the development would generate approximately 10 vehicle trips per day times 24 homes, or 240 vehicle trips per day. Leighton reported that his main concern was sight distance at the entrance. Leighton reported that a Traffic Impact Statement request has been submitted to Washington County, which has jurisdiction over the roadway. He said he did not anticipate that a Traffic Impact Study would be necessary. An attendee questioned whether or not the entrance would be in the same place as the existing driveway. Leighton responded that it would likely be similar in alignment, but it would be in the form of a public street intersection rather than a driveway. (Update received following neighborhood meeting: Washington County returned the TIS request, indicating that the County would prefer to respond to the notice of application that the City of Tigard will send out after the application is submitted.) Leighton pointed out that his business cards were provided on the sign-in table, and he requested that any concerns or further comments that attendees might have be submitted in writing to his attention at Westlake Consultants, Inc. With no further questions, Leighton thanked everyone for attending and participating in the discussion. Several informal conversation groups formed within the room for a few minutes as the Westlake team put away displays and materials. 1 Barrows Creek Attached Homes • March 18, 2004 Neighborhood Meeting Notes March 23, 2004 Page 5 of 5 These notes have been circulated to all of the meeting attendees, with our invitation to provide supplemental notes, to ensure questions and concerns have been adequately represented. Such notes may be sent as follows: email to: 11ei 7hton. t wwest]ak.econsultants.com (please use "Barrows Creek Comments" in the Subject header) fax to: Lee Leighton, Westlake Consultants, Inc., fax # 503 624-0157 mail to: Lee Leighton Director of Planning Westlake Consultants, Inc. 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150 ' Tigard, OR 97224 Or phone: Lee Leighton, Westlake Consultants, Inc., 503 684-0652 1 Attachment: ■ Sign In Sheet 1 1 1 t 1 1 Barrows Creek Subdivision, Tigard Neighborhood Review Meeting, March 18, 2004 Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, 13401 S.W. Benish St, 7:00-8:00 p.m. Sign-In Sheet Name 7 Address Phnne F_Mnil Z<.71\) G zS Z ~S S~ Ui'~ G~ ti► o i~ ~~C~L~R i ~=i ocp z ► l ~'J Tim 2 LE .S TO LE-P< 3~i 05 S~; B,AP-12ow j Gle. stove ve-riz-til JC_ v-e_ 4 4 t wo - -ter w■r ~ ~w ~a ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ it ~ ~ ~ it w ~ Smooth Feed Sheets TM atsy Nelson 1295 SW 135th Ave ~igard, OR 97223 tale Stover 3905 SW Barrows Rd leaverton, OR 97007 Craig Smelter rO Box 1467 aalatin, OR 97062 retchen Buehner 3249 SW 136th PI gard, OR 97224 athan and Ann Murdock 0 Box 231265 T ;gard, OR 97281 )hn Frewing 110 SW Lola Ln igard, OR 97223 !PO 413 1200 SW Pacific Hwy, Ste H242 iegard, OR 97224 1 9 Curtis Langer, GRI RE/MAX Equity Group, Inc 12550 SW 68th Pkwy Portland, OR 97223 Ken MacDonald 11563 SW Tallwood Dr Tigard, OR 97223 David Garrison 13818 SW Barrows Rd Tigard, OR 97223 Harold and Ruth Howland 13145 SW Benish Tigard, OR 97223 Jon Sirrine 12761 SW 133rd Ave Tigard, OR 97223 Barry Albertson 15445 SW 150th Ave Tigard, OR 97224 CPO 4B Holly Shumway, Chair 14535 SW Woodhue St Tigard, OR 97224 b 3/a 3l0 Address Lahpls • Use template for 51600 Joe Bauschelt 3021 SW Florida St Portland, OR 97219 Dan Goodrich 11539 SW Tallwood Dr Tigard, OR 97223 Jack Biethan 11023 SW Summerfield Dr, #4 Tigard, OR 97224 Kevin Hogan 14352 SW 133rd Ave Tigard, OR 97224 Beverly Froude 12200 SW Bull Mountain Rd Tigard, OR 97224 Charlie and Larie Stalzer 14781 SW Juliet Terrace Tigard, OR 97224 1 - c^r CIf,AM 1 1 1 1 1 1 Exhibit D Clean Water Services Stormwater Management r Service Provider Letter 1 1 _03/09/2004 15:28 503-62457 WESTLAKE CONS#NTS PAGE 02/03 MAR 17 2004 File Number yo 8~ ' CleanWafie~ SexviCes ~NESTIAKE cunisuL►Aiv Our CprnmiFmenl iN GIC,ar, Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site Assessment Jurisdiction Cj~~ of Tiaarr7 Date March 91 2004 Map & Tax Lot 1S1 33CA 2100 Owner Evelyn Karls Site Address 7 ~9tgLsw Barrows Rd (o_ld Scholls Ferrv) Contact Westlake Consultants, Inc. Proposed Activity 25 lot subdivision Address 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway (ste 150 TIGARD, OR 97224 Phone 503-6840 Leo Leight-6n Official use only below this line Y N NA Y N NA ❑ ❑ Sensitive Area Composite Map r-1 Stormwater Infrastructure maps Map # 51 Li 0- ❑ ❑ ® Q8 4.zI,f Locally adopted studies or maps Other Cws ~Ii/e 2,8 T6 ❑ ❑ Specify ❑ Specify 2,00;z "ic. /T ro ' Based on a review of the above information and the requirements of Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards Resolution and Order No. 049: ❑ Sensitive areas potentially exist on site or within 200' of the site. THE APPLICANT MUST PERFORM A SITE CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SERVICE ' PROVIDER LETTER OR STORMWATER CONNECTION PERMIT. If Sensitive Areas exist on the site or within 200 feet on adjacent properties, a Natural Resources Assessment Report may also be required. Vul Sensitive areas do not appear to exist on site or within 200' of the site. This pre- screening site assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered on your property. NO FURTHER SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS REQUIRED, THIS FORM WILL SERVE AS AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE A STORMWATER CONNECTION PERMIT. ❑ The proposed activity does not meet the definition of development. NO SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS REQUIRED. Comments: /3&ICW gN r e e'4 &5L CGS /r X 8 6 A,•. c/ 9-009 a evlo l yA& ro r-4 e oyaQnseoO ,J ra;,-V ~ ✓ ; ll br•OI %~sa •'rr'~ ~..a,(. •i> dur 4-~ a ex a;.-,'1* Sawt:1: area. +cr 14 •2or rl~e .4 Reviewed By:Date: ~l0 c f Returned to Applicant Mail K Fax_ Counter ' Date G Ry L4 155 N First Avenue, Suite 270 • Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 Phone: (503) 846-3553- Fa"): (503) 846-3525 • v^r&,c1=wa4crecrviCc0L= 1 I 1 Exhibit E ` Title 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 Transnation Tale kflry d O%M Transnation Title Agency of Oregon Arica D. Focer 5005 SW Meadows Road Suite 130 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 TRANSNATION TITLE AGENCY OF OREGON 5005 SW Meadows Road Suite 130 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Ph:(503)684-0565 Fax:(503)684-0851 Date Prepared: March 1, 2004 PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT FOR ISSUING TITLE INSURANCE ORDER NO PARTY REFERENCE PROPERTY ADDRESS: OTHER REFERENCE : 4.3y0037128w WINDFALL CONST/IN_TEX CONST 13900 Barrows Road Tigard OR 97223 TRANSNATIO.N TITLE AGENCY OF OREGON is prepared to issue title insurance as of the effective date and in the form and amount shown on Schedule A., subject to the conditions, stipulations and exclusions from coverage appearing in the policy form and subject to the exceptions shown on Schedule B. This report is preliminary to the issuance of a policy of title insurance and shall become null and void unless a policy is issued and the full premium paid. This report is for the exclusive use of the persons to whom it is addressed. Title insurance is conditioned on recordation of satisfactory instruments that establish the interests of the parties to be insured; until such recordation, the Company may cancel, amend, or supplement this report for any reason. Thank you for placing the order with us. If you need assistance with this report, please contact: Arica D. Focer, Escrow Officer Phone: (503)684-4555 Fax: 684-0851 Kathy Roberts/Doug Gamlen, Advisory Title Officers (503)262-4714 t t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F 1 1 ,I PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT DATED March 1, 2004 SCHEDULE A, Page No. 1 • ORDER NO. 43y0037128 1. The effective date of this preliminary title report is 5:00 P.M. on February 23, 2004 2. The Policy or Policies to be issued: Policy/Endorsement Description Charge ALTA Standard Owner's for $1,236,000.00 $ 1,606.60 (Reflects a Builders/Developers Rate) ALTA Extended Lender's for $1,806,000.00 1,900.70 Lender End. #ALTA 9;5.9(116);83.1(8.1) 75.00 3. Title to the land described herein is vested in: EVELYN M. KARLS, Trustee under the Karis Living Trust, dated October 2.7, 1992 4. The land referred to in this report is described as follows: As fully set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 1 1 ~ Vesting Deed ~ Exceptions 1 1 ' Order No. 43y0037128w EXHIBIT "A" ' Legal Description ' Parcel 2, PARTITION PLAT 1992-009, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon. I 1 1 1 1 1 f PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT DATED March 1, 2004 ORDER NO. 43y0037128 SCHEDULE B, Page No. 1 ' Except for the items properly cleared through closing, the proposed policy or policies will not insure against loss or damage which may arise by reason of the following: ' 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records; proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or ' assessments, or notice of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights; interests or, claims which are not shown by the public records ' but which could be ascertained by an inspection. of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. ' 3. Easements, claims of easements or encumbrances, not shown by the public records; reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, or claims or title to water. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for unemployment taxes, workman's compensation, services, labor, equipment rental or material, heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. ' S. Discrepancies., conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose. NOTE: Exceptions 1 through 5 may be modified or eliminated from the policy based upon receipt and review of additional evidence of insurability, including, but not. necessarily limited to, the following: (a) A survey of the subject property. Should a survey not be required for loan purposes, The Company could consider other alternatives, such as an inspection or review of a site plan. Please contact your Company representative for assistance. (b) Proof that there are no parties in possession or claiming the right to be in ' possession other than.the vestees herein and that there are no existing leases or tenancies. ' . (c) Proof that there are no statutory liens for labor or material, including liens for contributions due to the State of Oregon for unemployment compensation and for workmen's compensation which have not gained or hereafter may gain priority over the lien of the insured mortgage, which liens do not now appear of record. 6. Unpaid taxes for the year 2003-04 Original Amount $1,859.20 Unpaid Balance $1,859.20, plus interest Levy Code 051.85 Account No. R2019474 Map No. 1S133CA-02100 (Co ntinued) • ' SCHEDULE B, Page No. 2 Exceptions, Continued Order No.: 43y00371 28w ' 7. Municipal liens, if any, imposed by the City of Tigard. We find none, per the public records, as of March 1, 2004. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8.-Restrictive covenants to waive future rights of remonstrance against the formation of a local improvement district and any assessment thereof, Recorded February 18, 1992 Recorder's Fee No. 92009804 For c Drainage improvement 9. Restrictive covenants to waive future rights of remonstrance against the formation of a local improvement district and any assessment thereof, Recorded February 18, 1992 Recorder's Fee No. 92009805 For Street improvement 10. Restrictive covenants to waive future rights of remonstrance against the formation of a local improvement district and any assessment thereof, Recorded March 10, 1992 Recorder's Fee No. 92014959 For Drainage improvement 11. Proof of the death or divorce of Rynold E. Karls, former spouse of Evelyn M. Karls, the vestee herein. NOTE 1: The trust agreement of the Karls Living Trust has been reviewed and the trustee(s) have full power to convey, hypothecate, or mortgage the subject property. NOTE 2: We find no unsatisfied judgments, state or federal tax liens against Intex Construction, Inc.,, an Oregon corporation. NOTE 3: No search has been made or will be made for water, sewer, or storm drainage charges.. Buyers should check with the appropriate City bureau or water/sewer district and obtain a final reading. Such charges are not adjusted in escrow. NOTE 4: The property described herein is subject to a Washington County Transfer Tax of $1.00 per thousand, based on consideration, payable on transfer of property. Failure to pay the tax or apply for an exemption shall result in a penalty equal to the amount of tax owed, plus possible criminal prosecution punishable by a fine of not more than $500.00. END OF REPORT MJR/mlm 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1600 90191 I 1.22AC mf 0 as N ~ U A ~ .m ~ C G .I ~ P 1403 .79 AC i I~' •isi??c0• y „l3 ACS Ics te.1o5) 1501 CJ CC~`0 .48 AC r fiL(71 r ^ 1 ~ W J9-2 9 02 S W2 llj T9 9 0 3 f ~25 ]t X rOOT9 L-1 ISA 9019 < 0000 19.5 Ilb OCE 1-4 001, 1' Z 1404 ,63 AC 35 Nao-oaoow 87.50 '1 87.60 176.00 a WEST m s o . S € 1700 0 :3 1.15 AC A N 51-58 S 1I 3 1 / d m ICs 21,834 178.98 S88.34.0sE C~ S ~ ~ gn P 1100 1.35 AC O M449.01 W 1402 .10 AC /J 2100 = - J ` W 2 92 AC " 1 . = e° ro 2000 = _ - 1 1.00 AC .tr .2:0 2:00. 402 - ~3i33co, 17 ' 1s io o is(3lco. 1 S13~co istaacd 'isay3co. p81300 r .1s,+oo ~o° ysooo .'o ~o ,s70D3 44: ` „ r , > m 40, m , . 41' 47 . P C ; TFj.4CT,'b" ^ , ~ THIS MAP IS MADE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING IN LOCATING SAID PREMISES, AND THE COMPANY ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR VARIATIONS, IF ANY, IN DIMENSIONS, AREAS, AND LOCATIONS ASCERTAINED BY ACTUAL SURVEY. 4- i STATUTORY 92076721 F:, BARGAIN AND SALE DEED wnening'oa Coumy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II l ~ • • cw~.,+vr..,•.T~., rfi.,.,myM,n,rrv_v., w,~^ !F !T,-.'_'.-_ .~.~~__..~_py-..a.a.,~.~..,:r..v~..v:.u+.ev:wwr~w....+r,. - - • ...n._y...- _ _ r 271N EVELYN MA.E KARLS, Grantor, conve to EVELYN. M. KARLS, Trustee, or her successors in trust, under the iCARIS LIVING TRUST; dated 1992, and any amendments thareto, a revocable living trust, Grantee, the following real property situated in the County of Washington,'State of Oregon, to wit: SEE EXHIBIT 'A' AT'T'ACHED HERETO BY THIS REFERENCE AND INCORPORATED HEREIN. The true and actual consideration paid for this transfer, stated in terms of dollars, is $0. The actual consideration consists of or includes other property or value given or promised which is the whole consideration. Dated this ;7 day of t~'~~C • , 1992, THIS INSTRUMENT WML Nor ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCIU eD W THLS imsTRUMFNT tN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE E LAND USE LAWS AND ANVLATIONS. BEFORE 3IONU70 UR ACCR7MG THIS tNSTRUMENT, THE PERION ACQURWO FEE TITLE To THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CrrY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VMUFY APPROVED USES. STATE OF OREGON, County of Multnomah This instrument was acknowledged befi by EVELYN MAE KARLS. BARGAIN AND SALE DEED EVELYN MAE KARLS GRANTOR NAME EVELYN M. KARL. Trust= GRANTEE NAME GRANTEE'S ADDRESS, ZIP After recording return to: C IP H Tigard. Qrroon 97223 NAME, ADDRESS, ZIP Until a change..is,requesled, all tax statements shall be sent to the following address: Notary Public for Oregon expires: / NQ CHANGE. / NAME, ADDRESS, ZIP SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE , w.: t. 4 V _1 t• `I c.Sr' 3. +'1 yr a ,f ~.,u---_- ,,.~^a;it'F'"'=y'~C::-;: '~a'~IIF.J _ -';i:. _ , c'.' ; ,,r. ✓..:r::i :a .~.a_L ~y EXHIBIT A PARCEL I: _ Tract of land in the southerly portion of that certain tract of land as mentioned in decd book 138; page (213), and within the southerly portion of Lot 34, Millard and Van t' - Schuyver Tract, as shown on the duly recorded map and plat; r 11 tE: ~s=' Beginning at an iron rod on the east line of Tract 34, said rod being north 3223 feet I''ksz' from cite southeast corner of Lot 34, and running thence west 330.0 feet to a point in Scholls Ferry . Road, and on the west line of tract 34. • thence on the west line North 8.7 feet to a point on centerline of the road; thence on centerline, N. 321 53' E. 9.33 feet to a point; thence. S. 870 02' 30" E. 35.73 feet to an iron,pipe on the southeast roadway ; U line; thence continuing S. 87' 02' 30" E. 290.63 feet to the place of beginning, i= PARCEL II• ' All of Lot 34 and all that part of Lot 35 lying and being situated South of the new Scholls ' Ferry Road, all in MILLARD and VAN SCHUYVER TRACT, and being the same property conveyed to Fred Schreeck by deeds recorded in Book 73, page 288, and Book 137, page 113, of the Deed Records of Washington County, Oregon, exce tin therefrom the following: All that part of Lot 34 herctofore conveyed by Fred Schrecck'to Freda Louise Kahr and Michael Kahr, her husband, by deed recorded in Book 138, page 151, Deed Records of Washington County, Oregon, and also excepting all that part of Lot 34 heretofore conveyed by Fred Schreeck to Emma Dralle and N.H. Dralle, her husband, by deed recorded in Book 138, page 213, of the Deed Records of Washington County, Oregon. ' STATE OF OREGON / SS county of 1n'eehis9101 t JarrY H. Hans Dlrectar of Assessment and Toxetton agdO Fiecorder oc- ~ . veyances t0O;$l ins - was that the the villtpa tnCOnllCbnt_ .0fde of recelved• f§,cordetP~ "m,. :;t. said tj NaWo dl~c for 01 AssesstnenFatidixa6on, EX- i' t• Doc 92076'I21 I Rect: 038033 38.00 10/29/1992 01:41:52PM C14- '77-7 i . + .•t Vii. ,1.. , r t t. 1 . 1 • ~Sv 1 , i Y.C.. _ - 0 INDIVIDUAL - GENERAL PARTNERSHIP WaihingtonCaunty CONSENT COVENANT (NOYREHONSTRANCE ACREEMENT) C J'• 1~/ Drainage Improvements ' The undersigned ovners (including the persons listed below an purchasers) of the real property described below do hereby record their consent to the ■ formation of a local improvement district by the My of Tigard or other g;..:.__.. public agency for the purpose of improving draineRe systems in the vicinity of y. or abutting the property described in Exhibit "A" below. The undersigned expressly waive all present and future rights to oppose or remonstrate agsinst : the formation of .a local improvement district for the improvement of drainage systems in the district, reserving only the right to coctest the inclusion of particular coat itewo in the improvement diacri-cc proceeding's and any right they may hove under the laws of the State of Oregon to contest the proposed1== aeseesment formula. = Y.iifl. 1 "'t The real property 'that is the subject of this consent covenant is described as 'n IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor(l) has' 6toaXxk hereunto net g$pg; 1 •?i (her) (Xhgd4~ hand(q and seal this 1_3 day of JANUARY 1992 (SEAL) (SEAL) EVELY M. KARLS (SEAL) (SEAL) aI?~ STATE OF ORECON County of Washington HE IT REMEMSEAED, that on this 13 day of JANUARY 19 92 -j before me,. the undersigned Notary Public in and for the State of Ore on, ; B - personally appeared the within named EVELYN M. KARLS rz C who ie 1( known to me to be the identical individual described in and who executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that WK (she).10CHIO executed the same freely ar_.... voluntarily. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal thj 13 day of Sn"1iJnF1 1992 \1' c. rotary Public fo G ego i cy(NOTp13iAI S AI) My Commission Ekpir JANUARY 27,94 Akp~F?Ear?1C~P description this day of 19 iT 0f..0~ By. , Title: Approved this day of , 19 / - GRANTOR'S NAMEIADDRESS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT _ ..~..,~m'.:i•..+. r . •917 ..~i"1 ~:1i1 ~i~~ 7r>!,~'.'a 1 -..,.~.r.~.~:,-•-n.:.~!•7.,, . ~ . N. __1.~::~ ..lR .:::n.. •~4 _ gr•11f.r=~Sr. -..4-• : 'll•".t:i.-: • _ -tel. - - - --tyueci7S, _:~.-tP' i':y:mlR••~..;t° - .•li` . ' } .r.= . . . T~~^• • M - . I u;i T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r r EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Evelyn M. Rarls Those tracts of land situatud It the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 1 South',.. Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, conveyed to Rynold E. K.arls and Evelyn M' Karls, husband and wife by deeds recorded in Book 320, Page 226 and Book 346, Page 244 in the Washington County Oeeds of Records.; Washington County, Oregon. TAT .7 :.YI NU rA g .M "wE D NII~'vs~S'C ~ ~ ~N^ p0 (v(L,6 twi ._...c:a.Ts~,'o•'.aY1~j.; ~a }``r.,;'~J,~,,•u`.1a,'~: t: ~.5.' .7.. it 7t L r.n,iafi 5~ STATE OF OREGON ) SS 1 .I- R. Hansen it eetcf d 0.s 11A, , or of . y N r.^>7 ~ ~V17 EX' t couXo- Doc 92009804 Rect: 71307 18.00 02118/1992 02:.18:02pm . - -•e...ornr„!tow: ~,~}~r111ci:~ ik I.j -CRLt~'~ RhSAL6y 71 ~'t=._Kfi"..d',i '1,..11 . y~• , f ~ - :J:i:::';~'~~i4w1y'f 1" ` r;'ieK•,' ~¢r'~~. .V ~~.3 } .'•in,,. r..:. ' p J 92009605 • ►+'aJthlnytonCoGra -m 1 RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WAIVING RIGHT . h erl~;~: OF REMONSTRANCE FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT p. We the undersigned, being the legal owners of real property hereinafter ,ico ? described, do hereby consent to the Improvement of the base.facility of S.W. ate = Scholls Ferry. Road; pursuant to the City of Tigard and Washington County Ordinances regarding local improvement districts or other similar provisions in n~ ' effect at the time of subsequent imnrovement. In consideration of approval of land use action for a Minor Land Partition Item No. MLP-91-0012, and of not being required to improve the said road at this time, we hereby expressly waive ^Y~; any and all right to remonstrance against the formation of such local ail improvement district, by Washington County pursuant to the City of Tigard and _r Washington County ordlnances regarding local improvement districts or other v~ similar provisions in effect at the time of subsequent improvement and the said assessment of such costs thereof against said property. This consent, and waiver to remonstrate, shall expire twenty years from the date hereof but the undersigned owners or their heirs, successors or assigns shall renew this covenant and extend same for an additional twenty 2~L ears upon request of Washington County. is ~ • =City !:i: f~~: The property subject to this consent and waiver of remonstrance is described as Map N1S1 33CA, Tax lot k1300 and is more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Those tracts of land situated in the Southwest Quarter of r•: Section 33, Township 1 South, Range I West, Willamette Meridian, conveyed to Rynold E. Karls and Evelyn M. Karls, husband and wife by deeds recorded in Book-320, Page 226 and Book 346, Page 244 in the. Washington County Deeds of Records, Washington County, Oregon. It is hereby intended that this consent -to and waiver of right of remonstrance against, the said street improvements by Washington County ?ra pursuant to the City of Tigard and Washington County Ordinance regarding local - improvement districts or other similar provisions in effect at the time of subsequent improvement shall be binding on ourselves and all subsequent owners of the Aereinabove described property and shall run with title to the said property.. to the benefit of Washington County and may be removed only with the `'=1 consent of Washington County. Upon annexation of any part of the above described property to a city, this waiver shall automatically be assigned to the city with full rights to enforce its terms. Waiver Page 1 of 2 `t MLP•91-91 'U .151 33CA, T.L. 11300 •.li;:,:,~i• ..iii ~atv ss.,r• 't ~,:~.!Tti ~~~•,+:J+liil::i,'~.'Srti~jr~!Li •~'::r;i': a1:(%i::Vi';+~:.G-:d ~ l'., ,_,r+r.. k• a<~ ti.+: ..q..: .ni. 'i-Y. •y;•;p•.' i% J' '~•1'rr.!!+', .,~1: c '•.w _ti' tLi :,'tit-~tiw . , . w. •'.r . T 3.: - il. ':~l~~t: i•- .f..^•f;'iy'',lY .p:.. .,1: - 'w.. .",T. :'t';~_; .J~lY. Lt 'i. ti, ',r.., ri '1 t;:;Y 4T}'' ".'"1, .•;~•c':~l:~+c.t( .t :,a•~.'.o~ _ .2.E,'d•; i riY"~?'ti~S' f 't;l''~4 i:C ii •,}.i iti~.y .J..:-_i~..' _ 1= :.•Aiaw5-t: r, C .lr •1,•.' _ i•e .~yi1+L,~i ..t ^,2' .;:.r f(~':~.i 71' ~7:~Yr. ,a,,~r r , ,o- ri% r •U':_ 11 { 4. i iramt>;::~•. 77 C~~3i¢ r f~1;~ :.i~ \ ~4i 'v t•!s:Rtit:v •1' f ' .y . Mq. - ' ~,~,iii~~'~'a~~~ .}~'•~.n~•~ r~ l 1 h r r i ';i,~ ;jf~J~F~a~~,'S'tL ~ ( "•,•'~^"'Y'~ ~ i,pv:~~rA..'^N'rz:rt••~:V~a r 1'i'::} 7,tr"• ~ •V ~ 7. M - - ~y R•r+- < v!y~;•. ,,i;~ ;mil • r . M" C~ '!~a'L~. ~:Y. ~e y°~l :=\i%!+•%~' -iG„+" •,,`,.~..':;ii:":t..: ~ !4~JC~dFa 1t .v~,' fi~ .u . _ - - ~_'-~r....~? .,~'+y1aY#(:)''r,+iw:'~f+r r", ,}P: ~r:~::~ 'S !'~;';'~'pJ is r' ' ~Y t~.(F'.3. •~a~ G'l . F. ;Cry[, - -;-.?':;.*.:''~••":`_:.\;:tillyr:•`' :.Lr..u!.ti~ 'Jr: :J„~~9::A+~_~'.:i . d: .!':C. •'r;' .:~i ]'.r51-1LJT. .,~y,,{;~i YI ~yS ~.•`t"'~: -"_!!"T~ 7+2^'~S'a.1.i•i lie, '!,f_r.:c~!_..ti<r.~:~7-r: :iua'i;'~'r;' _--."G^'~~i:dc:.;..:-., .!•f1'j!:}'L:II'-~•'S`•°, r :.71K'♦<?M2C'-.„-..:._'.=: ' •isr,?4.nxr.~s:.941•iU.. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 _ _ _ - ~',sil,'i 'l+•i~d'"J8~4a -.srin"=2wF.. = v,.wuTw.~~~ `'r-a`.-- ~..r`mitu..~.?~~L:_~-.•,~_:,. ~ ~:~=i r' Dated this 13 day of JANUARY , 1992 ~ o0 11!i DECEASED Rynold E.,Karls elyn arls STATE OF OREGON ) County of.Washington) ss. BE IT REMEMBERED that on this 1- . day of TANt1ARY , 19 cg before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for said county and 'state, personally appeared the within named Rynold E. Karls and Evelyn M. Karls, known to me to by the identical individuals described in and who executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that same was executed freely and voluntarily. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year last above written. ary'Publ is for Oregon MV Commission expires: JANUARY 27,1994 •'/t t/ STATE OF OREGON I SS Waiver - Page 2 of 2 MLP-91-0012/SHARED 151 33CA, T.L. 01300 After recording, please return to County Surveyor's Office County of Washln9lon I, Jerry FL; Lt w. or As ~ T., n ;Tl" l l fro to was Sol * f yr~.N Axallon. Ex- °P cdU,irr'`~ Doc 92009805 18.00 Reett 71307 02/19/1992 '02:1e:03Pn - - - - io•! INDIVIOUXL - GE112RAL.PARTNeRSHIP CONSENT COVENANT (NONRENONSTRANCE AGREEMENT) G Drainage Improvements r The undersigned owners (including the persona listed belov ae purchssers) of the reel property described below do hereby record their consent to the formation of a local, improvement district by the City of Tigard or other public agency for the purpose of improving drainsga systems in the vicinity of or abutting the property described in Exhibit A" below. The undarsigned expressly waive all preeent and future rights to oppose or remonstrate against tha formation of a local improvemont district for the improvement of drainage _ aystens in the district, reserving only the right to contest the inclusion of particular cost items in the improvement district proceedings and any right they may.havn under the lava of the Stmts. of Oregon to contest the proposed assessment formula. The rail property that is the subject of this consent covenant is described as follower r 1 IN WITNESS WHERFOY, the grantor( has Qt 10C hereunto set kk4( (her) (jkM hand(rh and. aeal$M this ]3day of JANUARY , 1992. -(SEAL ) EVELY M. KARLS (SEAL) STATE OF OREGON ) ) ad. County of Washington ) ( SEAT. ) (SEAL) BE IT MEMBERED, that on this 13 day of . JANUARY , 19 92 , before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for the State of Oregc , porsonally appeared the within-named EVELYN M. KARLS vho is X known to me to be the identical individual described in ••d vho executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that WK (she) KM N executed the some freely and voluntarily. I!~ ~s Ft WHERMF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal th a 13 day of.A)C~JtJRItY~• 'p 1992 4 Q•~~ M otarv Public forUl-r-as~A/ .~..~,a u. ...iy my uommission ExpirA•rt- W"'W y A1,54 1. Approve 9s 4 p Ie$al description this n day of N A4tj 19~ By, f Title t _Eclbiva~_ 7F1~J t ~I Approved thia '0A day of Ji4RilA~~ 19'~ , GRANTOR'S HAWADOMS DEPARM., •6 # t~ e~~~ P}~i~. By: Titl % __C_4& 9-Aw ej, r , _ Rb'IM REMMED DOCLMW TO: CITY Ra70RDER, 1ZGARD PO 90X 23397 TTGARD OR 27223 r FF _ i!ia+a~ &A-MW' : uc ta.n+~ i EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Evelyn H. Xarle Those tracts of land situated in the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, willimette Meridian, conveyed to Rynold E. Kris and Evelyn Karls, ; husband and We by deeds recorded in Book 320, Page 226 and Book 346, Pogo 244 in the Washington County Deeds of Records, Washington county, Dragon. STATE OF OREGON - County of ftWdgton 89 I~ el R. Hens tot of M Osa t vol, and noes l 1 by.C&UN thathe un9 wag ceeeked of r aald ..s 1 f^. ofd - - - ~ ah Exa y COutffi Doc gao14gs Rect: 72817 18.00 03/10/1992 02;08:12PH 0 Ndj0~ae'r Deeds I t 1 1 1 Transnation 1 1 1 1 1 i t i 1 r t t TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY =METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Washington (OR) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Reference Parcel I S 133CA 01200 Porcel Mumber : R0262575 RTSO: O1W -01S -33 -SW Owner ; Pfi Suiiflower Limited Inc CoOivner Site Address : SW 135th Tigard :hail Address :6420 SW Macadam Ave 4100 Portland Or 97239 Telephone :Owner: Tenant: SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred :09/15/ 1.989 Loan Amount Document 4 :89044052 Lender Sale Price : $2,963,869 Loan Type Deed Type Interest Rate Owned Vesting Type ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION A,IktLand : $976,000 Exempt Arnotrnt NlktStruciure : $2,804,070 Exempt Type AlkrOther %Improved :74 MktTotal : $3,780,070 Levy Code :05185 03704 Taxes : $47,426.18 School Dist PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid Class Code Census : Tract: Block: NbrhdCd : X-3 API/Rate Sub/Plat : Millard And Vanchuyvcr Land Use 7813 *unknown Use Code* Legal MILLARD AND VANCHUYVER TRACT, LOT PTS 33-34, ACRES 5.37 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms Lot,=1 cres : 5.37 Year Built Bathrooms LotSgFt 233,917 EffYearRh Heatkfethod: BsnrFin SF Floor Cover Pool BsmUnfimSF: Foundation ; Appliances BsmLowSF Roof Shape Dishwasher Bldg SgFt Roofblatl Hood Fan lstFlrSgFt Interior.Allat Deck UpperFI SF Paving Mad Garage Type : Porch SgFt Const Type Garage SF Attic SgFt Ext Finish Deck SgFt Thank you for using Transnation Title Insurance Customer Service: (503) 256-1163 Fax: (503) 254-6992 The Informarion Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Noi Guaranteed. 1 1 1 I 1 1 I r i i r 1 ~~Ki1MFJQ4lt•3F.Q'f~i~~~.:.. _ r-,• ~.•~ti' ..i l,•-,_ Washlrow County i - O -i After Recording Return to: Robert A. Stout, P.C. P Perkins Coie .d 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2500 Portland, Oregon 97204 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED Sunflower Associates II Limited Partnership, an Oregon _n=-- Limited Partnership, Grantor, conveys and specially warrants to - - PPI Sunflower Limited, Inc., an bregon corporation, Grantee, the real property described, in Exhibit A hereto, free of encumbrances created or suffered by Grantor excepL- as specifically set forth in Exhibit B hereto. ems' The true conside'ratior, for this transfer is $2,963,869.67. A=::... ~.~jq4~M1 n -rt^•- THIS INSTRUMENT WILL.NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS -W''J INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY _`no4 SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES. DATED this 15th day of September, 1989. Sunflower Associates II Limited o Yip:gy Partnorshipi an Oregon mited astnta,+ Partnership in„„J. Gu Far.Lhin ^ 117 i.ts eneral Pa tner gSTATE OF Oregon ) ss COUNTY OF Multnomah ) ca :.nia~cs~ ~ This 'n trument was acknowledged before me on general partner September f 1989, by J. Guy Farthing, as the Of #MAE ewer Associates II Limi.ted Partnership, an Oregon :sac= rft§~t(W tnership. _ }•\%1 ~ A r twr~C~// l4 n t.L - 'fit}p' (gel{`=` to y Publ for v commissi n expi es: d 97T - - Graritdi', Sunflower Associates II Limited Partnership lYxSMINI fON COUNTY t = P~tOP1J9T!' TR JIER U AL PFI Sunflower Limited, Inc. REAL $ (b/ e_L 00 , ►F.E PAID PATE Unless a change is requested, all tax - - statements shall be sent to Grantee at the following address: 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2800 Portland, Oregon 97204 Attn: Thomas J. Kemper 1 1 1 3J _-r \Y1 A 1 t 1 1 i t Zt c=rs3 :-9 f44::J- "+ers-..R 1 rsrs ~e r LG3Cr. r tt-K a i y,~_~}c~p i, IOU r !IlClN I ~:rrc3~i .~Ye1 1 1 1 ~_~c•~~~ -='P:L9'S ~ci::1'~"•..•b f'S,T.; *f'GVK1.• •f.r; Y.ll^i L•• :~Itrf;.^y.1rsY'V:. .t ,.4.--- ~'!>!1L1'="r~$?(P.;,..(+a; .:!i;%iyah, f.~}r:~'N,.• "i.•.''',1:~`;':;::•...__ ..i.:;.•yt.'~ _ = , 7: lit ` l' ~ 1 G j_ f:.. ; G• • , t . a'li 1' '''N~ ' _ _.r_xirglio•Kj'Ut~` rl'~4:u J .I+: `;'f!vi.I} ~t::1!•wr..:: 2i T'~ 1: _ t•wu,ii:u~iu r •4.: 1 3 11' - J- t r r- '.'1GF^tt':u..u' J•tit A".,JSI,~L.r,:•r. ~.k'.'.C,\'. ~ y,.l,r, ~:+J' ,.e. rt..';;1" _ r...-.-.~.,rf"!"•:41 Legal Description - Phaza 11 e - Order No. 106698 W - Legal Description r_ A portion of Lots 33 and 34, according to the duly filed plat of MILLARD AND VAN schv=R TRACTS, in the City of Tigard, filed September 12, 1868 in Plat Book 1, Page 65, Records of the County of Washington end State of Oregon, more ' particularly described as follows: Q.: Beginning at. the Southeast corner of Lot 34, MILLARD ,Alr•D VAN iM SCHUYVER TRACTS, as shown on the recordod plat thereof, and running thence North 322.3 feet along the East line of said Lot 34 to ■ points thence North 88'32'36" Wont 294.98 feet to the South line of S.W. Schools Ferry Road (Count"] Road No. r 812); thence continuing West to the center line of said o_v County Road 812: thence Northeasterly along said center line 58.55 feet to a point; thence South 88432'36" East to the South line of County Road No. 812; thence continuing South 98132136" East 263 feet to a point; thence North 89.63 feet, n more or leas, to a point; thence South 45016' East 93.67 feet to a point: thence North 89'56'05" East 263.60 fast to the Etat line of Lot 33, MILLARD AND VAN SCBUYVER TRACTS;' thence South 396 feet to an iron pipe at the Southeast corner cf said Lot 33: thence South 89'56105" hest 329.84 feet to'tho _ point of beginning; Subject to the interest of Department of 'transportation, State Highway Division, State of Oregon, created by _ inctrummnt recorded February, 13, 1989 as Recorder's Fee No. 89-06470. I _ "vv` `S'.'L~y.,~~"~1y~ ,iti~ pi;t?.'• - '~^'.:~f ~`"wu~~.,i+r~+•.....,~...~... -`row=~'tr' . . ' EXHIBIT B Order No. .706698 W -.7 s; 'Ln 1. Taxer. or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the z+ r4 records. of any taxing authority that levies taxes or asseaa'nsnts on - real property or by the public records; proceedings by a public ~ ' - w.y1 agen-y which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of ouch pro,,eedings whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by ? - : , ublic records thi ~ , p . - 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the ~ublic records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by Waking inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, or claims of easement or encumbrancea, not shown by the public records, reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof, water rights, claims or title to w t ra~rc.. , a er. r ■4Ww. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for taxes, workmen's compensation, services, labor., equipment rental or material. heretofore or hareafter i l d b d mpose y aw and not shown by the public records, furnishe , S. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, h= :a•,;:a encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose. 6. Taxes for the fiscal year 1989-90, a lien due, but not yet Ia.,. payable. . rr 7. City Liens, if any, of the City of Tigard. 8. Statutory powers and assessments of the Unified Sewerage Agency. Ids 9. Regulations, including levies, assessments, water and irrigation . ' °Li rights and easements for ditches and canals of weir Trunk Sanitary • Sewer Improvement District. (No search has boon made), * . 10. The tights of the public in and to that portion of the remises described l in withi h i th li i d , y g ere n n e m ts of Scholle Ferry Roa . Asa.: r~y. j i'7 11, A Reciprocal Easement Agreement for access purposes including the terms and provisions thereof between Sunflower Associates Limited ~•■rg'. Partnership and West-Bell, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, recorded June ~ 14, 1989 under Recorder's see No. 89-26890. «anus: Which easement contains a covenant to bear a share of cost of e".: 9t_r; construction, maintenance or repair of same. - L2, An easement and Maintenance Agreement including the terms and d Partnershi i s f ' p ociates Lim te lower As provisions thereof between Sun - - and West-Hell Inc., recorded June 14, 1989 as Fee No. 89-26891 or Swimming pool.. _ - r 13. A permanent easamant and Maintenance Agreement including the ~A•; terms and provisions thereof between. Sunflower Associates Limited - Partnership, •and West-Bell inc, recorded June 14, 1999, undar K Recorder's Fee No. 89-26892, for telephone and cable television.. x. _ 14. A permanent easement and Joint Maintenance Agreement including - the terms and pro-isions thereof between Sunflower Asecciatss Limited Partnership and West-Bell, Inc. recorded June 14, 1986 under Recorder's Fee No. 89-26893. _ 15.•A permanent easement and Joint Maintenance AgTeswent including the terms and provisions thereof between Sunflower Associates Limited partnership and West-Bell Inc., recorded June 14, 1989 under Recorder's Fee No. 89-26894, for electrical parer servicea. 16. A permanent easement and Joint Maintenance Agreement including the terms and provisions thereof between sunflower Associates Limited _ Partnership and Weat-Bali Inc. recorded June 14, 1989 under - - Recorder's Fee No. 89-26895, -for natural gas lines. .r - " 17. An easement for signage purposes including the terms and provisions thereof between Sunflower Associates Limited Partnership and West-Bell Inc., an Oregon Corporation recordad June 14, 1989 under Recorder's Fee No. 89-26896, for location of aignade. Y- -;=.r_.~7R:v-T!!~'^v,:.i-iriir4TdsJT3Lr~?Y.i~^~7r:: i+1,,-.~ •?~a<'aiu~J:~+ur'~S-ri.7Jus e.7•c~':.:.r'..u.~io.v.c~~~~.-`~F~2Li=~re~am+ i0i inif iIt • 'I ' . i- I i r l • , 11jj _ S$2• 06 0 c o I c s rn N . n hoo v M C a - O :Y ~J r N a 1l1 0 C b C bilp" a m O ng y t cg F 8~5 ON, ourn pro i I u ~ 5~~i•`I~ar ii ee ~ ~ jl { ~~j~7~ ~ :P ~~•<►"~ig a~. _ i ~ ; ~ ~I~~(]11I ~ ,liFn1({~I I~ ' :A i. 1~ i 1 i- rVor :7~ ~I 1 ill!, If i P: ~ ~ri iF1,,.~F.v '.I ...i 'i. i~0 ):.,j qc ~t~i:c . I , <{ct~`..~ '~t7 ) ~ i`~ i ' I :i ~ it i r. ->#.I ..`~r tl... r~ 7 lel... Lli . v t it ~ 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 Transnation DuNSNATION MU INSURANCE COMPANY =METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Washington (OR) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Reference Parcel # : I S 133 CA 02000 Parcel Alumber : R2019473 RTSQ; 01W-01S ,33 -SW Owner : Verizon Northwest Inc CoO ner Sile Address *no Site Address* ;Hail Address : PO Box 152206 Irving Tx 7)015 't'elephone :Owner: Tenant: SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred Document # Sale Price Deed T}pe % Owned . IktLand. A~A,tStructure 1fkt0ther .MtTotal .03-0a Taxes A1ap Grid Census 1Vbrl7dCd SublPlat Land Use Legal Bedrooms Bathrooms Heat Method: Pool Appliances : Dishwasher Hood Fan Deck Garage Tvpe. Garage SF : 03/02/1992 Loan Amount 13232 Lender :$101,800 Loan Type Interest Rate Westing Type ASSESSMENT AND TAX' INFORMATION Exempt Amount Exempt Type % Improved Levy Code : 05185. School Dist PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Class Code Tract: Block: X-3 iWillRate 3993 Misc,Assessed By Dept Of Revenue PARTITION PLAT 1992-009, LOT 1, ACRES 1.00, ASSESSED BY OREGON DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS LotAcres 1.00 Lot SgFt : 43,560 BsmFin SF : Bsm UnfinSF : BsniLowSF Bldg SgF1 1 stFlrSgFt UpperFISF Porch SgFf Attic SgFt Deck SgFt Year Built EffYearBlt Floor Cover Foundation Roof Shape Roof A'fatl Interior,Vlat Paving A1atl Consr Type Ext Finish Thank you for using Transnation Title Insurance Customer Service: (503) 256-1163 Fax: (503) 254-6992 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. i , ,t~s AHt~r~~ ,92t0013~23y2 STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED e EVELYN H EARLS Grantor, COMM andwarmu to GTE NORTHWEST INCORPORnTED, a Washington Corpora ton N : Grantee, ! the following described real property free of Iiens and encumbrances, except as specMcaUy set forth herelm- d Parcel 1 of PARTITION PLAT 1992.009 As found in Partition Book 1992, page 009, of records of Washington County, Oregon. RKere40 by IIIShAmerlcsn Tills Insurance Comyuisd wupl **limits of roads, streets or highways, 1oz T_- This property is free of lions and encumbrances, EXCEPT: The property described herein has been specially assassed as a single family residence wLthin s commercial zone under O.R.S. 308.670 through 308.685, Should the property become disqualified additional taxes will be levied for the years in which taxes were reduced. Statutory powers and assessments of Unified Sewerage Agency. The rights of the 't* public in and to that portion of the premises herein described lying within the THIS INSTRUMENT 1YIL.L NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN ~::aal VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAM USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITYOR COUNTYPLANMNG DEPARTMENTTO VERIFYAPPROVED USES. The true consideration for this conveyance is S 101.800.00 (tfemcamofywilh the emoolmmenu of OFLS9'3.03a) - Dated thisdday of 19 YraSMINGTDN COUNTY _'.•~"`-.'a A£AL . AQOPEAT2' 7AAMSF[rT TAX =.x;rve e'1 :~3 '1=TE PAID Q►TE Y Cr " VELYN GH, YARLS _:d W g 7 STATE OF ORE County of BE I7 REMEMBERED, Thai on rho day of r , J9, brfore mq the undt roe4 a Notary Publ4 in and fortaid Counry and Stare, personally appeared within named NEIYN H. EARLS known to me to be the iden6ca1fn&Ldual -described fn and who eaeculed the within butrument and aeMowledged to me Char SHE. ejrrcufed the samr freely and voluntarily. IN TESUMONY WIMEREOF, I have hr runto..rel my hand and afflred my o&tal tea! the day and year /art above written. s - .tea OFFICIALSEAL _ tRE(MYA.4'IRIG4T N ~yblicf-Oregonr NOTAnYFU2LIC-0R;00N L ON CAM7dlS7!0N NO.t0d719 Afy commit eon _ on tapln2r MY COMMISSION.E%PIRES APRIL 22, 1995 F= STATE OF OREGON County or Washington SS Tide Order Na 374931 Escrow No. 913186 THIS SPACE Rh end TaJxeamUarR 1 of Arder s assn t veyancae ( a 1 by certify that the flog was - Mrr rscording rotsun to: received dJ, ords of CTE NCRTHWEST.INC. said r%~'Gm~ 'ace 1800 41st et eE * ~J9trXi I of Ex- r ` Everett, W A98206 Name, Mdiess•2)Q y ' • r f L~ okwuHp ddgrvutod 911 tax auUrmnU shalt pr asnt 1, CDUI(S GTE 11Nr Doc : 92013232 verettF~ V& 9820fi Rect: 72276 135.0.0 Name. Address, 21p 03/02/1992 04:14:34PM r r .rsr ~ . r; ~".'.4du:~-.r• -tNSjli„? r 1,~~Lu]'!~+'~::~ ar~~P^WPte?• T•,';.~; ..._....._.,....,yr.4•-.,•':.,;~,,1 - - - - - h/aeas+tPlMM'^'P Transnate®n i TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY =METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Washington (OR) 1 1 1 1 11 1 Reference Parcel # Parcel Number Owner CoOwner Site Address 1fail Address Telephone OWNERSHIP INFORMATION 1S13.3CD 15100 R2057342 RTSQ: 01W-01S =33 -SW Carpenter Peggy A & Harold P 11577 SW Tallwood Dr Tigard 97223 11577 SW Talhvood Dr Tigard Or 97223 Owner: Tenant: SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred : 03/03/2003 Loan Amount Document n : 30535 Lender Sale Price : $243,200 Loan Type Deed Type Interest Rate Owned : 100 Vesting Type ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION MktLand ::$94,160 Exempt Amount :1lktStrucrure : $145,580 Exempt Type ,L(kt0lher % Improved .61 HktTotal : 5239,740 Levy Code :05185 03-04 Taxes :$3,085.67 School Dist PROPERTY DESCRIPTION :1•lap Grid ; 655 A3 Class Code : R14 Census : Tract: 319.05 Block: 1 NbrhdCd : N2 Hn AlillRare Sub%Plat : Pebblecreek No.3 Land Use : 1012 Res;lmproved Legal : PEBBLECREEK NO.3, LOT 41, ACRES .11 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms : 3 Lot Acres :.I] Year Built : 1997 Bathrooms : 3.00 Lot SgFr :4,791 Eff}'eorBlt ; 1997 Heat Method: Forced BsmFin SF Floor Cover : Carpet Pool BsmUnfrnSF : Foundation : Concrete Ftg Appliances BsmLowSF : Roof Shape ; Dishwasher Bldg SgFt :2:179 RoofMatl : Composition Hood Fan IstFh•SgFt : 1,286 Interionkfat : Drywall Deck UpperFISF :893 Paving Nlatl : Gravel Garage Type : Attached Porch SgFt Const Type : Wd Stud\shtg Garage SF : 546 Attic SgFt Ext Finish :250 Deck SgFt Thank you for using Transnation Title Insurance Customer Service: (503) 256-1163 Fax: (503) 254-6992 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, Bur Is Not Guaranteed. 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 • • '5 G 1~ t n.tt:gxc `Le After recording return to: Harold P. Carpenter 11577 SW Tallwood Drivc Tigard, OR 97223 Until a change is requested all lax statements shall be seat to the following address: Harold P..Caroenter 1.1577 SW Tallwood Drive Tigard, OR 97223 Escrow No. 03040248 Title No. 984611 THIS SPACE RED Washington County. Ornon 2003-030535 03703x2003 11:00:25 AM "W cn•1 6tetat$ OHORMAN $4,0036.00 $11.00 $244.011 • Tow b 1211+.00 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 00274026200300305350010017 I, Jerry Homan; Dlnddr d A#se*wara arW ToaotNn one [rLrtkla cowb aarw ror vJghlnQhin eau Hy, OnOan, do honey that the Noon Ynbunord N -OF4 waa M C111.1 W d roeordad Inpu book a nadNr of W d <ovYy. 1{ /Aw y.t Haman, Dam OM.,,,iTtF'W and TYWoR crorna. c.,.dy nrn WASHINGTON COUNTY AEJV PFOPF~i1Y TRANSFER TAX FEE PAID DATE STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED William R. Davis and Sarah E. Davis, as tenants by the entirety:, Grantor, conveys and warrants to Peggy A. Carpenter and Harold P. Carpenter: as tenants by the entirety, Grantee, the following described real property free of liens and encumbrances, except as specifically set forth herein: Lot 41, PEBBLECREEK NO, 3, in the City of Tigard, county of Washington and State of Oregon This property is free of liens and encumbrances, EXCEPT: Easements, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of record, if any. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY. OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30;930. The true consideration for this conveyance is $243,200.00 (Herr colnptywich dx rtyufrew luoroRs 91.o3o) Dated this tQ-?_ day of Fil r William R. Davis Sarah E. Davis STATE OF OREGON tt Counry.of Washington I ss. pQ This instrument was acknowledged before me on this --z day of Febr:.u , 2003 by William R. Davis and Sarah E. Davis Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires: 10/08/2003 0 dZ Q OFFICIAL SEAL U MARILEE COHEN f" Q NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 327357 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT. a, 2D03 L4. i 9 0 Transnation TRANSNATION Tyr u INSURANCE COMPANY =METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Washington (OR) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Reference Parcel 4 : 1S133CD 15200 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Parcel Number 82057343 RTSO: 01W-01S, -33 -SW ✓ Owner : Macdonald Fancily Living Trust CoOwner Site Address : 11563 SW Tallwood Dr Tigard 97223 ;Hail ;Address 11563 SW Tallivood Dr Tigard Or 97223 Telephone :Owner: Tenant: SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred 12/13/1999 Loan Amount Document 9 135546 Lender Sale Price Loan Type : Deed Type Interest Rate % Owned :100 Vesting Tvpe I ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Ivi-tLand :$94,160 ExemptAmount ,VAtStntcture :1117!190 Exempt Type ,'k1kt0ther % Improved : 55 :1fktTotol : $211,350 Levy Code :05185 03-04 Taxes : $2,682.39 School Dist PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid : 655 A3 Class Code Census : Tract: 319.05 Block: 1 AtbrhdCd : MNl-II., Mil/Rate Sub/Plat : Pebblecreek No.3 Land Use : 1012 Res,Improved Legal : PEBBLECREEK NO.3, LOT 42, ACRES .11 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms :2 Lot Acres Bathrooms :2.00 Lot SgFt Neat Method: Comb Htglcool BsmFin SF Pool Bsm UnftnSF Appliances BsniLowSF Dishwasher Bldg SgFt Hood Fan lstF1rS9Ft Deck Yes UpperFISF Garage Type: Attached Porch SgFt Garage SF : 469 Attic SgFt Deck SgFt :.11 Year Built : 1997 :4,791 EffYearBlt 1997 Floor Cover : Carpet Foundation : Concrete Ftg Roof Shape 1,453 Roof l/fatl : Composition 11453 InleriorMat : Drywall Paving Mad : Gravel Const Type : Wd Studlslitg Ext Finish :250 32 Thank you for using Transnation Title Insurance Customer Service: (503) 256-1163 Fax: (503) 254-6992 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Cniaranteed. STATE OF OREGON P~~rh ,U 1 1\1~ZkL• ,~at~t7~1a+~ County ot,Washinpton as I, Jerry r4qM, of Aaeeea- ~ ~ C merit Wn an o County Clork for ct tfq ruty, that 11 uv c~ b L~'~ the wit I (din ecelved Q ' and re rdsd:' 4t. oof said coun A✓d... iI p 'y o (rector of dlfdlwF3YPh' ei~alion, Ex- Do 99.135546 Rect.; 245284 36.00 ' 12/13/1999. 11:32:49am A"&10 QUITCLAIM DEED THIS QUITCLAIM DEED, Executed this day of (rot), by first party, Grantor; KE1J}1E.^CH MAcmt~4tx~ AWfl 3 E.. fY>ASC D~AI-n. 1~155'~4Nb gyp Vl11FE whose post office address is 115`e,;s D171vE, -11 CsLL$f j, at!r_C,OtJ, 9.1223 to second pasty, Grantee, "n4 L- t+r N,6%% r- -~aM1 Lse L -NV t 4~ " f t;el?S;T whose post office address is 1►SG3 S.~Yi TO,~.t~Y D>s YRtvE, '1tit pR~C: tj'(2Z3 WITNFSSET11, That the said rust parry, for good consideration and for the sum of ZieRO Dollars ($60C%j ) paid by the said second party, the receipt whereof is' hereby acknowledged, does hereby remise, release and quitclaim unto the said second party forever, all the right, title, interest and claim.which.the said first party has in and to the following described parcel of land, and improvements and appurtenances there- to in the County of VUAStiI*T~~l , State of OZBZsQN to wit: i 't~►F. P~'Ply CI`Y Dt'SCR143CD EVE , d.2 dF P~P~p . <3?>:EK 3 U'EVEtL~K>E,t~}T~ ~'-ti•~'CA 4's S t563 S.~Y1.T1~L1.-'~iJCr7T>b~1V~r "~t~tzrn, ostFCr~N, ~"iZ23 ~`TLl► GRANT~2~ 4LYJ 1N'T>,1T)'11WT ALLY C1a~ iT6MS INCLI9DE~ t ' N Scl•~DV4B ~TT4ca.isp rwn AP ~2T c>~ " 5~ kyt,G,Dt~NA.t_r~ F~►MtL`i L'Wt~`~~ST, L~A-t~ •D AKEt~ng~g ' T'[ r 1TcEt) IN T d W~sD, S1uu.L b Fat= A PkJ2'T cr- ~uusY AEIM (I pt • 4199 1 t 1 IJ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said first pwny has hl;ncd and t►ealed thcrc prehents the day and year first above written, Signed, sealed and delivered In presence of. Sigftature of Witness ~Ql Print name of Witness L tgn of Witness ,a,ow&45 A'~O_D Print name of Witness um or ,IN Party Print t►an►e ul' Flr%i Party Signature of iir►t }'any. Print name ul' First Party, State of (7 UZJ U County of W lvi►-+ L )z v C +1 yt i - 'S c-V V r i It On 12 / `7 i 1 9q q before me, G appeared Ker ,.r is c-_ )-et w. rt C o u N N ''7 VZ 7 l t: n w l= KA 6 C_ e w, Personally known to me (or proved, to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to he the person(s) whose name(.) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/sherthey citecuied the stwme In hltdher/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their-signature(s) on the in%-^•^•- ~h^ ~^c, t ro~~o~; v upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument, i OFFICIAL SEAL WITNESS my hand and official seat i O>ICAR F. E6C0/AR. NOTARY PUBLIC • OREt30N ~ COMMISSION NO. 0508GD ~ r MYCANMi!SSIONIXP1itES.W~ 31,7000 Signature of Notary Affrant Known-415P e116 Type of ID O c- Z I W6r 7 ✓ -1 Vj l r G 8 3~ (Seal) State of 0 Ytc (,z ^'r } 0 0<_ County of w lA S w- G v On I Z 1 -7 ) 1 '7 9 before me, OJ C 7; rZ r~ S w6 H appeared Lout *,S c: } . 4-cx, o n N 0 D 6U -4j ( ►^...1t,4'j c o personalty known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged tome that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the. instrument. WITNESS my band and official sea). On r Signature of Notary Affiant Known oduc Type of ID U 0C S( Z 3 Z Z (roc- 2 0 y Z 2 Ll (Seal) SCAR OFFICIAL SEAL NOTOARY UE3LICC08 RI COMMISSION NO. 650669 WY COX EX➢IRfS JAiI 31. x(10 Signature of Preparer Print Name of Preparer 1 1563 S.'W- -IC►1, -%WOJi> DIRt> 2Q'!L%'7n"C&EgXiN Address of Preparer Transnati®n 1 TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY =METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Washington (OR) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Reference Parcel 1 S 133CD 15300 Parcel Number : R2057344 RTSO: 01W-01S -33 -SW Owner ; Zenner Lance R ✓ CoOwner Site Address : 11541 SW Taihvood Dr Tigard 97223 ,hail .=Address : 11541 SW Tallwood Dr Tigard Or 97223 Telephone :Owner: Tenant: SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred : 06/25/1999 Lomr,9mount : $163,000 Document 77163 Lender : Washington Mutual Bank Sale Price Loan Type : Conventional Deed Type : Bargain & Sale Interest Rate : Fixed °o Owned 100 Vesting Type : Unmarried Person ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION 1lkrLand : $94,160 ExemptAmount . AdStructure : $133,270 Exempt Type Mki0ther % Improved : 59 1LIhtTotal ; $227.,430 Levy Code :05185 03-04 Taxes :$2,910.41 School Dist PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid : 655 A3 Class Code : R14 Census : Tract: 319.05 Block: 1 NbrhdCd MNI H ,VillRate SithlPlat : Pebblecreek No.3 Land Use 1.012 Res,Iinproved Legal : PEBBLECREEK NO.3, LOT 43, ACRES. 10 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms : 3 Lot Acres .10 Year Built : 1997 Bathrooms : 3.00 Lot SgFt : 4,356 EffYearBlt : 1997 Heat Method: Forced BsmFin SF Floor Cover : Carpet Pool BsmUnfinSF: Foundation : Concrete Ftg Appliances BsmLoivSF Roo Shape Dishwasher BldgSgFt : 1,870 RoofMatl : Composition Hood Fan /stFlrSgFt :954 InteriorMat : Drywall Deck UpperFlSF :916 Paving Matl : Gravel Garage Type : Attached Porch SgFt Const Type : Wd Studlshtg Garage SF :538 .4ttic SgF1 Ext Finish :250 Deck SgFt Thank you for using Transnation Title Insurance Customer Service: (503) 256-1163 Fax: (503) 254-6992 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But is ivot Guaranteed. 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 87..E Of ONkGON 68 ZWALKuAmr I- ~ 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 tD v~ z~ N F.4 Escrow Humbert 2295655 nAHUAIrt RLOVALZ PiEro. KKV " I= by ril1L9t.PWIPM, That RICHARD A. ZP.NHER, hereinafter called rrsntor, for the consideration hsrrin stated. does Mmby groat,.fiwptin cell aced etmak-ay uAta WOE R, ZENNE$, UNMARRIED INDIVIDUAL hersinaker called prantse, and unto QrAntee'e.heln, sm"aaora and usipns Al of that artaln reel property with the tsnemants, horsditamerRe and &NMenmosa eppartainN thsreto,.a9ualad In the County of WASHIHGTO21 awl of Qrepon, daeortbrrd as lowwat LOT 43, PBBBLBCREEK NO. 3, IN THP. CITY OF TIGARD, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON AND STATE GP OWWONI To Have and to Hold the soma unto the said grams and Drantse'a heirs, suoerraors and also% loravat The true and actual oonalderallon paid for this transfer, stated In tames of dollara, Is $NONE-- Data! th4 21st day of June, 1999 U'fhU iv a rw 9ran}or, ha rs+une - - fa alGrad by lte authorized of ors by authority of It is 60 o Zkoolawk- RICHARL) A. THIS tN9TRUMENT WILL HOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY OESCFURED IN THIS.INSTRUMENT.•IN VIOLATION. OF APPLICABLE'LANO USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCUPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON d0~'EZ ~Y 901lI IW O AX ACOUIRINO FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK ppel4¢'Ox NOIeeIRROO WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING m)D-M0OnWW AHvux DEPARTMENT TO VERIPY APPROVED USES AND TO H1.4eYJ1amml DETERMINE MY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FANWNO OR TtrI1 J.1YIDi~O FOREST PRAOTIOES AS DEFINED IN ORS 50,M STATE QFORE0,ONj County of HASHINGT09 STATE OF OREGON, County of Panan+lyrVpoarrd RIOl1GRA A. Psraro+lymppearmd ZENNSR who. belnp duly room, suh for blmaN and net we to to o0w, did say tot the fmrmar Is cra prn. A tact nw ldtmr U, rlw smeary of and mdmowlodp w ew lawpdnp wyso anddecd Vo"kuftm"Ibo vokmg 1999 No ubfb kx ay rribdon sxphm: r~a~:>'1 Y Ariaritlotrp ratum b: Mr. LANCE.ZEIDIER 11541 SW TALLWOOD DR. TIGAHD, OREGON 97223 wW ter WD ka wn wd was aipnrd on bohmtl of ew oorporsdon, by aut o ty d. ka boa i or dm axt mid to adu,ovrlgdpod to baits yokWwy w cell droll. 86ore me: Notry Pubeo tar Ompon. fay owmawton upires; Uno s dw>pr Is test w d W :n.-moat. shat be nnra rr bRowt~ np addML f Mr. LANCE ZENNER 11541 SW TALLWDOD DR. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 STATE OF OREGON, County of. I certify that the within Instru- ment w.as received for record on the day of ,f8 at o'clock M., and recorded h twoklmIfyolume No.- An papa of as feelflle Inetrumenit mioroflimrreoeption No. , Records of Deeds of cold county. Witness my hand and seal of County affixed. 1 I BY Deputy s Form No. 6044MVAer • Transnation TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY =METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Washington (OR) 1 1 OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Reference Parcel n ; 1S133CD 15400 Parcel .Number :R2057345 RTSO: 01W-01S -33 -SW ✓ Owner : Goodrich Dan L CoOwner Site.Address : 11539 SW Talhvood Dr Tigard 97223 Arlail Address : 11539 SW Tallwood Dr Tigard Or 97223 Telephone :Owner: Tenant: SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION 1 Transferred : 06/24/1997 Loan Amount :$184,000 Document # : 57747 Lender ; Washington Mutual Sale Price : $199,982 Loan Type : Conventional Deed T},pe : Warranty Interest Rate : Adjustable % Owned : 100 Vesting Type : Sole And Separ ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION lkiLand :$94.,160 ExemptAtnount ;11ktStructure :$140.350 Exempt Type AlkiOther % Improved : 60 MktTotal :$234,510 Levy Code :05185 03-04 Taxes :$3.011.33 School Dist PROPERTY DESCRIPTION .lap Grid : 655 A3 Class Code : R14 Census : Tract: 31.9.05 Block: 1 NbrhdCd : MNHL tlfil/Rate Sub.lPlat : Pebblecreek No.3 Land Use : 1012 Res,Improved Legal : PEBBLECREEK NO. 3, LOT 44, ACRES. 14 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms : 3 Lot Acres :.14 fear Built : 1997 Batlzrooins : 3.00 Lot SgFt : 6,098 Effl'earBlt : 1997 Heat Xlethod: Forced BsmFin SF Floor Cover : Carpet Pool Bstn UnftnSF : FOUndafion : Concrete Ftg Appliances BsmLowSF Roof Shape Dishwasher Bldg SgF1 :2,086 RoofMatl : Composition Hood Fan Js1FlrSgF1 : 1,126 InterionVot : Drywall Deck UpperFIW : 960 Paving Mail : Gravel Garage Type: Attached Porch SgFr : 106 Const Type : Wd Studlshtg Garage SF :424 .4ttic SgF1 Ext Finish : 250 Deck SgFt Thank you for using Transnation Title Insurance Customer Service: (503) 256-1163 Fax: (503)-254-6992 The Information Provided Is Deemed Rebobte. But Is Not Guaranteed. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OnGON TTI LE ,~q0 Inturaace Company M'bat Li mAtirq, Aettprn to: DAN T.. (X=Rlal 11539 SW Tallwood Drive Tigard, ON 97223 . lhtil a ctartge is regms- 6d, tats etat:errents ~y shall be faertt to the followlrq edcrtum: S" AS ALI W eLrwr m w&mwm (CntIaVTu trarship) I STATF. O` OP,F.(ION l 1 S5 = County of wnahlnotoll I- • 1. Jerry 11. Hanson, Olroew of Assess. = moot and Titxallnn and Fx•0tllcto County Clork for. sold couri1r, do heraby cattily that I IbotivllhlnlnauumennlwrllIngwaa rerefvod and rocorded In tinok of reunrdo of anlJ t county. , s ! Jerry R. Itonson Dlreclor of t Aseessmint andrfsxatlon, Ex- t Olllolo County Clerk Doc : .97057747 Rcct:: 188891 238.00 I 06/24/1997 03:04tOSptn i <'Al]oVH~SpOQB~i~sf4'Ved~1'o~~Elewi~16Yt6•Lbes RISK Dcaeloprent Cmpany dbe (beta Pacific Hanes tx"V" ad w xwtts to Dan L. Goodrich, a.Married man as his separate estato S the foll(lwittdescribed real in tho state of y pxnpcrty Orsorpn and county of Wsshinr3tYx1 N rrw of ertambrw)cw, 'exc!si as specifically set forth herein: Lot 44, mooo:diN to the duly filed plat of FXMZWU 1( NO. 3, in the City of T19ard, filed M&trh 5, 1996, in Plat Book 103, pages 3 through 6, inclusive, A3oards of tho 4o(o'ity of Plaehirtgton and State of Oxegon, WASHlNCTON COUNTY ,AE's AgOPfgIY TifANSfEq TAX Tax Acxx Ut]t N anber(o) : FEt PAID QITE This property In free of a'>art rarttzms, t'. 9XFr: 1. Tt1o subject prarrerty lies within the boundarles of the Unified swarage Agency atld is subject to t'ks levies and assoAarants thoroof. (Ckilt1rA ed) 1719 tzne Conaideration for this oortvoyartoe is $199,9012,00 7KS Y?$il PEI. P Wltd, NX U10W USE OF TILE PROPEM UESCtXMM IN T= n=104T1Y IN VXOIA- 7TI0N'CP APP aGUM.E LAND = WIM Ate ADGUTATIONS. Hu10ttL' BICNTNp tit Aaxpnxt Tk" JCkimw;- wm, 'I}I>r PERsoN ACQtlIIiINl7 m TTi47.E To m F90PgII'Y mm= a= wnH sin IIPPAOimT6 cm CR CMd Y nARM10 DM'AL XDM TO VMUPY APPFMW I IM AM 2V I1Eit ANY L EICM ON L - WM Ai5U21b`P FALlld M OR FCIF05L' PPACPICE9 AS, DEEM A IN ORS 30.930. Dated this. 24th day of JLM 1997. c~a Cb9to 'U "W "'t Ox►t roller STAW OF aIXW, WUMY OF WWflN7xN)ss, vv fmVg3lnq IrOW neat was adaXwledWa befo ne Ira this 24 th daY of MM, 1997, by David Oviet, so Cbnt mllor, of RAK Damlopmt ivrt'pau'ty dbe Ooata Psoifio H anae, on behalf of the op=tion. MY w"rmicta.ion L':xyiLcv: 'o► a VINC2 O0"%l'SS Dr ~'OREOON 'WY COrAyISSION F. kCU 'r0 04071 Ordar No.: 662565w rFa q,(ro0, raw y a A' oft t CRIVANCm (Cblltinnd) 51`ATV1CItX't4+lf~1iAN1"Y 3kF7) (Conti.) wed) Oxdar NM.: 662565.1 2. 0.xwwrta, ocrditU", rmtdotitm, eaearents on9/aal eetbedcs imltadinq the tmw, end pcwiaiom thereof, irrpoewI by ice, Deted I Martz 11, 1994 Neozcded i April 1, 1994 as Recorder's Iles No. 94031553 !aVomd by roolaratim of Mnexatim, Aroo¢ded r May 10, 1995 os A ccrder's Flee kb, 95002507 W4 Be. 6aciord doalmtim of Wexation of peal Prop", Fmcmded r Msrd, 5, 1996 as Pocnrler.'a Fee. N0. 96019442 Bb. Raid oevwonta, ccx,&ticm, reetclatloraa, aaaacmts.wW/car aetirdca cmtain, emcmp uUm thinpa, prrovial" for nValatiom mW geeaaammto of the Iabblooreek Ft~eowr~errn' 1lasoointicn. 3. ocnditiane, mmtriatia,e and/or eetmcks as disoloead by the rec=ded plat of PAC M. 3,. Aeoocded : March 6, 1996 in Plitt Bork 103 Papao 3-6 4. Fubl.io utila,ty cement as dedionted orr dalineated an the xnoarts9d plat of PEBBLBCF= 0. 3. Affecto r B.W feet in width alrxQ anch lot's and txnct's frontVa elorV any pjblin atreet z Adjoiner Deeds 1 r 1 1 1 i 1 I Transnation• ~ TRANSNATION T nx INSURANCE COMPANY =METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Washington (OR) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Reference Parcel ; : 1 S133CA 01200 Parcel Nuirrber :R0262575 RT.SO: 01W -015 -33 -SW 01V17er : Pfi Sunflower Limited Inc CoOwner Site Address : SW 135th Tigard ;11ai1 Address ; 6420 SW Macadam Ave 4100 Portland Or 97239 Telephone :Owner: Tenant: SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred :09/15/1989 Loan A Mount Document ;l :89G44052 Lender Sale Price :$2,963;869 Loan Type ; Deed Type Interest Rate ,°i Ownecl Vesting Type ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION MktLand : $976,000 LYenipt Amount AtStr-ucntre : $2,80070 Exempt Type rllk10ther % Improved :74 MktTotol : $3,780,070 Levy Code 05185 03-04 Taxes :$47,426.18 School Dist I t r PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid' Class Code Census : Tract: Block: h'brhdCd : X-3 AWlRate Sub.-Plat : Millard And Vanchuyver Land Use : 7813 *unknown Use Code* Legal : MILLARD AND VANCHUYVER TRACT, LOT PTS 33-34, ACRES 5.37 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms Lot.4cres :5.37 }`ear Built Bothrooms LotS9Ft :233,917 EffYearBli Heat kfethod: BsmFin SF Floor Cover Pool Bsni UnfinSF : Foundation Appliances BsmLowSF Roof Shape Dishlvosher Bldg SgFt Roof blatl Ho6d Fan 1stFlrSgFt InterionWat ; Deck UpperFI SF Paving Mall Garage Type : Porch ScIFt Const Type Garage SF Attic SgFt Exi Finish Deck SgF1 Thank you for using Transnation Title Insurance Customer Service: (503) 256-1163 Fax: (503) 254-6992 The Informorion Provided Is.Deemed Reliabla, But Is Nor Guaranteed. --ii ;n P _ t _'L4 2~ O V-~After.Recording Return to: - , ~r1w w _ 89-44G5~. I WmsNnp6w CWnq Robert A. Stout, P.C. Perkins Coie 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2500 Portland, Oregon 97204 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED Sunflower Associates II Limited Partnership, an Oregon Limited Partnership, Grantor, conveys, and specially warrants to PFI Sunflower Limited, Inc. an Oregon corporation, Grantee, the real property described in Exhibit A hereto; free of encumbrances. created or suffered by Grantor except au specifically set forth in Exhibit B hereto. The true consideration for this transfer is :$2,963,869,82, THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES. DATED this 15th day of September, 1989. 1 1 1 1 STATE OF Oregon ) ) ss COUNTY OF Multnomah ) Sunflower Associates II Limited Partnership., an Oregon 4mited Partnership By_ a' J. Gu Farlhin , its eneral Pa tner This in trument was acknowledged before me on September/, 1989, by J. Guy Farthing, as the general partner ~matf wer Associates II Limited Partnership, of an Oregon , J13 tUtj79;tnership. ..NINT A Y.-~ _ nG~ : ~In r~C~/ to y Publ' for !J :.d Ube E.~'- = ' commissi n. eapi 9 es: d 9 vr. Grantoi2 Sunflower Associates II Limited Partnership r1ASrifNCTON COUNTr A'!',1L OPQ'ir!' Tir • SlfR 7,~ Grantee: PFI Sunflower Limited, Inc. z17,~t 100'x'°' d~,n iFf VA~O MTE Unless a change is requested, all tax statements shall be sent to Grantee at the Eollowing.address: 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2800 Portland Oregon 97204 r- 2L Rs:_ rr iru'• E- Al:tn: Thoma3 J. Kemper 1 r r cvasres ~c;~era ~sr_-mac t~ p 7 CSt7~• ~c sa=te i arm: o a SS:! ' aI -M II :fin t Order No. 105698 W Legal Description Erhihit A Lagal Daacription - Phasa'11 A portion of Lots 33 and 34, according to the duly filed plat of MILLM3 AHD VAN SCHVYVER TRACTS, in tha City of Tigard, fiZod September 12, 1888 in Plat Hook 1, Page 65, Records of the County of Washington End State of Oregon, more particularly described at followa: Beginning at. the Southeast corner of Lot 34, MILLAAD 0-0 VA;1 SCHUYVER TRACTS, as shotmn on the recordod plat thordof, and running thence North 322.3 feet along the East linen of said Lot 34 to a point: thence North 89'32'36" ]tent 294.98 feet to the South line of S.W. Schools ferry Road (Count,] Rcad No. 812); thence continuing West to the center line of said County Road 812; thence Northeasterly along said center line 58.55 feet to a point; thence South 88'32136" East to the South line of County Road No. 812: thence continuing South 88632'36" East 253 feet to a point; thence North 89.69 foot, more or leas, to a point; thence South 45116' East 93.67 feet to a point; thence North 89'56'05" East 263.60 foot to the East line of Lot 33, MILLARD AND VAN SCHUYV£R TRACTS; thence South 396 feet to an iron pipe at the Southeast corner v; said Lot 33; thence South 89156105" ;test 329.84 foot to the point of beginning. Subject to the interest 'of Department of Transportation, State Highway Division, State of Oregon, created by inttrumont recorded February 13, 1989 as Recordar's Fee No. 89-06470. I~_x 1-~ >;r r r~ 1 1 l11 J i PJ r _VA U.1 ~e!rw EXHIBIT B Order No. ::06698 W .1. Taxer. or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the recordr, of any taxing. authority that levies teases or assear-wants on real Vroperty or by the public records; proceedings by a public agen-y which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such pro,;eedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by thi, public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the ~aublie records but. which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, or claims of easement or encumbrances, not shown by tha public records, reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof, water *rights, claims or title to water.. 4. Any lien, or right to a. lien, for taxes, workmen's compensation, services, labor, equipment rental or material. heretofore or hareafter furnished, imposed. by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose. 6. Taxes for the fiscal year 1989-90, a lien due,. but not yet payable, 7, city Liens, if any, of the City of Tigard. 8. Statutory powers and assessments of the Unified Sewerage Agency. 9. Regulations, including Levies, assessments, water and irrigation rights and easements for ditches and canals of Weir Trunk Sanitary Sewer improvement District. (No search has been made.).. 10. The tights of the public in and to that portion of the premises herein described lying. within the limits of Scholle Ferry Road. 11. A Reciprocal Easement Agreement for access purposes including the terms and provisions thereof between sunflower Associates Limited Partnership and West-Bell, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, recorded June 14, 1989 under Recorder's Fee No. 89-26890. Which easement contains a covenant to bear a share of cost of construction, maintenance or repair of same. L2. An easement and Maintenance Agreement. incl. udine the terms and provisions thereof between Sunflower Associates Limited Partnership and West-Bell Inc., recorded June 14; 1989 as tee No. 89-26891 or swimming pool. 13. A permanent easement and Maintenance, Agreement ircludincy the terms and provisions thereof between sunflower Aesociates Limited Partnership,.. and. West-Bell Inc, recorded June 14, 1989, under Recorder's Fee No. 89-26892, for telephone and cable television. 14. A permanent easement and Joint Maintenance Agreement including the terms and provisions thereof between Sunflower Associates LImi.ted Partnership and West-Sell; Inc.., recorded June 14,. 1986 under Recorder's Fee NO. 89-26693. 15.- A permanent easement and Joint Maintenance Agreement including the terms and provisions thereof between Sunflower Associatea Limited partnership and West-Bell Inc., recorded June 14, 1989 under Recorder's Fee No. 89-26894, for electrical power services. 16. A permanent easement and Joint Mainteniincs Agreement including the terms and proviAions thereof between sunflower Associaten Limited Partnership and West-Bell Inc. recorded June i4, 1989 under Recorder's Fee No. 89-26895, for natural gas lines. 17. An easement for signage purposes including the terms end provisions thereof between Sunflower Associates Limited Partnership and West-Bell Inc., are Oregon Corporation recorded June 14, 1989 y~~Vl ~r :i 1 e under Recorder's Fee No. 89-26896, for location of signals. c nS;~G":iI..-,~. riu"_'-: r+`.`•~~ ~`,yirirF~rifu:-~FSIn~ai i.]iTucr7c`: ru.,'ii.~.,v.: L_i:.`b'.''D2g";7"`a+o.'r" • t . • 1 ' . ' : ; i' t . [i { f:. p! 7 .1 li M... i 1. IIj i 1 11 1. :1.. r 1 1. Iln 1~, :I:1 1~ I I:j I.. I~~JL.._ I 1 !il I II i I 1. II i I. I I~ r i ' ! o ~ 1 x ' i ~ II •t. ~I~ , I)) i I : 1 1, 1! ~ 'I;~~ il•t ii . I ~ i~ ~~I 1 ,1 1 i ' Jii1 II W1,11: 1~ :1.., !~r 1.'sl C1 C% _ 0A - tJ 'j fi O 1 p• .f~ of ~ x 6X • ° F.1'~ N~~~ p~ N d u dddSSS i 0 o C3, ^Q/ V C-4 N N C O O s -i p Q 1n C. A P ° c g to yx .1 o um u >S q a O LZ:.. xClo to !I i % m a jf ~~s~hal ea~ad 1rrt ~ i I I` :n;?:.' -I ~1 r...1 . ,:;fir, ~ .,',~E.:t.,~, . 1`~.1~ j .~s ~ 1e 1~ . •:~i I ~ 'ir ~ ~ .f 1• :1 ••i i1~ Y'i 1 r~:1'I`:-, h.M%.i:.~t:l.~. .~1•' t•. ~ ..f' 1~.1.~:,1. . ..-ww , -wr ---wr ---w~ --+~w ---~r~w ~ -~ww ww _-w _ wow - ww rw~ - w. - i■w - ww ~iw w 'aw 1 Y Transnation• • TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Washington (OR) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Reference Parcel # : I S 133CA 02000 Parcel,.Yginber ` R2019473 RTSQ: 01W-01S -33 -SW Owner : Verizon Northwest Inc C'oOwner Site.Address *no Site Address* t,fail -Address : P.O Box 152206 Irving Ts 7)5013 Telephone :Owner: Tenant; SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred : 03/02/1992 Loan Amouni Document li : 13232 Lender Sale Price :110.1,800 Loan Tvpe Deed. Type Interest Rate % Owned 1%esting Tvpe ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION lktLand F_xempt Amount A'Iktstructure. Exempt Type AlktOther Improved AIkt.Total Levy Code :05185 03-04 Taxes School Dist ; PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ;tlap Grid. Class Code Ce,Tsus : Tract.: Block: ,VbrhdCd : X-3 Mil/Rate Sub,Tlot Land Use : 3993 Misc,Assessed By Dept Of Revenue Legal : PARTITION PLAT 1992-0091 LOT 1, ACRES 1.00, ASSESSED BY OREGON :.DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms Lot Acres : 1.00 Year Built ; Bathrooms Lot. SgFt : 43,360 EfJYearBlt Heot Method: BsmFin SF : Floor Cover Pool BsmUnftnW : Foundation Appliances BsmLowSF Roof Shape Dishwasher Bldg SgFt Roof IvIatl Hood Fan lstFlrSgFt InteriorMot Deck UpperFlSF Paving Mall Garage Tvpe : Porch Si1F1 Const Type Garage SF Attic SgFt Ext Finish Deck SgFi Thank you for using Transnation Title Insurance Customer Service: (503) 236-1163 Fax: (503) 254-6992 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, purls Not Guaranteed. i f' t 1 I ~f r~ 4 ! a ....__•__•~.:TYS..ZI:t.: i::.4l~1y~~ r••t rl/•11~`F' 'yLn,"C'~.r+u sn 'T 3 `«~S A H t'R f C~. t. e STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED 9,QP3232 EVELYN H YAALS Grantor, convoy3andwarranuto GTE NORTHWEST INCORPOR,ITED a Washinstton C2X2oJati2n Grantee, N following desulbed real property free of Ueru and encumbrances, except as spedlira0yset forth harelse Parcel 1 of PARTITION PLAT 1991.009 as found in Partition Book 1992, page 009, of records of. Washington County, Oregon. xetaala by Iirs; Amoilcan Tills Insurance Canto'[) 0 U, usw e*limita of roads, streets or highways. This property.is free of Liens erxltacumbtances, EXCEPT: The property, , described herein has been specially assassed as a single family residence within s commercial zone under O.R.S. 308.670 through 308.685. Should the property become disqualified additional taxes will be lavie4 for the years in which taxes wore reduced. Statutory powers and assessments of Unified Sewerage Agency. The rights of the public in and to rhat portion of the premises herein described lying within the THIS INSTRUMENT AVILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT; THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTYPLANNING DEPARTMENTTO VERIFY APPROVED USES. The true s:wulderalibn for thIj conveyance is 5 101 800 00 (Ilem comply with ihe=gal :menu of ORS 93.030) 19 ' ~ ` wtsNtNGroN COUNTY Dated this;. _f day Of • - REAL A40PERTY TRAhSiER TAX r,r ■ e y ll E Pp10 L1►TE E , = I'EVZLYN H. PRLS = wZ =sg STATE OF ORE } F, County Of tl. BE iT REMEMBERED, nat on rhlt~ day of r , 19 , 0101e mi, the un pe,.a Ke~ Pubtk in and farraid County and State, perranafly appeared wtMin named An _ ';tai known to me to be the idenikat indtyldual -described in and who 4ssscvted the within kwuumenf and acknowledged to nle that SHE execafed the sarna freely and volunlaMy. =4 1N TESTIMONY 40WEREOF,.1 bays hereunto set. my hand and affatrd my official teat the day and ytor /art above _ wntlen 7 OFFICIALSEAL SHErIR`y 1 47RIG4T lV n tapUer ,fit lkfo1019on. -OR NOTARYSIONN .CO419 h7yComm - I;OIA:.1lSl0 N NO. t W 719 ' - MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 22, 1995 STATE OF OREGON j ` County of WashInpton SS Tide Order No. 374931 "=i R of Aasetismer - Escrow No. 913186 Pus SPACE RI and.Tn I sderot Con Mar racardlnp roWm W. SaId o ~To= or GTE NORTHWEST INC. tot of 800 41st street 1 Ex- Everett, WA 28206 is 4 Name ,Addtaa,VP y r. r v UnW a than o l. radusated as lox alllomtnU shall be sent ! O to the loll. oddraa, t7y COUrtTi GTE NnkT}WEST INC. 18Q0 41st qtzept Doc 9 Everett. WA 98206 2013232 Noma, Address, Ilp Re ct : 72276 13 5.00 03/0211992 04:14:34PM 1• - , ;'\•,tl;iil, ~ SiLTiI .{r~l~, ~ yp rL . "1 mm. +.:ai•:-.-5~.•:..Y.1 , r . ~ 1~ r-~ av. A , . r f t `•:«.v.~..urr~~_... • 1 1 i 1 1 Transnation• • TRANsI,IATION TITLE. INSURANCE COMPANY =AIETROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Washington (OR) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Reference Parcel IS133CD 15100 Parcel Number : 82057342 RTSO. 01 W -O.1S -33 -SW Owner Carpenter Peggy A & Harold P Coowner .Site Address 11577 SW Tailwood Dr Tigard 97223 Wail Address : 11577 SW TallNvood Dr Tigard Or 97223 Telephone :0i0ier:. Tenant: SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION. Transferred 03/03/2003 Loon.Amount Document 4 : 30535 Lender : Sale Price :$24'),200 Loan Type Deed Type Interest Rate Owned :100 Vesting Type ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION A1I7ctLand : $94,160 Exempt Amount :11I7ctStruc•ture :$145,580 Exempt Type ,1lktUiher % Improved .61 AlktTota1 : $239.740 Leery Code : 05185 03-04 Taxes :$3,085.67 School Dist PROPERTY DESCRIPTION i 1 1 1 1-lap Crrid Census NbrhdCd Sub/Plat Land Use Legal 655 A3 Class Code : R14 Tract: 319.05 Block:l MNHL MillRate Pebblecreek No.3 1012 Res,Improved PEBBLECREEK NO.3, LOT 41, ACRES.11 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms : 3 Bathrooms 3.00 ffeat Method: Forced Pool ,9ppliances Dishwasher Hood Fan Deck Garage Type : Attached Garage SF : 546 Lot Acres .11 Lot SgFt . 4,791 BsnJFin SF : Bsm Un finSF : BSmLow'SF : Bkfg SgFt : 2,179 IstFlrSgFt 1;286 UpperFISF :893 Porch SgF1 Attic SgFt Deck SgFt Year Built : 1997 EffYearBlt 1997 Floor Cover : Carpet Foundation : Concrete Ftg Roof.Shape RoofMatl ' : Composition Interiortlat : Dry-,vall Paving Mall Gravel Const Type Wd Stud\shtg Ex•t Finish :250 Thank you for using Transnation Title Insurance Customer Service: (503) 256-1163 Fax: (503) 254-6992 The Inform,2tion Provided Is Deemed Reliable, &u Is Not Guaranteed. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 1 t 5 G 0 T O z a 11~.. C After recording return to: Harold P. Carpenter 11577 SW Tallwood Drive Tigard. OR 97223 Until a change, is requested all tax statements shall be sent to the following address: Harold P. Camenter 11577 SW Tallwood Drive Tigard, OR 97223 Escrow No. 03040248 Title No. 984611 • WoontrVionCou",,Oregon 2003-030535 03/0312003 11:00:25 AM 0-0w er%•1 ihto16 OHOFFMAN 55.00 $6.00 517.00 12%d.00.• TOW • 1280.00 'MIS SPACE flIII11111IIIIIIIIIII111111111111111111111111111 00274026200300305360010017 r, Arty Ntw.n, 01m t r.1A.....m.rd ad 7..Icwn and gavdtetd covey Q.N rorwh.Mnyt.n C-rdy. Cngon, do by dairy that lM Wnrdn th.oumord sr Meng wu ree.lyad .nd r..orda d in Mt boot et me drds of Wd cow". 11W_ ,yy~ J.ryRN.M.n. 01r1aY ....mant.nd T.aayon, SaCegdd Cwfny CI.A WASHINGTON COUNTY REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX $ ~ D0 3 3-63 FEE PAD DATE STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED William R. 'Davis and Sarah E. Davis, as ienanis by the en6reiy:, Grantor, conveys and warrants to Peggy A. Camentei and Harold P. Caipenrer,'as tenants by the entirety, Grantee, the following described real property free of liens. and encumbrances, except as, specifically set forth herein: Lot 41, PEBBLECREEK NO. 3, in the City of Tigard, county of Washington and State of Oregon. This property. is free of liens and encumbrances, EXCEPT: Easements, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.of record, if any. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL. NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE :LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH. THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARNirNG OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. The true consideration for this conveyance is $243.200.00 (Here tmnpty with the reVirernema oroas 93.0301 Dated this a7 day of Fel ( vo-r na~_, nn William R. Davis Sarah E. Davis STATE OF ORE ON t County of Washingon. 1 ss. This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of Febru , 2003 by William R. Davis and Sarah E. Davis OFFICIAL SEAL MARILEE COHEN NOTARY PUBLIC OREGON. COMMISSION NO. 327357 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT. 8, 2003 Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires: 10/08/2003 Transnation TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY =hIETROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Washingtort (OR) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Reference Parce! g lSl3KI) 15200 1 F 1 1 1 t t Parcel :Number R2057343 RTS0::01 W -01S -33 -SW Owner : Macdonald Fancily Living Trust CoOivner Site Address : 11563 SW Talhvood Dr Tigard 97223 Mail Address 11563. SW Tallwood Dr Tigard Or 97223, Telephone :Owner: Tenant: SALES AND LOAN. INFORMATION frirnsferred : 12/13/1999 Loan Amount Document 4 : 135546 Lender Sale Price. Loan Type Deed Tvpe Interest Rate % (honed :100 Vesting Tvpe ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION MktLand :$94,160 ExemptAmount A.lktStructure :$117,1.90 Exempt Tvpe 4lktUther orb Improved : 55 :14ktTotal :$211,350 Levy Code : 05185 03-04' Taxes : $2,682.39 School Dist PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid :655 A3 Class Code Census : Tract: 319.05 Block: 1. jtbrhdCd. : NNHL. -MillRate Sub/Plat : Pebblecreek No.3 Land Use : 1012 Res,Improved Legal : PEBBLECREEK. NO. 3, LOT 42, ACRES.11 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms 2 Lot Acres : A 1. Year Built : 1997 Bathrooms : 2.00 Lot SgFt :4,791 F_ffYearBlt : 1997 Neat Afethod : Comb Htglcool BsmFin SF : Floor Cover : Carpet Pool BsmUnflnSF: Foundation : Concrete Ftg Appliances BsniLowSF Roof Shape Dishwasher Bldg SgFt : 1,453 RoofjVfatl : Composition Hood Fan : lstFlrSgFt :.1,453 Inierioni.lat : Dr} vall Deck : Yes UpperFISF Paving rlfatl : Gravel Garage Type : Attached Porch SgFt Const Type : Wd Studlshtg Garage SF :469 Attic SgFt Ext Finish :250 Deck SgFt ; .32 Thank you for using Transnation Title Insurance Customer Service: (503) 256-1163 Fax; (503) 254-6992 The Information Provided Is Deemed Retiable..Bur Is Nol Guaranteed. C ~a r+ v 1 1 1 11 ~ 1 i STATE OF OREGON County of Washington SS I, Jerry ~p n~yrf,; of Aasaea- ment and, tJDn o County Clork for cx."W do rtity that the it laptr, 1001 Df. - ecelved and ra rtled. 't qoR of or;dCD( said county !rector de~rry R. Ito of dffaLiHy axatlon, Ex- Clerk Doc 99135546 Rect: 245284 36.00 12/13!1999 11:32:49am A29&JO R29&" QUITCLAIM DEED THIS QUITCLAIM DEED, Executed this. day of (rte), by first party, Grantor, KENt iE."SH MACtCWA .T> 4T3b 3&laf~1 E.. MACO~N~►-t7. KUS~.Np o•1.71ty y:11ft; whose post office address is % 15<v3 S.yU_ ZA1-~.`~tl~Pb pRtv~,-i tc tt~, Z~tz1;_T 22-:5 to second party, Grantee, -oAL- h tp1~A~~ ~pM11\' ~~v\1JCt SStI?S"~ whose post office address is 195(03S.Au 1&VtIVMCAT> MIVS"c, -ti;aREtto4 9"T223 WITNESSETH, That the said. first party, for good consideration and for the sum of. Dollars ($6=w ) paid by the said second zE1:2o party, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby remise, release and quitclaim unto the said second party forever, all the right; title, interest and claim which the said first-party has in and to the. following described parcel of land, and improvements and appurtenances there- to in the County of 1 1> '[Gty , State of CV-0:ZsGN to wii: 74F. V1Ut6Pg2NV prSCR1Pf~D 4 VE., 4.2 vr- G32~EK 3 DI"cV~.1r11°ME?~T~ L_L`~s1`T~•D A'[ 1 15(0.3 S.~Y[.'fA.L1r'WC~Tr~R1V~~ "F1~tz1D, oRFJbo~a, 9'(223 ~`SU GL;AAI'Ta1;S .4LSQ 1N'1 VS1JTj4-1-LC'C R>3Q tTEtt~S INCLIjOEI) IN S« tEDU 4E , ~4~TAC41>` D ANT> 1a, Pe>R-T C* 1%.LV .hMMf DONALp T-a,MtL`~ n~CEM$'~, Imo, T~t~t~g~ Q'1.1~i= DASD, S1if~,t_L- 6LW A P& oi+ ~ .c'~°'`'>r' N4cv~b 'taus? I l •r,~ AEHH (1) Ra•. 4N9 • 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 • • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said first party has hl,ncd and scaled these prcwts the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered In presence ol': Signature of Witness Print name of Witness C ign of Witness dC116c4s /I7 wGSC'7o7 Print name of Witness ynature ul I•Ir+t party S~ _ Z.U ~ >rArilt. ~111~~.D P o name of.Hro Party r 3lgnaturc of First F'rny , AIL P. 9M DO Print name of F:irnt auty State of r~ iZCGZJ V i County of W L 4 v On I? 1 C71 1 99 ci before me, 01 C •ri K I- b rt L- 5 appeared K ►.t hr G (-~1 (ti vt C to v y~ N a N ...l J e= Y1 w l_ (t.~ I\ L b i1 t) 7 personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to he the person(s) whose name(s) islare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowle.dgedto nit tha t hc/sh0they executed the same In hls/her/tlteir authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on. the insiglimen:_Ihmj Irt(•)- hr Lhr entity UPI' T behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument, ` OFFICIAL SEAL S WITNESS my hand and official seal.. i OSCAR F. ES "AI NI ARY PUBLIC • OREGON MISSI ONN0. 0508G9 MYM!SSIOHE)(PtRES,IAN 3t,?I100 Signature of Notary Affiant _Knownroduced1133 Type of ID a(- Z Y I ~CL T_ ✓ -4 0 2 7 to X 3 7 (seal) State of 6 Y4--- (~-v } U o L County of V., t/ S ► I G v On I ? 1 -7 J l r1 5: before me, UJ C 71 YC e. S w6 i appeared Lou I L ~ P3 A,.I O 1) U L, trLq ( Yh • 1'4,j 4 D personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) islare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged.to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Affiant Known oduc Type of ID U 0 G S' ( Z 3 Z 2 G io ? vi t{ Z ? Li (Seal) OFFICIAL SEAL OSCAR F ESCOBAR COMMISSIONING 05p8 9N MY 1011 MMION EXPIRES JAM 31, 20M 2'Tj ~ ~h~~ -~L7•~~ Signature of Preparer Print Name of Preparer 11563 70,- -WOOD DRIVE Address of Preparer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Transnation• • TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY =METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Washitz Tion (OR) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Reference Parcel # : 1S133CD 15300 Parcel ttiuntber : R2057344 RTSO; 01W-01S -33 -SW Owner : Zenner Lance R CoOwner Site .address : 11541 SW Talhdood Dr Tigard. 97223 jVnil Address : 11541 SW Talhvood:Dr Tigard Or 97223 Telephone :.Oiwrter: Tenani: - SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred :06/25/1999 Loan Amount $163,000 Document # :77163 Lender : Washington :Mutual Bank Sale Price Loan Type : Conventional Deed Type : Bargain. & Sale Interest Rate : Fixed % Owned 100 Nesting Type :.Unmarried Person ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION ilklLond : $94,160 E:-•einpt Amount Wkistructure : $133,270 Exempt Type LAktOther io Improved .59 h1k.tTotal :$227,430 Levy Code : 05185 03-04 Taxes i $2,910.41 School Dist PROPERTY DESCRIPTION t 1 .kyap Grid : 655 A3 Class Code : R14 Census : Tract: 319.05 Block: 1 1VbrhdCd . MNHL VL IlRote SublPlat : Pebblecreek No.3 Land Use : 1012 Res,Iinproved Legal : PEBBLECREEK NO. 3, LOT 43., ACRES A0 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms :3 Lot.4cres 10 Year Built 1997 Bathrooms : 3.00 Lot SgFt :4,3% EffYearNli : 1997 Heat alethod: Forced BsmFin SF Floor Cover : Carpet Pool : BsmUnfrnSF : Fotnadation Concrete Ftg Appliances Bsn1LowSF, : Roof Shape Dishwasher BldgSgFt : 1,870 RoofMdtl : Composition Hood Fan IstFlrSgF1 :"954 InieriorAlnt : Drywall Deck UpperRISF : 916 Paving Mail : Gravel Garage Type : Attached Porch SgFt Const Tvpe : Wd Stud\shtg Garage SF :538 .4ttic SgF1 Ext Finish ; 250 Deck SgFt Thank you for using Transnation Title Insurance Customer Service: (503) 256=1163 Fax: (503) 254-6992 The Information.Provided Is Deemed Reliable,. Rui Is Not Guaranteed. 1 1 p ~ r STATE Of DAMON County of Waihlnotan 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 tr7 9 0 Bacrou Numberf 7235655 BARGAIN AND SALT: DEED RMtAf AM hfo by UWE 1?tt65!!t!'S, That RICHARD A. ZRNNER, hereioatter called grantor, far the consideration herein stated. data hereby arant, ha min cell am euvey unto LANCE R. zwea, UNMARRIED INDIVIDUAL hsrsinshor otlied grsntsa, and onto pants i m halll, auoosaaora And asslgris all al thal oerlsin real properly whh the tensmenis, heroditamento and sppurtsnanoas acppattsining thereto, aliwdsd In the county of WASHINGTON ~ Sate of Oregon, tieaoribad u taifowsl LOT 43, PEDBLECREER NO.3, IN TIIF. CITY OF TIGARD,, OOIINTY OF WASHINGTON AND STATE OP OREGON, To Have tnd to Hold the, same unto the said grantee tnd grandee's hulas, su0c6110rs and uslgns Iorevar. The irua and actual ocnelderatlon paid for this hander, attled In taints of dollars, Is $NONE---- Datedthis 21st day of June, 1999 I n th11 w a ese granlor, its nairw - _ Is signed by he avibolited ofllows by sulhority of Ws 8or~rd o rfts - ~ RICHARI3 A. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPUCABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE ZOGZ'£Z MY 049Idx3 t101fl~1yt 0 AYI SIGHING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON Kai Le *ON NOISernft00 ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK Nppq Ig~AdYlON WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO KINM "M DETERMINE ANY OMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMINO OR lYB9 WC11:140 FOREST PRAOTIOES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30,140. STATE OF OREGON, OoWV of WASHINGTON STATE OF OREGON, County of PermanAN4)Paamd RIChW A. Pecsorwllyappovad ZENNER wW, being duly sworn, srah kr Mmarad and 'not me for to oew, did may twat the foratwr Is er Pros. i eaat the Issw Is the scenery of T C p~ E-I k ,-id sdmowbdgad the twogoliv Ratabhatty" 1 ba is voMfiwy sat and deed t0i° nfe' no ~J' 1999 41 J(1// I N. aabgo4Ong ay mledonespht ~?.A n,- Al w ttworrxv Mum to: I ♦woo 70 V. L'YOD 11541 SW TALLWOOD DR. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 mead dut iNs hstnx wrat was signed on bowl of dw oapamrlon, by suttw* of Ib board or dmoton awl is aduwwtalaad to bo b voWwy ad and dead. Setov ma: Notary PubYa for 0"- M/ oommlwfon wOmi: Una i le re" d Bx to -_t2tMWta shat be tans b to fosawina ad" I. Mr. LANCE teNNER 11541 SW TALLWDOD DR. TIGARD, DREGOV 97223 STATE OF WEGON. County of I certify that the within Insttu- ment was reeelved for record on the day of ,19 - , at o'clock _ M., artd raw ded In book/rQeyvolume No.._-_:,__-__._,_ ,r'.n page or as leafing Instrutnenv microllimlrsooptlon No. - Records of Deeds of said county. Witness my hand. and Baal of County allIxA TITLE. Nag 9Y- - - - - , t3eputy Fawn No. 41044 r oAsr Transnation TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY =METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Washington (OR) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Reference Parcel r : 1S133CD 15400 Parcel Aluiiber :,R2057345 RT30: 01W-01S -33 -SW Owner : Goodrich Dan L CoOwner Site Flddress : 11539 SW Tallwood Dr Tigard.97223 .Wail Address : 11539 SW Tallwood Dr Tigard Or 97223 Telephone :Oxnrer: Tenant: SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred . 06/24/1997 Loan Amount : $184,000 Document # :57747 Lender : Washington Mutual Sale Price : $199,982 Loan Type : Conventional Deed T}pe : Warranty Interest Rate : Adjustable Owned 100 Yesti.lq Type Sole And Separ ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION -1ktLand :$94J60 Exempt,lrrto:mt afktStructure .$1.40,350 'Exempt Tvpe rtfkK)ther %hnprgved 60 MktTotal : $234,510 Levy Code :05185 03-04 Taxes :$3;01 1.33 School Dist PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Alap Grid :655 A3 Class Code : R14 Census :Tract: 319.05 Black: 1 N'brhdCd M.NHL 41i1/Rate Sub''I'Iar ; Pebblecreek No.3 Land Use : 1012 Res,Iinproved Legal : PEBBLECREEK NO. 1, LOT 44; ACRES .14 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms : 3 Lot Acres :.14 Year Built : 1997 Bathrooms : 3.00 Lot. SgF1 : 6:098 EffYearBlt :1997 /-feat rllethod: Forced BsmPin SF Floor Cover : Carpet Pool Bs) UnfrnSF : Foundation : Concrete Ftg Appliances BsmLowSF Roof Shape Dishwasher Bldg SgFt : 2;086 Rool'Matl : Composition Hood Fan IsIF1n3gFi : 1,126 Interiorllllat : Drywall Deck UpperFISF : 960 Paving 11at1 : Gravel Garage Type: Attached Porch SgFt : 106 Const Type : Wd Stud\shtg Garage SF : 424 Attic SgFt Ext Finish : 250 Deck SgFt Thank you for using Transnation Title Insurance Customer Service: (503.) 256=1163 Fax: (503)254-699j The Inrormarion Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Mot Guaranteed. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N iOREC ON TrI LE Imumace Compsny Atbw hiilorJZdir:v, ReUrm to: rAN CX)MRIC11 11539 SW Tallaood Drive Tigard, ON 97223 thtil.a chargm,ie ragtJa~, tax etatm+errtb shell be son to the following addrtm: BANE AS A8C711B 8TA7Vr1W WAIT dom Mzo (Q=p=ti.avTu-tale Ship) t STATF Qr 0PF130N 1 County of ftahlnolon 1 SS • 1, Jerry 11, Honaou, Utrocfor of Aaseaa- moil and Tuxnlinn nod FX-O OO County Clork for sold county, do heroby rertlly that t Iha 1AhIn Inalfurnoni of wrllhrQ was received = nod rocorded In bnok of rsunrdo of onlJ t county. J t t Jerry R. Ifanaon Otrecfor 01. 1 Assessment andrtexattan, Ex- t Officio County Clark Doc : 97057747 Rcct: 188891 238,00 06/24!1997 03:04:05p1n 1 . ~1+owe.SQor~a•F~~e¢ti++i3d,for,Fea~t~erfa,l3ee~ .W+lC DE&*azp7mt CarV&V dbe Costa P'ooifie bares mmmys mild Wm%Vnts to Dan L. Goodrich, o Married ttan as hie separate estate the folluwirg des=ibed reel propmty in tho Stato of Qrajm and county of Washitngtrx free of erjmx&xmxoes, excefrt, as speoifiosliy set forth herein: hct 44, aoooadiN to the duly filed plat of PMZMMEX NO. 3, in the City of Ti7trd, filed h=ch 5, 1996, in Plat Book 103, Pastes 3 dxoucfh 6, inclusive, FQcords of tho Co1Jr ty of Washirr3t:on and State of C mWm, AFA( PROPFRlYC TAA ~ ER T.fA' ~ .00 ~O6 '2 ! 7 PAID' tYtTE Tax AC7C704II1t NllI11}PS(i* Vdis property is free of a r~, EKCrP 1. The subject pror, t lies within the boundaries of the Unified Segert a Agency end is subject to the levies and apoossrents thoroof. (C ontirured ) Tie true oxaldleratim far ails cotaDyarloe Is $199,902.00 Tt" XZfS' "".Vr WILL NOT ALUW USE OF miz PRDPEFf1•Y DES== IN RHOS 3?5'I]iI!ffi•Ti' IN v7cOtA- TICN Or A7PIaOUX8 XAM USZ IMI AND MUUTATICtr9.. BEFM BXGKM OR A{CMTI2i0 TW9 1- KFNP, IaM PM M AWJIFWG FEC TITI$ TO '1tI& PADPF7it'Y 6Ti7=, C3iII3(.wnx mm AApAOPR ATL am CJi OOUtVI'Y PfAtN M 117018nri R TO VMUFY APIFFMW LI S AM TO UUr M M ANY LD= CH LW- Wm AGAncv F7,MCM OR Fawr PRA CPIC ES AS IX07JXA 11f. CR9 30-930. Dated this 24th day of 3M , 1997, RAK. DevelopTiml; dba Cbetn Paoifi~.llcrvca---- - David _ C0 ttX*ol1EW CORttllSso, mo w/)ii MrCOrurrs8)an,lxcn7 ff E6JLkyco. thdEUC No. r fiG25G5W 2, t STATE C r Clot; COC1M OF W SKINNIO'C)GO, The fm-)BC g instnsnept was ct kxwledped bafom me this 24tliday of Jia, 1997, by David Oviet, as Controller, of RAIL Dev+alop rant Cb VWW dba Coa!•e Penifio Hole, on behalf of tho u=porotio7. p,C?~+~n ner,., . .M,Y C.urrrn~tra.icn I•:xyliw: jrt ~\\~JC,y /fO1N1 ~V01102 B j -iM~~ kN NC -t (Gultinaod) Order No.: 662565u r a w No 2. Govt rwytx, ax-Altlan, restrUtLcm, eaemaTts onl/cn' tot backs imluliM the tscsn end Vaviaions tty9rwf, iirpoee3 by.irtetxtcoertt, nnt*d i MarcA 11, 1994 tieoorl'ded t April 1, 1994 as Recorder's }lee Mo. 94031553 Irgr+ad by r*olzration of Anrwaticn, Reooatted t May 10,. 1995 " ' a Fee No, 95032507 N 9a. Savona doaL=ticn of A.rne"ticn. of Roca Property, Foam-dud : Muth b, 1996 as Aa=rdst' a Fee tb. 96019442 8b. Said con svmto, ccediti", zeetciokibr-Q, oe6irmta WO/or aattf~ c=tain, amg odox thirCe, p vvitttra for r-VXeticava and aeeesanents of the.rabtalsac'eeic ttsnew-exe' Aser oiati on. 3. Oonditicne, r'eWxicticm ers4/ar setbac v ae dieal.0 by .the xv=ded plat of P!'EL®QM Na. 3, Fmcor&ad : MO -ch 5, 1996 in Plat 6or3c 103 Paget 3-6 4. Pablio utt Uty eeasment as dedicated = & iJnatBd an the rn=e- d plat of PAC NO, 3. Affeoto : 8.00 feat iii width alrrg sock lot's and txvot's frontMe &Ijav any pahlio street. z 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • Vesting Deed Exceptions • I f d ~J 1 ~ t, rI I ,t ji ~I ~i '.1 t~ i 'i 1 ' d 'J ,J ....~.::~:..~e.~7y<r..r.~~c.~~,..,.n:.-i-a~:~`.•- - .,won T.cw.+r,. •-•.....w^.-~i:~ . ak 10 ?y1N STATUTORY 92076721 BARGAIN AND SALE DEED Waahingloa County r EvgLYN MA.E KARTS, Grantor, conve to, EVELYN M. KARLS, Trustee, or her successors in trust, under the KARLS LIVING TRUST, dated OKA tP'7 , 1992, and any amendments thereto, a revocable living trust, Grantee, the following real property situated in the County of Washington, State of Oregon, to wit: SEE EXHIBIT 'A' ATTACHED HERETO BY THIS REFERENCE AND INCORPORATED HEREIN: The true and actual consideration paid for this tlarlsfer,'Stated in terms of dollars,. is $0. The actual consideration consists, of or includes other property or value given or promised which is the. whole wnsideration: Dated this i _ day, of 0,%/%r • , 1992, T- (G TH13 INSMUMVfr PTL.NOr ALLOW USE OP THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THLS INSTRUMENT rN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE C - J - VELYN MAE KA1~S I,IND USE LAWS AND MUL.ATIONS, BEFORE SIGNING 00. v A.CCEFTWO THIS 94MV1AE47, THE PERSON 'ACQUGUNO FEE TnT.B To Tus PROPERTY sHOULD CHECK wrrH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNiNO DEPARTMENT TO VERJPY APPROVED USES. STATE OF OREGON, County of Multnomah ) ' This instrument was acknowledged before me on -O~7 , 1992, by EVELYN MAE KARLS. OFFICIAL SEAL Notary Public for Oregon (0 TNERlaAKRUTARD M NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON Y commission expires: COMMISSION NO.012191 AtY COMMISSION EXPIRES JAN. 21, IM BARGAIN AND SALE DEED GRANTOR NAME EVFr YN M xeur_c_ Trustee GRANTEE NAME 13900 SW Scholls FeIIy Road Tijard. QrEEBR_ 97223 GRANTEE'S ADDRESS, ZIP After recording return to: C' 1? It. EVET YN M AR c 13900 Sw Scholls Ferry Road Tigard. Ora oti 97225 NAME, ADDRESS, ZIP Until a change is requested, all tax statements shall be sent to the following address: NO CHANGE NAME, ADDRESS, ZIP SPACE ABOVE. FOR RECORDER'S USE m w<< .'Ill. l:_n..f•.,,1}. , : .p PARCEL I : 1 ."i ,y EXHIMT "A" Tract of land in the southerly portion of that certain tract of land as mentioned in deed book 138, page (213), and within the southerly portion of Lot 34, Millard and Van Schuyver Tract, as shown.on the duly recorded map and plat; Beginning at an iron rod on the east line of Tract 34, said rod being north 322.3 feet front file southeast corner of Lot 34, and running thence west 330.0 feet to a point in Scholls Ferry Road, and on the west line of tract 34; thence on the west line North 8.7 feet to a point on centerline of the road; thence on centerline, N. 321 53' E. 9.33 feet to a point; thence S. 870 02' 30" E. 35.73 feet to an iron pipe on the southeast roadway line; thence continuing S. 87° 02' 30." E. 290.63 feet. to the place of beginning. All of Lot 34 and all that part of Lot 35 lying and being situated South of the new Scholis Ferry Road, all in MILLARD and VAN SCHUYVER TRACT, and being the same property conveyed to Fred Schreeck by deeds recorded in Book 73, page 288, and Book 137, page 113, of the Deed Records of Washington County, Oregon, excepting therefrom the following: All that part of Lot 34 heretofore. conveyed by Fred Schreeck to Freda Louise Kahr and Michael Kahr, her husband, by deed recorded in Book 138, page 151, Deed. Records of Washington County, Oregon, and also excepting all that part of Lot 34 heretofore conveyed by Fred Schreeck 'o Emma Dralle and W.H. Dralle, her husband, by deed recorded in Book 138, page 213, of the Deed Records of Washington County, Oregon. STATE OF OREGON I SS county of Waaliingtoli I and Thal the viNtilO1 ~ & ling was r8a of derf'4(b?DM~d t a' ; ' „ dc . lecelved,r Said eCU• /•C;~,a%' J .•`%t 'Y ncY r. s El Naneohf OIImclor of J~ . i: i c try, Asaensira+rt' taxation. Ex- Of`It.o o011t'bj. Doc 92076721 Rect: 88033 38.00 10/29/1992 01:41:52PM iy:A~,y_1~~ :.T'JR~m~o¢mt""rrwvwniveo ~ 1 • :i V' w~~. l I I i• i 1. l 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Exhibit F Tree Assessment & Letters from Stephen Goetz of The Pacific Resources Group T H E P A C I F I C R E S O U R C E S G R O U P LAND MA NAGERS-URBAN FORESTERS -NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS 1 1 Mr. Lee Leighton, Principal Westlake Consultants, Inc. Pacific Corporate Center 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150 Tigard, Oregon 97224 October 4, 2004 Reference: Revised tree preservation recommendations for Gabriel Woods subdivision Dear Mr. Leighton, This is an addendum to my previous report dated May 25 of this year, for the project previously referred to as the Barrows Creek subdivision, located off Barrows Road south of Scholls Ferry Road. The site plan has been revised to a significant degree, to meet City of Tigard requirements. It appears that the plan changes eliminate the possibility of preserving most of the trees. 1 1 I t I have reviewed the site plan and visited the site. Only a few trees have any chance of being preserved. The trees with the best chance of survival include trees 146, 147, 149 and 117 located at the entrance to the site. Their preservation assumes that the grade changes for the street improvements along Barrows Road will not involve utility excavation or grade changes that results in severing the roots that these trees need to remain stable. For tree 117, a modification of the sidewalk alignment should be considered. In the southwest corner of the site there is the possibility that trees 349, 350, 351, and 352 might be preserved. Preserving one or more of these trees will depend on how the utilities and access drive to the nearest housing unit is configured. It is not possible to make a determination on these trees until the improvements have been staked, grading is finalized and it becomes clear how much root loss will occur. The decision to retain or remove these trees will have to wait until construction is underway. All the other trees on this site will have to be removed. In all cases, either their locations conflict with the proposed improvements, they will suffer significant root loss and will not be safe to leave standing or they will not survive the dramatic changes in grading and growing conditions that development will cause. Please refer to my earlier report for general recommendations on tree protection, maintenance and post construction care. I still recommend placement of tree protection fencing around these trees until a decision on their disposition is made. Since leaving these few trees hinges on how much of their root systems can be left undisturbed, I recommend leaving or grinding only the center of the stumps of trees within 10' to 15' of those being preserved, unless they directly conflict with proposed improvements. Excavation and grading near the property lines of this site will impact some trees just over the property line on adjacent property. For those adjacent trees that suffer significant root loss due to construction, a decision should be made during excavation to determine if these trees are safe to leave standing. This discussion should involve the adjacent property owner and a City of Tigard representative. Since trees 349, 350, 351, and 352 are growing along the edge of the property they may have incurred root loss when the adjacent housing was constructed. Before a decision is made on their preservation, contact with the adjacent property owners should be made to determine how much if any root loss occurred previously. 1331 SW BROADWAY SUITE 100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97201 (503) 222-4320 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON (425) 451-0620