The URL can be used to link to this page

Hearings Officer Packet - 05/22/2000CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER CITY OFTIGARD Community Oeve&pment MAY 22, 2000 - 7:00 PM Shaping ABetterCommunity AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 APPEAL OF AUTUMN GROVE SUBDIVISION - "URBAN SERVICE AREA" SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2000-00002 2.2 APX__F.AI OF PACIFIC CREST SUBDIVISION aND SUBMITTAL)- "URBAN SERVICE AREA" SUBDIVISION (SUB) 1999-00003 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 1999-00015, 00016, 00017 & 00018 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 1999-00004 On April 18, 200x, the Director issued a decision to approve, subject to conditions, a request for an 80-lot subdivision. On May 2, 2000, an appeal was filed stating that the decision was issued incorrectly because the applicant has not provided sufficient information to allow a complete review. The specific issues cited in the appeal as being inadequately addressed are: 18.430.020- Future Re-division, 18.775.070.C (1) and (3)-Sensitive Lands-Site Disturbances and appropriate siting, 18.790.030(6)-Tree Removal-Mitigation Plan and Hazardous Trees, 18.810.030.M-Grades and Curves-Grades in Excess of 15%, 18.810.100.D-Storm Drainage-Effect on Downstream Drainage, 18.810.020.A-Traffic Impacts, Storm Water Management Requirement, Erosion Control Plan Requirement, Bull Mountain Community Plan-Tree Issues, and Bull Mountain Community Plan-Natural Resources Plan. LOCATION: The 7 subject parcels are identified as WCTM 2S105DD, Tax lots 100, 201, 1900, 2000 and 2100; and WCTM 25 105DA, Tax Lots 400 and 500. The property is located west of the terminus of SW Mistletoe Drive and is directly adjacent (west) of the 100-foot Bonneville Power Administration right-of-way easement. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential, 7 Units Per Acre; R-7. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.430, 18.775, 18.790, 18.810 and the Bull Mountain Community Plan. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT cITY OF TIGARD HEARiNG'S OFFKER PAGE 2 OF 2 5/2212000 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA 0 0 AGENDA ITEM NO. "EXHIBIT A" PARTIES OF RECORD (Written Public Testimony received at the hearing) Depending on the num*of people wishing to testify, the f jard 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.: 2.2 DATE: MAY 22, 2000 FILE NAME: APPEAL OF PACIFIC CREST SUBDIVISION (2ND Submittal) "URBAN SERVICE AREA" CASE NOS.: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 1999-00003 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 1999-00004 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 1999-00015, 00016, 00017 & 00018 APPLICANT: Farmer's Land Trust APPLICANT'S REP.: Westlake Consultants, Inc Attn: John Rankin 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway 26715 SW Baker Road Suite 150 Sherwood, OR 97140 Tigard, OR 97224 OWNERS: Constantin and Adriana Costiuc OWNERS: Michael and Jeanne Davis PO Box 230943 PO Box 23144 Tigard, OR 91281 Tigard, OR 97281 Robert and Sarah Erickson Brian and Karen Pautz 1311 Aster lane 9685 SW Carriage Way 08 Cupertino, CA 95014 Beaverton, OR 470 ITEM ON APPEAL: On April 18, 2000, the Director issued a decision to approve, subject to conditions, a request for an 60-lot subdivision. On May 2, 2000, an appeal was filed stating that the decision was issued incorrectly because the applicant has not provided sufficient information to allow a complete review. The specific issues cited in the appeal as being inadequately addressed are: 18.430.020-Future Re-division, 18.775.070.[ (1) and (3)- Sensitive Lands-Site Disturbances and appropriate siting, 18.790.030M-Tree Removal-Mitigation Plan and Hazardous Trees, 18.810.030.M-Grades and Curves-Grades in Excess o 5%, 18.810.100.D-5torm Drainage- Effect on Downstream Drainage, 16.810.020.A-Traffic Impacts, Storm Water Management Requirement, Erosion Control Plan Requirement, Bull Mountain Community Plan-Tree Issues, and Bull Mountain Community Plan- Natural Resources Plan. LOCATION: The 7 subject parcels are identified as WCTM 2SI05DD, Tax Lots 100, 201, 1900, 2000 and 2100; and WCTM 2S105DA, ~ax Lots 400 and 500. The property is located west of the terminus of SW Mistletoe Drive and is directly adjacent (west) of the 100-foot Bonneville Power Administration right-of-way easement. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential, 7 Units Per Acre; R-7. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.430, 18.175, 18390, I B.810 and the Bull Mountain Community Plan. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR THE AGENDA ITEM INDICATED DIRECTLY ABOVE. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.2 (PAGEOF DATE:__MAY 22. 2000 PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE Proponent - (Speaking in Favor Opponent - (Speaking Against Name, Address, Zip Codej~d Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone N Cc L Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. - ' Na , Address, Zij~f ode and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 3299 "Sw <G 0 (L ?-Z-3 5070 44 sA4v Te Address Zip Code and Phone No. jy y 12o c~ ,,T Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. # ~iC~1ltD, D~ 9 rya 3 Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. ~-nn 5 ~-e v 13675 10 13s Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 'f l P Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. c w 66 Y ~ 136Z1 Sw CV-Pe/ts4, j ~-c a ion d Gz 223 am, Ad ss, Zip bode and Ph on e No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. k W ~ Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 0 0 CITY OF TIGARD HEARING'S OFFICER MAY 22, 2000 - 7:00 PM TOWN HALL TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OR 97223 Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item must sign-in on the appropriate sign-in sheets. PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Hearings Officer meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the meeting. Please call (503) 639-4171, Ext. 320 (voice) or (503) 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: 9 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. Please notify the City of Tigard of your need(s) by 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above if you are requesting such services. (OVER FOR HEARING AGENDA ITEM(S) CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE I OF 2 5/2212000 PUBUC HEARING AGENDA 0 "EXHIBIT C" WRITTEN TESTIMONY 0 (Applicant's materials and pertinent correspondence filed with Hearings Officer prior to Public Hearing.) City of Tigard Community Development Shaping ,4 Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Larry Epstein, Hearings Officer FROM: Julia Hajduk, Associate Planner V-1 DATE: May 12, 2000 SUBJECT: Appeal of Director's Decision to approve Pacific Crest Subdivision (SUB1999-00003) Background On April 18, 2000, the Director issued a decision to approve, subject to conditions, a request for an 80-lot subdivision. On May 2, 2000, an appeal was filed stating that the decision was issued incorrectly because the applicant has not provided sufficient information to allow a complete review. The specific issues cited in the appeal as being inadequately addressed are: 18.430.020 - Future Re-division, 18.775.070.C (1) and (3) - Sensitive Lands - Site Disturbances and Appropriate Siting, 18.790.030(8) - Tree Removal - Mitigation Plan and Hazardous Trees, 18.810.030.M - Grades and Curves - Grades in Excess of 15%, 18.810.100.D - Storm Drainage - Effect on Downstream Drainage, 18.810.020.A - Traffic Impacts, Storm Water Management Requirement, Erosion Control Plan Requirement, Bull Mountain Community Plan Tree Issues, and Bull Mountain Community Plan - Natural Resources Plan. Staff has asked the applicant to respond in detail to the issues on appeal, however, staff is responding briefly to issues that involve City policy and practice for clarification purposes. It is staff's understanding that the applicant and appellant will be asking for the Hearings Officer to open the public hearing on May 22, 2000 and continue the hearing to a date certain of June 12, 2000 for testimony. The applicant has waived the 120-day rule for 30 days to allow this continuance to occur. Staff may chose to submit an additional memorandum to the Hearings Officer if any testimony is submitted or presented prior to or at the first public hearing on May 22, 2000. 18.430.020 - Future Re-division: The appellants state that the City can not defer approval of the lot line adjustment on application. The applicant did not pay for the fifth lot line adjustment, however, it was clearly shown and addressed in the narrative. It was staffs interpretation that the payment was clearly an oversight and could easily be addressed by payment of the required fee. There was no question of the applicant's ability to meet this condition. STAFF REPORT RE: APPEAL OF SUB1999-000031PACIFIC CREST SUBDIVISION PAGE 1 OF 4 5/2212000 HEARINGS OFFICER PUBLIC HEARING 0 0 18.775.070.C (1) & (3) - Sensitive Lands - Site Disturbances & Appropriate Siting: This standard has consistently been interpreted to mean that the site disturbances can not exceed that necessary to make the desired improvements. Staff stated the applicant's likely reasons for wanting to develop the number of lots that they did, but we do not traditionally question the number of lots- proposed as long as the density, lot size and other dimensional standards are met. We then simply require the applicant to insure that the site disturbances are the minimum needed to do the site work. 18.790.030(B) - Tree Removal - Mitigation Plan and Hazardous Trees: The City code permits the removal of a hazard tree at any time without permit. Because of this, it has 'been policy to exclude trees that are considered hazardous from the required mitigation. It would be inconsistent and unfair to require the applicant to mitigate for trees that they could remove with or without the proposed development. 18.810.030.M - Grades and Curves - Grades in Excess of 15%: In using the word "possible", staff meant that the applicant could realistically meet the standard. Staff would not state that the applicant could meet the standard if there was a minimal chance of actually doing this. In summary, Staff does find that it is feasible for the applicant to meet the standard. 18.810.100.D -Storm Drainage -Effect on Downstream Drainage: Staff stated in the report that when the Hillshire Creek Estates #4 (HCE4) development was approved, an analysis was reviewed and approved by USA that showed that detention was not necessary for HCE4. Staff also pointed out that the analysis included the runoff that would be created by development of this site. The developer of HCE4 was required to consider full development of the uphill lands, which includes this site. Therefore, if USA already found that detention was not needed for the HCE4 development, and since that decision was based upon full development of this site, then if follows that detention of the storm water in this site is not needed. However, staff went an extra step by noting that if this site is annexed, the City will review the storm drainage design and will go ahead and require the applicant to perform another downstream analysis for our review. Staff recommended this condition, not so much because it is required, but because staff believed it would be a good idea based upon the fact that conditions can change over time and storm drainage calculations are not considered an absolute science. Staff desires to double check the impact from this development just to make sure the assumptions made in the HCE4 analysis are still correct. 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 City Engineer shall withhold approval of the development. The key here is that staff does NOT anticipate a problem due to this development, based upon the findings already reviewed and approved by USA for the HCE4 development. Therefore, the Director and City Engineer are not required to withhold approval in this case. STAFF REPORT RE: APPEAL OF SUB1999-00003/PACIFIC CREST SUBDIVISION PAGE 2 OF 4 512212000 HEARINGS OFFICER PUBLIC HEARING 0 18.810.020.A - Traffic Impacts: 0 Ascension Drive The decision does not say that the current traffic volumes on SW Ascension, Drive are over 500 vehicles per day. It states that Lancaster Engineering's assumptions were that the existing volumes were approximately 515 vehicles per day. Staff actually points out that the measured volume on SW Ascension Drive was 473 vehicles per day. Therefore, the applicant's estimates were reasonably accurate, but exceeded the actual volume. Staff would agree with the appellant, regarding whether or not the capacity of SW Ascension Drive should be held to 500 vehicles per day, if this applicant were constructing SW Ascension Drive with this project. If that were the case, staff would apply the current standard. Again, this roadway was constructed to serve as a residential sub-collector, which meets the Comprehensive Plan. The appellant states that staff incorrectly used factors from the 6th Edition ITE Manual to estimate the number of trips that would have been generated by the Hillshire Woods development. Staff used the factor of 9.57 vehicle trips per day to estimate the Hillshire Woods trips. The appellant is correct in that the 6t" Edition manual was not published until 1997, but the differences are insignificant. In 1995, when Hillshire Woods was approved, the 5tr' Edition ITE Manual was in place. The estimated trips per day for a single-family residential use was 9.55 vehicle trips per day, which would have yielded an estimated volume of 688 daily trips, versus 689 daily trips. Benchview Terrace/Bull Mountain Road Regarding the dispute raised by Mr. Bernstein's traffic report, staff will defer to the applicant to defend their report. Storm Water Management Requirement: The applicant is not free to construct the swales unless they can demonstrate to the City that they can be constructed realistically without causing problems downstream and that they meet USA standards. Erosion Control Plan Requirement: An erosion control plan is not required to be submitted with the land use application. It is required as a part of the construction plan review. Bull Mountain Community Plan - Tree Issues: The Urban Planning Agreement found the City's Code consistent with the County standards. The City Code requires only mitigation of trees over 12 inches in caliper. Because the City does not have implementation tools within the Code for review of tree retention other than that in the Tree Removal section of the development code, ,staff used this section of the development code for review of this Bull Mountain Community Plan standard. The County adopted the City's development code for implementation purposes by their Ordinance No. 487. STAFF REPORT RE: APPEAL OF SUB1999-000031PACIFIC CREST SUBDIVISION PAGE 3 OF 4 5/2212000 HEARINGS OFFICER PUBLIC HEARING Bull Mountain Community Plan - Natural Resources Plan: As conditioned, the applicant will be required to provide a wildlife habitat assessment and mitigate for disturbances accordingly. Staff has operated under the premise that if provisions of the Washington County Plan do not have implementation standards in the City Code, a condition must be imposed in-lieu of denial. Staff contacted Washington County to discuss how the wildlife habitat areas can be protected or mitigated. Washington County staff indicated that the key concern was wildlife travel routes which could be protected via open space tracts and easements. Mitigation is also possible to increase the vitality of a habitat area. After talking with staff members at Washington County, staff is very comfortable that the applicant can adequately protect wildlife on the site. Recommendation It is recommended that the Hearings Officer deny the appeal finding that, as conditioned, the applicant has, in fact, met all of the applicable standards. Further, staff recommends that the Hearings Officer find that all of the items conditioned are possible, feasible and can be met. EXHIBITS "A" - Notice of Appeal Includes 2 Exhibits (Decision and Traffic Study Analysis by Robert Bernstein) "B" - Request for Continuance of Hearing & 30-Day Extension of 920-Day Rule "C" - Application Materials iAcurplnljuliMPacific Crest appeal.doc STAFF REPORT RE: APPEAL OF SUB1999-000031PACIFIC CREST SUBDIVISION PAGE 4 OF 4 5122/2000 HEARINGS OFFICER PUBLIC HEARING • 7L=HIBITA BEFORE THE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON In the matter of the application for the } Pacific Crest Subdivision, SUB 1999- ) 00003; application for Sensitive Lands ) Review SLR 1999-00004; Lot Line } Adjustment, MIS 1999-00015 through ) 1999-000018. ) Decided April 18, 2000 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF VALERIE RAMASWAIVIY AND SHARON BEATTY Valerie Ramaswamy and Sharon Beatty (the "Appellants") hereby appeal the City of Tigard's (the "City") above referenced land use decision regarding the Pacific Crest Subdivision. I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the hearings officer on the appeal of the City of Tigard's Community Development Director's (the "Director") decision approving the subdivision, Sensitive Lands Review and Lot Line Adjustments referenced above. Appellants Valerie Ramaswamy and Sharon Beatty were participants in the proceeding before the Director and submitted written testimony. In addition, appellant Sharon Beatty was mailed written notice-of a pending Type II administrative decision. Appellants incorporate by reference all materials submitted below and all materials submitted by other opponents to this application. Applicants applied for three separate approvals; a lot line adjustment, a sensitive lands review and a subdivision approval. Those applications were combined in one proceeding and approved in one decision and that is the decision being appealed here. The property is within the City's Urban Service Area, but outside the City's boundary. The City's Development Code ("TDC") was adopted by Washington County•in this area and Washington County and the City entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement for the City to review all applications for development in this area. The property is 189 acres and has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium Density Residential, R-7 and is zoned R-7. The property is also within area covered by Washington County's Buil Mountain Community Plan. The land slopes to the north with a significant amount of the land in excess of 25%. Accordingly, the application is subject to a sensitive lands review under TCD 18.775. In addition, the County preserved the Bull Mountain Community Plan text, resource overlay areas and Goal 5 resources; therefore, the substantive standards in the Washington Cotmty Code are applicable to these issues, in particular, Washington County Code sections 421 and 422 are applicable, as are the summit and slopes subareas, including Areas of Special Concern 2 and DISIricI B. A:I 1 12 1 21041W I%Wk hL\u~ie-r nl ,11.prnl,l.re v.Aue V ~-_vI Ax i The City of Tigard issued a decision in this matter on April 18, 2000, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A, and this appeal is from that decision. II. ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL The overriding concern raised by the appellants to this decision is the City's failure to require the submittal of all information required by the Tigard Development Code and the failure of the City to thoroughly preview the material that was submitted. The Applicant is required to submit certain material to allow the City to perform its job in reviewing the application for compliance with the TDC. By failing to submit the required information, the City is unable to adequately review development plans and is placed in the difficult position of reviewing an application with insufficient information from which to make its decision. As LUBA has held, a local government may not defer a determination of compliance with a mandatory approval criterion based on the expectation that more detailed information may be developed in the future to demonstrate compliance with the standard. Foland v. Jackson Coun , 18 Or LUBA 731 (1990). When conducting a multi-stage approval process, such as subdivision, a local government is "required to assure that discretionary determinations concerning compliance with approval criteria occur during a stage where the statutory notice and public requirements are observed." Salo v. City of Oregon City, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 98-,173, decided July 14, 1999). The problem identified above is pervasive throughout the decision and will be referred to as necessary. A. 18.430.020 - Future Re-Division This provision of the TDC requires that the "lots be of such size and shape as to facilitate future re-division." In order to meet this criterion, the applicant is required to perform several lot line adjustments. However, the decision specifically notes that it "can not find that all 5 requested lot line adjustments are met." The reason the lot line adjustments cannot be met is because the applicant has not applied for or otherwise taken the necessary steps to have the adjustment accomplished. As discussed above, the City cannot defer compliance with this mandatory approval criterion expecting that more detailed information, in the form of an application for a lot line adjustment, will be made. Until that application is filed, neither the City, nor anybody else knows if the lots will be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Code. B. 17.775'.070(C)(1) -Sensitive Lands - Site Disturbances TDC 18.775.070(C)(1) requires a finding that "the extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use." The City's finding notes that the grading is necessary to provide a second access and then states that "while the applicant is proposing the maximum number of lots, staff has determined that, duc to the expense of constructing this additional access given the grading and slope issues, it is logical that the maximUnl numhcr of lots is necessary to make this siihdivision financially ::1-1 1 2 1 2111110 0 1\1t'I~I~UVoI:~e ut r~lipiul i.i.•~'.~l a~' I'a..• I of 8 ,a W feasible." 'The finding also relies on the geotechnical report as indicating that "disturbances related to road and house construction will be safe." As an initial matter, the standard does not allow for consideration of financial impact in determining whether the standard has been met. It simply requires the grading be no more than "that required for the use." Whether it costs significantly more, or significantly less, should not affect what amount of grading is the minimum necessary for the use. In any event, the finding does not address the criterion. 18.775.070.C.1 requires that the analysis focus on the extent and nature of the "land form alteration" and whether that is more than should be required for the use proposed. Accordingly, the finding adopted fails to demonstrate that the proposed development will not create site disturbances greater than that required for the use. See Salo v. Ci of Ore on Ci , slip op., p. 11-12 (remanding finding that failed to address whether the development created `unnecessary disturbance of natural topography.") Moreover, although the finding relies on the geotechnical report, the geotechnical report specifically states that the geotechnical engineers were not provided with a grading plan to review. It is difficult to accept the City's assertion that it found the land disturbances will be safe and the minimum necessary for the use by relying on a geotechnical report that did not review the grading plan. C. 17.775.070(C)(3) Sensitive Lands - Appropriate Siting TDC 18.775.070(C)(3) requires a finding that "the structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper drainage of foundations." The finding regarding this criterion states that "the construction of individual homes will require a site specific geotechnical report and will be reviewed thoroughly for compliance with this standard at that time." This finding does not find compliance with the standard, nor does it even find that it is feasible to comply. Instead it wholly abdicates any responsibility to determine whether this criteria is met, or capable of being met, until some future date at a time when no statutory notice or public requirements are observed. Under Salo, this finding is clearly inadequate. D. 18.790.030(B) - Tree Removal - Mitigation. Plan & Hazardous Trees. TDC 18.790.030 requires that an applicant for subdivision submit a tree plan. Under subsection (B), the applicant must mitigate a certain percentage of the removed trees based upon the number of trees retained. In addition, the tree plan must indicate mitigation measures and show compliance with 18.790.030(D). The tree plan must also show that, wherever possible, protection has been chosen over removal. Finally, in mitigation, any newly planted tree must be a "substantially similar tree." As an initial maticr, the City's calculation of the percentage of trees retained is flawed. It indicates that IIic site contains 408 U-ees over 12 inches. Of those 408 trees, 107 are considered h:41I l I,ulIU1„~1CIh h1il atirr al Appra~,..,~, dui~ 1'n-~ i of 8 hazardous, 127 will be removed and 174 will be retained. Therefore, the Cityconcludes that the applicant is retaining over 50% of the non-hazardous trees. However, the code requires that the retention calculation be performed based on the number of "existing trees," not non-hazardous trees. Using the.correct calculations, the applicant is proposing to retain only 42% of the "existing" trees on site and should be required to mitigate two-thirds of the trees, not one-half. Moreover, as documented in several written submissions to the City, trees were cut on the property for several days shortly before the Applicant met with the residents of the neighborhood. The Applicant has never accounted for those trees or provided a tree removal permit that would allow the activity. The trees that were cut as a part of the preparation for this subdivision should be included in the base number of trees for which mitigation is figured. Finally, as documented in the staff report, the applicant has submitted a tree plan, but no tree mitigation plan has been prepared. Without submission of the detailed mitigation plan, the City has no ability to determine whether the proposed mitigation will comply with the guidelines for replacement under TDC 18.790.060.D. In particular, mitigation must comply with TDC 18.790.060.D.2, which requires replacement trees to be of a "substantially similar species." Without the, mitigation plan, there can be no finding that this criterion is met. Moreover, no condition of approval requires that this criterion be met. Under these circumstances, the finding of compliance with the requirements of the tree removal portion of the TDC must be rejected. In addition, the TDC is not the only source of regulation of tree removal. As discussed below, the development is also subject to the tree removal standards of the Bull Mountain Community Plan. E. 18.810.030.M - Grades and Curves - Grade in Excess of 15% Under TDC 18.810.030.M, streets generally cannot exceed a grade of 12%. An exception is available for local or residential streets to allow for a grade to exceed 12%, but only so long as it is for a distance of less than 250 feet and at no place does it exceed 15%. As discussed in the notice of decision, the northerly extension of Street B contains a 750- foot section of street that has a grade of 14.5%. The decision recognizes that this portion of the street does not meet city standards. However, the City approved the application because of a preliminary plan submitted on April 4, 2000, which indicated that "it is possible" to meet the standard. This finding is improper because it does not find either compliance or feasibility of compliance. Clearly, the plan as submitted does not comply. The City approved the application not because it found it "feasible" to comply, but because it found that it is "possible" to comply. However, "feasibility" and "possibility" are not the same thing. "Feasible" is defined as "logical; likely"; however, "possible" is defined as "capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances." An example may help illustrate the difference between something that is possible and something that is feasible. If I buy a lottery ticket, it is possible that I will vin $1,000,000; however, it is not very feasible. Tlic same 6, 14 12 Il•(oil IP(II N'1~ h\.V m for u l A,,1-17,.. c.1 distinction applies here and the City's finding does not demonstrate either compliance or feasibility of compliance. F. 18.810.100.D- Storm Drainage -Effect on Downstream Drainage TDC 18.8 10. 100.1) requires that the City Engineer examine the effect of a development on downstream drainage and consider whether it will overload existing drainage -facilities. However, in this case, the City Engineer deferred any examination of storm drainage analysis until final construction plans are submitted. Instead, the City Engineer relied on the fact that Hillshire Estates 44 did not require storm drainage facilities to conclude that this development probably will not either. However, this deferral is not permissible; although the City Engineer has significant discretion in determining whether a downstream facility will be overloaded, that discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The City Engineer must rely on some evidence and an examination of some other development is not sufficient to allow the City Engineer to exercise discretion. G. 18.810.020.A - Traffic Impacts This section requires that "no development occur unless the public facilities related to development comply with the public facility requirements in this section." Both Ascension Drive and the Benchview Terr.Bull Mountain Rd. intersection are public facilities related to this site and the development will put both facilities out of compliance with respective requirements. I . Traffic Capacity of Ascension Drive As the decision notes, the current traffic volumes on Ascension Drive exceed the 500 vehicles per day (vpd) standard established in TDC Table 18.810.1. The proposed subdivision will increase the amount of traffic on this residential access street by over 200 vpd; far in excess of the maximum capacity as set forth in Table 18.810.1. As an initial matter, as suggested in the report prepared by Robert Bernstein, attached to this Notice of Appeal as Exhibit `B', the vpd estimates by the applicant are far too low. The Applicant's Traffic Impact study fails to account for homes on Ascension Drive north of the count location, topography, the specific locations of the homes in the new subdivision and the severity of congestion on Bull Mountain Road and Highway 99. Therefore, the Applicant's Traffic Impact Study significantly underestimates the amount of traffic that will use Ascension Drive. Even using the Applicant's deficient Traffic Impact Study, the decision itself acknowledges that the estimated traffic exceeds the maximum capacity of Ascension Drive. The decision attempts to discount the importance of this fact in several ways. None of those arguments overcome the simple fact that Ascension Drive, and the residents along Ascension Drive, would be forced to deal with traffic volume far in excess of City standards. The decision first suggests that Ascension Drive should be allowed to exceed City standards baSCd Oil what was "intended" when Ascension drive \vas constructed. Regardless of KA417111OMPO1111' K KVN,n.i- 0 Alq-1 what was intended when Ascension drive was built, the current standard is what must be applied now. ORS 227.178(3). Under that standard, the traffic volume far exceeds the maximum amount allowed on the residential access street. Next, the decision points to trip generation information from the 6`h Edition of the ITE Manual to suggest that the estimated traffic volumes would exceed the vpd limit established in Table 18.814.1. However, the 6 b edition was not published until 1997, well after_ Ascension Drive was approved and constructed. 2. Benchview Terrace/Bull Mountain Road Intersection The decision suggests that the intersection referenced above currently operates at "'an acceptable LOS (D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours." However, as demonstrated by the attached report of Robert Bernstein, P.E., the existing traffic volumes result in an average delay of 57 seconds and an unacceptable LOS (`F') for left turns from Benchview Terrace onto Bull Mountain Road. Using the Applicant's trip generation estimates results in an increase to 81 seconds; far beyond any acceptable LOS. For each of these reasons, the increased traffic on Ascension Drive and the unacceptable LOS at the Benchview Terr.Bull Mountain intersection, the public facilities related to the proposed development fail to comply with public facility requirements. H. Storm Water Management Requirement. The Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) has adopted Surface Water Management regulations that the City of Tigard has agreed to enforce. Those regulations require construction of on-site water quality facilities of appropriate size and design. The conditions of approval in the decision provide the applicant with two options to meet that requirement: create swales that meet the City's approval or pay a fee in lieu. Once again, this condition is not a finding of compliance or a finding of feasibility of compliance. Although applicant may opt to pay the fee in lieu, the applicant may also opt to construct swales. However, the City has expressed grave doubts about the feasibility of the swale and its ability to maintain the swale. Accordingly, it has required the applicant to propose an alternative design. The applicant is free to choose to construct the swales and, if so, the design of those swales will never be subject to statutory notice or public requirements. The results of this are particularly egregious given the likely result of an inability of the City to maintain the swales; the homeowners below the swale would have to contend with the results of a failing water quality Swale. In addition, the water quality swales would also likely affect the wildlife habitat area directly below that area as well. L Erosion Control Plant Requirement. The Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) has adopted Surface Water Management regulations that the City of Tigard has agreed to enforce. Those regulations require that the applicant submit an erosion control plan for City review. That plar3 has not been submitted. h'41 1 11 11110DIIIN1lK 1 ..f .~pprd L.~. _J.c Although the details of the erosion control plan may be deferred to a later stage of the proceeding, the City is required to make a finding of compliance or feasibility of compliance before approving the application. Without the submission of the geotechnical report, no such finding can be made. J. Bull Mountains Community Plan - Tree Issues As discussed above in the introductory section, this development must comply with all substantive parts of the Washington County Bull Mountain Community Plan (BMCP) through Washington County Code sections 421 and 422. One of the standards contained in the BMCP is Design Element 5, which requires retention of 50% of the standing trees with a diameter of greater than six inches. The decision fails to comply with this standard in two ways. First, the finding of compliance relies on the finding of compliance with the TDC tree removal provisions. However, the TDC tree.removal provisions require only the retention of trees over 12 inches in caliper diameter, instead of the six-inch caliper diameter contemplated in the BMCP. Without the analysis of the amount of trees over six inches in caliper diameter, we cannot tell if this criterion is met. Second, the calculations relied on discuss retention of only those trees deemed "non- hazardous." Similarly to the discussion above regarding the TDC tree removal requirements, there is no authority to remove "hazardous" trees from the base amount of trees from which retention is calculated. In addition, the base amount of trees does not include the trees that were removed prior to the meeting with the residents of the neighborhood. K. Bull Mountain Community Plan - Natural Resources Plan The BMCP requires a finding that "the proposed use will not seriously interfere with the preservation of fish and wildlife areas and habitat identified in the Washington County Comprehensive Plan." However, no assessment or plan of wildlife habitat areas has been done or submitted to the City for review. The City imposed a condition requiring the applicant to provide a wildlife habitat assessment, but without that assessment to review, the City's finding that the use will not seriously interfere with the preservation of wildlife areas and habitat has no evidence to support it. Moreover, by deferring the required submittal, the City has deferred any finding of compliance to a later period at which there will be no notice or public requirements, which violates the holding in Salo, supra. 111. ISSUES WERE RAISED Each of the issues identified above was raised during the comment period before the City. `]'Ills is demonstrated through Sect-loll IV of the challenged decision "Conllllcnts fi-onl property Owners Within 500 heet." In addition, the specific issues were raised in the submissions of the Appellants as well as other interested neighhors. K:AI1121(1111111 I M 6 KIN., 6 p, o! A,.,". 13 r.-d- P . 7 "t 9 CONCLUSION As discussed above, the approval of SUB 1999-00003, SLR 1999-00004, MIS 1999- 00015 through 1999-00018 was incorrectly granted. The application contains many significant flaws and, fails to provide sufficient information to allow for a complete review of the applicable code provisions. Until the flaws identified above are corrected and the required information is provided, the City cannot approve the application. For each of the above reasons, the decision referenced above should be reversed. 1", N .9 8 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY ""URBAN SERVICE AREA" FILE NAME: PACIFIC CREST SUBDIVISION CASE NOS.: Subdivision (SUB) SUB 1999-00003 Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) _ .SLR 1999-00004 Lot Line Adjustments (MIS) MIS 1999-00015 through MIS 1999-00018 A request for Subdivision approval on 'all or portions of 7 parcels of land totaling 18.9 acres. . The proposal involves 4 adjustments to property lines to create the 18.9 acre area being subdivided. The proposal also involves Sensitive Lands Review for developing on slopes 25% or greater. The applicant proposes to develop 80, single-family residential lots. APPLICANT: Farmer's Land Trust APPLICANT'S Westlake Consultants, Inc. Attn. John Rankin REP: 15115 SW Sequoia Pkwy., #150 26715 SW Baker Road Tigard, OR 97223 Sherwood, OR 97140 OWNERS: Constantin and Adriana Costiuc Robert and Sarah Erickson PO Box 2.30943 1371 Aster Lane Tigard, OR 97281 Cupertino, CA 95014 Michael and Jeanne Davis Brian and Karen Pautz PO Box 23144 9685 SW Carriage Way Tigard, OR 97281 Beaverton, OR 97008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential,. R-7. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7. LOCATION: The subject site is located west of the terminus of SW Mistletoe Drive and is directly adjacent (west) of the 100-foot Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) right-of-way (ROW). he 7 parcels involved are identified as WCTM 2S105DD, Tax Lot 100, 201, 1900, 2000 and 2100; and WCTM 2S105DA, Tax Lot 400 and 500. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.410, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.765, 18.775, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee. has APPROVED the above request subject to certain conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is lased are noted in Section VI of this Decision. EXHIBIT _ 140110-(A la (:1:00111 - ~prF ' U 71J ';IIH1(I'I')III1iNJ3:hI1 tit!1~!`!f)(I')I i.II1!Uill]I' T.li:~ 1'1'1'!11(1111/iNJ]:-;I!`!`!000111VAI,, 111{111.0000.1 ( !'.•~t•`1'Tf'r^T":'r:'K017, 2 120 DAYS = 0611312000 CONDITInNS*nF APlPRnVAI 2. Prior to ' any site work, including grading. or tree removal, the applicant shall submit an assessment report from a wildlife biologist which identifies the wildlife habitat area on-site and recommends mitigation measures if needed in accordance with Washington County Community Development Code Section 422.3. If mitigation is necessary, the applicant's plans must reflect, in detail, how mitigation will occur. All wildlife habitat mitigation must be complete prior to final plat approval. 3. Prior to any site work, including grading or tree removal, the applicant shall delineate the location of the flood hazard area. If any impacts to this area are proposed, the applicant must submit evidence of compliance with Washington County CDC 421 substantive standards. 4. Prior to construction, submit a tree mitigation plan that shows how tree mitigation will be accomplished and submit a bond for proposed on-site tree mitigation for 50% of the caliper inches to be removed (a total of 1,390 caliper inches.) 5. Prior to construction, submit deed restrictions for the trees proposed to be retained. If any trees currently proposed to be retained are removed, approval must be granted PRIOR to any tree removal, and mitigation requirements adjusted accordingly. 6. Prior to ANY site work, tree protection measures must be installed for all trees to be retained. Once installed; the tree protection measures must be approved by a certified arborist and a member of the Planning Staff. 7. Prior to tree removal and during tree removal on steep slopes, the arborist must be on-site to insure that the tree protection standards are fully adhered to. 8. After construction is completed, disturbed areas, not covered with impervious surfaces must be re-vegetated. Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: 9. Prior to commencing onsite improvements, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Seven (7) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department.: NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Buildin Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public improvement pans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page {www.ci.tic ard.or.us . 10. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement (if one is required) and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements- For example, s )ecify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LI-C, etc. Also specify the state wit~iin which the entity is incorporated rind provide the name of the corporate contact person. 1--nilure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Dep~rrtnient will delay processing of project cloc;un~t~nts. EXHIBIT p► 111(:!= OI Ill ca a1>i,, PAGE I:I OF .;1; 4 :;tillPPI!lil(11111.;1;11: 1'"i''1U}11f1.11f'; i'1',I'1Ik1111i E;41: i''!'"bull'{{" I I:1'P1'llul!If61 I'f,;lf 11;1;1'! ';I 1.111{111 I;;u1Al II Prior to recording the lot line adjustments, the applicant must pay. the requiredJe.~ for-the fifth requested lot line adjustment. The fee, at 50% of the original fee (due tftondbrrerlt applications) is $118. 11. The applicant shall provide a.construction 'vehicle' access and parking plan for- approval by-the City Engineer. All eonstn.ictlon vehicle parking . shall be provided on-site. No eonstn,ction - vehicles or equipment will be permitted toark on the adjoining residential public streets. fpa Construction vehicles include the vehicles ony contractor or suboontractor involved in.the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application,.and shall inclu&:'the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 12. The applicant's construction plans 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. This requirement includes both sides.. of the extension of SW Mistletoe Drive and Street B. 13. The construction plans shall indicate "No Parking" signs on one side of both Streets A and B, and on both sides of Street C. 14. Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall submit evidence that they have purchased the necessary right-of-way from BPA for the extension of SW Mistletoe Drive. The applicant shall also submit evidence that they have obtained BPA approval for the location of the Mistletoe Drive extension as it relates to their transmission line structures. 15. The applicant's construction plans shall indicate that Street B, as it extends northerly to tie in with SW Catalina Drive from the Hillshire Creek Estates #4 development, will meet the City's street grade standards. 16. If it is found that another lot could be developed bn Tax Lot 201 (2S1 05DD - Pautz) in the future, they shall revise their design for Tract A to provide access to that potential future lot. This will mean that the private street may exceed the 150-foot limit and will need a fire truck tum-around to meet Uniform Fire Code (UFC) standards. 17. The applicant's construction drawings shall show that the pavement and rock section for the proposed private street shall meet the City's public street standard for a local residential street. 18. Prior to construction, the applicant's engineer shall resolve how to provide maintenance vehicle - access to the manhole shown in Tract C so that the sewer line shown to extend from Tract A to this manhole can be cleaned by the City. 19. Any public sanitary or storm drainage pipe sections proposed outside of street areas, within private yards or tracts, shall be constructed of either ductile iron or PVC C-900 pipe materials- This condition applies to at least: 1) the sanitary sewer pipe from Tract A to Street B; 2) the sanitary sewer pipe runs between Lots 65, 64 and 66, between Lots 73 and 74 and between Lot 73 and Tract E; and 3) the storm drainage pipe sections crossing through Lot 31 into Tract C, and between- Tract C and Street B. 20. Prior to construction, the applicant's design engineer shall submit documentation, for review by the City (Brian Rager), of the downstream capacity of any existing storm facility impacted by the proposed development. The design engineer must perform an analysis of the drainage system downstream -of the development to a point in the drainage system where the proposed development site constitutes 10 percent or less of the total tributary drainage volume, but in no event less than mile. 21. If the capacity of any downstream public storm conveyance system or culvert is surpassed during the 25-year design storm event due directly to the development, the developer shall correct the capacity problem or construct an on-site detention facility. 22. If the projected increase in surface water runoff, which will leave the proposed development, will cause or contribute to damage from flooding to existing buildings or dwellings, the downstream slormwater system shall be enlarged to relieve the identified flooding condition prior to development. As an alternate, the developer must construct an onsite detention facility. 2.3, -I-he applicant's construction plans shall indicate lhal the existing overhead utility line that follows the eastern edge of this site, and currently provides utility services to the existing homes on this site, shall be placed underground as a p in of the streel improve-11,10111,; for StreMIgIT 4JW1(:E_(J[ IJ[[~;rllJhJ - - A--- to IIt1!1'.i'_I f1UUiKIIG;11: 1~~',f`-X 11(111 !'Irvtl:~1`.1'L'f t1UU,'S,"1x11: t:1''1 0001 Uhl 1:, 1'.+'ra ()(it '~':;t l~I'.1U'i tpll~lil4 1',~~~t~~~~.;, ~),S,7-~ - 24. ~Te applicant's Gortstruction drawings shall include a note section devoted to the high-pressure ' ned petroleum pi [*line operated-by SFPP, L.P. and Kinder Morgan. The motes shall include all of the conditions llsted in the letter from Kinder Morgan to the City, dated March 8. 2000. -The applicant is required to comply with all conditions listed in this letter, including bearing the cost for a SFPP inspector to be onsite during all construction work near their pipeline: 25. Any extension of . public water lines shall be shown on the proposod - publics improvement 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 public improvement plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 26. Final design plans and 'calculations -for the proposed public water quality facilities shall- be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager as a part of the public improvement plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer (if landscaped facilities are approved). The proposed facilities shall be dedicated in tracts to the City of Tigard on the final plat (if said facilities are to belocated outside of public right- of-way). As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facilities shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evatuation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, if landscaped facilities are approved, the City will not take over maintenance of the facilities 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. 27. If the landscaped swales continue to be proposed by the applicant, and if they are located outside of street right-of-way, 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. 28. Prior to construction, the applicant's engineer shall prepare an alternate design for the water quality system in this development, to be reviewed by the City Engineer. It is suggested that the applicant explore an option that utilizes underground treatment devices that can be placed within the roadway areas. 29. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994." 30. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours- The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of 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. 31. An updated geotechnical report shall be submitted with the construction plans to show that the 9 olechnical engineer has seen and reviewed the propo plans. The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations from the geotechnical reportsedmto the final grading plan. The geotechnical engineer shall be er7~pfoyed by the applicant throughout the entire construction period to ensure that all grading I including cuts and fills, are constructed in accordance with the approved plan and Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) A final construction supclvision report shall he filed with the Lnc~incering Department prior to Issuance of building permits. EXHIBIT rIOIJ(:l-(11IJiUk:lk4,J PAGE I'nG'_.O _~cl 2 1115111V/I:;I~N'1 IIISIII' PI 0113:I,91:-.vlCrlmoQ)f?1!,'MI:1 I'I11'1l1~l(Jllrbal,:1,t,i,Bllo(}lFi":11±1'trrlUp()1LI 1'01C;IIH:(:!-:I:, 32. The final'construction plans shall be signed by the geotedhnical engineer to ensure that they haver reviewed and approved the plans. The geotechnical engineer shall also sign the as-built grading plan at the end of the project. 33. 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. : 34. The design engineer shall indicate, on-the grading plan, which' Aots Vill" 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. 35, it is recommended. that the applicant utile the following routes for. construction traffic into this site: 1) SW Walnut Street, to SW 132"'o Avenue, to SW Benchview Terrace, to SW Mistletoe Drive; or 2) SW Bull Mountain Road, to SW BenchvieW Terrace, to SW Mistletoe Drive. mlt to the manning Division (.lulu HaJUUK, biv-47 ! 7, ext. 4V Tor review and approval: 36. Obtain annexation approval. This will require recording the approved Lot Line Adjustments BEFORE the rest of the subdivision since the developer can not.annex only a portion of a parcel. 37. Prior to Final Plat, plant the required on-site mitigation. A bond may be provided in the event that seasonal timing is not conducive to immediate planting provided that all planting is in place prior to the release of the last 50% of building permits. 38. Submit a revised plan that shows the average lot width for all lots, including lot 23 will be no less than 50 feet. 39. Prior to final plat, submit a revised plan that shows a pedestrian connection will be provided through the blocks at distances of no less than 330 feet. These connections may be within easements. Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 6394171, ext. 318) for review and approval: 40. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee in the amount.of $2,400. 41. The final plat shall indicate that the streets labeled as Streets A and B on the preliminary plan will have right-of-way widths of 46 feet. Street C may have a right-of-way-width of 42 feet. 42. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private streets will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners.who abut and take access from them. 43- 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 streets. 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 private streets. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) prior to approval of the final plat. 44. The applicant's final plat shall contain Slate Plane Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to the Cily'.s global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control network. These monuments shall be on the same line and shall he of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert c)round measure~77enls to gricl mensurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be esLil' lishod L)y. 45. GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey. EXHI6IT ;,I!lily!:I',II]I11)UY/A41ti1'+'`l1lr1111 r:Vl:~l`f,1,11YIIr!Iliir!41:{1'.J`-1:]UUUI/Jh41SIgq,,Ur!Ili7S'hl1-:1j,!'IUp1i_IIII IvvPAGE1•., 2 ki11 )I0ftOrd 46. By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. 47. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: 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. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum-stanc!4&'set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 92.05, Washington County, and, by the City of Tigard. The right-of-way dedications for all the proposed streets shall be made on the final plat. NOTE: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive a letter from the City Engineering Department indicating: 1) that the City-has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor, and 2) that the applicant has either completed any public improvements associated with the project, or has at least obtained the necessary public improvement permit from the City to complete the work. Once the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer's signature. approval: 48. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. 49. Prior to issuance of any building permits within the subdivision, the public improvements shall be deemed substantially complete by the City Engineer. Substantial completion shall be when: 1) all utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities,- 2) all local residential streets have at least one lift of asphalt, 3) any off-site street and/or utility improvements are completely finished, and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. 50. The geotechnical engineer must inspect and approve the excavation of building foundations for lots 75-80 and any additional lot deemed necessary by the building official. IN AD.DITION, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE~AWARE=O~ THE FOLLO,WI,NG S_ECT~I NS OF :THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE" ,THIS", EXCLUSIVE LIST j:- Improvement Agreement: Before city approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may also provide. for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract. Bond: As required by Section 18,430.080, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of 01-coon; EXHIBIT ricitic:i ()I I (:{:;i~ir~ ',1,Ei00003 1"AISI'i,-1!000 1 :dl,;;:i'I'1' 1,11)111100 1 llr.41_~1 r1[)U17a:;lr,1SYfl' m1(-111 I'/4;13ICCIZE tiI .~Illil)NEtiluN W-I A.surety bond executed by a .suretiyy company authorized to transact business in the State =of °fls Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it, may be terminated; or Cash. The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the, am0unt_•of-4`he-9erf6rmance assurance. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. Filing and Recording: Within 60 days of the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat- final Plat Application Submission Requirements: Three ,copies- of the subdivision plat prepared by a land surveyor, licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. The subdivision plat and data,or narrative shall be drawn to the. minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: Centerline Monumentation In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. The following centerline monuments shall be set: All centerline-centerline intersection points; All cul-de-sac center points; Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's); and Ali centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. Monument Boxes Re uired Monument boxes con orming to City standards will be required around all centerfine 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: 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. Cash or Bond Required All improvements installed by the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer- 1-he cash or bond shzlll comply with the terms and conditions of Section le, 810-180. IdO11[;1: O!= 171~(.I,`iloN EXHIBIT `;1JI11'(',1',111U(111;VIv11:_~lE)'J;1~U(1[li;i,'F:11;,1'~'~(ii(Hll,'f:~11'~ 1'J'_-]',lUll[.ll/1b.11;;1'PJ'iUi1[IIt;I:~al;i~l(yip7U117 I',",~;I I~,.JF- Installatiori'Pr .rPnuisite = No land division improvements, i6cluding sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefor have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. Notice to City Required _ Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. SECTION 111. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: City records do not indicate any previous development approvals have been granted for these properties. The applicant held a pre-application conference with the City as required by the Community Development Code (CDC) in February of 1999. The applicant submitted the application in May of 1999, however, after initial review, it was determined that the request could not be approved if only one access was proposed. The applicant chose to modify the proposal to provide for an additional access into the subdivision. Because the Development Code not changed since the original pre-application and submittal, the Director determined that a new pre-application meeting would not be necessary. There is no Code required limitation on the validity of pre-application meetings. The applicant submitted a waiver of the 120-day rule, held additional neighborhood meetings and staff provided additional notice and comment period for property owners within 500 feet of the subject site. The applicant also has made application to the City for annexation.' Because this proposal involved the lot line adjustments, staff could not process the annexation until after the Lot Line Adjustments were approved and recorded. Staff contacted the applicant and discussed this. It was agreed that, if the request was approved, the applicant would record the Lot Line Adjustments prior to recording the plat. A condition was also discussed that would require the applicant to annex the subdivision site prior to recording the plat. Because the development is adjacent to the City limits, annexation would have. been a condition of approval regardless of whether it was proposed or not. Site Information and Pro osal Description. The proposal involves 4 Lot Line Adjustments to create the 18.9 acre 80-lot subdivision. The land slopes to the north with slopes in excess of 25% towards the west and northern portion of the development site. The proposal involves Sensitive Lands Review to allow development on the steeply sloped areas. Development in this area includes the construction of a road, as well as grading to allow for residential lots. The Site is within Washington County, but in the City's Urban Service Area. A condition of approval for this development will-be the annexation of the Subdivision area into the City of Tigard. The site lies within an area identified as having a wildlife habitat as identified by the Bull Mountain Community Plan. The site is adjacent to the BPA right-of-way, as well as a high-pressure petroleurn pipeline easement. Vicinity Information: The property is adjacent to the City of Tigard city limits and has made application for annexation which will be processed once the Lot Line Adjustments are recorded. The property is adjacent to the BPA right-of-way, west of the terminus of SV Mistletoe, south of I-lillshire ESt<ates Subdivision, and east of 1-1111shire Creek Estates 114 Subdivision. The property on all sides is zoned R 7. l here is a 20- foot-wide high pressure petroleum pipe, iine easement adjacent to the t3PA'r1gh1-of-w<►y. A EXHIBIT IJUIICk t11 1, J1.Ci ;IC11J PAGE ;f. o F_-,_,)_112_ :I11{1'r,+'11]UUfI;S/A41;':1'JSi(1l,)ll0i',?6:1ii1'i'f'{(It![Ik .i.ll:; 1'i'{'lliil111?M1.41::1'P'i Anka.Il;1`.~'!'iilr)1111k ',^..(:11It :Ca;l';I'.1HSI)IVl;ilf)fJ Engineer's Certification The land divider's engineer shalt provide written certification of a form provided b 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. SECTION-IV-' _ COI~II MENTSFROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET' - The Tigard Development Code requires- that property owners within 500 feet of the subject site be notified of the proposal and be given the opportunity to provide written comments prior to a decision being made. Staff received several comments that are summarized below. A summary of_ the comment or concern, is stated. in bold and -the Staff response to each comment follows. Copies of the letters submitted are in the public record and are available for review-at the'- City,:--Notice .There were. several comments raised that -the notice of pending land use. action was "confusing; incomplete and misleading." They state that the applicable review criteria could .-not-be found and the map was not clear, It was questioned how one could comment on the . proposal when the proposal was not clear. The notice of application is just that, a notice. The criteria are listed in the notice by number., It is not intended to provide all the information necessary to thoroughly review the proposal. To do that would require mailing out 2, 4-inch thick files that includes all of the information available. The intent of the notice is to inform of what generally is proposed and provide citizens with the location and process to review the entire file. Citizens normally arrange to view the file and/or have copies of the file made. Storm run-off Concern about run-off from the Pacific Crest Subdivision site. The-concerns- raised the issue of run-off flowing north down-slopes in excess of 25% and the possibility that this run-off will overburden the existing facilities in Hillshire Creek Estates #4. Hillshire Creek Estates storm sewer system was required byy Washington County, to be sized to handle additional developments that may occur. Storm run-A issues are addressed in detail under the Street and Utility Improvement Standards section of this decision. Emergency vehicle access Concern that emergency vehicle access to all points in the subdivision is limited when accessed via the lower road due to the "sharp serpentine nature of the roads." There was concerned raised that Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue had not reviewed the- proposed north/south road and that there was no evidence that the layout proposed met the.turning radius standards. It was stated that this created inadequate and hazardous access. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Department has reviewed the plans. and indicated that the turning radius and grade appears to be adequate. They have also indicated that the 2"d access Catalina Drive) addresses the concern for a second access point. This is also addressed under the treet and Utility Improvement Standards section of this decision. Street crossing petroleum pipeline Many people raised concerns that one of the access points into the- subdivision crosses a high pressure petroleum pipeline. There was concern that the plans have not been approved by the owner/operator of the petroleum pipeline. They wanted to be sure no construction would be permitted prior to approval of the construction plans by the petroleum pipeline operator. Concerns were raised on the wisdom of allowing a development to be permitted. right next to the "largest petroleum pipeline in Oregon." There was also concern that there wilt be no buffer zone between where the street is planned and the pipeline. A question was raised about what would be done to prevent construction crews from inadvertently wandering into the right-of-way and disturbing the buried pipeline. People do not feel this has been adequately addressed by the City of Tigard. People also raised the question of whether the City of Tigard is accountable or responsible for ensuring the safety of the Pipeline. Several people have quoted a letter from the petroleum pippeline company to the Engineering firm that states: "the site plan also indicates that SFPP's 20-foot-wide pipeline easement will lie within subdivision lots, which is not preferred from a pipeline access and maintenance standpoint." In addition, they raised concerns that SFPP had not heard back from the Engineers as of February 22, 2000 and that none of the pre-development requirements had been reel. EXFIIBIT rare r u,;r_ r~r n'r;ltilcx~ - - - - - t 1 A1,1L r ~n SimI0119-O000AM";1U`1$1000I r'r•.11:i1(11)01f;h•1C:1 Ir1`.)11OIh1I189151'!'.1'.I1IUCII,(,'SI1,ll1',10U(111117 'LAUE ~ ti71=1L117_ One person wrote that unless we- can guarantee zero risk in the development, the application should be denied. While staff agrees that this is a very large ipeline, it must also be stated that staff is aware of this ppipeline and, throughout this decision and > hroughout the Engineering permitting process, there*,will be significant conditions in place to safeguard the development from the pipeline. Staff would like to point out that many of the people commenting on the pipeline live in a subdivisiori~`bdJacent to the pipeline as well, and there subdivision was constructed without catastrophe. In addition, there are subdivisions being constructed today (from Seattle to Eugene) that have the pipeline running through them or adjacent to them. Just because the line exists, does not make it unsafe, provided proper .precautions are taken which they will be, as assured by conditions of -approval-, Engineering review and inspections. Absolutely no construction will be permitted by the Engineering Department- without assurances that. the construction plans meet the SFPP construction standards. - If, after all the conditions are met and assurances are made, there were to be any deviation from the approved constriction practice, the developer would be held accountable: The memo referenced in several letters from SFPP was over a year old and in response to a different plan. The current plan has the pipeline running towards the east side of Street B. This issue is discussed in detail further in this decision under the Street and Utility Improvement Standards section of this decision. Traffic Study findings There were questions raised about the accuracy of the traffic study prepared that states only 5% of the residents will chose to exit the area via Ascension. This same question was raised by staff and addressed by the applicant's Traffic Engineer in a memo to the City's development review engineer. This issue is addressed in detail under the Street and Utility Improvement Standards. section of this decision. Traffic on Ascension Many people raised the issue that Ascension is a "local street" with only 28 feet of pavement width and rated for 500 trips per day. They do not feel the City should approve a development that will result in. more than 500 trips per day on Ascension. Several indicate they oppose a reclassification of the street to collector status or making improvements to the street to increase the capacity of the street. Concern that this additional traffic will affect the quality of life on Bull Mountain. People do not feel that Ascension was designed to handle even the existing, let alone the additional traffic. People have stated that it was never intended to be a corridor through which heavy construction and regular commercial traffic should pass. It was stated that "only through admitted oversight by the Planning Division was Ascension "embroiled in the traffic implications of the new development." It is stated that Ascension already exceeds the peak load, based on city studies. It is stated that this is "an unacceptable oversight and evidence of the apparent inability of the Planning Division to exercise diligence in carrying out its duties on behalf of its citizens." Some wanted the existing traffic on Ascension to be measured now so that the incremental increases could be measured if this subdivision were approved. This issue is addressed in detail under the Street and Utility Improvement Standards section of this decision. Ascension was constructed -as part of a Planned Development. Ascension was narrowed to allow for development of lots on both sides of Ascension because of topographic and slope issues. There was'also concern about increased noise that the additional traffic would create-. Staff does not have the authority to deny a project due to the potential of increased noise created by traffic increases. . Additional traffic would be in conflict with the "Transportation and Traffic section of the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" presentation. The Tigard Beyond tomorrow is a "vision". This document identifies goals and strategies for achieving that goal. Even if the proposal were in direct conflict with a goal, the City can only require the applicant to comply with the standards in effect at the time of development. These goals are not standards incorporated into the Development Code and, therefore, can not be applied as approval standards in this proposal- In any event; this proposal is not in conflict with the Transportation and -raffic Goals identified in Tigard Beyond Tomorrow since the development will result in increased connectivity by having two areas from which to enter the subdivision- In addition, as discussed further in this decision, potential traffic calming me~isrires are being discussed alone on. ~L A 1-1 :;Ilit l'.I'VI(W00:00I:;II'r,I(100151f:V;}!d'1!1(1001GJwli:~VII 3 000 1 111.41:i1(H71N^:1 I,1!!'.1'1000( ( Concern about existing speeding. problems being increased with the increase in traffic on Ascension. _ Staff can not deny an Iff plication, or even add additional regulations to a proposal because existing citizens break the law. speeding and failing to obey traffic regulations is a problem, the best option for reducing this *safety risk is to contact the Tigard Police to see about additional enforcement: As discussed further in this decision, the City did a speed study on Acsension.;ir.L.Februar. -.2000, which indicated that there was not a significant speeding problem. One individual cited Chapter 18.705.030 Section G regarding inadequate or hazardous access, stating that increased traffic will result in increasing existing. hazardous traffic conditions which would constitute a-clear and present danger to the public. Chapter 18.705 is the Access, Egress and Circulation section of the Community Development Code. The Code citation referred to- is for access (meaning driveway access). The development is not proposing access that.is unsafe.because all lots will come out onto local streets and the access into the development is via a public street at an acceptable location. The applicant was correct in stating that that standard did not appl to this development. 1n addition, 18.705.020.C states that "The requirements and standards of Phis chapter shall not apply where they conflict with the Subdivision rules' and standards to this title." Traffic issues are discussed in detail under the Street-and Utility Improvement Standards section of this decision. Traffic in other areas There was concern that the existing traffic congestion at Scholl's Ferry Road and Barrows Road would be increased due to this and other developments in this area. This issue is addressed under the Street and Utility Improvement Standards section of this decision. Wildlife Several people raised concern that there is an abundance of wildlife in this area that will be destroyed with this development. One person wrote that "Further building in this area will negate any `country feel' we desire. We enjoy the company of deer, raccoons, owls and numerous other animals living among us". The application does not address the Bull Mountain Community Plan designations. It was stated that the applicant was not keeping word of providing a wildlife corridor of no less than 80 feet. There are no provisions within the Tigard Development Code that would allow staff to deny an application because of the potential disruption of wildlife. The site is identified on the Bull Mountain Community Plan as having a wildlife habitat: The applicant is addressing this by providing for open space tracts which will serve as a wildlife corridor. In addition, a condition of approval will be imposed requiring the applicant to have a professional wildlife biologist conduct a site assessment to determine if the proposed open space areas will adequately address the wildlife habitat area needs. If the assessment determines that additional measures are needed to protect or mitigate for the wildlife habitat impact, the applicants final plan must reflect these changes. This is addressed in detail further in this decision. Parks Several people raised the issue that there were no parks planned. There was concern that, because there are no parks and due to increased traffic, children will not longer be able to safely play in the streets. People also raised concern that the applicant has cited the BPA easement on the east side of the site, Tracts C, D, E and F as open space to meet the impact of the development.-on park facilities. They felt that if the City approved this application, we are saying that "the dense brush slopes under the power lines meets the requirements for parks". The are no provisions in the Development Code that can allow staff to require the dedication of parks unless there is a proposed park, playground or other public use area shown on a development plan adopted by the City. However, the applicant is providing several open space tracts. While these tracts are located on steep slopes, it should be noted that parks serve many purposes other than simply a swing-set recreation opportunity. Children should not be playing in fhe street right now as this is intended for vehicular travel. Since the property will be annexed In to the City, the developer of each home will be paying System Development Charges to contribute to the Park Planning and /\alui5111011 fund. EXHIBIT V_ 01, DI :;iii{itrr~•tiu+~o:rimi:>>to~3~:~uuui~,;~n~i_;r.~~r-~nr~utr;~n~c; i~.~~~~;unu~~~r~lir~uer~-u~_~~~i;tr,~i_i;isi~i~.3iiurn~a in.~:Pt~~~+F~+~.4~,4Ca;,+------- Concern that developer as of adequately looked at develoment potential on adjacent lots The property owner-of tax lot 201 has stated. that, while he-signed the applicatiion for-the lot ` , line adjustment and development on a portion of his lot, the applicant has not adequately addressed the developability of his property. This property owner feels that an additional lot could be created on his property and would like the applicant to be conditioned to look at this. This is addressed under the Lot Line Adjustment standards and in the Street and UtitOdffiprovement Standards of this decision. Wetland PreservationlTitle 3 Question of whether Title 3 affects this development because runoff swales will empty into Summer Creek. Title 3' does not affect this 'project. Title 3 requires buffers from wetlands and streams. Because there are no identified wetlands or streams on this project site, Title 3 buffers do not apply. Title 3 ,is addressed through the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction standards that took effect February 4, 2000. Because this application was submitted and accepted as complete before this date, even if there had been Title 3 resources on the site, the applicant would not have had to comply with the current standards. (They would have to comply with the USA buffer standards in effect at the time which required a 25-foot buffer from wetland edge or top of bank, whichever was greater.) Tree removal mitigation One person states that the potential to mitigate off-site or by paying a fee in-lieu does not benefit this area. There are questions about how the tree mitigation fees are allocated. It may not benefit the area, depending on where mitigation funds are spent. This is permitted in the Code Tree Removal Section 18.790). This project is reviewed under the standards in effect at the time o submittal and any Code change to the tree mitigation standards could not be applied to this subdivision. The tree mitigation funds are spent to purchase and plant trees throughout the City of Tigard: As discussed further in this decision, the applicant will be required to plant their required mitigation on-site'within the open space tract areas. Development on slopes in excess of 25° Concerns were raised about development on steep slopes that are "prone to erosion and landslides". Many people cited that the AdaPT Engineering report indicated that the lands were unstable and that there were inherent risks involved in developing and placing permanent structures on the land. They also cite the section of the report that states: "near surface soil units below the topsoil horizon consists of a loess that appears to have been subjected to some transport action..." The.Y also cite that the report indicates the trees on the site appear bowed and feel that this begs the question of land movement. They feel this requires more research and explanation to ensure that the bowed trees and Ioes$ soil are not the beginning of a significant landslide. Questions about whom is responsible if a landslide does occur. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report that indicates the land is suitable for the proposed development. This issue is addressed'in detail under the Street and. Utility Improvement Standards section of this decision- There is also concern that the removal of trees will add to the potential land instability and erosion issues. Several have also asked if the arboirist will be required to provide on-site assurance of tree protection during development. The geolechnical report has not indicated that the removal of trees will be a problem for slope stability. In any event, a condition will be imposed as part of the tree removal approval that requires tree protection measures to be in place prior to any site worts. In addition, erosion control is required to be in place prior to construction as part of the grading and erosion control plan. This will avoid any surface erosion control problems and to insure trees to be saved are not harmed during the construction. IX)II( Of Ill -(AtAON :;III{I',1!3111ooo:vr.nL;11',i11,)(11'"rr11`;i'1'i`1UnitI~;lrvll';14r1`~0001711:11`.f'i'1'1Uni l`t'_;Ld{I'~'~' rN~(li).t EXHIBIT PAGE FOR 4 I'{;I:IF I[- CPJ i :;IIIO;IVISION Several Several eeeotn raised the issue that Senate Bill 12 targeted the orooosed development as a Peo.plQ raised the issue .that Senate Bill 12 targeted the proposed development as a potential landslide'area. It was'stated, that the City should take a proactive stance and require the applicant to comply with Senate Bill 12 guidelines even.tho6gh the City "has been given time to address SB12" stating that. it would be irresponsible to ignore this warning and negligent to not consider the safety risks at hand. Senate Bill 12 requires local governments to take steps to protect the public ,from; ,r.apidly--moving landslides". The first part of implementing this bill is for the DOGMI and ODF'to map-areas where rapidly moving landslides'are likely to-occur. The Oregon Department of Forestry has completed the frst step by identifying "landslide hazard areas. There were three hazard areas identified: Moderate, High and Extreme. The Department of Geology and Mineral Industries will then use the ODF maps to determine the "further review areas". The only areas that will be further map ed by the DOGM! are areas identified as High and Extreme landslide areas in the ODF maps. DO~MI has not started this mapping yet but is set to start in the near future. Staff contacted DOGMI and was informed, that there were no areas identified in the City of Tigard as requiring this further review. The second -step in implementing the Senate Bill 12 is for jurisdictions to adopt standards/conditions that can be placed on property before development can begin.. Even though the City does not have an areas that will oving landslide potential, the City's SLR standards already place be mapped as having a rapidly moving' additional review criteria and conditions on properties with steep slopes. This is reviewed and discussed further in this decision. A question was raised as to how the developer could have originally stated that.there was no possible way to provide a road to the north due to the topography and now they are providing this road and adding additional homes. Because of the topography, the impact would have been less had they not had to provide for a second access; the cost of the development is greatly increased by having to construct this second road. Staff agreed previously that taking the road down slopes in excess of 25% was not the preferred option; however, in order to develop, that is now a requirement, and since the developer can meet the City standards, will be approved. Several people indicated that they would like to insure that excavation will be monitored closely on the slopes. Several people write, "thus far, every engineering expert (on all sides)' involved in this project has agreed that monitoring is paramount, yet this requirement has not been documented. The requirement can not be "documented" until a decision is made and a condition imposed. This is discussed in detail under the Street and Utility Improvement Standards section of this decision. BPA powerline The applicant has not yet received BPA approval for access across the adjacent BPA right-of-way, however this is still proposed as part of the development. The applicant will be required to obtain BPA approval prior to constructing the subdivision. If this approval is not granted, the subdivision will not be permuted to be constructed or platted. This is generally completed during the engineering construction phase of the project. This is addressed in detail under the Street and Utility Improvement Standards section of this decision. Concern about tree removal There was also concern that the removal of trees, in addition to adding to landslide potential, would Jeopardize the remaining trees, creating more hazard of property destruction from falling trees. The geotechnical report has not indicated that the removal of trees will be a problem for slope stability. The Development Code is clear that trees may be removed for development and there is no provision for protecting remaining trees from damage due to being more vulnerable. The arborist has identified trees that need to be removed due to their current heallh and nature, which should help to minimize damage to trees in storm events. Land use laws One individual Ilas stated that while they have long supported the Oregon land use laws, the City of Tigard has chosen to ignore a "long history of sound and reasonable urban development that Oregonians Have always supported". _ _ EXH1BiT_. HOIRTOI I11 (JSH)N - - pfi/~C- I A ( 1 C 10 SIlldl')!i',I(IU(WTIAIsI'.3S)'JUI)Ili',o1:11:.1'I'I`Ithd1lf'JIvll51I.!',J110010lilt:il"f!'i(100 TSLl,l'I'•)y(111I104 I'I~III?911~',I ~1 ~"1 use.laws require jurisdictions to re'vieW projects-in accordance with ' The Oregon (and Federal' 'San* the 'standards in effect at the'time•the applicafon is submitted. We do_ hot-have the authority to apply ` additional and discretionary criteria and standards to development projects of this type. It•ts through the' land use ' laws of Oregon that the sound and reasonable development has occurred and. will continue to occur throughout the metropolitan area. Construction traffic Construction traffic should not be permitted to use Ascension since it is already overburdened. Construction traffic will be approved as part of the public permit process. The Tigard'Municipal Code and Public Improvement Design Standards limits the hours of construction, from 7arr3-9pm or darkness, Monday-Friday and from 8am-9pm on Saturdays. This is also addressed under the Street and Utility Improvement Standards section of this decision. Many people were concerned hat the developer had not proposed a plan in accordance with what they told the neighbors they would submit. One individual states: "in January 2000, Westlake Consultants presented to concerned citizens their plans for this development. This plan specified the layout of. the roads, the locations- of the lots, a wildlife corridor, and a few stands of trees." Apparently the applicant stated that the City could stipulate that the wildlife corridor and the stands of trees be part of the development (with the sizes and locations specified in their plan) and that the City could stipulate that the excavations on the slope be monitored by a geologist (to minimize the risk of landslides and drainage problems). The concerned citizens expressed their desire that the City stipulate all of the aforementioned items and that the City be prepared to enforced them" While most of the above mentioned "a reements" can be required as conditions of approval, others can not. The City can not require the developer to do any more than the Code allows. This decision evaluates the developer's proposal and has placed conditions as applicable to insure that these standards are met. Street Trees One individual indicated that the applicant should be required to.provide street trees. Street trees are required to 'be planted and the applicant has proposed. to plant trees along the boundaries of the subdivision to mitigate for tree removal. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA A summary of the applicable criteria in this case in the Chapter order in which they are addressed in this decision are as follows. A. Subdivision - General Provisions Future re-division Lot size averaging Phased Development R Ci@hriwicinn _ Annrnvni rifarin 18.510 esidential zoning districts) 18:705 Access, Egress and Circulation) 18.715 Density) 18.745 Landscaping and screening) 18.765 Off-street parkin and loading requirements) 18.775 Sensitive Lands Review) 18.790 Tree removal) 18.795 Vision clearance) E. Street and _Utility Improvement 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards) 18.390 (Impact Study) F__AE~~ticable Washingtai~ Coui.lt-y_Standards Bull Mountain Cornlnunltyy Phil Natural Rcsourccn, (Was llil~C)tc)n County Code Section 122) NO11(1 (IF- IN CI;J[)N ' - ;I N t IS)`. )!)-l)Ip]U i(1v41:i 1[I',JSI ilOU1.`IbAI ; 1'.i'I'd ~ IOC) I~', 4.11'.: I''' i' I I:i'(l l I!f.tl:; 1' 3'! (u(I1 `.L?`~1 R 1',1'.03 I)O(10.1 EXHIBIT SECTIONAL - P ICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS,. A -'SUBDIVISION GENERAL PROVISIONS: Future re-division. When subdividing tracts into large lots, the Approval Authority shall require thgt the, lots be of such size and shape as to facilitate future re-division in accordance. with-the'*40irements of the zoning district and this title. . Lots 49 and 40 are large enough to divide in the future if the existing homes are no longer there. The layout will not prevent the future reAivision of either of these lots. Of course, any future divisions will be reviewed in accordance with the standards in effect at the time of application. FINDING: Because the lots large enough to be re-divided can be partitioned in the future, this standard has been satisfied. Lot size averaging: Section '18.430.020.1) 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 use the lot averaging option, therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: Because the applicant has not proposed to average lot sizes, 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 terporary 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. 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. FINDING: Because the applicant has not proposed a phased development, this standard does not apply. B - SUBDIVISION APPROVAL CRITERIA ~Appproval Standards - Preliminary Plat: The proposed preliminary plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations - The proposed project complies with (tie Comprehensive Plan's Medium Density Residential designation for the subject property because it complies with the applicable provisions of the Community Development Code which im element the plan. Compliance with the majority of specific regulations and standards win he addressed (farther within this decision. EXHIBIT ()I DI (T~1011 I `i11111~1'.!'/(11111I1a.4vlltil33',1'.1l1U111'dF.11;'1[f'I'll)i)UI[,.'1~11:~ 1L)!J[)U(.1113//fJl:~l~l'.~`_!UU(117i1:;L1{1,.P1!JUIJUU-1 11AlilAG:Ers, 5IV: LILL!J~ 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 proposed subdivision name has been reserved with Washington County, thus insuring that the name is not duplicative. The Streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of-subdivisiaM;--did maps of major partitions or subdivisions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines. it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern. Street layout is discussed in more detail, and conditioned if necessary, further in this decision. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. The applicant has provided an explanation for all common improvements as required and, therefore, satisfied this criterion. Specific details of the proposed improvements are discussed later in this decision under Public Facilities Concerns. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the proposal meets, or will be conditioned to meet further in this decision, the preliminary plat approval standards for subdivisions. C. - LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL. CRITERIA Section 18.410.040 Approval Criteria: This section states that the Director shall approve or deny a request for a lot line adjustment in writing based on findings that the following criteria are satisfied.: An additional parcel is not created by the lot line adjustment, and the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustments is not reduced below the minimum lot size established by the zoning district; The proposal is to modify the common property lines between tax lots 400 and 500, 1900 and 2000, 1900 and 2100, and 2000 and 2100- The lot fine between tax lot 400 and 500 will be moved 90 degrees so that tax lot 500 is entirely within the proposed subdivision and tax lot 400 is the flag pole portion of the original. lots. Tax lot 400 will be reduced to 2-66 acres and will have a width of approximately 100 feet. Due to the topography, much of the revised tax lot 400 will not be able to be developed, but the lot will continue to have access off of SW Menlor Lane and Fern Street. Tax lot 500 will be increased from 2.82 to 8.74 acres. The applicant is also proposing to adjust the common lot line between tax lot 1900 and 2000 to incorporate the "flag pole" previous) on tax lot 2000 into tax lot 1900. A third lot line adjustment is requested to flip the western portion of the lot line between tax lot 2000 and 2100 by 90 degrees. The fourth lot line adjustment will move the lot line between tax lot 1900 and 2000 u slightly-to the east. The fifth lot line adjustment shown-on the plans has not been formally a plied for or paid for. A condition of approval will be the payment of the application fee for this fifth adjustment. The fifth adjustment will move the lot line between tax lot 2000 and 2100 to accommodate for the extension of SW Mistletoe into the subdivision. The net result of the five adjustments will be that all of the area to be developed within the subdivision will be separated from the parcels surrounding it. This will clean-up the area by eliminating many of the existing flag poles- The resulting areas for each lot, after the adjustment, is as follows- :TAX AREA-BEFORE ADJUSTMENT: 'AREA AFTER ADJUSTMENT°..:. 400 8.83 acres 2.66 acres 500 2.82 acres_ 8.74 acres 1900 - 2.98 acres _ 4.66 acres 2000 7-16 acres 6.40 acres .r~ -2100 2-55 Acres 1-65 acres As shown, the lot areas for the lots after the adjusinients will continue to exceed the minimum lot size of 5,000 Square feet ;+ncl no new lots will IBC created as a result of the lot line adjustments_ EXHIBIT IJt)lll:f: Uf IlE 1a;;ll)IJ []p~ ~7rr (,E ,i(~~F31O Z 14 -;!lEitU`.9'.l U(Illf), i!I:•7I5 !'.I`!!)OI)111'"'(L11~;t+l~rf 11+1++t+'~1P.11'~1'!'.I'II!:)I11 i/i:11:;1!~'!'+f)47+•11a+';I It lh'I!I fN]; )111 i',1(;fl P.`a-l :P -1 By reducing the lot size? the lot or structures(s) on the Jot will'not -be in violation -of the site development or zoning district regulations for that district; The existing structure on tax lot 2100 will continue to have a rear yard setback of more than 15 feet as required by the base zone. The additional existing structures on tax lot's 400, 500," and 2000'will be incorporated into the proposed subdivision. There are no structures on tax lot 201 or 1900, The resulting parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the zoning district, including: The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district; The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag, lot, the access way may not be included in the lot area calculation; Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15-foot wide access easement; and Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. The resultin arcel widths will continue to exceed the minimum lot width requirement of 50 feet and have at leas 2 pp5 feet of frontage on a public street. As discussed above and further in this decision, the setbacks for all structures proposed to be retained.will continue to be met. With regard to flag lots: When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet. Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from existing structures. A -screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 1$.745.040. Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development. The lot line adjustments are not resulting in the creation of a flag lot, therefore, this standard does not apply. The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an access way would have a detrimental effect on fire-fighting capabilities. No new accessways are currently proposed to serve any parcel not being incorporated into the subdivision. If and when these lots are developed, they will be reviewed for compliance with the fire department regulations. Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement which will ensure access and maintenance rights -shall be recorded with the approved partition map. No common drives are proposed as part of these lot line adjustments. Any access way shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress, and Circulation. ' All accessways are existing. When and if the properties not being incorporated into the subdivision are developed, further review of access will be done. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff can not find that all 5 requested lot line adjustments are met, because the applicant has not paid the required fee for the fifth requested adJ'ustment. If the applicant pays the required fee, all the lot line adjustment standards will be feet for the requested adjustments. CONDITION: Prior to recording the lot line- adjustments, the applicant must pay the required fee for the fifth requested lot line adjustment. The fee, at 50% of the original fee (due to concurrent applications) is $118. EXHIBIT a NO I U. 01- IM-0, il1iS11'i`.LUOf)03Ihr11;i11!'J'lU{)U!'IA11';t.i'J'lE1UU1!i11.11:~ 1'+`.llll1~1U111!!dl'1!~'+!11~11f)171I:~1.111`,~~I`J{'1(10U1 2- D- APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOMENT CODE SECTIONS Residential Zoning Districts (18.5'(0} Purpose Preserve neighborhood livability. One of the major purposes of the regulatigns governing development in residential zoning districts is to protect the livability- efi existi`rvgr nl future residential neighborhoods, by encouraging primarily residential development with compatible non-residential development - schools, churches, parks and recreation facilities, day care centers, neighborhood commercial uses and other services - at appropriate locations'and at an appropriate scale. Encourage construction of affordable housing. Another purpose-of these regulations .is to create the environment in which construction of a full range of owner-*occupied and rental housing at' affordable prices is encouraged. This can be accomplished by providing residential zoning districts of varying densities and developing flexible design and development standards to encourage innovation and reduce housing costs. R-7: Medium-Density Residential District .(18.5'10.020). The R-7 zoning district is designed to. accommodate attached single-family homes, detached sinle-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,001 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and.institutional uses-are also permitted conditionally.. The R-7 zoning district has the following dimensional requirements: STANDARD _ L R-! t Minimum Lot Size Detached unit 5,000 sq. ft. Duplexes 10,000 sq.ft. - Attached unit 1 5,000 s .ft. verage inimum of t Detached unit lots 50 ft. Duplex lots 50 ft. - Attached unit lots 40 ft. Maximum of overa e Oki o Minimum et ac s 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 ara e 20 ft. Maximum ei ht 5 . rnimum andsca e e uirement 20 o Ill Single-family attached residential units permitted at one dwelling per lot.with no more that five attached units in one grouping. 12) Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. The proposed lots range in size from 5,000 square feet to 14,028 square feet, therefore, all of the proposed lots meet the minimum lot size requirements of the Code. All lots with the exception of lot 23 meet the minimum lot width and frontage requirements. Lot 23 does not provide a rninimum lot width of 50 feet. The applicant will be required to comply with the setbacks, height and lot cove ragellandscape requirements during the building )ermit review process for the homes on individual lots. This is not a planned development, therefore, t sere will be no flexibility in the setbacks. Based on the lot dimensions, Staff finds it feasible that the required setbacks can be met. FINDING-. Based on the ~tw.rlysis above, the residential zoning district dimensional standards are riot fully satisfied, however, the standards can be met if the applicant complies wit l the condition listen below. EXHIBIT JH 40 `;UI~1!I~,)[IO(11)fl~ilhAlI1[IU!`iRvl1:'~1'+'i°I~IO1)31i(N•11$ I'3'_!'~U111I11/I~11'1!1`J'I1)U[,)IIf]()[H)~1 I',1(;ril'T! frfn~~ CONDITION: Submit a revised plan that shows the average lot width for all lots, including lot 23 'will be no less than 50 feet: Access, Egress and Circulation 8:705: . Chapter 18.705 establishes standards ,-and regulations for safe and efficient vehicle access and egress on a site and for general circulation within the site. -Table 18.705.1 states that the minimum vehicular,,acciffss and. egress for single-family dwelling units on individual lots shall be one, 1'0-f6ot•p6ed driveway within a 15-foot-wide accessway. The minimum access width for,3-6 dwelling units is 20 feet with 20 feet of pavement. The access and egress into the site itself is discussed later in this decision under Street and Utility Improvement standards and PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Access. to individual lots will be reviewed for compliance during the building permit phase. FINDING: Because the access to individual lots will be reviewed as part of the building permit process and access to the site is addressed-and conditioned, if necessary, further in this decision, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have been satisfied. Density Computations and Limitations: Chapter 18.715 implements the Comprehensive Plan by establishing the criteria for determining the number of dwelling units permitted. The number of allowable dwelling units is based on the net development area. The net area is the remaining parcel area after exclusion of sensitive lands and land dedicated for public roads or parks. - The net area is then divided by the minimum lot size permitted by the zoning district to determine the number of dwelling units that may be developed on a site. 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 are based on the net developable area, subtracting sensitive land areas, land dedicated to public parks, land dedicated for public right-of-wa and land for private streets from the total site area. Of the total site area (823,765 square feet 188,223 square feet will be dedicated to public. street right-of-way and 235,000 square feet must be subtracted due to the slopes in excess of 25%. This results in a net developable area of 400,570 square feet. The maximum number of lots permitted on this site, therefore, is 80 and the minimum number of lots is 64. The applicant's proposal to build 80 lots for single-family detached homes meets the maximum and minimum density requirements in an R-7 zone. FINDING: Because the applicant has proposed 80 lots and 80 lots are the maximum permitted based on the net acreage of the site, this standard has been satisfied. Landsca in and Screening 18.745: Chapter 18.745 contains landscaping provisions for new developmen . Section 18.74 .100 requires that street trees be planted in conjunction with all development that fronts a street or driveway more than 100 feet Iong. A proposed planting list must be submitted for'review by the Director since certain trees can damage utilities, streets and sidewalks or cause personal injury. Section 18.745.040.0 contains specific standards for spacing of street trees as follows: ♦ Small or narrow stature trees under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart; ♦ Medium sized trees (25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; and ♦ Large trees (over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than-40 feet apart; The applicant's plans indicate Tilia Cordaia Greenspire (Little Leaf Linden) will be planted every 30 feet. VC species is considered a Medium sized tree, therefore, the proposed spacing is acceptable. The exact location for these street trees will be reviewed and approved as part of the construction permitting. Section 18.745.050 contains the provisions and requirements for buffering and screening The BL)ffr:ri[ 9 and Screening Matrix (Section 18.745.1) does not require buffering) or screening when ,I single-family detached residential use is proposed adJ'acenl to existing detached single-family dwellings. -1-Ile Pacific Crest Subdivision site is surrounded by detached single-family domes and undeveloped parcels with R-7 zoning. Therefore, this section does not apply. EXHIBIT 51WIy!)90000 WIN19!ZJ-000i11-+1`.1000161LIN 1(x'-19-0001lp.-TlS11.1)!1UN)VIJti1HL')99000117 I'11CIf-4[~ fa~lt~l lflf#- ~ • 0-1 FINDING: Because no buffering and screening, is required when- a single-family. development' abuts a single-family development, this standard does not apply. urr-stree artctn nd loadin re' uirements 18.765 • Chapter 18.765, Table 18.765.2 requires that single-family residences be provided with one (1) off-street parking space for each dwelling unit. The applicant has stated that this standard will be satisfied with the future driveways, and residential garages on the individual lots. Compliance with this standard will be enforced- during the building permit review process as the Code requires 20 feet from the property line to the face of a' garage which will insure that at least one car can park off the street, outside of any garage. FINDING: Because each individual home will be reviewed for compliance with this standard during the building permit phase and it is feasible that this standard will be met by providing driveways and garages, this standard has been satisfied. Sensitive Lands Review With, excessive slopes. The appropriate approval authority, shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lans permit on slopes of 25% or greater or unstable ground, based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; The grading is needed to pprovide a second access out of the proposed subdivision and to create some.buildable lots along this new street. While the applicant is proposing the maximum number of lots, staff has determined that, due to the. expense of constructing this additional access given the grading and slope issues, it is logical that the maximum number of lots is necessary to make this subdivision financially feasible. Therefore, the alteration on lots meets this standard as well: The ggeotechnical report indicates that, subject to engineering principles, disturbances related to road and F~ouse construction will be safe. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; The applicant has submitted a. geotechnical report which indicates the grading, if done in accordance with their recommendations, will not result in slope instability. There are no streams nearby, therefore, stream sedimentation will not be an issue. The applicant will be conditioned to install the proper erosion control measures as part of this decision and the construction permit review process. Based on the information in the geotechnical report and the fact that there will be conditions placed on this decision regarding grading and erosion control, staff has determined that the proposed land form alteration will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on- site and off-site-effects or hazards to life or property. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper drainage of foundation and crawl space areas for development with any of the following soil conditions: wet/high water table; high shrink-swell capability; compressiblelorganic; and shallow depth-to-bedrock; and The construction of individual homes will require a site specific geotechnical report and will be thoroughly reviewed for compliance with this standard at that time. This is a routine part of the Building Division review on slopes-; even slopes less than 25%. In addition, the geotechnical report has reviewed the proposed lot and street layout and indicated that the proposed lots can be developed on these slopes provided the proper construction methods are followed. As art of any construction review (engineering or Wilding)' the developer is required to fully comply with the ggeotechnical engineers recommendation- For ridded secunly.staff has placed a condition of approval dial requires the geotechnical engineer's recommendations to be incorporated into the construction plans. 1-111S is discussed and rondilloned further in this decision. EXHIBIT _ IT)Ih11 to [)i 42- ;;11111'1'1~1[IUUnVI_W:I"'1'auuiJI,rrVIJ:jJ'or'!()I]()Vl;.riAlti1y)!)1)pr1l11/IP.11;I'i!)')UJII 1 7 il. I I" I'+t ~')Of3tu11 1'11i;P 1• I; Y,I~_-r Where natural -vegetation has been -removed due to land form alteration or-developmen0he areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. The applicant will be removing trees and other vegetation to accomplish the grading needed- to construct the street.. Because of the significant open.space tracts that are proposed, staff will. require the necessary tree mitigation to first and foremost be located. within the open spacertracts. This will partially address this standard. While the USA standards require re-p[an1mg, staq will place a condition as part of this, decision, requiring the applicant to re-planted after construction is completed. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Sensitive Lands Review standards'will be fully. met if the applicant complies with the following condition and additional erosion control and grading conditions discussed elsewhere in this decision. CONDITION: After construction is completed, disturbed areas, not covered with impervious surfaces must be re-vegetated. Tree Removal: - Chapter 18.790 requires mitigation of trees over 12" diameter at breast height (dbh) removed as part of the development of the site. The applicant has submitted a tree inventory prepared by a certified arborist. The tree inventory indicates that there are 408 trees over 12 inches in caliper. Of these, 107 are considered hazardous. Of the remaining non-hazardous trees over 12 inches in caliper, the applicant is proposing to remove 127 and retain 174. The applicant is, therefore, retaining 57% of the non-hazardous trees which requires 50% mitigation. The total caliper inches of the trees to be cut is 2,780, therefore, the applicant will be required to mitigate 1,390 inches. The applicant has stated in the narrative that a detailed mitigation plan had not been prepared. On-site mitigation is always preferred over off-site mitigation or the fee in-lieu. On this site, due to the amount of open space tract areas being provided, there is a great opportunity to do on-site mitigation. A condition will be imposed that required as much of the tree mitigation as possible to be accomplished on-site within the open space tracts proposed (Tract "C", "D", E" and "F"). This will provide for the on-site mitigation of trees and will also add to the slope stability and natural habitat of the development, thus addressing some of the neighboring property owner concerns. The applicant's arborist has also provided tree protection recommendations. Following the tree recommendations will help assure that trees to be protected are not damaged during construction. Because of the importance of retaining trees on-site, a condition will be imposed requiring the arborist to provide written certification that the recommended tree protection measures. are in place prior to any site work (includingg grading) being permitted on-site. In addition, because the arbonst has specifically stated that-the arbonst should be on-site during critical parts of the development relating to tree removal, staff is adding a condition requiring this. While this is not always required for Subdivisions, given the steep slopes and sensitive trees reported in the arborists report, staff feels this is necessary. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Tree Removal standards will be met, if the applicant complies with the conditions listed below. CONDITIONS: Prior to construction, submit a bond for proposed on-site tree mitigation for 50% of the caliper inches to be removed. Prior to construction, submit deed restrictions for the trees proposed to be retained. If any trees currently proposed to be retained are removed, approval must be granted PRIOR to any tree removal and mitigation requirements adjusted accordingly. Prior to ANY site work, tree protection measures must be installed for all trees to be retained. Once installed, the tree protection measures must be approved by a certified arborisl and a mernber of the Planning Staff- Prior to Final Plat, plant the required on-site mitigation- Prior to tree removal and during tree removal on sleep slopes, the arborist must be on-site to insure fill-it the tree protection standards to fully adhered to. EXHIBIT NO 110: 01 DI CISION ,(-F U ~;I1lit'1'.'1-O(7[IU.ViVIISi!11fy-U[1OI:ilM1;-i l', I'J`1000i1~'fv11S I1lll'.?tp~Clli~f•.11;;i'P.P,IS1U~11F;Jtil.l;i41'.1U~HhUf14 I'APAG& If]N 1~ 0", ' -s c eara e_ , Chapter 18.795, applies, to ail development and requires that clear vision. area shall be maintained on the corners of all-pro e rty adjacent to Intersecting right-of-ways And at the intersection of a public street and a n pvate driveway. A visual clearance area-shall contain no vehicle hedge, planting, fence, wall -structure, signs, -or temporary or permanent obstruction, exceeaing three feet in height. The applicant has not proposed any structures structures to be located on individual, lots will be standards during the. building permit phase. or vegetation in the vision-.clearance -area. All reviewed for compliance with the vision clearance FINDING: Because no structures are currently proposed in the vision clearance area and all future buildings will be reviewed for compliance during the building permit phase, this standard has been satisfied. E - STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS (SECTION 18.810): Chapter 18.810 Provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. * The applicable standards are addressed below: 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 local residential street to have a 42- to, 50-foot right-of-way width and a 24 to 322 -foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. This site lies adjacent to the western terminus of SW Mistletoe Drive, and the eastern terminus of SW Catalina Drive constructed as a part of the Hillshire Creek Estates #4 development), both of which are classified as local residential streets. The current right-of-way {ROW) width of SW Mistletoe Drive is 50 feet, with a paved width of 32 feet. The ROW width of SW Catalina Drive is 50 feet, and the paved width is 32 feet. The applicant's plan indicates that SW Mistletoe Drive will be extended into the development and will continue the 50-foot ROW to the first intersection with their new streets, labeled as Street B and Street A. From there, Streets A and B will continue with 46-foot ROW widths and 28-foot wide paved widths, which are allowed by the Tigard Development Code (TDC), Table 18.810.1, provided the anticipated traffic volumes.will stay at or below 500 vehicles per day. The traffic study submitted with the application indicates that approximately 30% of the traffic from this development will travel north on Street B to reach SW Menlor Lane or SW Fern Street. This means that approximately 235 daily vehicle trips will utilize Street B from this development. To get a rough idea of how many vehicle trips this street may encounter from existing lots to the north (within the Hillshire -Creek Estates developments) Staff looked at the traffic engineer's breakdown for trip distribution. Again, Lancaster Engineering assumed approximately 30% of the site traffic will travel in a northerly direction toward SW Barrows Road and approximately 60% will travel in a southerly direction toward SW Bull Mountain Road. Regional data found in Metro's emme2 transportation system model, indicates that roughly 21% of the traffic in this area will travel northerly toward parts of Washington County and Beaverton, north of Scholl's Ferry Road (See letter from Lancaster Engineering, dated September 20, 1999). Based on the enmie2 data referenced in the letter, Staff concurs that Lancaster s assumption is reasonable. Staff a Dplied the Lancaster assumptions to the existing developments of Hillshire Creek Fstates 43 (HCEI and Hillshire Creek Estates 114 (HCE4)_ In HCE3, there are 71 lots, most of which are single family detached. To he conservative, Staff used the trip c eneration number for single family clelached from the Sixth Edition ITE Manual, which shows sincj~e farmly detached developments generate approximately 9.57 trips per lot. Therefore, HCE3 will generate a ) I roximately G19 dally trips. Of those trips, approximately 60`%, or 407 trips, may choose to travel southerly toward B I our lain _EXHI 1 11 :t41ItUi+li•l)UO{I:Sllv115tlLii+171!111 ~~;f;11:~1(!!IU141111i~1r;11:; i'+'!'lUU111/lr.11:;1'I;1~ir1U~117;';~II~I'.I`.I'.it)~k!1(i-7 f'A('1 I ( ~ Road. There-will -be.two options for the residents in" HCE3- 1) Ascension Drive, or 2) Catalina Drive into Pacific Crest. Since this development lies closest 'to Ascension Drive, Staff assumed that approximately 30% Will choose Catalina Drive.- Therefore, HCE3 may contribute approxirately 122 daily trips to Catalina Drive and Street B.' In HCE4, the daily trips were calculated at 404, based on townhouse/condominium trip generations (see applicant's traffic study). Of those trips, again it was assumed that 60%{, or 242. trips, may travel southerly toward SW Bull Mountain Road. o get there, residents in HCE4 will have the same options as was mentioned for.HCE3. Staff chose a 50150 split, as it is difficult to determine exactly how residents may choose their routes. If 50% of the southerly traffic choose Catalina Drive, this.will mean that HCE4 will contribute approximately 121 daily trips to Street B. .In total, based upon estimates from Pacific Crest, HCE3 and HCE4, Street B may see traffic levels of approximately 479 daily trips. This volume could go up or down depending upon actual driving habits of the residents, once-the developments are in place. Staff is comfortable that traffic volumes should not exceed 500 cars per day, and the 28-foot wide paved width for Street B will be sufficient. In addition, this roadway connection will reduce the amount of traffic that-would otherwise be forced to use SW Mistletoe Drive, SW Ascension Drive and other streets to travel to the north. This was a concern raised by some of the citizens who live along SW Ascension Drive. All streets that have paved widths of less than 32 feet will be required to have parking restrictions. Streets with a paved width of 28 feet will be restricted to parking on one side only. The applicant shall install "No Parking" signs along one side of Streets A and B. Street C will have a paved width of 24 feet, which results to no parking on either side. The applicant shall install "No Parking" signs on both sides of Street C. In order to extend SW Mistletoe Drive into the site, the applicant must obtain ROW from Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)'. This ROW must be obtained, at the applicant's expense, prior to construction. BPA submitted comments to the City, dated March 3, 2000, indicating that their standards, require a 25-foot setback between developments (roads) and their structures. There are two power line structures immediately south of the Mistletoe Drive extension shown on the plan. These structures are within 15 feet of the street extension. Based upon where SW Mistletoe Drive is terminated from the existing subdivision to the east, it does not appear that the applicant can do anything to avoid the close proximity to these structures. BPA included al copy of their "Landowner's Guide to Use of BPA.Rights-of-Way", which has a provision stating that if our project can't meet these specifications, we may be able to modify our transmission facilities. However, you must be willing to pay for the modifications." The applicant will be required to coordinate with BPA to make sure Phis issue is resolved prior to construction plan approval. It should be noted that citizens raised a concern regarding the existing ROW and paved widths of SW Ascension Drive, east of this site.. That issue will be addressed later in this decision. 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 ropperty owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost orwtzich 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. One concern that the City, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R), and many of the neighbors in the vicinity of the development had early on with this project was the fact that there was only to be one public street access into the development (SW Mistletoe Drive). Added to this is the fact that this site lies adjacent to a high-pressure petroleum pipeline (to be discussed later in this decision). The applicant has since redesigned the project, added additional parcels for development, and has pro )osed a connector street (Street B) to the north that will tie into the new street constructed as a hart of tFie Hillshire Creels Estates 114 development, SW Catalina Drive" - - EXHIBIT sln+IllyUnuuu:vMlst~l~ll-~lulli'n~•nrl'r~.lnu(lIi~r.als Isltl9_nuuI pn.41:;1, rirlnrlul:v_;I1<ISoil.uouu.i In order to create the northerly extension' of-Street B, the engineer had to design the street to negotiate the steep terrain.' Street B will indude two switchback `eyebrow° comers to help keep the street under 15% grade. The eyebrow oomers are allowed on local residential streets, arid meet the design criteria of Washington County's Uniform Road Improvement Design. Standards. NF&R also submitted comments to the City indicating that they approve of the Proposed plan. Although the current plan is *satisfactory this NF&R, the street grade of Street B does not meet City standards. This will.be addressed later in this decision. By providing the roadway connection to the north, as well, as providing the westerly extension of- SW Mistletoe Drive into this site,'the applicant has met this criterion: Cul-d"acs: 18.810.030.K 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 development 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 along the centerline of the roadway from the near side of the intersecting street to the farthest point of the cul-de-sac. If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the City. There will be no.cul-de-sacs within this development. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.810.030(G) requires all local streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to_ provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this Code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. As was mentioned above, the westerly extension of SW Mistletoe Drive, and the northerly extension of Street B to connect into SW Catalina Drive in the Hillshire Creek Estates 94 development will meet this criterion. Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.M 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), and: Centerline radii of curves shall not be less than 700 feet on-arterials; 500 feet on major collectors, 350 feet, on minor collectors, or 100 feet on other streets; and Streets intersecting with a minor collector or greater functional classification street, or streets intended to be posted with a stop sign or signalization, shall provide a landing averaging five percent or less. Landings are that portion of the street within 20 feet of the edge of the intersecting street at full improvement. As was stated above, the northerly extension of Street B will include street grades close to 15%. There is a portion of this street adjacent to Lots 49, 33 and 32 that has a street grade of 14.9% over a length of approximately 200 feet. Since the length of that steeper section is less than 250 feet, it meets City standards. There is also a portion of the northerly extension, between Lot 32 and Tract F that has a grade of 14.5%- The length of this run is approximately 750 feet, which does not meet the City's standard. Again, it should be noted that TVF&R has reviewed this plan and stated in writins to the City that they are satisfied. The City's standard was partially created in response to the Uniform Fire Code and TVF&R standards. Staff had previously met with the applicant and TVF&R, where TVF&R stated that they no longer place a limit as to the length of a 15 /o grade run. However, even though TVF&R apf)roves of the plan as proposed, the applicant would still reed a Variance to the City's standard in order to he approved- 1 he applicant did not apply for such a Variance- EXHIBIT NO I ICF 01- I A-CI: X11 N 511111`J`8(1-Uf10U'iIMISi!11!7-pQpl:~lMl.`i1:3LIS3 [II)(II~illrll'i I`~'.I(J.(h,101/I1:4I.'~1'1'~`i{IfP11a,".11{Pl3`.}`.f I)pU0.1 I'hta•1 MlU<,.~-~~7"r.H(aW Staff discussed. this issue with the ap licant, as it ap ared to. Staff that the -street could' be redesi ned to meet the Cites standard. The applicant su mitted a preliminary plan revision on April 4, 2000, that confirms that it is possible for them to meet the standard. It does not appear the length or horizontal alignment of the street would have to change, but only the vertical alignment. Therefore, the City will require the applicant to. revise their plan for Street B to meet the City's standard. The street grades.for Streets A and C fall below 12% and meet this criterion..... As was mentioned previously, the eyebrow corners shown for the northerly extension of Street B, are acceptable for local residential streets and meet Washington County. Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards, and are acceptable to TVF&R. Access to Arterials and Major Collectors: Section 18.810.030.P states that where a development abuts or is traversed by an existing or•proQosed arterial or major 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: A parallel access street along the arterial or major collector; Lots of suitable depth abutting the arterial or major collector to provide adequate buffering with frontage along another street; Screen planting at the rear or side property line to be contained in a non-access reservation along the arterial or major collector; or Other treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this subsection; If a lot has access to two streets with different classifications, primary access should be from the lower classification street. There are no collector or arterial streets adjacent to this development. Private Streets: Section 18.810.030.S states that design standards for private streets shall be established- by the City Engineer. The City shall iiequire legal assurances for the continued maintenance of-private 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. Two private streets are proposed for this project (Tracts A and -B), to serve Lots 21, 22, 25 and 26. These two streets are proposed to be less than 150 feet in length, so they will not need to have fire truck turn-arounds provided at the ends. The proposed tract widths for these private streets are 20 feet, which will allow a paved width of up to 20 feet to be constructed. These dimensions will meet the access standards of the TDC. It should be noted that the owner of Tax Lot 201 (281 05DD), Mr. Brian Pautz, has submitted a letter to the City indicating that he believes a third lot could be developed from his parcel and could be served from the private street labeled as Tract A. This issue will be discussed in more detail later in this decision, but if the applicant were to find that a third lot is possible, Tract A will need to be revised to provide the proper access. This may mean that the street would then exceed 150 feet in length, and would then need to have a fire truck turn-around provided. The applicant shall place a statement on the face of the final tat indicating the private streets will be owned and maintained by the properties that will be served pby it. In addition, the applicant shall record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) along with the final plat that will clarify how the private property owners are to maintain the private streets. These CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of the final plat. The City's public improvement design standards require private streets to have a pavement section equal to a public local street. The applicant will need to provide this type of pavement section. 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 18.810.040.13.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: - - -EXHIBIT- A. 1.401 QF 1)1-(,l SIGN - - - - - - - , c is ~ ~r , u :.Uitl!i`.)~J{10110a1rv71S1991001)]'IP.H~;1S)'iJ0001GWI:i)~Jt)00001/lh1L;1'.'.'.hl1UUi!t4;lft1I.P.f)(OW1 1;11 AC E_., i.ll~~tttJ • Where street location is precluded by natural topography; wetlands or other bodies-of water or, pre-existing development or For blocks adjacent to arterial streets,' limited access, highways; major collectors or railroads. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. Due to the topography it is not possible to meet this-standard for off=site eonnecfiolhs:~ All blocks' within the subdivision itself, however, meet the block size standard. Section 18.810.040.13.2 also states that bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when fyll - 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. Within the subdivision, street intersections are provided at distances of more than 330 feet. The applicant has not proposed pedestrian paths through the blocks within this subdivision. Because of extsttnq development and topography, pedestrian paths are not required to parcels outside of -the subdivision. 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. None of the lots that are more than 1.5 times the minimum lot width have a depth greater than 2.5 times the average width. -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. All lots have a frontage of no less than 25 feet on a public or private street. 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. The applicant has shown that all new streets within this development will be constructed to have sidewalks on both sides, thereby meeting this standard. 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 the Unified Sewerage Agency 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. There is an existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer line that was just recently constructed within the street labeled as SW Catalina Drive, in the Hillshire Creek Estates #4 development. That 8-inch sewer line has the capacity to be extended southerly into this site to serve the entire development. The applicant's plan indicates that they will extend this existing line into the site to serve their lots. Although the sanitary sewer design would normally be reviewed and approved by USA, because this site currently lies witKin the Urban Services Boundary (USB), the City will be the agency reviewing the design because this site will soon be annexed into the City. Staff has a few concerns regarding the pipe layout. These concerns must be addressed to the City's satisfaction, especially since the applicanl plans to annex this project soon after this decision is rendered. Therefore, the City will be the agency to review the design of the system and will be the agency to maintain the system once completed. EXHIBIT 511H1J99MY JI1Ylrv11S1''39 -(1[I(➢I:nA-0Il'.)'.79 00(31r1fA 1,`i IEII')Uh11171r"dk'.113'U003t;IS1 I{1 1 p'iUUl3ria 1[ I,;r ^,FJrt Anytime public.lines are shown to cut across side and back yards -of future lots; the City will be concerned about long-term maintenance and accessibility. There are two problem areas that.need to be addressed. First, there is a sewer pipe run shown to'run northerly from Tract A, adjacent to the west boundaries of Lots 23, 24 and 27, through Tract C, and back into the first eyebrow comer of Street B. This section has one bend at a manhole inside Tract Cthat may not be accessible_-.This will not be permitted, because the City requires vehicular access to downstream manholes so the line above can be cleaned. If the City can not physically get to the manhole in-Tact=:C >then the entire pipe run from Tract A to that manhole would not be able to be cleaned.' From the grading plan, it appears the applicant could provide a maintenance access roadway from the eyebrow corner of Street. B up to the manhole in question. This is more of a detailed design issue that can be resolved during the construction plan review. The second concern with this pipe run is accessibility for repairs and/or replacement if the line ever. fails. Public lines running though yards and steep terrain are not easily, accessible for repairs or replacement. -Therefore, the City will reqquire this sanitary sewer pipe section, from Tract A to,Street B, to be either ductile iron or PVC C-9Q0 pipe. These materials will render the line virtually "bullet- proof". - The other area of concern involves three separate pipe runs that extend from Street B to serve lots behind lots. These pipe runs are located between Lots 65, 64 and 66, between Lots 73 and 74, and between Lot 73 and Tract E. These pipe :runs are necessary to serve Lots 64; 69, 70, and 71. Here again, the City's concern- is accessibility for any repairs and/or replacements in the event of pipe failures. Therefore, these three pipe sections shall be made bulletproof,by being either ductile iron or PVC C-900 pipe. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states 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,,wh'other 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 the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). This site lies at the top of a' hill and will not have any upstream storm water flowing into it. The proposed drainagge system will be appropriately sized to accommodate the storm wafer runoff from this developmenf. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.13 states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing draina e 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). The applicant's plan and narrative indicates that the storm drainage system installed as a part of the Hillshire Creek Estates 94 development was sized appropriately to handle the developed storm water runoff from this site. The engineer indicates that since detention facilities were not required in the Hillshire Creek Estates #4 development, that there are no detention facilities needed in this development. As was mentioned previously, USA would normally review and approve of the storm drainage design, and would require a downstream analysis to be conducted by the design engineer prior to construction plan approval. When annexation approval is obtained, the City will conduct the storm drainage design review. The City will also require the applicant to conduct the downstream analysis prior to construction plan approval. If the downstream analysis shows that the downstream system can not, for some reason, accommodate the flows from this development, as was intended, then the applicant will either need to fix the problem downstream or provide onsite detention. There is ample space within this development to provide onsite detention, if necessary- 1 herefore, it is possible for the applicant to resolve any potential cal'mcity problems- . --.--EXHIBI_T_ A IdUll{:L ul= 1)1_C;ISI0N t;IJlit],JSYGO[lU31PA131S)ys)O(J(J1',/JvV"'i'.Y)O00IfA.11!;It)fP.I(1U(1111Iv111;1~J'"KI)0OUl`i1:;C.]{1',~'JfIUO~IUt I'NPAGE1-,1 Staff has a couple of concerns related to the storm drainage pipe layout, similar to the coricems` raised with regard to the sanitary sewer pipe layout. There is a section bf storm drainage pipe shown . to cross through the side yard of. Lot 31 -into Tract C where. it will discharge into 'a proposed water quality swale. Once the water leaves the swale, another pipe carries the storm water out. of Tract C into the pipe in Street B: , Because these two sections .of pipe will be difficult to access for repair or replacement, they shall be constructed of either ductile iron or PVC C-900 pipe. AnotherSipe=section is shown from Street B into the Tract, E swale. This section shall also be d0cfilo i ii o 'PVC C-900 pipe. Utilities: Section 18.810.920 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 a placed 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; 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 a proval 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 that follow the eastern edge of this site and will be in line with Street B. These overhead lines currently provide utility service to the existing homes on this site. When development occurs, these lines shall be placed underground as a part of the street improvements of Street B. High Pressure Refined Petroleum Pipeline A -Significant amount of public comment was received concerning the existing petroleum pipeline, operated by SFPP, L,P. in conjunction with Kinder Morgan. Several' citizens were given the impression that the applicant will be allowed to construct their project without having to take special precautions around this pipeline. There were a number of concerns regarding the overall safety of development around the pipeline and whether or not the public improvements for this project can be constructed without endangering the lives of citizens. Staff responded via e-mail to one citizen, and indicated that the City will not allow the applicant to construct their project without full coordination with every utility company that operates a utility in this area. The SFPP pipeline is one of many utility companies that the applicant will need to work with. Prior to the applicant being allowed to submit their construction plans to the City, they will be required to submit evidence that they have submitted their plans to the various utility companies for their review; this will include Kinder Morgan. This is a standard operating procedure for the City- Once the City is assured that the utility com1-)anies have received the plans, a formal plan review will begin. Prior to construction plan approval, the City will require that all concerns and comments from the utility agencies be Incorporated into the applicant's plans. EXHIBIT _ IT) I (T (A 1A (A.SION Q'IMI'.N,~9O(H(Vi T;I9',i,11U)I rv11`'.1'PI`lA)0Pl!h111.i?Y')'illO0171R41ti1`.1'f'IU(lillf:J:~1M'I'Y10(101~1 1 '11;1 i. I, Before the* contractor can begin work, he must call for utility locates; this is a state law. Many utility companies will . require the contractor to pothole their utilities -to verify depths before they begin• digging with their, equi ment.. Kinder Morgan submitted'a letter to the City with regard to this project. There are nine specific conditions listed in that letter that Kinder- Morgan expects the applicant to address. The City will make sure the applicant complies with each condition by making'sure they' 'are listed on the applicant's construction plans so the contractor can easily see them. It should 4e noted that one of the conditions is that a SFPP pipeline inspector must be on site :ataaEl _times while work is . taking place near their pipeline. The costs of having this inspector onsite shall be borne by the applicant. As a side note, the applicant and their contractor have an interest in making sure they coordinate closely with Kinder Morgan, as they are not interested in jeopardizing the lives of their employees or the citizens to the area. A question was raised by citizens as to who will have the liability for accidents that might occur during construction. The applicant will bear all liability for their work, including any problems that are encountered with utilities. - Traffic Study Findings A traffic study was originally submitted in June, 1999, by Lancaster Engineering, Inc.; when the project had only 62 lots. This report has since been updated by Lancaster twice: 1) via a letter to Brian Rager, dated September, 20, 1999 regarding trip distribution assumptions, and 2) amended traffic study, dated January 3, 2000, to account for the additional lots proposed. The applicant's traffic study addresses issues such as roadway volumes and, intersection levels of service (LOS). Roadway volumes were of primary concern to neighboring residents. The traffic study, and updates, reviewed roadway volumes for the following streets: SW Mistletoe Drive between Hillshire Drive and Benchview Terrace) SW Mistletoe Drive (immediatel east of Ascension Drive) SW Ascension Drive (north of IV istletoe Drive) SW Fern Street (west of Creekshire Drive) SW Menlor Lane (south of Barrows Road) The reports found that this project will add approximately 784 new trips to the street system on a typical weekday. With this additional traffic, SW Mistletoe Drive, between Hillshire Drive and Benchview Terrace, will have a traffic volume of approximately 2,550 vehicles per dayy This section of SW Mistletoe Drive is classified as a minor collector, which can handle up* to 3,& vehicles per day. SW Mistletoe Drive, immediately east of Ascension Drive is expected to have a volume of approximately 960 vehicles per day, which is within the limits of a local residential street. SW Ascension Drive is expected to have a volume of approximately 555 vehicles per day,_which typically falls within the limits of a local residential street. However, the volume limits for this street were called into question during review of this project; therefore, Staff will address that issue later in this decision. SW Fern Street is expected to carry a volume of approximately 765 vehicles per day, which is appropriate for a local residential street. Finally, SW Mentor Lane is expected to carry a volume of approximately 845 vehicles per day, which is well under the limit for a minor collector street. SW Ascension Drive SW Ascension Drive was constructed as a part of the Hillshire Woods development (SUB 94-00003). It was constructed with a 28-foot wide paved section, and a 44-foot ROW. Many citizens commented that since SW Ascension Drive has a 28-foot wide paved width, that its volume limits should be 500 vehicles per day The current standard in the TDC for new streets is that a 28-foot wide street should only be used when the anticipated traffic volumes will be 500 vehicles per day or less. Although that is how the City's current standard is read, that is not what was intended back when SW Ascension Drive was approved and constructed. To explain this further, it must be noted that the City has a Comprehensive Plan that includes discussion of the various classifications of streets. There are two volumes to the Comprehensive Plan: Volume I is the Resource Document, and Volume II is the Findings, Policies & Implementation Strategies Document. In Volume I, Transportation Chapter, Section 111, there is general discussion about the various classifications of streets. For local streets, three sub-grouts are mentioned: 1) local streets in in(JuslrWll or comrnercial areas, 2) residential suh-collectors, and 3) residential access streets. Nt11I( ;Lt)I lJI:(:ISU1N '((fl 11'J`_14}I1(1(}U:Sl1,11ti1',l'111 (l00 1'"'(A 1:,1'YPl ll111111~IPAl`.~ IUJ!101J01J1D"11:;1'+tlUll(IUIa`:I k 1`.l'1.3 uCn)u,1 Residential sub-~&llectors are defined as streets "intended. to carry up to 1,500 vehicle trips per day from residential neighborhoods tb higher order streets. Residential: sub-bollectors generally collect traffic from several neighborhoods. Two travel lanes and two, parking lanes shall generally be provided on, residential sub-collectors. Sidewalks shall generally be provided on both sides;_of residential sub-collectors." Residential access'streets are "intended to provide direct access to single-family--resid6hces with a minimum of other traffic. Traffic levels on residential access streets should .be limited to no more than 500 ADT." The Tigard Development Code, effective at the time Hillshire Woods was approved, stated in Section 18.164.030(E), that residential sub-collectors could have pavement widths of either 28 feet or 32 feet. There were no traffic volume limits (other than a maximum of 1,500 vehicles per day) placed on those widths. It is clear to Staff, upon review of the Hillshire Woods decision, the Comprehensive Plan,-and the TDC that was effective at that time, that SW Ascension Drive was intended to serve as :a residential sub-collector. It definitely carries traffic from various neighborhoods to higher order streets. The fact that it was approved with a 28-foot paved width does not eliminate it from being called a sub-collector. The Comprehensive Plan states that parking is enerall provided on'both sides of these streets. In the case of SW Ascension Drive, Hillshire Woods was approved. as a Planned Development, and the pavement width was allowed to be 28 feet so that lots could be developed on both sides of the street. The extreme slopes involved and the amount of additional grading that would have been necessary to make the street wider would have limited building lots on the backside of Ascension. The pavement width was reduced in order to work with the existing topography, not to limit traffic volumes. Lancaster made a statement in their reports that they assumed the current traffic volumes on SW Ascension Drive, based upon a 1998 volume count performed by the City (which reflected a daily volume of 458 vehicles per day) and an assumed growth rate, is approximately 515 vehicles per day. Based upon their assumptions for trip distributions from this development, they estimate that approximately 40 new trips will be added to this street on a given weekday, bringing the total volume up to approximately 555 vehicles per day- Based upon the discussion above, Staff would have found this new volume to be appropriate for this sub-collector street. It should be noted that Hillshire Woods and SW Ascension Drive were approved with 72 single-family lots abutting the street. By simply applying the trip generation estimate in the ITE Manual (mentioned earlier in this decision as 9.57 trips per lot per da that the estimated traffic, volumes for SW Ascension Drive, at the time the project was approved, would have been 689 trips per day (72 X 9.57 = 689). Here is another indication that the City never intended for SW Ascension Drive to operate with a 500 vehicle per day limit. Citizens questioned -the validity of Lancaster's estimates of the existing volumes on SW Ascension Drive, and asked that the City conduct their own study. The citizens also commented that they believe there is an existing speeding problem on this street that will be exacerbated by this development. It was believed that since SW Ascension Drive had just been "finish-paved', that volumes and speeds had risen significantly. Between Tuesday, February 11 2000 and Friday, February 4, 2000, the City conducted a volume count and speed study of SW Ascension Drive. The results of the three-day study show that total traffic volumes on this street are approximately 473 vehicles per day. In 1998, the City conducted a similar study that revealed a total volume of 458 vehicles per day. Therefore, the volumes on Ascension Drive have only increased approximately 3% in the last two years. In addition, the actual traffic volumes are well under what would have been estimated for this roadway when Hillshire Woods was approved. The speed• study found that the average speed of all vehicles traveling in the northbound directiop (downhill) was 19 MPH, with 18.3% of all vehict'es exceeding the posted 25 MPH limit. The 85 r' percentile speed was 30 MPH. NOTE: The 85 ' percentile speed is the upper limit of speeds that 85% of the drivers will travel. Another way of saying this is that 85% of the drivers are driving 30 MPH or less. The average speed of. all vehicles traveling in the southbound direction (uphill) was 26 MPH, with 37.9% of all vehicles exceeding the 25 MrH limit. This is typical, as drivers wi I usually travel at a faster speed while driving uphill. The 85''-percentile speed in the southbound direction was also 30 MPH. NO ru;L OF iW.('1 ION SIJEiur0(1:Vril:;,E)!11-UOll1:,'r:•1 t •,unr) ir,nxII:~ r,ri,i()nr,tl'.,I,;t rp nnrrt=U:;IIttEr!`.,11Onlta EXHIBIT The speed study conducted by the City in -1998 revealed an average speed, in the northbound direction - of 25.59 MPH, and an 85~' percentile eed of 29:3 MPH. The average speed in the southbound direction was 26.41 MPH, and the 85~ percentile speed was 29.8 MPH. Note that the average speed. in the northbound (downhill) direction has actually d ea ed from what was measured in 1998. One reason for this may be that now all of the homes are occupied and there. are more "visual" obstructions that typically cause motorists to drive more slowly (children ~aying, cars parked along the street, cars backing out into the street, etc.). Also note.. that. .#F e •8~ percentile speed has not significantly increased. Staff concludes that there has not been a significant increase in speed over the last two years and finds that there is not a significant speeding problem on this roadway. Staff also finds that based upon the two studies conducted by the City, which reflects growth in traffic due to increased development in the area and a change in the roadway surface, that. this new project will not create a speeding problem for this roadway. There is one problem with the parking situation on SW Ascension Drive. The "No Parking" signs were never installed, as was intended by the Hillshire Woods decision. These signs should- be installed. -Now that there are houses occupied along the street, the City has been in contact with the residents who have asked about traffic calming measures for this street. The City has suggested to the neighborhood that they create their own task force to help develop a plan for traffic cming that they can live with. For instance,"the neighborhood group could suggest locations for the "No Parking" zones. The City has offered to help develop such a plan once a task force is established. The City suggested that perhaps these zones alternate sides of the roadway to force vehicles to drive slower. To date, a task force has not been established, to the City's knowledge. Lancaster's reports also reviewed intersection LOS at the intersections of SW Benchview Terrace/SW Bull Mountain Road and SW Benchview Terrace/SW Mistletoe Drive. Under existing traffic volumes, both intersections operate at acceptable LOS (D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours. Once this project is fully developed and occupied, both intersections will continue to operate at acceptable LOS during both the AM and PM peak hours. The citizens also raised a concern with respect to the intersection at SW Barrows Road/SW Scholl's Ferry Road and whether or not the applicant should be required to mitigate for their impact on this- intersection. This intersection is operated and maintained by Washington County. The County has never notified the City that there is a significant problem at this intersection, and did not raise such a concern when they submitted comments to the City regarding this application. It is a busy intersection during peak times, but does not appear to be failing. At the request of the City, Lancaster reviewed this intersection with respect to the project impacts. It should be noted that this was not a requirement, because the proximity of this project is well beyond the theoretical impact zone of this intersection. Regardless, Lancaster estimated that the, project would contribute approximately six AM peak hour trips and nine PM peak hour trips to the intersection. There are approximately 2,760 entering vehicles during the AM peak hour and 3,003 entering vehicles during the PM peak hour at this intersection. The additional traffic from this project will result in an impact of approximate) 0.2%. This is not a significant. increase and, therefore, the applicant will not be required to mitigate for their impact. Another citizen concern was with respect to the trip distribution assumptions made by Lancaster. This issue was addressed previously in the "Streets' section of this decision. When this issue was - raised early in the original review period, Staff was concerned as well that perhaps Lancaster had made a wrong assumption- So, at the City's direction, Lancaster provided additional information as to how they came up with their distribution percentages. Lancaster assumed approximately 30% of the site traffic will travel in a northerly direction toward- SW Barrows Road and approximaely 60% will travel in a southerly direction toward SW Bull Mountain Road. They checked this assumption by reviewing regional data in Metro's emme2 transportation system model, which indicates that roughly 21% of the traffic in this area travels northerly toward parts of Washington County and Beaverton, north of Schools Ferry Road. Lancaster explains this in their letter, dated September 20, 1999. Based on the emme2 data referenced in the letter, Staff concurs that Lancaster's assumption is reasonable. In conclusion, this project should not create adverse traffic impacts on the surrounding street system. The Lancaster reports adequately address the various issues raised by the City and the citizens. EXHIBIT j; CItiIUN ----tl_al(~•lU :11 111 1 1 011 00 0U:3'N1151SYrj0001,`~!f~11h1J:).IUO11J!Vfllti IUUU17Jf~•li:-;1!I'-)!IU(IOINC;IRllltt~lU0()U4 1 'ACP f~ 7}i13tbYY (Jf7-" Elry and ife-Saf The City.of Tigard Building Division, in cooperation with NF&R, will review the construction plans for this project for fire and life safety issues. Previously, there was discussion about the steepness of Street B and the curves proposed. Staff indicated that NF&R has indicated that they approve of the proposed street plan. Street B will provide an important second access in and out of-this development, which addresses an emergency access concern raised by TVF&R and some- of the neighboring citizens. Public Water System: This site will be served from the City's public water system. There is an existing-public water line located in what will become Street BROW. The applicant's plan indicates -that this line will be extended in all of the new streets so that the water system can be adequately looped. Final design of the public water system must be approved by the Public Works and Engineering Departments prior to construction. Storm Water Quality The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWMf regulations established by the Unified Sewerage- Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 96-44) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 66 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to -be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the ap~plicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant is proposing treatment of the storm water runoff from this development in two onsite vegetated swales. One would be located in Tract C, just north of Lots 27 - 32, and the other in Trace E, just north of Lots 71 and 72. The engineer indicates that these two swales will not physically capture'100% of the water in this development due to the topography. Specifically, the swale:in Tract C will treat all of the water from Lots 1 - 63, and associated roadways. But the swale in Tract E will only capture the water from Lots 64 72 and associated roadway frontages. The storm water from Lots 73 - 80, and associated roadway frontages can not be captured for treatment. The en ineer proposes two options to resolve this oblem: 1 oversize the swale in Tract E to make up for the volume of runoff that would be generatpred by Lots 73 - 80, or 2) pay a fee in-lieu which is permitted in certain cases by the USA Design and Construction Standards. Either option is acceptable to the City. Construction of these two swales may be very difficult, based upon the topography of this site. The engineer appears to be attempting to form these swales along the side of slopes to try and work with the grades as much-as possible. Staff is concerned, based upon experience with other projects on steep slopes, that even if the grading for the swales is accomplished appropriately, long-term maintenance for the City will be difficult. This is due to the location of-the flow control. structures outside of the roadways and in positions that will not be readily accessible for cleaning equipment. Based on this, an alternate water duality design shall be developed and presented to the City prior to construction plan approval. The City has approved the use of an underground treatment facility in another subdivision, and are also maintaining two such facilities adjacent to SW Durham Road. This site is a good candidate for use of these underground units. They can be placed within the roadway areas, thereby reducing the amount of grading necessary, and making them easily accessible to City maintenance crews. Prior to construction, the applicant's engineer shall propose an alternate design for review by the City. Prior to the City accepting the facilities for public maintenance, the developer shall maintain them for a minimum of three years after construction is completed: The facilities, if placed outside of street ROW, shall be placed in tracts and be conveyed to the City on the final plat. The developer will be required to submit annual reports to the City which show what maintenance operations were conducted on the facilities 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 bctore the City will take over maintenance of the facilities. EXHIBIT ';11111E19;1i1I11111'i/mr;151',1'1orlll3`iJ'111~1'+'I'IIlII1111i/ltgl'i ID,,i')Ii11010r.11'it!VI'3Hnfl1,i/S1Ji1!I'1',IDODO 1 1't(. I ! T 1C In addition, if -the swale concept is approved, the City will not take over 'maintenance of the facilities unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If -at any 'time during the maintenance period, the landscaping- falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. Grading and Erosion Control: USA Design and Construction Standards also 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 USA regulations: the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System {NPDES erosion control permit be issued for any. development that will disturb five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit.- 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 is also 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. The applicant submitted a geotechnical report, dated September 23, 1999, and an addendum, dated December 15, 1999, by Adapt Engineering, Inc. Adapt found that this site is geotechnically feasible for the proposed development provided the applicant incorporates the recommendations of their reports into the design and construction phases of the project. Adapt notes in their reports that they were not provided with a grading plan to review. This is not crucial at this stage in the game, because the applicant will be required to provide an updated geotechnical report to the City once they have completed their proposed construction plans. At that point, Adapt will have reviewed the proposed grading plan and can make any adjustments to their recommendations that they see as appropriate. Citizens raised several concerns about -the adequacy of this site for development, especially for the areas where the slopes exceed 25% in grade. Adapt's reports indicates that even these steep areas can be developed if their recommendations are followed. The City will require the applicant's engineer to coordinate with the geotechnical engineer throughout the design and construction phases of the project to ensure that all grading work is done in compliance with Appendix Chapter 33. The City will also require that the geotechnical engineer sign the construction plans to indicate that they have approved the proposed plan. Some of the other concerns raised were with regard to the geotechnical report itself. Citizens noted that the geotechnical engineer cited in his September 23, 1999, report that "near-surface soil units below the lopsod honzon consist of a loess that appears to have been subjected to some transport action....". They also noted that the geotechnical report, dated December 15, 1999, indicated that in the vicinity of the sleeper sloped areas on the north end of the site, "many of the larger Douglas fir trees appear to have a slight bowing of their trunks." Both of these statements were taken to mean that this site is prone to landslides and should be further reviewed. What should be noted is that the geotechnical reports also slate the following- _ _ EXHIBIT _ IJC)IICi_OI Z Z 'IIJIiI~JJ!3-(IOUOtlN11 1!d',1!I•iJ(IU1'; 41'S1'i'!`! I)UI11G/ 11S 1`,!.)',! fIIJ(Ill;h,11:;1!I'!`.I UI1(11WA 1,1913_101wo,1 Ihf:1f fl 3 St1I{YNIS+HPd In the Slope Stability sedion.of the September 23, 1999. reDorL rt states that no `geomorphic n. evidence of shallow or deep-seated landsliding was observed. Test pits indicate that the gentle ; to moderate -slopes on the property are underlain by competent residual soil produced by rn-sku- weathering of rock. It also says that no evidence of past landslide activity was observed on the site, and are not anticipated to occur on grades of 25 percent or less. Regarding the steeper slopes on the north end: "subsurface conditions. are very-similar to those previously encountered during our initial September 1999 investigatih"-IDece'mber .15, 1999 "pNone of the lots have slopes in excess of 30 percent" (December -15,1999 report)-- . "Based on visual observations, the slope morphology is enerrally smooth and uniform, and no evidence of landslidiwas observed December 1 , 1999 report). Regarding the slightly-'"bowed" Douglas fir trees: "This is interpreted to be the-result of slow creep over the life of the tree, not the result of unstable soils" (December 15, 1999 report)- . "Our investigation indicates that development of the northern 6-acre portion of the Pacific Crest Subdivision is also geotechnically feasible provided that the recommendations to this, report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project" (December 15, 1999 report). Another concern was liability in the event that a landslide does occur. Timis is a factor here and it is not easy to point to any one party that will be held liable. For instance, a slide occurs while the subdivision is under construction, the applicant will have full liability. He may also look to his .contractor or engineer for obligation as well. However, the City will hold the applicant responsible. If the slide occurs after the applicant -has finished the ppublic improvements and houses are under construction, various parties could be named as liable. If tf a slide is lot-specific, the builder could be held liable if it is found that they failed to construct the foundations of.the house properly, or if they compromised the fill that had previously been established and approved by the geotechnical engineer. If the soil itself fails, then the applicant, his contractor and his engineers could be held liable. The bottom line is that parties will try their best to place the blame on another party and quite often a court of law must determine who is at fault. This is especially the case if the slide occurs after the subdivision has completed the mandatory one-year maintenance period and the developer's maintenance bond is released. In summary, the professional geologist and geotechnical engineer have indicated that this site is suitable for development as proposed. In addition, the geotechnical engineer shall be involved in the design and construction phases of this project to ensure that the grading is performed in compliance with his recommendations and Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC. Construction Traffic A concern was raised. regarding the future construction traffic into this development. Citizens have requested that the City pro-hibit construction. traffic on SW Ascension Drive. There is nothing in the TDC that would prohibit construction traffic on this street. However, Staff will encourage the applicant to choose the following routes for construction traffic: SIN Walnut Street, to SW 132"d Avenue, to SW Benchview Terrace, to SW Mistletoe Drive SW Bull Mountain Road, to SW Benchview Terrace, to SW Mistletoe Drive. The applicant and their contractor will likely want to use these routes anyway, as they are primarily. collector roads. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB), An addressing fee in the amount of $30 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to recording of the final plat. For this project, the addressing fee will be $2,400 (80 lots X $301address = $2,400)- Survey Reauirements 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- 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 tiie City's GI--)S survey. By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. EXHIBIT f i~ 'F" 17, F1O1lCE OF UI?Cl:;tOrJ l:;T[40 1'/1 :;111414`.I`.Igt.I(l0al6.11:.Y!11`.t(14101'Sltvlf;il`.i'.I'i(1{t!I[;'t,1f:; P!'Jl![1{¢1{1lAYl:ll°YiI r[)[Itrl/Sll,t ).1411]0[111.1 r1 pact Stud = T Section ' 18. 90.050 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 systern including bikeways, the drainage system , the parks system,'the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development.::)=or 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.devdprhent' 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.tiransfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt. findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. - The applicant has prepared an impact study that indicates the following services are available to serve the proposed subdivision: -Sanitary Sewer System, Storm Water System, Water System, Traffic System, Schools, Electrical Services, Natural Gas Services, Telephone Service, Noise and Parks. The application incorporates necessary improvements to insure the development is adequately served Any required street improvements to certain collector or hi her volume streets and the Washington Count Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures that' are required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Bo Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Presently, the TIF for each trip that is generated is $189. The total TIF for an attached, single-family dwelling is $1,899. The internal streets within the subdivision are needed to allow the subdivision to develop and the need for streets is created by the subdivision. Because the need for the internal streets is created by the development, the impact of the development is roughly roportional to the cost of dedication and construction of the internal streets. Upon completion of t~is development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $151,920 ($1,899 x 80 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 $474,750 ($151,920 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact, is considered an unmitigated impact- Since the TIF paid is $151,920, the unmitigated impact can be valued at $322,830. The applicant's traffic study did not identify the need for an off-site Improvements. Any improvements to the City wide services must still be proportional to the development. In this case no additional improvements are warranted. WASHINGTON COUNTY BULL MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY PLAN This area is within the City of Tigard's Urban Services Area. 'In 1997 the City of Tigard and Washington County entered into • an agreement that Tigard would review all applications for development within the Urban Services Area. Washington County adopted the City's Development Code in this area and an Urban Planning Agreement was entered into. This Agreement indicated that the City would continue to review protects in "areas of special concern" as defined in the Bull Mountain Community Plan (May 12, 1997 Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement). This project site is in Area of Special Concern 2- The City Attorney has indicated that, because the County preserved the Bull Mountain Community Plan text, resource overlay areas and Goal 5 resources, the substanative standards in the Washington County Code are applicable to these issues. Staff has required the developer to comply with the intent of Bull Mountain Community Plan and Washington County Significant Natural Resource section of the County Code. This is reviewed below. In addition, the Urban Planning Agreement indicates that Washington County staff will provide technical assistance to City staff in reviewing appplications that include "areas of special concern". Washington County Staff provided comments to )lie City indicating that the plan did not adequately address Community Development Code Sections 421 and 422 or the Summit and Slopes subareas including Areas of Special Concern 2 or District B. Staff contacted the Washington County staff member for clarification on their comments. It was agreed that the applicant did in fact respond to the Summit and Slopes subareas including the Area of Special Concern 2 and District B. The Washington County staff member also indicated that it seemed possible for the applicant to comply with Washington County CDC Section 421 and 422 but that the applicant would need to delineate these IJ[)lIC1: OI 173.(:I1 -~-ll.)N --[yj-'j- ' 1= 35 OF 4U `111111f111SI-UUOI3,'Vr061999 000158%1CI1`1YJ 0110161015 19SiJ UOU17lfti•1!:)1(NIf! I1QI11YlSl.ltl',1`.111 00(IIL1 hf~( IIIh'i{el►,~ ~+Ur}3l7}1L1 1C~lJ~~ areas. The flood hazard area is off-site, but because it-is within 250 feet of the site, the Washingto'n' County -CDC 421 requires the applicant to delineate it. -If the proposal would impact it, additional review would be needed. Washington County requires areas with a wildlife habitat designation to have a Significant Natural Resource Assessment prepared by a-professional wildlife biologist. While, based onAhe analysis below, it appears the applicant has adequately addressed the wildlife impacts, Staff will impose a condition that the applicant comply. with the County s requirements .grid . have an assessment done to,determine if the proposed open space tracts adeg6ateV.lrovide`farthe existing wildlife on site. -If the assessment determines that additional mitigation measures are necessary, the applicant must incorporate these into-the final design. This could include, but is not limited to, the reduction of lots in order to create additional open space or enhancement of open space areas. .Summit and Slopes - Design Elements: 1. The residential character of this subarea is to be protected. Improvement of roadways should be done. in' a manner which does not encourage excessive traffic. All roads. planned for improvement or connection to Bull Mountain Road within the Planning area should be constructed as minor collectors or local streets following the topography generally and not directly aligned with other major roadways.' All streets within the proposed community are circuitous by design. There are two street connections that lead out of the subdivision. The traffic report has been submitted that indicated the subdivision Will not result in traffic in excess of the permissible limits. - 2. Hillside building techniques and foundation designs such as stilts, stepped foundations, etc.. shall be used to minimize the alteration of existing slopes over 20 percent. Detailed site plans, elevations and sections shall be required showing all structures, foundations, and techniques proposed for hillside construction. These, as well. as other site plan requirements for building on steep slopes, as defined in the Community Development Code, are intended to ensure that development activities do not increase the potential for earth movements such as landslides or land failures in the steeply-sloped subarea. Detailed site plans will be generated at the building permit stage for home construction. The proposed ggrading plan minimizes, the alteration of slopes over 20% as much as possible. The applicant's Sensitive Lands Analysis provides an in-depth review of the feasibility of building on the steep slopes. The sensitive lands review and conditions discussed previously within this decision also insure that this standard is met. 3. No grading, filling, clearing or excavation of any kind shall be initiated on steep slopes until a grading plan, as defined in the Community Development Code, is approved. Borrowingg to obtain fill material shall be prohibited unless the material is obtained from a cut'permifted under an approved grading plan, or imported from outside the hillside area. The final grading plan will show all proposed grading, no significant additional excavation will be permitted unless a revised grading plan is submitted. This issue is thoroughly discussed under the Street and Utility Improvement Standards section of this decision, as well as under the Sensitive Lands Review discussion in this decision. 4. Removal of natural vegetation shall be minimized, existing vegetation protected and destroyed vegetation replaced. This is required in order to conserve important natural areas, decrease the potential for erosion, decrease the amount of surface water runoff and help prevent earth movement in hazardous areas. A slope stabilization and reVegetation plan, which includes a schedule for revegatation after areas have been cleared, shall be included with the required grading plan. Revegetation shall be completed before October 15 of the year of construction, or a temporary treatment shall be required sufficient to prevent erosion prior to the rainy season The Sensitive Lands Review portion of this decision has placed a condition to re-vegetate disturbed areas. The erosion control/grading plan will also require this to be shown- In addition, the tree removal section has a condition to plant required tree mitigation within the proposed tract areas as much as possible. EXHIBIT SltIS19~1;1(IIhU[Iallvli:il`.~4`f111701:JF,dl1:f'.°NIl1fIU11;lAal:; 1~~~.1 f)+1n17;P,11`I1'I'~'~O(Igl:'ltil-1~1Erl~i(plO~).7 PACTIl( (;{(I !;I ;;dill}IVISIOM 5. Because. trees are such .an important ' natural and scenic resource the on Bull Mountain;, development in areas of standing trees shall, be designed to minimize e number of trees to be cut At the time of development, no more than fifty percent of the mature standing trees (six inch .diameter or greater) shall be removed from any parcel: Development design and: clearing for structures shall provide, for maximum retention of old growth trees. Prior to development, the harvesting of forest tree species for their commercial value shall be in accord with the Oregon -Forest Practices. Act, .The,$1o ~t~biliza>lion and revegetation plan shall indicate the mature tree planned for removal and describe the replacement programs. Replacement trees must be of at least I diameter. This issue is addressed under the Tree Removal section of this decision. The City's tree removal standards require only review and mitigation of trees over 12 inches in caliper. The applicant is retaining over 50% of the healthy trees over 12 inches in diameter. In addition, the applicant Is required to plant as much of the mitigation-as possible within the open space tracts being provided. 6. Streams, seasonal waterways and immediately adjacent riparian zones, as defined in the Community Development Code, shall -be preserved in their- natural condition including topography and vegetation. Where roads'are required, bridges shall be preferred means of crossing streams and waterways rather than infill and piping or channelization of waterflow. The County has provided comments indicating there is a drainage hazard area down slope within 250 feet. While -the drainage is not- likely to be impacted due to the location, the applicant will be conditioned to identify the drainage and any potential impacts. 7. Use of powerline easements for farm operations, open space, and wildlife habitat shall be encouraged as appropriate in this subarea. The applicant has not proposed to use the powedine easement for farm operation, open space or wildlife habitat. The applicant must obtain approval from BPA for the street crossing, as conditioned elsewhere - in this decision. 8. This Design element refers to Area of Special Concern 1, which is not within the project area. Therefore, this element does not apply. 9. This Design element refers to Area of Special Concern 2, which is-within the project area. This design element requires a general circulation plan that minimizes crossing of the canyons and access onto Sunrise Lane. Legal Access to property in this areas shall be consolidated whenever possible in order to encourage a development pattern which better conforms to the topography. A future street plan has been prepared with consideration of the existing street network, tax lots and topography. Due to the topography, the proposal does not propose a future street connection across the surrounding canyons. In addition, the applicant will not be creating additional accesses or traffic on Sunrise Lane. 10. This Design element refers to Area of. Special Concern 3, which is not within the project area. Therefore, this element does not apply. WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 422 Significant Natural'Resources (SNR): The required master plan and site analysis for a site that includes an identified natural resource shall: Identify the location of the natural resource(s); The existing trees have been identified on site as well as the slopes over 25%. The applicant will be conditioned to have a professional wildlife biologist conduct a site assessment to identify habitat areas in detail and provide any recommended mitigation measures as needed- NOI ICI- OF IkCISION SUI I J99-00{)0_SlM15 1!3~)y-00015/MI: 1'.I' 311 Uf )ll l f ilA415 I!l':Itl-UUU Y 111:115 1 E1`)f 1 0[!O I t 15Ll l ylf'3 1}OUOA _EX(H~~IS_IITry~~.. C 36 K /y_ Describe the treatment or prescdbed.alteratlpn;°if any; : }i~ The applicant will be mitigating for a percentage of the trees that are-to be removed and a condition has been required that will require the mitigation to primarily be planted within the open space tracts proposed. Erosion control measures will be in place prior to any construction activity being permitted and the disturbed areas are required to be re-vegetated after construction is complete. - It should be noted that the only reason the applicant is proposing alteration of the, land. in'•the ti0ffheFti. ortion of the site is to provide the a required second access to and from 'the development. In addition, 'the applicant must install mitigation measures deemed necessary by the professional wildlife biologist. Apply the design elements of the applicable Community Plan; or the applicable implementing strategies of the Rural/Natural Resource Plan, Element, Policy 10, Implementing Strategy which states: "Implement the recommendations of the Oregon Departnl6nt of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan for Washington Coun to mitigate the effects of development in the Big Game Range within the EFU, EFC, and AF-2 land use designations." This. site does not occur within the EFU, EFC, or AF-20 land use districts; therefore, this criterion does not apply. The design elements of the Bull Mountain Community Development Plan: Subarea Summit and Slopes that are applicable for the site and have been addressed previously in this decision. For any proposed use in a Significant Natural Resource Area, there shall be a finding that the pproposed use will not seriously interfere with the preservation of fish and wildlife areas and habitat identified in the Washington County Comprehensive Plan, or how the interference can be mitigated. The applicant's plans provide for a corridor between open space tracts. While the road does physically separate the tract areas, the location of the corridor is such that it will provide the most visibility to oncoming drivers. FINDING: Based on the information provided by the applicant and the analysis above, Staff finds that if the following conditions are meta the standards of the Bull Mountain Community Plan and Section 421 and 422 of the Washington County Development Code will be satisfied. CONDITION: Prior to any site work, including grading or tree removal, the applicant shall delineate the location of the flood hazard area. If any impacts to this area are proposed, the ap licant must submit evidence of compliance with Washington County CDC 421 substpantive standards. Prior to any site work, including grading or tree removal, the applicant shall submit an assessment report from a wildlife biologist which identifies the wildlife habitat area on-site and recommends mitigation measures it needed. If mitigation is necessary, the applicant's plans must reflect in detail, how mitigation will occur. Ail wildlife habitat mitigation must be complete prior to final plat approval. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Tigard Police Department has reviewed this proposal and provided the following comments: In respect to logical and timely locating of households in the development - I request careful street naming to ease the difficulty-of finding streets. "Street A" and "Street B" should be consistent with the streets which "feed" into it. Abrupt or illogical street name changes risk delays for emergency or medical responders. Staff Response: Street naming will be reviewed as part of the Engineering Departments Construction plan review. Engineering coordinates with the Police Department when approving street names. The Tigard Building Division has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: 1. Fire department access roads exceeding an elevation of 15%, shall be approved by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. 2. Hydrants shall be placed riot to exceed 500 feet as measured in an approved manner around the outside of the structures and along a route of travel accessible to fire apparatus egUipnient- EXHIBIT No rl(;I_ Of- I )LUSIOfJ I S, Sl')IiIS)!)!1U[)(]q;rlAlIS141J`J•OUOISla11?;311'3llUr)I)11~IP,11S k97`)oUl)iJlf~41:.11t`'IU{)pltltil_Ilt'IS)!1[)11011•V f'Ar~jI'~c}f?tilo;Slt-yt~ 3. A full geptechnical repport for ;soil stability and liquefaction wr I .be required. Based on'the• proposed slopes of 25% of greater,'the builder will be required to provide foundation design and approval by a qualified licensed Geo-Technical Engineer. Staff Response: TVF&R has already approved of the road plan. No street exceeds 15%..:.-Fire and Life will also be reviewed at the construction plan review stage. As discussed previously, a revised geotechnical report.-Will 15.9-required,as part of the building permit stage by the Building Division. The City of Tigard Operations Division has reviewed the proposal and has no objections and has Provide the following comments: Recommend that Tracts C, D, and F be. the responsibility of homeowner's association. If not and they are to be public, then after lots are built in, a hazardous tree assessment of . those tracts should be performed by a certified arborist and the developer required' to remove all trees identified as hazardous. Also recommend the developer be required to removal all non-native natural debris from those tracts before acceptance by the City. The City of Tigard Operations Utility Manager has reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments: The Subdivision will have an impact on an existing 6 Cast Iron waterline that will need to be abandoned in places and reconnected to in other places. Subdivision will have connection with SW Mistletoe Drive (both high pressure and gravity lines) and Catalina Drive with reducing station installed at-approximately 450-foot elevation in.Street "B". SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Washington County has reviewed the application and provided the following comments: Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has reviewed the... application but will not be submitting any requirements/conditions. The project site is entirely within the IGA Urban Services Area. The Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County has reviewed this proposal and has offered comments which have been incorporated into the body of this decision. Permits will be required through USA. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P has reviewed the subdivision proposal and indicated that they do not object to the planned development provided they comply with some specific conditions to insure public safety and pipeline protection. A complete copy of their, comments are available for review in the land use file. Staff Response: A condition of approval will be complying with all of the utility standards which will insure that the Kinder Morgan requirements are fully met. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and provided.the following comments: The addition of Catalina Drive access satisfies the needs for a second- access. Turning Radius appears to be adequate. Grade appears to be adequate. Documentation shall be {provided that indicates the availability of 1,000 GPM @ 20 PSI. TVF&R's complete list of applicable standards are available for review in the file but was not repeated in this decision because it is merely stating what the existing standards are. BPA has reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments (summarized): BPA owns the Right-of-way in fee. - The extension of Mistletoe across the right-of-way will have to be purchased from BPA by the -landowner/developer and then can be dedicated to the City or County. The extension of Mistletoe across the r/w appears to be approximately 15 feet from the structure at that point. BPA required a distance of 25 feet between developments (roads) and structures. Location of utility crossings will need to be identified. Vegetation within the r/w is limited to 10 feet in height. Portland General Electric, US West, AT&T, Oregon Department of Energy, NW Natural Gas, GTE and TCI Cable have reviewed this application and have offered no comments or objections- EXHIBIT µ 1d0 I WE 01= UecIS1UN µt tiUi11'.!J?OU0031MI51p99c~ot~l;~nusnlvt~uuol~nnr j u+ulnrsir,ltr..~<,1out11„I,-AJ JOouoal i ui~r_;1~ 4~ EGT1QN'1X - EWCEDURE-AND APPEAL{INFORNIATION Notice: Notice was posted at City Halt and mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance x Affected government agencies Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON APRIL 18,2000-AND EFFECTIVE ON MAY 3, 2000 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED, Appeal: The Director's Decision, is final on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.6.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390 040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the Notice of 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 conceming issues properly raised iri the Notice_ of Appeal may be submitted by. any partyy during the appeal hearing subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to time by the appellate body. I THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 3:30 PM ON MAY 2,2000. . III Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Half, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171. BY: Julia Povr I Hajduk PREPAF Associate Planner c'-. APPROVED BY: Richard Bew rsdorff April 18. 2000 DATE April 18. 2000 DATE Planning Manager i:lcur{)InljtrlialsutllP~aciffc Cnal-dcx: EXHIBIT _--.f~. NOrICI: C)I" UI_CISIOIV ~3A~~.;L Ql I 40 S4)E310(Nk):S;FPM:' Iii`.!' 1 010 1; 1Ts;l'i 1')!)') UUU 1 OM 1;1 1(117111 /lh;11;'.1'.I i' OI I(l i Y.r; 11 l f 1 `.3! I`1 ow) ).1 I'~ ( IF Il,; („I 1. 1 t;ll'Sf rl V l-~ 7~T7 3 COD N 7 r N H n ~ O S~ a C2 3 3 O O 0 o ,o 0 °o °o c QlA Q ~ 3 3 ~7 H H IO Z ,o ~o TJ O O O O O O .A CO ~i C Q a z [/1 m z C n m a m a CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION I I I I I I 1 1 59! . BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION 1 I`❑ i TAX LOT inn I I 'HILLSHIRE WOODS' I ! ! l r ! ! T ~ ~~Ly~ / I I I yam- 4 1 ;Y TAX Lo[ 2SW 5 ~~~}or 2~0 ~ I I t. 1 i' s 7 subjec tax lots 0 H TLN a R Gi W W z Approximate Subdivision Boundaries GEOGR•e nit; I.Ia.y Qr $,$11. Q VICINITY MA~ cp ~ "URBAN SERVICE ARE5" a SUB 1999-00003 MIS1999-00015 MIS 1999-00016 MIS 1999-00017 MIS 1999-00018 SLR 1999-00004 PACIFIC CREST SUBDIVISION N 0 4CO 5~~ Foe: ,.,c :dL lee: Ciry of Tlp'fd In1opTlalion Gn UMI man n 1-: renew ~;-a! -ry a-= ihoulo of vinf'.a v u, the Denrone': 5a':~'eS i 177255':: ipa~c. G~ S'3:? (573;o73.a:C~ 011.1 ROBERT BERNSTEIN, P-E. consulting Transportation F_t,g neer/Mnner May 1, 2000 Ms. Valerie Ramaswamy 13299 SW Ascension Dr Tigard, OR 97224 Subject: Review of Traffic issues Associated with the Proposed Pacific Crest Subdivision in Tigard, OR Dear Ms..Ramaswamy, i have reviewed and evaluated the traffic analyses and issues associated with the proposed development.. I have visited the site,,and I have reviewed applicable reference materials, as well as the background inforrnafion provided by you and others: • Pacific Crest Subdivision Notice of Decision, pages 22-25. • Pacific Crest Subdivision Traffic Impact Study Update, Lancaster Engineering for Westlake Consultants, January 3, 2000. • Traffic speed/volume count reports for Ascension Dr north of Mistletoe Dr (Feb 1-4, 2000) 1 have summarized my qualifications in the footnote' below. Based on my review and assessment of the available traffffcltransportation-related information, I have prepared the following set of comments and conclusions. Conclusions 1. Traffic volumes on Ascension Dr currently exceed the maximum volume simidard of 500 vehicles per clay (vpcl) established by the City of 71gard The proposed subdivisiolJ will s7lyTluficantly increase Ascension Dr traffic volumes and significantly increase the extent to which Ascension J)r volumes exceed the maximum volume standard: at lease 215 she- getrererted trips can be expected to use Ascension Dr daily, and Ascension volume will increase to al least 730 vpcl at Mistletoe (Ascension volumes to the north are, higher). I have l3achelor's and Mwq(er's degroea; iti Civil ringiw=ring (from Georgia Tcch and Northwestern University, respectively), and I mu a regi%tenrd prl-lc:xirnial engineer in <hx'gon, Washington, California, and New Jersey. I have 24 years of Inin,r,10alien planning %nd traffic engineering experience, including five yva" with the Cily of Portland and scven years as Scnior Transpxalation Kaginaer With the Pt+gct S"Auld Council of Governments. In these pmitiotls (ine) as n private 0111,1nltaatl, f IU1VC tonduclc-cf nun+crows regional and suhregioitnl (ravel di-mand forecasting studies, trafl7c opmtions wvl ssfety tutalyses, and nelELlmr1+0(41 traffic manag ment'studies. Over the Imt 15 yo s I have provided expert assistance ntl develclti~t~aut-related trt+tlic issues to over 50 cooru n r)i(y/ncigbNrhood groups, including twelve in I ignrJ, flet+vcrlon, and cnslcln Washingtoit(_'oulm. 507 - 181h Avoinie mast (206) 325-4320 ratty, Wastdnglon 9,1112 inx (206) 325-4318 EXHIBIT PACE ff Ms. Valerie Ram<tswamy May-1, 2(*0 Page 2 1. Left turns from Renchview Terr onlo eastbound Bull Mountain Rd operate at LOS Y in the a.m. peak hour, The delays for left-turning vehicles will increase dramatically with increasing volumes on Bull Mountain Rd, resulting in increasing use- of Ascension Dr av ati alternate route. Discussion Ascension Dr Traffic Volume The Applicant's Traffic Impact Study Update reports that existing volume on Ascension Dr north of Mistletoe Dt is 515 vehicles per day (vpd), which alramady exceeds the City of 1,18ard's maximum volume standard of 500 vpd for local streets like Ascension. Furthermore, north of the count location there are over 60 homes on Ascension Dr, generating over 600 daily trips,-and because many/most of these trips travel to/from the north, Ascension Dr volumes on the northerly (downhill) section of Ascension exceed the counted volume at its south/hilltop end, ft also should be noted that the 500-vpd maxirnurn volume standard for 28-foot-wide local streets is not derived exclusively from traffic flow/capacity considerations' the standard is established to protect. adjacent residential properties and the neighborhood environment (e.g., safety and convenience for driveway access, pedestrian circulation, front-yard activities, and neighbor-to- neighbor personal contact). Use of Ascension Dr by Slte-Generated Traffic The Applicant's Traffic Impact Study estimates that 5% of site-generated traffic will use Ascension Dr, a combined 30% will use Fern St and Mentor Ln, and 50% will use Bull Mountain Road to/front the cast. However, because the Applicant's estimate does not account for topography, for the specific locations of the homes in the proposed subdivision, or for the severity of congestion on Buil Mountain Rd and Hwy 99, the percentage of site-generated traffic using Ascension Dr will be much higher than estimated- Access from the proposed homesites to Fern and Menlor - and ultimately to Barzows Rd and Scholls Ferry Rd - requires site-generated traffic to traverse an extremely steep, switchbacking stretch of :street and to incur some out-of-direction travel. Ascension Dr offers a more convenient, route for many/most of these trips, and as a result, at least half of the site- generated traffic estimated to use Fern and Menlor instead will use Ascension (putting; an additional 115 daily trips on Ascension). • The Applicant's estimate that 50% of site-generated traffic will use Bull Mountain Rd to/from the east is excessive given the severe congestion on Hwy 99 (virtually all ofthe Bull Mountain Robert (krnsteln, P E. CcxistdtLi.1 Transr-F-m ion FPgfnccr/Ptanncr EXHIBIT PAGE 2 OF-L5-- Ms. Valerie Ratnaswamy May 1, 2(K)O Pagc 3 Rd traffic is traveling to/from Hwy 99)2. Current traffic counts at the Benchview Terr/Bull Mountain Rd intersection (as published in the Applicants Traffic Impact Study Update) indicate that in the peak periods 25% of the traffic on Bull Mountain Rd west of Benchview is turning onto or has turned off of Benchview (i.e., 25% of eastbound Bull Mountain Rd traffic turns left onto Benchview, and 25% of westbound Bull Mountain Rd traffic west of Benchview has turned onto Bull Mountain Rd from Benchview)- Based on this information, it can be expected that at least 25% of the site-generated traffic the Applicant estimates will use Bull Mountain Rd instead will use Ascension Dr (this will put an additional 100 daily trips. on Ascension). The number and proportion of site-generated traffic using Ascension Dr will increase as Hwy 99 congestion increases in the future, Benchview TerrlElufl Mountain Rd Intersection Tn the a.m. peak period., left turns from Benchview Terr onto eastbound Bull Mountain Rd are difficult and are becoming mere difficult with increasing volumes on Bull Mountain Rd. The increasing delays for Benchview-to-Bull-Mountain left turns will further discourage use of Bull Mountain. Rd by site-generated traffic, resulting in increased use of Ascension Dr_ For existing traffic volumes, a.m. peals left turns from Benchview Terr -to Bull Mountain Rd experience average delays of 57 seconds (LOS F). With the estimated site-generated traffic, the delays for Icft turning traffic will be 81 sec/veh (LOS F), and with only a 10% increase in Bull Mountain Rd traffic, left turn delays will increase to 128 sec/veh. If you have any questions or if you need additional information, please contact me, Sincerely, Robert Bernstein, P.E. The regional EMAiU2 tragic forecasting model on which the Applicant's trip distribution estimates were based is designed for and intended for analysis of regional Irtvel demand and trade flows. The model cannot and does not account for tlic loailized Orects orseverc localized congestion, and as a result cannot recognize or determine conditions like the HNiy-99-congestion-induced diversion of through and local traffic front Bull Moutuain Rd to Scholls ferry Rd via Renchvicw, Ascension, and other local streets on the nortli side of r3t,li Mountain. Itotwrt Hemstcltr. P.G. Can"'hlug TrAwportativu Engmcer/Planner EXHIBIT PAGE 3 ._0 F i-5- HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c G r TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS alyet: . tersection; Benchview/Bull Mtn unt Date: no Period: tersection orientation: East-West Major St. hicla Volume Data: vemente: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 lume: 119 353 3 6 134 79 2 3 14 119 1 32 Z: 151 447 4 8 170 100 3 - 4 LB 151 1 41 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0_79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.179 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.06 0-06 0.05 0.05 0.0S 0.02 0.02 0-.02 lestrian Volume Data: rements: ]w: ie width: Lk speed: 9lockager Tian Type: None )f vehicles: 0 fired approach Movements: )f vehicles: Northbound 0 rf vehicles: Southbound 0 to uvage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T R Y N N N Y Y nnelized: N de: 0.00 Lane 3 L T R N N N e usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L. T R L T R L T R X N N N Y N N N y nnelized: N EXHIBIT - PAGE --HEM ade: 0.00 no usage for movements 7,8&9` approacht Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N N N annelized: N ade: 0.00 ne.usags for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T R Y Y, N N N y annelized: N ade: 0.00 Lane 3 L T R N N N to for Computing Effect of Delay to Major street Vehicles: Eaetbound Weatbound ared In volume, major tlt vehicles: 0 ared In volume, major rt vehicles.: 0 0 t flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 t flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 mber of major street through lanes: 1 1 ngth of study period, hre: 0.25 - rkeheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. itical Gap Calculations: vement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 :,,baee 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Iv 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 c,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.a0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,lt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 c, T: otage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 stage 4.1 4.2 7.1 6.5 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 .low Up Tinto Calculations: •emorit 1 4 7 8 - 9 - 10 11 - 12 f,I)a1ae 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 - - 3.3 3.5 - 4.0 3.3 EXHIBIT PAGE _ffL_aF IS f'HV 0:9 - 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 nv 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 f 2.2 2-.3 3.S 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0. 3.3 rkeheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations ep 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 nflicting Flows 449 170 tential Capacity 604 874 deptrtan Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 vement Capacity 604 874 obability of Queue free St. 0.97 0.95 ep 2! LT from Major St. 4 1 nflicting Flow3 451 270 tential capacity 1069 1294 destrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 vement Capacity 1089 1294 obabi,lity of Queue free St. 0.99 0.88 ep 3; TH from Minor St. nflicting Flows tential capacity destrian Impedance p_ Adj. factor due vement Capacity obability of Queue 8 1035 229 Factor 1.00 to impeding mvmnt 0.88 201 free St. 0.98 11 937 265 1.00 b_88 232 0.99 ep 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 nflicting Flows 1006 946 tential Capacity 217 242 deetrlan Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 J. L, Min T impedance factor 0.87 0..86 j. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.90 0.89 p_ Adj. factor due to impeding mvmnt 0186 0.87 vement Capacity 187 209 rkeheet 8 Shared Lane calculations 9red lane calculations cement 7 8 9 10 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I - - - - - - - - - - - - ,ph) 3 4 18 151 1 41 +I~meIIi: C::Ipt+ci.ty 167 201 604 209 232 x374 fired Lane Capacity 389 210 EXHIBIT PAGE GF-JL- rkehent 10 delay,queue length, and LOS cement 1 4 7 S 9 10 11 12 vph) 151 8 24 152 41 a{vph) 1294 1089 389 210 874 c 0.12 0.01 0.06 0.72 0.05 $ queue length ntral Delay 8.1 8.3' 14.9 57.3 9.3 S A A B F A proach Delay 14.9 47.2 proach LOS .8 E EXHIBIT GE 0 F 15 / ~f~ HCS:'Unnignalized Intersections Release 3.1c . -TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC.) ANALYSIS ialyst: itersection: Benchview/Bull Mtn )unt bate: jme period: iteroection Orientation: East-West Major St- !hicl.e Volume Data: >veme nt e: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 - 8 9 10 )lume: 121 353 3 - 6 134 88 2 3 14 - 142 'R: 153 447 4 8. 170 111 3 4 18 180 IF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 . 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 IV: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.02 ,deatrian Volume Data: vemente: ow: ne width: lk speed: alackage: than Type: None of vehicles: O ared approach Movements: Df vehiclea: Northbound 4 ,3f vehicles: Southbound O ie usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T R Y N N N y y ~nnelized: N ide: 0.00 Lane 3 L T R N N N 11. 12 1 38 1 48 0.79 0.79 0.02 0.02 e usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Land 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N y N N N y nnel i zea: N EXHIBIT PAGGE S--Oi+i-5- -ado: 0. tf4 ine usage for movements 7,6&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T R L y y y N N N N - :annelized: N •ade: 0.00 • Lane 3 T R N N ,no usage for movements 10111&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2. Lana 3 L T R L T R L T R y y N N N y N N N annelized: N ade: 0.00 to for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: - Eastbound Westbound aced in volume, major th vehicles: O 0 aced In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 t flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 t flow rate, major rt vehi-cles;. 1700 1700 mbar of major street through lanes: 1 1 ngth of etudy period, hre: 0.25 ckeheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation- Ltical Gap calculations: Fement 1 4 7 8 9 10 _ 11 12 :,base 4.1 4.1 7.1 - 6.5 - 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 110 1.0 1.0 1.0 IV 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 c,CJ 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,Lt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 c,T: pCagc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 stage 4.1 4.2 7.1 6.5 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 low. ('ly Time Calculations: ement 1 4 7 6 9 - 10 17. - 12 r, ha nh - - 2.2 2.2 - - 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 EXHIBIT ~n a G OF_ f,KV •0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 by 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.05 '0.05 0:02 0,012 f 2.2 2.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 )rksheat 6 Impedance and capacity equations • I 0.9 0.02 3.3 :ep 1: RT from minor St. 9 12 >nflicting Flows 7 449 170 )tential Capacity 604 874 idestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 )vement Capacity 604 1374 'obability of Queue free St. 0.97 0.94 :ep 2: LT from Major St. 4 . )nflicting Flows 451 261 itential Capacity 1089 1262 idestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 ivement Capacity 1089 1282 'obability of Queue free St. 0.99 0-88 .ep 3: TH from Minor St. 3 13: nflicting Flows 1051 942 tential Capacity 224 263 deetrian impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 P. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.87 0.87 vement Capacity 196 230 obability of Queue free St. 0.98 0.99 ep 4-LT from Minor St. 7 10 nflicting Flowe 1020 951 tential Capacity 212 240 Jentrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 J. L, Min T impedance factor 0.87 0.86 j. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.90 0.89 p. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.85 0.86 vement Capacity 180 207 'kshaat 8 shared Lane Calculations gyred Lane Calculationo •ement 7 © 9 10 11 12 P11) 3 4 18 180 1 11.9 ement Capacity 190 196 604 207 230 1374 rud Lane Capacity 333 207 EXHIBIT rrksheet 10 delay,queue length,'and LOS rvement 1 4 7 B - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 10 - - - - - - 11 12 vph) 153 8 .24 181 48 m(vph) 1282 1089 383 207 874 c 0.12 0.01 0.06 0.87 0.06 9s queue length .ntrol Delay 8.2 8.3 15.0 81.2 9.4 'S A A c F A proach Delay 15.0 fifi.l •proach LOS C EXHIBIT P G F _ ji--- 0 F-)f- T HCSs dnoLgnalized intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP.CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS ,alyst stersection: Senchview/Bull Mtn wnt Date: .me Period: ,teraection orientation, East-Went Major St. shicls3 Volume Data: ivements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Plume: 133 388 3 6 147 _ 97 2 - 3 14 142 1 38 'R: 168 491 4 e .186 123 3 4. 18 160 1 48 tri 0.79' 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 ,V: 0.02 0.02 0_02 0.06 0.06 0.06 0_05 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 .destrian Volume Data: •Vementa: ow: no width: lk speed: Blockage: than Types None of vehicles: O aced approach Movements: of'vehiclee: Northbound O of vehicles: Southbound 0 no upage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y Y N N N 3nnelized: N ade: 0.00 le uaage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N y N N N y tnnolized: N EXHIBIT FADE _1-2-- 0 Fi5- ades 0.00 ne usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 bane 2 Lane 3 L-'- T R L T R L T R - - Y Y Y N N N N N N annelized: N ade, 0.00 ne usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y y N N N Y N N N annelized: N ade: 0.00 to for Computing Effect of Delay to Haior Street Vehicles: Eastbound westbound aced In volume, major th vehicles, 0 0 erred In volume, major rt vehiclea: 0 0 t flow rate, major th vehicle9: 1,700 1700 t flow rate, major ct vehicles: 1700 1700 mbar of major street through lanes: 1 1 ngth of study period, hrss 0.25 rkeheet 4 critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. itical Gap calculations: vement 1 4 = 7 - - 8 9 10 11 12 c,base 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 by 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 C,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3, It 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0_ c,T: stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Iatbge 4.1 4.2 7.1 6.5 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 llow up Time Calculations: cement 1 4 7 - B 9 - 10 - 11 12 - f,ba1.1e 2.2 2.2 - 3.5 4.0 3.3 - 3.5 4.0 - - - - - 3.3 EXHIBIT PAGE-1-3-OF D f,Hv 0.9 0.9 1v 0.02 0.06 E 2.2 2.3 0 0.9 . 0.9 0.9 0.05 0.05 ().OS 3.5 4.0 3.3 rksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations i 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.02 0.02 0.02 3.5 4.0 3.3 ep 1: RT from Minor St_ 9 12 nflicting Flows 493 186 tential Capacity 570 856 destrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 vement Capacity 570 656 obabili.ty of Queue free St.' 0.97 0.94 ep 2: LT from Major St. nflicting Flows- tential Capacity - destrian Impedance Factor vement Capacity obabilLty of Queue free St. ep 3: TH from minor St. 4 1 . 309 1252 1.00 1252 0.87 495 1048 1.00 1048 0.99 nflicting Flows -tential Capacity •destrian Impedance Factor p. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt vement Capacity obability of Queue free St.. ep 4: LT from Minor St. -nflicting Flows tential capacity :destrian Impedance Factor J. L, Min T Impedance factor j_ L, M_in T Adj. Imp Factor. .p. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt vement Capacity rkaheet 8 Shared Lane Calculation9 aced Lane Caiculationa 8 11 1154 1033 195 232 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 L67 200 0.98 6.99 7 10 1117 1042 182 208 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.84 0.89 0.88 0.84 0.85 153 177 vement 7 a 9 10 11 12 vph) 3 4 18 180 1 48 vement Capacity 153 167 570 177 206 856 aced [,ane Capacity 342 177 EXHIBIT Fv F _I4_ 0 F 15 0- rkofieet 10 delay queue length, and LOS vement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 vph) 168 8 24 181 48 m(vph) 1252 1048 342 177 856 0.13 0.01 0.07 1.02 0.06 $ queue length ntrol Delay 8.3 8..5 16.3 127.9 9.5 ,S A A c F A -proach Delay 16.3 103.0 .proach LOS C - F EXH[8IT PnrE If--)-OF c5 Sent 8y: JNN. A. RANKIN; 503 625'.'9709; May-11-_00 8:28PM; Page- 1-/2 EXHIBIT B JOHN A. RANIIN, LLC. Attorney at Law 26715 SW Baker Road Sherwood, Oregon 97144 (503) 625-9710 /Tax (503) 625-9709 FACSI2 LF-_-TP"SMITTAL C0yEA LETTER R>ret!!llir+kf!*ftt*RR!!!!lltti~R#~tlr*RlRIrA!!!!!!lelittittttt~R*!lRIIiRR!!*#~! THIS CO!"INTCATION MAY CONSIST OF ATTORNEY PRIVILPGED AND CONFIDENTTAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED BELOW. If THE REATIF_R OF THIS MESSAGE I. NOT THE INTENDF-P RECIPIENT, OR THE'EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, 1)I3TRTnUTION OR COPYLNG OF THIS CONK NICAT1oN 15 STRICTX.Y PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RFCFTVED THIS COMNICATIOri IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATFILY NOTTFY ME BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE To ME AT THE ABOVE AUUKESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. 711ANK YOU! A!*I!!lltkititiii!!*R*R!RllErtlttttlf!!!*t4R*R*!!R!t!!R!!tYlltiflt!!It May 11, 2000 City of Tigard Planning Division Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 ATTN. Julia Powell Hajdul<, Associate Planncr Via Fax (503) 684-7297 Two pages total Re: Waiver of 120-day Rule and Request for Continuation of Appeal Public Hearing. Pacific Crest Subdivision Dear Ms. Hajduk: We have received your notice of hearing scheduled for May 22, 2000. for the appeal of the PaCific Crest Subdivision. As you have discussed with Bill Kabeiseman, the attorney for the appellants, the parties would prefer to hold the hearing on June 12, 2000 as the next date that fits within the City's and the Hearings Officer's schedule. Accordingly, we anticipate opening the public hearing as noticed on May 22, 2000, with an immediate continuance to June 12, 2000, subject to approval by the Hearings Officer. Please also accept this letter as the Applicant/Property Owners' waiver of the 120-Day rule for an additional thirty (30) days. The current deadline for decision is June 13, 2000 and the new deadline shall be Thursday, July 13, 2000, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact either me or Bill Kabeiseman to discuss this further. We appreciate the City's cooperation and look forward to continuing to work with you toward an appropriate approval for the Pacific Crest Subdivision. Sent By: JOHN. A. RANKTN; 503 625'9709, May- 1-00 8:28PM; ~`Page~212 ` 9c ruly yours, Joh n ttomey far Applicant/Property Owners PC: BdI Kabeiseman, Esq. (Via Fax 248-9085) Applicant/Property Owners Len 5chelsky, Westlake Consultants, lnc.(Via Fax 624-0157) CAWOdi ft rJWM seIi&I.1f?NnVaci6c GkaA120 day wiw.dm l . 2 t i r i i t r i i t i EXHIBIT C PACIFIC CREST LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATION JULY 12, 1999 REVISED JANUARY 6, 2000 SUBMITTED TO: CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT 13125 SW HAIL BLVD. TIGARD, OR 97223 ' WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS Inc. • WATER QUALITY SWALE DESIGN by: fgh WCI 1239-0113.1 Unified Sewerage Agency Standards for a Water Quality Swale Minimum Longitudnal Slope = 3.00% Maximum Flow Depth (ft) = 0.5 Maximum Flow Velocity (fps) = 0.9 Minimum Residence Time (min) = 9 Maximum Side Slope (ft/ft) = 0.2500 Manning's N = 0.25 Determination Impervious Area (ac) = 7.03 Pervious Area (ac) = 6.45 Total Area (ac) = 13.48 SBUH Determined Inflow Q (cfs) = 0.45 Minimum required Flow Area, by Continuity (sf) = 0.50 9-Feb-00 SUB 1999-00003 - ADDENDUM (REVISED 21912000) (Based on I -year, 4-hour event)) {Q = V*A) Flow Bottom Flow Hydraulic Flow Flow Required Depth Width Area Radius Velocity Rate Length (ft) (ft) (sf) (ft/ft) (fps) (cfs) (ft) 0.1 4 0.43 0.101 012 0.10 120.84 0.17 4 0.72 0.166 0.31 0.23 168.32 0----5 2-40.75 0.31 4 1.32 0.284 .4 0.59 40.75 0.4 4 1.70 0352 0.51 0.88 278.00 0.5 4 2.13 0.422 0.58 1.23 313.73 0.1 5 0.53 0.101 0.22 0.12 120.68. 6-7--9 T 7-------- 5-. Y- 0_.2-3 I--56.--1-0----: 0.15 5 . 0.14 88 0.29 0.3 5 1.58 0.280 0.44 0.70 238.67 0.4 5 2.10 0.361 0.52 1.10 282.28 0.5 5 2.63 0.435 0.59 1.56 320.07 0.1 6 0.63 0.101 0.22 0.14 120.57 0.13 6 0.81 0.130 0.26 021 142.68 0.3 6 1.88 0.283 0.45 0.83 240.35 0.4 6 2.50 0366 0.53 1.32 285.30 0.5 6 3.13 0.444 0.60 1.88 324.57 1) Use 6' bottom with 145' length for upper treatment facility located on the northern side of lots 28 - 32 (Tract "C"), This will treat lots I - 63 and the associated roadways. 2) The lower facility (Tract "E") will provide treatment for lots 64 - 72 and the associated roadway frontage, through the most northerly knuckle. This facility will treat 20% of the flow specified in item 1, above, thereby establishing an adequate size by extrapolation. 3) The remaining lots (73.- 80) will be accommodated through over treatment in the lower water quality facility or fee-in-lieu of treatment provisions, due to topographic considerations. h:+adminIY23901'engrnIwq_s%ra1e.sls Page 1 of I It, • • 9 I I LLGEND PROPOSED TAX LOT LINE BE MD) - E%IShNG TAX LOT LINE TO i0 BE MODIFIED I XISTINO TAX LOT NO MODIFIED -IW TS I 100' TAX LOT 400 150th AVENUE 2SO150D I I 11 I I II - - - - ~ - - " - - - _ - _ I f! TAX LOT 1100 250t5DD I I TAX LOT I600 \ TAX LLLOT 1500 2SO15DO 2501500 - - - - ` ` TAX LOT 1700 TAX LOT 1800 2501500 2SO15DD I ~ I I I~ TAX LOT 1900 / 2SOISOD I _ I (A PROPOSED TAX LOT Jrq _ _ - - _ - - _ - PROPOSED i LOT O 1900J2000 LINE 1900/2/2100 LINE O AOA$TMENf ApJ66iMENi TAX LOT 2200 Y 111 i 2SOISOD 1 /k . 1 I d- TAX LOT 2300 T d 2501500 12 + `I PROP05E0 TAX LOTI 2 1 2600/2100 LINE 7 ADJUSTMENT In 7 I Q ` I TAX LOT 2400 I I I \ 1 1 1 2SO1500 r L \ \ iL E5 - i - - TAX LOT 2100 2sD 1500 ____t_ - BULL MOUNTAIN STATES IS NOT DRAWN TO SCALE USE ONLY FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSES - - - _ ~ - - - -I ~ ~ PROPOSED TAX LOT I p ❑ 2000/2100 L INE 0 AOd16iNENi I W O I ~ I ~ t r I~ I I f ~ N I I I I I I , ~ \ N s.w. `L I I %ti 3 I I I I I I I \ 1 , I F f7TTTO / W N I I I N _ ` l I I 1 _ TAX LOT 300 ( I 2SO15DD I I I ~ 1 I I I I , I \ 1 I I I I I r r Ix lx 1p C I I Ig 0 IQ PROPOSED TAX LOT Z 400/500 LINE 25015OA 300 Q ADJUSTMENT I TAX I I F.. TAX LOT 201 I + CONNECT 10 PROP05ED STOFTTV"ANITARY U 2SO15DO I SYSTEMS REFER TO Hl1_1_644IRE GREEK ESTATES Nod BY ALP14A ENGIIEER]NG, M. IREVEGETATE AREA DISTURBED BY M5TALLATION OF STORM/SANITARY SYSTEM WIT" "YDRO6EEDED NATIVE GRA55 MIXTLTLJ BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION HILLSHiRE WOODS \ I ~ r ilbti L 'M'S ~E - I A N 'PACIFIC CF ADJUSTMENT A FROM TAX LOT ( TO TAX LOT J I 400 500 2 20DO 1900 3 2100 1900 4 2100 2000 5 2100 2000 TAX LOT E AREA BEFORE ADJUSTMENT AREA AFTER ADJUSTMENT 460 8.83 ec 2.66 - 503 2.52 ac ac e,74 191E 2.98 cc 4.66 ac 2500 7.16 ac 6.40 ac 21006 2.55 ac 155 cc i IL H eA ~ F W FL % h Y~ 1 ~6 1~1 ~ • VbN F < <EE++ UA =a5 ~ Z 08 L u°0d N~ ~ asd a F ~ Q a Wzz Qf O Q U W Z w O W Uo~ < U - W F- Z Q J CL 0 ~ V pmii e"~K~~s •y gm 6 m ~ U o c 7 i J o CL a a W SNEET 1 16' JOB NO a . 1234-01 4 7 Sj ' BRIANNE -1-Uj L ENLOR !i"- - S.W. FERN S Z I-- ~ Q J W Is = In z i I UJ_ n N_ CIO N N - M Tn z c:) 0 O Tu LA e6 Ln rri m O n aJ LL a N 3 D W O m m i c- x 0 al 3 a c_.) I 1 I I I cM & r r I I t °6 I I N N I I I "yi1 s _ pX I 1NA OI tO Xn I N 00 I ! °ol o~ I I IY ! dl to 1 Y Rf rf I ~r I I0 I: rr~ rl n,n rr I I H 9 rr r T [I sw v I O n b D v m ° 113 O 8 0 "s • f r f ~5 RE NSIDNS j m 1f ~ ~ e PACIFIC CREST WESTLAKE j N o i CONSULTANTS we x F'x T I GARD, OREGON ENGINEERING • SURVEYING ♦ PLANNING O PREL 1 M NARY LAND USE SUBM I TTAL ; E EXISTING CONDITIONS PACIflC CORPORATE CENTER is116 9.11, R8~UOIA PAAEEAY, 8DTf6 M 1-.1 "4-085. TICARq OREGON 07.24 / E 6 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION um OR a e~~' rnn, y A ( 8E4-01.. C:\Dwg\Work\123901E2.dwg Wed Feb 09 13;54:51 2000 DNS • i i~ • • • • C:\Dwg\Work\123901E11.DWG Wed Feb 09 13:54:17 2000 DNS CITY OF TIGARD 0 0 SENSITIVE LANDS TYPE II or TYPE III APPLICATION 13125 SW Hal! Blvd., Tigard!, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX.• (503) 684-7297 r GENERAL INFORMATION Property Address/Location: NA Tax Map & Tax Lot #(s): Tax Map 2S 1 5DD Tax Lot 100, 201, 1900, 2000 and 2100. Tax Map 2S 1 L 5DA Site Size- DevelopmentnSize = 1$.9 Acmes r t i d Property OwnerlDeed Holder(s)`: See gna u e s attache sheets Address: Phone: City: Zip: Applicant': Address: Phone: City: Zip: ' When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the-subject property request a Sensitive Lands Permit to allow (please be specific): The applicant and property owners are requesting a sensitive lands permit for disturbing lands which have 25% or greater slopes to provide storm/sanitary extensions and connections. A public street connection will also be added within the 25% or greater slopes in order to meet fire requirements as well as lots fronting this northern access. PRE-APP. HELD WITH: Mark Roberts DATE OF PRE-APP.: 2-23-99 FOR STAFF USE ONLY Case No.(s): Other Case No.(s): Receipt No.: Application Accepted By: Date: Date Determined To Be Complete: Comp Plan/Zone Designation: CIT Area: Rev, 11/26198 i_ldnpln%msstemWa.doc REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS ✓ Application Elements Submitted: ❑ Application Form ❑ Owner's Signature/Written Authorization ❑ Title Transfer Instrument or Deed ❑ Site/Plot Plan of copies based on pre-app check list) ❑ Site/Plot Plan (reduced 81/2'x 11 ❑ Applicant's statement of copies based on pre-app check list) ❑ 2 Sets of Pre-Addressed/Pre-Stamped Legal Size Envelopes ❑ Filing Fee (Administrative) $ 745.00 s Officer) $1,240.00 • 1 List any VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE, SENSITIVE LANDS, OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: Lot Line Adjustments, Partition and Subdivision Applications. APPLICANTS: To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application in the "Required Submittal Elements" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained, upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications.) r 1 THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • The above es doe n v'olat d e restrictions that imposed upon the-suboect o e • If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the , conditions and limitations of the approval. • All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; ' and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject properly. DATED this day of , 19 See Attached Signature Sheets Owner's Signature Owner's Signature t~ Owner's Signature Owner's Signature T SUBDIVISION TYPE If or SUBDIVISION TYPE III -w/PD CtTY OF nGARD APPLICATION 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 GENERAL INFORMAIJON PRE-APP. HELD WITH: Mark Roberts NA DATE OF PRE-APP.: 2-23-99 Property Address/Location(s): 2S1 5DD Portion of Tax Lot 100 Tax Map & Tax Lot #(s). . 201, 2000 & 2100. 2S1 5DA Portion of Tax Lot 400 & 500 Site Size: Development Size 18.9 Acres Property OwnerlDeed Holder(s)*: See Attached Signature eets Address: Phone: City: Zip: Applicant': Address: Phone: City: Zip: When the owner and the applicant are different people, the 'applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. /The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. IEROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property request Subdivision t pproval to divide a: Portion of 6 parcel into _ 80 lots between 000 sq. ft. and 9 , 590 sq. f t Square feet in size. I (provide any additional information here) FOR STAFF USE ONLY Case No.(s): Other Case No.(s): Receipt No.: Application Accepted By: Date: Date Determined To Be Complete: Comp Plan/Zone Designation: CIT Area: Recording Date and Number: Rev. 1126/98 0curplnVrtast9m%ubapp.doc REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS ✓ Application Eiements Submitted: ❑ Application Form ❑ Owner's Signature/Written Authorization ❑ Title Transfer Instrument or Deed ❑ WA. CO. Subdivision Name Approval ❑ Site/Plot Plan of copies based on pre-app check list) ❑ Site/Plot Plan (reduced 811,"x 11 ❑ Applicant's Statement of copies based on pre-app check list) ❑ 2 Sets of Pre-Addressed/Pre-Stamped Legal Size Envelopes ❑ Filing Fee (Preliminary Plat) $2,125.00 $10 Per Lot) (Final Plat) 295.00 Add 20% PD Fee 11 1 List any VARIANCE OR OTHER 101D USE ACTIONS to be considered as p*f this application: I Lot Line Adjustments, Partition and a Sensitive Lands Permit. APPLICANTS: To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application in the "Required Submittal Elements" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained, upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications) THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • The abovq„reauest does not violatg any deed restrictions that may be attached to or Imposed upon the subigct pragedy. • If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this day of See Attached Signature Sheets Owner's Signature Owners Signature 19 Owner's Signature Owner's Signature r 1 t 1 t i 1 1 2 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 46~1111am I TYPE I APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX.' (503) 684-7297 GENERAL INFORMATION PARCEL 'I Property Address(s) Tax Map & Tax Lot (s): 2S1 5DD Tax Lot 2000 Property Owner(s): Constantin & Adriana costiuc Address: PO Box 230943 Phone: 320-8162 City: Tigard zip: 97281 _ P4RCEL 2 I Property Address(s) Tax Map & Tax Lot #(s): 2S1 5DD Tax Lot 2100 Property Owner(s): Constantin & Adriana Costiuc Address: PO Box 230943 Phone: 320-8162 City: Tigard Zip: 97281 Applicant'/Agent: Farmers Land Trust Address: 26715 SW Baker Road Phone: 625-9710 City: Sherwood Zip: 97140 "When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The must sign this application in the space provided an the back ,owner(s) of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. PROPOSAL SUMMARY IThe owners of record of the subject property request Lot Line Adjustment permission to adjust: 2 parcels of 311,905 and 111 , 898 * (number) (acreage or square footage) into 2 parcels of 298,412 and 71,859* t (number) (acreage or square footage) NA NA PRE-APP. HELD WITH: Mark Roberts DATE OF PRE-APP.: 2-23-99 FOR STAFF USED LY Case No.(s): Other Case No.(s): Receipt No.: Application Accepted By: Date: Date Determined To Be Complete: Comp Plan/Zone Designation: CIT Area: Date Recorded and Number. Rev. I WW98 b=rplntrnasten1Waa.d0c REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS ✓ Application Elements Submitted: ❑ Application Form ❑ Owner's Signature/Written Authorization ❑ Title Transfer Instrument or Deed ❑ Preliminary Map (6 copies) ❑ Site/Plot Plan of copies based on pre-app check list) ❑ Site/Plot Plan (reduced 811:"x 11 ❑ Applicant's Statement of copies based on pre-app check list) ❑ Filing Fee $100.00 riding square footage is a result of several of line adjustments, included within this application List any VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE, SENSITIVE LANDS, OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: Lot Line Adjustments, Partition, Subdivision, and Sensitive Lands Application I APPLICANTS: 2 To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENT as described on the front of this application in the "Required Submittal Elements" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained, upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: i • The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or im osed upon the subject row • If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval • All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this day of , 19 See Attached Signature Sheets Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature 2 0 • CITY OF TIGARD GENERA INFORMATION - Property Address(s):. Tax Map & Tax Lot (s): NA LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT . TYPE I APPLICATION 13125 SW Hatt Btvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 PRE-APP. HELD WI'T'H: Mark Roberts DATE OF PRE-APP.: 2-23-99 2S1 5DD Tax Lot 1900 Property Owner(s): Constantin & Adriana Costiuc Address: PO Box 230943 Phone: 320-8162 City: Tigard Zip: 97281 l _ PARC L.2 Property Address(s) NA Tax Map & Tax Lot #(s): 281 5DD Tax Lot 2000 Property Owner(s): Constantin & Adriana Costiuc Address: PO Box 230943 Phone: 320-8162 City: Tigard Zip: 97281 Applicant*/Agent: Farmers Land Trust Address: 26715 SW Baker Road Phone: 625-9710 City: Sherwood Zip: 97140 'When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property request Lot Line Adjustment permission to adjust: 2 parcels of 129,808 and 311,905* (number) (acreage or square footage) into 2 parcels of 183,156 and 298'412* (number) (acreage or square footage) FQR STAFF USE ONLY Case No. (s): Other Case No.(s): Receipt No.: Application Accepted By: Date: Date Determined To Be Complete: Comp Plan/Zone Designation: CIT Area: Date Recorded and Number: Rev, 11/26/98 i:lcurp1ntmastem%1laa.doc REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS Application Elements Submitted: ❑ Application Form ❑ Owner's Signature/Written Authorization ❑ Title Transfer Instrument or Deed ❑ Preliminary Map (6 copies) ❑ Site/Plot Plan of copies based on pre-app check list) ❑ Site/Plot Plan (reduced 81h'"x 11 ❑ Applicant's Statement of copies based on pre-app check list) Q Filing Fee $100.00 A Ending square footage is a result of 1 several lot line adjustments' included within this application 0 • 1 List any VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE, SENSITIVE LANDS, OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered a part of this application: Lot Line Adjustments, Partition, Subdivision and Sensitive Lands Applicatic t APPLICANTS: To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS a described on the front of this application in the "Required Submittal Elements" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained, upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • i ne aoov RraRerty, • If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to al the conditions and limitations of the approval. I • All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revolted if it is found tha any such statements are false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of etch owner of the subject property. DATED this See Attached Signature Sheets Owner's Signature Owner's Signature 19 Owner's Signature Owner's Signature t day of 2 • 0 Arzaam CITY OF TIGARD 1 GENERAL INFORMATION ~ PARCEL 1 Property Address(s) Tax Map & Tax Lot (s): 2S I 5 DA Tax Lot 400 Property Owner(s): Michael & Jeanne Davis Address: PO Box 23144 Phone: 244-1900 City: Tigard Zip: 97281 r P-AR_C_E_L,2 Property Address(s): NA Tax Map & Tax Lot #(s): 2S 1 5DA Tax Lot 500 Property Owner(s): Michael & Jeanne Davis Address. PO Box 23144 Phone: 244-1900 City:_. Tigard Zip: 97281 Farmers Land Trust Applicant/Agent: Address: 26715 SW Baker Road Phone: 625-9710 City: Sherwood Zi p: 97140 'When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with -written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property request Lot Line Adjustment permission to adjust: V 2 parcels of 384,581 and 123, 046 (number) (acreage or square footage) into 2 parcels of 115,870 and 391,757 (number) (acreage or square footage) NA LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT . TYPE I APPLICATION 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 PRE-APP. HELD WITH: Mark Roberts DATE OF PRE-APP.: 2-23-99 FOR-STAFF USE ONLY Case No.(s): Other Case No.(s): Receipt No.: Application Accepted By: Date: Date Determined To Be Complete: Comp Plan/Zone Designation: CIT Area: Date Recorded and Number: Rev. 11126M iicurplnVnastersUlaa.doc REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS ✓ Application Elements Submitted: ❑ Application Form ❑ Owner's Signature/Written Authorization ❑ Title Transfer Instrument or Deed ❑ Preliminary Map (6 copies) ❑ Site/Plot Plan of copies based on pre-app check list) ❑ Site/Plot Plan (reduced 81h"x 11 ❑ Applicant's Statement V of copies based on pre-app check list) ❑ Filing Fee $100.00 List any VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE, SENSITIVE LANDS, OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: Lot Line Adjustments, Partition, Subdivision and Sensitive Lands Application- _ ~W APPLICANTS: To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application in the "Required Submittal Elements" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained, upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • Thg above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or Imposes upon the subject JR[Q.Re.Si3(~ • If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. 11 • All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this day of See Attached Signature Sheets Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature 19 Owner's Signature 2 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • APPLICATION FOR 40 SUBDIVISION, SENSITIVE LANDS, _ & LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PACIFIC CREST PROPERTY OWNERS TAX MAP 2S 1 05DD TAX LOT 1900, 2000 & 2100 Constantin & Adriana Costiuc PO Box 230943 Tigard, Oregon 97281 Phone No.: (503) 320-8162 Date y/ f/ Date -r Lolp Z I ?V7-1~ APR 0 9 1999 ,r- - iiTuAKE C0N5ULiANTS, 1INL- 1 0 0 APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION, SENSITIVE LANDS, & LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PACIFIC CREST PROPERTY OWNERS TAX MAP 2S I 05DA TAX LOT 400 & 500 Michael & Jeanne Davis PO Box 23144 Tigard, Oregon 97281 Phone No.: (503) 244-1900 - Date Date CI - t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 i APPLICATION FOR 0 4'°p "rf~ , 199 SUBDIVISION, SENSITIVE LANDS, & LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PACIFIC CREST PROPERTY OWNERS TAX MAP 2S 1 05DD TAX LOT 100 Robert & Sarah Erickson 1371 Aster Lane Cupertino, California 95014 Phone No.: (408) 548-6051 Date y Date q- -/a 5~ 1 R 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 r APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION, SENSITIVE LANDS, & LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PACIFIC CREST PROPERTY OWNERS TAX MAP 2S 1 05DD TAX LOT 201 Brian and Karen Pautz 9685 SW Carriage Way Beaverton, Oregon 97008 Phone No.: (503) 524-8449 Date 7 Date S ~8 1 f 1 f t • • Westlake Consultants, inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 PRE-APPLICATION MEETING 4 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS ..4 SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS 5 SUBJECT SITE AND ABUTTING PROPERTY INFORMATION 7 Subject Site 7 Abutting Properties. 7 IMPACT STUDY 8 Sanitary Sewer 8 Water Supply 8 Storm Drainage 8 Schools 9 Power - Telephone - Cable Television 9 Parks 9 Noise Impacts 10 Transportation . 10 COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18) 11 CHAPTER 18.390 - DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES 11 Section 18.390.040.A - Preapplication Conference 11 Section 18.390.040.8 - Application Requirements 11 CHAPTER 18.410 - LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS 12 Section 18.410.040-Approval Criteria 12 CHAPTER 18.430 - SUBDIVISIONS . 13 Section 18.430.040 - Approval Criteria 13 Section 18.430.050 - Submission Requirements: Preliminary Plat 14 CHAPTER 18.510 - RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 14 Section 18.510.030 - Permitted Uses 14 Section 18.510.040 - Minimum And Maximum Densities 14 Section 18.510.050 - Development Standards 14 CHAPTER 18.705 - ACCESS EGRESS, AND CIRCULATION 15 Section 18.705.030 - General Provisions.. 16 CHAPTER 18.715 - DENSITY COMPUTATIONS 17 Section 18.715.020 Density Calculation 17 Section 18.715.030 - Residential Density Transfer 18 CHAPTER 18.745 - LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18 Section 18.745.040 - Street Trees 18 Section 18.745.060 - Re-Vegetation 19 CHAPTER 18.765 - OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 20 Section I &765.030 - General Provisions 20 CHAPTER 18.775 - SENSITIVE LANDS 20 Section 18.775.020 - Applicability of Uses: Permitted, Prohibited, and Nonconforming 20 Section 18.775.070 - Sensitive Land Permits 21 CHAPTER 18.780 - SIGNS 22 CHAPTER 18.790 - TREE REMOVAL 22 Section 18.790.030 - Tree Plan Requirement 22 CHAPTER 18.795 - VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS 23 CHAPTER 18.810 - STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 23 Section 18.810.030 - Streets 23 Section 18.810.040 - Blocks 28 Section 18.810.050 - Easements 28 Section 18.810.060 - Lots 28 PACIFIC CREST LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & FARMERS LAND TRUST SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A JULY 12, 1999 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 t e 1 • i Westlake Consultants, Inc. Section 18.810.070 - Sidewalks.... - - 29 Section 18.810.080 - Public Use Areas 29 Section 18.810.090 - Sanitary Sewers 29 Section 18.810.100 - Storm Drainage 30 Section 18.810.110 - Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways 30 Section 18.810.120 - Utilities 30 SUBDIVISION PLAN NAME RESERVATION 30 UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY (USA) BUFFER STANDARDS, RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE (R&O) 96-44 31 APPLICANT'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE BULL MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY PLAN 31 Design Element -1 31 Design Element - 2 31 Design Element - 3 31 Design Element - 4 31 Design Element - 5 31 Design Element - 6 32 Design Element - 7 32 Design Element - 8 32 Design Element - 9 32 CHAPTER 422 - SIGNIFICANT NATURAL RESOURCES - WASHINGTON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CODE 33 Section 422-3.1 - Criteria For Development 33 Section 422-3.5 - Significant Natural Areas 33 CONCLUSION 33 TREES AND GEOTECHNICAL 34 PACIFIC CREST LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & FARMERS LAND TRUST SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A JULY 12, 1999 • • Westlake Consultants, Inc. I FIGURES Application Figure A Vicinity Map Figure B I EXHIBITS Vicinity, and Lot Adjustment. Exhibit 1 Existing Conditions Plan Exhibit 2 Preliminary Plat and Street Plan Exhibit 3 Preliminary Street Profiles Exhibit 4 Preliminary Street Profiles Exhibit 5 Preliminary Street Profiles Exhibit 6 Preliminary Street Profiles Exhibit 7 Preliminary Grading Plan Exhibit 8 Preliminary Grading Plan (0% to 25% Slope) Exhibit 9 Slope Analysis Exhibit 10 Preliminary Utility Plan Exhibit 11 Tree Removal and Preservation Plan Exhibit 12 Composite Tree Inventory Exhibit 13 Composite Tree Inventory Exhibit 14 Street Tree Landscape Plan Exhibit 15 Future Street Plan Exhibit 16 APPENDICES Pacific Crest Tree Protection and Removal Plan Appendix 1 Subdivision Plat Name Approval Appendix 2 Pre-Application Conference Notes Appendix 3 Notification List (500 feet) Appendix 4 Density Calculation Appendix 5 Neighborhood Meeting Information Appendix 6 Property Deeds Appendix 7 Wetland Report Appendix 8 Fire Marshall Statement Appendix 9 Traffic Report Appendix 10 Geotechnical Report Appendix 11 PACIFIC CREST FARMERS LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 kESTILAXE CONSULTANTS, INC. DATA SHEET 1 1 1 APPLICANT: Farmer's Land Trust 26715 SW Baker Road Sherwood, Oregon 97140 Contact: John Rankin Phone: (503) 625-9710 1 1 1 t PROPERTY OWNERS. APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Constantin and Adriana Costiuc PO Box 230943 Tigard, Oregon 97281 Phone: (503) 320-8162 Robert and Sarah Erickson 1371 Aster Lane Cupertino, California 95014 Phone: (408) 548-6051 Michael and Jeanne Davis PO Box 23144 Tigard, Oregon 97281 (503) 244-1900 Brian and Karen Pautz 9685 SW Carriage Way Beaverton, Oregon 97008 (503) 524-8449 Westlake Consultants, Inc. 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150 Tigard, Oregon 97224 Contact: Len Schelsky Phone: (503) 684-0652 Fax: (503) 624-0157 Tax Map 2S1 5DD, Tax Lots 100, 201, 1900, 2000 and 2100 Tax Map 2S1 5DA, Tax Lots 400 and 500 PACIFIC CREST FARMERS LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT UNE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • OWESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. SITE SIZE: CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION: COMMUNITY PLAN: PROPOSAL: PACIFIC CREST FARMERS LAND TRUST WESTL.AKE No. 1239-01 A 18.9 acres R-7 Medium Density Residential Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment and Sensitive Lands Application LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 2 1 • • WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. PROJECT OVERVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION *This application is being resubmitted with revisions to the original application, which was previously found to be acceptable and complete by the City of Tigard. The original proposal dated July 12, 1999 has been amended to include an additional 15 lots, comprised of approximately 5.5 acres, and the new 80 lot configuration. An additional access has been incorporated to the subdivision and is located to the northwest of the site, creating a i connection to the terminus of Catalina Drive of Hillshire Creek Estates #4. These revisions have taken place in order to address concerns established by the fire marshall regarding a second access. (See attached letter - Appendix 9) The applicant, Farmer's Land Trust, is proposing a subdivision consisting of 80 single-family residential lots located directly west of the 100-foot wide BPA right-of-way and west of the terminus of SW Mistletoe Drive as shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure B). The applicant is also proposing four (4) lot line adjustments as shown on the Vicinity, Lot Line Adjustment and Partition Plan (Exhibit 1). The first lot line adjustment is between Tax Lot 400 and 500. The second lot line adjustment is proposed between Tax Lot 1900 and Tax Lot 2000. The third lot line adjustment is proposed between Tax Lot 2000 and Tax Lot 2100. The fourth lot line adjustment is proposed to occur between Tax Lot 2000 and Tax Lot 2100. The fourth lot line adjustment is requested to provide the right-of-way dedication which is required as SW Mistletoe Drive enters the site. Lastly, an application has been submitted for a Type Il sensitive lands application for ground disturbances involving more than 50 cubic yards of material. I t 1 1 The subject site is currently located in Washington County although it is under the City's jurisdiction for land use applications. A concurrent application for annexation of the subject properties to the City of Tigard will be reviewed for compliance with applicable City of Tigard standards. The seven subject properties are zoned R-7, Medium-Density Residential District. The proposed subdivision, lot line adjustment, and sensitive lands applications meet all of the applicable R-7 zoning standards as detailed within this narrative. This application will address subdivision, partition, lot line adjustment and sensitive lands requirements as outlined in the City of Tigard Community Development Code (Title 18), Bull Mountain Community Plan and the Washington County Development Code. The type of housing product proposed for the 80 lots are single-family detached dwelling units which coincides with the surrounding housing inventory. Currently there are four (4) existing single-family dwellings, as shown on the Existing Conditions Map (Exhibit 2). The subdivision lots have been designed to accommodate the (4) existing homes as shown on the Preliminary Plat (Exhibit 3). * Italics indicates change and/or revision to prior submittal. PACIFIC CREST LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & ' FARMERS LAND TRUST SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 3 1 • • WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. The site is heavily wooded and will require tree removal as part of the proposed development of the site. The trees located on-site have been reviewed by Walter H. Knapp, Arborist, who ' has prepared a Tree Protection and Removal Plan specifically for the subject site (Appendix 1). The applicant has not determined the details of the mitigation at this time. It is known that the applicant will be required to provide 1390 diameter inches of mitigation, but the specific plans have not been finalized. The applicant will continue to coordinate with the City's arborist to ensure that the mitigation standards are met with on-site mitigation, off-site mitigation, a fee in lieu of mitigation or a combination thereof. The proposed subdivision will be entitled "Pacific Crest" as approved by Washington County ' Surveyor's Office (Appendix 2). Access to the site will be from the termination of SW Mistletoe Drive, and a second access will be provided to the northwest via the termination of Catalina Drive of Hillshire Creek Estates 94. The applicant is currently in the process of applying for access across the adjacent BPA right-of-way. The proposed access and internal circulation for Pacific Crest is detailed on the Preliminary Plat (Exhibit 3) and on the Preliminary Street Profiles (Exhibit 4, S, 6, and 7). PRE-APPLICATION MEETING On Tuesday, February 23, 1999, a pre-application meeting was held at Tigard City Hall. In attendance at the meeting were Mark Roberts and Brian Rager from the City of Tigard, Len Schelsky and Seana Perkins from Westlake Consultants, Inc. and Guy Gittings representing the applicant and owners. The City of Tigard Pre-application Conference Notes (Appendix 3) received at the pre-application meeting have been utilized to design Pacific Crest and to prepare this application narrative. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS Three neighborhood meetings have been held concerning the proposed Pacific Crest development. The first meeting held on April 8, 1999 was held at the Tigard Water Department. In attendance at this meeting were Len Schelsky and Seana Perkins of Westlake Consultants, Inc., and 25 surrounding neighbors. This was mainly an informational meeting regarding the preliminary plans, and to discuss any concerns of the surrounding land owners. The second neighborhood meeting was held on December 8, 1999 at Tigard City Hall. This meeting was conducted by Len Schelsky of Westlake Consultants, Inc., Todd Mobley of Lancaster Engineering Inc., and John A. Rankin, Attorney at Law. In attendance were 26 neighbors. The main purpose of the meeting was to discuss the revised preliminary plat, which ' included the addition of 19 lots and a secondary access road. The final neighborhood meeting was held on January S, 2000 to discuss the latest revisions made to the preliminary plat, which is being submitted with this application. This meeting was held at the offices of Westlake Consultants, Inc., and conducted by Len Schelsky, with 18 neighbors in attendance. PACIFIC CREST LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & FARMER'S LAND TRUST SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i • WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. The site is heavily wooded and will require tree removal as part of the proposed development of the site. The trees located on-site have been reviewed by Walter H. Knapp, Arborist, who has prepared a Tree Protection and Removal Plan specifically for the subject site (Appendix 1). The applicant has not determined the details of the mitigation at this time. It is known that the applicant will be required to provide 1390 diameter inches of mitigation, but the specific plans have not been finalized. The applicant will continue to coordinate with the City's arborist to ensure that the mitigation standards are met with on-site mitigation, off site mitigation, a fee in lieu of mitigation or a combination thereof. The proposed subdivision will be entitled "Pacific Crest" as approved by Washington County Surveyor's Office (Appendix 2). Access to the site will be from the termination of SW Mistletoe Drive, and a second access will be provided to the northwest via the termination of Catalina Drive of Hillshire Creek Estates #4. The applicant is currently in the process of applying for access across the adjacent BPA right-of-way. The proposed access and internal circulation for Pacific Crest is detailed on the Preliminary Plat (Exhibit 3) and on the Preliminary Street Profiles (Exhibit 4, 5, 6, and 7). PRE-APPLICATION MEETING On Tuesday, February 23, 1999, a pre-application meeting was held at Tigard City Hall. In attendance at the meeting were Mark Roberts and Brian Rager from the City of Tigard, Len Schelsky and Seana Perkins from Westlake Consultants, Inc. and Guy Gittings representing the applicant and owners. The City of Tigard Pre-application Conference Notes (Appendix 3) received at the pre-application meeting have been utilized to design Pacific Crest and to prepare this application narrative. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS Three neighborhood meetings have been held concerning the proposed Pacific Crest development. The first meeting held on April 8, 1999 was held at the Tigard Water Department. In attendance at this meeting were Len Schelsky and Seana Perkins of Westlake Consultants, Inc., and 25 surrounding neighbors. This was mainly an informational meeting regarding the preliminary plans, and to discuss any concerns of the surrounding land owners. The second neighborhood meeting was held on December 8, 1999 at Tigard City Hall. This meeting was conducted by Len Schelsky of Westlake Consultants, Inc., Todd Mobley of Lancaster Engineering Inc., and John A. Rankin, Attorney at Law. In attendance were 26 neighbors. The main purpose of the meeting was to discuss the revised preliminary plat, which included the addition of 19 lots and a secondary access road. The final neighborhood meeting was held on January 5, 2000 to discuss the latest revisions made to the preliminary plat, which is being submitted with this application. This meeting was held at the offices of Westlake Consultants, Inc., and conducted by Len Schelsky, with 18 neighbors in attendance. PACIFIC CREST LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & FARMERS LAND TRUST SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 I ESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS The required City of Tigard Land Use Applications have been prepared and are included as Figure A. The original signed applications are being submitted separately from this bound narrative, along with the following: • Written Narrative Addressing Applicable Approval Criteria; • Vicinity, Lot Line Adjustment and Partition Plan; • Existing Conditions Plan; • Preliminary Plat and Street Plan; • Preliminary Grading Plan; • Preliminary Street Profiles; • Preliminary Utility Plan; • Slope Analysis; • Tree Inventory and Removal Plan; • Neighborhood Meeting Notice; • Neighborhood Meeting Minutes; • Washington County, Subdivision Plat Naming; • Street Tree Landscape Plan; • Future Street Plan; • Pacific Crest Tree Protection and Removal Plan (Prepared by Walter H. Knapp, Arborist); • Pre-Application Conference Notes; • Notification List (500 feet); • Density Calculation; and, • Future Street Connection. PACIFIC CREST FARMER'S LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE NO. 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 0 4tESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. T T[D B q UA T PP _ RD, ~ FIGURE B: VICINITY MAP PACIFIC CREST FARMERS LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No.6 1 s • WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 SUBJECT SITE AND ABUTTING PROPERTY INFORMATION 1 SUBJECT SITE ' The subject site is located at the terminus of SW Mistletoe Drive, adjacent to the 100-foot wide BPA right-of-way (Figure B). The properties are located in Township 2 South, Range 1" West, Section 5DA Tax Lot 400 and 500 and Section 5DD Tax Lot 100, 201, 1900, 2000 and 2100. ' The subject properties contain four (4) single-family homes. As shown on the Preliminary Plat (Exhibit 3), Pacific Crest has been designed to retain all of the existing homes. 1 1 Access to Pacific Crest is proposed to connect to the terminus of SW Mistletoe Drive. A second access has been added to the northwest of the site, connecting the terminus of Catalina Drive within the Hilishire Creek Estates 94 Subdivision. The applicant is in the process of acquiring access across the adjacent BPA right-of-way. Subdivision lots 1 through 20. 23, 24, and 28 through 80 will have frontage onto a public street. Subdivision lots 21,22, and 25 through 27 will be provided with direct access to two (2) shared private drives where they will gain access to the public street system. The current zoning designation for the subject site is R-7 (Medium Density Residential). ABUTTING PROPERTIES DIRECTION. „ ZONING North: Medium Density Residential R-7 South: Medium Density Residential (R-7 East: Medium Densi Residential R-7 West: Medium Density Residential -7 The surrounding uses are all residential in nature and include large lot single family dwellings. A 100-foot wide Bonneville Power Administration right-of-way is also located east of the site. PACIFIC CREST FARMER'S LANG TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE NO. 7 ' • SWE5TLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 IMPACT STUDY ' SANITARY SEWER Sanitary sewer will be provided through the Hillshire Creek Estates #4 via proposed utility stub. The system will be extended to the north within proposed street "B. " The street will be within a 46foot. public right-of--way and will go through sensitive lands due to grade considerations. Individual, private sanitary grinder pumps are proposed to serve lots 21-22, & 25-27. This is necessary due to grade issues and in an effort to minimize impact to sensitive lands. Each of these private grinder pumps be connected to the proposed 8" main within the Pacific Crest ' development and will be directed through the gravity extension mentioned above. Laterals will be provided to all lots. ' WATER SUPPLY ' Water service will be provided through 2 existing lines - an existing 8" main in Mistletoe Drive and a 6" main that is extended from SW 150th Avenue, within an easement. A preliminary analysis indicates that the proposed main looping in conjunction with both existing water mains will provide adequate pressure and flow to serve both domestic and fire water needs for the proposed Pacific Crest development. ' STORM DRAINAGE ' The existing runoff pattern for the proposed development is immediately directed to the north, east and west due to the knoll which the Pacific Crest development is on. The drainage eventually heads north with the majority going in a northwest direction, into the proposed ' Hillshire Creek Estates #4 development. The Hillshire Creek Estates #4 development has performed an upstream drainage analysis and ' is providing storm sewer stubs to accommodate the runoff from the Pacific Crest development. A downstream storm analysis by Alpha Engineering indicates that detention will not be required for Hillshire Creek Estates #4 and thus no allowance has been made for a detention ' facility on this project. Prior to final design, an additional analysis will be performed to analyze the impact of this project to downstream facilities. 1 1 1 A proposed storm sewer main line will be extended to the north and will connect to the proposed stub within the Hillshire Creek Estates #4 development. This line will be located within the public street right-of--way that will also include the sanitary sewer, see attached Preliminary Utility Plan (Exhibit H). A water quality facility will be located within an easement between the north line of this project and the connection to the Hillshire project. The PACIFIC CREST FARMERS LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 8 WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. ' exact size and location will be determined through the final design process. A general location for this facility is indicated on the preliminary storm drain plan. Laterals will be provided to all lots that can not otherwise utilize weep holes. Lots that slope steeply away from the proposed road alignment will utilize rock/soaker trenches for the outfall of the foundation drains. ' SCHOOLS The project site is located within two school districts. The southern portion of the site is served ' by Tigard-Tualatin School District No. 23J. New students located in the southern area of the site will attend Mary Woodward Elementary School, Fowler Middle School and Tigard High School. The northern portion of the site is served by Beaverton School District No. 48. The ' Beaverton School District is currently preparing a boundary study; which may change the following assumptions. The new students located in the northern area of the site will be attend Scholls Heights, an elementary school which is scheduled to be completed next fall, Conestoga Middle School and South Ridge High School, also to be completed next fall. ' POWER - TELEPHONE - CABLE TELEVISION Electrical power and telephone services are provided by Portland General Electric and GTE ' Northwest respectively. Natural gas and cable television are provided by Northwest Natural Gas and TO Cablevision, respectively. PARKS Pacific Crest is closest to Summer Lake Park and Jack Park in the City of Tigard. According to a publication entitled The Community of Tigard City and Neighborhood Map presented by the City of Tigard and the Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce the following is true: 1 1 Tigard features many opportunities for activity and recreation,. including several public and private golf courses, city parks, outdoor tennis courts, bike and pedestrian paths and the Tigard High School Swim Center. The 51-acre Cook Park is the largest of 9 city parks. Cook Park is located along the banks of the Tualatin River and has recently been refurbished. Summerlake Park and Fanno Creek Park are unique havens to waterfowl and wildlife in the middle of the busy suburban community. As described by the City of Tigard and Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce, the City of Tigard has ample opportunities for the future residents of Pacific Crest to enjoy recreational activities. There is also an e.xisling BPA easement to the east of the site, as well as Tracts "C "D ".E and "F" dedicated on-.site as open space. which can be utilized_for recreational I purposes. PACIFIC CREST FARMER'S LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 9 t t 0 1 • •WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. NOISE IMPACTS The subject site is proposed as a single family residential subdivision. The residential nature of the proposed subdivision complies with the surrounding residential uses. The resulting noise of the residential uses will not result in substantial impacts to the site itself nor the surrounding properties. Pacific Crest is to be developed in a perfect location with a 100-foot wide BPA right-of-way along the entire eastern property line and slopes in excess of 25 percent along the western property line which would restrict most types of development. The site already is substantially buffered from adjoining properties along the longest property lines. Noise impacts resulting from the proposed Pacific Crest subdivision will not negatively impact the site or surrounding area. TRANSPORTATION The four (4) existing single family homes currently utilize SW Sunrise Lane to access the site. The primary access for the proposed 80 lot subdivision, Pacific Crest, is proposed to extend west from the termination of SW Mistletoe Drive. A second primary access will be extended from the east termination of Catalina Drive of the Hillshire Cheek Estates #4 subdivision. The applicant is currently in the process of gaining access across the 100-foot wide Bonneville Power Administration right-of-way which is located adjacent to the site's eastern property line. SW Mistletoe Drive is designated as a local street by the City of Tigard. According to the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan the primary function of a local street is to provide direct access to abutting property and to allow traffic movement within a neighborhood. SW Mistletoe Drive leads to SW Benchview and then to SW Bull Mountain Road which is designated as a Major Collector by the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan. All of the proposed interior streets are to be constructed to City of Tigard standards and are proposed as public streets with two (2) private access drives to provide access to subdivision lots 21, 22, & 25-27. Pacific Crest has been designed to provide access to the public street system and ample street frontage for all of the proposed lots within the subdivision. The proposed access and overall street system provides adequate access to transportation. Alternative modes of transportation have been accommodated within Pacific Crest and in close proximity to the development. Five (5) foot wide sidewalks have been provided along all of the internal streets for pedestrian circulation. Tri-Met provides transit services to the local area. Bus stop 62 is located one and one-quarter miles from the site and provides service to Washington Square and the Sunset Transit Center. Bus stop 44 is located one and three- quarters of a mile from the site and provides service to King City and the City of Tigard. The site is a group of isolated parcels which are nearly surrounded by slopes which exceed 25 percent. According to the City of Tigard Community Development Code, slopes which exceed 25 percent are designated as sensitive lands and are designated as such to preserve these areas. An existing 100-foot wide BPA right-of-way is located adjacent to the entire eastern property line and SW Mistletoe Drive has been stubbed to the BPA right-of-way to future extension into the site. It is evidenced by the street stub that the City of Tigard intended SW Mistletoe Drive as a future access to the subject site. A second street stub has also been constructed for future PACIFIC CREST FARMERS LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PACE No. 10 1 1 1 • ONESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. access into the site through Hillshire Creek Estates #4 in order to meet requirements set by the fire rnarshall. The remaining areas for street extensions are not viable due to the topography of the site and the BPA right-of-way. A Future Street Plan (Exhibit 16) has been prepared which shows the topography of the site and the surrounding area as well as the tax lots and the on-site and surrounding street pattern. COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18) The City of Tigard Community Development Code identifies policies and procedures for land development. The following narrative outlines the applicable policies and regulations for the proposed Pacific Crest subdivision, partition, lot line adjustment and sensitive lands application and provides substantive information as to how this proposal complies with applicable policies and regulations. CHAPTER 18.390 - DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES The applicant is proposing a combined application which includes a lot line adjustment, partition, subdivision and sensitive lands. The types of procedures for each application varies between a Type I and a Type H. Because a Type U procedure is more strict of the two, this combined application will be reviewed as a Type H land use procedure. SECTION 18.390.040.A - PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE A preapplication conference was held on February 23, 1999 with City of Tigard Staff. The City of Tigard Pre-Application Conference Notes have been included with this application as Appendix 3. This criterion is met. l SECTION 18.390.040.8 - APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Section 18.390.040.B.1 The applicable application forms for a subdivision, Partition, Lot Line Adjustment and a Sensitive Lands permit have been completed and are included within this application submittal. Copies of these applications can be found within this narrative document prior to the table of contents (Figure A). This criterion is met. Section 18.390.040.B.2 The required application forms have been completed and include all of the information that was requested on the application forms. This application narrative addresses the relevant criteria in sufficient detail for review and approval. A fee of $4,700.00 has been submitted with this application to be utilized by the City of Tigard to process these applications. Two (2) sets of pre-stamped and pre-addressed envelopes for all of the property owners of record have been submitted to the City of Tigard with this application. The notification list was created by Chicago Title Development Services (Appendix 3). The created notification list was based PACIFIC CREST FARMERS LAND TRUST WESTLAKE NO. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 11 1 t 1 1 0 ONESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. upon information from the Washington County Department of Assessment and Taxation. This application narrative includes an impact study as shown on pages 7 through 10 of this document. Dedication requirements have not been requested or appear to be required as part of this application. This criterion is met. CHAPTER 18.410 - LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS SECTION 18.410.040 - APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 18.410.040.A.1 The proposed lot line adjustments, as shown on the Vicinity, Lot Line Adjustment and Partition Plan (Exhibit 1), have not created an additional parcel. After the proposed adjustments are approved the parcels will have the following square footage: • Tax Lot 400 is proposed as 2.66 acres; • Tax Lot 500 is proposed as 8.74 acres; • Tax Lot 1900 is proposed as 4.66 acres; • Tax Lot 2000 is proposed as 6.40 acres; and, • Tax Lot 2100 is proposed as 1.65 acres. The minimum lot size in the R-7 zone is 5,000 square feet. As shown above, each of the proposed lot line adjustments will not create a lot nor will they adjust the square footage below the minimum lot size of the R-7 zone. This criterion is met. Section 18.410.040.A.2 The proposed lot line adjustments will not create lots which are in violation of the site development or zoning district regulations for the R-7 district. The existing homes located on- site are not located in close proximity to the adjusted lot lines nor will they encroach in the required setbacks. This criterion is met. Section 18.410.040.A.3 All of the parcels involved with the proposed lot line adjustments exceed the minimum width requirements of 50 feet. As previously described, the proposed lot areas exceed the minimum lot size requirements of the R-7 zone. Through the subdivision process each lot will have ' frontage onto a public right-of-way or have a minimum of a 15-foot wide access easement. There is ample room for the required setbacks of the R-7 zone for the existing and proposed structures. This criterion is met. Section 18.410.040.A.4 ' Due to the combined subdivision and lot line adjustment application, the "flag" of tax lots 400, 500, 100 and 2000 will not be included within this application. This criterion does not apply to this proposal. r PACIFIC CREST LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & FARMERS LAND TRUST SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 12 WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. Section 18.410.040.A.5 The applicant will comply with applicable fire district standards as required through this application. This criterion is met. Section 18.410.040.A.6 A reciprocal easement to ensure access and maintenance rights will be recorded with the approved preliminary plat. One common drive will provide access for subdivision lots 21 and 22 and a second common drive will provide access for subdivision lots 25 through 27. This criterion is met. Section 18.410.040.A.7 The accessways are proposed within the subdivision application and are addressed on page 16 and 17 of this application narrative. This criterion does not apply. CHAPTER 18.430 - SUBDIVISIONS SECTION 18.430.040 - APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 18.430.040.A.1 As discussed within this narrative, Pacific Crest has been designed to comply with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations which were detailed within the City of Tigard Pre-Application Conference Notes (Appendix 3). This criterion is met. Section 18.430.040.A.2 The plat name, Pacific Crest, was approved by Gilbert Arp, Washington County Surveyor's Office, on March 29, 1999 as shown within Appendix 1. This criterion is met. Section 18.430.040.A.3 Due to the steep slopes, 25 percent and greater, surrounding the site and the BPA easement along the entire eastern property line it is difficult to provide connectivity to adjacent properties. The applicant has contacted Brian and Karen Pautz to provide access to the buildable area located on Tax Lot 201, on the western edge of the Pacific Crest development. The Pautz property includes a substantial amount of sensitive lands which contain slopes that exceed 25%. Due to the sensitive lands located on their property it is not feasible that a right- of-way will be extended in the future. Therefore, two private accessways are proposed for access to the available buildable area located west of the site as shown on the Preliminary Plat and Street Plan (Exhibit 3). There are no other plats of subdivisions or maps of major partitions already approved for adjoining property that will be able to connect to the Pacific Crest Subdivision. This criterion is met. 1 PACIFIC CREST FARMERS LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 13 WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. Section 18.430.040.A.4 There are no common improvements proposed as part of this application. This criterion does not apply. SECTION 18.430.050 - SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: PRELIMINARY PLAT The submitted Type II application includes all of the general information required for a Type H procedure as explained on page 4 of this document. The additional information detailed within the City of Tigard Pre-Application Conference Notes (Appendix 3) has also been included within this submittal. This criterion is met. CHAPTER 18.510 - RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 1 r r 1 r 1 1 Pacific Crest, 2S 1 05DA, Tax Lot 400 and 500 and 2S 1 05DD, Tax Lot 100, 201, 1900, 2000 and 2100, are located within the City of Tigard R-7, Medium-Density Residential District as shown on the first page of the City of Tigard Pre-Application Conference Notes (Appendix 3). SECTION 18.510.030 - PERMITTED USES Within Table 18.510.1, Use Table, the R-7 zone allows various residential uses outright. Among the uses which are permitted outright are Single Units, Detached. The current and proposed housing type within the Pacific Crest subdivision are single family detached dwellings. This criterion is met. SECTION 18.510.040 - MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DENSITIES The minimum and maximum densities for the Pacific Crest subdivision have been calculated by Westlake Consultants, Inc. and have been included as Appendix 5. The minimum density, which is 80 percent of the maximum density has been established as 55 lots and the maximum density is 65 lots. The maximum density has been calculated by utilizing The City of Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.715, Density Computations. Subtracted from the gross developable area was the area within roadways and sensitive lands. This resulted in a net area equal to 69 lots. No adjustments from the applicable standards have been requested or appear to be necessary. This criterion is met. SECTION 18.510.050 - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Section 18.51 0 050.A Pacific Crest has been designed to comply with all of the applicable development standards contained within the R-7 zoning district and other applicable standards and requirements contained within the City of Tigard Community Development Code, as shown within this narrative. This criterion is met. PACIFIC CREST FARMERS LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 14 1 • 4LESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. Section 18.510.050.8 Pacific Crest complies with all of the applicable development standards in the R-7 zone as shown within Table 18.510.2. The zoning standards and the provided compliance with those standards are shown within the following table: 1 I 1 I 1 1 t 11 r i STANDARD R-7 :.PACIFIC CREST Minimum Lot Size Min. 5,000 square feet Detached Unit 5,000 square feet Max. 16,272 square feet Average Minimum Lot Width 50 feet 50 feet Maximum Lot Coverage 80% Maximum lot coverage cannot be determined at this time. Lot coverage will be reviewed through the building pen-nit process. Minimum Setbacks Setbacks will be reviewed at - Front yard 15 feet the time the building permits - Side facing street 10 feet are requested for each - Side yard 5 feet individual lot. The lots are of - Rear yard 15 feet adequate size to allow the - Side yard or rear yard 30 feet setbacks to be met. Existing abutting more restrictive zoning homes are in conformance dist. with the setback standards. - Distance between property 20 feet line and ara e Maximum Height 35 feet The height standard will be reviewed at the time of building permits. Minimum Landscape Requirement 20% Adequate room has been allocated to each lot to provide ample room for 20% landscaping. As shown in the table above, the applicable development standards in the R-7 zone have been met or can be met with the proposed subdivision. This criterion is met. CHAPTER 18.705 - ACCESS EGRESS, AND CIRCULATION The site is proposed to have one access per lot and one single family dwelling per lot. Development of the individual lots are not proposed at this time, however adequate lot widths, 50 feet, provide several access opportunities for each lot. This Section of the Code requires one driveway with a minimum 15-foot wide access width and 10-foot pavement width for one dwelling unit. Each lot can meet this standard at the time that building permits are obtained. There are no lots that would require an access drive in excess of 150 feet in length; therefore PACIFIC CREST FARMERS LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 15 ~ • i WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. approved provisions for fire apparatus are not needed. Vehicle turnouts are not necessary in this development and have not been requested by City Staff. This criterion is met. r SECTION 18.705.030 - GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 18.705.030.A - Continuing Obligation of Property Owner The applicant understands the provisions and maintenance of access and egress and circulation will be the continuing obligation of the property owner and the obligation will be transferred to future property owners as the site develops. This criterion is met. Section 18.705.030.B - Access Plan Requirements On-site circulation, access and egress has been addressed within this application submittal as shown on the Preliminary Plat and Street Plan (Exhibit 3) and the Preliminary Street Profiles (Exhibit 4, 5. 6, and 7). Access, egress and circulation to individual properties cannot be addressed until such time as building permits are obtained for each lot within the Pacific Crest development. This criterion is met. Section 18.705.030. C - Joint Access A joint access to subdivision lots 21 and 22 and a joint access to subdivision lots 25 through 27 have been designed. Legal evidence will be provided which establishes the joint use of the accessways and copies of the legal evidence will be provided to the City of Tigard during the final plat process. This criterion is met. Section 18.705.030.D - Public Street Access The two previously stated accessways serving subdivision lots 21, 22, at& 25 through 27 have been designed to connect directly to the proposed public street. Approval of the public street is included within this application submittal. This criterion is met. Section 18.705.030.E - Curb Cuts Curb cuts will be created in accordance with Section 18.810.030 N - Curbs, Curb Cuts, Ramps, and Driveway Approaches. This criterion is met. Section 18.705.030.E - Required Walkway Location No walkways are proposed within the Pacific Crest Development with the exception of ar sidewalks. This criterion does not apply. Section 18.705.030.G - Inadequate or Hazardous Access This Section does not apply to the proposed development. This criterion does not apply. Section 18.705.030.H - Minimum Access Requirements for Residential Use This Section of the City of Tigard Community Development Code requires that an access that serves one to two dwelling units must be 15 feet in width with 10 feet of pavement width. The access which serves subdivision lots 21 and 22 and the access which serves subdivision lot 25 PACIFIC CREST LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & 1 FARMERS LAND TRUST SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • *WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. through 27 are each 20 feet in width, thus meeting this standard. The pavement width has not been determined at this time, although the accessways will meet the minimum 10-foot paving width. The private residential access drives will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code and do not exceed 150 feet in length. At the time of building permits, the subdivision lots being served by these accessways will provide the City of Tigard with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. This criterion is met. Section 18.705.030.1- Minimum Access Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Uses The proposed subdivision is residential in nature and will not include commercial and industrial uses. This criterion does not apply. Section 18.705.030.J- One-Way Vehicular Access Points This criterion does not apply to the proposal. Section 18.70S.030.K - Director's Authority to Restrict Access During the pre-application meeting and subsequent meetings with the City of Tigard Staff, access restrictions were not discussed. This criterion does not apply. CHAPTER 18.715 - DENSITY COMPUTATIONS SECTION 18.715.020 - DENSITY CALCULATION Section 18.715.020.A The required density calculations have been prepared by the Westlake Consultants, Inc. Engineering Department and are included as Appendix 5. The calculation is as follows: Net Development Area Calculation: Total Gross Development Area 823,770 square feet Subtract for Right-of-Was 188,200 square feet Sensitive Lands - Slopes Exceeding 25% 235, 000 sc uare eet Total Net Development Area 400,570 square feet Section 18.715.020.8 To calculate the maximum number of residential units per net acre, the number of square feet in the net acres has been divided by the minimum lot size in the R-7 zone which is 5,000 square feet which, as shown below, yields 80 units. Pacific Crest proposes 80 subdivision lots which is in conformance with the maximum number of residential units. This criterion is met. PACIFIC CREST FARMERS LAND TRUST WESTLAKE NO. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE NO. 17 1 i • WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 1 1 r 1 1 Net Area 400,570 s quare feet R-7 Minimum Lot Size 5,000 sq uare feet Maximum Density Yield Section 18.715.020.C 80 Units To calculate the minimum number of residential units per net acre, the number of square feet in the net acres has been multiplied by 80 percent and divided by the minimum lot size, 5,000 square feet. As the table below shows, the subject site yields a minimum of 73 units. Pacific Crest proposes 80 subdivision lots which exceeds the minimum number of residential units allowed. This criterion is met. Net Area 400,570 square feet 80% 0.8 R-7 Minimum Lot Size 5,000 square feet Minimum Density Yield 64 Units SECTION 18.715.030 - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TRANSFER Residential density transfer is not requested through this application. This criterion does not apply. CHAPTER 18.745 - LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING SECTION 18.745.040 - STREET TREES Section 18.745.040.A - Protection of Existing Vegetation Street trees are proposed to be planted along the internal circulation system within Pacific Crest, including the two private accessways serving subdivision lots2l, 22, and 25 through 27, as shown on the Street Tree Landscape Plan (Exhibit 15). The street trees will be planted according to the standards in Section 18.745.040.C. This criterion is met. Section 18.745.040.B - Street Tree Planting List The Little Leaf Linden, Tilia Cordata and Greenspire have been chosen as the street tree types for Pacific Crest. The Little Leaf Linden, Tilia Cordata and Greenspire have been selected to prevent damage to utilities, streets and sidewalks. The street trees are shown on the Street Tree Landscape Plan (Exhibit 15) to be reviewed and approved by the Director, as this standard requires. This criterion is met. Section 18.745.040.C - Size and Spacing of Street Trees The proposed street trees will comply with the required two-inch caliper at four feet in height. The spacing of the street trees are also in compliance with the standards found within this Section of the City of Tigard Community Development Code. This criterion is met. PACIFIC CREST FARMERS LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 18 ESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. I Section 18.745.040.D - Pruning Requirements All street trees provided within the Pacific Crest subdivision will be planted within a 4-foot wide planter strips and will be fronting on local streets. The proposed street trees will be pruned to allow at least eight feet of clearance above the sidewalks and 13 feet above the 1 proposed local streets. This criteria is met. Section 18.745.040.E - Cut and Fill Around Existing Trees Existing trees are not proposed to be utilized as street trees within the Pacific Crest subdivision, therefore this criterion does not apply. Section 18.745 040. F - Replacement of Street Trees This proposal does not include removing existing street trees. Street trees are not located adjacent to the subject site. This criterion does not apply. Section 18.745.040.G - Granting of Adjustments Adjustments to the City of Tigard street tree standards are not requested through this application nor does it appear to be necessary. This criterion does not apply. Section 18.745.040.H - Location of Trees Near Signalized Intersections There are no signalized intersections within, or adjacent to, Pacific Crest. This criterion does not apply. SECTION 18.745.060 - RE VEGETATION ' Section 18.745060.A - When Re-Vegetation is Required The proposed grading, for streets and utilities will require that natural vegetation be removed along the effected corridors. The proposed re-vegetation will help to prevent erosion after construction activities are completed. 1 1 f Section 18.745060.B - Preparation for Re-Vegetation The topsoil that is removed from the surface in preparation for construction of the road and utility irnprovenwnts will be stored adjacent to the excavated areas where the topsoil will not cause suffocation of the root system of trees intended to be preserved. After completion of the construction the topsoil will be restored to provide a suitable base for seeding and planting. This criterion is met. Section 18.745.060.C - Methods of Re-Vegetation Re-vegetation will include hydro mulching according to the standards of the City of Tigard. This criterion is met. PACIFIC CREST FARMER'S LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 19 1 11WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. I CHAPTER 18.765 - OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS SECTION 18.765.030 - GENERAL. PROVISIONS This Section of the City of Tigard Community Development Code requires that off-street parking spaces for single-family dwellings be located on the same lot as the dwelling. The applicant understands this requirement and has designed the subdivision to allow adequate room for off-street parking on each lot. Development is not proposed at this time, although this standard may be enforced at the time that building permits are gained. This criterion is met. CHAPTER 18.775 - SENSITIVE LANDS SECTION 18.775.020 - APPLICABILITY OF USES: PERMITTED, PROHIBITED, AND NONCONFORMING Section 18.775.020 - Applicability of Uses: Permitted, Prohibited, and Nonconforming Sensitive areas are defined as folloti+.s: 1) Areas within the 100 -year floodplain, 2) Drainageways, or 3) Slopes of 25% or greater.AND on unstable ground. There will be no areas ta,hich meet this criteria developed on the proposed site. This criterion does not apply. Section 18.775.020..8 - Administrative sensitive lands review There will be development within sensitive areas on the proposed site. Sensitive land permits from the appropriate community development divisions for approval will be obtained. This criterion is met. Section 18.775.020.0-Jurisdictional wetlands Per the wetland starch performed by Schott & Associates Ecologists and Wetlands Specialists on December 29, 199.9 (Appendix 9) there are no wetlands on the proposed development site. This criterion does not apply. 1 Section 18.775.020.D - Sensitive Lands Permits Issued by the Director The applicant is requesting a Type II Sensitive Lands Permit approval due to the proposed northern portion of the development site, which will include a through street addition, as well as 15 additional lots. The proposed improvements will disturb slopes that are 25 percent and greater to provide the necessary street access as well as cut and fill slopes that impact lots along the roads-vav in the north portion of the site. The f nal lot grading will be performed at the times homes are built. No initial impact will occur during the infrastructure improvements. A sensitive lands permit is required since the slopes that are 25 percent or greater being disturbed involve more than 50 cubic yards of material. The applicant is proposing to disturb approximately 3.88 acres of the overall 5.40 acre area of sensitive land. Approximately 0. hl acres is to be impacted during road construction and the remaining 3.27 acres is to be impacted during.inal home construction. The area for future lot grading is noted on PACIFIC CREST FARMER'S LAND TRUST WESTLAKE NO. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 20 WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 1 1 1 t 1 r 1 1 Preliminary Grading Plan (Exhibit 8). Sensitive lands, involving slopes, are located at other areas on-site. At this time grading is only occurring to the proposed streets. Lot grading will occur individually. This criterion is met. Section 18.775.020.E - Sensitive land permits issued by the Hearings Officer There are no areas on the development site within the 100-year floodplain. This criterion is not applicable. SECTION 18.775.070 - SENSITIVE LAND PERMITS Section 18.775.070.A -Permits Required A type II permit is required, and justified throughout this section of narrative. This criterion is met. Section 18.775.070.B - Within the 100-year floodplain There are no areas on the development site within the 100-year floodplain. This criterion is not applicable. Section 18.775.070. C - With Excessive Slopes The proposed public street extending f rom Mistletoe Drive north to Hillshire Woods Estates #4 proposed to he graded in order to meet horizontal and vertical street alignment requirements. Cut and fill slopes along the roadway that impact lots will be graded in conjunction with the road construction. All other grading within the sensitive land area will take place during home construction. Storm drainage has been accounted for. This criterion is met. The geotechnical report by AdaPT Engineering, Inc. concludes that the existing soil within the sloped areas is adequate for the proposed construction. The applicant intends to provide best management erosion control and construction practices to prevent adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property. This criterion is met. There are no structures proposed within the proposed storm drainage ground disturbance area, therefore this criterion does not apply. Drains from the new homes will be connected to a pipe drainage system to minimize runoff. Natural vegetation will be removed as a result of the storm/sanitary connection in the sensitive lands area. The applicant is proposing to replant the disturbed areas according to Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. It is anticipated that the downhill areas behind the proposed homes will be landscaped and disturbed areas will be replanted. This criterion is met. Section .18.775.070.D - Within Drainageways There are no drainageways within theproposed development. This criterion is not applicable. Section 18.775.070.E - Within Wetlands There are no wetlands within theproposed development. This criterion is not applicable. PACIFIC CREST FARMER'S LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PACE No. 21 OWESTILME CONSULTANTS, INC. ' Section 18.775.080 - E.rcePtion for Development of the 108'"/113`'' Ravine below the 140 Feet.Elevation ' The proposed development is not included in this area. This criterion is not applicable. Section 18.775.090 -Application Submission Requirements The City of Tigard requires that an existing conditions plan, a site plan, a grading plan and a landscape plan be submitted for the Sensitive Lands Permit application. These submittal items have been created and are included with this submittal. This criterion is met. CHAPTER 18.780 - SIGNS No signs are proposed at this time. The applicant understands that if, at some time in the future, a sign is needed that a sign permit will be required as outlined within Chapter 18.780 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code. This criterion does not apply. CHAPTER 18.790 - TREE REMOVAL SECTION 18.790.030 - TREE PLAN REQUIREMENT Section 18.790.030.A - Tree Plan Required A Tree Protection and Removal Plan (Appendix 1) has been prepared for the applicant by Walter H. Knapp, a certified arborist. Three exhibits have been prepared concerning the existing trees: Composite Tree Inventory (Exhibits 13 and 14) and Tree Removal and Preservation Plan (Exhibit 12). These exhibits were prepared by Westlake Consultants, Inc. and are based upon the report (dated January 6, 2000) prepared by Walter H. Knapp, which was revised f •onz the original report (dated July 12, 1999). The Composite Tree Inventory exhibits identifi~ all existing trees which were located, both larger and smaller then than twelve (12) inches in diameter. These exhibits also include a table with tree reference numbers that correspond to the arborist's revised evaluation report. The Tree Removal and Preservation Plan (Exhibit 12) prepared by Westlake Consultants, Inc. identifies all trees which have a diameter of twelve (12) inches or greater which are hazardous, to be removed due to construction or will be preserved. A detailed mitigation plan has not been prepared at this time, although the applicant has specified a preference of protection over mitigation whenever possible. This criterion is met. t Section 18.790.030.B - Plan Requirements The Tree Removal and Protection Plan (Exhibit 12) includes the location, size and species of all existing trees which are twelve inches and larger within the Pacific Crest PD. There are no known trees which have been designated as significant by the City. A detailed mitigation plan has not been designed at this time for the Pacific Crest site. The applicant is proposing to provide as much on-site mitigation as possible with coordination with the City's arborist. A secondary option is mitigation off-site and providing larger than required street trees which can count toward the required mitigation. The last resort will be a fee in lieu of mitigation. PACIFIC CREST FARMER'S LAND TRUST W ESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 22 ~ i *WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. Mitigation will be provided for-the removed trees according to the standards of the City of Tigard. All of the trees which are to be removed are shown in the Pacific Crest PD Tree Removal and Preservation Plan (Exhibit 12) which is located at the end of Appendix 1, prepared by the applicant's arborist, Walter H. Knapp. The standards and methods that will be utilized to protect the trees during and after construction are detailed within the Tree Protection and Removal Plan (Appendix 1), page 3 of the section entitled Tree Protection Recommendations. This criterion is met. Section 18.790.030.C - Subsequent Tree Removal The applicant understands that trees removed within the period of one year prior to this development application will be inventoried as part of the tree plan and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060.D. This criterion is met. CHAPTER 18.795 - VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS The applicable visual clearance areas have been shown at the intersection of all properties adjacent to the intersection of two streets as shown on the Street Tree Landscape Plan (Exhibit 15). The clear vision area will not contain vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction which exceeds three feet in height (except utility poles and trees). The visual clearance areas are 30 feet in width as measured from the intersection of the right-of-way lines. This criterion is met. CHAPTER 18.810 - STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS SECTION 18.810.030 - STREETS Section 18.810.030.A -Improvements All of the proposed lots will have frontage or approved access to a public street. The proposed development will gain access from SW Mistletoe Drive, a public right-of-way. A second access will be provided at Catalina Drive oJ'Hillshir-e Creek Estates #4, wlzich is also a public right-of-wqy. Two private accessways will provide a connection between subdivision lots 2.1, 22, &25 through 27 to the proposed public street network. The proposed private and public street system will be constructed to applicable City of Tigard standards. This criterion is met. Section 18.810.030.B - Creation of Rights-Of-Way for Streets and Related Purposes All rights-of-way within the proposed subdivision, both public and private, will be created upon recordation of the final plat. The subject site has not been identified by the City Council as essential for the purpose of general traffic circulation. Subdividing the subject site is the primary objective of this land use application and any proposed vehicular circulation. This criterion is met. PACIFIC CREST FARMER'S LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 23 1 1 1 1 1 t • IDWESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. Section 18.810.030. C - Creation of Access Easements The applicant is proposing two vehicular ingress/egress easements for subdivision lots 21 and ,22 and lots 25 through 27. Each easement is intended to serve two single-family residences. The proposed pavement width has not been determined at this time. The minimum required pavement width is 10 feet. The proposed private drives will comply with the applicable pavement width standards. The pavement width will be sufficient to accommodate the finite amount of driveway traffic for two single-family residences each. This criterion is met. Section 18.810.030.D - Street Location, Width and Grade Existing topographic conditions of the subject site include sensitive lands, slopes that exceed 25 percent. The location width and grade of the proposed rights-of-ways have been designed to minimize impacts to the natural features of the site. The finalized street plans will be submitted to the City of Tigard Engineer for review and approval after preliminary approval is obtained. The proposed streets are not shown on an approved street plan. Due to the previously mentioned topographical constraints, future street connections are not proposed. This criterion is met. Section 18.810.030.E - Minimum Rights-Of-Way and Street Widths During the pre-application meeting Brian Rager determined that the City of Tigard would allow the following: • 42-foot right-of-way, 24-foot pavement, no'parking; • 46-foot right-of-way, 28-foot pavement, parking on one side; and, • 50-foot right-of-way, 32-foot pavement, parking on both sides. 1 t 1 The entry into the Pacific Crest development will be an extension of SW Mistletoe Drive. The right of way will be 50 feet, with 32 feet of pavement, up to the first intersection with the north/south street. The remaining streets have been designed with a 46-foot right-of-way with 28-foot pavement and parking on one side for the continuation of SW Mistletoe Drive as it circles the site and winds north through the site to Hillshire Creek Estates #4. The east-west connector street has been designed as a 42-foot right-of-way with 247foot pavement and no parking allowed. The street design will be substantiated by the traffic study which is in the process of being prepared for submittal to the City of Tigard. These streets meet the City's criteria for traffic loading. This criterion is met. Section 18.810.030.F - Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets The Future Street Plan (Exhibit .16) details the site and those areas within 530 feet of the site as required within this Section. The north portion of the site is developable, although there are slopes which exceed 25 percent which will limit the configuration of both the proposed lots and street access in this area. The lots within this portion of the site will be fronting a newly proposed public street which will connect the southern portion of the site to a street stub within Hillshire Creek Estates #4. Properties to the west and south are also constrained due to the topography and are not proposed to be developed at this tinge. To the east of the site, SW Mistletoe Drive has been stubbed to the BPA right-of-way for future extension. The applicant PACIFIC CREST FARMER'S LAND TRUST WESTLAKE NO. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 24 WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. is currentlYin the process of obtaining the necessary approvals from the Bonneville Power Administration to provide the.required street extension and access for Pacific Crest. The applicant has made an effort to contact surrounding property owners to review potential future development surrounding Pacific Crest. Only one adjacent land owner has expressed availability to develop their property. The property owners are Brian and Karen Pautz who have included their property for development within this application. The applicant has accommodated their property by providing a private access drive to subdivision lots 21 and 22 for their use. The Future Street Plan (Exhibit 16) shows the restrictive topography for future street extensions along with the existing tax lots and the proposed development area. The proposed continuation of SW Mistletoe Drive and the applicant's efforts to contact surrounding property owners to detennine future development and street extension needs demonstrates the willingness of the applicant to meet this criterion. This criterion is met. Section 18.810.030. G - Street Alignment and Connections The proposed streets and the surrounding street system have not been designated as collectors and/or arterials. The proposed streets exceed the minimum separation between local street intersections of 125 feet as shown on the Preliminary Plat (Exhibit 3). 1 1 1 1 The surrounding topographical constraints have been previously discussed within this narrative and there will be development within the steeper site area to the north. Westlake Consultants, Inc. has researched the possibility of extending the street system north to connect to a future development and have come up with a viable solution to meet the requirements set forth by the fire marshall as well as accommodate the etwironniental needs of the area. These plans have been included as Appendix 6. As shown on the Alternate Street Connection (Appendix 6) the designed street can meet the standards of the City of Tigard for street design even with the slopes which exceed 25 percent in that area. As stated earlier, the street can be built, however it will require significant disturbance to the sensitive lands in this area and the native vegetation. The extension of SW Mistletoe Drive to the southeast and the connection to 11illshire Creek Estates W to the northwest will provide the necessary development access for several properties in this area which previously have not been able to develop. Connections to schools, shopping areas and parks are available from the surrounding street network. The internal network, as shown on the Preliminary Plat (Exhibit 3), provides connecting streets with short, direct travel routes which minimize travel distances within Pacific Crest. This criterion is met. Section 18.810.030.H -Intersection Angles The proposed street design depicts perpendicular angles for all street intersections thereby meeting this criteria. Due to the topography of the site it is not possible to provide 25 feet of tangent adjacent to the right-of-way intersections, therefore a lesser distance has been utilized as shown on the Preliminary Street Profiles (Exhibits 4, 5, 6, and 7). The internal street system PACIFIC CREST LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & FARMER'S LAND TRUST SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 25 1 • *WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 has provided a minimum corner radius of 20 feet along the right-of-way lines of the acute angles. This criterion is met. Section 18.810.030.1- Existing Rights-Of- Way The City of Tigard Staff has not expressed the need for the applicant to provide additional rights-of-way for the existing street system. This criterion is met. Section 18.810.030.J- Partial Street Improvements There are no partial street improvements proposed as part of this application, therefore this Section does not apply. Section 18.810.030.K - Cul-de-sacs There are no proposed cul-de-sacs within the Pacific Crest Development. This criterion does not apply. Section 18.810.030.L - Street Names Street names have not been chosen for the proposed streets. The street names that are selected will not duplicate or be confused with the names of existing streets in Washington County. The street names and numbers will conform to the established pattern in the surrounding area. This criterion is met. Section 18.814.030.M - Grades and Curves All roadways will meet the City's established criteria for vertical and horizontal design. Final design of all roadways will be submitted to the City for review and approval. This criterion is met. Section 18.810.030.N - Curbs, Curb Cuts, Ramps, and Driveway Approaches Development of the individual lots is not proposed at this time. Final design of all proposed improvements will be submitted to the City for review and final approval. This criterion is met. Section 18.810.030.0 - Streets Adjacent to Railroad Right-Of-Way The subject property is not adjacent to a railroad right-of-way, therefore this criterion does not apply. Section 18.810.030.P - Access to Arterials and Major Collectors The subject site does not abut an arterial or major collector street; therefore this criterion does not apply. Section 18.810.030.Q - Alleys, Public or Private Pacific Crest is a residential development; therefore this criterion does not apply. PACIFIC CREST FARMERS LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 26 • *WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS INC. Section 18.810.030.R -Survey Monuments A certification will be provided to the City stating that all boundary and interior monuments have been reestablished and protected upon completion of the public improvements and in conjunction with recording of the final plat. This criterion is met. Section 18.810.030.S - Private Streets Two private accessways are proposed to provide connections to subdivision lots 21, 221 and 25 through 27. The proposed accessways will be designed to meet the private accessway criteria as established by the City of Tigard and meet fire and safety requirements established by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. The applicant will provide legal assurances for the continued maintenance of these private accessways. The proposed private accessways are proposed to serve four (4) residential homes. This criterion is met. Section 18.810.030. T -Railroad Crossings The proposed development does not involve railroad crossings. This criterion does not apply. Section 18.810.030. U - Street Signs The developer will accept responsibility for the cost of installation of street signage deemed necessary by the City Engineer. This criterion is met. Section 18.810.030. V - Mailboxes Proposed locations of joint mailboxes are depicted on the Preliminary Plat (Exhibit 3). Location and design of joint mailboxes will be finalized with the final construction documents submitted to the City / US Post Office for review and approval. This criterion is met. Section 18.810.030. W - Traffic Signals There has been no requirement for traffic signals associated with this proposed development; therefore this criterion does not apply. Section 18.810.030.X - Street Light Standards There have been no requirements for traffic signals associated with this proposed development; therefore this criterion does not apply. f Section 18.810.030.Y- Street Name Signs All necessary signs will be installed.in accordance with the standards of the City of Tigard. This criterion is met. Section 18.810.030.Z - Street Cross Sections Construction of all streets will meet the structural standards of this Section. Details of the final street sections will be included as part of the final construction documents. This criterion is met. PACIFIC CREST FARMER'S LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 27 WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 1 1 1 SECTION 18.810.040 - BLOCKS Section 18.810.040.A - Block Design The proposed subdivision lots meet the underlying zoning requirements for lot size and lot dimensions. Access to the internal street system has been provided for each subdivision lot. The proposed blocks are regular shaped and have been designed to allow the proposed lots to meet the zoning requirements. This criterion is met. Section 18.810.040.B -Sizes As shown on the Preliminary Plat (Exhibit 3) the perimeter of the proposed blocks does not exceed 1,800 feet. Full street connections are possible within the Pacific Crest development; therefore bicycle and pedestrian connections are not needed. Due to the size and shape of the ' buildable area located on-site the connection spacing exceeds the 330-foot standard. To provide the needed spacing, not exceeding 330 feet, a third block would be necessary. A third block is not possible due to the surrounding sensitive lands, therefore due to topographical constraints it is not possible for this development to comply with the 330-foot connection spacing. This criterion is met. 1 1 1 1 SECTION 18.810.050 - EASEMENTS All required easements will be shown on the final construction plans and will be submitted to all applicable agencies for review and approval. This criterion is met. SECTION 18.810.060 - LOTS Section 18.810.060.A -Size and Shape As described within this application narrative, all lots meet the applicable standards of the R-7 zone. This criterion is met. Section 18.810.060.8 - Lot Frontage As shown on the Preliminary Plat (Exhibit 3) all lots within Pacific Crest abut upon a public or private street for a width of at least 25 feet, with the exception of subdivision lots 21, 22, 25, 26, and 27, as allowed by Section 18.705.030.H. Subdivision lots 2.1, 22, 25, 26 and 27 are provided with 20 feet of lot frontage. This criterion is met. Section 18.810.060 C - Through Lots There is one through lot proposed within the Pacific Crest subdivision, Lot 40. A single-family house, which is to be retained, currently gains access from Street B and is situated in such a way that a through lot is needed. No other through lots are proposed as part of this development. This criterion is met. PACIFIC CREST FARMERS LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 28 1 0 *WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 1 1 Section 18.810.060.D -Lot Side Lines The side lot lines have been designed to be at right angles to the street as far as practicable. This criterion is met. Section 18.810.060.E -Large Lots Many of the large lots proposed within Pacific Crest either have sensitive lands located on-site or they are currently utilized with an existing home. It is assumed that the City Staff will not require additional restrictions to these lots. This criterion does not apply. SECTION 18.810.070 - SIDEWALKS Sidewalks will be constructed to City design standards along both sides of Street A, Street C and along the western side of Street B. The 100-foot wide BPA right-of-way along the site's entire eastern property line precludes future development adjacent to Pacific Crest, therefore the applicant will not provide a sidewalk which would only serve BPA. It is understood that the maintenance of the sidewalks, curbs and planterstrips is the continuing obligation of the adjacent property owners. This criterion is met. ' SECTION 18.810.080 - PUBLIC USE AREAS Tracts C, .D, and F located ivithin the northern portion of the site are dedicated as proposed ' public use areas. They are intended.for use for water duality facililies, as well as uildlife corridors, in order to maintain an accessible route for the existing wildlife in the area. This will also create less of an impact on the existing sensitive areas. SECTION 1$.$10,090 - SANITARY SEWERS 1 1 1 Sanitary sewer will be provided through the Hillshire Creek Estates #4 via proposed utility stub. The system will be extended to the north within the proposed public street "f3 This street will be 28 feet wide (paveinent width) and will go through sensitive lands due to grade considerations. Individual, private sanitary grinder pumps are proposed to serve lots -21, 22, 25, 26, and 27. This is necessary due to grade issues and in an effort to minimize impact to sensitive lands. Each of these private grinder pumps be connected to the proposed S" main within the Pacific Crest development and will be directed through the gravity extension mentioned above. Laterals will be provided to all lots. This criterion is met. PACIFIC CREST FARMERS LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 29 1 • • WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. SECTION 18.810.100 - STORM DRAINAGE ' The existing runoff pattern for the proposed development is immediately directed to the north, east and west due to the knoll that the Pacific Crest development is on. The drainage eventually heads north with the majority going in a northwest direction, into the proposed ' Hillshire Creek Estates #4 development. ' The Hillshire Creek Estates #4 development has performed an upstream drainage analysis and is providing storm sewer stubs to accommodate the runoff from the Pacific Crest development. A downstream storm analysis by Alpha Engineering indicates that detention will not be required for Hillshire Creek Estates #4 and thus no allowance has been made for a detention facility on this project. Prior to final design, an additional analysis will be performed to analyze the impact of this project to downstream facilities. A proposed storm sewer main line will be extended to the north and will connect to the proposed stub within the Hillshire Creek Estates #4 development. This line will be located within the proposed public street right-of-way that will include the sanitary sewer also; see attached Preliminary Utility Plan (Exhibit 1.1). A combination of water quality swales will be located within proposed Tract "C" in the northern portion of this project. The exact size and location will be determined through the final design process. A general location for this facility is indicated on the preliminary storm drain plan. 1 1 Laterals will be provided to all lots that can not otherwise utilize weep holes. Lots that slope steeply away from the proposed road alignment will utilize rock/soaker trenches for the outfall of the foundation drains. SECTION 18.810.110 - BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS Pacific Crest does not adjoin any proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan. This criterion does not apply. SECTION 18.810.120 - UTILITIES Installation of all utility lines will be placed underground in accordance with provisions set forth in City of Tigard Standard Specification Manual. Preliminary utility designs are included as part of this application. All utilities will be designed by a Registered Engineer to meet current City and agency standards. Completed plans will be submitted to the City and all required agencies for approval. All approvals and permits required for construction will be obtained prior to commencing work. SUBDIVISION PLAN NAME RESERVATION The subdivision name, Pacific Crest, was approved on March 29, 1999, by Gilbert Arp, Washington County Surveyor's Office, as shown in Appendix 1. This criterion is met. PACIFIC CREST FARMER'S LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 30 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 *WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY (USA) BUFFER STANDARDS, RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE (R&O) 96-44 This requirement does not apply to the proposed development. APPLICANT'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE BULL MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY PLAN This section addresses concerns relating to the design of development in the Bull Mountain Planning Area. Pacific Crest is located in the Summit and Slopes area. DESIGN ELEMENT -1 Road alignments are addressed within this Section. SW Mistletoe Drive and Sunrise Lane are not roads which are proposed for realignment nor are they proposed for improvements. This design element does not apply to the proposed development. DESIGN ELEMENT - 2 Individual development of each subdivision lot is not proposed at this time. This design element may be enforced through building permits. This design element does not apply at this time. DESIGN ELEMENT - 3 The applicant does not intend to initiate grading, filling, clearing or excavation of any kind on steep slopes until the final grading plan has been approved. It is understood that borrowing fill material is prohibited unless approved within the grading plan or imported from outside the hillside area. The proposed development is in compliance with this design element. DESIGN ELEMENT - 4 The subject site is zoned to be developed with a minimum of 73 units and a maximum of 91 units. Developing the subject site must include the removal of native vegetation. As shown within the Pacific Crest Tree Protection and Removal Plan (Appendix 1), a certified arborist has studied the on-site trees and has found that many are hazardous. The applicant will provide mitigation for the trees which must be removed for the development to commence, although the applicant has tried to retain as many trees as possible. Native Vegetation will also be removed to provide a storm/sanitary connection to the north of the site. The sensitive land area, which is disturbed, will be revegetated as required by the City of Tigard. The proposed development is in compliance with this design element. DESIGN ELEMENT - v As stated within Design Element 4, the applicant intends to retain as many of the on-site trees as possible. Those trees, which are not designated as hazardous and need to be removed for PACIFIC CREST FARMER'S LAND TRUST W ESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • *WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. development, will be mitigated to the standards of the City of Tigard. The proposed development is in compliance with this design element. DESIGN ELEMENT - G There are no streams, seasonal waterways or riparian zones on-site, therefore this design element does not apply. DESIGN ELEMENT - 7 The applicant does not intend to utilize the adjacent powerline easement for farm operations, open space or wildlife habitat. The applicant is currently applying to BPA for use of their right-of-way for access to the site, via SW Mistletoe Drive. This design element does not apply. DESIGN ELEMENT - 8 This design element addresses Area of Special Concern 1 and Pacific Crest is located in Area of Special Concern 2. This design element does not apply. DESIGN ELEMENT - 9 As required within this design element, a Future Street Plan (Exhibit 16) has been prepared which details the topography, tax lots, and street network of the site and the surrounding area. This design element states the following: ...A general circulation plan for the Area shall be provided which minimizes 1) crossing of the canyons, and 2) access onto Sunrise Lane. Legal access to property in this area shall be consolidated whenever possible in order to encourage a development pattern which better conforms to the rugged topography... Due to the steep topography, the applicant is not proposing a future street connection across the surrounding canyons. Also in conformance with this design element, the applicant will not be creating additional accesses or additional traffic on Sunrise Lane. The first proposed street connection is to occur via SW Mistletoe Drive, which currently stubs to the BPA right-of-way, directly east of the site. The public street right-of-wqy ivill extend through the site and connect into Catalina Drive of the.1lillshire Creek Estates #4. These streets are not restricted through this design element. This design element also addresses review of the proposal stating that several environmental agencies should be notified. The City of Tigard will provide the necessary notification and has the option of notifying the environmental agencies. The proposed development is in compliance with this design element. PACIFIC CREST FARMERS LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SEN&TIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 32 1 • WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. ' CHAPTER 422 - SIGNIFICANT NATURAL RESOURCES - WASHINGTON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 422-3.1 - CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENT Section 422-3.1.A The existing trees have been located on-site and are represented on the Tree Inventory and Removal Plan (Exhibit 12) and the sensitive land areas, which include slopes that exceed 25%, are represented on the Slope Analysis (Exhibit 10). This criterion is met. Section.422-3.1.B Mitigation is required by the City of Tigard for the removal of the on-site trees. A Tree ' Protection and Removal Plan has been prepared by a certified arborist and is included as Appendix 1. Also, a Tree Protection and Removal Plan has been prepared by Westlake Consultants, Inc. which is based upon the arborist information, Exhibit 12. A sensitive land disturbance is proposed to provide a second access to the north of the site in order to meet f re >narshall requiretents. This criterion is met. Section 422-3.1. C The requirements found within the design elements of the Bull Mountain Community Plan ' have been previously discussed. Pacific Crest has been found to be in compliance with the applicable requirements of the Bull Mountain Community Plan. This criterion is met. SECTION 422-3.5 - SIGNIFICANT NATURAL AREAS The applicant is not proposing to develop the individual lots. Development of each lot will be done on an individual basis at a later date. The design of Pacific Crest utilizes the available buildable area and has tried to disturb as little of the sensitive land area as possible. Retention of as many trees as possible, planting street trees and on-site mitigation will provide additional ' landscaping for the site. This criterion is met. 1 1 CONCLUSION Pacific Crest has met the criteria established in the City of Tigard Community Development Code for lot line adjustment, partition, subdivision and sensitive lands applications. This proposal is also in compliance with the Bull Mountain Community Plan and Washington County Development Code. The applicant, Farmer's Land Trust, respectfully request approval of this land use application. PACIFIC CREST FARMER'S LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • ESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. TREES AND GEOTECHNICAL PACIFIC CREST FARMERS LAND TRUST WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATIONS JULY 12, 1999 PAGE No. 34 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 *WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. EXHIBITS PACIFIC CREST LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SUBDIVISION & FARMERS LAND TRUST SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATION WESTLAKE No. 1239-01 A JULY 12, 1999 mm w w M mm " m ~ r r r m m =mom ~ n u r+ DR.-< a . b rn r -~4 _f I ~ I 1 / r f ~ ! I r I I !rf-TTf7 4 1 N 5EE:l z CATALINA DR. 7, ~ I -I If ~ff pp u 14x11 ~A w~p ~y ~0u i' 7AX L0T 400 - TAX LOT 500 ',NSHIRE LANE \ I I I I I I I i I I I I 18 l 20 I 21 22 I 23 1 24 ism Np 1 P -~Zr m x V I I ~ 0 ~ N I O~ 1 p~ 1 00 00 ^r cc77 ° I ~ I ~ i p g b t I I ~ \ a f = ~3y ' 18 e I 0 z N A I 2 I I I 1 1 ` 1 ~ \ 1 , f r 1 I I tiy~pqpq A~D x fftt OOp H zrr PO~ ~m P a \ \ ~ C-j •L%j 1 / ♦ IN, ~Q _ 1 I I Of _ \ - \ S Qx~i I g o'Ilqp I I \ =o~ I~~c 1+ 1 I I I ,J ~ ~ m~ y s x so ❑ ' I I$ I 1 S yJ MISTLErTOE I I -1 I 11 I I I ~y- 1 I ! I 1 1 `If yy 1 I ' ~~t A°$ ' ! I I _ I I 1 0-+ zOV ~ I 1 ~ NM \ C ~"o Git \ I I I I j4 I I I N ! I 8 .S w 1 y ~ ~ ~ - - rn ~ - - H~<<S 0 H~Re DR. I f oo ( I I a~ I I I I I I 1 I 11 0~ ( o~ ~ / / I C I ~ I I - W. SUNRISE L --F- ~ I ! , ~ I I fl ~ ~ I 1 o r ~ s, 1 I Ja MS I IZ I S.W. HIGH TOR DR. I I I I ~D i ' fn~ l I I 1 R"IONS i~°~~ PACIFIC CREST WESTLAKE epoI CONSULTANTS ma ENCINEMNC ♦ svflvenxc ♦ PANNING o Rile T 1 CARD, OREGON A L4 `D VICINITY. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND PARTITION PLAT1101:0161011 z°` ~AY, Ems loo su a~; W-018972 p M PRELIM NARY LAND USE SUBMITTAL y _ NO. OATS DESCRIPTION r 0 SEE REVISED pLAN DUE 'TO '"CONSISTENCY AP DIRECTIONAL IN \..i i K -pin % ' a Q`Id ~ •O r7. a ! Lo c , ~ py. .a'.. 1 rn < 1 + rri a ° z L M. X61 g 111 ~ • 1:, ~ ~ p -1 f51 Q ? ~i t I ~0 1'' I 1 a 11 1 ny I N 1~~ I I 1 g o NI I I N y N y 1 16 ~e I ~ .~c 1 I I I Rio 1 o I I 1 S n ~ ~ {yJ REVISIONS r PACIFIC CREST a w 6it~T I GARD, OREGON O PRELIM NARY LAND USE SV8art1TTAL dpi EXISTING CONDITIONS NO. DAIE OESCRIPTION -lw w E w.. . m SEE REVISED PLAN DUE TO MAP DIRECTIONAL INCONSISTENCY w w w = M M M P s A N D ° r c m n 0 8 O gp a S WESTTSLAKE CONSULTAN wt ENGINEERING ♦ T SURVEYING ♦ ( PLANNING CAR60 pgOpRU iI Z--AK►HAY.BURC rfi0 PAi (6001 881-OU167 • • t e I R 1 I f 1 1 I i • PACIFIC CREST SUBDIVISION so o '00 700 -00 2s SCALE: I' w 100' APPLICANT: FARMERS LAND TRUST 26715 SW BAKER ROAD SHERWOOD, OR 97140 OWNER: CONSTANTIN AND ADRIANA COSTIUC PO BOX 230943 TIGARD, OR 97281 MICHAEL AND JEANNE DAVIS PO BOX 23144 TIGARD, OR 97281 ROBERT AND SARAH ERICKSON 1371 ASTER LN. CUPERTINO, CA 95014 vxvm UM BRIAN AND KAREN PAUTZ 9685 SW CARRIAGE WAY BEAVERTON, OR 97008 1 IENGINEER/SURVEYOR; -~-L_ WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. 15115 SW SEQUOIA PARKWAY 1 SUITE 150 TIGARD. OR 97224 1 PHONE (503) 684-0652 L-- CONTACT: LEN SCHELSKY r-- I I f ' TAM LOT 2sals I I I I I ! I pn !7 STRUT B 9ONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION I - - - I I I I ----------------T--------- 2MJ4M-----------~ - TAX LOT 1700 I ! ! 'HILLSHIFEWooce ' I 1 ~1\ I C-T-TTTTT'T'rT---J r~ I I ~ I 1 I! l ~ l l l l I i f I I r r. I ~y ! 1! 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I !r `T I L ~:L L I I y~' C, 1 W E- z En F v r Lij C"C U U U Q ~a Sg s S a ~o& ~agu a°w og 0 CL w o z o~ a NcammN.N w mrt v ma'[moxwc~,o <Nr mcsmmm ~I~OI ~E Nm110 ~I a 3,,16 239-01 t,: I I 6 'I I ~ S ~ p hi , Tf 37 V. s l ~ g y ~ I I ~ n ; G ~ C ~ o C , . _ - F + ....4.44 : 5 f . _ - - -tea.. ~y 600.90 , - f n T, NEE -MOVEMENTS mll S, ST.. i 10;6 . J A 10+ S S RE 0. } . .....394.3 99S.a : E r v I , +....$0~ ' ......._-.................ti.. ! .1 TOO an Isno" ~ k u C 9 `e i awaf • A' rp a _ , r~ 36:.66 N q77's 7M ^ o>... 1 \ i 0 , . V 172.5 37l9~' ..k.. r A - 00 ~ 0•/ I u 987.........__ 0} ....&4aY BVCS# I3a00 ' ° eVrFd 969,44 _ ,p; V ' • Y , i ] , - xT _ A ~ ~ ~ ' 96 82 ..i... ~ 8 , • V p + .._X80,D g 1.25 _ yCS Iaa00 i - -i _ fVcr 961.74 i' Q • ` m 95B 9 ssasl . *JA laa Z I 1 s TRE a..... i i . • 4 : E STA 12+66, i SiREE7 C ; - ; : (rT. Cll ` . x _ 441. ;t~ O - - 1 y (n N % 1 8 , 4% ...r . a • • 3 p , 710 IFY S •I 3; s r ~ • ' / :~a' •al ~ _ ~ .,4 OO~CI 0011... F S+~ VI 531. I • I 1 } , ` A • 4e s + O } } V' T A F I f X0.04 , 948 1 / 2: A ' ' } • . ..346.i3 }1; y . _ Y VI F ~ F ~ R V :1 . 4 g~' } ....SLI.} 94✓3.8~ O ...._.i................ L'flOM Atlp15 a 1 _ i ' 1 : .-..534,7 i EVCS: IBr90 , _ , Y,,..., . . - . ss4.o9 EVCE: 334 00 . ' + ....344.,1 92860 1 . • CID III ~1e,B , ~ i , - .1 . ,....9VCe: 49+67.03. . . 13VCE: 518.13 , + C .3! . ' . , x 1 9 91i.li e / 1 S A g . . a Ira .•R S7A 44}07,93. STREET A x F u u ' 1 ( . . P 1 ' /I 504. V : . ~ • T so3:3 EVCE: SO'57 ' =-1 8 . ...,.(„F''J• •fiJ FTI RACT rn C.4 MATGiL I NE •L , " L-f N; ~91.p .09140... J j _ - :J . aa.c: I• sk N;" ,Rj. O+9E ViS L4 3 - y fo. Q M_t~l fV C.1 610) PACIFIC CREST TICARD, OREGON PRELIMINARY STREET PLAN AND PROFILE Ill WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS me. ENGINEERING ♦ SURVEYING ♦ PLANNING 1p1~i e1 e i es°aau4u r~i191~=i%7, salts leg eo9 6e{-41 TIGA04 OY700N 07254 . Iasi 824-0167 r 0 f'' \nwn\Wnrk\i?';gniPA dwn Thli .Ian nr, n7' 77• q4 onnn nnic m e w " " M" m w ft" ~l m m r m m m 0 0 w Ask m ~ IlE O 8 0 pIVU InAl PACIFIC CREST all: T I GARD, OREGON ~E PRELIMINARY STREET PLAN AND PROFILE WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS uc. O ~dD DATE EANCiN8p8pRlM~GpA • SURVEYING ♦ PLANNING 16110 8.f. p~WQD°TBIA PA~k7AY, SUITS 160 [6D3]0]B21-OL MWI.6E TIGABQ OYBG %Y2{ PAI 6T %nwn\Wnrir\ 17']Ql14FA rhan Thlt .Inn nr, n7. 7R, 40 Onnn nNic M ~ m jft~ mom m m Wmm m ° C IN s,ii 91f 2? _ STREE IN STRUT S , 974 '0.00.00. SrE: ET B ImmovtNENTS i,-.' 9l7J1,........ . i.......... . 9YLE: 6117 + y... 807,7 $01.04 r . i t • i• - , m S O + N" +30 i... ,801.9_-.i EM, 80.1;42 N: + ev~9: 12+00 s9e:Q 9.411"';"" 99 " ? e 99442 > , @89,8 . . y. C LI +JQ~Y ~ Evcs: 13+CQ • b : 99f.4f ' ....i EYLE: 592.47 o : f 598:92 ' ' i ' _i 582:~ .q. . ' Seb,a2 . + PP i N RYI Su 15+ 9 E D PYI 4E 9 • 980.87 ' 578.7., } S ' -.'57Y.! 579.26 : . - ' ! ! BYCS: 16+50 p 9 2;x5 ; bVLE: PIS$ F~ O: y oo a EVC& 17+70 , ..,545•R.,..' . . _....i.,............. i..... -.j . ` i I,r,++,,.! S7 6N(i: 19.-25 REE7!C M _ s9e e+rcE:; l0 As ' as 'ss3 87 . : _......8... g - * EVCS: 18+9 N • q / EYCE: 55188 O t ° r + 1f.Ss.A... o av&w 19+25 590.15 BVCE= i . ...54&._.... 1 _ Q ..i., .......__..S-........ . - • t. ` 8 ...s4~.7 54129 • ; ~ ~ ~ E11iS: 20+25 ; - 20;~ .40 S 9YC Y 537,42 ; 6YCE: ;937.4 ¢ 31, 952.07 ~ a.`. ~ _ ~ o i ~ i . ~ 527.95...:.. . fim. MIA- 7 09 ~ ~ . BYCE: _ J ~ O N M N + 32!.9. 05...;.. _.924 - . , NE ~rcHl 7 ` ~I M I R F ` it I aJ " i.J • ssrox amid AY815 L I °~.ZI * % J OD: ' ' z Nf So' 4', 4' 4 ! , 8 N i ^ . y am r: • 5 . 't s • STR ~El C g' J ~ ;w'0 QI ~ ~.t1 0011 lb Of kA 46 ' x > ' : ~ 1 "t 8 c 1.9 ,y ♦ 4.Y W pr f of r . ' , 8. f' J+ J ! I'ilI~J1 Vf~.• ,may' ' 81 ~9~. ' .r LW (A 77 1 , N u r n u o m us $ N O m _o C N W to s~ I 0 m I .I-A.r. ,rk.. len nr, m• 00' 4n ')nnn nelc PACIFIC CREST TIGARD, OREGON PRELIMINARY STREET PLAN AND PROFILE W ESTLAKE CONSULTANTS me WGINEIINppG p♦Q}~y1''}~~gp18UAY6YTNC ♦ PIANKM PAOM 0116 S.t U0 £ 716494 ORSWN ~,1 ►AK111Y, HUFFS 16D YAx 1,011 W-0157 0 w m m m m m" m m m" m m an w !m •m m Al. MA I E MATCH INE 20'•.' - i7.. W R, ATdiL?IN MATCFIII 24 23+00 + ; $ 4 I*S BYEE 61348 , i 2!3 w ~p ~ziz au e v 9 nG C y Qpy EVC& 24+ } I V q g VV t • r e 1 a EvOE: W.00 3• • m o '37 { o 613.3 BYCB: 2446Q = _ m. k 1•, '•n n G 612.00 r _ .35• x:612.00 .g~. y 't 2 a a • 8 ' SIB 2• . ` ' 512. { EVCS: 25+56 8 C S+ : - . . 'f 2 ti ; 612.46 - . 3: EYCE: 612.4 N :.to•CPi•' : } :4 ....y1a9i :C' INT CT'iOA. 'STA 20+07." STREET a .F•. STR o S S a V~ REV ISIONS ■ PACIFIC CREST WESTLAKE e ~ CONSULTANTS um G' to 1 ~ ~ T I GARD OREGON ENGINEERING • SURVEYING ~ • PLANNING O PRELIM NARY LAND USE SUBMITTAL PRELIMINARY STREET PLAN AND PROFILE PAe1ne CORPORATR CiNfBR 16116 &A. V A PA9[tAY, 6UR8 160 faaa 664 -0 ' O, ATE ESCRIPTION ~ y; y M' . _ 157 ncAw 6Bala f606~ es4 iAx -a6T r` \fhen\Wnnb\ 4770/14PA r1wn Th., Ion ric n7• on. rc linnn IIAIC' • • • i r., \nwn1Wnrk117l4OlFA dwn This Inn nF f17- lc;- FA ~innn nnlc 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t • ! 1S7soicLo0C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 =s a 50 o0 -ttu 1I . / I I I SCALE: I" - $0' / I I 21 zz I 25 T2]6 6 7 $ 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 - 20 24 ; 27 I 5 rl 23 I { 4 28 I I I -4- L TAFFT I I I 42 I 36 53 I , 30 I << 57 56 55 54 141 39 38 37 1 i 58 52 43 - - - r ~ _ I I 5 44 - ' 34 I << 59 6 4:` 61 62 63 146 47 48 32 I 50 45 1 1 33 _ { I I I - - - - - - - STREET B ~g-Mt fm- -d I 4 i 27 74 75 ~e 69 28 73 76 70 - 77 29 TRA 71 I lw- 3 ' AFB 65 ' 78 30 72 it 1 A i ' 64 X 79 i 66 IF I. 32 67 80 I TRACT 68 F TRACT D STOM ORAIN c"INRE No Oft INS ¢0.T DIFFUSER OUTLET x S; 4 x= i C (s} ~ 5 x ~ m ~ s E4Z ♦ °d ~F as J 1610 1prW,~, z F- ~ a W z U0~ w Of 0 LL_ a 3 U~? a K lleelle eBy~W I i w n rKC~~~~.n~ 4 On K-Ib ,-I SHEET 11 or 16 JOB N0. S 1239-013 12401-0- LEGEND PROPOSED SANITARY LINE PROPOSED VOW LINE PROPOSED WATER 4. HE 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 • ~ I I I y 26 a SO 100 L M n - S I I I 2 I I I 22 ' } I ' -50 17 SCALE: 1' = 50' y I I ~ ~ ' j ' 26 a 8 - - I I I I 1_. Q.1 l~ I • Y r r"--- r.._•._, r r-___'_, "e r-_____, r 6 5 7 g 9 10 II 12 13 4 I 15 16 17 18 l9 0 = 4 2 23 Wq z 4 - - - p ST % ST REET A T 42 f 53 36 5 56 54 5 3a 37 L 58 1 3 43 4 g ~ , 5 2 X L X I I - r gg L ____-•_____--__...J LLJ I ,.r r--•. - Of rl - I$ - ti _ . H > J 59 I 6 a j 0 1 g 51 2 3 ~ 44 ° , V) l 46 L 9 I k r 4 4 - I y I 3 U a ~I p I, X X-0-m!I L 50 ® 45i a II , iF r I I 33 Q o J g 1 L • Y tt ; L___ X o - L~ 1 p 1 L....___ I I I ~ i J 1 I ` - a I STREET B STREET B Q / W TIGATION TABLE TREE M TREE PROTECTION STANDARDS - i - ` - - - - I TREES DESIGNATED FOR RETENTION WILL NEED SPECIAL CONSIDERATION TO ASSURE THAI THEY ARE PROTECTED WRING CONSTRUCTION THESE ( 2 ! 8 'E B IY= 74 EY 75 DESCRIPTION 4UAHTlTY - DIAL 113 TREES RETAINED (OVER 127 CIA PERCENTAGE A7 x 51 1 •a .r ° -=e awwm0oo.o MEASURES INCLUDEt 24 I l I 2 ) TREES REMOVED (OVER l A m0 1Y Rn, q VICINITY IPNF111 TH j • " I' $ ' SAM ON THE FOREGOING REMOYAL/RETAINAGE RATIOS. THE PROJECT OUALIPIES NT MITICATIOIN AS FOLLOWS: F M E EW FENCING RETENTION TREES LOCATED IN OPERATIONS WILL BE PROTECTED BY INSTALLATION OF CHAIN LINK FENCING N WITHIN R T R S P T I TRACT C 51 OR 501 REPLACE E TIT S, O AC IO OO OIL COM PREVENT INJURY TO TREE TRUNKS OR ROOT ZONE. FENCING WILL GENERALLY RE INSTALLED AT THE ORIPLINE THE OF OF THE TREE. THE PROJECT ARBCRIST SHOULD DETERMINE LOCATION AND TYPE OF FENCING NEEDED FOR SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ON THE SITE. a ' ; 28 pw ,4 3 72 OJ A~ X Fj k ; I 511 \Vn Y ~ 76 Y DESCRIP7ION OUAN NUMBER OF TOTAL CALIPER OF NUMBER OF 2• TREES REMOVED REMOVED TREES CALIPER TREES 402 OTAL INCHES MITIGATED W3 m ILCH LNG. IF IT IS NECESSARY TO HAVE ANY VEHICLE OR CONSTRUCTION IR R WITHIN THE ROOT 20nE OF A RETAINED V = J i I " "__°'-•••••1 - ' /QNI 70k J x ( • p 27 leas EQUIPMENT DRIVE OR MANEU E TREE. A LAYER OF GRAVEL CR OTHER SUITABLE MULCH AT LEAST 6 INCHES DEEP WILL BE PLACED IN THE PATH OF THE EQUIPMENT AS PROTECTION FOR THE ROOT SYSTEM Of THE TREE ANY SUCH FILL PLACED CUEING H G 29 ; i y,' 'I •,0 ACT 1 •11 1x ' y ~-7 Ar ' LEGEND CONSTRUCT ICN WI LL NEED TO BE REMOVED AT THE ENO OF CONSTRUCTION, STURACE OF EQUIPMENT, CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WILL BE STORED IN 1 i I 1 __________l r ~------°-°1 1 F, 6 w ' ,,•N'~, , 1 7 , - • SYMBOL DESCRIPTION ES xm SUITABLE LOCAT IOHS AWAY FROM RETAINED TREES. $Oll PROTECTION. THE STRIPPING OF TOPSOIL AROUND RETAINED TREES WILL N0 FILL WILL BE PLACED ON THE AREAS WITHIN THE STRICTED BE R J 30 O `f D • • 72 p ' 1 / 6 ' --••'-"`•--•J TO BE REMOVED TREES TO BE REMOVED Ok i0 CONSTRUCTION . E ORI PLINES OF TREES TO BE RETAINED UNLESS SPECIFIC 'TREE-FRIENDLY- DESIGN, ENGINEERING, AND CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES ARE FOLLOWED. THESE CAN INCLUDE TREE WELLS, PROTECTION WALLS AND OTHER DESIGNED i II I :y _ F--•---^ b°L 31 A C • Y'~ E1 T G, ' J' 0 64 , Q 4 Yr $ G .Na TREES 12' 01A AND LARGER TO REMAIN z F FEATURES AS RECOMMENDED BY A OVALIFIED PROFESSIONAL EXCAVATION EXCAVATION IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO ROOTS LARGER THAN 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER WITHIN THE TREE ROOT PROTECTION ZONE OF Y ' 66 M 4--•-•---- -ji I pr w , G, S' - _ - " RETAINED TREES WILL BE BY HAND TO ENSURE THAT ROOTS ARE NOT DAMACED. WHERE FEASIBLE, MAJOR ROOTS WILL BE PROTECTED BY TUNNFLINC OR OTHER MEANS TO AVOID DESTRUCTION CA DAMAGE WHERE I I I 2 p 0 • .X •_u _ _ -c SOIL CRADE CHANCES AFFECT THE ROOT PROTECTION AREA, THE GRADE LINE THIS WILL REQUIRE OH-SITE NDERED WHEREVER FEASIBLE SH D G k ITS YYY Y = - AE MEA OUL . COORDINATION TO ENSURE A REASONABLE BALANCE BETWEEN ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION. AND THE NEED FOR TIKE PROTECTION, C' / ' y y 3 ' ' i i \ f TRAC . b T 7 QUALITY ASSURANCE. PROJECT ARSORIST SHALL SUPERVISE PROPER EXECUTION O o ' In a Q THIS PLAN 7XRW01 L'ONSTRUCT ION OF ALL BUILDINGS THAT MAY ENCROACH ON RETA NED TREES. / p 8 ~ ~ s x z TRACT D ~ ' S HEET 12App~4q , 960 ,L OB R0. 1 239-01 1:1aelLaac OINU VVVG VG •C•!-.1 •~JU yU `JOI 1141 '-O"N G~:jW0tC6\ juM\urlu\ j 00- a411°041 W'e 091 NAME JLT DNINNV'!d ♦ DNlASASl1S ♦ DNlN88NIDN3 C,4 - SJ•Ntl ingNaa i tD 1 N Y ; .^I~ 1 1 Nr: L, .4- 3xvssax pop 11m anrr~ / na) :y ! Jm,• • m : iIR ll'1II1 ' 1mm n to n 4 }u oi1m 1 I. aA as a \ nn ' ~ ~it,s lIm ' p nq a!} n pfl - . ~ Z ,lM- - ~ ~Y.. llm F ~ ~ pm M U ' J . K 6 If ■ $ nm >m Q A r nm r} i R IM, 1 • ,ml • aql X12 OAMN 13381 311 SOdROO N09380 'Oad011 1S3~TD OIAI:DVd I . am an - Jm, , p4n TIO 11m nm n11 • 1 , rW , i IlrO 1 i ~ °a • i i co rn Y •i i N N N i i - N , 1 1 M ~ N r.r1 ~ ~ i ~ i i ~ • 1 nm I I I , 1 , 1 i ' Y ,M i__---------; , I N nN . qr___-___----_ I 1 1 , I Q I j ' 1 ti? N h t0 Lrym lid I I , gyp/ + uj 1 r7 I ►`7 I I I r i --7M"------Irn1 ------------1 Q ~W I 1 , I n, CV •I,4 n ,I J•W t • 1 , I L t~0/~ _J I J 1 _mu r_______-____-• y i ry, , I 6 In. L------------~ 1 _ T I , 1111 ti 1`, p lp e % Tr 1 1 17!• +m I n j • ) 1 J r • ,.N. w~. aul ""I I ,100 r r-------- - p- I roaq N - . ± 5 I L l I - mj I I I I ' .y , Il'8 NN 1W - 7- f ___-'•Im -y-1_-- - r r_ -----ti r___-___,11 r 04 PO Ul L . J I 1 V ' V' 1 1 ~I I---_____-----1 H I , r I ' 1 1 Nn I I • ' • 1111 I I 1 ' I,,' ~ • nn i NN I , 1 , i ~ , r •1 I - - fl1 N Jr1 N 133 s ' 'm •n ,W r, 14a L_----_------_ 1 11 y{, ~ ~ 1 ~ i _ ,/,o~n,1 alb , i Sur as a I'• .A i7R .:~",l 11 -,n F 1 j11 -O ---------nq , ,C1 dR PgLy,~1 Ipil m•..15m! Iw i lain ll 1 . Q ,.n In ,m~ ,r`~ . ••'f,! U , nuts ron 1 i - --~1- , . pr 1 1 00 U) APL, 7 1 ~ ~ f1 ~ .na1 - -J r_____.-.r_ Il 1 YJ . nn ' 1me or J110 "`r ~ 1rk7 r 10 0 -d I 'I to I ON W rJm a- L-" - - - KR'1,J1 Hn 1 1 ' r•_--na• AA 11,1, C)o i L__________ • • na fV)• 0 nN ~ 1 n ~ tla >!I elu~• reM Ide J , r 1 I ptl 04 ~I nu'~ a ~ ~1y r nN d yy nn 1 +I ~-r 9 Im IIH W fLj lZ' to I yL ~ syYs.{~~ _¢¢¢a¢¢a¢aQ¢¢axa¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢doS¢¢¢aQ¢¢8¢ KW4 WWwW W W W W W LLW W W W W LL,~4y~~jy, 1~W 4W4OY,~Ww W 1p+ ~p ♦rppHNmmf+mNmmrc3~~~~Nmmrlq lr,I r[~~vNNmo~mo •)N NIYNNI'1 NNNNNNMrvN mn YYN~nmmSS-NMJI yi1ipp ppI~y ryry.•11 NrnqJ1 Otlm+PYfmbn mmnlp NNNNNNNI"+Nf;n n^nhAnt~M1 l.n^Annl~nm OOm HUpmp N rv N N ry N ry ry ry N N rv N N N N N N N N NN rv N N rv n AVG O a N CV) z T ¢W¢ ¢aaaaaa¢~aWa aW a¢aaWSLF¢¢¢¢ ¢ ¢a ¢ ¢ a ¢ Q ¢ a aa ¢ a T a ¢ a a ¢ S Z 3---------g-g----------------- w9W7774L4LLWWwWW7W3W7W77 4447444 WwLLLL41. WW4WWLLWLLW44744W4477WW oNr~ o vrv ar N N rvNmDeo+rm+~mrrUU m~rtirym+mm+ NmmmmmNpprprvryrvryn mnnoo,vl r° Om_m__m__m_m_m___-____ _ _ ry_ _WNrvNW-N-N-••N I'IN a, N,r~•,1 ~~f11 ym~v1 yml ,n ~euu 3~,,nm tirnm mrvrm mnmw- rymnrlrlm. HERvonmo-Nr+n YIy~+(~1N11,,~~IQ1((~~~~n1 N Yl Y1 H1 Y1 Vi NInNN~u1 •n Jf .}b~}yy ,6 y3~y~ ,yypprr e0 VV.• pp,, p• ww, mtp ~~psa alga 000 NNNNNNN NNNNNNNryNryNNNNNNNNNPOJNN NI'nVHNMt~ry.b„ryNNap MNNNN,n•.NNNNNNIn.INNN h[nvh rnvN c W Y1 W Q a 6 Q¢ ¢ 6 O W 6 Q a s J Q a¢ Q a¢¢¢ 6 ¢ a w Q a a a Q 71J. 41~77LL7W777WWW77WW 9ymm,•J ZZpW pLL 4LW 74L471t47WwY7LLi~w 7741rW4Y,W }4477771.4,.wW7 r"•'I ygN•pmi p~~N~mmm~Nmnm W••m1,rVm•'1Imm01•ll'♦I yN yeN~1mNNI"♦♦♦♦-nlmM ymm,1,p(rv,~1,.N•i±'~'-p trm'-p'1Np pm mlryO+mrvNmON mN lrmO,VONf Ym~DmNn Iwl Mwlf Sfff+P<+rr~ff rf'tYVVf~+♦Yrrrr~V♦YO~♦+'fY VffVrlfffYYrm~~V~maw~ HN N ry ry N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N rv rv ry N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N rv N N N N N N rv rv N N N N N N rv N N H M N ~7~°!~~°g¢«ma~Zaa¢aa'~aQaa~~~~Z~¢¢¢¢~~¢'~¢¢a¢¢asaQQ¢aaaa¢~¢¢¢¢~¢~~~ 7Z 77777WWWW7394W442444W]7777Z4y449]49W44.44.44,.WLLWWW4WW44WW47y]77 ON Nb N N P+ f NNNN ON+<N m O _N__r_0mm O O H r O N rv O ry 0 Y N O N O O O N 1 0 m++mmm pp-m_ _ __m,•~♦mm ,f-~rmp__~~_p1 _~p ~_p NEE _ry1~•rTT tf~mm mV1N V1•ImI ~n NIYNNNIV m,N ry1b~ry ~bbNbNryNNNn"NN NN NNNV [-1N [.m,nM +1 •ml ••1n /CIry NINY{NY 1N'IN NNNNNN NIN'1N NNNryNry41, ryNNNNHNN[NYNNNNNNNNNNryry1N., r.IryNryNNNNNNNN W W WlW W"'W WWW WI.W~IWH YWI YWl IWy yWi ,,•y~ CC Ra'6KKh'hKK~¢Q~CQ Q~F¢¢F~LL' zz Oo QDp006oWOOa e uu uu uVODUVUiJ U1.J000U °aaa¢¢aa¢~1¢a¢aaaaa~¢aag¢a¢~¢a¢¢a¢a¢Laj¢aaaa aaa 'ZI~~'•~~~ooPGOOOOaaoo~l.,. 1. ,:s4~saLLWy4.W44W]4W,:.444~W 444444 LL,.y 7W44r4444 Y H N b N P O N N O p r O rv p r N O O m m m N N m O N N r N 0 0 O O H P+PrvNMMMnmPemMrrom- NN__Nm____m_________ m_________mNhrvrvm °m-Nnn r,mm~mNp-I'In *lnmmnmwD+~rlnm o-Nnemmn o_mo-rvMrJltln mn mmp--Nn -m mmmmmbbbm P4nnnnnnmmmmwwweo$ - _ ryryN ginnn~nl'Iln nnr++.r NN NhN[yNhNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNh[r,H`I.N•Iry IV N1YNNNNNNNIN.N NNNrV tNVN ryrN.I ry1HV IN•IMN NIYN N NN AN AN r~'iIN IJwW~ jWww W W,J• J« J a °143°1 g~1'1Qa¢Qaaa a¢ ¢a¢¢aaaaaa~~aaaaa¢¢ w wi 3,.l `g aQWaE~~ 7 4 Z Z 7 9 7 -7 7 Z 7 LL 4 4 4 4 W LL Z W 1~ 7 7 4 w y y- y,W 4 W 4 4 7] 4 W 4 W W 4 W 7 7 7 9 7 ',E Z 7 7 7 7 W V 7 2 W 2 7 4 4g----- -g< m 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 N O O h O O O m O N m m N N m O h 6 O rv O N+ m m m m - m m m m m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ m i1Op-mNpN(Yr(pp~1,!I!•pp•~1EnEpp mnm MVVYpp mop myyn mmmmmm pqom-m~pq~l ~pe•,fmqpmnmwe••Nn+Jlmb Ip p,D-NnVfmffmb_b+::m:p pppmp 00♦]000O Of~OIJ f]~OORQp1 p0 N 000000 NfV N N N N N N N N N N rv ry N rv ry N N N1IVV ffV~IV N N N n N N N ry ry N ry H N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N n ry h ry ry ry ry N N 7~374w~4.744W W 444 W~~Z=7 ~4N ¢4y ~W4 ~74 ~(~~<44W 444 ~W444 ~4~44Y.44 W4 ~9 O 0000000 ONP+Wm'1Om'N 'mm'~'~~mm~mmnPO. fN.,~yH'~,PVn~rymrmGCr', rrvHMn~ mm-mm_____Iyr_~,_,amm_--_ ♦♦I1~nr~rr,, yy~, YY~irr~~YY~1YY~! mmwmmmmme,wplw w0lm wwwwwwwmm OlgmammwmwwmwwwwwwHMOrOy r+OIOO~ryryMN0000000D W IJ.rW WW.y ¢«¢¢agg~¢¢¢¢aaa¢aaaaaaa¢¢¢¢a¢¢a¢¢aaaaaaaaa«a¢¢¢¢¢a1¢a¢a¢$~s1J W 4 W 4 W 7 7 I,~ W 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 W 4 W W 4 WIti 4 4 4 4 4 W 4 4 4 4 4 W W W 4 4 W LL W W W y 7 4 4 4 4 4 7 7 5 7 7 7 7 + m O m O r m N m N N N O N N N N M+ p++ r O f f N m O b b m m D O m+ m N N m N N,p ~y N f N O O N P -m _m!V_ry___ - __m--_m____nn_♦N•____♦m_-m_m--N_mm-•ry n___m_m__m- r'fn mmmmm map~~Wppmmmmm~mm~00e~mm0~m~m10~mmmmmmmm0mmm~0mmmmw-w0•PPO~rwP4nww aaQ~aaQagggg$$$$$$aaa¢aaaaaaaag¢gm¢aa _¢$~a¢9999 JppJ oa JJJJ ..JJ ..JJaaaaag¢aaa 4 4 4 4 W W 4 7] 2 7 7 7 9] 1 7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 LL 4 4 4 W 7 W 7 W y 4 W W 7 7 4 4< S f 6~{< W 4 4 W 4 7 1.. W LL W N O 0 0 N O O D m+ r r 0 f m N f N N m r++ m m 0 0 0 N O NON N m f P m m-_'•-'_mm--m__-mm-_-__ryN_m~~____m___-ry__,p ,a_ry___mm-mmmmtl- mw0-nMr~~emmm0emp amen nnnlP.m mnnmwnmm~ommmi~m °m mmamgmmnmq n+v1 nm o-rvnr mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmnnnnn a _ _ nnmmmmm {~.----nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Y4'Y.'~.nn ~l~~r~$ $~~mmmmm v u Lj < zc ,y.I ii W jWWWW I~i J ~ vjJ ~J j~w v W WwWWWJ LJ ~$~~~~«¢«««««$«$«¢¢ag$saaaQaaaaaag«¢¢«gg~aa¢~~amarc~~e~~~~~ig3g~@~ Z Z 7 7 7 4 4 W 4 W 4 W 7 W i W 4 4 W 7 7 W 4 4 4 w 4 4 4 4 W W 7 W W W 4 7 7 7 4 4 4 7 Z Y 4 4 4 7 7 7 7 5 7 7] 7 7 7 7 7 O O N N m O N O O N m m m "I D O m p O m O N N+ 0 0 0 n O m rv m D O rv O rv m r O e 0 O D O mmm-'____m-m--m•rry1 •-n v1 ,n mmm-m--_NN-mmmm___mmm___ -r'1 in1 ~MlA nMnl'wIOPrN:lramY ~~,Em mlO'mm•~OIOn•mnalOb4mo,ma lmp 4m01'~YI'~04mO lO.Lyf ~~wpponrMrnnnnnf~nnf~nnl~nnn t~N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m b m b ,O b" b m m m m m m m m m m m m W~~ IJY WIWY WWWW`~JW WW W W WWW `~'`~'W °145¢aaa lna¢¢¢¢a¢a¢aaagJ°Jd~~7°<~~ a¢agJga¢¢a°Jda°dJ°[J °Jd~a¢_¢¢¢aaQ01«°1 °177 773WWWWZ727441~14444WW447777725744 47714 Wy-4 -~4Z Z7ZyW4WW41.4]79472]9a p Nm mpmNNmm~mmN+rymrrvN ON mrma roV Dm~n m+ q D Orvrymmmmmmm2-2..tl mm-mIN•.-_bm__N____ ____m___ mm-- m -m m m___ NNNNrv NN -III'r~i',{I'v'INOON`AiumiMM~ilY3'u4(R, N mn.'R`~Irowawwaommn~om,omm__rymNmmmrvmmm rvmmR W W W W W xrc¢¢¢¢aa¢a¢¢SEE a¢1$py ~a~¢¢¢sw ~aaaaa aaa Qaaa¢«¢aa¢aa¢¢¢¢ ¢aQ W 444444[X414,LW44W44V772424W1.!]..]4W-I~-~---~----- - W W 7 4 4 4 Z 4 4 4 4 4 W 4 4 4 4 4 4 y, 4 W W 7 7 7 4 4 4~ 6 0 rv m 0 f O N N e N N N Olp O m O N N r n m p N m N N N f O m O g r O N O f N N O O T O NNNN f O \ rC`;Nnn- ' I j Im~„m'R~nn•Nwinnn•rwi nnn------ ~nS444S4g f~.~::t:=mwnn.~~m1m~1~mr1Im,mI,$sp♦♦ ` n---- fP H1Y ~J1 nM J nY \ 00 R MW WW I.yy WWKW~J W1J uuccaQQ¢¢¢a¢¢¢¢a$aaa¢~a¢<Zg¢¢Z2u~a¢ aaa°~13ggaa¢¢¢ <<---__ 0014444. 77757~WW W441.w41.K477W4W7754LL77S74W7,;}777744 4,. 1.77777714 44444 m N f f N N N P e O m m 0 0 O rv O N N 0 0 0 n r r b m 0 0 ry rv O 0 iV tl m O m O m m m m m m b m m O m nm--_Nrr-~,--N-Nm_•ryI`n!_m__gl I♦_pp-YY-m--tlm-m--_m-'y-- - N NNNNNN ryN N N N Illllfffff n n M n w ONNNNNNNHNNHVI •m'1~~~„], I'11'I ~YI I"1+11,•~~•l----M^In/m1n'11.11.1 YI Y1 Yf I.1~~+In M+1 nn mm mm m m r m m _ m m =mom= m m m i 0 rvULLEIpJJ]V ~L~V VN t9to-sae :r~ saate oaRxo Marvu a~ n4 - am-sRO ea oat Rune•ar■a"d qun~l19 s s ryyJ AHO1N3ANI 332!1 311SOdWO? ~tliilrrens 35n ONTI ASYN nI13Md ~ O VXMD ZLYHOdtl 9J~DYd JNIMMVld ♦ 0 2AMS ♦ 9NI883N1nns N00380 '(IHVOI1 aY~R T Q7 .J V.J M lift sliff ifismOa sx ss~~ Idd 1S38:D FIJI:DVd r- SNI11138 M gi JrJ M1J MA mr suJ yr ' I 1 I ~ mn mY ' i ~ i ' ~ ' Jue ~ Jua Sra y e r' 1- m° ^ Jlw~ N cn 1 Y YsJ J J 1 i 'JrJ 1 ~ O Jw• I I~ i _ . JMI 1 I ~ ~ ~ aw mn ~ - • ~ ~ 1-• Y41 ~ m 11]l W ~ IIN I ~ W W J J _ _ ~ Fz ~y W q pc K ¢ K ' _ ~ ` rJ•a Q'~ ,uw 7 ~C G~~FG~GIa_.C ~~g'GP'~~~C ~~2GCCGC~GgLL6~~la-.G~C Sg ~GC ~~~~37 I ~ r n mIS Non Y Vpl pmn momoO ~Nnf Ylbf.mOlO NYff,mm~ mre0~ I^~rN1~~rl~~Y Iy~11wp~ •R.~r N Nl+p ym p Iy I I U_ Nli r I°o.asla bb ~mb bbbl^nb•O.r^OmnmNlDro bNmlG lObl♦j la~m•D •aNm blSObirY~bldON bN'r1bV1~ r u•a aW mlJ I NnYmo andn•n iNl Ephpl.ymr•.~nmJldn SmbV nm Nmf nNn N^op YIrJJ♦♦ nmY1V O..ml.m 1 / ' bA • MJ. - nhhn$fnffnn nnnn rmm~Oy OF000 d•r7 ✓1 ~(Imn4NNNnhm,(INJ1 Yl~ Nrv n • Jr1 I nl1nH HnHYI I'IHM nn nnr^•]n nnw, l.J 1:>nnnnhl'1rf'll'1Mnn✓I r'11'f Y1H✓1 n•N'+nnnnn nun nun JJn 1 ' Slw>m , J~a yN n ~ 1~r1 •1 r • ` • / • JJg1 Nm rw n J SJ3i r nw ' t~v / , JJII \`.)n J, r I~.r~~~y• .~i W w w w l.~ '9 `J• 'J. 'J` tj tIJ. •JJ' •Jlir r`•~` 'y Wr' ' co ) ¢aZarcg°d°~aas¢$aag¢m°2 °daa°d °d °d a[°d °dZ°dgmm9 ¢¢aaa¢¢°d a J` ~csscc sscccc.1 MA~casccssssas 7 as:sccsc~c KK¢ ~~JJY,, •aLu~, ~ vr,' ~ r 7 GGGGSi~aGCG . le' •~1 m o n~p~ o JCJJ s.o,•• . Jjli' r v idnnl°0n •O1n^lo l~mlmamin~e~nn nn bnnn$m0 ~°~°m mmm mmmmmfop a r 1rE •J'a• , / ♦ ^ • mminmbbtO lO.DmmlD mlmp ~.(DJm~mr lOb YJIppOmU]m•mmD,yyUJJfO mlppY~~mpml lo~lOm bm.Omm ~mm~ ph 6nr~. Imo. rte. 1. r• J'N , ' + Sri r nmmO~lO ~pR mONl Oni fNm O~1'mEO~Wn NY1~Irr~r lrl nb nm lr~1 l•l~•1 fwm.]nn nn nn nT SOW AO pmp fmnlrmin^Nbb Np O1~ •mN JIJI ~1~J~i/ ~ MI✓IM✓In•'1~f•'ln~').7 w~mjnn'1"Irl'lAn/'^fr'i it r.fr•fl•tn•'In vt rl r•frr,l^•1il'l l'In~M~n~•~1 +1 ~%1 ~1 •'1n•N'lnnn I J710 I ~ AIJ`` JiR 7~ /]f//1/ •afm • I mw LO • nnl!~ / / ~ stal)`y I Ynr JJw J `,,•Aa Jrv n m ~rw ^ (D Ju /ye r a Jim Li I I nv `•4 • ~/~p •~J „r F-~,1, I m yW~ y~ ly y 1• n1° , ]Iw . n ' r •.I~i ' I w~ w J J J u J [F ~"n mM - J'w ~°daa¢ a a¢¢aaaaa a: ¢ w¢<°~°dz ¢°d¢¢¢m ¢ ¢¢ca ¢a gaa a JIy, mY my ~ ``:iiJ._.=3~,. ~ 771~~~~~7aG G~~f. ~G ~G7 ~7oG77 aG 7aG aG~~~aG7~GG~71Gr.7aWCGgG ~I nr~ , •tl -l"nf vlmr mar rall'vnln+iwm1lnrvJmnnnnnnnnn n$~~++iY imv9i lRN Nn n~rmiW NU~~emm ramp •r'f tlol \ rJr I nhnn nnJ:nnn nun n~~.nnn nun nun nnnnn nun nnrnn nun nnhnnnnn nun .1°O ¢ 1 -E zm NJ nJS 1 ano~memimmannnnnnn.`Rvi$ne'e~""ed~'l~m.a°b1^nmmmwmHnmimmmy44y(( avmilbowomianm ~~~M ~ •rre 1•~,nb JeN I nnnn nun nun nun n'.~nn1''•nn nn nnl~nlNinnnn•Ninnnnnn nnnnri~nnl~nn nun rma ` n6\ I nY 4 \ I rn rJw ww ~ I >Jw I 1 I I ' i i.nw• 1 I I I I ` \ i N i N n • r , 04 ` I ~W 'fir ti r I N JJw ; I M I 1 r I :CN4---_-: .-J r_ .____-`__------'-J + nJS 4mmdNrrynf mn ynf)IInnnNfV)mnmo.-Olmam nn Elo^NVldnmm mm~ m^NnY1pf1 OI •rlNh • ,nU mm nnm mm...*.nn Ann mOClpmmlDmn hNrvnN Nrvnf Yf nnn$Y?YV+`$+YY'~'~$:: r •y- - - nnI'Innn'11'1 •'I "I'~r~1 lrv•111•Nfl•N1Y"rnl.f~nnnbjh•.bjy~nn7 n•'inn••l ldln^I ~'rn Ann nnnn nn nnr'In ~f y 1 ifN ' l 1 1 I I ~ . . 1 I I I c N N • r l(y M ij ~aaaaa a rcrcre a cer ~~<4rL,~,~w~cc:4z~ccccc,~c~I~sc~:sr3~s~c7acasW ocJ~~o„~~~ of tanme•OnIN•I Cniry rMl•I fbd Jnll tmYwo..Nn dim nmm$^+r,r+$W~$vQQ Nu'~i000060000 ooa mmcnm'Jd'mmmmmmm mJ'~~~~'~~m'~~i~~m'~m~m m~mmao ai~mmzzzz zzaaz°zzzz m~qn qy' OnN^Nd OC I~mYP)NgO @y$N •yA Omi~4y N^m Q•'rVNNI~JN~~T~NN"Iy~(Q QG^nnm ?I~~9nn$ng~~yil~~l71n1Yi~X~Xr^Ti~IA~~~rS~•^Ti.~lr^Tiltir~rTinTi~rTil7in: hn~+S+~~~•f~'~'•~+mi~ w m w m= r m r= m r= m m m w m= m m= m w m m= m= m w m m w m m w "I O X O Z e •go co O z 0 'f o m O y i ' rn rn rss 2 r rn z 6'; a m z n 2 o ;r :6 z o rn LA N m N ~x A A R ,o ' x w S w SC ~D y Yi ~A onmp Zso ~~~111 m vl I•. or-~ N C ~ V i~ii~ Z oz > > oo Yy Np r t A~ K MIt G Y .rl12o ~ ~~Oy D ~mr ~ d 711 o A $rl •1 zmlCr ~ m ma pi 8 2 ~ y n xx x m ° y y AA y ~ _ g~ 8E ~ ~ o 8 L4 AW ~O g In u 0 V r O m of 8 O 8 U Dpi t Dyr Z O Pt~~ ~OZ Ij''vD °m V nng v V m p,.mV pN H~ D i ! I .If. - f ,mac \ yf a \ L"'--_ 1 v I r L-------' I I 1 - I r I I lr"-~ ~ r--1~ I • 4 II ~ r M I I! i Z ii & Y I 11 I N L_____J I F_. J 1___1 L__J j L_. • I I ' i I 1 I L u 1 I rl r ~ I ' 1 L L-.~ ---J ' LD I r , r I ~ m _ I I I I , r n Ir 1 Y I I I I - I r -t i , 1 I - TRACT A' I Y I I : lG; I 1 1 I ~J , 1 ' I ~ I w Is i o I I I ~ 1 I 1 I I ~ I I I . ♦ I I II 1 ~ i /f • I T \ r r'f 1 rA~ f1 4 1 i + ~ I ; I -J I I ~I'~I V I I I I f~ I r- i 1 I pill R iR sv PACIFIC CREST TIGARD, OREGON STREET TREE LANDSCAPING PLAN YQ 211 Et ~frp N Ky S~I~ LYAr n NAN ~ D ^)_I ~I1 ~~C ,^l,-9f1 N^II D- ~y N MO EszX- 01x1 l V NC g 0 9 i .y•l!~~ tx.`yy ~ Q JI p~pA~~ UD Q-'~ ~4pMU ~(~,~i IIOy~S~'rJy~, ~ D Q~ °p~~ ~v ° ~ n O~ w S $ NO Y~ ~ rp V n ♦7 U2S~ G~ ~ YYYY 1lII m g ~ o ~ y m ~ ~mg > o ~ ~ VI ~ N S 5 • W ESTLAKE CONSULTANTS uu. BAN~CyI~NE~6pR~7NG i SURVEYING ♦ PLANNING p6116 B.'/ BPoRyyUOIA PABK~IY, BUITB 180 (6071 094-005C ~IO ORYGON Y7CY{ PAZ (6081 M-0167 r. \ Man\Wnr4\ 111004G7 ril.,n TV,11 for nG Al - 77- 4 n 'I n A A nklr F: - 71 S. W. J E N§H RE LANE \ Tr r 1 • ~ fj ~-'°~a'^'ff{ l - - -f T7 T r r- -r \ \J 3 i 1 I ` I f F'1 f f a; % G f' , ti I _ _ Z III I I I i T ` -:-i~ ~ 1 , . j fir.. •l ff of ~ to IL L I I I I-a- a/ f` ` -I ti 14 20 J 21 I 22 123 I 24 I f f Il- { I ~I I ~ I _ d ~ \ 1~, .a 4 lI J, .,1,. r..~ 71, cATAI:'.oR 1,71 J` 'I % IS .I k 't I '•4 t •.k 55 .,S 5 f V C / ,.r • r'~,a ••4 : f f a i fr` J I 1 1 •i ~tiyL ~ `k .L rain f" ~ ] I7/ 4 ha - •'t t II th / i 'k % yz x 'til Q r'' 53' y 5/ } i1`I VI (3i IIS+` °{5, Fr j \ 5A t I '•x 3 11 ill`1 ~:.I J, r f i f 1 I/ i' { i S .:111`II~I~ \!>'t S •1 k ; ~ M1 ~+J] i { ~ a • F` ~ i~ ~ a z I E r'is N." ` % L,,1\~y ~~"•:I \ ~t S t ] la a :I i 3 f T >i J • r•~±` ^ ` ~ ;r ~ i \ '\a a , ' . .I. ~ ~ ~ ? al ear •Y f .I\M1•'~a S~~. 1v+ A}X \ t •}`~x { .11• ; f~~. -2•`~~•`..u..~ A N • } a~~{ f f a` 5\ ~ f e•;'`t~ Ir f Z .0 ► ` ' 7\, \ s I S r % Ni, ''•.I i y 51 f'' k \:k i i;` '~Yi } ~Y y~{~\ Il. / / e Ja I a.•.... ....4 . {i + i J_ _j 4 _d 1 19 - F- 7 } •L~k,l~h`•. ,I ,.Ir f.'• 00.. ~•i J•9 ! ..........,.1-....," J__ I•.,,, o l • , I ' : I~~~ DR. `:I l I g:. :J,... I I off.... +r, a I"` , I 1 I ! I I ! l I I I I ,f I I r. I I I I ---T--__ -7_ -7:-- S~yV_SUNRISE LI I ~ i 1 I I I CMS ~ I ,a :`•I r''J ` I ~'r ~--L- a~~~ S.W. HIGH TOR DR. m ~ REN51DN5 PACIFIC CREST WESTLAKE g N 810% 111 CONSULTANTS as A21 T I GARD, OREGON KNO11486RING ♦ SURVMNC ♦ PlANNINr p PRELIMINARY LAND USE SLOM I TTAL ~ FUTURE STREET PLAN i6i s.r~ ggg20pup}~~A v &sues 16a Iaoa) aed_oeae EO TIO 4 086CDN 07Y24 ►Ai [60.91 621-0367 ND. DATE DESCRIPDDN 35y 09: B , n 40 a SEE REVISED PLAN DUE TO MAP DIRECTIONAL INCONSISTENCY r• 1n•. V6L i,\ AnnnnArAA min T6- i nr- n". An. E:n nnnn nkir+ • 1 1 1 0 OWESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. APPENDICES PACIFIC CREST LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, 5UBDIVISION & ' FARMER'S LAND TRUST SENSITIVE LANDS APPLICATION JULY 12 WESTLAKE NO. 1239-01 A , 1999 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • Pacific Crest Tree Protection & Removal Plan Prepared for: John Rankin Farmer's Land Trust 26715 SW Baker Road Sherwood, OR 97140 Prepared by: Walter H. Knapp Certified Forester, SAF Certified Arborist -1SA 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane Beaverton, OR 97007 Date: January 6, 2000 revision APPENDIX 1 1 Pacific Crest January 6. 2000 Page 1 SUMMARY A total of 107 trees at Pacific Crest are hazardous and must be removed for safety. Of the trees ' larger than 12-inches in diameter, 174 will be retained, and 127 will be cut. Mitigation for removal of these trees will be the equivalent of planting 695 two-inch caliper trees, but specific mitigation plans have not been finalized. THE SITE Pacific Crest PD is located along the summit of Bull Mountain in a forested area. Aspect is generally north. Portions of the area are steep, exceeding 25% slope, but average slope is considerably less. A power transmission line borders the site on the east. Clearing for the power transmission line exposes the site to east winds. A small clearing south of Pacific Crest exposes the site to storm track winds from the south - southwest. It is likely that eddy effects on the lee side of Bull ' Mountain further increase the wind potential. There are four existing residences on the east side of the site. Cautionary Note: Active beehives are kept west of the southern-most residence, a safety concern for workers entering the area TREES AND ASSOCIATED VEGETATION A stand of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesh) covers most of the site. Bigleaf maples (Acer macrophyllum) are scattered in the understory throughout the area. Ground vegetation includes various grasses and landscape plants associated with the residences as well as native shrubs. The southern portion of Pacific Crest has been logged, probably within the last two years. The remaining trees on this area are, for the most part, very tall and slender, with low crown ratios and poorly buttressed trunks.1 These trees are unstable, and are considered hazardous. An example of this hazard occurred during one site visit. A moderate east wind was blowing, and the trees were swaying in wide arcs, far beyond normal reaction to these winds. While I was evaluating the site, one tree snapped completely in two at a height of about 40-50 ft. I judged the risk to be so l Crown ratio: ratio of the live crown to total tree height. Low crown ratio indicates poor vigor and/or structural instability. Poorly buttressed trunks (poor taper) indicates structural instability or weakness. Walter H. Knapp Silviculture and Forest Management Urban Forestry 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 Phone/Fax (503) 646-4349 1 1 1 9 i Pacific Crest January 6, 2000 Page 2 severe that 1 did not enter that portion of the site while the winds were blowing. On April 28, 1 revisited the site. Several of the remaining trees were leaning as a result of the recent winds. These trees will not recover, and are extremely hazardous. Cautionary, Note: Because of tree instability, workers should not enter the logged area when winds of even moderate intensity are blowing. The trees in this area should be felled before other activities are begun on the site A much denser stand of Douglas-fir is growing on the north unit of Pacific Crest. Most of this area is very steep. The site had been logged several years ago, removing about half of the stocking. Many of the residual trees show damage from logging activities. A large number of trees on this site show symptoms of laminated root rot, a disease caused by the fungus Phellinus ' wierii. These and other trees with significant logging damage are hazardous. 1 1 1 TREE INVENTORY I examined trees larger than 12 inches in diameter to verify species and size, and to determine their condition. Trees that were dead, dying, diseased, or hazardous were identified for removal. I also evaluated the site plans for Pacific Crest to determine which trees could be retained, and which would have to be removed because of construction. As shown on the enclosed tree inventory spreadsheet, a total of 408 trees larger than 12 inches are now growing on the site. Of these, 107 are classed as dead, dying, diseased, or hazardous. These trees will need to be removed. An additional 127 trees will need to be removed for construction. These trees will need to be mitigated according to City of Tigard tree code. A total of 174 trees will be retained on the site. MMGATION A total of 58% of the trees larger than 12 inches in diameter not dead, dying, diseased, or hazardous will be retained on the site. According to City of Tigard tree code, this means that 50% of the diameter inches removed will need to be mitigated. As shown on the tree inventory spreadsheet, the total mitigation requirement is 1390 inches. This is the equivalent of planting 695 two-inch caliper trees. Specific mitigation plans for the site have not yet been developed. Options include planting on this site or another site within the City of Tigard, or contribution to the City's tree fund. Walter H. Knapp Silviculture and Forest Management Urban Forestry 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 Phone/Far (503) 646-4349 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 i • TREE PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS Tree retention on the site will require special considerations. The following measures are recommended-for adoption: • Designation of Tree Protection Area. Prior to any site clearing or excavation, the project arborist will identify and physically mark on the ground the location of the tree protection area, (The tree protection area is generally described as the area beneath the "dripline" of the tree (the outer extension of the tree crown); however, location may vary in the field due to species or site considerations. Tree roots frequently extend outside the dripline of the tree for considerable distances.) • Fencing. The most important protection standard is fencing to restrict access by construction equipment, storage of materials, or other activities within the tree protection area. On this site, chain link fencing will be used in the location specified by the project arborist. (See "designation of tree protection area.') • Signage. Weatherproof signage will be installed identifying the tree protection area and listing the name and telephone number of the project arborist as the contact person. • Mulching, If it is necessary for equipment to enter the tree protection area, a layer of gravel or other suitable mulch at least 6 inches deep will be placed in the path of the equipment as temporary protection for the root system of the affected tree(s). This material will need to be removed at the end of construction. • Storage of Equipment. Construction equipment will be stored in suitable locations away from the tree(s). • Soil Protection. The stripping of topsoil around the tree(s) will be restricted. No till will be placed within the tree protection area unless specific "tree-friendly" design, engineering, and construction practices are followed. These can include tree wells, protection walls, and other designed features as recommended by the project arborist. Walter H. Knapp Silviculture and Forest Management Urban Forestry 7615 SWDunsmuirLane, Beaverton, OR 97007 Phone/Fax (503) 646-4349 Pacific Crest January 6, 2000 Page 3 1 1 1 • Pacific Crest January 6, 2000 Page 4 • Excavation. Excavation immediately adjacent to roots larger than two inches in diameter within the tree protection area will be by hand to ensure that roots are not damaged. Where feasible, major roots will be protected by tunneling or other means to avoid destruction or damage. Where soil grade changes affect the tree protection area, the grade line should be meandered wherever feasible. This will require on-site coordination to ensure a reasonable balance between engineering, construction, and the need for tree protection. Documentation. The project arborist will provide written assurance that the protective measures have been installed. • Quality Assurance. The project arborist will supervise proper execution of the Plan through construction of all buildings and other structures that encroach on retained trees. CONCLUSIONS Retention of suitable trees on this site will help to maintain some of the character of the native forest as a part of new development. Close adherence to the tree protection standards will be needed. It will be especially important that the project arborist provide on-site assurance of tree protection during critical parts of the development. Walter H. Knapp Certified Forester, SAF CertifiedArborist, ISA Walter H. Knapp Silviculture and Forest Management Urban Forestry 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 Phone/Fax (503) 646-4319 PACIFIC CREST TREE INVENTORY Page 1 of 18 9909 Pacific Crest PD Tree Inventory 4 12+ 116100 1 1 s 1 1 1 DBH CR CRad X Tree vy. Pt Species Condition Remarks N C No. (in.) [mil [ft.] 1219 Douglas-fir 18 18 Poor crown, top Current windthrow 1221 Douglas-fir 14 20 break risk 14 Crack - entire 1222 Dou las-fir 24 trunk Lightning scar 24 1224 bi leaf maple 24 24 1334 Dou las-fir 22 22 1335 Dou las-fir 18 18 Basal scars, stem 1336 Dou las-fir 16 dieback 16 1357 bi leaf maple 14 14 1357 bi leaf maple 14 14 Poor taper; Current windthrow 1365 Dou las-fir 16 <30 Ht/Diam ratio risk 16 Poor taper; Current windthrow 1377 Dou las-fir 16 <30 Ht/Diam ratio risk 16 Current windthrow 1380 Douglas-fir 14 risk 14 1389 Douglas-fir 36 Stem decay Conk - red ring rot 36 Current windthrow 1393 Dou las-fir 14 25 Poor crown ratio risk 14 Poor taper; Current windthrow 1399 Douglas-fir 14 <30 Ht/Diam ratio risk 14 Poor taper, Current windthrow 1403 Douglas-fir 16 <30 Ht/Diam ratio risk 16 Poor taper; Current windthrow 1407 Douglas-fir 14 <30 Ht/Diam ratio risk 14 Poor taper; Current windthrow 1412 Dou las-fir 14 <30 111t/Diam ratio risk 14 Poor taper; Current windthrow 1420 Dou las-fir 14 <30 1HttDiam ratio risk 14 Poor taper, Current windthrow 1539 Dou las-fir 24 <30 1Ht/Diarn ratio risk 24 1544 Dou las-fir 22 22 1546 Douglas-fir 16 16 1550 Douglas-fir 28 28 1552 Dou las-fr 18 18 Walter K Knapp 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 PhonelFax: (503) 646-4349 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PACIFIC CREST TREE INVENTORY Page 2 of 18 9909 Pacific Crest PO Tree Inventory 412+ 1/6100 Tree Pt i S DOH CR CRad Condition Remarks C m No. vy' pec es 1553 Douglas-fir 16 16 1553 Douglas-fir 22 22 1554 Dou las-fir 16 16 1554 Douglas-fir 16 16 , 1555 Douglas-fir 14 14 1559 Dou las-fir 20 20 1560 b' leaf maple 16 1 16 1561 J bigleaf maple 14 14 1563 bi leaf maple 16 16 1564 Dou las-fir 26 26 1565 Douglas-fir 28 28 1569 Douglas-fir 18 18 1569 Dou las-fir 20 20 1610 Dou las-fir 24 24 1612 bi leaf maple 18 18 1613 Douglas-fir 14 <30 Poor taper; Ht/Diam ratio Current windthrow risk 14 1639 Dou las-fir 16 <30 Poor taper, HtOam ratio current windthrow risk 16 1644 Douglas-fir 30 <30 Poor taper, IlHt/Diam ratio Current windthrow risk 30 1661 Douglas-fir 14 <30 Poor taper; Ht/Diam ratio Current windthrow risk 14 1673 Dou las-fir 22 <30 Poor taper, Ht/Diam ratio Current windthrow risk 22 1674 Douglas-fir 26 <30 Poor taper; Ht/Diam ratio Current windthrow risk 26 1675 Douglas-fir 14 <30 Poor taper, HVDiam ratio Current windthrow risk 14 1687 bi leaf maple 14 <30 Poor taper, Ht/Diam ratio Current windthrow risk 14 1687 bi leaf maple 14 <30 Poor taper; 111t/Diam ratio Current windthrow risk 14 Wafter H. Knapp 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 Phone-Tax. (503) 646-4349 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PACIFIC CREST TREE INVENTORY • Page 3 of 18 9909 Pacific Crest PD Tree Inventory 4 12+ 1/6100 Tree Pt S i DBH CR CRad diti C Re k = n M No. vy. pec es [in.] [ft.] on on mar s C m 1772 Dou las-fir 16 16 1773 Douglas-fir 14 14 1774 Dou las-fir 24 24 1775 Do las-fir 24 24 1777 Dou las-fir 14 14 1778 Dou las-fir 14 <30 Poor taper; HUDiam ratio Windthrow risk with development 14 1779 Dou las-fir 14 <30 Poor taper; Ht/Diam ratio Windthrow, risk with development 14 1779 Douglas-fir 18 <30 Poor taper; Ht/Diam ratio W ndthrow risk with development 18 1781 Dou las-fir 14 <30 Poor taper; HUDiam ratio Windthrow risk with development 14 1786 Dou las-fir 18 18 1787 Douglas-fir 14 <30 Poor taper; Ht/Diam ratio Windthrow risk with development 14 1788 Douglas-fir 24 24 1789 Dou las-fir 14 <30 Poor taper; HUDiam ratio Windthrow risk with develo merit 14 1790 Douglas-fir 18 18 1792 Douglas-fir 16 <30 Poor taper; Ht/Diam ratio Windthrow risk with development 16 1793 Dou las-fir 24 1 24 1811 Dou las-fir 18 <30 Poor taper; Ht/Diam ratio Windthrow, risk with development 18 1812 Dou las-fr 14 <30 Poor taper; HUDiam ratio Windthrow risk with development 14 1813 Douglas-fir 14 <30 Poor taper, HUDiam ratio Windthrow risk with develo meet 14 1814 Douglas-fir 16 <30 Poor taper; Ht/Diam ratio Windt row risk with development 16 1815 Dou las-fir 14 <30 l Poor taper, Ht/Diam ratio Windthrow risk with development 14 1817 Dou las-fir 18 18 1819 Douglas-fir 20 20 1820, bi leaf ma le 18 18 Wafter H. Knapp 7615 SWDunsm it Lone, Beaverton, OR 97007 PhonelFax. (503) 646-4349 1 PACIFIC CREST TREE INVENTORY Page 4 of 18 9909 Pacific Crest PD Tree Inventory 4 12+ 116100 1 1 1 r r r f r Tree Pt S i DBH CR CRad C diti Rem rks = n ~ No. vy. pec es [in.] [ft.] on on a ~ ~ ~ 1822 bi leaf maple 14 <30 14 1823 Douglas-fir 16 <30 Poor taper, Ht/Diam ratio Windthrow risk with development 16 1825 Douglas-fir 16 <30 Poor taper; HUDiam ratio Windthrow risk with development 16 1837 Douglas-fir 14 <30 Poor taper, HUDiam ratio Windthrow risk with development 14 1838 Douglas-fir 30 1 30 1839 Dou las-fir 14 <30 Poor taper; HUDiam ratio Windthrow risk with development 114 1840 Douglas-fir 24 124 1841 Douglas-fir 14 <30 Poor taper; HUDiam ratio Windthrow risk with development 14 1843 Dou las-fir 14 <30 Poor taper, HUDiam ratio Windthrow risk with development 14 1844 Dou las-fir 14 <30 Poor taper, HUDiam ratio Windthrow risk with development 14 1847 Dou las-fir 18 18 1851, Douglas-fir 16 <30 Poor taper, HUDiam ratio Windthrow risk with develo ment 16 1851 Douglas-fir 18 <30 Poor taper; HUDiam ratio Windthrow risk with development 16 1852 Dou las-fir 26 26 1853 Dou las-fir 18 18 1856 Douglas-fir 20 20 1857, Douglas-fir 18 18 1858 Douglas-fir 14 <30 Poor taper, HUDiam ratio Current windthrow risk 14 1859 Douglas-fir 18 18 1862 Douglas-fir 16 <30 Poor taper; HUDiam ratio Current windthrow risk 16 1910 Douglas-fir 24 24 1911 Douglas-fir 36 1 36 1912 Douglas-fir 32 32 1943, Douglas-fir 14 <30 Poor taper; HUDiam ratio Current windthrow risk 14 Waher H. Knapp 7615 SW Dunsnwir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 Phone/Fax: (503)646-4349 1 1 1 1 1 • PACIFIC CREST TREE INVENTORY 0 Page 5 of 18 9909 Pacific Crest PD Tree Inventory 4 12+ 116/00 Tree P i S DBH CR CRad Co dition Remarks = n ~ No. vy. t es pec [in.] 1%) [ft.] n M c 9 m 1947 bi leaf maple 14 <30 Poor taper; HUDiam ratio Current windthrow risk 14 1962 Dou las-fir 14 <30 Poor taper; HtlDiam ratio Current windthrow risk 14 1965 bi leaf maple 14 <30 Poor taper; HUDiam ratio Current windthrow risk 14 1966 Douglas-fir 14 <30 Poor taper; HUDiam ratio Current windthrow risk 14 1975 bi leaf maple 14 <30 Poor taper; Ht/Diam ratio Current windthrow risk 14 2036 Douglas-fir 22 22 2037 Douglas-fir 20 20 2038 Dou las-fir 22 22 2042 Dou las-fir 30 30 2043 Douglas-fir 36 36 2044 Douglas-fir 26 Thin crown, declining vigor Windthrow risk, potential root rot 26 2045 Douglas-fir 16 Thin crown, declining vigor Windthrow risk; potential root rot 16 2046 -Douglas-fir 24 124 2047 Dou las-fir 26 26 2048 Dou las-fir 14 To break Hazard potential: mechanical defect 14 2049 Douglas-fir 20 20 , 2050 -Douglas-fir 18 18 2051 IDouglas-fir 14 14 2055 Douglas-fir 32 32 , 2056 Douglas-fir 24 124 2057 Douglas-fir 28 128 2058 Dou las-fir 26 126 2059 bi leaf maple 26 26 F 2060 bi leaf maple 18 1 1 18 Walter H. Knapp 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 Phone/Fax. (503) 646-4349 1 A i r i 1 • PACIFIC CREST TREE INVENTORY • Page 6 of 18 9909 Pacific Crest PD Tree Inventory 4 12+ 116/00 Tree S DBH CR CRad Condition Remarks C m No. vy. Pt pecies [in.] [ft.] 2061 Dou las-fir 26 26 2112 Douglas-fir 16 <30 Poor taper, HUDiam ratio Current windthrow risk 16 2115 bigleat maple 16 16 2115 bi leaf maple 16 16 2116 bi leaf maple 16 16 2153 bi leaf maple 14 14 2154 Douglas-fir 36 <30 Poor taper; HUDiam ratio Current windthrow risk 38 2186 CONIFER 14 14 2187 Douglas-fir 22 22 2188 Douglas-fir 22 22 2195 Douglas-fir 24 24 2214 Douglas-fir 14 <30 Poor taper; Ht/Diam ratio Current windthrow risk 14 2218 Douglas-fir 14 <30 Poor taper; HUDiam ratio Current windthrow risk 14 2232 Douglas-fir 14 <30 Poor taper; HUDiam ratio Current windthrow risk 14 2245 bi leaf maple 16 16 2245 bi leaf maple 20 20 2251 bi leaf maple 14 14 2254 Dou las-fir 14 <30 Poor taper; HUDiam ratio Current windthrow risk 14 2263 Douglas-fir 14 <30 Poor taper, HUDiam ratio Current windthrow risk 14 2270 bi leaf maple 14 14 2278 Douglas-fir 14 <30 Poor taper; HUDiam ratio Current windthrow risk 14 2363 Douglas-fir 14 14 2367 bi leaf maple 14 14 L 2368 Douglas-fir 14 14 Walter H. Anapp 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 PhoneTax: (503) 646-4349 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 • PACIFIC CREST TREE INVENTORY 0 Page 7 of 18 9909 Pacific Crest PD Tree Inventory 4 12+ 116/00 Tree Pt S i DBH CR CRad diti C Remarks = n M No. vy. pec es [in.] [°r61 [ft.] on on c -i m ~ 2397 Douglas-fir 36 36 2406, Douglas-fir 24 24 2406 Douglas-fir 28 28 2409 bi leaf maple 18 116 2411 Douglas-fir 26 26 2413 Douglas-fir is is 2415 Douglas-fir 22 22 2417 Douglas-fir 36 36 2419 Douglas-fir 36 , 36 2420 Douglas-fir 24 24 2440 Douglas-fir 36 36 , 2446 Dou las-fir 30 30 2447 Dou las-fir 30 30 ' 2449 Dou las-fir 22 22 2450 Douglas-fir 24 24 2452 Dou las-fir 22 22 2453 Dou las-fir 26 1 26 2457 Douglas-fir 32 Undercut roots; swelling at butt Suspected butt rot 32 2459, Dou lar 24 2462 Douglas-fir 122 22 2463 b' leaf ma le 14 2463, bi leaf ma le 16 16 2467 Dou las-fir 16 16 2469 Douglas-fir 26 26 Wafter If. Knapp 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 Aone/Fax. (503) 646.4349 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 r r 1 t 1 t • PACIFIC CREST TREE INVENTORY 0 Page 8 of 18 9909 Pacific Crest PD Tree Inventory 4 12+ 1/6100 Tree Pt v S i DBH CR CRad C diti R k = 0 M No. y- pec es [in.] [ft.] on on emar s A C m 2473 Douglas-fir 16 16 2474 Dou las-fir 22 22 2475 Dou las-fir 16 16 2483 Douglas-fir 20 20 2484 bi leaf maple 14 double tree 14 2484 bi leaf maple 14 double tree 14 2485 Dou las-fir 18 18 2491 Dou las-fir 24 124 2548 Dou las-fir 30 30 2554 Douglas-fir 14 14 2562 Dou las-fir 16 16 2564 Dou ias-fir 14 double tree 14 2564 Dou las-fir 14 double tree 14 2565 Douglas-fir 16 16 2566 bi leaf maple 14 14 2572 Douglas-fir 42 42 2573 Dou las-fir 16 16 2587 Dou las-fir 15 15 2588 Dou las-fir 20 20 2594 Douglas-fir 18 is 2595 Dou ias-fir 36 Pistol butt, heart rot. Seam on Hazard: mechanical failure 36 2596 Douglas-fir 28 28 2597 Douglas-fir 24 24 2598 Douglas-fir 20 Walter H. Knapp 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 PkonelFax: (503) 646-4349 1 PACIFIC CREST TREE INVENTORY Page 9 of IS 9909 Pacific Crest PD Tree Inventory 4 12+ 116100 1 1 r 1 t 1 1 Tree v Pt S i DBH CR CRad diti C R k = n M No. y. pec es [in.] MI [ft.) on on emar s C -i m -4 2599 Douglas-fir 18 18 2691 Douglas-fir 24 124 2692 Dou las-fir 28 28 2693 Douglas-fir 26 26 2694 Douglas-fir 24 24 2697 Dou las-fir 28 28 2698, Dou las-fir 18 18 2700 Douglas-fir 28 28 2703 Dou las-fir 16 16 2704 bi leaf maple 18 18 2705 Douglas-fir 22 22 2706 Douglas-fir 30 30 2707 Dou las-fir 24 1 24 632 2713 Douglas-fir 20 35 15 Fair 20 2716 Douglas-fir 36 36 2720 Douglas-fir 28 20 2721 Douglas-fir 32 1 32 2724 Douglas-fir 30 30 2727 Douglas-fir 30 30 2728 Dou las-fir 36 1 36 2729 Dou las-fir 24 24 2730 Dou las-fr 30 3 2731 Douglas-fir 26 26 2732 Dou las-fir 26 1 26 Wafter H. Knapp 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 Phone/Fax: (503) 646.4349 1 • • 1 PACIFIC CREST TREE INVENTORY Pagel 0 of 18 9909 Pacific Crest PD Tree Inventory 4 12+ 116100 1 i r 1 1 Tree Pt v S ecies DBH CR CRad C diti R k = n M No. y. p [in.] [ft.] on on emar s C m 2733 Douglas-fir 24 24 2734, Douglas-fir 24 Thin crown, excess cones, Suspected root rot 24 2735 Dou las-fir 30 30 2736 Douglas-fir 24 24 2737 Douglas-fir 22 Dead branches scattered in Suspected root rot 22 2738 Douglas-fir 28 Dead branches - scattered in Suspected root rot 28 2739 Douglas-fir 28 28 2740 Dou las-fir 24 24 2741 Douglas-fir 24 24 2742 Dou las-fir 26 126 2743 Douglas-fir 32 32 2745, Douglas-fir 26 Poor crown vigor, short twig growth. Suspected root rot 26 2746 Dou las-fir 26 Poor crown vigor, short twig growth. Suspected root rot 26 2747 Dou las-fir 30 Poor crown vigor, short twig growth. Suspected root rot 30 2748 Dou las-fir 30 Poor crown vigor; short twig growth. Suspected root rot 30 2750 Douglas-fir 36 36 2751 Douglas-fir 32 32 2752 Douglas-fir 30 1 30 2757 bi leaf maple 16 16 2759 Douglas-fir 36 36 2760 Dou las-fir 32 32 2818 Dou las-fir 30 30 2864 Dou lasAr 32 32 3086, Dou las-fir T 32 32 Wafter H. Knapp 7615 SW Dunsnutir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 PhonelFax. (303)646-4349 1 1 s r 1 r r 1 i PACIFIC CREST TREE INVENTORY 0 Page 11 of 18 9909 Pacific Crest PD Tree Inventory 4 12+ 116100 Tree v Pt S ecies DBH CR CRad C di i No. y. p [in.] [0/6] [ft.] on t on Remarks q c -4 m 3087 Dou las-fir 16 16 631 3132 Douglas-fir 24 50 , 15 Good Retain 124 612 3133 Dou ias-fir 28 Poor Large pitch seam, split at base, hazard, 28 611 3134 Douglas-fir 27 40 15 Fair 27 610 3135 Douglas-fir 29 30 15 Poor Tree is in opening with large amount of 29 613 3138 Douglas-fir 28 Poor Old break at 25', unstable crown, 28 615 3139 Ma le 14 Poor Overtopped, twisted trunk, possible 14 05 3140 Douglas-fir 18 30 10 Poor Leaning, crown damaged, major 18 05 3141 Maple 13 Poor Leaning, defective 13 606 3144 bi leaf maple 13 Poor Double tree. 1 stem defective 13 625 3148 bi leaf maple 14 Fair Leaning 10 degrees 14 626 3149 Douglas-fir 22 30 Poor Taper, moderate windthrow hazard, 22 639 3150 Dou las-fir 14 20 6 Poor Basal scar, interior tree, poor taper, 14 638 3151 1 13ouglas-fir 34 40 20 Good Retain 34 629 3153 Dou las-fir 30 40 12 Good 30 630 3156 Douglas-fir 28 40 20 Good Retain 28 618 3164 Douglas-fir 20 40 10 Good 20 702 3169 Douglas-fir 20 West o Pacific Crest 20 701 3170 Douglas-fir 24 West of Pacific Crest 24 602 3173 Douglas-fir 15 40 10 Fair 15 604 3175 Douglas-fir 36 65 20 Excellent 36 616 3176 Maple 18 Poor Broken top and decay at 16', 1 18 654 3179 Dou las-fir 26 40 15 Good 26 64 3182 bi leaf mapleT 18 T Poor Fspu' orcrown, ppressed 18 Walter H. %napp 7615 SWDunsmuir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 Phon&Tax: (503) 646-4349 a 1 s 1 t 1 1 t I 1 1 0 PACIFIC CREST TREE INVENTORY Page 12 of 18 9909 Pacific Crest PD Tree Inventory 4 12+ 118100 Tree Pt S i DBH CR CRad C diti R k = n M No. vy. pec es [in.] 1%] [ft-] on on emar s C m 672 3184 Douglas-fir 14 20 10 Poor Excessive eight- diameter ratio; 14 669 3185 Douglas-fir 19 20 15 Poor Excessive height- diameter ratio; 19 665 3187 Dou las-fir 30 40 20 Good 30 655 3188 Douglas-fir 28 40 15 Good 26 656 3189 bi leaf maple 16 Fair lean 116 657 3190 bi leaf maple 22 Good 22 662 3192 bi leaf maple 14 Fair 14 664 3194 Douglas-fir 20 40 20 Good 20 715 3197 Douglas-fir 20 40 15 Good 20 714 3198 Douglas-fir 28 50 20 Good 28 659 3200 Douglas-fir 32 20 60 Good 32 658, 3201 Douglas-fir 28 20 50 Good 28 624 3203 Dou las-fir 13 30 8 Good 13 623 3204 Douglas-fir 20 40 10 Good 20 621 3206 Dou las-fir 18 40 15 Good 18 708 3216 Douglas-fir 16 Good 16 649 3220 Douglas-fir 32 30 20 Poor Pistol butt, irregular crown, possible root 32 650 3221 Douglas-fir 22 Fair Retain 22 635 3222 Dou las-fir 13 20 10 Poor Old broken top, poor, interior tree 13 634 3223 Douglas-fir 36 50 20 Good 36 633 3224 Dou las-fir 34 Poor Large seam on trunk, break off 34 651 3226 bi leaf maple 14 Very poor 1 14 675 3228 Douglas-fir 16 20 10 Poor Excessive height- diameter ratio; 16 1724 3229 Douglas-fir 16 20 10 Very or 16 Wafter K Knapp 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 PhonelFax: (503) 646-4349 PACIFIC CREST TREE INVENTORY Page 13 of 18 9909 Pacific Crest PD Tree Inventory 4 12+ 1/6/00 1 t I 1 1 M I 1 1 Pt v S ecies DBH CR CRad C m No. y. p [in.] 1%] [ft.] ondition Remarks q c ~ 721 3230 Dou las-fir 18 20 10 Very poor Excessive height- diameter ratio; 18 720 3234 Dou las-fir 14 20 10 Very poor Excessive height- diameter ratio; 14 723 3236 Douglas-fir 16 30 15 Poor windthrow risk 16 725 3238 Douglas-fir 24 30 15 Very poor 24 729 3239 Douglas-fir 14 15 8 Very or Excessive height- diameter ratio; 14 727 3241 Douglas-fir 24 20 15 Fair 24 726 3242 Douglas-fir 14 20 10 Ve poor 14 648 3244 bi leaf maple 16 Poor Broken top, decay, split, remove 16 647 3245 bi leaf maple 14 Fair 14 645 3247 Douglas-fir 34 40 20 Fair 34 644 3248 bi leaf maple 22 Fair Overtopped 22 676 3249 Douglas-fir 16 30 12 Poor Old broken top, or, interior tree 16 679 3250 Douglas-fir 18 30 12 Poor one-sided crown 18 642 3254 Douglas-fir 28 40 20 Poor Crown irregular development, 28 640 3257 Douglas-fir 30 40 15 Fair 30 762 3262 ' Douglas-fir 21 20 10 Poor Excessive height- diameter ratio; 21 746 3263 Douglas-fir 22 20 15 Very poor Excessive height- diameter ratio; 22 745 3264 Douglas-fir 26 30 , 15 Fair 26 744 3265 Douglas-fir 14 20 8 Very poor Excessive height- diameter ratio; 14 731 3266 Douglas-fir 24 30 20 Poor windthrow risk 24 738 3268 Dou las-fir 20 40 15 Good 20 739 3269 bi leaf maple 14 Poor overtopped 14 740 3270 bi leaf maple 14 Fair 14 743 Q 3272 Dou Ias-fir 28 40 20 Good 1 28 Wafter H. Knapp 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 Phona1Fax: (S03) 646-4349 PACIFIC CREST TREE INVENTORY Page 14 of 18 9909 Pacific Crest PD Tree Inventory 4 12+ 1/6100 1 t w t 1 a 1 Tree v Pt S eci DBH CR CRad C diti R = 0 M No. y. p es [in.] [ft.] on on emarks C m 775 3273 Dou las-fir 26 20 15 Poor Excessive height- diameter ratio; 26 774 3274 bi leaf maple 14 Poor Damage, decay at base 14 776 3275 Dou las-fir 28 Poor conk, stem rot 28 772 3276 Douglas-fir 38 40 20 Poor Decay, damage at base 38 765 3278 Douglas-fir 36 40 25 Fair 36 766 3279 Dou las-fir 14 40 12 Poor lean, poor shoot growth. symptoms of 14 741 3281 Douglas-fir 24 40 15 Fair 24 736 3282 bi leaf maple 14 Fair Leaning, sinuous to 14 734 3283 Douglas-fir 28 40 15 Fair 28 735 3284 bi leaf maple 16 Fair Leaning, sinuous top 16 711 3287 bi leaf maple 14 Fair 14 713 3289 Dou las-fir 14 30 10 Poor Excessive height- diameter ratio; 14 710 3290 Dou las-#ir 16 40 14 Good 16 749 3292 bi leaf maple 16 Fair 16 748 3293 Douglas-fir 26 Good 26 747 3294 bi leaf maple 16 Poor basal scar, damage, lean 16 853 3295 bi leaf maple 20 Good 20 755 3297 Dou las-fir 16 30 15 Poor Excessive height- diameter ratio; 16 751 3298 Dou las-fr 16 dead 16 752 3299 Douglas-fir 32 20 15 Very poor decay, broken top 32 753 3300 bi leaf maple 16 Fair 16 754 3301 Douglas-fir 18 20 10 Ve poor Excessive height- diameter ratio; 18 779 3302 Dou las-fir 28 Very or short shoot growth, symptoms of root 2 778 3303 bi leaf maple 14 Ve poor lean, damage 14 Walter H. Knapp 7615 SWDunsmuir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 PhoneJFax. (503)646-4349 1 1 I t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i PACIFIC CREST TREE INVENTORY • Page 15 of 18 9909 Pacific Crest PD Tree Inventory 4 12+ 1/6/00 DBH CR CRad Condition Remarks No vy. Pt Species [In.] (ft.] _9 rn 778 3304 bi leaf maple 18 Very poor lean, damage 18 1 706 3304 Douglas-fir 28 60 15 Good 28 777 3305 Dou las-fir 14 50 15 Good old top break, short tree 14 750 3339 Dou las-fir 34 20 20 Ve or old broken top, decay 34 680 3368 Dou las-fir 20 20 15 Fair Excessive height- diameter ratio; 20 681 3368 bi leaf maple 16 Poor 16 681 3369 b' leaf maple 10 Poor 10 677 3371 Dou las-fir 14 30 10 Poor short tree 14 698 3385 Dou las-fir 14 40 10 Good 14 695 3386 Dou las-fir 16 30 10 Fair 16 699 3387 Dou las-fir 24 40 15 Poor Lean, poor crown, logging damage 24 689 3390 Dou las-fir 26 30 20 Good 26 758 3391 Douglas-fir 34 50 25 Good 34 767 3394 Douglas-fir 16 40 15 Good 16 7,60 3395 Dou las-fir 26 40 20 Good 26 838 3397 Douglas-fir 30 50 20 Good 30 839 3398 bi leaf maple 14 Good 14 840 3399 Douglas-fir 24 40 20 Good One-sided crown 24 839 3400 to leaf maple 18 Good 18 837 3403 Dou las-fir 28 40 20 Good 128 836 3404 Douglas-fir 20 30 20 Fair Marginal vigor 20 831 3405 Douglas-fir 18 20 10 Poor Excessive height- diameter ratio; 18 800 3406 bi leaf maple 14 Fair 832 3407 Do las-fir 20 20 15 Poor Excessive height- diameter ratio; 20 L I Walter H. Snapp 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 Phon&Wax: (5113) 646-4349 s 1 i 1 s 1 t 1 I 1 t i PACIFIC CREST TREE INVENTORY 0 Page 16 of 18 9909 Pacific Crest PD Tree Inventory 4 12+ 116100 Tree DBH CR CRad Condition Remarks C No. vy. Pt Species [in.] [ft.] 835 3410 Dou las-fir 24 40 20 Good 24 843 3411 Douglas-fir 26 40 20 Good 26 842 3412 bi leaf maple 14 Poor 14 770 3413 Dou las-fir 18 40 15 Good 18 771 3414 Dou las-fir 20 40 15 Good 20 844 3416 Douglas-fir 34 Good Logging scars 0-20' 34 851 3418 Douglas-fir 16 30 15 Fair 16 849 3420 bi leaf maple 16 Poor broken to 16 850 3421 bi leaf maple 14 Fair 14 847 3422 Douglas-fir 20 30 15 Fair 20 846 3423 bi leaf maple 14 Very or decay, basal and top damage 14 848 3424 Douglas-fir 22 30 15 Fair 22 790 3426 Dou las-#ir 24 40 20 Fair 124 792 3427 Douglas-fir 24 40 20 Good 24 787 3429 Douglas-fir 16 20 14 Very poor Excessive height- diameter ratio; 16 789 3430 Douglas-fir 24 20 15 Very or Excessive height- diameter ratio; 24 799 3433 Douglas-fir 20 20 10 Poor Excessive eight- diameter ratio; 20 798 3434 Dou las-fir 14 20 8 Poor Excessive height- diameter ratio; 14 797 3435 Douglas-fir 28 50 20 Poor conk, stem rot 28 803 3438 Dou ias-fir 26 40 20 Good 26 793 3439 Douglas-fir 26 40 15 Good 26 794 3440 Douglas-fir 28 40 20 Good 28 795 3441 b' leaf maple 16 Poor hollow at base 16 805 3446 . Dou ias-fr . 38 80 30 Good very vigorous tree 38 Walter H. Knapp 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 Phone/Fax: (503) 646-4349 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 • PACIFIC CREST TREE INVENTORY 0 Page 17 of 18 9909 Pacific Crest PD Tree Inventory 4 12+ 116/00 Tree P i S DOH CR CRad Condition Remarks = n M No. vy. t pec es [in.) (ft.] _ 813 3456 bi ieaf maple 18 Fair Lean - away from property 814 3457 Douglas-fir 20 40 15 Fair One-sided crown 20 815 3458 Douglas-fir 14 20 8 Poor Excessive height- diameter ratio; 14 830 3459 Douglas-fir 22 30 15 Fair 22 828 3462 bi leaf maple 18 Fair 18 824 3464 Douglas-fir 14 Poor conk, stem rot 14 825 3466 Douglas-fir 16 30 15 Fair One-sided crown 16 816 3467 Douglas-fir 22 40 15 Fair One-sided crown 22 818 3469 Douglas-fir 16 40 20 Fair Crown intertwined with 819 16 819 3470 Dou las-fir 20 40 20 Fair Crown intertwined with 818 20 820 3471 Douglas-fir 14 20 15 Fair 14 780 3564 Douglas-fir 16 Very or roots rung, lean N 16 783 3567 Douglas-fir 18 Very or rootsprung, short shoot growth, 18 785 3570 Douglas-fir 14 20 10 Very or Excessive height- diameter ratio; 14 786 3571 Douglas-fir 16 20 10 Very r Excessive height- diameter ratio; 16 3573 Douglas-fir 20 North of Pacific Crest 20 3576 Douglas-fir 20 North of Pacific Crest 20 3576 Douglas-fir 20 North of Pacific Crest 20 3595 Douglas-fir 24 North of Pacific Crest 24 3595 Dou las-fir 24 North of Pacific Crest 24 651 bi leaf maple 16 Very poor 116 643 Dou las-fir 16 40 15 Fair 16 671 Douglas-fir 24 20 Fair 24 730 Douglas-fir 34 50 20 Good 34 Wa&r H. Knapp 7615 SW A insmuir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 PhonWFax: (503) 646-4349 1 r 1 t 1 t 1 1 PACIFIC CREST TREE INVENTORY 0 Page 18 of 18 9909 Pack Crest PD Tree inventory 4 12+ 116100 Tree No. NOT tree i vy. Pt Species IrS: DSH[in.]= Diamete n live crown. CRAD ft. DBH CR CRad = Condition Remarks [in.] [ft.] r at Breast Height, 4.5 ft. from ground OWL CR[%]= Crown Ratio, pe = Crown Radius. HAZ=Hazardous, Dead, Dying, or Diseased Tree; C n e m -I --I rcent of the UT=Cut SUMMARY c m TOTAL Number of Trees X12-in.DBH: 408 107 127 174 Percent Non-Haz. Retained: 58% Mitigation Class, C' of Tigard Code 50% Diameter Inches 8544 12078 2780 3688 Mitigation Required-Diameter Inches: 1390 Estimated number of 2-in. Trees: 695 Wafter H. Knapp 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 FbonelFar. (503) 646-4349 post'it' Fax Note 7672 TO Cr4RY ANet C-Oyry LoriaoR Fu S Cown"M Tft'.0 "u I NARP,X • M,MA)A6 -C W of PArt: To0eYS0aia 3' 15'`/4 Tma From ram" Or~ 9roi ch"g+ Fps a Telephone a 0'4,.A i 1W.:aay 11 Few _}C,av;~kiq ow✓.4ae 5AiO roy '-A"! tM54 7pf nNA44 WASHINGTON COUNTY LAND USE AND 77ANSPORTA7701V ' SURVEYOR'S OFFICE 1 1 1 Sf,VBDZ`Q'x2Y4 FI,.1L1r ]wTALAI~ _Q I request that the Washington County Buzveyor's Office reserve the fbUoving subdivision nasne: PROPOSED NAME OF SUBDIVISION: Pacific Creat MAP AND TAX LOT NUMBER: .2-9, 1W, 5DA TL 400 & 500 25, 1W, 5DD TL 100, 2000 & 210 CITY JURISDICTION {Which City?1 Located in Washington County OR under the jurisdiction of COUNTY JURISDICTION: the City of Tigard SURVEYOR'S NAME: -Westlake Consultants, Inc. OWNER'S NAME: Michael eanne av a -Constanin & Adriana Coatiuc Rnbert & Sarah Rrickaon I understand that if the name is not used within two years, it will be automatically canceled. Name of person reserving name: Seana Perkins, Westlake Consultants, Inc. Address: 13115 SW Sequoia Parkway., Suite 150, Ti ard, OR 97224 Telephone number: 684-0652 Fax number: 1524-0157 Slgnaturs: &=60a ll .11 L Date: Z~i -9 q ~ 7-1 Name approved Washingron County Surveyor's Office . 155 North First Avenue, Suite 350- 15 Hillsboro, OR 97 l 23 Fax: 681-2909 F:ISHARE014UFr4MWPSHAReSUBNAME.OOC APPENDIX 2 V? abed !NdLI:E e9-Ve-MY '•L910 tZ9 Cos !s1NviinsN00 3yv%93M :AS lush T0,10:39bd 3)Rj-11S3M:01 6062-Z89-£05 NOABf1WS 0J HSUM:W0bz1 S£"-60 66 62-bUW 1 1 RESIDENTIAL PRE-APP. MTG. DATE: STAFF AT PRE-APP.: APPLICANT.-- Cb i~-Q ~cyG Phone: [ l PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GEN. LOCATION: TAX MAP[SI/LOT #[S]: NECESSARY APPLICATION[S]: PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: OMPRERENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: C.T. AREA: FACILITATOR: PHONE: [5031 ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM LOT SIZE:-$q. ft. Average lot width: ft. Maximum building height: L5 ft. Setbacks: Front tc7- ft. Side 'aft. Rear _ i 5 ft. Corner I& ft. from street. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: Q% Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: 222-%. [Refer to Code Section 18. SAO- 2- 1 ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 25 feet, unless lot is created through the Land Partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15-foot wide access easement. The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2% times the average width, unless the parcel is less than 1 %2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. [Refer to Code Section 18.010.0601 APPENDIX 3 CRY 0fTIGUD Pre-Applicatten CoWcrence Motes Page l of 10 otlNUlo1 AaolleotloNflnoW Qlo[sle~ Soetlaa AGENT: We LEP4 Sal6tSVy Phone: I j ,n 5;z MIL ~e~Sttu ~~~~rfT`[ 4~,5 ter c~~,t.nz~.n1 tN.rct e= du LICIAL SETBACKS 0 • Streets: __feet from the centerline of Flag lot: A ten (10)-foot side yard setback applies to all primary structures. Zero lot line lots: A minimum of a ten (10) foot separation shall be maintained between each dwelling unit or garage. Multi-family residential building separation standards apply within multiple-family residential developments. [Refer to Code Secdon 18.7301 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES UP TO 528 SQUARE FEET in size may be permitted on lots less than 2.5 acres in size. Five (5)-foot minimum setback from side and rear lot lines. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE UP TO 1,000 SQUARE FEET on parcels of at least 2.5 acres in size. [See applicable zeniog districtfor the primary structures'setback requirements.] 9611VISION PLAT NAME RESERVATION PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A SUBDIVISION LAND USE APPLICATION with the City of Tigard, applicant's are REQUIRED to complete and file a subdivision plat naming request with the Washington County Surveyor's Office in order to obtain approvallreservation for any subdivision name. Applications will not be accepted as complete until the City receives the faxed confirmation of approval from the County of the Subdivision Name Reservation. [County Surveyor's Office: 503-648-88841 LAG LOT BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 1%2 STORIES or 25 feet, whichever is less in most zones; 2%2 stories, or 35 feet in R-7, R-12, R-25 or R-40 zones provided that the standards of Code Section 18.730.010.C.2. are satisfied. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION [See example below] The NET RESIDENTIAL UNITS ALLOWED on a particular site may be calculated by dividing the net area of the developable land by the minimum number of square feet required per dwelling unit as specified by the applicable zoning designation. Net development area is calculated by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross site area: r ➢ Land within the 100 year floodplain; ➢ Slopes exceeding 25%; ➢ Drainageways; and A Wetlands for the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 zoning districts. Public right-of-way dedication: Single-family allocate 20% of gross acres for public facilities; or ➢ Multi-family allocate 15% of gross acres for public facilities; or ➢ If available, the actual public facility square footage can be used for deduction. [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7151 ff=PLE OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATIONS: EXAMPLE: USING A ONE ACRE SITE IN THE R-12 ZONE (3,050 MINIMUM LOT SIZE) WITH NO DEDUCTION FOR SENSITIVE LANDS Single-Family Multl-Family 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 8.712 sa, ft. (20%) for public right-of-wav 6.534 sg, ft. (15%) for public right-of-way NET. 34,848 square feet NET: 37,026 square feet - 3.050 (minimum lot area} 3.050 (minimum lot re unns- er cre = 12: n er cre *The 0evelopmentcode requhn Mat the met site area eldstfor the non whole dwelgaa ma NO 60UNX111fG UP IS PERMI1TE0. * IN= Project leaft Is 80% of We Innimnm allowed deosltlr. TO QETEBIYIINETNIS STANOABU. MULTIPLY THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS RY-L Of TIGAND Pre-Appll[oaUoa ConferanCa Notes Page 2 of 10 ioMANS11eeaee/ lawkselydWnSection 4111ICKS • • The perimeter of BLOCKS FORMED BY STREETS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,800 FEET measured along the right-of-way line except where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development. When block lengths greater than 600 feet are permitted, pedestdan/bikeways shall be provided through the block. [Refer to Code Section 18.810.0901 RE STREET PLAN AND DMISLON OF STREETS A FUTURE STREET PLAN shall: ➢ Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other parcels within 200 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. ➢ Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 500 feet of the site. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed. (Refer to Code Section 18.810.030SJ 1PARIaNG AND ACCESS ALL PARKING AREAS AND DRIVEWAYS MUST BE PAVED. ➢ Single-family ............Requires: One (1) off-street parking space per dwelling unit; and One (1) space per unit less than 500 square feet. ' ➢ Multiple-family......... Requires: 1.25 spaces per unit for 1 bedroom; 1.5 spaces per unit for 2 bedrooms; and .1.75 spaces per unit for 3 bedrooms. Multi-family dwelling units with more than ten (10) required spaces shall provide parking for the use of ,guests and shall consist of 15% of the total required parking. ' NO MORE THAN 40% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED AS COMPACT SPACES. Parking stalls shall be dimensioned as follows: ➢ Standard parking space dimensions: 8 ft. 6 inches X 18 feet Compact parking space dimensions: 7 ft. 6 inches X 16.5 feet Handicapped parking: All parking areas shall provide appropriately located and dimensioned disabled person parking spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. [Referto Code Section 18.705 818.7651 ICYCL,E RACKS BICYCLE RACKS are required FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in ar rom automobile traffic and in ' convenient locations. [Referto C .7651 ftlf IOFT16ABU PrO41011Catf80 Conference Notes Page 3 of 10 ~slGatlal 11ft1dOE ww"OM*1Sams 11. ' 0 0 accESswars ins Maximum number of accesses: width: imum pavement width: REQUIRED WALKWAY LOCATION hin all ATTACHED HOUSING (except i y dwellings) and multi-family developme , resi ntial dwelling SHALL BE C CTED BY WALKWAY TO THE VEHICULAR PARKING ' AREA, 'Co MMON OPE AND RECREATION FACILITIES. [Refer to Code Section 187051 r CLEAR VISION AREA The City requires that CLEAR VISION AREAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THREE (3) AND EIGHT (8) FEET IN HEIGHT AT ROAD/DRIVEWAY, ROAD/RAILROAD, AND ROAD/ROAD INTERSECTIONS. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification and any existing obstructions within the clear vision area. I [Refer mCode 6lopter 18J951 BUFFERING AND SCREENING In order to increase privacy and to either reduce or eiiminate adverse noise or visual impacts between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the CI IRES LANDSCAPED BUFFER AREAS ALONG CERTAIN SITE PERIMETE quired buffer areas 1 are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas cyst-be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must thieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens nces may also be required; these are often 1 advisable even if not required by the C he required buffer areas may Q* be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and wal s. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the munity Development Code. [Refer to Code Ch r18.7451 The REQUI BUFFER AND SCREENING STANDARDS that are applicable to your proposal area ar follows: along the north boundary. along the east boundary. I 4111'~ along the south boundary. along the west boundary. STREET TREES STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS FRONTING ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six (6) feet of the right-of- way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two(2) inches when measured four (4) feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) TREE FOR EVERY SEVEN (7) PARKING SPACES MUST BE PLANTED ' in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls, and raised ' planters. For detailed information on design requirements for parking areas and accesses. tReter to Code Chapters 18.705,18.745 s 18.7651 5y o nimo Preipppcatlon cesterence motes page 4 6110 nhenddAPPftWe&fta zs2Mdaesear.. . ko [EREMOYALPILIM REQUIREMEM A TREE PLAN FOR THE PLANTING, REMOVAL AND PROTECTION OF TREES prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, major partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal where possible. The TREE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE the following: ➢ Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; ➢ Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060.D. according to the following standards: a Retainage of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.790.060.D. of no net loss of trees; Retainage of from 25 to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.; Retainage of from 50 to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50% of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.; b Retainage of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation; ➢ Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; and ➢ A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. Trees removed within the period of one (1) year prior to a development application listed above will ' be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060.D. [Referto Code Secdon 18.190.030.0.1 -~IIIITIGATION REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to the following guidelines: A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. 9 If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damages is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: C~ The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property; and ➢ The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. IN-LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. [Refer to Code Secdon 18.790.060.13 RYOf i16 M Pre-bollcadoo Comtorence Notes page 5 of 10 - atlMunkan wasseml sisxs SIGN PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGN in the City of ' Tigard. A 'Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Altematively, a Sign Code Adjustment application may be filed for ' Director's review. (Refer to Code Chapter18]80) SENSITIVE LANDS The Code provides REGULATIONS FOR LANDS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT DUE TO AREAS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND AREAS, ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25%, OR ON UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will attempt to preliminarily identify sensitive lands areas at the pre-application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibilily to precisely Meow sensitive lands areas. and their boundaries. is the responsibility of the anolicant. Areas meetina the ' Chapter 18.775 also provides regulations for the use, protection or modification of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS. (Refer to Code Chapter X7151 STEEP SLOPES When STEEP SLOPES exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.775.080.C. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of Sections 18.775.080.C.2. and 18.775.080.C.3. .UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY [USA] BUFFER STANDARDS, RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE [R & M 9644 LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a vegetated corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive area. Design Criteria: THE VEGETATED CORRIDOR SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 25 FEET WIDE, measured horizontally, from the defined boundaries of the sensitive area, except where approval has been granted by the Agency or City to reduce the width of a portion of the corridor. If approval is granted by the Agency or City to reduce the width of a portion of the vegetated corridor, then the surface water in this area shall be directed to an area of the vegetated corridor that is a minimum of 25 feet wide. The maximum allowable encroachment shall be 15 feet, except as allowed in Section 3.11.4. No more than 25% of the length of the vegetated corridor within the development or project site can be less than 25 feet in width. In any case, the average width of the vegetated corridor shall be a minimum of 25 feet. Restrictions in t V tate C6rrido NO structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, EXCEPT AS ALLOWED AS FOLLOWS: CRY OFTIGARD P"Pllcatfon Conference Notes Page 6 of 10 ~slirplsl V~Ren[a/Hudo~~NWa~ Sutl~~ ' ➢ A GRAVEL WALKWA*R BIKE PATH, NOT EXCEEDING PHT 8 FEET IN WIDTH. If the walkway or bike path is paved, then the vegetated corridor must be widened by the width to the path. A paved or gravel walkway or bike path may not be constructed closer than ten (10) feet from the boundary of the sensitive area, unless approved by the Agency or City. Walkways and bike paths shall be constructed so as to minimize disturbance to existing vegetation; and ➢ WATER QUALITY FACILITIES may encroach into the vegetated corridor a maximum of ten (10) feet with the approval of the Agency or City. Location of Vegetated Corridor: IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATES MULTIPLE PARCELS OR LOTS intended for separate ownership, such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a separate tract, and shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit. [Refer to R & 0 96-44/USA Regulations - Chapter 3, Design for SWW WATER RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT THE WATER RESOURCES (WR) OVERLAY DISTRICT implements the policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and is intended to resolve conflicts between development and conservation of significant wetlands, streams and riparian corridors identified in the City of Tigard Local ' etlands Inventory. Specifically, this chapter allows reasonable economic use of property while es blishing clear and objective standards to: protect significant wetlands and streams; limit dev pment in designated riparian corridors; maintain and enhance water quality; maximize flood storag capacity; preserve native plant cover; minimize streambank erosion; maintain and enhance fish and ildlife habitats; and conserve scenic, recreational and educational values of water resource ar s. ' Safe Harbor: THE WR OVER LA DISTRICT ALSO MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 5 (Natural Res rces) and the "safe harbor" provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR ' 660, Division 23). The provisions require that "significant" wetlands and riparian corridors be mapped and protected. Tualatin River, which is also a "fish-bearing stream," has an average annual flow of more than 1,00 s. Major Streams: Streams which are mapped as "FIS ERRING STREAMS" by the Oregon Department of Forestry and have an average annual flow less n 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). A MAJOR STREAMS IN TIGARD IN UDE FANNO CREEK, ASH CREEK (EXCEPT THE NORTH FORK AND OTHER TRIBUTA Y CREEKS) AND BALL CREEK. ' Minor Streams: Streams which are NOT "FISH-BEARING STREAM according to Oregon Department of Forestry maps . Minor streams in Tigard include Summer Cree , Derry Dell Creek, Red Rock Creek, North Fork of Ash Creek and certain short tributaries of the Tualat River. Riparian Setback Area: THIS AREA IS MEASURED HORIZONTALLY FROM AND PA LEL TO MAJOR STREAM OR TUALATIN RIVER TOP-OF-BANKS, OR THE EDGE OF AN ASSO TED WETLAND, whichever is greater. The riparian setback is the same as the "riparian corridor oundary" in OAR 660-23- , 090(1)(d). ➢ The standard Tualatin River riparian setback is 75 feet, unless modifie in accordance with this chapter. i offyOFTIGNO Pre-ftonewanconferenceKate$ page Iof10 rdikeOd Apollc0oa/Pltoeli1 livIdee seMon ➢ . The major stream*arian setback is 50 feet, unless ledified in accordance with this chapter. ➢ Isolated wetlands and minor streams (including adjacent wetlands) have no riparian setback; however, a 25-foot "water quality buffer" is required under Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) standards adopted and administered by the City of Tigard. ■ (Refer to Code Section 18.797.0301 ■ R' 7arlan Setback Reductions ' The DIRECTOR MAY APPROVE A SITE-SPECIFIC REDUCTION OF THE TUALATIN RIVER OR Y MAJOR STREAM RIPARIAN SETBACK BY AS MUCH AS 50% to allow the placement of st ores or impervious surfaces otherwise prohibited by this chapter, provided that equal or better prate for identified major stream resources is ensured through streambank restoration and/or enhancem t of riparian vegetation in preserved portions of the riparian setback area. To be ELIGIBLE A RIPARIAN SETBACK REDUCTION, the applicant must demonstrate that the riparian corridor substantially disturbed at the time this regulation was adopted. This determination must be ba on the Vegetation Study required by Section 18.797.050.C that ' demonstrates all of the followin . ➢ -Native plant species currently er less than 80% of the on-site riparian corridor area; 9 The tree canopy currently covers le than 50% of the on-site riparian corridor and healthy ' trees have not been removed from the o ite riparian setback area for the last five (5) years; 9 That vegetation was not removed contrary to provisions of Section 18.797.050 regulating removal of native plant species; ' ➢ That there will be no infringement into the 100-year flo lain; and ➢ The average slope of the riparian area is not greater than 2 tReferto Cade Section 18.7971001 ARATIVE an application incomplete applicable criteria. (CODE CHAPTERS _ 18.330 18.390 _ 18.520 ✓ 18.715 Z 18.765 18.795 18.350 18.360 _ 18.420 18.430 _ 18.530 _ 18.620 18.730 _18.745 18.775 _ 18.797 18.780 18.800 18.370 18.510 18.705 _ 18.755 18.790 41INPACTSIODY As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to inc lude impact study with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, ' the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. ' [Refer to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.390.0501 SPre4pplleatle4 Coherence 1l0tes Page 8 of 10 tad~l4lRcttln!![ud!!lMsla Suue~ EIGHBORHOOD M T ICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY APPROPRIATE CIT FACILITATOR of their proposal. mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please ' concerning site posting and the meeting notice. 0 OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET AND THE A minimum of two (2) weeks between the review the Land Use Notification handout * NOTE: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application. ' (Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout) BUILDING PERMITS PLANS FOR BUILDING AND OTHER RELATED PERMITS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW UNTIL A LAND USE APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. Final inspection approvals by the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of f development approval. These pre-application notes do not include comments from the Building Division. For proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it is recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are ' building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed. Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be demolished has system development charge (SDC) credits and the underlying parcel for that ' structure will be eliminated when the new plat is recorded, the qty's policy is apply those system development credits to t in the developmen (UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS ' OBTAINED). RECYCLING Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE HAULER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE SERVICING COMPATIBILITY. Locating a trash/recycling enclosure within a clear vision area such as at the intersection of two (2) driveways within a parking lot is prohibited. Much of Tigard is within Pride Disposal's Service area. Lenny Hing is the contact person and can be reached at (503) 625-6177. ' w [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7551 ADDITIONAL CONCERNS 0e COMMENTS: A \A I . L . rr.T- ?_r f~ 0. • -A 'J • ^ awn /6.! AN. 1 P80Cm06E 1 0 Administrative Staff Review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An by the City Council. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS 0 with the Commission making a additional public hearing shall be held All APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED BY A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF MEMBER of the Community Development Department at Tigard City_ Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications 1 The administrative decision or public hearing will Manning ically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Division. Applicafions involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. A ten (10) business day, _public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard Ck" Gp,-it-c<(- A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is available from the. Planning Division upon request. This pre-application conference and the notes of the conference are intended to inform the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. PLEASE NOTE: The conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects related to site planning that should apply to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required by the Code shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended that a prospective. applicant either obtain and read the Community Deve[[oprnent Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior o submitting an application. ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN APPLICATION ' PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE, (unless deemed unnecessary by the Planning Division). PREPARED BY: vAeL y CITY Of TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION - STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP. MEETING ' PHONE: (503) 6394171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 E-MAIL 'Y\ fd62:kl'S @d.tigard.or.us ' TITLE 18 [CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE] INTERNET ADDRESS: Ci.dgard.ons rplnlmastersVevisedlpreapp-r. mst tcngineering section: preapp•eng1~ Updated: 11288 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Apptlcatlon Comemoce Notes page 10 of 10 tedhoMAPPileadoWPkgWov§MdoeSecdon The Planning Division and Engineering Division will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. 2S I S J~;b JRUC FACILITIES ~z ~Cot, +a00 , Ztoo LSD S 4p, * ~ ~ ~ioo t The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned ' commenting agencies, City staff 'and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a projection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. ' Right-of-way dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public: (1.) To increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification right-of-way width as specified by the Community Development Code; or ' (2.) For the creation of new streets. Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for. to ~ 1 feet e. 4L' ' c~s~~ LbA6ND5. aJ to 401^-k%O feet f .e. ~,,5e5 ( ) to feet from centerline. ' ( ) to feet from centerline. 1 Street improvements: Fyw street improvements will be necessary along ks7V..-cam,- • , to include: ' IL feet of pavement - concrete curb 1 storm sewers and other underground utilities [3,' _.S_-foot concrete sidewalks OaU Sioe 5 street trees street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. W OF TIBNiO PmUplicadon Conference Notes Page 1 of 6 eertal leprtmoatEettlea 1 1 1 1 1 I ( Fig-- street trovements will be necessary alon s uzrl ~ s ~ S to include: ,QR Z , Ze .3i.~ Cal""t feet of pavement C~~-Io-ckXA, 62r.N0'5 =,,i tf ct= PIM)Y." [concrete curb Q"storm sewers and other underground utilities 9-' 5 _-foot concrete sidewallc> W4 sxr-s street trees []street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ( ) street improvements will be necessary along , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ( ) street improvements will be necessary along , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ( Section 18.164.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. This requirement is valid even if the utility lines are on the opposite side of the street from the site. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. There are existing overhead utility lines which run adjacent to this site along SO! 7th'(• UK~ Prior to CcoFPit4~ cA-r , the applicant shall either place these utilities underground, or pay the fed in-lieu described above. 1 ' W OF TICMO Pr40011Cadog Caderonee NOW$ page 2 of 6 artn teaonmeet seeder Im some cases, where stree mprovements or other necessary p is improvements are not currently practical, the improvementlWay be deferred. In such cases, ndition of development approval may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to execute a non-remonstrance agreement which waives the property owner's right to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district. The following street improvements may be eligible for such an agreement: 1 0.) (2.) i Sanitary Sewers: The. f nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) inch line which is located U-1 ax-_~ -a> iOC-1 wcR-c4 . The proposed development must be connected to a ' public sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to ~r \~A" S5 -'C- -~cY~ -T ubL[ SrrE A. %r=. are n A To Jas-rem dot Ra 1,Jr) ~C> Fxc'e_S - S S 6f* PAN. P. FaL►Arr ~ USA Fd~- c SS Watelr Supply: tr'A The G--Tr : Phone: (503) "9-4t-1 I provides public water service in the rea of this site. This service provider should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your proposed development. Fire Protection: 1 Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (Contact: Gene Birchill, (503) 526-2469) provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to ' fire protection. ' Storm Sewer Improvements: All proposed development within the City shall be designed such that storm water runoff is conveyed to an approved public drainage system. The applicant will be required to submit a proposed storm drainage plan for the site, and may be required to prepare a sub-basin drainage analysis to ensure that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed. A downstream analysis will also likely be necessary to determine if runoff from the proposed development will cause adverse impacts to the existing storm system downstream of the site. a ~1JS~7~: ZG-r1~~ is AF-- &_,AtCD % t~l'f Pf ~w1~t~L A-Ar-.3 j sigg V . ~Avt Nr c6T~~1 USA ►cT _ s E_ <'9 6Pz~c~ rf ~r~ Storm Water Quality: 1 The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 91-47, as amended by R&O 91-75) which requires the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove ' 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant GPOFTIGUB Prt 011cation Contercnce Notes page 3 01 6 "H411418 meotsecusa to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing an on-site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determinin4phether or not the fee in-lieu will 1 e4ered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of new impervious surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall be $210. Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. It is anticipated that this project will require: (Construction of an on-site water quality facility. ( ) Payment of the fee in-lieu. Other Comments: r r r r All proposed sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems shall be designed such that City maintenance vehicles will have unobstructed access to critical manholes in the systems. Maintenance access roadways may be required if existing or proposed facilities are not otherwise readily accessible. ° R~B~LR- S~L1 f W4•u.rcS s+ lain CWa /1c ass , gw y c A, PA V4--7> At JKk>A To To L MA 5~1Z- 44 ~twsHrR~ ~ `tia~ To Tara 5 LFIC IMPAM F E 04 W;W, -;Do c4tu-__ ADlACGN_r - TAX cor 4Cce c 5 hltw Q~.a~lt Dt.. 'rv~ S ~ n.Ao T+rh S , ~ DP~S "v~ In 1990, Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee program collects fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon r the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation of the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based fee category. The TIF shall be calculated at the time of building 1?ermit issuance. In limited circumstances, payment of the TIF may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of the payment until occupancy is permissible oo when -the TIF is greater than $5,000.00. I ?A, PERMITS Engineering Department Permits: Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a permit from the Engineering r Department. There are two types of permits issued by Engineering, as follows: Street Opening Permit (SOP). This permit covers relatively minor work in a public right-of-way or easement, such as sidewalk and driveway installation or repair, and service connections to main utility lines. This work may involve open trench work within the street. The permittee must submit a plan of the proposed work for review and approval. The cost of this type of permit is calculated as 4% of the cost of the work and is payable prior to issuance of the permit. In addition, the permittee will be required to post a bond or similar financial security for the r work. OF TIURO Pre4pollcadon Conference Notes Page 4 et 6 I "eed"* uparaneol settle" Compliance Agreeme (CAP). This permit covers more ensive work such as main utility line extensions, streeWprovements, etc. In subdivisioniis type of permit also covers all grading and private utility work. Plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted for review and approval. The cost of this permit is also calculated as 4016 of the cost of the improvements, based on the design engineer's estimate, and is payable prior to issuance of the approved plan. The permittee will also be required to post a performance bond, or other such suitable security, and execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. Prior to City acceptance of any permitted work and prior to release of work assurance bond(s), ' the work shall be deemed complete and satisfactory by the City in writing. The permittee is responsible for the work until such time written City acceptance of the work is posted. NOTE: If an Engineering Permit is required, the applicant must obtain that permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Division. Building Division Permits: The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Division. For a more detailed explanation of these permits, please contact the Development Services Counter at 503-639-4171, ext. 304. Site Improvement Permit (SIT). This permit is generally issued for all new commercial, industrial and multi-family projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where lot grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation, grading and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading work in cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundation excavation material is not to be hauled from the site. Building Permit (BUP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multi-family buildings. It covers all work necessary for building construction, including sub-trades (excludes grading, etc.). This permit can not be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantially complete and a mylar copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the City. For a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required, and return a ' mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit. Other Permits. There are other special permits, such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for more information. PM OFTIURG Fm4ppOcatlon Coafereace Kates Page 5 of 6 ee~q Oepar~eol Seetlea r INC PLAN REQUIREMENTS FO BDIVISIONS • All subdivision projects shall uire a proposed grading plan prepared by the design engineer. The 1 engineer will also be required to indicate which lots have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections will be required when the lots develop. The design engineer will also be required to shade all structural fill areas on the construction plans. In addition, each homebuilder will be required to submit a specific site and floor plan for each lot. The site plan shall include topographical contours and indicate the elevations of the corners of the lot. The builder shall also indicate the proposed elevations at the four comers of the building. 1 4nasten areapP.eng ( ter section: PPP{•rnsU t-98 i PREPARED BY: ENGINEERING DEP TMENT ST Phone: [5031639-01 Fax: 15031684-7297 Of TIURR Pre-A milcOon Conference Motes Page 6 of 6 . erta9 oeeotam en tieco o e 1 • s 1 CITY OF TIGARD LAND USE APPLICATION CHECKLIST PJ~ase read this form carefully in conjunction with the notes provided to you at the pre- application conference. This checklist identifies what is required for submittal of a complete land use application. Once an application is deemed complete by Community Development staff, a decision may be issued within 6-8 weeks. If you have additional questions after reviewing all of the information provided to you, please contact the staff person named below at the City of Tigard Planning Division, (503) 639-4171. Staff: Date: 1. BASIC INFORMATION ALL LAND USE APPLICATIONS REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING: Completed Application Form with property owner's signature or name of agent and letter of authorization Title transfer instrument or grant deed Written summary of proposal Narrative demonstrating compliance with all applicable development standards and approval criteria (as specified in the Pre-Application Conference notes) Two (2) sets of stamped, addressed envelopes and a notarized list of all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property. Mailing envelopes shall be legal-size, addressed with 1" x 4" labels > Documentary evidence of neighborhood meeting (if required) Impact Study per Section 18.390.040.B.2.(e) Copy of the Pre-Application Conference notes Filing Fee 2. PLANS REQUIRED In addition to the above basic information, each type of land use application will require one or more of the following maps or plans. PLEASE SUBMIT EACH OF THE PLANS CHECKED BELOW WITH YOUR APPLICATION (Section 5 of this checklist provides details on what information to include on each plan): I21"' Vicinity Map Or' Preliminary Grading/Erosion Control- Plan 5 GK Existing Conditions Map e( Preliminary Utilities Plan L0 I~ Subdivision Preliminary Plat Map EY" Preliminary Storm Drainage Plan Preliminary Partition/Lot Line Adjustment Plan d Tree Preservation/Mitigation Plan 74- 0 Site Development Plan C-" Architectural Drawings EIr Landscape Plan 12" Sign Drawings 1 d Public Improvements/Streets Plan' -)10Ve_ Ar~o-tq. k% c6 3. NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED 1 The City requires multiple copies of submittal materials. The number of copies required depends on the type of review process. FOR AN APPLICATION SUCH AS YOU ARE PROPOSING THE CITY REQUIRES COPIES OF ALL APPLICATION MATERIALS. 1 Subdivision Preliminary Plat Map The proposed name of the subdivision Vicinity map showing property's relationship to arterial and collector streets Names, addresses and telephone numbers of the owner, developer, engineer surveyor and designer (as applicable) Scale, north arrow and date Boundary lines of tract to be subdivided Names of adjacent subdivisions or names of recorded owners of adjoining parcels of unsubdivided land Contour lines related to a City-established benchmark at 2' intervals for 0-10% grades and 5' intervals for grades greater than 10% r The purpose, location, type and size of all of the following (within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision): • Public and private right-of-ways and easements • Public and private sanitary and storm sewer fines • Domestic water mains including fire hydrants • Major power telephone transmission lines (50,000 volts or greater) • Watercourses • Deed reservations for parks, open spaces, pathways and other land encumbrances • The location of all trees with a diameter 6 inches or greater measured at 4 feet above ground level • The location of all structures and the present uses of the structures, and a statement of which structures are to remain after platting =z. Supplemental information including: • Proposed deed restrictions (if any) • A proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvements Existing natural features including rock outcroppings, wetlands and marsh areas The proposed lot configurations, lot sizes and dimensions and lot numbers. Where lots are to be used for purposes other than residential, it shall be indicated upon such lots If any of the foregoing information cannot practicably be shown on the preliminary plat, it shall be incorporated into a narrative and submitted with the application materials 13 171 13 11 Preliminary Partition/Lot Line Adjustment Plan 1 The owner of the subject parcel ❑ The owner's authorized agent ❑ The map scale, north arrow and date ❑ Proposed property lines ❑ Description of parcel location and boundaries ❑ Contour lines (2' intervals for slopes 0-10% or 5' for slopes X10%) ❑ Location, width and names of streets, easements and other public ways within and adjacent to the parcel ❑ Location of all permanent buildings on and within 25' of all property lines ❑ 7* Location and width of all water courses ❑ Location of any trees with 6" or greater caliper at 4' above ground level ❑ All slopes greater than 25% ❑ Location of existing and proposed utilities and utility easements ❑ Any applicable deed restrictions ❑ Evidence that land partition will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable ❑ Future street extension plan showing existing and potential street connections ❑ 1 • • Grading/Erosion Control Plan The locations and extent to which grading will take place Existing and proposed contour lines Slope ratios Utilities Plan Approximate plan and profiles of proposed sanitary and storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes indicated on the plans ❑ r Plan of the proposed water distribution system, showing pipe sizes and the locations of valves and fire hydrants ❑ Preliminary Storm Drainage Plan The location of all areas subject to inundation or storm water overflow ❑ Location, width and direction of flow of all water courses and drainageways ❑ Location and estimated size of proposed storm drainage lines ❑ Where applicable, location and estimated size and dimensions of proposed water quality/detention facility ❑ I Tree Preservation/Mitigation Plan Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees ❑ Program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal (Section 18.790.030) ❑ A protection program defining standards and methods to be used during and after construction ❑ Architectural Drawings Floor plans indicating the square footage of all structures and their proposed use Elevation drawings for each elevation of the structure Sign Drawings 1 Specify proposed location, size and height 1 isV,curplnlmasterslrevisedlchklist.doc 26-Nov-98 1 I ED & FRAN EGAN EARL & MARILYN ELIAS CRAIG MINOR 635 SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD 13540 SW VILLAGE GLENN DRIVE 14210 SW WINDSONG COURT f4 GARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 JAUL E. OWEN BEVERLY FROUDE PAT KERRINS 10335 SW HIGHLAND DRIVE 12200 SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD 12195 SW 121ST AVENUE fGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97223-3124 SAOMI GALLUCCI SUE RORMAN SALLY CHRISTENSEN 1285 SW 78TH AVENUE 11250 SW 82ND AVENUE 15685 SW 76711 AVENUE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97224 1 Y ANN NIELVIN STEPHEN BICKER MARK BOGERT 95 SW BONANZA WAY f 14235 SW 97TH AVENUE 14445 SW 100TH AVENUE OR 97224 GARD, TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 1 TWYLA BRADY DEBRA MUIR SUE SIEBOLD 60 W EDGEWOOD STREET S 15065 SW 79TH AVENUE 15374 SW THURSTON LANE RD, OR 97223 (GA TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 REBRA SEEMAN MICHAEL & JEANNE DAVIS CONSTANIN & ADRIANA COSTIUC 13372 SW CLEARVIEW WAY PO Box 23144 PO Box 230943 igard, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97281 TIGARD, OR 97281 #OBERT & SARAH ERICKSON 371 ASTER LANE UPERTINO, CA 95014 1 3 2SI05AD14600 2SI05AD01400 2SI05AD03300 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC YOUNGBERG LINDA A SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT WC PO BOX 1754 14542 SW DAUER CT PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 TIGARD OR 97223 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2S105AD06800 2SI05AD08300 2SI05AD09100 BILLINGS MICHAEL C & CAROLYN J NORTON THOMAS L & ELIZABETH R ROLPH JAMES D & JOAN M 12913 SW CREEKSHIRE DR 12892 SW 147TH CT 12887 SW 147TH PL TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2 S I05AD07800 2S I05AD06900 2S I05AD09200 FREEMAN EDWARD F & JENNEE R FREEMAN EDWARD F & JENNEE R BARRETT BRADEN H & PO BOX 1754 PO BOX 1754 12911 SW 147TH PL LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 TIGARD OR 97223 2SIOSAD08200 2S105AD07700 2S105AD07000 WINDWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC LOVNAUG STEVEN R & SUZANNE M DOWLING CHERYL L TR 14076 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE 12962 SW CREEKSHIRE DR 12957 SW CREEKSHIRE DR TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S 105AD09900 2SI05AD09300 2SI05ADOS IOO SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT IN( PO BOX 1754 PO BOX 1754 PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2SI05AD07600 2SI05AD09800 2SI05AD11700 FREEMAN EDWARD F & JENNEE R SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC SEABOLD MICHAEL & MELODY PO BOX 1754 PO BOX 1754 12525 SW BRIGHTON LN LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 HILLSBORO OR 97123 2S I05AD09400 2S 105ADOS000 2S I05AD07300 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC SCHAEFER SANDRA L WINDWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC PO BOX 1754 12964 SW 147TH PL 14076 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97224 2S IOIAD07210 2S I05AD07100 2S I05AD07500 COLEMAN TIMOTHY J & DARLENE J DREW KEVIN G & ANGELA K DR PATEL MRIDULA 12986 SW CREEKSHIRE DR 14649 SW JENSHIRE LN 12979 SW CREEKSHIRE TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S I05AD09700 2S I05AD07900 2S I05AD09500 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC WINDWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC PO BOX 1754 PO BOX 1754 14076 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 TIGARD OR 97224 2 S I05 AD09600 2 S I05 AD07400 2 S I05 AD05900 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC BUCKINGHAM BRIAN & CYNDI ESLINGER BUILDERS INC ~nnn C`l71 r-nuvv CUOr ' r'-,D i,;Ru, cw i rPPFR RCx')lVF.4 FERRY R, 1 1 1 • 2SIOSDA01600 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2S I05AD05800 ESLINGER BUILDERS INC 15836 SW UPPER BOONES FERRY RD ' LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2S 105DA03200 1 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2S 105DA01500 TAIT MARK-ANDREW R & 14632 SW JENSHIRE LN TIGARD OR 97223 2S I05DBO6000 KEHOE COMPANY THE PO BOX 69501 PORTLAND OR 97201 2S105DA02700 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2SI05AC03900 STEPHENS CONNIE J 13058 SW MAYVIEW WAY TIGARD OR 97223 2S IOIDA03600 SEABOLD MICHAEL & MELODY 12525 SW BRIGHTON LN HJLLSBORO OR 97123 I 2S I05DA00400 DAVIS MICHAEL K & PO BOX 23144 TIGARD OR 97223 • 2S IOSDA01700 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2S I05DA03100 BEATTY ROBERT S & SHARON K 14696 SW JENSHIRE LN TIGARD OR 97223 2S I05DA02900 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2S I05DA01300 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2SI05DA028M SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2SI05DA01800 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2S105AC04000 HOLSTEIN DANIEL & ALLSION 13062 SW MAYVIEW WAY TIGARD OR 97223 2SI05DA02500 J T ROTH CONSTRUCTION INC 12600 SW 72ND AVE ##200 TIGARD OR 97223 2S I05DBO2700 CAMPBELL PAUL F & LINDA M 13045 SW MAYVIEW WAY TIGARD OR 97223 2SI05DA03400 WINDWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC 14076 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE TIGARD OR 97224 2S105DA03000 WINDWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC 14076 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE TIGARD OR 97224 2S105DA03300 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2SI05DA01400 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2S105DA02400 KEHOE CO THE PO BOX 69501 PORTLAND OR 97201 2SI05DA03500 WINDWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC 14076 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE TIGARD OR 97224 2SI05DA02600 J T ROTH CONSTRUCTION INC 12600 SW 72ND AVE #200 TIGARD OR 97223 2S I05DA00300 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT IN( PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2S105DBO2500 CATAPANO SALVATORE & DARLEN M 15206 SW FIRTREE DR TIGARD OR 97223 2S 105DBO2600 2S I05DBO4300 2S I05DBO4400 STANDRING INC & MOYER BETH MARIE PHILLIPS & BOYD EDWARD L & CYNTHIA C. I K 1e-5 QW 97TDTDPP np 15757 SW FIRTREE DR 12SI05D'BO3300 STANDRING INVESTMENT CO .15 NANSEN SUNSET LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2SI05DBO3700 BASS ANTHONY R & JENNIFER L 15254 SW FIRTREE DR ' TIGARD OR 97223 2SI05DA00600 BENNETT BRUCE D & BEVERLY I 13290 SW NIENLOR LN ' ALOHA OR 97007 2S I05DA00601 WASHINGTON COUNTY 111 SE WASHINGTON ST HILLSBORO OR 97123 2S I05DD00201 PAUTZ BRIAN G AND KAREN M 4820 SW CHESTNUT PL BEAVERTON OR 97005 r 2SI05DD00200 DYER JON E 12510 SW 27TH PL LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2S I05DD00400 CORTESE ANGELO & 15175 SUNRISE LN TIGARD OR 97223 2SI05DD01800 ABRAMSON BRIAN D AND 14765 SW SUNRISE LN TIGARD OR 97224 2S I05DCOO IOI CACH CHRISTOPHER J & SHERI L 15170 SW SUNRISE LN TIGARD OR 97223 2S105131301700 NELSON STEVEN G & JOAN A i 2SI05DBO3400 2SI05DBO3500 WEBSTER HENRY L JR & STARKS VICTORIA 15230 SW FIRTREE DR 15238 SW FIRTREE DR TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S 105DB03800 2S I05DBO3600 BLANKENSHIP ANTHONY W & HESTMARK THOMAS A 15262 SW FIRTREE DR 15246 SW FIRTREE DR TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2SI05DA00500 2S105DBOO400 DAVIS MICHAEL K AND JEANNE R TIGARD WATER DISTRICT 5970 SW SPRUCE 8841 SW COMMERCIAL BEAVERTON OR 97005 TIGARD OR 97223 2SI05DBOO200 2SI05DBOOIUO HVAM HJALMAR & VERA E Wl= LEON D 13370 SW MENLOR LN 15180 SW SUNRISE LANE BEAVERTON OR 97007 TIGARD OR 97224 2S 105DD00300 2S I05DDOO IOO DYER JON E ERICKSON ROBERT J AND SARAH F 125 10 SW 27TH PL 14695 SW SUNRISE LN LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 TIGARD OR 97224 2SI05DBOO500 2S 105DD02000 WHITE LEON D AND CAROL A COSTIUC CONSTANIN & ADRIANA 15180 SW SUNRISE LANE PO BOX 230943 TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97281 2SI05DD01400 2SI05DD01500 CASH DWIGHT C PAULA L INMAN LESLIE WILLIAM 14885 SW SUNRISE LN 14825 SW SUNRISE LANE TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97224 2S 105DDO1900 2S I05D000200 TODD JERRY & CHERYL TIGARD CITY OF PO BOX 230943 111 SE WASHINGTON / MS42 TIGARD OR 97281 H LLSBORO OR 97123 2S I05DD00500 2 S 105DD00600 CORTESE ANGELO & FLESHER HARRY B AND 15175 SUNRISE LN 15169 SW SUNRISE LANE TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97224 2S 105DD02100 2S I05DD02200 COSTIUC COSTANTIN & ADRIANA HEDEMANN EDWARD & i • 1 2S105DD01600 INMAN LESLIE WILLIAM 14825 SW SUNRISE LANE A TIGARD OR 97223 2SI040007000 BILES EDWARD DALE & 13581 SW ANCENSION DR ' TIGARD OR 97224 2SI05DD02300 BEN-HUR DEVIN E AND 14675 SW SUNRISE LN TIGARD OR 97224 2SI040006900 STROUD TIMOTHY D & LISA A 13613 SW ASCENSION DR •TIGARD OR 97223 2S 1040006700 2S I04CCO6600 MCEWING VIRGINIA A & DONALD HALLMARK MAUREEN LEE 13657 SW ASCENSION DR 13679 SW ASCENSION TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2SI040008100 2S1040006400 ENDERS ROBERT N & HOWELLS PETER J & SUSAN L 13700 SW ASCENSION DR 13725 SW ASCENSION DR TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 t 1 1 1 1 251040006300 2SI04CCO8400 HAWKES RICHARD H & CATHERINE TIGARD CITY OF A 13125 SW HALL 13767 SW ASCENSION DR TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2SI04CCO8300 SVELA BRUCE P & JANICE R 13784 SW ASCENSION DR TIGARD OR 97223 2S 1040006100 J B & B CONSTRUCTION INC PO BOX 1784 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2S1040005900 JOHNSON PETER T & ANN B 14370 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD OR 97223 2S 1040002900 ARCIERO MARC A & CAMILLE L. 13995 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD OR 97223 2SI04CCO2600 HORTON STEVEN C & REBECCA L 13977 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD OR 97224 2S I04CCO3200 FLOOM JAY C & AMY D 2S I04CCO5800 MCCORMICK MICHAEL W & ELIZABETH 14328 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD OR 97223 2SI040002800 JIL DEVELOPMENT INC PO BOX 1633 BEAVERTON OR 97075 2S1040003000 WHITE RICHARD L & CANDACE J 13999 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD OR 97223 2SI04CCO3300 MOZNETTE JAMES S & SHARIN 0 2S105DD02400 REDAANN DAVID A & KATHLEEN K 14625 SW SUNRISE LN TIGARD OR 97223 2S104CC06800 LEY CHARLES L 13635 SW ASCENSION DR TIGARD OR 97223 2SI040006500 SHIELDS LAWRENCE R & JILL M 13691 SW ASCENSION DR TIGARD OR 97223 2SI040008200 HARELAND SCOTT A & SUSAN M 13722 SW ASCENSION DR TIGARD OR 97223 2S 1040006200 GEARHART THOMAS M & 14455 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD OR 97223 2SI040006000 BUCKLEY ROBERT W & MARTIE H 14442 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD OR 97223 2S 1040005700 NELSON MARK B & 14306 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD OR 97223 2S I04CCO2700 HUTCHENS CRAIG D & LORI A 13983 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD OR 97223 2S 1040003100 BODENHAMER DAVID J & DEBRA C 13998 SW RMLSHIRE DR TIGARD OR 97224 2S 104CCO3400 BONES BRIAN H & CAROL S t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • 2SI04CB07200 WALNUT CREEK ESTATES LLC ONE CENTERPOINTE DRIVE STE 190 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2S 104CB05000 WiNDWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC 13179 SW ASCENSION DR TIGARD OR 97223 2SI04CB05200 WINDWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC 13179 SW ASCENSION DR TIGARD OR 97223 2S 104CB05500 WINDWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC 13179 SW ASCENSION DR TIGARD OR 97223 2S104CB06900 WINDWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC 13179 SW ASCENSION DR TIGARD OR 97223 2S I04CB06800 WINDWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC 13179 SW ASCENSION DR TIGARD OR 97223 2SI04CB06600 WINDWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC 13179 SW ASCENSION DR TIGARD OR 97223 2SI04CB05800 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2SI04CB06300 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2SI04CB06200 r„tt 1 c= unuAi n Al 2SI04CB04800 WINDWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC 13179 SW ASCENSION DR TIGARD OR 97223 2SI04CB05100 WINDWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC 13179 SW ASCENSION DR TIGARD OR 97223 2SI04CB07100 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2SI04CB07000 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2SID40001500 TIGARD CITY OF 13125 SW HALL TIGARD OR 97223 2SI04CB07300 WALNUT CREEK ESTATES LLC ONE CENTERPOINTE DRIVE STE 190 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2S104CB07500 HILLSHIRE HOLLOW OWNERS OF LOTS 11-19 0 2SI04CB06400 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC PO BOX 1754 LAKE OS WEGO OR 97035 2SI04CB06000 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT INC PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2S104CB07400 WALNUT CREEK ESTATES LLC 2SI04CB07600 HILLSHIRE HOLLOW OWNERS OF LOTS 1-24 0 2SI04CB07700 WALNUT CREEK ESTATES LLC ONE CENTERPOINTE DRIVE STE 190 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2SI04CB05300 WINDWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC 13179 SW ASCENSION DR TIGARD OR 97223 2SI04CB05600 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPNffiNT IN- PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2SI04CB05700 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT IN PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2SI04CB06700 WINDWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC 13179 SW ASCENSION DR TIGARD OR 97223 2SI04CB06500 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT R PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2SI04CB05900 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT I' PO BOX 1754 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2SI04CB06100 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT I PO BOX 1753 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2S104BCOIIDO JEFFERY HARRY E & JUDITH A 1 1 i 2SI04BC01200 CROSS SUSAN GAIL 14504 SW FERN ST TIGARD OR 97223 2SI04CB07800 WALNUT CREEK ESTATES LLC ONE CENTERPORM DRIVE STE 190 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2S I08AA00300 BLOUDEK WILLIAM J JR AND 14880 SW SUNRISE LANE TIGARD OR 97223 2SI04BC05700 WALNUT CREEK ESTATES LLC ONE CENTERPOINTE DRIVE STE 190 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 2SI04CB05400 WINDWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC 13179 SW ASCENSION DR TIGARD OR 97223 2S108AA00200 WHITING FRANK J & JANICE M 14800 SW SUNRISE LANE TIGARD OR 97224 2SI08AA03900 2S108AA04000 HAGER JAMES J & MICHELE J MOORE TERRY L & KRISTIN N 14659 SW PEAK CT 14647 SW PEAK CT TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97224 2S I08AA03600 IIUS14NELL DANIEL E & CATHY L 14023 SW 147TH TERR TIGARD OR 97224 2SIOSAA04200 WILSON RIC JAMES 14601 SW PEAK CT TIGARD OR 97224 2SIOSAA03500 MOSCHETTA ROBERT K & NANCY L 14715 SW PEAK CT TIGARD OR 97224 2S108AA04300 PEASLEE JOHN M AND CYNTHIA L 14612 PEAK CT TIGARD OR 97224 2S 108AA04600 WINGFIELD PERRY E & KATHI. A H 14678 SW PEAK CT TIGARD OR 97224 2S 108AA03100 KIEFFER ROBERT W & DEBBIE R 14722 SW PEAK CT TIGARD OR 97224 2SI08AA03800 HEUSTON GEORGE Z & PAULA ANN 14036 SW 147TH TIGARD OR 97224 2S I08AA04400 BERGQUIST ELIZABETH & TRACY 14634 SW PEAK CT TIGARD OR 97224 2S 10SAA03200 GENSLER CHRISTOPHER L & ROBIN L 14736 SW PEAK CT TIGARD OR 97224 2S I08AA04800 REDDICKS THALIA B TTEE 14657 SW GRANDVIEW LN TIGARD OR 97224 2S104CB04900 WINDWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC 13179 SW ASCENSION DR TIGARD OR 97223 2SI08AA00400 APAU RICHARD K & LISA M 14890 SW SUNRISE LN TIGARD OR 97224 2S IOSAA03700 TIEDEMANN MICHAEL A & SUSAN A 14010 SW 147TH TERRACE TIGARD OR 97224 2S IOSAA04100 SCOTT THOMAS R & CYNT -HA L 14623 SW PEAK CT TIGARD OR 97223 2SI08AA03400 ALLWORTH DAVID B & SANDRA K 14727 PEAK CT TIGARD OR 97224 2SI08AA03300 HOSTELLEY DARWIN D & CRYSTAL E 14747 SW PEAK CT TIGARD OR 97224 2SI08AA04500 GREEN KEVIN C & THERESA E 14670 SW PEAK CT TIGARD OR 97224 2SIOSAA03000 HAAS MELVIN CHARLES TR & 14708 SW PEAK CT TIGARD OR 97224 2S I08AA04900 MOSS GEOFFREY GALE & KARI ALANE 14621 SW GRANDVIEW LANE TIGARD OR 97224 2S I08AA05000 2S 108AA00801 2S I08AA04700 JONES ROMAN D AND DOROTHY A BENNINK GREG S AND REDDICKS JEFFREY E & KATHY L .1 2SI08AA02900 REECE DARRELL R & PATRICIA A 14703 SW GRANDVIEW LN TIGARD OR 97224 2S I08AA02600 ROSTER DOUGLAS D & SANDRA LAREE 14727 SW GRANDVIEW LN TIGARD OR 97224 2SI09BB02905 MAGNUSON THEODORE WAND 14405 SW HIGH TOR DRIVE TIGARD OR 97224 1 I • i 2S108AA028M KERKAR PAUL & DIANNE 14711 SW GRANDVIEW LN TIGARD OR 97224 2S I08AA02500 MORRIS ROBERT M & KAY L 14739 SW GRANDVIEW LN TIGARD OR 97224 2SI09BB02904 EHLSHIDE CLYDE W/R1TA A 14355 SW HIGH TOR DR TIGARD OR 97224 2S IOSAA02700 QUARLES EARL W & CAROL A 14719 SW GRANDVIEW DANE TIGARD OR 97224 2SI09BB02901 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC 121 SW SALMON ST PORTLAND OR 97204 2SI09BB02906 WARD STEVEN R & HELEN L 14085 SW 144TH AVE TIGARD OR 97224 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 PACIFIC CREST 115100 WCI 1239-01 (A) RESIDENTAL DENSITY CALCULATION TOTAL AREA: SUBTRACT FOR REIGHT-OF-WAYS SENSITIVE LANDS - (SLOPES EXCEEDING 25 • 823,765 square feet -188,223 square feet -235,000 square feet calc by: ALS TOTAL NET DEVELOPMENT AREA: 400,570 square feet R-7 Minimum Lot Size: 5,000 square feet MAXIMUM DENSITY YIELD: (NET AREA I MIN. LOT SIZE) = 80 UNITS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE I • NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE March 19, 1999 A p lacs»l h..~.r-e~ . 11 Dear Interested Party: Westlake Consultants, Inc. is representing the owners of the properties located at Township 2 South, Range I West, Section 5DA, Tax Lot 400 and 500 and Section 5DD, Tax Lot 100, 2000 and 2100. The property owners are considering proposing a 63 lot subdivision, a sensitive lands permit for slopes that exceed 25 percent, a partition and a lot line adjustment at this location. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits, I would like to discuss ' the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: Thursday, April 8, 1999 Tigard Water Department Richard M. Brown Auditorium 8777 SW Burnham Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 7:00 p.m. Please notice this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the City. I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at (503) 684-0652 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Seana Perkins Land Use Planner I hla.&-11S3901.98~lmvd+ &vmjeedae 1 I APPENDIX 6 Westlake Consultantsec. S 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150 Tigard, Oregon 97224 1 Important Neighborhood Meeting Notice Enclosed MAP OF PROPERTY LOCATION ~tls• C0.41y ~w+ur a SW ''.,'rl'i:d •_ili .ri f GA RD s~ 1 SITE "'i= / - = - r; Y . 3r~L` MOUVTr s b r 5W 9Ul. MOUv-~iN 30 _ : Aela ='i 0 yr u1 r.61„ ~ ~ ~:Y UEiuN©`.' _7 T - r :4r,.,E , fff 0. ~ .SO~C L • ~ ~ _ 1 r 1 AFF11AnIT OF POSTING NWICE WITHN SEED ('7) GALENDAS DAYS OF THE SIGN POSTING,,RETURNTHIS:AFFIIMAVIT~TO'. CYty o~Ttgsrd Plaantag€livisia>I>t 1,3126` SW Ha- bi&Vard Tigard; OR. 97223` I, Tracie Wickham , do affirm that I am (represent) the a initiatin Lot Line interest in a proposed Subd., Sensitive Lands, Partition & affecting the land Adj - located at (state the approximate location(s) if no address(s) and/or tax lot(s) currently- registered) T2.S, R1W, Section 5DA TL 400 & 500Section a1nd'2000 & i did on the 9th day of March 2100 1!999 personally post notice indicating that the site maybe proposed for a Subdivision, L LA ~rtition & Sens. Lands application, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. The sign was posted at the intersection of SW Sunrise Lane with the subject property (state location you posted notice on property) Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) 1 (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day o & , 19~y Q-M& BEAL LYNN A. OUNN ti.. : IOCTApY P1JBi1Ci.OREGON COM6Q8810N N0.1748293 My COMMISSION EMRES AUG. 16. 1999 IV6TAR.i UBLIC OF OREGON My Corhm sion Expires: (Applicant, please complete information below for proper placement with proposed project) I NAME OF PROJECTOR PROPOSED NAME: Pacific Crest ~TYPEOFPROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT• Su zvision, ensitive Lands,-Lot-Line Ad ' Part:itic ~NameofApplicant/Owner: Farmers Lan Trust f Ad ss or aeral Location of S b'ect Pmpert~; T 2 S R 1 W Section 5DA TT. 4Q Q & 90() TS, R W, Section~D, TL 1 GO, 2000 & 2100 i Subject Property Tax Ma (s) and Lot #(s): Same as Above h:W9inVattyIma;ter iP-ost.; 1 1 1 1 1 1 AFIDAVIT OF MAILINP STATE OF OREGON ) ) SS. City of Tigard ) I, Shannon Perry . being duly sworn, depose and say that on March 19 192-9, 1 caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list, a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (or near) Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Section 5DA, Tax Lot 400 and 500 and Section 5DD, Tax Lot 100, 2000 and 2100 a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at Tigard, Oregon with postage prepaid thereon. Signature (In the present o a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the / &ay , 19V ~IOTAFiXPI OREGON ' MYCOMM~SSIONEXWREBAUG?g 1990 i i TA PUBLIC OF OREGON My Cc mission Expires: J--4 (Applicant, please complete information below for proper placement with proposed project) NAME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED NAME: PaFI=C CEeEF -----------^'---I ITYPE OFPROPOSED DEWLOPMENT: Subdivision, Sensitive Lands, Lot Line Ad'. Par+ior I Name of Applicant/Owner: Farmers Land Trust I Address or General Location of Subject Property: T 2 S, R 1W, Section 5D A TL 400 & 500 T2S, R1'W, SEction 5DD, Tax Lot 100, 2000 & 2100 LSu6ject Property Tax Map(s) and Lot #(s): a a o J h:VNin4)aftyVnas1ers%affinai I.mst 1 • • 1 1 1 A z~ I "o, 1 } J a y L Susa~~C~emartirl- 2uO 10 SvJ Z~~ex~c,~cQ-,-Tt a~rd,02a~~2~~ Cam d 4--- mot: c t~ p -rte ctX~ouu.t- ~c~,ba-hc~ PACIFIC CREST NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING APRIL S, 1999 7:00 P.M. NAME ADDRESS lcnlt5 S i Su t~ S ~~zz aim e_ P-r\.Jl- k 3 7S-l S t.J _ Wl i ST LCf DC-o I(Z [ 1a-K-n '07 L 22 l 1 ka f e 5;'2z z3 ,GQ 14165-LI -5-w N)6,54 T, W112AL& Z4"76 4 S` S svrU Isr- z a~ 'I'v] J - ~u Z S(,-i ~aa4- - ,~V2 l L S y ~w S~„2t ~ti - ,~d a C u s~'. f 7~s 51L Suadl' , L 4/ 722 f ~~►R n Q 7 f(~ J 0 S ~7C0~ ~ { ~ ~ 1 SfiJ GeSL, ,2 ~ ca 2 ~'2Z 1 1 1 1 III WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS iNc. CLIENT PROJECT 0 0 Farmers Land Trust Pacific Crest ' CONFIRMATION OF CONFERENCE TELECOM MEETING OTHER I PARTICIPANTS I SUBJECT See Attached Sign-[n Sheet Neighborhood Meeting DATE HELD April 8, 1999 PROJECT NO. 1239-01(A) PLACE Tigard Water Dept. TIME 7:00 PM PRESENTATION Preliminary Plat Mounted Exhibit ' MATERIALS Preliminary Plat Reduced to 11"x 17" - 20 copies to hand out THE FOLLOWING WAS DISCUSSED An overview of the proposed subdivision was given and a location of the subdivision was provided. The purpose of the neighborhood meeting was also discussed. 1. Traffic within the neighborhood is a big concern. ' 2. People are running the stop sign at the intersection of Benchview Terrace and Mistletoe Drive. The police have been in this area every day. ' 3. Concerned citizens want Westlake Consultants, Inc. to invite neighbors who live on Benchview Terrace, Ascension Drive, Mistletoe Drive, and Hillshire Drive to another neighborhood meeting. ' 4. The neighbors feel that the current width of Ascension Drive is inadequate, i.e. parking and travel lanes. 1 S. A neighbor was concerned about the proposed improvement width of Street B. I Street B is adjacent to and parallel with the BPA line and will be constructed to a full street improvement. Neighbors asked about continuing Sunrise Lane. w' t is Sunrise Lane will dead end to the site because ~ privately owned. ~ • s Pacific Crest leighborhood Meeting Minutes ' rage 2 of 3 7. Is SW Grandview Lane a dedicated street? A six inch water line already dedicated, why not use Grandview Lane for additional access? The street into Bull Mountain Estates subdivision is currently barricaded and access is not allowed from Sunrise ' Lane at this time. The City has not requested additional access from Sunrise Lane. 8. The neighbors would rather share the resulting traffic between two accessways and two subdivisions ' on either side of the proposed subdivision. 9. There are safety issues with traffic and its effect on the neighborhood and the safety of children. ' 10. Neighbors were concerned about possible future mud slides at the top of the ridge. The applicant will be required to comply with erosion control standards. 11. A neighbor from Jenshire is concerned about erosion. ' 12. How will this development comply with the subsurface water standards? I be applicant is required to pipe all drainage to an approved storm system. Storm & sewer laterals are required. 13. What is the proposed value of the lots? A builder has not been designated yet, we assume that the prices of new homes will be approximately $250,000- $350,000. 14. The neighbors want a good developer to develop the site, unlike a previous project done in this area. ' 15. Who is held liable if a mud slide occurs? ' It depends upon the circumstance, sometimes problems occur at the building stage. ' 16. When do the neighbors have an opportunity to provide comments? Explanation of the land use process and the appeal process was given. 17. Some neighbors felt that the notices were not sent to the appropriate people and the map that was provided on the notice was incorrect. An explanation of the notification procedures was given. Several neighbors requested a copy of the mailing list. Vestlake Consultants agreed to mail a copy of the notification list to them. ' Pacific Crest i Neighborhood Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 18. The houses may. have to be constructed with sprinkler systems to meet fire safety standards. A concerned citizen who has experience in this field has not seen any requirements that would mandate that the homes be provided with sprinkler systems. ' Westlake Consultants, Inc. has not been in contact with the Fire Department, but from past experience has determined that the homes will have to'be installed with sprinkler systems if the subdivision has one access. 19. Will a Traffic Impact Fee be required? Yes, the TIF will be approximately $1,80042,000 and will be required when the building permits are obtained. ' The TIF money is usually allocated to roads with a collector designation. 20. The neighbors believe that this project should be required to submit a traffic study. 21. Is the project located in Washington County or in the City of Tigard. The site is currently located in Washington County, but it is in the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard. The application will be submitted to the City of Tigard for their review and approval. It is assumed that annexation will be required as a condition of approval. 22. The neighborhood requested a contact at the City of Tigard to discuss another neighborhood meeting or other concerns. Mark Roberts is the project planner who attended our latest pre-application meeting. ' 23. Logging has occurred on-site. There have been 5-6 trees that have blown down adjacent to the site next to Jenshire. It was pointed out that the logging truck was able to travel on Sunrise Lane and that emergency vehicles should be able to utilize that access too. Westlake Consultants, Inc. has contacted an Arborist to review the on-site trees, but he will not be reviewing the trees that are not located within the Pacific Crest subdivision. 1 24. The neighbors were concerned about only one-way into the subdivision and only one-way out of the subdivision. The overall feeling from the a neighborhood was that there needs to be more than one access for emergencies. 25. If the power lines came down along the BPA right-of-way the only entrance and exit would be closed off. 26. Some of the neighbors stated that they are not objecting to development itself, but they do not want only one (1) access. Meeting adjourned. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i t PAClr1C CRES Neighborhood Mee December 8, 1999 e 7:00 P.M. ~y l NAME ADDRESS f.w Gafejgelly a~1SG✓ Colu.h~.•a /sIdo "Oe~fila..~d paa deo"(4 i.3 13~: Sw~ Asc~wj.o,.~ 1Jr~ ar ~~F-Gt, l3 3rs- Sc✓ X 5c F7 v~,.o-~ , r~ 97Z2s /,W7 s'~v irn.L D>`i 7 -z OyL 1? 3 O t/ tiJ ~ 6" BA~~~. e A r a 0 Z = v-~ S ~l St LV S ~l<Q 1 Zo3S Sw~~ ~tc an~ 5 LZ k u r 1 SGc: Jc: ~t lily Y { vLti i '7 2 Z A 7, 17, L u Ct CT /U } X515 S Iti n'~c ~nSt ~'~L f - -1-1114J7V 1.70\l..VIIC3U nnll`OL%JlNL .UM 9 JOHN A RANKIN LLc. Attorney at Law ' 26715 S.W. Baker Road Sherwood, Oregon 97140 (503) 625-9710 / Fax (503) 625-9709 December 10, 1999 1 All Attendees of Neighborhood Meeting Pacific Crest Subdivision ' City of Tigard RE: Summary Minutes of Neighborhood meeting. Dear Attendee: ' Please find enclosed your copy of the minutes to the above described neighborhood meeting held on December 8, 1999 at Tigard City Hall for your review and information. 1 After the meeting was adjourned, the presenters agreed with a number of neighbors that they would delay submittal of the revised preliminary plat and amended application materials until January 4, 2000 in order to give attendees, neighbors and their representatives an opportunity to ' present a written list of their concerns and proposed modifications to the revised preliminary plat to John Rankin at his offices no later than December 24, 1999. This arrangement would give the presenters an opportunity during the week of December 27-31, 1999 to respond to and make any ' changes to the revised preliminary plat as well as address the neighborhood's concerns in more detail. 1 t We look forward to receiving your suggested revisions and moving forward with the processing of this application. Thank you for your attendance at the neighborhood meeting and voicing your continents and concerns. JAR. amm C:1OFFICE\WPWMWPDOCSICLIENTSTACIFICCINIINCOLTR.DOC Very truly yours, John A. Rankin 1 Summary Minutes of December 8, 1999 Neighborhood Meeting ' Regarding Pacific Crest Subdivision City of Tigard ' INTRODUCTION ' The neighborhood meeting was conducted by Len Schelsky of WestLake Consultants, Inc., Todd Mobley of Lancaster Engineering Inc., and John A. Rankin, Attorney at Law on December 8, 1999 at 7:00 pm in the Town Hall Room of Tigard City Hall. The presenters were representing the owners of properties located in Township 2 South, Range 1 ' West, Section 5 DA, Tax Lot 400 and 500, and Section 5 DD, Tax Lot 100, 2000, and 2100. The proposed applications include approximately eighty-two lot subdivision, sensitive lands permit for slopes that exceed twenty-five percent, and a lot fine adjustment. ' A prior neighborhood meeting was held on April 8, 1999 to discuss the original preliminary plat for this project which contained 63 lots. During the ensuing months, a number of issues arose ' concerning safety and vehicular circulation. Due to a number of concerns raised by emergency response agencies, neighbors and the City of Tigard, a revised preliminary plat was prepared and this additional supplemental neighborhood meeting called. The revised plat includes an additional 19 lots and a secondary access road from the original preliminary plat north boundary to the northwest corner of the subject property. Please see the attached sign up sheet for the names and addresses of at least eighteen of the twenty-six persons who attended the meeting. ' SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS AND ISSUES The following minutes are a summary of the questions and answers and issues discussed at the ' meeting and are not intended to be a verbatim transcription of the discussion points. 1. One neighbor indicated that they had not received minutes of the April 8, 1999 meeting and ' asked to receive the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Schelsky stated that a copy of the minutes would be sent to everyone who put their name and address on the sign up sheet. ' 2. A show of hand indicated that about one-half of the attendees at this meeting had attended the April 8, 1999 meeting as well. 3. Len Schelsky described the general development proposal and reminded the audience that an existing gasoline/petroleum line runs along the east boundary of the subject property. He said that ' the Sherwood break in that same line earlier in the fall caused the Fire Marshal to request a 1 1 1 1 0 • secondary outlet to the proposed subdivision. The Fire Marshal's request led to a number of meetings with all interested agencies to address the secondary outlet across sensitive lands and steep slopes to the north of the original proposed development. 4. From a scheduling standpoint, Mr. Schelsky indicated that the revised preliminary plat will be submitted to the City the week of December 20, 1999, after completion of the expanded geotechnical analysis, required for the new secondary access road area. The updated geotechnical study and updated traffic study, as well as updated arborist studies should be available next week. 5. Concerns were raised about the "clear-cut" of trees on site and efforts to preserve as many trees as possible. W. Schelsky responded by saying that his understanding was that areas logged prior to the submittal of the application were not subject to mitigation. He went on to say the City of Tigard ordinances require property owners who cut trees under a pending land use application either have to mitigate by replacing the tree inch per inch and/or by paying a fee in lieu of mitigation. He said the project would probably involve a combination of fee and mitigation and pointed out the various portions of the subject subdivision which will be retained as tree preservation areas. 6. A question was raised about the geotechnical report and whether or not it would be home- specific. Mr. Schelsky indicated it would not be home or lot specific except in the event there is fill on a lot, in the area where a future home would be constructed. I 7. A question was raised regarding the secondary access road and how much fill would be involved in its construction- Mr. Schelsky indicated there would be some fill in the secondary access road due to the existing steep slope. 8. Questions were raised regarding the storm drainage requirements for the site. Mr. Schelsky explained that the storm water improvements would be constructed to City standards and delivered to storm mains in the existing development to the north that the city has indicated are properly sized for this proposed development. He pointed out the areas on the proposed plat that would be dedicated to water quality swales and water quality pond. He pointed out the existing natural drainage basin to the west and the off site natural drainage basin to the east. 9. A resident of the Jenshire Lane subdivision expressed concern about the steep slopes and the possibility of land slide and soil erosion from run-off, as well as existing wet basements in that area. Mr. Schelsky indicated that the geotechnical report would address the potential for landslide and the Unified Sewage Agency rules and regulations would govern soil erosion during construction of public as well as private improvements. Typically when a property is developed, the storm water is captured in catch basins and piping, and the hillside should be drier than it is now after the public improvements are constructed. Wet basements and crawl spaces are usually the problem of poor home construction and plumbing, particularly the plumbing and foundation drain system, not the result of the development of public improvements. 2 1 1 1 i i 0 10. A question was raised about which school system the proposed development is in. The northern portion of the development is in the Beaverton School District and the southern portion is in the Tigard School District. 11. A concern was raised regarding the wildlife corridor and connectivity between existing wildlife areas, to the east and west of the proposed development. Some concern was raised that there may be some protected wildlife species on the property or in the undeveloped areas. The property owners through their consultants indicated that they would address the issue of wildlife corridors and connectivity in their revised application materials. The proposed preliminary plat does show areas of open space within the development that could be used as a wildlife corridor at the top of the steeper northern section with the only obstacle being the secondary access road going down the hillside. It appears the second wildlife corridor may exist at the south end of the project from the ravine along the south boundary up through and across Sunrise Lane and down the BPA Easement and across Mistletoe. 12. A concern was raised regarding steep cuts for home sites on up-hill slopes as exists in a couple of locations on Ascension Drive south of Fern Street. Mr. Schelsky will review that issue again as it relates to the proposed amended preliminary plan. 13. A concern was raised again regarding traffic on Ascension Drive and the more narrow, twenty-eight foot wide approved section which supports approximately 500 ADT (Average Daily Traffic) versus that newer city requirement that minor collectors be 32 feet wide and support a higher ADT. Todd Mobley explained that Ascension was originally designated for 500 ADT's and existing traffic is now probably over 500 ADT because it was built to that earlier and different standard. One way to mitigate the traffic concerns of the neighbors would be to install traffic calming devices, but the concern that the City of Tigard will not allow the installation of such devices on steep streets such as Ascension Drive. Mr. Mobley explained that Ascension Drive as a designated minor collector street and as a minor collector under the new standards, it can accommodate the additional traffic from the proposed subdivision, particularly because the secondary access road will probably remove a substantial majority of the traffic that would otherwise have used Ascension Drive only under the original proposed preliminary plat. 14. A question was asked if this was the third study and will it address the connection out to Scholls Ferry. Mr. Mobley responded that the original study was performed last spring and an addendum was prepared after some of the neighboring neighbors expressed concern about traffic on Ascension Drive. A final addendum will be prepared for the secondary access road area and its connection out to Scholl's Ferry Road will be covered. 15. A question was asked regarding the current amended study being performed and did it address the development in isolation to the rest of the area. Mr. Mobley responded that his firm had included an analysis of all the existing and improved developments, factored in growth rates as well as existing site traffic. 1 • • ' 1 6. What happens to Sunrise Lane? Mr. Schelsky responded that the existing private drive off of Sunrise Lane will stay the same with the exception that a fire gate will be installed at the north end i of the lane. One resident on Sunrise Lane indicated that the driveway currently cuts across a comer of his property, but if the lane was going to stay the same, then he didn't have any concern. 17. Where will the storm water eventually go? Will it flood out homes downstream? Mr. Schelsky responded that the storm water eventually will end up in Summer Lake or in some downstream natural drainage way and the system will be designed in such a way as to comply with all the requirements of the USA and the City of Tigard. ' 18. A neighbor indicated that at a CPO meeting on the opposite side of Bull Mountain that each development was looked at "in it's own box". Mr. Schelsky responded that regarding storm drainage we are required to analyze the impacts of storm drainage approximately a half mile down ' stream from the proposed development. 19. Concern was raised about the amount of fall from the top of the bench where the original I proposed project ended down to the northwest corner of the project and its connection to the secondary access point. Mr. Schelsky responded that the contour lines show that the property drops approximately 150 feet in 1000 feet to the northwest corner. 20. A question was raised regarding the percentage of slopes on the property. Mr. Schelsky responded by pointing to the contour map and explaining the percent of slopes from fairly flat all the way to 30% on various portions of the project. 21. Concerns regarding the potential for mud slides down in the Jenshire area. Mr. Schelsky stated that all of the site work will be performed according to Unified Sewage Agency Erosion Control Standards. 22. Question regarding t he projected date for submittal of the revised preliminary plat. Mr. Schelsky indicated his firm intended to submit the additional application materials and revised preliminary plat the week of December 20, 1999. 23, Question regarding the legal status of this meeting and whether or not it was an appropriate neighborhood meeting. Mr. Schelsky and Mr. Rankin responded that in their experience neighborhood meetings always occurred before initial application and sometimes before final revised plans were submitted to the city. Mr. Schelsky indicated that he would check with the ' city regarding the legal requirements of the neighborhood meeting. 24. Concerns were raised regarding the existence of wetlands on the site. Mr. Schelsky responded that he did not see any wetlands on the site but that a wetlands specialist would be retained to inspect the property and submit a letter report. 25. How long will it take to build the project? Mr. Schelsky that it may take 3-4 months to put in the public improvements and infrastructure and the site could be built out within two years. 26. A concern was voiced regarding wildlife corridors with the allegation that there was no consideration given to greenway or nature paths. Mr. Rankin and Mr. Schelsky responded that the ordinance did not require wildlife corridors and nature paths through the project. As designed, the project would have areas that wildlife could move through the property. One of the property owners owns additional property to the west that due to steep topography will remain as dedicated open space and natural area for the future. 27. Would the secondary access road need curbs and sidewalks? Mr. Schelsky stated that the city was requiring curbs and sidewalks on both sides of the secondary access road and that in his experience the sidewalks did not have to comply with ADA standards. 1 28. A statement was made that the geotechnical report and field work should be done during the wet weather. Mr. Schelsky responded that the geotechnical report addresses the soil and underlying rock formations in an effort to identify possible problem areas separate from the current weather patterns. The field work for the addendum to the geotechnical report will be done next week during wet weather. 29. A question was raised about the possibility of a larger-lot subdivision. Mr. Schelsky stated that the property owners have applied for the maximum number of lots under the current city development code. Larger lots may be considered by a developer later. 30. Criticism was voiced about the geotechnical report completed in the spring of 1999 regarding the accuracy of the vicinity map relative to the steep slope and stream bed near the southwest corner of the project and the geotech's disclaimer. Mr. Schelsky stated that the vicinity map was taken from a large scale quad map and was not as accurate as the smaller scale revised preliminary topo map that was prepared from actual site elevations shot in the field. 31. A question was presented regarding the applicability of Metro's Title 3 stream set-back requirements. Mr. Schelsky responded that Title 3 had not been adopted yet at the time that the original application was made for this preliminary plat, and therefore he did not think the Title 3 stream set-back requirements were applicable to the revisions of the amendments to that application. 1 32. A concern was again raised regarding the trees to be cut and those to be preserved. Mr. Schelsky indicated that the arborist consultant has stated that a number of the trees on the northern portion of the site are diseased and will need to be removed anyway to provide for public safety. 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 • The above summary minutes of the neighborhood meeting have been transcribed from handwritten notes taken at the meeting by John A. Rankin on behalf of the property owners. PC: Len Schelsky Constantin and Adrianna Costiuc Bob and Sally Erickson Mike and Jeanne Davis Mr, and Mrs. Brian Pautz C:~OFMCFNWPW[MWPDOCS%Cl,MNT3WACWTCCkNM4U1FZ,X)OC John A. Rankin 6 1 1 r t 1 1 1 1 SUMMARY MINUTES OF JANUARY 5, 2000 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PACIFIC CREST SUBDIVISION INTRODUCTION This meeting was held in response to a request by the attendees at the December 8, 1999 neighborhood meeting. At the December meeting, a number of the neighbors requested that they be able to submit in writing their concerns and possible solutions to some of their issues they posed at this meeting. The applicant agreed to accept their request no later than December 31, 1999. Following a review of the neighbors proposed modifications, the applicant agreed to hold another meeting at the office of the engineer (Westlake Consultants) to review any changes they would make in response to the neighbors request. This meeting was held on January 5, 2000 and attended by a number of neighbors. A list of those attending is attached. SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS, ANSWERS AND ISSUES The following is a brief summary of the questions and responses discussed at the January 5 meeting. Len Schelsky opened the meeting be presenting several changes made to the preliminary plat. Essentially the road alignment as previously proposed did not change. The connection to Mistletoe and to Catalina Street remained the same. The primary change was in the size and location of lots on the northerly end of the project. Mr. Schelsky pointed out that a number of lots were smaller than originally proposed and that a couple of lots were eliminated. This was done to create more open space on the easterly side of the project and save more trees. In addition, it would allow a "wildlife corridor" through the middle that the neighbors had requested. Another change was that a larger tract was being proposed for a water quality facility. Mr. Schelsky pointed out that on the preliminary utility plan, a drainage swale would be created on the north end of lots 75-80 to carry water from footing drains and surface runoff easterly to the BPA right of way. 2. The majority of the ensuing discussion centered around the stability of the soil on the uphill slope and slide potential. Mr. James Pyne of ADaPT Engineering, a geotechnical engineer, presented a discussion on his study of the soil on the project. He stated that the soil composition is such that it will support housing and road construction. He also stated that it is important that the cuts and fills be constructed per his recommendations. 3. Several of the neighbors were concerned that the construction be completed as he noted. Mr. Schelsky pointed that the city could incorporate "conditions of approval" into the project that would require the geotechnical engineer to inspect the foundation grading prior to them be poured. It was agreed that the subdivision proposal requested the city to include language in the conditions of approval addressing this subject. 1 1 s • Summary Minutes of January S, 2000 Neighborhood Meeting ' 1239-01 - Pacific Crest Page 2 of 2 1 4. Mr. Pyne also addressed some concerns regarding underground springs and runoff. He pointed that as construction of the utilities and streets were being done, the contractor would intercept any flows and tie them into the drainage system. 5. A couple of neighbors immediately north of the project were concerned about tree removal on the new subdivision and its impact on existing trees on their lots. Mr. Schelsky pointed out that a tree inventory and mitigation plan was in process by Mr. Walt Knapp, arborist, and that it would be reviewed with the neighbors prior to any trees being removed. ' 6. A couple of attendees stated that they were told construction had already started and that they were skeptical of our statements. It was stated that no construction had been permitted and the City would not issue any until the development application had been approved. It was noted that recent drilling on the site was for the geotechnical report. 7. Several neighbors reiterated their concern for additional traffic in the area. Mr. Schelsky pointed out that city development standards require connectivity to all roads as dictated the state's TPR rule. Several copies of the traffic report by Lancaster Engineering were available to the attendees. 8. Additional discussion transpired regarding density, cutting of trees, open space and the gas line adjacent to the site. These issues were discussed in the prior two meetings and were summary in nature. 9. The meeting ended with the neighbors thanking the applicant for hearing their concerns and presenting them with the evidence to support their proposal. The applicant thanked the neighbors for their input and agreed to keep them informed of any changes or additions to the plan. The applicant also agreed to forward copies of the geotechnical and traffic report to those interested. I Sincerely, Westlake Consultants, Inc. en Schelsky, P.L.S. Principal 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • PACIFIC CREST PROJECT MEETING JANUARY 5, 2000 WESTLAKE CONFERENCE ROOM ATTENDEES: Bob & Sharon Beatty John Edwards Ken Chandler 13355 SW Ascension Dr Tigard, OR 97223 Dave George 13132 SW Ascension Dr Tigard, OR 97223 Mike & Jeanie Davis Michelle Rowley 13110 SW Ascension Dr Tigard, OR 97223 Bob Enders 13700 SW Ascension Dr Tigard, OR 97223 Valerie Ramaswamy 13299 SW Ascension Dr Tigard, OR 97223 Cheryl Payne Mark & Martha Tait 14632 SW Jenshire Ln Tigard, OR 97223 James E. Payne Roger Swanson 13445 SW Ascension Dr Tigard, OR 97223 Bob & Denise Gordon 13037 SW Ascension Dr Tigard, OR 97223 Marvin Cox 13389 SW Ascension Dr Tigard, OR 97223 H:1ADM IN1123901.981PLANN ING%mtg3l i st.doe ~eoeived: 3/19/99 9:59AM; • FROM :FIRST AMERICAN TITLE yes%~T' _ ~•'1`'.' iY to- ,a~.~ ZQ I rr :o 1! 4 yY 1~ 1 1 503 790 7872 WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS; Page 5 S03 790 7872 199-19 09:51 #07S P.OS/16 wAIN"My otm 91063265 WuMn~Counly KNOW ALL MEN BY Tl3&Sf ARSSF>IYTS, Thufr._.1}UT?.. r~+~•• apd COW' SPC'LZIL „ . henlnafrer called he grantor, for the consideration lareinarfer Plated, to grantor Paid by . 7223' " ' _"HICLIJ L...l'.....111~V.IS..and..3t 1aE. 1~.".1~1tYI9,.. R.C.Dox.. 23144.-Tigardrernolter called the gnntae, does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto (be avid grantee and dronlaa'e helro, oueusroro and assidi", that certoin real Properly, with the tanament+, heracrFlamena and aPpurlenances therconro belonging or ap- portaining, a;tuated in the county of .11ashington and State of Oregon, described ea loltowa, do-will: A tract of land located in the Southeast one-quarter of Section 5r Township 2 Southrsange Vast of the Willamette HOridianr in the County of Washington and State of oregon, Marc particularly described as follewsl 13ECIM11NO at the Southeast corner of said section 51 thence North 09"49' :set West fnllnwtrlg the Srntth lire of said Section 5 a distance oc 42G.23 to an iron pipe: thence North 0'541 Cast parallel within the East line of said section 5 a distance of 1752.10 feat to an iron pipo and the true point hereirt being the Southeast corner of a tact of land conveyed to Habert and RobortaIt Hazen by deed recorded August 9, 1079, Fee No, 79031931; thence North 0a571 east parallel within the Last litre of said Section 5, and following tho East lino: of said Hagen tract la distance or 67Q.03 feat to an iron pipe; Ehenco East parallel within the South line of said Section S to a point at• tiic ra6t line rrorco£/ tlicnce South following the Ealtvc~ga I,1 Area a1SUrfldMf, taN~ENat aysral+rltkl op itwati acme To Have and to Hold the sama unto the acid grantee and grantee's helm, aumessara and asatgns forever. that Md Raid grantor hereby covenants to and with aalddt~an lee Atr mall anwmbr sn and 4migns, grantor to lawfully seised in fee siroph el the above granted and that grantor will warrant and forever de/end the said premises and ovary part and parcel ihereol againa the lewful calms and demands of all peraans whomsaever, except these da trdag under the above described eaaumbrances. The lase and actual considetadan paid lot this Iratufer, stated In terms of defiers, Is $.9.51.00.0 .•Oo,- mldoweree, the actual eonsweraflon eomlete of or Iadudsr other praperly ar value giwetl or promised which h a+hif ~ i~ eonaideralien Cirdieale w ftiell).m(l'M saatuxe tar.,+w the grnA.u @, Il nor rpprie+dra rhoald or ddMrd. See OAS tld7a.) in construing this dead and where the contest so require, the drigufar includes the pluml and all grammatical changes Afift be Implied to woke the provisions hereal apaly equally to co pora(ion; and to Individuals. 21th In wisnoss Whereof. rho grantor has axteoulad Iles instrumsnf Ihle...,... • . do l_ ...,Fe6ruazY......... JJt.......; J a corporate grantor, it has oltaeed its name to he signed nv1 ae 411hed by ' ofliaer■, duty Putheriaed thereto by atder of Its board of dltsdom ` ,,,q,tp.y hire arP .aeA V= . T va..rrr jMU.a ale aeniui prat aammull Atw-.dat e+nw,n Michael K. Obvis eiia■aia'■ a■i p, 0. Box 23144 97223 ■wa. dwlf be iM N A.IiWd,y "Mt& 001 r .bow h'M"Pw @■a ra rd ~kderd-the 1060W larra- vatomary act and nod. aR . . _ STATE of 04RECO10, COMP sad being duty acorn. oath tat Ala.mlt and net ape lar 1Ae arhrr, did lay !her the latest is Clio ~,.W,,,~_~.,.,_._~,.~_. WNid■al and that the IsIM Is the a iald eorpsrotlen a fhnlr~oid .tsrrumaaf u t; d s reakdtia ba+ ltd d told mraeraufoa ey autbadty of Ile award et dlraalarr old esrh al tAam ate,lrwredeed van 1na:ruman to m i!a vaaNarr act and card. Ba14Wa moo (OpFIClAL SEAL) !ropy lLARC net Oralm _ elf n, d.d ti ■ nq.wl.. her toter"N&A crol e■n w11s wren. art STATE OF OREGON, r. County of - - [ away flint the with;n in;trrr- ment was received let record an the day of J9........r at o'clock _-M., and recorded in boob/reel/wofunlo No on pods of as fee/lua/in;tru• want/ahieta/ilm/reeopflon No.......r--.-, Record of Deeds of sold county, Witness my hand and opal of County affiacd. .-.~s.Men na,~n,.».....••.•-- nom.. .«w Jay...-_ Deputy STers OF OARCON, ; [w ~ecelved: 3/19/99 10:OOAMs ' i' 503 790 7872 -s WESTLAKE CON3UL7AN7S; Page e FROM :FIRST AMERICRN TITLE S03 790 7872 1990-19 09:51 #07S P.06/16 •-.yr.y.,,a•. s.. •.~~..y~ a., ,+/r•+ry i -z...t,~,•~ ,.~,t~1~w...~,i:' ;4~„~5~t~iV'Ji :~::1 'l.,Y '7''1. ~'>.7!'(L', "'.aS. t.. _,,.r «s:. :a : '4-,'W:. - 1 '':t►W'~+~; .r~,... 1[Y•i~` ;iii' _ SH`'.,~,'. ricwtr~. of said section 5 to tho Northeant cornar of a tract of land described W,^ in contract to Richard J. Harksdalo and Linda L. barksdalo, rocorded N U- a May Z, 1476, in Book 1071, page 2431 thoncc North 09 3,)' 40" best POilot+ing the North Lino of Parcel 1 of said Barkadale tract a distance, Yf; of 424.23 Peet to a points thence continue viesterly along the Worth line Of said 8arxsdale tract to an angle corner thercofl thence North 10'46' Cast a distance of 300.60 feet to a point in the center of t 40 foot wide county road as deAicatod by instrument recorded in hook 147, page 31, Deed Records of Uashington countYl the-moo 89'47' Cast 50 feet following tho centerline of said roadway to an angle corner therein, on the . Westerly line of said Oaten tract j thence south 1446' Ifeat following the e y Westerly line of said Hazen tract a distance of 330.60 Peat to an iron pipes thcnco East following the South lino of said hazon tract a distance "i of 344.26 feat to the true point of beginning. This dead is given in tyitill[aci:t uc G)Ittrant Aucument #00047d95 s% 6TAT90P Oman, c"Arl m Wsobinsto, and '?Ihxagon Man' "sMmolor cQdnq NO MAN Ijp l~fmM a end ~eerew,:C"~.r• Doc : 91o63z-' Rect: 65606, 11/130'1991 04;29;45MJ 86 39,00 ~eceived: 3/19/99 10:01AM; FROM :FIRST AMERICAN TITLE is 503 790 7872 WESTI,AKE CONSULTANTS; Page 7 503 750 7872 1999019 09:62 #075 P,07/16 93041431 Z ORMONTM ern~rre~ar W&R%M mm q ~p0ue0act c4ma0y (ndivid a) y E NW D. DOLT" NQg1J1ffi. K. DAMS mnd JDI m it, okra, an V9fl! us by the entll'etY i64 WUD&V ftoWA d MI is ft SUM of MVM Md QLPUy Of lkLEW W wxndrwcm, N=qA as Y Set ftLlb bwwa,. IOpt t w ~ tin J'* g vf~ainaei0►i Ww~r. . ~cu P ra8 ~ ~ m-. fee w~iv oats Twt Ao=ft ftba'r(s): WU641 ads pmmty to Bose cc ommobrx"o, EMT! r 1. %to sn*depot pmuMtj liem Milhbm tto bauvlwl= of #a UUfied gm=aw Pgwcv. 2. 7ho zioft of the p hllo In ald to tbait PattlOrl of tto min des=U i ply lylW _ eitsin fto Urd-to of sae@a MA h4pwa a. 3. Emwent as xee>- I I July 16, 1691 in Book _ 32 1. 4. Ommw t», oarAlt0m, smlxiatLie am sued Ocbebam 16, 1936 In awk 734 PhM 126. S. mum, us&tiwa, ZS$tx data as s'000Ldod APdl 9, 1927 1n Boat 135 Page . 6. Buanalt as seaoanTe31t 14, 1931 in bxk 147 NO 91. 7. Ememnt es - 411® tM sM=LdUGftCO bs tbis csw% nca is 3,192,5W.oo nw-vwWam P KC WI v'PZW ME 0 m Plow' II IIi 7YS9 ~ffi?P 21 f►l~- W MW aP MR== 7M = AND =MLWW. BF1~ SMKM M =a 2=PU- nw, in PH i AcMnMo =7'1'17,819 2w PAMEM SW= per{ W= mo Bee[ot = Ci'17t _ OR MIM PtN4Mq MWMXW 10 it RVr APMMW NSM. [SATE %bW dW aE N9/Y, 1993. sun OF wim or )os. foocego irSrittllsti rras ec3a~erai~ev~av~`~-- day a4 N4sy, 1993, by Bam ID. D. fvataaea. ' i30C $C87g O~ c; 09LTMI Mir ommimdw Queer bb.: =628w s 'm 6PALT »4l11a 1F 1i 's UEZ ' A3bw 8==d Lmg Rat= lb: Mr. wW lMaa. Michiml K. Davy - 14705 St Smwlso Leas t T'lgud, C pati 972U s _ U*M a &aop In svmueflmd un n'n%P,nmet6 F+ - woo be swm to ~ iiiw w own". I • 14705 W &ralM lam Ug=d, ft"m 97a24 it h jM ~~~IY~'~^•l• . L+d.14.1.r I~' t rte: - e.l WHEN ~ji 5v~ eceiveo: 3/19/99 10:91AM; 503 790 7672 WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS; Page 9 FROM :FIRST AMERICAN TITLE • S03 790 7872 199-19 09:S2 1#075 P.08/16 6TA11lDDIKANIY L186D r' ° (mil iEl" tGt3oFTm Coon ,d1 ozder No..- 369628u ' P91FL'dx! Zs . A tmft'oc lei in the sau*Awt as-QMW Of 69Otdart 5, 'Wlvamisip 2 Soot's, fto x Nowt I of the V Ulm ldwidIm in the Owdtyy off Nw*Argtm and state of &o_q n, dsm=MW ea. fiaalarm: I Bash ,A at a point a1 tte Pat Line of 6oid Baodca 5 d%uu bftm N=th Do Sat 6V ft ft 1A00.0 seat em tte smAh aet osrev of MW a0 um: henna ftwtt1 990 211 050 Vast 174.0 i'I; t#wnaa NWW 00 38' 53" SM 3SM.65 feefi, om or loss, to a podxit sdtdtts intozm to 4 11he eras k Burly VuW3A1 astK and 100 feat Soatts of ths Sam& Line of ft ag=t ' B. Mm, eat tv. teaot 08 &G=Lbed an pegs UP PPS M* 976. Oeed pm=u; t hK= N=* 89. 84' 4b" Wmt x40.53 feet okmff dead 1'wb=ly eatteseiin to a point rhddh beam South 0' r` 38, 6B" Vast 100100 feat ftmu the cmdAut o=xw of aadd Ils=% Tnrt,, Vv m tt wu 00 38' S5' Imt 6p.D fasw be Sa t!► 899 34' 40' Poet 424.23 teat to tla sot line ae mid Y Gwtim S. tlse~Rae South 0. 38' 55" west 243.35 abet, mm cr ]sea, to tba plam of rg- i'A M XX-. A tawt of IaW in the 6oathaast ono-g0~ of aWtim 5, %muhip 2 South. Mqp 1 Van of to Vdtlenatts Mati,&m, In itss Cumty of 1 widrom and States of oseggw, damrgmd ae - 'i'olll+oas: Ba9urk eg at the southwest 1o33am of said SecUm 61 t3le°>oe Nwtis 89' 44' Mast 426.28 teat In an j.rm pipa; thaw Ia3't]4 0. 54' Past 1652.10 feet, patalia with Va Peart 21m of 604 sechm 5, to a point WhIc t so 3w foot $a ft 011 S4' vast of ft 6out3+eautt CDaTw of Vu towt dMadbud to Ctzipt2Ct of seas m fttett n- ftpm, at ux, tQeomW in Brxk 976, POP 519, Fla Of iPaahinptM OXWMY, 00 rtes lzve damcibedi them Watt 104 feet 6autt, of and p9 tUal •tztf g Sa Jim of V% Mm RYact ad its watae w exftmlm a diatm= of 944.26 coat; a noa xwth 10. 46' Fact to a paint in the ven= of a 40 fact Wda 00NOY road es 4s31::ated by izuftunent a+emdad in Book 147, Pope 61, i2eWAb of i+laetIF9= ftWIty; ftnre Saeth 89. 47' Met along tie gatWr of said road, a distaim of 54.86 feet to a point: them South lb• 46' Wwt, a . L _ of 398.60 fbet, IMM os 3010, is a e~odnt m IS 21M WiiCh is 50 feet Wtt► of atd 50 taut dLwb= Y pmallal to ihw Sauliterly liras of PLaatiss Tr2Ct Std Fiat, Vastw-V MAralm to a PA* on ft Noway line of the treat oocwwm to a4 Bpeym at use t nwd ==&d JA Book lotili~00' Beat, a ddstanoa of 5d POSP fMt &M Ebm%b the ttua ppdnt q£ WW& ~ ~t :W S4' HMt, a dlatMo0 of 50 feat 'no the tm pot* of t eow dng`.' : td'anoe South 0• r 1 9r1 U Of CAT+I10iR A ) Comm w dell wwamsom ) an cS/ 619 wo" o!a 6 t~ amnonrrr yerionally a aTM11lL, appeared gn V. ( Iparoamul Rn"m to no cm jx)8s'wod to °+o an tho basia at aatiefsatosy evideaoa to be the garcon vamm auaa La suba.:tLbad to tho vitbi°n inatrumant and acknowLedgod to ma that he owcutod the !ame In bIw autherioad mpaeity, and that by h10 eignatwo on the laarrnsant the 9eraon or the amity upon behalf of Uhleh the parson acted, exaeutat the itomnent. r- `j L I~u O a 51 Ti7 I Shwen Woodgrlft 11 aovnnawua.aMVaw 0 sm asaww*w9 ¢olum~fl M~amowlw4ipe~ (r-~ 1 a m 0 t11 Z Y • 10 W Q H o~ o r N H LL O T_ Y ills ~ tit H Ali S l - olids It All S - Y , So■r 00 dodM& egeived: 3/19/99 10:01AM; 503 790 7872 WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS; Page 10 r ry FROM :FIRST RMERICRN TITLE S03 790 7872 1990-19 09:53 #07S P.10/16 gnamm WUWA lY am i (c mtlro w) FJ IiC'68 (~int3txr~d) Order No.: 36362&+ de I Meat M, 1965 in Boat 444 Papa; 465. 9. 8Mm mt as s+eaalded FebPJ ly 5, 1968 ii1 ` Eook dW top 99. OWLdb emamtt ee9 =zmW Deasanbeo 14, 1988 ee seao:dic fm w 8e wl. 9. Eksonmt as saooatlad iasil. 16, 1962 !n Udn 46L Pepe 273. 10. RomEnt _ 197k in ftt* W? Pao 79. ~ M ftmmt as xeortti3e 1 Mm 30, IM In gook US Yap M. 13. 1419emaet as seoo>;d4d Gobi or 22, IM in Book 950 Page 06. 14. Emma* as te~s>seae! - l~ssh Z, 1976 3n amk 1A71 Fap 290. 15. DWASt ro ta= a agate in t!re'web at mnBtrjgtJ= m >:1 - - r I pd Mlsst 1 2, 1976 iA Book 1071 Pop 240. 16. Rm d MW*Wmmm l tt ees ivc=" idy 26, 1990 as da~a Pes ro 90-•39397. i ON* of widwham end7axilfai~ d she Y~rBQ EVA 0,r''tiv►Tr~`' ' I Do0 93041431 Recta 100762 342.00 0S/27/19A3 10i33:1SA~! i Received: 4/27/99 12:09PM; WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS; Page 8 FROM :FIRST AMERICAN TITLE • lsst~-27 11:58 BOSS P.08/13 1 . 1 r L r L t= MW" TITLE COMPANY NO, S~~J k1ErURN DOCUMENT 10 DEt110NEEBELOw ~ n yTMANT TITE.E r, AF"1'F.R III:C:gIlU1Nr~ Rl'TURN 9'tl: STATEOFOR90ON Connly cr wbtAtln~tgn ss I.,rar~yal~ettev,~'I r otorolaeeeee. ment nd 7hrlafilon• cindd' Eu~01 * county Gvrktol~Idooy y,>ivhor*W.?# aldfythu 1hvvAlnlnlqalnlmrinFvlwrli4gwasroeolvad and rovorded.ln'baek aL reaolda of veld = vounly. _ l ON.STANT I N CC7$'1' I UC': j4725 514 SUNII) Ii :.tNl; T IGA101 U11L•'U11N 97-203 41 Jwry I~ ,HarESOn`03molar of e981I19r1tOAd €~liOtiGn,E7I' OINQly i'atm4y Clark hh'I'Jl, Illrt'1'H1;1: ~[iPrllti, r\[•I FUTURE Doc 99073366 TAX STA'1•l'' IV1 TS SI)AI,L BE '1'rl: CQNSTANTIN La1N'I'lUC.' ADI:I ANA c0.%1r 1 llf, xect: 152163 333.00 10/10/1945 02125:18P1i J4723 sltl SIINn l sE Ir 1NL; 'I'IGAlt9 t)Rf:C➢i3N 9722.1 nNX ncollNT Nn.; 1040465 STA'TUTIMY ICARRANTY K'17i AIRS MITO CIINPANY, A,1i I,0141:4 iI rp1111., Graotor, q.un%,myr Ind wat•ranl,ti I•n ,:nNN'rAN9•lX C173Tll:C ANIt ADHIANA CnS'.110C, litISVANU AND111!'l:gr:, Hin.,rulInw,ingJcsr:r.iitc:? 1.1.::1] }yr•IJlxi-ty f.rev of r:n,;un,1>r;mrn rt r:~r:~ f+l: .,s% ;4p;r: L f i cri I l y ri 1. r.,i rl-h hel'+: i.n sil:ual:rd in IIANIIINC:'1ON CCnlnl.y, ii i'• I?11111t1'I' °"I'AC:tllifl 111-J WTI) ANIr ;::!!;C A I+,llt•r IIFaIEuk'. Thl' rlaitl Inulnr!) irl rrer' fr•gat ~,}!:ulaln'.lnc+:s EXCEPT: .1995-96 TANIZ DUF:, 0tl'1' KLIT 1'I•:T I'AY':\NI,F:; As 01"cl,i1sF.ll ('rd-%Ir1iR9 RERE.IN HAVE BEEN XON1:171 (lit C'1.:\tiSIFIEh RM 1`0I4E•.S•1' L„1%11) USE, ANY I)1a11uAI•IF'l '1;1'111\ 1iAS lll.. s"IMLC'r 'ro ADDITIoNA1, TAXI,$ Cqt PFNAI,111'1;,A 11[1:1111 I\'rF:ItitSl'; 1;IX.IEC'1' 1111) 11'11!'• ti11':\T'll'i'Ultl' 1m,,r4.ti nil 'rFl1' I:N[flIll; •.1417'11AG1: A':6tC5'; kK l?1tVr1'Plu);N u!•' :11.1. MIXI;IIAI, LA. A8 E\t^Ia.1'1' ('ilAL AN:) rioix I,AXg5 A% Itl{iaq,lli.It IVI.V :G, If141 IN 11000 32, VAtU'. 1; I:I)Yllr'r1fIX5 r\r\Ir HL'STUICTI11\'S AS F:I-viiIl11{;It Itl'Timl-m If, 1926 IN 1.117111E 134, 0AGE i'.%; Ct1,~1]I'I'l11\S \Ntl I{k;STHI:"I'1il\ti lit?CirHnlt{e AI-1111, R, 1'117 I\ 11,11$1 11.5, I'Ar:r: J15, P.\.~IiPlh4'r AS kl-:1a71tU1•:r1 MAY 23, I,a61 T\ W.91h 444, 11,1(;1; 4w--j, RAE)I!S'r ,1s k;-C'1lltrH:11 F'E1113I'.\RY 5, 1x162 rN IIIUIK 457, MUM'. ')!1; I?,151•:%1E;'I' AA 14F1_I1HDf:n i11:1'I111EH 14. 1165 IN FI110K 577, PAW'.' 75, I:/ SHMFIXI' A% HPA70811k:11 , VNE 111, 1972 f% Immli 117:1, r l•RC;I•: 1511; IsdtiP,.11;,\'I' r\S IYF.I'irllUhU .I,►?:Ld1t1' II, 11171 lip rihrth Ind, IIr\t;lti 4213; F.ASR;IF..'4' AS I:I1.C:ul11'llm X11 I•.,IHI?Ir 19, 07: IT. 1111;x1 111:1, PAtlli 504, Rli-RFa'E1HUk:[1 .11101: 2, 1117; 11 IU1111i 11126, 11,161' IAA; EASF.HE\'I' 3 IUiC:unr7En AI•H I r• I , 1117x, IF Illlt* 11114, PAt:l: 634, F:,ltilialF.;:'r IIEVOW )FI) ti% ,$IA11CI1 197h IX HOHE 11171 I'•\I;1 :40; h: \,CF;~IF:X'I' A\li dI11NTF:NANCfi r\13111?!S}11•:,x AS I'll-TWO-0:11 V rT 1111- "01:4117 ; TIIIS INST111MEXT IllIJ. NoT Ald-Ilii I:St" UI 'p!II•: 1'lil'll'lad'I'S' I1N.~Clirlllill rS 'ril l.4 I \ti rllli?IF.S•r I \ N i 1 II.A}' h 1\ 11; ,11''1'1, I C' 1141_F: LAND IitiF. LAI$h AXII J rt1iG1;I.ATIt14S. 111:F'111t1: ti I cN t St; OR AI'1'IX 1' 1111 'rtl l ti I .\STItli 111 XT , 1-USON A ;;1: I1t I Xr; FIrL T I Tj,k 'n.r '1'111: 1'ItCtf'!'R'I'1' SHOULD 1,1110'K ltl rill 1:119 11'Pltl'rl'I: I A rr. I • t T\' 1111 . i q:\°rl I'I,•1XX I \1: 1+1 f'aii'r?h::~ r Tit \°F,u 1 P5' y~ AFTRO1•F:Ir GN1•k A\I'1 •1'11 I'IF:TFICHINI: ANY 1,1'11'1~ I:?; LAI1:tiI:I'rs Ai;AIxRT FAI0IT,Vr; 014 F11Ith:;T I1E,:1:'rrr:a AN I•hF;Xkll IN 1 '1:N :111.11311, '!'h;r 11'rlr,• r••i11F,1+1+•t•.il run f„r Il:lti ,'~~trl'~.•y.l:n ti:111r1,llnl},ftll, tit r1:rCt:+1 1!11x; _ +I•;~' .•r IL•In},.•t', 1'l+li. :1Hh .11!'1'1: C' *II,11\1', A.\ tlitl't;,l}, 1 vltl'. Itl' _.l _ C r !Q>t7t'xX M>D;GF1x 1t;~0M~>aa>c l•'l1lEX>f pt.xK Harualcal SO Ib:,Ca, rhnirman or t-,ONC70:1 CGU4711 490. QO 1a o 5 rju r11a Ott ara TL zr0D WESTLAKE CDN~ ULTA.NTS; r-w- . 27 11:58 ap55 P.09/13 4127199 i 2:09" ; 199 - ce ived = FROM . s F I SST RMER I CPN TITLE ~ .,..J. '$:f.~'~~~i~w=Ati7YYFl6i~ T~1+¢Su~_'~!e'R17~•~T'~-~ State or Oregon county or Nashington- On this 6th day or October, 1991, personally sopeared the above named HarumlChl Shibeta. Chairman or the Beard er Itltu company, An Oregon Corparatlan and said instrument was slgned anr1 sealed on brhelf or SaLd corporation by Authorlty of its Hoard or Directors anal each or them acknowledged the same to be his own voluntary Act and Deed. Notary In and ro Said State or Oregon 0FF1ClA6 SF-Al-N 9FlFAP1~1tiASO~EtQN + µ~dMµi5S10N~~a ApZe734~T XpIPE$,l,NR ~oi !AY iAMM1qSIDN E o.= i. s. ti h' '7. i•A it ecoived: 4127/99 12:09PM; WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS; Page 10 FROH :FIRST RMERICAN TITLE # 194-27 11:58 #1055 P.10/13 v C Order No. 95103264-r9 EXHIBIT "A" That part of Section 5, Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the county oZ Washington and State of Oregon, described as follows: Beginning 3t an iron pipe on the Fast line of said Section 5, South 0 degrees 54' Weet 1471 feet from the quarter oection cornet common to said Section 5 and Section 41 thence North 89 degrees 37' West 416.20 feet to an iron pipe being also the Northweat corner of that tract of lard conveyed to Bud Spezza, at uxe by Deed recorded June 10, 1965 in Book 556, page 307, Washington County Deed Recorde; thence South 0 degrees $4' Veet along tha fleet line of said Spea2a tract 699.18 feet, more or lees, to the Northwest corner of that tract of land conveyed to Maurice W. Burke, et ux, by Deed recorded June 2, 1975 in Hook 1026, page 184, Wnshington County Deed Records, and The TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 09 degrees 53' East along the North line of said Burke tract 376.14 feet to the Northeast corner of said Burke tract; thence South b degrees 54' West 170.96 feet; thence South 74 degrees 491 West 167.72 fee.; thence continuing alcag last said course 120,47 feet; thence North 88 degreee 12' West 105.74 feet to the Southwest corner said Burke tracts thence thence North to a point on the West line of said Burke tract which is North 250 feet from the South line of said Section 5, said point also being the Southeast corner of Parcel II of that tract of land described ir` Warranty Deed to Margery 0. MaNasterr recorded April 1, 1975 In Hook 1016, gage 63., Washington County Deed Records; thence West along the ;out.h li^z of said McMaster tract 25.00 feet to the moat Southerly corner of that certain tract described as Parcel IZ in contract of Sale to Tom At. Curt{n, recorded June 27, 19'78 as Vas. No. 78-28BB3; thence South 0 degrees 54' West 250.00 feat along the East line of that certain tract of land described in Contract of Sale to floret t?. iNagerr et ux, in Book 751, page 725, Deed Records; and the Southerly extension of said Cast lines thence Easterly along the South line of Section 5, 50 feet# thence North DO degrees 56' cast 165.66 feet; thence South 88 degrees 12' East 90.00 feetl thence North 70 degrees 49' East 110.59 f5ek; thence South 89 degrees 50` East along the North line of the tract conveyed to >Lverett E. Nixon, at ux, by deed recorded in Book 597, page 208, need Records, 206.00 feet; thence North 0 degrees 38155" East 400.00 feetl thence North 09 degrees 53' West 426.28 feet; thence South 140 feet to the true point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion thereof lying within the 20 foot wide strip of land dedicated to the public for, a public highway by instrument recorded February 8, 1932, in book 148, page 546, Records of Washington County, Oregon. I J '.i 7~ is a. Recelved: 5/18/99 2:53PM; FROM :FIRST AMERICRN TITLE 503 790 7872 WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS; Page 24 • 503 790 7872 199&-18 14:42 #063 P.24/25 ?b ■d.L:Y 90.39399 walmoo on SOY7H0' - AFTER RECORDING RETURN TOr UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, ALL FUTURE n TAN STATEMENT$ SHALL BE SENT TO. ROBERT J. ERICKSON ROBERT J. ERICKSON SARAH F. ERICKSON SARAH F. ERICKBON 14695 S.H. SUNRXSC LANE 14695 S.W. SUNRISE 1ANE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 TAR ACCOUNT NO.: 2S1 SOD 00100 ti t•~ STATUTORY WARRANTY DESO ~Y:1?11 I 1 r` ROBERT A. GEORGE, M.D. and BARBARA E. GEORGE, as tenants by the s V~ entirety, Grantor, conveys and warrants to ROBERT J. ERICKSON and SARAH F. ERICKSON, husband and wife, Grantee, the following described real property free of encumbrances except as specifically set forth herein situated in Washington County, - ` Oregon, to-wit; ~K SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTAC,92D nERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. The said property is free from encumbrances axcept: 1990-91 taxee, a lien due by not yet payablei As disclosed by tax roll, the premises herein described have been zoned or classified for forest land use; Statutory powers and assessments of the Unified Sewerage Agency; Basement recorded 2/23/62 in book 455 and page 377; Easement recorded 4119/62 in book 461 and page 273; Easement recorded 411/75 in book 1016 and page 638; Agreement recorded 3/2/76 in book 1071 and page 240; Easement recorded 12/31/60 as fee no. 80047995; Conditions, Restrictions recorded 3117/62 as fee no. 82006537; THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INS':ROMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICADLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHUCK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES. The true consideration for this conveyance is 5349,000.00. Dated this .07n L day of July, 1990. ROBERT A. GEORGE, M.D. BARBARA E. GEORGE STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF WASHINGTON Personally appeared the above named Robert A. George, M.D. and Barbara E. George and acknowledged the foregoing instruments to be their voluntary act and deed. Oregon my QammisRion expir L I UU Rece1VOdt 5118/99 2:54PM; I FROM :FIRST RMERICRN TITLE • 503 790 7672 WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS; P69e 25 503 790 7872 19&5-18 14:42 #063 P.2S/25 EXHIBIT "A° A tract of land located in Section 5, rownahip 2 south, Bangs 1 west, in the NSilaseatte Meridian, Washington County. Oregon, d ib escr ed as Follows: D=NNIM at as iron pipe on the East line of said section 5, South 0 degrees 54' hest, 1471 feet from the quarter section corner between said Section 5 and Section 4j thence North along ' co the East line of station 5, a distance of So feet to the true point of beginningT thence south 89 degrees 37' Kest 426.28 feet to an Leon pipe; thence Continuing along aforementioned course to a point in the eenterliae of a 80 foot road] thence north 4 , 1 degrees 33' East following said Centerline, 50 feet] thence South 69 degrees 371 Vast 1100 feet to an iron pioe; thence -North parallel with the East line of section 5, 429.17 Eett; a,'•' thence South a9 degrees 371 East-244,53 feet; thence south r:•.~f fi parallel with the East line of Section 5, a distance of 192,65 goat; than ca South 89 degrees 77' East, 179 lest to the Ease - ' ' line of Section 51 thence South along said east line to the true ~ : Y , • point of beginning. `s `.r ti;, TOGETHER H1TH a not-exclueLve eseeme-nt of the falloving described property: A non-exclusiva easement for road purposes, over and upon a tract t _ of land it, tno Southeast quar er of seetioh 5, Townr"hip 3 South, i Range 1 West Of the Willamette Mer dian, Washington County, Oregon, mare particularly described as Ic1lovA: F-.a= Beginning at a paint on the east ling of said Section 5 which bears North 0038f55" East 1400.0 Peet from the southeast corner of said ' section; thence South 0e38I55" hest along the east lire of said s` t- ' I r Section a distance of 1200.19 feet, core: or less, to the northeast corner of that tract conveyed to Zverette E. Nixon at ux ° , , recorded, in Book 557, Page 208, Records of Washington County; ~'r'' - 1 ` thwscs No7Ct:h 89°50• west along the north lisle of the Nixon Tract ' ` f ~ a distance of 206.0 feat to the northeast corner of that tract ! ~ # ' ' conveyed to Maurice W. Burka, et ux, by dead recorded in Book 904, c' •r + I..'~ Page 428, Records of Washington County, hereinafter called the r t. first 8=ke. Tract; thence axon the northerly and westerly lines of the first Burke Tract "a fo lowing courses and distance., South r 7004911 West 110.59 Peet, North 80012' West 90.00 feet, and South 009561 Wes1t 165.56 foot to the south line of said Section S; thence, leaving the Burke tract and along the south ling of Baia section 5, Westerly 2S feet, more or less, to the coutheest corner of that tract of land conveyed to Harvin i[lausan, at ux, by deed recorded in Book 358, Page 426, Records of Washington County; , thence northerly along the easterly line of the klausen Tract to the southwest corner of that tract of land conveyed to Maurice W. Burke, at ux, Jby deed recorded in Book 953, Page 584, Records of Washington County, which tract was further described in Book 1026, page 104, Recorded June a, 1975, hereinaftex called the second < ' Burke Tract; thence along the southerly line of the second Burke Tract the following courses and distances; South 0Bn120 Bast 105.74 feet, North. 70049' East 120.47 feet to a point which bears North 00570 East 53.54 feet (rots the northeast corner of the first purke Tract thence continuing along the southerly litre of the second Burke Tract North 109491 East 167.72 feet to the most easterly southeast corner thereof; thence North 0938f55" West, parallel to :•,.i~ i T( . = and 50 feet distant from the east line of Section 5 to a point ` ' Y• , ; which is North 69°21' 05" west 50.00 feet from the point of . • beginning; thence South B902100511 Bast 50.00 feet to the point of beginning. 9TAtf OF aAEGON i ' ' + County 91WA&ftqun L 06mW W. Meeen, OW010t of Aenesna-4 ; { f e1 c4n- o 6,1d Tend" ve"acvc br M41 M ' ~ r, colaawxuy. rpp4~M ►i EOn ~ttN of C!-~ Es- - r7 C 4 f.- 71- C 511 J (f' ` 5.: i ~iS~I •i . Doc ; 90039349 s• 87 387 00 ~ 3 r Rect [ . 72 ' 7 y~Y - j-'s ` 07/26/1990 los 26; 03AH _ . _ Received; 5/18/99 2:49PM; i FROM :FIRST RMERICRN TITLE t"J 1 flit .:~,r 1.~ 1 1 1 i 503 790 7872 -a WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS' S03 790 7872 Page 13 19 -18 14:38 #063 P.13/25 BT64M4Rr TrU COMPANY No. 9-2 _T1_ 200D io•a Rero"4NI oacumwr -O D&C'IGNIE ELRAW .5R ~ 5TE1*AAT rCORnTNG R1rTURN TO: ONlIL FURTHER NOTICE, ALL FuTDA7; jh TAX STATEMENTS SOM.L BE SENT TO: CONS?ANZN COSTIUC CONSTANIN COSTIOC ADRIANA CCSTIOC ADRIANA COSTIUC 14725 SW SUNRISE LANE 14725 SW SUNRISE LANE TIGARD, OR 97213 TIGARD, OR 97223 TAX ACCOUNT NO.t 12316797 STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED ARK-MITL COMPANY, AN OREGON CORPORATION, Grantor, conveys and warrants to CONSTANIN COSTIUC AND ADRIANA COSTIUC, HUSBAND AND WIFE Grantee, the fallowing described rbal property free of encumbrances except as specifically vet forth herein situated in WASHINGTON County, Oregon, to-wit: SEE eXAIBIT 'A" ATTACHED HER9TO AND !MADE A PART HEREOF. The said property is free from encumbrances EXCEPT: SUBJECT TO THE STATU1'ORY~POWERS OF THE UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGE!JCY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY: AS DISCLOSED BY TAX POLL, PREMISES CLASSIFIED FOR FOREST LAND USE. SROULn SAID LANDS BECOME DISQUALIFIED. ADDITIONAL TAKES AND/OR PINALTIES MAY BE LEVIED; RESERVATION RECORDED JULY 16, 1091 LN BOOR 32, PAGE L; CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS RECORDED OCTOBER 16, 1926 IN BOOK 134, PACE 126; CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS RECORDED APRIL 9, 1977, IN BOOK 135, PAGE 335; EASEMENT RECORDED MAY 13, L961, IN BOOK 444, PAGE 465; EASEMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 5. 1962, IN 8009 4S7, PAGE 99; EASEMENT RECORDED JUNE 30, 19'1 ON BOOK 875, LACE 158: EASEMENT R9CORDBD APRIL 1, 1975, IN BOOK 1016, PACE 630; EASEMENT RECORDED MARCH 2. 1976 IN BOOK 1011, PAGE 240: EASEMENT RECORDED MARCH 17, 1982 AS FEE 82006537; EASEMENT RECORDED MARCH 17, 1962 IN BOOK 83006537, PROVISIONS RECORDED FEE 12006537; EAsemeNT RECORO£D FEE 90-39397: THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS 'AND REGULATIONS. SEFORE SIGNING OR ACCENTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING 0CFARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAENST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. The true eonelderation Ear this conveyance is 5283,000.00. Dated this day of May, 1495. ARK-MITU COMPANY. AN OREGON CORP. wASHU+;nv cou++rr _ I.4 putt AR`c+~ ~f!' TF~EA TIX 3ag3 a° -95 klzz Pii7'SUMASA SHINATA, PRESZOE14T STATE OFALGdaIjOWA 00ECON COUNTY OF SSW N . f e PersOnally appeared MITSUMASA SIIIBATA. PRESIDENT each for himself ,nnd not one for the other, did say that the farmer la the president OF ARK-HITU COMPANY, AN OREGON CORP.. a corporation aa3 that said instrument wan signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its board of directors; and each of them acknowledged said ln3trument to be its voluntary act and deed. OFF+pALSFAL NOTAR-O8UCo. Q! ON MICOMUM W023J fYl It 1647 141v . IN= Notary Public GIucy-r STATE OF 9W4XIA1XR4ft o-ego, ° fr Received: 5/10/99 2:6OPM; 503 790 7872 WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS; Page 14 FROM :FIRST AMERICAN TITLE ~ S03 790 7872 195 18 14:38 8063 P.14t25 grder No. 95094g13-W 4M 0 EXBI8Y1' "A" A tract of land located in Section 5, Township 2 South, Range 1 Went of the Willamette Meridian, in the County of Washiaq toot and. State of Oregon, WAS more partAcularly described as followas ' Beginning at an iron pipe on the East line of said section 5, South 0 degrees 94' West 1671 feet from the quarter section corner between said Section 5 and Section 41 thence Worth 89 degrees 37' West 426.28 feet to an iron pipe, being also the %orthwest corner of that tract of land conveyed to Bud Spezza, et ax, by Deed recorded June 10, 1965 in Book 556, page 307, a.. 'sw Washington County Deed Records acd said point also being the true point of beginning of the hereinafter described parcel of land, thence South 0 degrees 54' West along the peat line of saia spezza tract 559.18 feet, more or less, to a point l40 feet ' north of the Northwest corner of that tract of land conveyed to r, . 15;L Maurice W. Backe, et ux, by Deed recorded June 2, 1975 in Beak i'. 1026, page 184, Washington County Deed Records; thence 6outh 89 ; degrees 53' East 140 feet Vieth of and parallel to the North line of said Burke tract and its Easterly prolongation 426,14 feet, more or lees to the $98t line of said Section 5; thence Worth along said East line x59.16 feet, more or less, to the i Northeast corner of said Spezza tract; thence continuing North 50.00 Feet along said East line of Section 5 to a point; thence L'. North 8S degrees 37' West SO feet North of and parallel to the Korth line of said Spezaa tract, to a point or the Northerly extension of the went line of said Spezza tract; thence North 89 degrees 37' West 1078.2 feet to a point in the centerline of a 40 foot road; thence falloving said centerline South 4 dc9zeee ' 33' West, 50.1 feet; thence South 89 degrees 37' East; 1078.2 feet to the place of beginning. •r. I I `L4:.a ..~~~~.a~e~q-a:.~itT~=w,171.•`a~:.i+'Sf.+~i.'aC'"-" I ^~,u~?'~'`•:~r-~-rr~r•,_ ter,. ~ jprlb .'~X~ ~ .a ~FieCeYVetl: 5/18/99 2:48PM; FROM :FIRST RMERICRN TITLE 508 790 7872 WESTLAKE CONSULTAN'T'S; Page 7 S03 790 7872 19905-18 14:36 #eS3 P.07/25 ' BTPIIEtR'fTR1E COMPAW NO..f r:.= A ~ ay RETUi04 OOCJ~N1' 10 091t1NEE BELOYf $A7]''v 9}018 Of Wsd*Q cavaty STEVARTME I.J "al AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: CONSTANTIN COBTIVC 14725 B.W. SUNRISE LN. TIGARD, OR 97223 UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, ALL FUTURE TAX STATEMENTS SHALL BE SENT TO: CONSTANTIN C09TIUC 14725 S.W. SUNRISE LN. TIGARD, OR 97223 TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 161 15DD 01900 58 STATOTORY WARRANTY DEED ARK MITO COMPANY, an Oregon aorporatioh, which took title as ARK-Mitu Company, an Oregon eorparatianr Grantor, conveys and warrants to CONSTANTIN COSTIUC AND,ADRIANA COSTIOC, AS TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY, Grantee, Lhe following described real property free of encumbrances except as specifically met forth herein situated in WASHINGTON County. Oregon, to-wit; ?LEASE SEE EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED REPUTO AND MADE A PART HEREOF The said property is free from encumbrances EXCBPTi 1996-97 TAXES DUE, BUT NOT YET PAYABLE: TOE HEREIN DESCRIBED PREMISES ARE WIT8IN TIRE BOUNDARIES OF THE UNIFIED SEWERAGS AGENCY1 5A10 PREMISES HAVE BEEN ZONED OR CLASSIFIED FOR FOREST LAND USE; RESERVAVION OF "ALL MINERAL LANDS" EXCEPT "COAL AND IRON LANDS" IN PATENT FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ReCOROED 7/16/1891 IN BOOK 32, PAGE l; CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS IN DFEO A mon= 10/16/26 IN BOOK 134, PAGE 126 AND IN DEED RECORDED 4/9/27 IN BOOK 135, PAGE 435. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT 10 VIOLATION OP APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND HEGOLAIIIONS. SEPORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO TH8 PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTM8NT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING 09 FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. The true Consideration for this conveyance is 545,000.00. Dated this ,1.3 day of September, 1996. ARK MITO COMPANY G7. ~Sf11NCTON MUNNTT AROp"tr M4'S & wr By 00 . ICl IKE , PA6SIDENT off FEE Puo WtE STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF WASHINGTON On , 199_, personally appeared IKE W f.a PRESIDENT of ARK MITV COMPANY; said instrument was signed and sealed an behalf of said corporation by authority of its board of direetore; and be acknowledged said instrument to be its volentary act and deed. Notary Public for STATE OF OREGON My commission expires: I A 71_ Iqvo oec . 96069968 98.00 Root.: 172111 09/19/1996 09113:01etm Received: 5/18/99 2:48PM; FROM :FIRST AMERICFN TITLE • 1 1 F ~h Descripllon of Attached Document Signer's Name: CALIFORNIA ALL-IFYNPYata a vir-s ..■.avw------- . swo of Caunry of S Nt' hr ter before me, + ~ V t~ lwtr dae~.t.o. oa. ~a., OA selosmadmo%or ow personally appeared [;~pansonelty known tome -On - Cl proved tome on the basis or satisfactory evidence to be the person(a) whose mom(s) Isfare subscribed to the wlth1n Instraitent and acknowledged ro me IM helsheNlay executed the same in hislherRheIr authorized capacitoes). and that by hliftrRheir signature(s) an the instrument the person(s), t or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, pgn_Ces~~ executed the Inslrument_ °210 WITNESS my hand and official seal. OF770NAL, rata:gh Me rnkmw dm below it nor r w&W by taw. it may Provo valuable Io D0mm myir:y on the docomonf and Could pravenr rrsudaenr fatwvN and roanacnma:f d dslt form ro aeodrar *0#"@n1. Title or Type of Document: • Documant Date: 1-1 I-qu Number of Pages: .3 - Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capactty(les) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Zz 9 DK A - M individual iR Corpora officer Title(s): r-15, Cl partner -C Limited G General G Attonrey:ln•fact C. Trustee 13 Guatdlan OrConservalor rap MrsrbROla p Other signer is Representing: Individual Corpamte Officer True(s): Partner-- Limited General Atiorney4n•1`act a Trustee UU&MMUDIAMMI Guardian at Conservator glher Top of un++t rwa Signer Is RepresenUrg: .,...s- .-&e&fi1dA 177 503 790 7872 WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS; Page 8 503 790 7872 1955-SB 14:37 #063 P.08/25 ~a.~■~urr w~AlllL17~ O CODS ki0dlr NdMrA0100 vmft ks. ro- BOR 7 t" -Qf4v PIM GA WWW11r. a4 1 Recelved,: 5118/99 2:48PM; FROM ;FIRST AMERICAN TITLE 1 ILI 1 1 It- 1 legal Deeoripw'. 503 790 7872 WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS; Page 9 503 790 7872 19CO95-18 14:37 #063 P.09/2S EXHIBIT W Begineitp at tan bw pipe on the seWan nne North 8944W West424.28 fast from the Scuthssat to"w of 8edion 6, Township 2 8QWh, Range i West of the tlV8lamatte Meridian, In the County of Washington and Stets of OrMa, and rumft North 01164' East and parettel rr0 the East subn line of of r4mid Section 5, a dititance of 1172.89 fad to on Iron pips; thence North 88637 West 357.9 That to an Iron pipe; thence Gouts, GOV West 1174.24 Feet to an Iron pipe an the South section of akreseld 5600 S; thenoo South 8011 ' East 357.8 feet to the place of beginning. EXCEPTING the South 250 feet thereof. ALSO EXCEPTING THF.R91FROM that tract conveyed by contract to Horst 0. Mager, et ux by Book 751, page 72,5, Dead Rawls, described as loltow. A tract of food in the Southeast quarter of the Scul.;9ast quarter of Section 5, Township 2 South, Range 1 Weal; of the Willamette MerMan, Washington County, Oregon. being a portion of that Imct of land conveyed to Bud Spezra and C+am+an Spe=, husband and wik as recorded In Deed Book 462, at page 224, of the Weshfngbr; County Daed accords, said tract of land being more perdwrady dosatbad as team: Ccmn%rdnp at the Southeast comer of the said Spezia tract said Southeast comer being Worth 01154' j East 20.00 feat /roe the South Me of said Section 5; thence North 83.49' West 25.00 feet to the true point of beginritV of Ina tract of land: herein described; thence Notch 0°5C East parallel with and 25.00 feet Westerly from (When measured at right angles), the East We of the said Spezia tract 530 feel, more or less, to the rentarof a ravine; thence Rorlhwestedy dawn the tasnter of said ravtna, 750 feet; mare Mess. ' to ibe North One of the said Spam tract; then&* Nonh 09°37' West 70 feet, more or less, to the Northwest comer of the Spezra tract thence South 0084' West 1,154.22 feet to the Southwest comer of the sold Spetra tract; thence South 6904x' East 332.9 feet to the trite place of beginning. li i 1 i PAW 4 of Prefbtdrt W Commitment Order No. 9dvZW' 8-WN t; 1 . 1 1 • SCHOTT & ASSOCIATES Ecologists & Wetlands Specialists 11977 S. Toliver Rd. • Molalla, OR 97038 • (503) 829-6318 FAX: (503) 829-3874 December 29, 1999 Len Schelsky Westlake Consultants, Inc. 15115 S.W. Sequoia Parkway, Suite 510 Tigard, OR 97224 Re: Pacific Crest Dear Len: i 1 1 A wetland reconnaissance was conducted on the Pacific Crest tax lots 2Sl SDD: 100, 200, 1900, 2000, 2100 and 2S1 SDA: 400, 500. The parcel is 17.9 acres and located south of Barrows Road in Tigard, Oregon. The parcel is on a hillside with slopes between 20 to 30 percent. Vegetation on the parcel consists of Douglas-fir, bigleaf maple, shrubs, grasses and forbs. The soil Conservation Service mapped one soil mapping unit on the parcel; Cornelius and Kinton silt loam. This is an upland soil complex. The site visit confirmed the presence of these soils. The soil survey describe the soil color as I0YR4/3 to 10YR4/3. Three sample plots were taken at the toe of the slope, middle and top of the hill. The vegetation is dominated by Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesir), hazelnut (Corylus cornula), Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa), and scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius). The herbacous is dominated by bracken fern, sword fern, pearly everlasting and orchard grass. The soil color is 10YR3/2-3, and were not mottled. There is no evidence of hydrology. The parcel did not meet any of the three wetland criteria which include hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetlnad hydrology. It takes evidence of all three criteria for an area to be a wetland. There are not wetlands on the site since none of the criteria was met. Sincerely, Claudia Steinkoenig Schott & Associates APPENDIX 8 RIELO DATA SHEET WETLANDS DELINEATION ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD Field lnvestigato,*): C o-t V% Date: 17-1-18 9 9 ProiecVSite: 117 S te: OR Counry: ApplicantlOwner: C S _ Pat Community PiNarne:_ jL f Note: if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data `orm or a fieid notebook. Da normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes yL No _ IIf no, explain on back? Has the vegeta n, sciis, and/or hydrelegy been significantly disturbed7 Yes Na {If yes, explain on back: I Dominant Plant Species r 1 1 VEGETATION Stratum Indicator % Cover FACN 30 E&e LA _ti h Cl,l EACU FAGU PAC. (it _ EA(_ S Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 6 Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes _ ho ✓ Rationale: SOILS Series/phase:.. Cot nk I us k t.,Aorti c 4M [ o c,y%-j` Subgroup': Is the Soil an the hydric soils list? Yes _ No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes Nc ✓-Histic epidedon present? Yes _ Nov,-" Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Z Gieyed? Yes _ No ✓ Matrix Color: - l 0 V W -V 1 Mottle Colors: 1 Other hydric soil indicators. Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes - No _ Rationale: 1 S V1 n,L HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes - No ✓Surface Water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes _ No 1z Ceptti to free-standing water in pit.,soil probe hole: Mist other field evidence of surface inurdanon or soil saturation -IS the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes - No Rationale: w~ 1} 1 L ' `V Iv'AYt CJ ills JURiSDICTiONAL DETERMINATION ANO RATIONALE 1 the plant community a wetland? Yes _ No Flationate for jurisdictional decision; S. 9. 10._ FIELD DATA SHEET WETLANDS DELINEATION ROUTINE ONS€TE DETERMINATION METHOD Field Investigator sl: C~ .t r. 4v► vale: z 2~3 q 9 Proiect'Site: Stara: County- a Applicant/Owner: Plant Community VName: , Q I A L42 Note: If a more detailed site descr ption is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental ccnditions exist at the plant ccmmunity? Yes _4*"No _ Ili no, explain on back) Has the vege tion, soils, and/cr hydecicgy been significantly disturbed? Yes _ No (If yes, explain on back) Dominant Plant Species r t VEGETATION mmcn Name Stratum 1 S_ f H_ gal* Izea1d 4 O~C Jd Q Percent of dominant species that are 06L. FACW, and/or FAC i Is the hydrophytic vegetation critericr. mer' Yes _ No IL Rationale: Indicatcr _ % Cover _ , 1 Zd 10 I SOILS Series/phase:Cotly.~ I~Xs k t hku n S 1 4 ~ OQM Subgroup Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No -Z Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol7 Yes _ No Z Histic epidedon present Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes _ No ~ uieyed? Yes_ No _ Matrix Color: 1 0 `LV 31I Morle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes _ No Rationale: ~ - li o HYDROLOGY NIS to ground surface inundated? Yes No ✓/Surfiace Water dect`~: Is the soil saturated? Yes- No -L Depth to free-standing water in pit/scil prrbe hole: List other field evidence of surface inurdation or sal saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion me*. 'des _ No Rationale: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant Community a wetland? Yes No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: 9. 10. r • • 1 1 1 e 1 1 1 FIELD DATA SHEET WETLANDS DELINEATION ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD Field Investiga r(s): p -Lit A Date: 17. 7J8 1 ci ProjectJSite: a Cf.&A4 _J State: O Caunty: W ks Applicant/Owner. Plant Community #/Name: 'N.1 $ 3 Note: If a more detailed site descrio ion is necessary, use the hack of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes I No _ (If no, explain on back) Has the vege tion, soils, and/or hyamlogy been significantly disturbed? Yes T Na (If yes, explain on back) Dominant F'lant Species Scientific Name, 1. G l e1 + 2. 3. 4. 5.1J ock~S:s a. 7. 8. 9. 10. VEGETATION C m-mcn Narre Stratum SC J t t ~7A a LL KA-Mjy(.t c c-Ma 1A Indicator % Cover 3- 10 F At C Lt h- ZO c LA Z Percent of dominant species that are 08L. FACW, and/or FAC Q Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No Rationale: _ In rv•a. / 1 1 SOILS Series/phase:- W ryu\ t1f . VCt x140 V, L I-fL Oct V" _ Subgroup Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No _Z Undetermvned Is the soil a Histasol7 Yes _ No ~Kistic ep,dedon present' Yes _ No ' Is the soil: Mottled? Yes _ Noleyed7 Yes _ No Matrix Color: i 0-( K.. 3/3 Mor.:e Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil .riterion met? Yes No Rationale: l V+.OI.L4 w )YS HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Y No Surface Water depth: ,is the soil saturated, Yes _ No _7 E)epth to free-standing water in pit/soil Grote hole: List other field evidence of surface inuraaticn or soil satura,,on. Is the wet?and hydrology criterion met' Yes _ No _ ' P.ationale: to 0 I G- f S I JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes _ No :L Rationale for jurisdictional decision: j~ yr.t 1 1 1 1 1 • • 4a TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE • SOUTH DIVISION TVrm COMMUNITY SERVICES • OPERATIONS * FIRE PREVENTION October 6, 1999 Len Schelsky Westlake Consultants Inc. 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150 Tigard, OR 97224 RE: Pacific Crest Subdivision Dear Len, This letter is to document the conference that occurred on September 29, 1999 at Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue's South Division office at which we discussed issues regarding the proposed Pacific Crest Subdivision. The following conditions shall apply: The Fire District requires two distinct access points to serve the subdivision. This requirement is due to the fact that the proposed single access point crosses over a gasoline pipeline which carries over 1,000,000 gallons per day. Because of the existence of this unusual hazard, we deem it necessary to provide two distinct routes by which the residents may evacuate in the case of an emergency. The Uniform Fire Code, Section 902.2.1 states "More than one fire apparatus road shall be provided when it is determined by the chief that access by a single road might be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access". ' 2. The proposed second access point by way of Sunrise Lane is not approved by the Fire District. This road would enter the subdivision at a point too close to the Mistletoe entrance and would not provide a safe evacuation route in the case of a pipeline emergency. 3. The proposed second access point at the south end of the subdivision from Barrows Road is acceptable to the Fire District. This roadway shall meet the design requirements for fire apparatus. The completion of the this access point will eliminate the requirement for automatic residential fire sprinklers. 4. Construction of up to 24 homes may begin prior to the completion of the second access point at the south end of the subdivision. No homes may be occupied prior to the completion of the second access point. Regardless of the final number of homes within the subdivision, the second access point is required and no home may be occupied prior to the completion of the second access point. 5. The Fire District will consider the reduction of our turning radius standards for the second access point if performance criteria is provided that shows our apparatus can safely negotiate the roadway. i Please feel free to contact me at (503) 612-7010 with any questions. Sincerely, Eric T. McMullen Deputy Fire Marshal 7401 SW Washoe Court - Tualatin, Oregon 97062 - Phone: 503-612-7000 - Fax: 503-612-7003 • www.tvfr.com APPENDIX 9 ~ a LANCASTER ENGINEERING Tralflo Studies Planning Safety January 3, 2000 ' Y P Len Schelsky Westlake Consultants Pacific Corporate Center 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150 Tigard, OR 97224 I Dear Len: • At your request we have updated our previous traffic impact study for the pro- posed Pacific Crest subdivision in Tigard. The analysis has been updated to include the new street connection to the north and the increase in the number of lots to 82 detached single family homes. This letter report summarizes the findings of this updated analy- sis. All traffic issues addressed previously are addressed again and a new average daily traffic volume (ADT) analysis has been made for the new street connection to the north. It is important to note that our previous report was reviewed by City of Tigard staff and found to be acceptable and complete. Consequent meetings with the Fire Marshall spurred the new connection to the north and the need for an update to our original re- port. I Trip Generation Our previous analyses assumed a total of 65 detached single family homes in the proposed development. This has been updated to the currently proposed size of 82 homes. Accordingly, the trip generation calculations have been revised. According to the new trip generation calculations, the proposed development will generate a total of 62 trips during the morning peak hour with 15 entering and 47 exiting the site. The evening peak hour is expected to result in a total of 83 trips with 53 entering and 30 I exiting the site. A daily total of 784 trips are expected with half entering and half exit- ing the site. A summary of these revised calculations is shown in the following table. Detailed trip generation calculations are included in the appendix to this report. t I Union Station, Suite 206 • 800 N.W. 6th Avenue • Portland, OR 9720 on 3 ( - 51 LANCASTER ENGINEERING 1 t 1 t 1 1 1 Len Schelsky January 3, 2000 Page 2 of 7 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Pacific Crest (1/00 Revision) Entering Exiting Total Tho TIm ILim AM Peak Hour 15 47 62 PM Peak Hour 53 30 83 Weekday 392 392 784 Trip Distribution The overall trip distribution patterns assumed in the original report have not been modified, although some additional detail is necessary to quantify the amount of traffic expected to use routes such as Fern Street, Menlor Lane and Ascension Drive. The new street connection to the north will connect to Fern Street and Mentor Lane through Hillshire Creek Estates #4, a residential development that is currently under construction. These streets are expected to carry the majority of the traffic to and from the north that was previously assigned to Ascension Drive and neighboring north/south connections. The new street connection to the north will drastically reduce project traf- fic on Ascension Drive compared to our previous analysis. A vicinity map showing the site location and all pertinent surrounding roadways is shown in the technical appendix to this report. Following the vicinity map is a drawing showing the expected trip dis- tribution for the proposed Pacific Crest subdivision. Roadway ADT Analysis The previous analyses examined the average daily traffic (ADT) on Mistletoe Drive and Ascension Drive in light of the proposed development. This update will re- visit these roadways as well as examining Fern Street and Menlor Lane, the two road- way connections to the north. Traffic volumes on Fern Street and Menlor Lane will be directly impacted by traffic from Hillshire Creek Estates #4. Unfortunately, no traffic 1 I i i I D 1 ' LANCASTER ENGINEERING Len Schelsky January 3, 2000 Page 3 of 7 impact study was done for this development. In order to estimate the background traf- fic volumes for these streets, a trip generation, distribution, and assignment was done for the development. The trips were calculated using land use code 230, Residential t Condominium/Townhouse, from the Trip Generation manual. Trip distribution patterns were assumed to be very similar to those for the proposed Pacific Crest development since they are both residential developments located directly adjacent to each other. Trip generation calculations for Hillshire Creek are shown in the appendix to this re- port. Traffic counts were made on Fern Street west of Creekshire Drive and on Mentor Lane south of Barrows Road to determine the current daily traffic volumes on these roadways. Traffic from Hillshire Creek Estates was added to these volume counts to assess background traffic conditions. Additionally, a growth rate of three percent per year for two years was added to the traffic volume on Mentor Lane to account for other new residential developments which will add traffic to Mentor Lane that are cur- rently under construction. Traffic counts on Ascension Drive were done by the City of Tigard in 1998. At that time a portion of the homes in the area were not completely built or occupied. These counts were increased to account for completion of these homes as well as area- wide growth in the last two years. Traffic counts were done on Mistletoe Drive as a part of the original traffic impact study. The City of Tigard standards for daily roadway volumes are as follows: ➢ Local street, 28 foot width: less than 500 vehicles per day 9 Local street, 32 foot width: less than 1,500 vehicles per day 9 Minor collector, 40 foot width: less than 3,000 vehicles per day The following table shows a summary of the background traffic volumes, proj- ect traffic, and background plus site traffic (total traffic) for each of these roadways. ' Volume data sheets for the new traffic counts are included in the technical appendix to this report. 1 51 i LANCASTER ENGINEERING Len Schelsky January 3, 2000 Page 4 of 7 1 f 1 1 ROADWAY ADT SUMMARY Pacific Crest (1/00 revision) Background Site Total Tra fib Thpa Traffic Mistletoe Drive (MC/LS) Btwn Hillshire Dr. & Benchview Ter. 2,040 510 2,550 Immediately east of Ascension Drive 450 510 960 Ascension Drive (LS < 500 AD7) North of Mistletoe Drive 515 40 555 Fern Street (LS) West of Creekshire Drive 605 160 765 Menlor Lane (MC) South of Barrows Road 765 80 845 ADT = Average Daily Traffic MC = Minor Collector (up to 3,000 ADT) LS = Local Street (up to 1,500 ADT) As explained in our original report, Mistletoe Drive is designated as a local residential street for the majority of its length. The portion of Mistletoe Drive between Hillshire Drive and Benchview Terrace connects two minor collectors, and therefore acts as a de-facto minor collector. In anticipation of this, the subject portion of Mis- tletoe was built to minor collector standards (40 foot width). The remainder of Mistle- toe Drive is built to local street standards and varies from 32 to 34 feet in width. As shown in the table, the City's ADT standards are satisfied. Ascension Drive is a local street that is 28 feet in width. Under current Tigard standards, local streets are 28 or 32 feet in width, although streets of 28 feet in width are not intended to carry more the 500 vehicles per day. As shown in the table, the ADT on Ascension Drive is already slightly greater than 500. When Ascension Drive F-] LANCASTER ENGINEERING Len Schelsky January 3, 2000 Page 5 of 7 was designed, 28 feet was the minimum width for collector roadways, certainly in- tending to carry more than 500 vehicles per day. Since that time roadway width stan- dards have increased, leaving Ascension Drive, which was once built to the minimum standards for a collector, under the "less than 500 ADT" standard for the City of Ti- gard. As the table shows, the proposed Pacific Crest subdivision is expected to add a very small amount of traffic to Ascension Drive. The project's impact to Ascension has decreased substantially, primarily because of the new street connection to the north. Clearly, it is impossible to construct new homes in the area and restrict them from us- ing Ascension Drive to keep the ADT down. Providing additional access to the north for Pacific Crest traffic, as will occur with the connection to Menlor and Fern, is the best possible solution for minimizing the traffic impacts to Ascension Drive. ' Fern Street and Menlor Lane clearly satisfy the City's standards for local streets and minor collector roadways. The addition of site traffic will not cause the daily vol- umes on these roadways to exceed City standards. Intersection Capacity Analysis In previous analyses for this project we examined the morning and evening peak hour operation of the intersections of Bull Mountain Road and Benchview Terrace as well as Benchview Terrace at Mistletoe Drive. The capacity analysis at these intersec- tions has been updated to reflect the recent changes to the project. The results of the capacity analysis in the previous analyses show that the inter- section of Benchview Terrace and Bull Mountain Road is currently operating at level of service C during the morning peak hour and between levels of service A and B during the evening peak hour. These levels of service represent traffic on the minor street ap- proaches since these movements experience the longest delays. For background traffic conditions, the minor street approaches will operate at level of service D during the morning peak hour and level of service B during the evening peak hour. The addition of project traffic from the revised Pacific Crest subdivision will result in level of serv- ice D during the morning peak hour and level of service C during the evening peak hour. r'k LANCASTER ENGINEERING Len Schelsky January 3, 2000 Page 6of7 Previous analyses show that the intersection of Benchview Terrace and Mistletoe Drive is currently operating at level of service A during both peak hours. This level of service will not change for background traffic or background plus site trips from the revised Pacific Crest subdivision. The results of the capacity analysis are shown in the following table. Detailed level of service calculations are shown in the technical appendix to this report. 1 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Pacific Crest (1 /00 Revision) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS D Benchview Ter. @ Bull Mtn Road Existing Conditions* C 18 A/B 5 Background Traffic* D 21 B 9 Background + Site Trips* D 26 B/C 10 Background + Site Trips (revised) D 28 C 11 Benchview Ter. @ Mistletoe Dr. Existing Conditions* A 9 A 8 Background Traffic* A 9 A 8 Background + Site Trips* A 9 A 9 Background + Site Trips (revised) A 9 A 9 * From original traffic impact study LOS = Level of Service Delay = Average Delay per Vehicle in Seconds As the table above shows, the subject intersections show no substantial increase in average delay per vehicle compared to the results of the previously approved traffic impact study. 1 s • ' LANCASTER ENGINEERING 1 Len Schelsky January 3, 2000 Page 7 of 7 Summary The two primary revisions to the proposed Pacific Crest subdivision, the street connection to the north and the increase to 82 lots, will not have a negative impact on the operation of the adjacent street network. In fact, the new street connection to the north will move project traffic from sensitive routes such as Ascension Drive to other roadways such as Fern Street and Menlor Lane that are operating well within City stan- dards for daily traffic volumes. Study area intersections analyzed for level of service show no substantial increase in average delay per vehicle compared to the findings of the previously approved traffic impact study for the development. If you have any questions regarding this information or if we can be of any fur- ther assistance, please do not hesitate to call. I Sincerely, z,- E. Mobley T Senior Transportation Analyst I 1 STER. ENGINEERING TECHNICAL APPENDIX t i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 0 0 VICINITY MAP ENGINEERING t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION Inbound & Outbound Percentages R ENGINEERING AM & PM Peak Hours 0 a v Or b r h C S ~ p La. m ~ t ~ r'R E 1 ! i ! 1 ! I ! i ! 1 ! i ! 1 1 Qt ! i c°j y~+ ~~~y oe ! G 1 1 ! Q~~~e 1 ! . mistletoe F, 0 v^ 0 ?~~y QTiy 0 Uj4 70 0 aao 0 u►f mou. toin Rood g t ?Nff ;PS SO Vr Al Pend ~A°Uf ` STERENGINEER~~G 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 0 No Scale ENGINEERING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Site Trips PM Peak Hour No scale ENGINEERING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Background + Site Trips AM Peak Hour rev_ 1,dwg 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 0 0 No Scale ENGINEERING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Background + Site Trips PM Peak Hour a ROADWAY TRAFFIC SURVEY • Roadway: SW FERN STREET Location: WEST OF CREEKSHIRE DRIVE Direction: COMBINED EAST-WEST FLOW Date: 12/8/99 Day of Week: TUESDAY Axles per Vehicles: 2 Hour :00- :05- :10- :15- of Day :05 :10 :15 :20 00-01 5 1 2 2 01-02 1 0 5 1 02-03 2 3 1 1 03-04 2 1 2 2 04-05 33 12 4 5 05-06 2 1 4 4 06-07 2 1 2 4 07-08 1 1 1 2 ' 08-09 4 1 0 1 09--10 6 0 1 2 10-11 0 1 0 1 11-12 0 2 1 3 12-13 1 0 0 4 13-14 0 0 0 0 14-15 0 0 0 0 15-16 0 0 0 0 16-17 0 0 0 0 17-18 0 0 0 0 18-19 0 1 1 0 19-20 1 5 0 11 20-21 1 0 2 0 21-22 0 2 2 6 22-23 23-24 2 5 2 4 3 6 1 4 1 1 IlTraffic Smithy I Traffic Survey Service :20- :25- :30- :35- :40- :45- :50- :55- Hour :25 :30 :35 :40 :45 :50 :55 :00 Tot. 1 3 1 1 3 3 0 3 25 2 2 1 2 3 0 1 3 21 2 0 1 5 0 4 6 2 27 4 2 2 0 2 1 4 3 25 6 4 2 0 4 2 7 2 81 0 0 5 2 7 1 0 5 31 1 1 5 4 1 5 2 0 28 2 1 4 1 0 3 0 0 16 2 0 1 2 4 2 4 0 21 2 1 1 4 2 3 1 2 25 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 1 1 4 1 3 1 2 15 1 5 1 1 3 3 0 6 37 1 3 18 3 4 0 2 2 36 4 3 2 5 0 3 2 1 30 2 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 24 0 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 32 Daily Total: 503 AM Peak Hour (03:55-04:55) 82 PM Peak Hour (20:30-21:30) 46 4th Highest Hour (23:00-24:00 )32 8th Highest Hour (02:00-03:00 )27 16.3 0 of Daily Total 9.15 0 of Daily Total 6.36 k of Daily Total 5.37 0 of Daily Total ROADWAY TRAFFIC SURVEY Roadway: SW MENLOR LANE Location: SOUTH OF BARROWS ROAD Direction: COMBINED NORTH-SOUTH FLOW Date: 12/7/99 Day of Week: TUESDAY Axles per Vehicles: 2 i Traffic Smithy II Traffic Survey Service ' Hour :00- :05- :10- :15- :20- :25- :30- :35- :40- :45- :50- :55- Hour of Day :05 :10 :15 :20 :25 :30 :35 :40 :45 :50 :55 :00 Tot. 00-01 1. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 01-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 02-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04-05 0 0 0 0. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 05-06 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 7 06-07 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 2 2 1 2 3 14 07--08 08-09 3 0 1 3 1 1 2 4 4 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 4 0 3 4 2 3 4 .1 27 25 09-10 3 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 0 1 14 10-11 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 4 4 3 1 1 19 11-12 1 5 0 1 0 2 2 5 2 0 7 3 28 ' 12-13 1 4 0 0 2 2 3 0 2 5 1 1 21 13-14 4 4 0 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 2 19 14-15 3 1 4 1 5 2 1 4 0 5 1 5 32 15-16 2 4 3 5 1 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 28 16-17 9 4 2 4 0 6 3 2 2 3 7 1 43 17-18 5 2 7 4 2 2 1 2 7 5 1 0 38 18-19 19-20 3 2 4 6 1 2 4 0 4 1 6 1 0 3 6 1 4 3 5 2 1 4 4 3 42 28 20-21 1 0 1 2 4 1 2 5 2 0 0 2 20 21-22 2 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 3 0 0 3 13 22-23 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 ' 23-24 2 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Daily Total: 437 ' AM Peak Hour (07:40-08:40) 30 6.86 0 of Daily Total PM Peak Hour (16:50-17:50) 45 10.3 of Daily Total 4th Highest Hour (14:00-15:00 )32 7.32 0 of Daily Total 8th Highest Hour (07:00-08:00 )27 6.18 t of Daily Total i 1 1 L'A CASTER ENGINEERING 1 0 TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use: Residential Condominium/Townhouse Land Use Code: 230 Variable: Dwelling Units Variable Value: 57 AM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: Ln(7) =0.790 Ln(X) + 0.298 1 Enter Exit Total Directional 17% 83% Distribution Trip Ends .'%--Ii xz:::.v~v:?.,'•::c~ IN }ix•}L :''G'i'i:4•. if ' WEEKDAY Trip Rate: Ln (7) = 0.850Ln (X) + 2.564 Enter Exit Total Directional 50% 50% Distribution Trip Ends PM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: Ln (7) = 0.827Ln (X) + 0.309 Enter Exit Total Directional 67% 33% Distribution Tri Ends :~><<> p SUNDAY Trip Rate: T= 3.132(X) + 357.258 Enter Exit Total Directional 50% 50% Distribution ::::.xv: n•.:::: x; :i::?:ij;: Vii} ::~:y:tj:,:'.j:i:iy;:$:::: Trip Ends Source: TRIP GENERATION, Sixth Edition ~ 6410CASUR ate. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 . 0 TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use: Single-Family Detached Housing Land Use Code: 210 Variable: Dwelling Units Variable Value: 82 AM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: 0.75 Enter Exit Total Directional 25% 75% Distribution Trip Ends WEEKDAY Trip Rate: 9.57 Enter Exit Total Directional 50% 50% Distribution Trip Ends Source: TRIP GENERATION, Sixth Edition PM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: 1.01 Enter Exit Total Directional 64% 36% Distribution Trip Ends SATURDAY Trip Rate: 10.09 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 s I 0 • HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1f STAMI.HC0 Page 1 Lancaster Engineering Union Station, Suite 206 800 NW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97209- Ph: (503) 248-0313 Streets: (N-S) BENCHVIEW TERRACE (E-W) BULL MT. ROAD Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst TODD E. MOBLEY Date of Analysis.......... 12/15/99 Other Information......... BCKGRND+SITE TRIPS, AM PEAK, 12/99 REVI SION Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC Is M SU/RVfs (W) CV's M 1 1 < 0 N 121 353 3 .79 .79 .79 0 4 0 1.02 1 1 1 N 6 134 88 .79 .79 .79 0 0 11 0 1.06- Adjustment Factors 0 > 1 < 0 2 3 14 .79 .79 .79 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 0 0 0 1_05-1.05 1.05 0 > I < 0 142 1 38 .79 .79 .79 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 0 0 1.02 1.02 1.02 - Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 1 HCS: Unsignalized_Intersections -__Release -2_lfSTAMl.HCO------Page -2 ' - -Worksheet -for -TWSC -I ntersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB ' - Conflicting Flows: (vph) 449 170 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 820 1136 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 820 1136 ' Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.96 Step 2: LT from Major Street - WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 451 281 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1045 1259 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1045 1259 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.88 Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 891 782 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 372 424 Capacity Adjustment Factor ' due to Impeding Movements 0.87 0.87 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 323 369 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 1.00 St t -LT-f -Mi -St -4 : rom nor ep ree NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 804 846 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 362 343 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.87 0.86 ' Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.90 0.89 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.86 0.87 ' Movement Capacity: (pcph) 311 299 ' Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach ' Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) - (sec/veh) NB L 3 311 > - - NB T 4 323 > 575 6.6 0.0 B 6.6 NB R 19 820 > ' SB L 183 299 > SB T 1 369 > 354 27.7 4.2 D 27.7 SB R 49 1136 > EB L 156 1259 3.3 0.4 A 0.8 WB L 8 1045 3.5 0.0 A 0.1 ' Intersection De lay - 6.1 sec/veh 1 t i i HCSs Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1f STPMI.HCO Page 1 Lancaster Engineering Union Station, Suite 206 800 NW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97209- Ph: (503) 248-0313 Streetsa (N-S) BENCHVIEW TERRACE (E-W) BULL MT. ROAD Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst TODD E. MOBLEY Date of Analysis.......... 12/15/99 Other Information......... BCKGRND+SITE TRIPS, PM PEAK, 12/99 REVI SION Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R - - - No. Lanes Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MCIs SU/RV's M CV's M PCEIs 1 1 < 0 N 57 204 4 .94 .94 .94 0 2 0 1_01 - 1 1 1 N 10 309 144 .94 .94 .94 0 1 0 1.01 Adjustment Factors 0 > 1 < 0 2 2 11 .94 .94 .94 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 0 0 0 1_02-1_02-1.02 0 > 1 < 0 95 4 99 .94 .94 .94 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 1.011.011_01 - - Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 1 1 1 1 1 i • HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1f STPMI.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 219 329 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1072 943 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1072 943 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.89 Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 221 482 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1345 1010 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1345 1010 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.94 Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 773 622 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 429 514 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding movements 0.93 0.93 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 399 479 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.99 Step 4: LT from Minor Street - NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 674 704 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 431 414 Maj or LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.92 0.93 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.94 0.94 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.84 0.93 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 360 386 Movement ' NB NB L T NB R SB L SB T SB R EB L WE L Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95!k Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) 2 360 - > 2 399 > 735 5.0 0.0 B 5.0 12 1072 > 102 386 > 4 479 > 551 10.6 1.9 C 10.6 106 943 > 62 1010 3.8 0.1 A 0.8 11 1345 2.7 0.0 A 0.1 Intersection Delay = 2.6 sec/veh I HCS: Unsignalizedoersections Release 3.1b • ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Worksheet 1 - Basic Intersection Information 1. Analyst: TODD E. MOBLEY 2. Intersection: BENCHVIEW 0 MISTLETOE ' 3. Count Date: BCKGRND+SITE, 12/99 REVISION 4. Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Charact eristics ' North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 LI Ll L1 1. LT Volume: 72 1 6 2 2. TH Volume: 158 62 1 2 3. RT Volume: 0 4 105 5 4. Peak Hour Factor: 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 5. Flow Rate LT: 90 1 7 2 6. Flow Rate TH: 197 77 1 2 7. Flow Rate RT: 0 5 131 6 8. Flow Rate Total: 287 83 140 11 9. Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.05 10. Subject Approach 1 1 1 1 11. Opposing Approach 1 1 1 I 12. Conflicting Approach 1 1 1 1 13. Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 ~ 14. T (Time in Hours): 0.250 Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Works heet North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L1 LI Ll 1. Flow Rate Total: 287 83 140 11 2. Flow Rate LT: 90 1 7 2 3. Flow Rate RT: 0 5 131 6 4. Prop IT in lane: 0.31 0.01 0.05 0.22 5. Prop RT in lane: 0.00 0.06 0.94 0.56 6. Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.05 7. Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 8. hLT-adj by Table 10-18 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 9. hRT-adj by Table 10-18 -0.60 -0.60 -0.60 -0.60 10. hHV-adj Table 10-18 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 ' 11. hadj 0.13 0.05 -0.52 -0.20 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 Ll Ll L1 1. Total lane flow rate 287 83 140 11 2. hd, initial value 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3. x, initial 0.26 0.07 0.12 0.01 ' 4. hd, final value 4.4 4.6 4.2 4.7 5. x, final value 0.36 0.11 0.16 0.01 6. Move-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 7. Service Time 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.7 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Ll L1 Ll L1 1. Total lane flow rate 287 83 140 11 2. Service Time 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.7 3. Degree Utilization, x 0.36 0.11 0.16 0.01 4. Departure headway, hd 4.4 4.6 4.2 4.7 5. Capacity 791 758 804 716 6. Delay 9.9 8.1 8.1 7.8 7. Level Of Service A A A A 8. Delay Approach 9.9 8.1 8.1 7.8 9. LOS, approach A A A A 10. Delay, Intersection 9.1 I RCS: Unsignalized *ersections Release 3.1b • Worksheet 1 - Basic 1. Analyst: 2. Intersection: 3. Count Date: 4. Time Period: ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection Information TODD E. MOBLEY BENCHVIEW @ MISTLETOE BCKGRND+SITE, 12/99 REVISION PM PEAK HOUR 1 Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Ll L1 L1 L1 1. LT Volume: 124 4 8 2 12. TH Volume: 72 103 12 2 3. RT Volume: 3 8 108 5 4. Peak Hour Factor: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 15. Flow Rate LT: 6. Flow Rate TH: 137 80 4 114 8 13 2 2 7. Flow Rate RT: 3 8 120 5 8. Flow Rate Total: 221 127 142 10 9. Prop. Heavy Vehicle: I10. Subject Approach 0.01 1 0.00 1 0.02 1 0.06 1 11. Opposing Approach 1 1 1 1 12. Conflicting Approach 1 1 1 1 13. Geometry Group 1 ~14.'T (Time in Hours): 0.250 1 1 1 Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L1 L1 L1 1. Flow Rate Total: 221 127 142 10 2. Flow Rate LT: 137 4 8 2 Flow Rate RT: 3 8 120 5 ~~g4 Prop LT in lane: 0.62 0.03 0.06 0.22 5. Prop RT in lane: 0.02 0.07 0.84 0.56 16, Prop. Heavy vehicle: 7. Geometry Group 0.01 1 0.00 1 0.02 1 0.06 1 8. hLT-adj by Table 10-18 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 9. hRT-adj by Table 10-18 -0.60 -0.60 -0.60 -0.60 hHV-adj Table 10-18 ,10. 11. hadj 1.70 0.13 1.70 -0.03 1.70 -0.46 1.70 -0.19. Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Ll L1 L1 L1 1. Total lane flow rate 221 127 142 10 2. hd, initial value 3.2 3.2 3.2 3 2 .3 x, initial 9 0.20 0.11 0.13 . 0.02 : hd, final value 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.6 5. x, final value 0.28 0.16 0.17 0.01 6. Move-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 7. Service Time 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.6 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Ll L1 L1 L1 1. Total lane flow rate 221 127 142 10 2. Service Time 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.6 Degree Utilization, x F ' 0.28 0.16 0.17 0.01 4 . Departure headway, hd 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.6 5. Capacity 780 786 807 724 16, Delay 7. Level Of Service 9.2 A 8.3 A 8.1 A 7.7 A S. Delay Approach 9.2 8.3 8.1 7.7 9. LOS, approach A A A A 10. Delay, Intersection 8.6 , i • ADaPT r*neering, Inc. 17700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97224 Tel (503) 598-8445 • Fax (503) 598-8705 December 15, 1999 Job No. OR99-2791 Farmers Land Trust, Inc. l 26715 S.W. Baker Road Sherwood, Oregon 97140 Fax (503) 625-9709 Attention: John A. Rankin, President RE: PACIFIC CREST SUBDIVISION TIGARD, OREGON We are pleased to present this Pacific Crest Subdivision Report, which combines the initial report, dated 23 September 1999 with addendum data covering the adjacent 6-acre area on the north. The additional data was added as a forward to the original report because the differences between the initial and added site areas are insignificant. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ADaPT Engineering, Inc. es Pyne, R.G. i i i APPENDIX 11 L~ i i i i i Job No. OR99-279 Padfic Crest 5ubdi n (North) 0 ADDENDUM REPORT ADaPT *ineering, Inc. 17700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97224 Tel (503) 598-8445 a Fax (503) 598-8705 December 15, 1999 Job No. OR99-2791 Farmers Land Trust, Inc. 26715 S.W. Baker Road Sherwood, Oregon 97140 Fax (503) 625-9709 Attention: John A. Rankin, President RE: ADDENDUM GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PACIFIC CREST SUBDIVISION (NORTH) TIGARD, OREGON This report is presented as an addendum to our Geotechnical Investigation for the Pacific Crest Subdivision, dated September 23, 1999. A copy of the initial report is attached. The land area covered by this addendum report consists of about 6.4 acres located immediately adjacent on the north to the initially proposed 13 acre Pacific Crest residential Subdivision in Tigard, Oregon (see Figure 1). Considering the geologic similarities of the two properties, and the brief period of time separating the two studies, we are presenting the additional information as a forward addendum to the initial report. The purpose of our investigation is to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and to provide geotechnical recommendations for site grading and construction of foundations, utilities, drainage, and new streets. Our addendum work was performed in accordance with ADaPT Engineering, Inc. proposal letter No. 99-P1075, dated December 2, 1999. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The 6-acre addendum site is located on the sloping north flank of a topographic nose on the northern flank of Bull Mountain in the southeast of Section 5, Township 2 South, Range 1 West. This parcel extends from the former northern boundary of the Pacific Crest Subdivision to the' base of Bull Mountain (see Figure 2). A Bonneville Power easement and a petroleum pipeline trends northward along the east site boundary. Site elevations range between about 324 and 496 feet above sea level. Grades average between about 30 and 40 percent on the steep flanks of the topographic nose, and about 20 to 25 percent along the crest of the nose. Drainage is to the east, west, and north. There are no streams or other bodies of water on the site. Vegetation consists of a dense growth of Douglas fir and deciduous trees; However, selective logging has removed a few of the larger fir trees. The expanded 6 acres parcel is proposed for development of 20 additional lots for single-family residences, thus totaling 82 residential lots for the entire Pacific Crest Development. A total of 1,400 lineal feet of new streets are planned. We assume that utilities will be located primarily in the streets. No grading plan has been provided for our review. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on observations in 6 exploratory test pits on the Pacific Crest North parcel, subsurface conditions are very similar to those previously encountered during our initial September 1999 investigation. These new test pit observations are discussed below. Soils On-site native soils consist of topsoil, colluvium, and residual soil as described below. In addition, a relatively thick section of fill was found in test pit TP-16. Page 1 i Job No. OR99-2790 Pacific Crest Subdivision (North) 0 Topsoil - The topsoil horizon was observed in the test pits to range in thickness between about 4 and 9 inches. It generally consisted of light grey-brown silt some clay and some fine organic debris. It was wet and soft at the time of our investigation due to wet weather. We also observed that the topsoil was overlain by organic forest litter (duff) that ranged in thickness between 6 and 9 inches. Colluviai Loess - The topsoil horizon is underlain by light brown clayey silt that is wet, soft, and somewhat plastic. This soil appears to be loess-like but with a fragmented texture that suggests lateral movement. Because it appears to have been transported after deposition, we have named it colluvial loess. This soil unit varied in thickness between about 17 and 31 inches with an average of about 19 inches. During our work in September 1999, this soil type was dry and very stiff. Currently it is wet and very soft. Colluvium - A colluvial soil unit was found throughout the site between the overlying loess- like soil and the underlying residual soil. It is typically very stiff, and contains numerous transported basalt rock fragments that are completely weathered to a dark brown clayey silt soil. These fragments are contained within a matrix of light brown silt with some clay that is similar in texture and color to the overlying colluvial loess. This soil unit was observed to vary in thickness between about 13 and 39 inches. It is typically damp to moist and very stiff. Residual Soil - Residual soil is produced by in-situ weathering of the underlying parent basalt rock without lateral movement as a result of erosional processes. At this site, the residual soil/weathered rock is typically dark brown clayey silt with numerous residual fractures that contain black mineral staining. It is typically very stiff. Based on our test pit observations, the top of residual soil was encountered at depths of between 47 and 66 inches below the ground surface. Fill - Test pit TP-16 was excavated 60 feet northeast of TP-3 to further investigate the thickness and distribution of fill previously encountered on the Pacific Crest site. As - - indicated on the test pit log, 9.5 feet of wet clayey silt fill was found. The fill below a depth of about 7 feet contained numerous large fragments of concrete pipe, some sandy gravel, and occasional wood debris. L Groundwater Little groundwater was encountered in any of the 6 exploratory test pits. Soils above 3' were generally wet to very moist, and only damp below depths of 3 to 4 feet. This wet zone is anticipated to penetrate deeper as the wet winter season continues. A very slight seepage was observed at a depth of 4 feet in test pit TP-13. SLOPE STABILITY The expanded northern portion of the Pacific Crest site has somewhat steeper topography than the area to the south. As previously mentioned, maximum grades range between 30 and 40 percent while minimum grades average between 20 and 25 percent. None of the proposed lots have grades in excess of 30 percent. Based on visual observations, the slope morphology is generally smooth and uniform, and no evidence of landsliding was observed. Many of the larger Douglas fir trees appear to have a slight bowing of their trunks. This is interpreted to be the result of slow creep over the life of the tree, not the result of unstable soils. The test pits indicate that the slopes are underlain by competent residual soil produced by in-situ weathering of basalt. This soil has moderate to high shear strength, and deep-seated landsliding on existing natural slopes appears unlikely. Page 2 1 1 1 Job No. 01199-27A is Pacific Crest Subdivision (North) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Our investigation indicates that development of the northern 6-acre portion of the Pacific Crest Subdivision is also geotechnically feasible provided that the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project. Cuts in excess of 4 to 5 feet are likely to encounter residual soil; however, rock is not anticipated at depths of less than 15 to 20 feet. Almost all slopes in Pacific Crest North have grades in excess of 20 percent. As a result, fills placed on these slopes will require benching and keying to maintain long-term stability. Appendix B in the Original Report (attached) contains an itemized checklist of soil testing and inspection procedures that are recommended to help guide the project to completion. The recommendations in the attached initial report remain applicable for the addendum site. Site Preparation The site preparation discussion presented in the Initial Report, page 4, also applies to this addendum portion of the site. Additionally, the fill area around TP-3 mentioned in the Initial Report as covering an estimated 2,500 ftZ was investigated again with TP-16. A maximum of 9.5 feet of fill was found. Based on additional surface observations, the area underlain by fill is revised to be near 17,000 ftz. The fill is not suitable for structures and will require removal in areas planned for grading and construction. INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS AND GENERAL NOTES The opinions and recommendations contained within this report are not intended to be, nor should they be construed as, a warranty of subsurface conditions but are forwarded to assist in the planning and design process. If subsurface conditions vary from those encountered in our site exploration, ADaPT should be informed so that we may provide additional geotechnical recommendations, if necessary. The owner/developer is responsible for insuring that our recommendations are implemented by the project designers and contractors. Monitoring and testing by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. We encourage review of this report by bidders as it relates to factual data only (i.e. test pit, boring, and laboratory data). Sincerely, ADaPT Engineering, Inc. 01105, James E. Pyne, R.G. Geologist 114743 1 O ~N 2 3. ~g9 F, IFS D. 1MgQ`~f0. ~v' ~D 1 James D. Imbrie, P.E., C.E.G. Geotechnical Engineer Page 3 i i i i i i i i i FARMERS LAND TRUST, INC. PACIFIC CREST SUBDIVISION SITE LOCATION MAP SCALE 1" = 2,000' CI=10' I ADaPT I DEC. 1999 1 FIGURE 1 1 Portion of USGS Beaverton, Oregon Quadrangle 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic), 1961, Revised 1984 0 F 2~SF} 65183 S _ 598?, S. ! 7.- 100'. SF. T I T 1 ! r ~ 1A ~ ~ ~ .33 /'5463 From Westlake Consultants, Job 1239-01 ••.7 I ~w X44' ` Addendum Site Boundary \ 5•. Bbl S.l\~ \ ~',n, ` , . 1• . `*'l, 1`` . 1' 806 ~;F. 1 ~ TP-12 !sz69sF. 91 % 74 1 _ a hii t L 657$ s R 1 r ~ - - 92•~ \ ~4E8'S.F. ! ' I 03' i TP-15 I 114' 78 7384 S.F. ' . 124' 1 ' 4' ~ 8 I 0 F. ! 9Z ( z' 82 f ~sO E f Addendum Site Boundary - a jr FARMERS LAND TRUST, INC. I PACIFIC CREST SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN SCALE 1" = 100' .CI=2' ADaPT DEC. 1999 FOGURE 2 1 Job No. OR99-2-0 Pacific Crest Subdivision (North) 0 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS, SAMPLING, AND LABORATORY TESTING On December 9, 1999, six exploratory test pits were excavated on the Pacific Crest North parcel to depths between 5.5 to 9.5 feet at the locations shown on Figure 2. An ADaPT Geologist evaluated and logged the test pits with regard to soil type, moisture content, relative strength, groundwater content, etc. No soil samples were taken for laboratory analysis. Logs of the test pits are presented in this Appendix. The test pits were excavated with a 4-ton Takeuchi trackhoe operated by Earth Explorations, Inc. of Beaverton, Oregon using a 22-inch-wide bucket. All excavations were backfilled immediately after completion of logging and sampling. Minimal compactive effort was applied to the test pit backfill. Page 5 Am tk IRW A T Engineering, Inc. 17700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, Suite 100 TEST PIT LOG 02 Portland, Oregon 97224 Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: Pacific Crest Subdivision Tigard, Oregon (North) Job No. OR99-2791 Test Pit No. TP-11 Y E V O N CL Cl r c~ m N c «N a 00 a _Q .0 N s ~ C ~ S Material Description - - - - - - - - Grey brown silt, some clay, fine organic debris & roots (8" Topsoil) 1 _ 1.0 Brown clayey silt, wet and soft to 28", finely fragmented, (Colluvial Loess) 2 0.5 - 3- >4.5 Numerous fine to coarse gravel-size fragments of basalt that are _ weatherd to dark brown clayey silt in a matrix of brown silt with some clay, 4' >4.5 stiff at 28", very stiff below 30", dry below 36" (Colluvium) 5 Top of residual soil at 5.5' 6- >4.5 Dark brown clayey silt with numerous black mineral stains on residual fractures ve stiff, dam Residual Soil 7 Test pit completed at 6.5 feet, No groundwater encountered, 8-. Test pit walls appear stable. 9- 10__ 14-- 15- 16- 17-- LEGEND ° Date Excavated: 1219199 ,cote auekat ® , ooo 7 Logged By: JEP , aeg Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing zone Water Level at Abandonment Surface Elevation: 485' A i i 1 Ah Ah ADa Engineering, Inc. 17700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, Suite 100 TEST PIT LOG Portland, Oregon 97224 Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: Pacific Crest Subdivision Tigard, Oregon (North) Job No. OR99-2791 Test Pit No. TP-12 t an o'ur CL m 2~ U) Q y o ~ N n D C a o a 10 c - 0 ~ Material Description ~ m 6 O 2 U ~ a. co m inches o forest u organic debris) over brownish-grey silt with some clay and some fine organic debris, fine roots (15" Topsoil) 1 - - Brown clayey silt, finely fragmented, wet, soft (Colluvial Loess) 2- 1.9 1.5 3 >4.5 Numerous fragments of basalt that are weathered to dark brown clayey silt in a matrix of brown silt with some clay, very stiff (Colluvium) 4- >4.5 TopofresiduaEsoi, w47"----------------- Dark brown clayey silt with black mineral stains on residual fractures, 5-- 74.5 very stiff, damp (Residual Soil) 6 Test pit completed at 5.5 feet, No groundwater encountered, 7 Test pit walls appear stable. 9- 10__ 17 LEGENO Date Excavated: 12/9/99 ioo~o Buckel ® , ooo 7 Logged By: JEP . Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abantlonment Surface Elevation: 344 ft. I~ i 1 ADaPT Engineering, Inc. 17700 SIN Boones Road, Suite 100 TEST PIT LOG Portland, Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: Pacific Crest Subdivision Job No OR99-2791 TP-13 Test Pit No Tigard, Oregon (North) . . s el ry E n N to ID Ek m 0 H N 0 N a o o--c o a n E Oa o Material Description r CL to V m 8" of forest duff (organic debris) over 7" of grey-brown silt with some clay, 1 loose, fragmented, wet (Topsoil) 0.0 Brown clayey silt, wet, soft from 15 to 34", (Colluvial Loess) 2 2.5 >4.5 Numerous fine to coarse gravel-size fragments of basalt that are weathered to dark brown clayey silt in a matrix of brown clayey silt 4 >4.5 with some clay, very stiff, moist, very slight seepage at 48" (Colluvium) 5 Top of residual soil at 56'; Dark brown clayey silt, moist, very stiff, abundant black mineral stains along residual fractures (Residual Soil) 6 7 Test pit completed at 6.0 feet, No groundwater encountered below 48" Test pit walls appear stable. 8- 9- 10- 11- 12-- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- LEGEND ° Date Excavated: 5Gal. ~e~ ® 100 to g~ 1,000 7 Logged By: JEP Surface Elevation: 418 ft. Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment a i 1 1 1 1 1 1 A& Aft AOa ngineering, Inc. 17700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, Suite 100 TEST PIT L0~ Portland, Oregon 97224 Tel: (503) 5984445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: Pacific Crest Subdivision Tigard, Oregon (North) Job No. OR99-2791 Test Pit No. TP-14 t m H U 2 N 0 CL 41 2-1 Y jn N 4s C N o tT a ° - = a ~ Q m o c~~ ~ Material Description O m a CD ° O v w m 8" of forest duff (organic debris) over 4" of grey brown silt with some clay, 1 - finely organic, fragmented, soft, wet (Topsoil) 2_ Brown clayey silt, wet, soft, plastic; grades more stiff below 32" (Colluvial Loess) - -0 - - - - - - - - 3-- 1.75 Grades damp below 40" with numerous completely weathered fragments - >4.5 of basalt in a matrix of brown silt with some clay, very stiff (Colluvium) 4- Top of residual soil at 54" 5 Dark brown clayey silt with black mineral stains on residual fractures, - very stiff, damp (Residual Soil). 6-- 7- Test pit completed at 6.0 feet, No groundwater encountered, 8 _ Test pit walls appear stable. 9- 10- 11- 12- 13--- 14- 17- LEGEND o Date Excavated: SGaI.®e 1QQ to Bucket IXJO Logged By: JEP 10 Surface Elevation: 388 ft. Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment `i A Y 1 1 Y 1 Ah i ADa Engineering, Inc. 17700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, Suite 100 TEST PST LOG 02 Portland, Oregon 97224 Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: Pacific Crest Subdivision Job No. OR99-2791 Test Pit No TP-15 Tigard, Oregon (North) . o e ` G C CL g~ a ° u EE gym Material Description o ~ 20 U a cn to 9" of forest duff (organic debris) over 8" of brownish-grey silt with some _ clay, organic, fragmented, wet, soft (Topsoil) 1 - 2- Brown clayey silt, wet, soft, plastic above 4', grades (Colluvial Loess) 3-- 4- - 4.0 Numerous completely weathered fragments of basalt in a matrix of brown 5- >4.5 silt with some clay, very stiff, damp (Colluvium) >4.5 Top of residual soil at 54"; Dark brown clayey silt with black mineral stains on residual fractures, very stiff, damp (Residual Soil) 7-- Test pit completed at 6.5 ft. 8-- No groundwater encountered, Test pit walls appear stable. 9- 10__ 12- 13-- 14- 15 16.- 17-- - J LEGEND e Date Excavated: 5cal. 100to 6ucke 7 Logged By: JEP Surface Elevation: 375 ft. Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment 1 r' i i i .dift ADa Engineering, Inc. 17700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, Suite 100 TEST PIT LOG Portland, Oregon 97224 Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: Pacific Crest Subdivision Tigard, Oregon (North) Job No. OR99-2791 Test Pit No. TP-16 L m m Ea= U O= a a C F- c~ _ - ~.r ° e aN 6 C - aterial Description ° a n -°v ~v m c Brown clayey silt, some wood fragments, wet, loose (Fill) 2- 3- 4 5 - Test pit walls caving below 5 ft. 6-- 7- - - Brown clayey silt similar to above, with coarse concrete pipe fragments g-- and pipe sections, some grey sandy gravel, occasional tree limb, wet, - loose (Fill) 9 Brown clayey silt at 9.5 feet (possibly native soil), hole caving. 10- Test pit completed at 9.5 feet, 11- Wet soils but no groundwater seepage, Test pit walls unstable. 12- 13- 14 15-- 16-- 17-- LEGEND Date Excavated: ~ooto ucket e~ 1 ppp 7 Logged By: JEP , Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment ® Surface Efevation: 510 ft. :Y Job No. OR99-2791 Pacific Crest Subdivision INITIAL REPORT AMPT Engineering, Inc. 1 ADaPT Entineering, Inc. I 17700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97224 Tel (503) 598-8445 • Fax (503) 598-8705 September 23, 1999 L Job No. OR99-2791 r Farmers Land Trust, Inc. 26715 S.W. Baker Road Sherwood, Oregon 97140 Fax (503) 625-9709 Attention: John A Rankin President . , RE: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ' PACIFIC CREST SUBDIVISION ` TIGARD, OREGON This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation of the proposed Pacific Crest Subdivision in Tigard, Oregon. The purpose of our investigation is to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and to provide geotechnical recommendations for site grading and construction of foundations, utilities, drainage, and new streets. Our work was performed in accordance with ADaPT Engineering, Inc. proposal letter No. 99-131044, dated September 13, 1999. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project Information Location: The site is located north of Sunrise Lane, which runs eastward off the north end of S.W. 15dt Avenue in Tigard, Oregon (see Figure 1). -1 Owner/ Farmers Land Trust, Inc. (see address above); telephone (503) 625-9710; Developer: Fax (503) 625-9709 Civil Engineer: Westlake Consultants, Inc. 15115 S.W. Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150, Tigard, Oregon 97224 Jurisdictional City of Tigard, Oregon Lkgengy: SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The 13-acre site is located along a topographic nose on the northern flank of Bull Mountain in the southeast % of Section 5, Township 2 South, Range 1 West. S.W. Sunrise Lane leads eastward to the south end of the site from the northern terminus of S.W. 150`" Avenue. A Bonneville Power easement trends northward along the east site boundary. Site elevations range between about 465 and 617 feet above sea level. Grades average between about 25 to 35 percent on the steep flanks of the topographic nose, and about 4 to 15 percent on the crest of the nose. Drainage is to the east, west, and north. There are no streams or other bodies of water on the site. Vegetation consists of Douglas fir and deciduous trees. Selective logging has thinned the forest and promoted a dense growth of smaller schrubs, berries, and weeds. The site is proposed for development of 65 lots for single-family residences. Four homes have been constructed on the property in recent years. One residence is just outside the planned development, Page 1 0 • ADaPT Engineering, Inc. Job No. OR99-2791 Pacific Crest Subdivision and three homes will be included in the subdivision on Lots 38, 42, and 58 (see Figure 2). A total of 2,600 lineal feet of new streets and private drives are planned. We assume that utilities will be located primarily in the streets. Currently, water and petroleum lines are located along the eastern site boundary. The grading plan indicates maximum cuts and fills on the order of 8 to 10 feet. REGIONAL GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC SETTING The subject site is located on Bull Mountain, one of several anticlinal structures within the Tualatin Basin. This basin is a broad northwest-trending syncline with faulting along its eastern margin where it meets the Tualatin Mountains (Portland Hills). Intrabasin faulting occurs along the north and east edges of Bull and Cooper Mountains. The Portland Hills are a northwest-trending zone of folded and faulted basement rocks that are cut by parallel and transverse high-angle faults and by southwest dipping thrust faults. Although numerous northwest- and northeast-trending faults have been mapped in the area, none have yet been shown to cut Holocene deposits. Some faults do cut Pleistocene rocks (Madin, 1990). At least three major structural features capable of generating earthquake that could impact the site are known to exist in the region. These include the Gales Creek-Newberg-Mt. Angel Structural Zone, the Portland Hills Fault Zone, and the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Gales Creek-Newberg-Mt. Angel Structural Zone The Gales Creek-Newberg-Mt. Angel Structural Zone is a 50-mile-long zone of discontinuous, NW- trending faults that lies about 9 miles southwest of the subject site, These faults are recognized in the subsurface by vertical separation of the Columbia River Basalt and offset seismic reflectors in the overlying basin sediment (Yeats et al, 1991; Werner et al, 1992). A recent geologic reconnaissance and photogeologic analysis study conducted for the Scoggins Dam site in the Tualatin Basin revealed no evidence of deformed geomorphic surfaces along the structural zone (Unruh, 1994). No seismicity has been recorded on the Gales Creek or Newberg Faults (the faults closest to the sUbject site); however, these faults are considered to be potentially active because they may connect with the seismically active Mount Angel Fault and the rupture plane of the 1993 M5.6 Scotts Mills earthquake (Werner et al. 1992; Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). Portland Hills Fault Zone The Portland Hills Fault Zone is a series of NW-trending faults that vertically displace the Columbia River Basalt by 1,130 feet and appear to control thickness changes in late Pleistocene (approx. 780,000 years) sediment (Madin, 1990). The fault zone extends along the eastern margin of the Portland Hills for a distance of 25 miles, and lies about 7 to 8 miles northeast of the subject site. Geomorphic lineaments suggestive of Pleistocene deformation have been identified within the fault zone, but none of the fault segments have been shown to cut Holocene (last 10,000 years) deposits (Balsillie and Benson, 1971: Conforth and Geomatrix Consultants, 1992). No historical seismicity is correlated with the mapped portion of the Portland Hills Fault Zone, but in 1991 a M3.5 earthquake occurred on a NW-trending shear plane located 1.3 miles east of the fault (Yelin, 1992). Although ~l there is no definitive evidence of recent activity, the Portland Hills Fault Zone is judged to be potentially active (Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). Cascadia Subduction Zone The Cascadia Subduction Zone is a 680-mile-long zone of active tectonic convergence where oceanic crust of the Juan de Fuca Plate is subducting beneath the North American continent at a rate of 4.5 cm per year (DeMets et al., 1990). Very little seismicity has occurred on the plate interface in historic a Page 2 a h L 1 • • ADaPT Engineering, Inc. Job No. OR99-2791 Pacific Crest Subdivision time, and as a result, the seismic potential of the Cascadia Subduction Zone is a subject of scientific controversy. The lack of seismicity may be interpreted as a period of quiescent stress buildup between large magnitude earthquakes or as being characteristic of the long-term behavior of the subduction zone. A growing body of geologic evidence, however, strongly suggests that prehistoric subduction zone earthquakes have occurred (Atwater, 1992; Carver, 1992; Peterson et al., 1993; Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). This evidence includes: (1) buried tidal marches recording episodic, sudden subsidence along the coast of northern California, Oregon, and Washington, (2) burial of subsided tidal marshes by tsunami wave deposits, (3) paleoliquefaction features, and (4) geodetic uplift patterns on the Oregon coast. Radiocarbon dates on buried tidal marshes indicate a recurrence interval for major subduction zone earthquakes of 250 to 650 years with the last event occurring 300 years ago (Atwater, 1992; Carver, 1992; Peterson et al., 1993; Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). The inferred seismogenic portion of the plate interface lies roughly 50 miles west of the subject site. SITE GEOLOGY The site is underlain by Columbia River Basalt of Miocene age. Residual soil representing completely weathered basalt rock underlies the ground surface at depths of 5 feet or less. Test pits excavated to depths of 10 feet found no indications of hard rock, and it appears likely that the depth of weathering throughout the site are well in excess of planned cuts and utility trenching. Near-surface soil units below the topsoil horizon consist of a loess that appears to have been subjected to some transport action, an underlying mixture of completely weathered rock fragments in a matrix of silt with some clay, and residual soil from in-situ weathering of Columbia River Basalt. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on observations in 10 exploratory test pits, the subsurface conditions at the site are relatively uniform, with only minor variations in unit thickness from one location to another, see the logs of test pits in Appendix A. The site soils are discussed below. Soils On-site native soils consist of topsoil, colluvium, and residual soil as described below. In addition, a small quantity of fill was found in the vicinity of test pit TP-3. - Topsoil - The topsoil horizon was observed in the test pits to range in thickness between about 5 and 7 inches. It generally consisted of light grey-brown silt with a trace of clay and some fine organic debris. It was dry and loose at the time of our investigation due to hot, dry weather. Colluvial Loess - The topsoil horizon is uniformly underlain by light brown silt with a trace to some clay. The soil appears to be loess-like but with a fine fragmented texture. Because it I appears to have been transported after deposition, we have named it colluvial loess. This i soil unit varies in thickness between about 15 and 26 inches, and is very stiff due to dry i conditions. During the rainy season, it is likely to be considerably softer than indicated by our test pit logs. Colluvium - A colluvial soil unit was found throughout the site between the overlying loess- like soil and the underlying residual soil. It is typically very stiff, and contains numerous transported basalt rock fragments that are completely weathered to a dark brown clayey silt soil. These fragments are contained within a matrix of light brown silt with some clay which is similar in texture and color to the overlying colluvial loess. This soil unit was observed to vary in thickness between about 11 and 34 inches. It is typically damp to moist and very stiff. Page 3 t • • ADaPT Engineering, Inc. Job No. OR99-2791 Pacific Crest Subdivision Residual Soil - Residual soil is produced by in-situ weathering of the underlying parent basalt rock without lateral movement as a result of erosional processes. At this site, the residual soil/weathered rock is typically dark brown clayey silt with numerous residual fractures that contain black mineral staining. It is typically very stiff. Fill - A minor quantity of fill was encountered in test pit TP-3 (Appendix A). A total of 3 feet of fill consisting of brown silt with some clay over %"-0 crushed stone was placed over topsoil. The fill was free of organic debris and suitable for use on site; however, the topsoil will have to be stripped from construction and fill areas during site preparation. Visual observations in the vicinity of TP-3 indicated a possible fill area of about 2,500 fts. Groundwater No groundwater was encountered in any of the 10 exploratory test pits. Soil moistures above about 18 to 24 inches in depth appeared below optimum for placement and compaction as engineered fill. SLOPE STABILITY For the purpose of evaluating slope stability, we observed the topographic features during a reconnaissance of the property (Figure 2). The slope morphology is generally smooth and uniform, consistent with stable slope conditions. No geomorphic evidence of shallow or deep-seated landsliding was observed. Test pits indicate that the gentle to moderate slopes on the property are underlain by competent residual soil produced by in-situ weathering of rock. This soil has moderate to high shear strength. No evidence of past landslide activity was observed on the site, and not are anticipated to occur on grades of 25 percent or less. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ` Our investigation indicates that the proposed residential development is geotechnically feasible provided that the -recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project. Cuts in excess of 3 to 4 feet are likely to encounter residual soil; however, rock is not anticipated at depths of less than 15 to 20 feet. Benching and keying are recommended for engineered fill placed on native slopes inclined steeper than 20% grade. Appendix B contains an itemized checklist of soil testing and inspection procedures that are recommended to help guide the project to completion. Slope Stability In our opinion, the potential for failures on existing site slopes is low. Site Preparation All areas to be graded should first be cleared of debris, trees, stumps, vegetation, etc., and all debris from clearing should be removed from the site. Organic-rich topsoil should then be stripped in construction areas or where fill is to be placed. We anticipate that an average stripping depth of 6 inches will be necessary to remove organic-rich topsoil. Deeper stripping, or tilling and root-picking, to depths of 1 to 2 feet may be necessary to remove large tree roots. Stripped topsoil should be stockpiled only in designated areas and stripping operations should be observed and documented by the geotechnical engineer or his representative. The final depth of stripping will be determined on the basis of a site inspection after the initial stripping has been performed. Where stripped surfaces are to receive fill, the area should be ripped or tilled to a depth of 10 inches, moisture conditioned, root- picked, and compacted in-place prior to fill placement. Page 4 0 * ADaPT Engineering, Inc. Job No. OR99-2791 Pacific Crest Subdivision Cut and Fill Design Engineered fill placed on native slopes inclining steeper than 20% grade should be constructed on keyways and benches in accordance with the typical design shown in Figure 3. Benches should be cut parallel to slope contours and should be near horizontal. Because proper compaction of slope faces is difficult to achieve we recommend that fill slopes be overbuilt horizontally by 3 feet and then trimmed back to finished grade. The lowermost bench or keyway (of each fill mass) should include a subdrain consisting of a minimum 3-inch diameter Schedule 40 or ADS Highway Grade, perforated, plastic pipe enveloped in a minimum of 4 W per lineal foot of 2"- W, open, graded gravel (drain rock) wrapped with geofabric filter (Amoco 4545, Trevia 1120, or equivalent). A minimum one-half percent fall should be maintained throughout the drain and non-perforated pipe outlet. We recommend that ADaPT's geologists inspect benches and subdrains to verify proper field construction. For maximization of long-term stability, we recommend that constructed slopes have a maximum inclination of 2H:1V (50% grade). Cuts less than 4 feet deep may be constructed to 1HAV (100% grade). Drainage Surface water drainage should be directed away from future structures and slopes. Roof drain water should be carried to the street. Recommendations for footing drains are presented in the Foundation section of this report. In-ground storm water disposal systems are not recommended due to low permeability of the clayey silt soils and shallow rock. Rough Grading All grading for the proposed development should be performed as engineered grading in accordance with Appendix Chapter 33 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) with the exceptions and additions noted herein. Proper test frequency and earthwork documentation usually requires daily observation and testing during stripping, rough grading, and placement of engineered fill. imported fill material must be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to its arrival on site. Oversize material greater than 6 inches in size should not be used within 3 feet of foundation footings, and material greater than 12 inches in diameter should not be used in engineered fill. Engineered fill should be compacted in horizontal lifts not exceeding B inches using standard compaction equipment. We recommend that engineered fill be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density determined by AASHTO T-99 or equivalent (Appendix A). Field density testing should conform to ASTM 02922 and D3017, or D1556. All engineered fill should be observed and tested by the project geotechnical engineer or his representative. Typically. one density test is performed for at least every 2 vertical feet of fill placed or every 500 yd', whichever requires more testing. Because testing is performed on an on-call basis, we recommend that the earthwork contractor be held contractually responsible for test scheduling and frequency. Earthwork is usually performed in the Summer months, generally mid-June to mid-October, when warm dry weather is available for proper moisture conditioning of soils. Earthwork performed during the wet-weather season will probably require expensive measures such as cement treatment or imported granular material to compact fill to the recommended engineering specifications. Erosion Control The potential for adverse erosion during construction is low to moderate during the dry-weather season, and moderate to high during the wet-weather season. The erosion control plan formulated for Page 5 • ADaPT Engineering, Inc. i r r Job No. OR99-2791 Pacific Crest Subdivision the project by Westlake Consultants, Inc. should be followed precisely. We recommend that cut and fill slopes be seeded or planted as soon as possible after construction, so that vegetation has time to establish itself before the onset of the next wet-weather season. Excavating Conditions and Utility Trenches Based on the degree of rock weathering observed in our test pits at depths up to 10 feet, we anticipate utility excavations to a depth of 15 feet below the ground surface will most likely be feasible with standard excavating equipment. All deep excavations and shoring should conform to U.S. Occupational Safety and Heath Administration (OSHA) regulations (29 CFR Part 1926). The majority on on-site soils appear to be OSHA "Type A" soils and the walls of temporary construction trenches are expected to stand vertical with only minor sloughing. PVC pipe should be installed in accordance with the procedures specified in ASTM D2321. We recommend that structural trench backfill be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density obtained by AASHTO T-99 or equivalent. Initial backfill lift thicknesses for a %"-0 crushed aggregate base may need to be as great as 4 feet to reduce the risk of flattening underlying flexible pipe. Subsequent lift thicknesses should not exceed 1 foot. Typically, one density test is taken for every 4 vertical feet of backfill on each 200-lineal-foot section of trench. If manufactured granular fill material is used, then the lifts for large vibrating plate-compaction equipment (e.g. hoe compactor attachments) may be up to 2 feet, provided that proper compaction is being achieved and each lift is tested. Use of large vibrating compaction equipment should be carefully monitored near existing structures and improvements due to the potential for vibration-induced damage. S Anticipated Foundations -1 The subject site is suitable for shallow foundations bearing on stiff, native colluvial or residual soil and engineered fill. Foundation design, construction, and setback requirements should conform to Chapter 4 of the Council of American Building Officials (CABO) One and Two Family Dwelling Code. For maximization of bearing strength and protection against frost heave, spread footings should be embedded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below exterior grade. The recommended minimum widths for continuous wall footings are presented in Table 1. Table 1 - Recommended Minimum Width of Continuous Spread Footings 1 Number of Stories Minimum Width of Continuous Spread Footings 1-Story 12 inches 2-Story 15 inches 3-Story 18 inches The recommended allowable soil bearing pressure is 2,000 Ibs/ftz for footings on stiff, native soil and engineered fill. A maximum chimney and column load of 40 kips is recommended for the site. For heavier loads, a geotechnical engineer should be consulted. The coefficient of friction between on-site soil and poured-in-place concrete may be taken as 0.4 with no factor-of-safety added. The maximum anticipated total and differential footing movements (generally from soil expansion and/or settlement) are 1 inch and % inch over a span of 20 feet, respectively. Excavations near foundation footings should not extend within a 1 H:1V plane projected downward from the bottom edge of footings. Page 6 i i 1 1 t i 1 • Job No. OR99-2791 Pacific Crest Subdivision ADaPT Engineering, Inc. Footing drains are recommended along the upslope sides of house foundations, but are not necessary around the entire foundation perimeter. Perimeter drains should consist of a minimum 3-inch diameter Schedule 40 or ADS Highway Grade, perforated, plastic pipe enveloped in a minimum of 1 ft3 per lineal foot of 2"- V, open, graded gravel (drain rock) wrapped with geofabric filter (Amoco 4545, Trevia 1120, or equivalent). A minimum one-half percent fall should be maintained throughout the drain and non-perforated pipe outlet. Surface water drainage should be directed away from structures. If possible, roof-drain water should be carried to the street. Pavement Design Table 2 presents our recommended minimum pavement section for dry-weather construction, based on our experience with similar soils in the region. This design was formulated using the Crushed Base Equivalent method, a traffic index of 4.0, and is in general accordance with flexible pavement design methods prescribed by AASHTO for light-duty streets with a design life of 20 years. Generally, one subgrade, one base course, and one asphalt compaction test is performed for every 100 to 200 linear feet of paving. Table 2 - Recommended Minimum Dry-Weather Pavement Section Material Layer Minimum Thickness Compaction Standard inches 91 % of Rice Density Asphaltic Concrete (AC) 3 AASHTO T-209 Crushed Aggregate Base 95% of Modified Proctor ('/"-0 over 1'h"-0) 2 over 8 ASTM D1557 or equivalent 95% of Standard Proctor Recompacted Subgrade Soil 10 ASTM D698 or equivalent Areas of native soil subgrade should be tilled to a depth of 10 inches, aerated, and recompacted in- place to 95% of the maximum dry density obtained by AASHTO T-99 or equivalent. ADaPT recommends that subgrade strength be verified visually by proof-rolling directly on soil subgrade with a loaded dump truck during dry weather and on top of base course in wet weather. Soft areas that rut, pump, or weave by more than % inch should be stabilized prior to paving. If pavement areas are to be constructed during wet-weather conditions, the subgrade conditions should be reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer. Wet-weather pavement construction is likely to require cement/lime treatment or a base rock section of 6 additional inches over geotextile fabric for construction support. Seismic Design Probabilistic assessments of the seismic shaking hazard in Oregon predict that in the next 50 years bedrock underlying the subject site has a 10% probability of experiencing a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.20 g, a 5% probability of experiencing a PGA of 0.27 g, and a 2% probability of experiencing a PGA of 0.38 g. We recommend that structures at the subject site be designed for a peak bedrock acceleration of 0.3 g in accordance with the minimum design requirements of the 1997 UBC. In our opinion, the UBC soil profile type that best models the site is "Sc". Page 7 • ADaPT Engineering, Inc. 1 Job No. OR99-2791 Pacific Crest Subdivision Amplification seismic coefficients of Ca= 0.33 and Cv= 0.45 may be used in accordance with Sections 1630 and 1631 of the 1997 UBC for determining elastic design response spectra and base shear. Higher ground accelerations could occur at the site due to the occurrence of an earthquake larger than the design events chosen in the probabilistic analysis or due to localized amplification of seismic energy beyond the recommended coefficients. Nevertheless, the predicted values represent the average experience at sites in settings similar to the subject site; and are therefore, considered sufficient for seismic resistant design. ADaPT Engineering, Inc. In our opinion, the potential for liquefaction or liquefaction-related ground failure at the subject site is very low, and no special mitigating measures are recommended against liquefaction. INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS AND GENERAL NOTES 1 1 r r The opinions and recommendations contained within this report are not intended to be, nor should they be construed as, a warranty of subsurface conditions but are forwarded to assist in the planning and design process. If subsurface conditions vary from those encountered in our site exploration, ADaPT should be informed so that we may provide additional geotechnical recommendations, if necessary. The owner/developer is responsible for insuring that our recommendations are implemented by the project designers and contractors. Monitoring and testing by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. We encourage review of this report by bidders as it relates to factual data only (i.e. test pit, boring, and laboratory data). Sincerely, rr ~ an PROFFS {rJ fc ~~~5 ~NGI NE fR soy ORKE 14743 9r OREGON 2.3 IS vqM James E_ Pyne, R.G. Geologist James D. Imbrie, P.E., C.E.G. Geotechnical Engineer Page 8 • AMPT Engineering, Inc. Job No. OR99-2791 Pacific Crest Subdivision REFERENCES CITED Atwater, B.F., 1992, Geologic evidence for earthquakes during the past 2,000 years along the Copalis River, southern coastal Washington: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 97, p. 1901-1919. Balsillie, J.J. and Benson, G.T., 1971, Evidence for the Portland Hills fault: The Ore Bin, Oregon Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries, v. 33, p. 109-118. Carver, G.A., 1992, Late Cenozoic tectonics of coastal northern California: American Association of Petroleum Geologists-SEPM Field Trip Guidebook, May, 1992. Conforth and Geomatrix Consultants, 1992, Seismic hazard evaluation, Bull Run dam sites nears Sandy, Oregon: unpublished report to City of Portland Bureau of Water Works_ DeMets, C., Gordon, R.G., Argus, D.F., Stein, S., 1990, Current plate motions: Geophysical Journal International, v. 101, p. 425-478. Geomatrix Consultants, 1995, Seismic Design Mapping, State of Oregon: unpublished report prepared for Oregon Department of Transportation, Personal Services Contract 11688, January 1995. Madin, I. P-, 1990, Earthquake hazard geology maps of the Portland metropolitan area, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report 0-90-2, scale 1:24,000, 22 p. Peterson, C.D., Darioenzo, M.E., Burns, S.F., and Burris, W.K., 1993, Field trip guide to Cascadia l paleoseismic evidence along the northern California coast: evidence of subduction zone seismicity in the central Cascadia margin: Oregon Geology, v. 55, p. 99-144. - Unruh, J.R., Wong, I.G., Bott, J.D., Silva, W.J., and Lettis, W.R., 1994, Seismotectonic evaluation: Scoggins Dam, Tualatin Project, Northwest Oregon: unpublished report by William Lettis and Associates and Woodward Clyde Federal Services, Oakland, CA, for U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, ' - Denver CO (in Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). t Werner, K.S., Nabelek, J., Yeats, R.S., Malone, S., 1992, The Mount Angel fault: implications of seismic-reflection data and the Woodburn, Oregon, earthquake sequence of August, 1990: Oregon Geology, v. 54, p. 112-117. Yeats, R.S., Graven, E.P., Werner, K.S., Goldfinger, C., and Popowski, T., 1996, Tectonics of the Willamette Valley, Oregon: in Assessing earthquake hazards and reducing risk in the Pacific ' Northwest, v. 1: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1560, P. 183-222, 5 plates, scale 1:100, 000. Yelin, T.S., 1992, An earthquake swarm in the north Portland Hills (Oregon): More speculations on the seismotectonics of the Portland Basin: Geological Society of America, Programs with Abstracts, v. 24, _ no. 5, p. 92. > Page 9 i 1 l r 1 i t Portion of USGS Beaverton, Oregon Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic, 1961, Revised 1984 i i FARMERS LAND TRUST, INC, PACIFIC CREST SUBDIVISION SITE LOCATION MAP SCALE 1" = 2000' C1=10' I ADaPT SEP. 1999 FIGURE 1 1 PROPOSED TAX LOT 1500 LINE ADJUSTMENT BONNEVILLE POWER' ADMINISTRATION 1 "L' 9TA: ,}I.t966y 9TRrT f it r• 1 4 ~ - - - - - ..+C, _ TA:r .OED STREET G '117 y7xlz, y 1 ~1 ' j:~ l A.~ ` y ~_2' 5TRE ~T B / TP-1 r a - i1~s9 - n 1~ ~9 f / ~I er - ~e / • , ) TA: 11 i ! ti • sc, w;. 74' l f' - e7 ss., r as. 1 r a5TA:36-25.29,STREi~~-- / ' ft. p 1 / ys'• ' 7s r @~I~ ut~L A . PARCEL B r - f~~ F r 1 I (rj3J a ht. 5;542 ab.ft „ 5,456 .n. 1` .b,129 sgfl! _ 1 I I€l ! q 4i r .~a ~I132 I r li « TP-3 58 r a`. 51 r/'58 ' SB. . .413 It. I f .9 i _ j _ , ? k « - ! f / I r 1 i '7k70~ s rt\ .1201 39;' ! 15.!30 sq-k - ! , . 5.775 sq-n. , B63 1q.ft i . ! i ' I ; f I 5,715 sq n. T7 f~ 54775 s q- t Pi; 12.5 3 pROP05FD TAX LOT 5,845 aq.n . p .QO, t 92' j « S 5 as V• :200.0/2100 LINE m 'a 5 ~.k. , I 6p U5TMEHT f 11' ; 11 ~I 1 J I I 31 .aoo~sb.11` \15.520 sq,fL ` I i I' 7.701~d k u `A it` \ r i 'wr 4 u I I I I , 1, 1 1 ) 1 41 35 ti p}5,0001sgtt' $ r / J21. ; 47 5,3~B sq. 5.2461 q.fl. 5,193 aq.R. ! i s,4xp ag.k ,ar 6s 64 w B2 AI ~ !o4m 9gn.i 7,7a ~q.k 45 noo \ q y{ \ 6.636 sq.~ t ro 43 42, 1 72 s .tl.'• R " ' \ 24T~q.k 5,249 "s q v - s NN N ,203 ad.k \ \ a _ - ✓ / , I ~ t ! ~ 1 \ b 1 5.#16-sq.ft b`.452'sgfL'• ti 1~ , \ \ s \ d _.943 sq.ft t \ s \yq 1 50 t ts'_ _ i / . , } I I ~l \ \ 1'~,~ • Ts. 79 a TP-8 It TP-9 l t\, ; \ v r'` ` `yeti ' 'L-Y', . \ g r• 'aTREET A \ J ` \ \ 1 x t 11~ ~r \ . 31!2i\ g . TP-s g TP-7 jq..A r~ \ TP~ •c '1 ' \ - _ ,{~I-' c~ ` - L.1J\` _ taS - ' 95 3 5 I , 1 4' 4 6 t - \ rv ` v, , - m`. 51 39 52' 6Y Si _ - r ' " 'i lif eQftLi~.`., . `~+r 11 1\1~ 28\ \ \ \,g ~e'. Sr` t5 R•tw;y, ~u,L4 \ \ \ \ r sr ` \ - ~ , / /i ITL 2200 .17,eii 1 ` \ \ Y 3 SY l ,5n 5 u te?.la, \ _ _ _ , :,a 2S015DD S `N \ \ ` m r T: 12~ TO .s rQc 14r , 20 \ • ^ g _ ry.. A / - 'NN 1-2 21 ' . ° 19, 18 14 13 12, 11 10 C-5836 sg ft N~•'1 ' ' \ ` , - " 1 - 5,850sq.n_ -6,294_~P4!- 6,3813 ft, 6,419 -ft &379 fC`.- p 1 a `~y 7 72Q ~Q• 6 2fi9 k . 5.593. sq.t~ 5,257 s It ~OB7~q fl; 6, 87 fti ~ Q - SQ. • - ~ ~ I TPA 9' 087 s9.fl ` aglL 5399 sgft 5.625 sq k "7 6 sq ft- 5. PROP05M TA LOT rr _ 1900/2100 LNE - - - =11= ' ~ d ~ \ \ \ , ~ - - _ - ~ - " - ~ - ' ~ • AvustllENr I Yi. s~.za,.... I ~ NORTH \ , \ s 65~ q \ e X31 oq~e ; _ _ -,h _ • ' From Westlake Consultants, Inc. .~10.OP0'SRFL'. .10.000_Sq.FI; I TAX L0T`.SGo- 2S015DA \ :7 - TAX LOT 201 FARMERS LAND TRUST, INC. ~ 2S015DD I I PACIFIC CREST SUBDIVISION I TRACT -c- I I TRACT SITE PLAN SCALE 1" =100' CI=2' I ADaPT SEP.1999 FIGURE 2 I 4b V ~r c i i i i i i 1 • ADaPT Engineering, Inc. Job No. OR99-2791 Pacific Crest Subdivision APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS, SAMPLING, AND LABORATORY TESTING 4L i 1 i i i i On September 16 and 17, 1999, ten exploratory test pits were excavated on the subject property to depths of 5 to 10 feet at the locations shown on Figure 2. An ADaPT Geologist evaluated and logged the test pits with regard to soil type, moisture content, relative strength, groundwater content, etc, and collected representative samples for laboratory analysis. Logs of the test pits are presented in this Appendix. The test pits were excavated with a 4-ton Takeuchi trackhoe operated by Earth Explorations, Inc. of Beaverton, Oregon using a 22-inch-wide bucket. All excavations were backfilled immediately after completion of logging and sampling. Minimal compactive effort was applied to the test pit backfill. Classification, Moisture Content, and Unit Weights Soil conditions were evaluated, described, and classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and the Oregon Department of Transportation Soil and Rock Classification Manual. All natural moisture samples were collected in plastic bags, and tested in accordance with the methods outlined in ASTM D2216. Moisture content is expressed as the ratio (as a percentage) of the mass of water lost by evaporation to the dry weight of soil. Maximum D Density/Optimum Moisture Content One compaction test was performed on a bulk sample to determine the moisture-density relationship of the native earth materials on the subject site. The test was performed in accordance with AASHTO T-99. The results obtained may be compared to field dry densities for evaluating relative compaction of fill and in-place native material. The test results are summarized in Table Al. TABLE Al - Compaction Test Results Material Description/Location Maximum D Densi Ibslft O timurn Moisture Content Clayey SILT (ML) / TP-7 @ 2 feet 102.9 19.5% Page 10 Y 1 1 1 t r Ak IRW ADa ngineering, Inc. ' 17700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, Suite 100 PIT LOG TEST 02 Portland, Oregon 97224 (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: Pacific Crest Subdivision Job No. OR99-2791 Test Pit No TP-1 Tigard, Oregon . t m ~ o~ T ~ •y ~ y~ o m c O m N o a o ~Z o Material Description i cc ~ v m t silt_f:- -orga _ _ _roots drx, Q ae (5"T P-soi1) _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 X4.5 Light brown silt with a trace of clay, dry, stiff due to dry conditions, finely fragmented (Colluvial Loess). 2_ - Fine to coarse gravel-size fragments of basalt that are weathered to dark brown clayey silt in a matrix of light tan to grey silt with some clay, >4.5 stiff, damp (Colluvium) 4 5 6- Dark brown clayey silt with numerous black mineral-stained fractures, >4.5 very stiff, moist (Residual Soil from in-situ weathering of basalt) 7- 8 9 Test pit completed at 8.5 feet, No groundwater encountered. 10 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16-- 17- LEGEND Date Excavated: 9/16/99 5 Gal. ~ ~ 100 to Burke Logged By: J EP ~ 1,000 Surface Elevation: Bag Sampla Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment i S i i 1 J 1 i t i Ah As ADa Engineering, Inc. 17700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, Suite 100 TEST PIT LOG Eta Portland, Oregon 97224 Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: Pacific Crest Subdivision Tigard, Oregon Job No. OR99-2791 Test Pit No. TP-2 Nn Q T N a N CU O Q O N o a N CL N (n o c y a t0 C Material Description M _ Q ~U m Q Brownish_grey_silt, fnely_organic;-abundant roots, dry, loose (5" Topsoil) 1 X 4.5 Light brown silt, trace of clay, stiff due to dry conditions, finely fragmented (Colluvial Loess) 2- 3_ >4_5 Abundant gravel- to cobble-size fragments of basalt that are weathered to dark brown clayey silt in a matrix of tan to light grey silt with some clay, damp, very stiff (Colluvium) 4 - >4.5 Dark brown clayey silt with with numerous black mineral-stained fractures 5--- very still, (Residual Soil from in-situ weathering of basalt) 6-- Test pit completed at 5.5 feet, No groundwater encountered. 7 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17] LEGEND ° Date Excavated: 9116199 SGaI. ~~e t001o Bucket 1 OOD 7 Logged By: JEP . rA Surface Elevation: Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment a a ADaP Engineering, Inc. 17700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, Suite 100 TEST PIT LOG Portland, Oregon 97224 Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: Pacific Crest Subdivision Job No. OR99-2791 Test Pit No TP-3 Tigard, Oregon . y _ a yrv E v o rw e ow a 7. d a Z~ N^ «cn am p a o N- c .om O dN rn terial Description p a° E i Z o U m CL n M Mottled brown and tan silt with some clay, occasional fragment of brick, 1 asphaltic concrete, and concrete (Fill) 2 3/4"-0 crushed stone (Fill) 3 - - 7Organictopsoilzone----------------------T---------- Light brown silt, trace ofclay, finely fragmented, damp, stiff 4 3.5 - - - - - - - - - (Colluvial Loess) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Abundant completely weathered fragment of basalt {dark brown clayey 5_ silt) in a matrix of tan to light grey silt with a trace of clay, stiff, moist - 3.5 (Colluvium) 6 Dark brown clayey silt with numerous mineral-stained fractures, moist, very stiff (Residual Soil from in-situ weathering of basalt.) 8 1 a_ Test pit completed at 9.0 feet, No groundwater encountered. 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- LEGEND Date Excavated: 9/16/99 5 cal. a~ ® 100 ro Bucke 7 Logged By: JEP Ipo Surface Elevation: Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment 1 1 Y 1 i 1 f 1 a a ADa Engineering, Inc. 17700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, suite 100 TEST PIT LOG Portland, Oregon 97224 Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: Pacific Crest Subdivision Job No. OR99-2791 Test Pit No TPA Tigard, Oregon . N v E e) CL F- w N c~ V = + e) r_ L O 'N o a o = y ° Material Description a E_ cc _ - a i CL rey- rown silt, some organic ens, dry, oose, grass roots opsoi 1- >4.5 Light brown silt with a trace of clay, dry, stiff, fragmented (Colluvial Loess) 2- >4.5 Light to dark brown silt with some clay, numerous inclusions of dark brow completely weathered basalt fragments, stiff, damp (Colluvium) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 >4.5 - Dark brown clayey silt with numerous black mineral-stained fractures, 4 very stiff, moist (Residual Soil from in-situ weathering of basalt) 5-- 7- Test pit completed at 6.0 feet, No groundwater encountered. 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- 13-- 14- 15- 16- 17-- LEGEND Date Excavated: 9/16199 SGaI. ® 100 to Bucke Logged By. JEP t xb Surface Elevation: gag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment i 1 1 i r a Ah ADa Engineering, Inc. 17700 SW Upper $oones Ferry Road, Suite 100 TEST PIT LOG Portland, Oregon 97224 Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: Pacific Crest Subdivision Job No. OR99-2791 Test Pit No TP-5 Tigard, Oregon . tb 16 EiE F- •y d e Z- O N Z; n y U O~ N 0 C o QI a (n U1 ~ 0.0 !/l N o 2 l6 C ~ Material Description p 4 ~ E ~ X2!1 ~ 2c U m m a Qre_y_brQwn silt some organic debris and roots, drX, loose (5". Topsoil) 1 Light brown silt with a trace of clay, dry to 2 feet, stiff, fragmented T >4.5 (Colluvial Loess) 2 - 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Numerous dark brown basalt fragments that are weathered to clayey silt >4.5 in a matrix of light brown silt with some clay, very stiff, moist (Colluvium) 4 - Dark brown clayey silt, numerous black mineral-stained fractures, 5 >4.5 very stiff (Residual Soil from in-situ weathering of basalt) 6 7- Test pit completed at 6.0 feet, No groundwater encountered. 8- 9- 10__ Date Excavated. 9/16/99 5 Gal, 100 to Bucket Logged By: JEP 1,000 Surface Elevation: Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment a a ADa Engineering, Inc. 17700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, Suite 100 TEST PIT LOG 02 Portland, Oregon 97224 Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: Pacific Crest Subdivision Job No. OR99-2791 Test Pit No TP-6 Tigard, Oregon . O~~ CL ~ ~cr ~ ` O dN a o E ' o C Material Description o a c° a c v o v A m _ Grey-brown silt, organic, some roots, dry, loose (8" Topsoil) 1 Light brown silt, trace of clay, fragmented, stiff, dry (Colluvial Loess) - >4.5 2- - - - - - - - Abundant basalt fragments weathered to dark brown clayey silt in a 3- >4 5 - - - _ matrix of light brown silt with some clay-, damp, very stiff-(Colluvium-) - Dark brown clayey silt with numerous black mineral-stained fractures, 4 >41.5 very stiff, moist (Residual Soil from in-situ weathering of basalt). 6- Test pit completed at 5.0 feet, No groundwater encountered. 7- 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- 14- 15-- 16- 17-- LEGEND ° Date Excavated: 9116199 5Ga1. ®e® 10DIO Butkel Logged By: JEP 1.000 Surface Elevation: Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment 1 i i i i i 1 i a k ~ - ADaP Engineering, Inc. 17700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, suite 100 TEST PIT LOG Portland, Oregon 97224 ~QIII Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 : Pacific Crest Subdivision lPro ject Job No. OR99-2791 Test Pit No TP-7 Tigard, Oregon . o y OD) o = G G .6 _ e N q N ❑a y o Material Description , Q U a. co , co _ _ _ Brown-grey organic silt, dry, loose, numerous roots (Y Topsoil) 1- Light brown silt, trace of clay, dry to 2 feet, damp below, stiff, fragmented >2.5 (Colluvial Loess) 2 - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brown to light brown fragments of basalt that are weathered to clayey >2.5 silt, in a matrix of silt with some clay, very stiff, moist (Colluvium) 4- 5 Dark brown clayey silt with numerous black mineral-stained fractures, moist, very stiff (Residual Soil weathered in-situ from basalt) >2.5 T- 8- Grades to reddish-brown below about 9 feet 9- 0- 1 11- - Test pit completed at 10.0 feet, No groundwater encountered. 12 13- 14-- 15- 16- 17- LEGEND ° Date Excavated: 9/16/99 , g eke; ® Logged By: JEP 1 e Surface Elevation: Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water level at Abandonment i 1-4 1 1 1 i a a ADa Engineering, Inc. 17700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, Suite 100 TEST PIT LOG Portland, Oregon 97224 Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: Pacific Crest Subdivision Tigard, Oregon Job No. OR99-2791 Test Pit No. TP-8 ~ N r V O N CL N y • 0 y o d y W C O 6 Ol o a 0 o E Z- a W Material Description to i ? - ~ v o n t Grey-brown silt, organic, numerous roots, dry, loose (7" Topsoil)_ 1- Light brown silt, some clay, fragmented, stiff, dry above 2', damp below '4.5 (Colluvial Loess) 2 3 Numerous rock fragments weathered to dark brown clayey silt in a 4- >4.5 matrix of light brown silt with some clay, very stiff, moist (Colluvium) >4.5 Dark brown clayey silt from in-situ weathering of basalt, nimerous black 6- - - -fractures,-ve~y-stiff-,mist (Residual-Soii) - 7- Test pit compompleted at 6 feet, No groundwater encountered. 8 g_ 10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- LEGEND Date Excavated: 9117199 to 7 9,0W Logged By: JEP Surface Elevation: Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment ii -i 1 1 i 1 1 i As ADa ngineerfng, lnc. 17700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, Suite 100 TEST PIT LOG Portland, Oregon 97224 Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: Pacific Crest Subdivision Tigard, Oregon Job No. OR99-2791 Test Pit No. TP-9 w N E V O W to N 5 0) 41' C 6 - O 0 - C ID a a a EE C, - ' , 3.. - Material Description a us n 20 ~ 0 m - Grey-brown silt, some organics, many roots, dry loose (7" Topsoil) - >4.5 Light brown silt, trace of clay, dry, stiff, fragmented, (Colluvial Loess) 2- 3 >4.5 Numerous residual rock fragment weathered to dark brown clayey silt in - - - - - - - - - a matrix of brown silt with some clay, very stiff (Colluvium) - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 >4.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dark brown clayey silt with black-stained fractures, very stiff, moist - - (Residual soil from in-situ weathering of basalt) _ 6 Test pit completed at 5 feet, No groundwater encountered. 7-- 8- 9-- 12- 13- 14-- 15- 16- 17- LEGEND Date Excavated: 9117199 5 Gal. ~e~ 100 t0 Bucket 1 000 Logged By: JEP , Beg Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment Surface Elevation: A& I-Ew ADaP Engineering, Inc. 17700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, Suite 100 TEST PIT LOG Eta Portland, Oregon 97224 Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: Pacific Crest Subdivision Job No. OR99-2791 Test Pit No TP-10 Tigard, Oregon . y 'h d CL 4) o ° = o a o .0 5 ` ~ ~ Material Description a~ E 5~~ g `o v y a m Lt. grey-brown silt, many roots, organic, dry, loose (6" Topsoil) 1 Light brown silt, trace of clay, dry above 20", damp below, very stiff - >4.5 (Colluvial Loess) 2- 3- Dark brown clayey silt fragments in a matrix of lght brown silt with soe >4,5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - clay, damp, very stiff (Colluvium) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 Dark brown clayey silt, moist, very stiff, many black mineral-stained 4.0 fractures (Residual Soil from in-situ weathering of basalt rock) 5- Test pit completed at 6 feet, No groundwater encountered. 8-- 9- 10- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- LEGEND a Date Excavated: 9117/99 s Gal. toots Euoket 7 Logged BY J EP Q00 Surface Elevation: Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abanaonmenl • Job No. OR99-2791 Pacific Crest Subdivision ADaPT Engineering, Inc. APPENDIX IS CHECKLIST OF RECOMMENDED SOIL TESTIING & INSPECTIONS Item Procedure Timing By Whom Done No. 1 Preconstruction meeting Prior to beginning site Contractor, Developer, Civil work and Geotechnical Engineers 2 Stripping, aeration, and root- During stripping picking operations Soil Technician 3 Benching and subdrain Prior to filling Engineer, Geologist, installation or Senior Technician 4 Compaction testing of During filling, tested every engineered fill (95% of Standard) 2 vertical feet per lot Soil Technician 5 Compaction testing of trench During backfilling, tested backfill (95% of Standard) every 4 vertical feet for Soil Technician every 200 lineal feet 6 Street subgrade compaction Prior to base course every (95% of Standard) 200 lineal feet Soil Technician 7 Base course compaction Prior to paving, tested (95% of Modified) every 200 lineal feet Soil Technician 8 AC Compaction During paving, tested (91% of Rice) every 200 lineal feet Soil 'technician 9 Final Geotechnical En Completion of project Geotechnical Engineer ineer's certification Page 11