Loading...
Hearings Officer Packet - 06/24/200220 k CITY OF TIGARD Community Development ShgpingA Better Community CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER MONDAY -JUNE 2412002 - 7:00 PM AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 "APPEAL" OF CASCADIAN PLA SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2002-00002 2.2 ITEM ON APPEAL: On May 8, 2002, the Director issued a decision to approve a request to subdivide a 2.92 acre parcel into 12, single-family detached residential lots. On May 22, 2002 an appeal was filed concerning street access and circulation, right-of-way dedication, future street connectivity and emergency vehicle turn-around; potential wetlands on the site; and that non-hazardous trees have been incorrectly identified for removal as hazardous. LOCATION: 11275 SW Tigard Street; WCTM 1 S134DC, Tax Lot 200. ZONE: R-4.5, Low-Density Residential District. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.705, 18.775, 18.790, and 18.810. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2002-00004 ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2002-00012 REQUEST: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use Approval to construct a 60-foot-high lattice telecommunications facility on the property and an Adjustment to allow the tower to be located closer to the property line. LOCATION: 11355 SW Tigard Street; WCTM 1S134DC, Tax Lot 600. ZONE: R-4.5, Low-Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, 18.798, and 18.810. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 2 OF 2 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER JUNE 24, 2002 - 7:00 PM TOWN HALL TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OR 97223 [g,-v1P 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 Friday 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: ➢ Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and ➢ Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. To request such services, please notify the City of Tigard of your need(s) by 5:00 p.m., no less than one (1) week prior to the meeting date at the same phone numbers listed above so that we can make the appropriate arrangements. OVER FOR HEARING AGENDA ITEM(S) CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER • PAGE 1 OF 2 612412002 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA 0 4 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7~' COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503)684-0360 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising *City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. O Tiga rd ,Oregon 9 7 2 2 3 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit 7- (,7c Lints PAyalhle Legal NoticeTT 10085 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) I, being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theTigard-Tiia I at i n mimes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the afore'T1 county ano state; that the PuL j_r_• Iiearina SUI32002-00002 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for RITE, successive and consecutive in the following issues: Ju.tie 6.20 0 2 L SL Z = °`E-1.; URRAN NOT.4FiY PUSUO,ORFGON CUMhV1ISSIbR W6;3 2:7a(10 MY COMMISSION FXf MF§-E 28. "003 Subscribed and sworn to before me 1,; ' a 2002 ~ l ` Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: `iVd,9_1®3 AFFIDAVIT 0 0 The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Monday June 24, 2002 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.390. Testimony may be submitted in writing prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence suf- ficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on that, issue. Failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are avail- able for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Morgan Tracy) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 503-639-4171. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: OF sion to approve a request to subdivide a 2.92 acre parcel into 12, single-family detached residential lots. On May 22, 2002 an appeal was filed concerning street access and circulation, right-of- way dedication, future street connectivity, and emergency vehicle turn-around; potential wetlands on the site; and that non-hazardous trees have been incorrectly identified for removal as hazardous. LOCATION: 11275 SW Tigard Street; WCTM 1S134DC, Tax Lot 200. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.705, 18.775, 18.790, and 18.810. warm K" SUB2002-00002 CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION f A TT 10085- Publish June 6, 2002. COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503)684-0360 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising *City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall r lvd . •Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit Accounts Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, SS. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) Ka.thv Snvde being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the" s;a r~ -m~, a 1 a t ; n gl j me s a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: ,July 4,2002 Legal Notice TT 1.0101 Subscribed and sworn to efore me thistl-f-h d.ay of July, 2002 OFFICIAL SEAL N,,/~~ Public for Oregon -WOM A BURGESS `q' y NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 344589 My Commission Expires: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2W5 AFFIDAVIT 0 0 F The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Monday July 22, 2002 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.390. Testimony may be submitted in writing prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence suf- ficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on that issue. Failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are avail- able for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Brad Kilby) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 503-639-4171. nrrnT i!' T X A DFWA- iTL'M. SITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2002-00004/ WATER RESOURCES OVERLAY REVIEW (SLR) 2002- 00006/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2002-00009 > MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST CENTER < REQUEST: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use approval for a phased expansion of the existing facility that was approved by conditional use in 1992, Sensitive Lands Review approval for sewer line construction within the 100-year floodplain, and Water Resources Overlay approval to connect and excavate within the Water Resource Overlay district adjacent to Hiteon Creek. The applicant is also seeking an Adjustment to the minimum bicycle standards that would be imposed on the development. Ultimately, the expansion would constitute 28,000 square feet of new construc- tion. LOCATION: 10330 SW Scholl's Ferry Road; WCTM 1S134AB, Tax Lot 3300. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accom- modate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also per- mitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.330, 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, 18.797, and 18.810. - . VICEM MUW ®e CUP2002-00003 ®m ® 00 SLR2002-000M SLR200240006 ® ® VAR2002-00009 ism ®®~q®®®e MUSLIM EDUUTIONAL ®®00 ®0 ® TRUST CENTER mm ®80 0® w 00 0® aA" c A 0m0 m 0m0 ; Jg& TT 10101 - Publish July 4, 2002. X r Depending on the number of wishing to testify, the Agard Hearing's Officer ma people Y limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Hearing's Officer may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Hearing's Officer to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO.: 2.1 DATE: JUNE 24, 2002 FILE NAME: "APPEAL" OF CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION CASE NOS.: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2002-00002 APPLICANT: AEI Development OWNER: Chik Chor and Sing Lai Attn: Al Jeck 9360 SE 92nd Avenue 9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 230 Portland, OR 97266 Portland, OR 97223 ITEM ON APPEAL: On May 8, 2002, the Director issued a decision to approve a request to subdivide a 2.92 acre parcel into 12, single-family detached residential lots. On May 22, 2002 an appeal was filed concerning street access and circulation, right-of-way dedication, future street connectivity, and emergency vehicle turn-around; potential wetlands on the site; and that non-hazardous trees have been incorrectly identified for removal as hazardous. LOCATION: 11275 SW Tigard Street; WCTM 1 S134DC, Tax Lot 200. ZONE: R-4.5, Low-Density Residential District. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.705, 18.775, 18.790, and 18.810. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR THE AGENDA ITEM INDICATED DIRECTLY ABOVE. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.1 (PAGE OF DATE: JUNE 24, 2002 PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE Proponent - (Speaking In Favor Opponent - (Speaking Against Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. ~~J OCZ~,~ 2Z o N me, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. J Nam e, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. me, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, p Code and Phone No. ame, Address, Zip de 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. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. \l-.Y- A JJ---- 7:.- fl-J- -.--1 PfL-.-- \t- IYp111C, /1VVICbzl, I-1p %rVUC CIIIV r11VIlu IYV. L.--- A JJ---- 7:.- 1--.- -.-J P1L-.-. No IYi1111C, F1VVIti**,,.ip VVUC a11V r11V11C 11 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 BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an appeal of an administrative decision ) FINAL ORDER approving an application for a12-lot subdivision for ) 2.92 acres in the R-4.5 zone at 11275 SW Tigard ) SUB 2002-00002 Street in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Cascadian Place) A. SUMMARY 1. The applicant, AEI Development Co., requests approval of a preliminary plan for a 12-lot subdivision of a 2.92-acre lot at 11275 SW Tigard Street; also known as TL 200, WCTM 1S134DC (the "site"). The applicant proposes to remove a dwelling from the site and to develop each of the twelve new lots with a single family detached dwelling. The applicant will dedicate and improve a public right for SW Gallo Avenue from Tigard Street to the north edge of the site, at which point a half-width unimproved right of way extends north to SW North Dakota Street. Nine of the lots will have frontage on proposed Gallo Avenue, including one lot that also has frontage on Tigard Street and two lots that also have frontage on a proposed private street. The applicant proposes to develop a private street that will terminate on the site west of proposed Gallo Avenue.' Five lots at the northwest corner of the site have frontage on the private street, including two lots that also have frontage on proposed Gallo Avenue. The applicant proposes to collect storm water from imperious areas of the site and to convey that storm water to a water quality and detention tract in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tigard Street and proposed Gallo Avenue. All proposed lots will be served by public water and sanitary sewer systems. The applicant proposes to retain 70 regulated trees on the site and to remove 38 regulated trees. 2. On May 8, 2002, the Tigard Planning Manager (the "manager") issued a Type H decision approving the application subject to 34 conditions of approval. On May 22, 2002, Sue Beilko (the "appellant") filed an appeal of the manager's decision. On June 24, 2002, Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer Larry Epstein (the "hearings officer") conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal. The applicant and City staff recommended the hearings officer deny the appeal and affirm the manager's decision. The appellant testified in support of the appeal and requested the record be held open. Other than service providers, no one else participated in the appeal. The hearings officer held open the public record for eleven days. The principal issues in the appeal include the following: a. Whether Gallo Avenue is permitted to terminate temporarily as proposed, (i.e., without a cul de sac bulb), and whether it will or can be extended north in the future; b. Whether the proposed private street is permitted, and whether it can terminate as proposed; c. Whether there is a wetland on the site or whether additional substantial evidence is necessary to determine whether there is a wetland on the site; d. Whether the trees to be removed qualify for removal without additional substantial evidence, including allegedly rare tree species, based on applicable City standards, Statewide Planning Goal 5, and a treaty involving migratory birds; and t Originally City staff required and the applicant proposed that the private street extend to the west edge of the site so it can be extended off-site to the west. However, after City staff determined such an extension would violate applicable City standards, the manager required the private street to terminate on this site. • • e. Whether the preliminary plan complies with block size standards. 4. Based on the findings and conclusions contained herein and the testimony and evidence in the public record, the hearings officer denies the appeal and affirms the administrative decision with minor modifications for the reasons provided herein. B. HEARING AND RECORD 1. The hearings officer received testimony at the public hearing about this application on June 24, 2002. All exhibits and records of testimony are filed with the Tigard Department of Community Development. At the beginning of the hearing, the hearings officer made the declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected testimony and evidence offered at the hearing. 2. City planner Morgan Tracy identified the site and summarized the proposed subdivision. He responded to the written appeal as follows: a. The appellant misunderstood the statement in the manager's decision that "access to SW Tigard Street will be restricted." That statement does not prohibit access from proposed SW Gallo Avenue to Tigard Street. It only prohibits direct vehicular access from any lot (i.e., lot 1) to Tigard Street. This is clear in condition of approval 24. b. The private street can serve as the temporary turn-around for Gallo Avenue until it is extended off-site, because each leg of the intersection is not more than 150 feet long. The Tigard Community Development Code (the "CDC") allows such a temporary turn-around. The temporary termination is consistent with the CDC. The CDC requires the preliminary plan to provide for the extension of Gallo Avenue to the north. c. There is a 25-foot wide public right of way for SW Gallo Avenue north of the site to SW North Dakota Street, based on the Washington County Tax Assessor's Map and partition plat 1992-049. That right of way can be widened and developed when adjoining land is further divided in the future. d. The private street must terminate on the site and cannot extended to the west under existing standards of the CDC and the Roadway Standards. Also an existing structure in the route of such a future off-site extension makes it impracticable. e. The site does not contain a wetland based on the City's Goal 5 inventory and the National Wetlands Inventory. f. The City forester independently evaluated the tree protection plan from the applicant and determined that two of the trees listed for removal should be retained. Otherwise he agreed with the evidence the applicant submitted about trees. 3. Matt Sprague appeared on behalf of the applicant and supported the testimony by City staff. In rebuttal testimony, he argued that there is evidence in the record from a wildlife biologist that the site does not contain endangered species. In response to the appellant's request to hold open the record, he requested four days after record is closed to the appellant in which to respond to new evidence and to submit a closing argument. 4. Sue Beilko testified on her own behalf. She argued SW Gallo Avenue and the private street are cul de sac streets, and the CDC prohibits cul de sac streets. She argued there is no public right of way for Gallo Avenue north of the site, and the owners of land Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB 2002-00002 (Cascadian Place) Page 2 • • through which such a right of way would have to be dedicated do not want to develop their land. Therefore Gallo Avenue will not be extended north, and the section of Gallo Avenue on the site will terminate on the site permanently. She reiterated and expanded on the arguments in the written appeal that the site contains wetlands (or at least the evidence does not show it does not contain such wetlands), that more trees on the site should be retained, and that there are migratory birds on the site whose habitat will be adversely affected by the proposed subdivision contrary to Statewide Planning Goal 5 and a treaty. She requested that the hearings officer hold open the public record after the hearing. 5. The hearings officer held the record open until July 1 to allow the appellant to submit additional evidence and arguments. The hearings officer held the record open until July 5 to allow the applicant to respond to new evidence and arguments from the appellant and to submit a closing argument. The record in this case closed at 5:00 p.m., July 5, 2002. No new evidence or arguments were submitted after the hearing while the record was open. C. DISCUSSION 1. CDC 18.390.040.G authorizes the hearings officer to hear appeals of Type H decisions, such as the city's decision conditionally approving the subdivision application. Pursuant to ORS 215.416(11)(a), appeals of administrative decisions must be reviewed as a de novo matter. The hearings officer is required to conduct an independent review of the record. He is not bound by the administrative decision and does not defer to that decision in any way. New evidence may be introduced in an appeal. The hearings officer must decide whether the applicant has carried the burden of proof that the application complies with all applicable approval criteria in light of all relevant substantial evidence in the whole record, including any new evidence. 2. Nevertheless the hearings officer largely agrees with the findings and conclusions in the manager's decision and in the memorandum dated June 11, 2002 from Morgan Tracy to the hearings officer. Therefore the hearings officer adopts those findings and conclusions as his own except to the extent inconsistent with the following findings. 3. Condition of approval 24 is consistent with CDC 18.705.030.G(2),2 because SW Tigard Street is designated as a collector street. The manager's decision is correct when it states that access to SW Tigard Street will be restricted. Direct vehicular access from any lot or tract in the proposed subdivision will be prohibited. To the extent the body of the manager's decision is ambiguous about the extent of the restriction, condition 24 makes it clear. Access to each proposed lot can be provided consistent with CDC 18.705.030.H. 4. The proposed private street is consistent with CDC 18.705.030.H(3) and (4).3 That is, the proposed private street will have a minimum 24-foot wide paved section and will 2 CDC 18.705.030.G(2) provides as follows: Direct individual access to arterial or collector streets from single-family dwellings and duplex lots shall be discouraged. Direct access to major collector or arterial streets shall be considered only if there is no practical alternative way to access the site. 3 CDC 18.705.030.H(3) and (4) provide as follows: 3. Private residential access drives shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code; 4. Access drives in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus by one of the following: Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB 2002-00002 (Cascadian Place) Page 3 u • 0 be no longer than 150 feet. No parking signs can be installed along the private street consistent with the fire marshal's comments. See Exhibit B. If the private street is not longer than 150 feet, the applicant is not required to terminate it with a turn-around to comply with the fire code. If the private street exceeds a length of 150 feet, an adequate turn-around must be provided. See condition of approval 11. Although it appears to be unnecessary because the applicant intends to ensure the length of the private drive does not exceed 150 feet, the hearings officer finds it is feasible for the applicant to provide a turn- around at the west end of the private street consistent with CDC 18.705.030.H(4), because there are no physical impediments to provision of such a turn-around. 5. Based on CDC 18.810.030.S(3), the private street cannot serve more than six dwellings, because the subdivision is not a planned unit development. Based on that section and on the existing development west of the site, the private street should not be extended west off the site and can terminate on the site. 6. The blocks resulting from the proposed subdivision comply with CDC 18.810.040 to the extent required therein.4 That is, the proposed blocks are designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites, because all lots comply with minimum dimensional standards of the zone. All lots have direct vehicular access to a public or private street that complies with applicable standards of the CDC; therefore access to each lot is convenient. Street circulation, control and safety are achieved by providing a direct means of access from all lots to an abutting public or private street that will be improved to City standards and, from there, to a collector street (i.e., Tigard Street). The proposed subdivision, as conditioned, also promotes safety by aligning the centerline of Gallo Avenue north and south of Tigard Street so as to avoid an offset that could lead to hazardous turning movements. Also the design of the proposed blocks preserves the opportunity for future circulation to the north via an extension of SW Gallo Avenue. Topography is not a significant constraint in this case. Although the perimeter of the block exceeds 1800 feet, such a result is permitted, because the block adjoins a collector street, and a lesser block perimeter is precluded by existing development to the west and CDC 18.810.030.S(3). 7. The hearings officer finds that neither SW Gallo Avenue nor the private street is a cul de sac, (CDC 18.120.030.A(49)), because neither street ends in a circular turnaround. Moreover SW Gallo Avenue is not a cul de sac, because it can be extended to the north to a. A circular, paved surface having a minimum turn radius measured from center point to outside edge of 35 feet; b. A hammerhead-configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet; c. The maximum cross slope of a required turnaround is 5%. 4 CDC 18.810.040.A and B(1) provide as follows in relevant part: A. Block Design. The length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. B. ize . 1. The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: a. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water, or pre-existing development; or b. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB 2002-00002 (Cascadian Place) Page 4 • • SW North Dakota Street when intervening property develops. It is feasible for intervening property to develop based on its location inside the Urban Growth Boundary, its existing zoning and its physical characteristics. It is not relevant whether existing owners of intervening property intend to develop their property soon or at all. Such development is feasible at some time in the future. Moreover it is reasonably likely SW Gallo Avenue will be extended north when adjoining land develops given a half-width right of way already is dedicated to the City for that purpose. See sheet 2 of partition plat 1992-049 and CDC 18.810.030.G(2). The terminus of Gallo Avenue on this site is not permanent; the street will extend to the north at some future time. Therefore Gallo Avenue is not a dead end street. Because the private street is within 150 feet of the temporary terminus of Gallo Avenue on the site and will provide a sufficient area for vehicles, including emergency vehicles, to turn around, the private street can serve as the temporary turn-around for the north terminus of Gallo Avenue. See drawing no. 165 (Attachment 1) attached to the June 11, 2002 memorandum from Morgan Tracy to the hearings officer. 8. The hearings officer is persuaded that the site does not contain a wetland, based on the City's Goal 5 inventory and the National Wetlands Inventory. There is no substantial evidence to the contrary, or such evidence is not of equal or greater probative value and is not more persuasive. 9. The hearings officer is persuaded that the applicant has sustained the burden of proof under CDC 18.790.030 that regulated trees (as defined in CDC 18.790.020.A) are identified on the tree protection plan, subject to the modification required by the City Forester. Furthermore, except as noted by the City Forester, the tree protection plan accurately identifies all hazardous trees as defined in CDC 18.790.020.A(3) and provides for their retention or removal consistent with that chapter. Although the removal of trees may affect wildlife habitat including habitat for migratory birds, such impacts are permitted by the CDC. The hearings officer cannot rely on a treaty to deny or condition approval of the application, because a treaty is not part of the local development regulations.5 Statewide Planning Goal 5 does not apply to the application, because the CDC has been acknowledged to comply with the Statewide Planning Goals. The hearings officer also agrees with and adopts as his own the findings and conclusions in the memoranda dated April 16 and June 17, 2002 from Matt Stine to Morgan Tracy. Condition of approval 34 should be amended to reflect the modification required by the City Forester. D. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings adopted and incorporated herein, the hearings officer concludes that the appeal should be denied, because the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed subdivision does or will comply with the applicable approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code, subject to conditions adopted by the manager, and the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence or evidence of equal or greater probative value to the contrary and/or failed to persuade the hearings officer that the application violates the applicable approval standards based on such evidence. Therefore the hearings officer should affirm the manager's decision with minor modifications. 5 ORS 227.173(1) provides as follows: Approval or denial of a discretionary permit application shall be based on standards and criteria, which shall be set forth in the development ordinance and which shall relate approval or denial of a discretionary permit application to the development ordinance and to the comprehensive plan for the area in which the development would occur and to the development ordinance and comprehensive plan for the city as a whole. (emphasis added) Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB 2002-00002 (Cascadian Place) Page 5 0 0 E. DECISION In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained and incorporated herein, the hearings officer hereby denies the appeal of the administrative decision in the matter of SUB 2002-00002 (Cascadian Place) and affirms the decision of the planning manager, including the conditions of approval provided therein, with the following modifications: 1. Condition of approval 18 is hereby amended to read as follows: 18. The applicant shall submit deed restriction for the trees proposed to be retained and for trees # 235 and #520 identified on the arborist's tree survey. Prior to and during construction... [remainder of the condition is unchanged]. 2. Condition of approval 34 is hereby amended to read as follows: 34. Building permit applications for each lot shall include a site plan that shows the location of the trees on the lot designated from the applicant's submittal as "trees>12" to remain" plus trees #235 and #520 if on the lot in question and the "building envelope line" as shown on the applicant's Tree Preservation/Building Envelope plan with modifications to reflect the retention and protection of trees #235 and #520 if on the lot in question or if the crown or root zone of either of those trees extends over the lot in question. The building footprints for the proposed homes shall be entirely contained within the building envelope line. ATEpqhis 8th day/of 61y, 2002. Larry Epstei , r CP City of Tig d a se Hearings Officer Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB 2002-00002 (Cascadian Place) Page 6 • "EXHIBIT A" PARTIES OF RECORD (Written Public Testimony received at the hearing) • EXHIBIT A 0 SUBMITTED AT THE 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING FROM THE APPEALANT (SUB2002-00002) • June 24, 2002 EXHIBIT A Regarding: File Name: Cascadian Place Subdivision: Case No SUB2002-00002 1) The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 protects all migratory birds. This includes birds that migrate from Mexico and Central and South America and breed here in Oregon, including within the boundaries of the City of Tigard. We have many species that migrate here and breed and raise their young. The MBTA protects all migratory birds by making it illegal to take birds, their young and any active nests. We believe that this law applies to the above mentioned proposed subdivision, in that there are many species of migratory birds that currently have nests and are raising young on this property. Migratory species that have been documented to use this property include: Rufous and Anna's hummingbirds, Wilson's warbler, Scrub jays, American crow, Stellar's Jays, and many others. Any act such as removing trees and shrubs has the potential to cause a take of birds and their young since it can remove nests, kill birds, and cause other harm or "take" of these protected species. We hereby request that this proposed subdivision be re-evaluated due to its importance as habitat for migratory birds, as well as many species of native frogs, salamanders, bats, etc. 2) The trees in this proposed subdivision include a grove of mature western red cedar trees, which is very rare within Tigard's city limits. This species of tree typically inhabitats areas that are wet and shaded, often on slopes that have seepage. This grove of cedars along with the large Douglas firs on the property as well as the Oregon ash, alders, and many other species of native shrubs and herbaceous plants should be protected, and we are hereby requesting that the City of Tigard purchase this property and protect it as a greenspace and wildlife area. The funding is currently available in the city's budget, and our group, as well as other citizens of Tigard, wish our dollars to be used to purchase remaining undeveloped land which offers uniques biodiversity values and maintains the unique quality of living we so highly cherish here. We are hereby formally requesting that the City of Tigard use dollars in the budget for purchase of this property. Funding IS available, and we will assist the city in the purchase and protection of this unique site. Thank you for your time, Sincerely, Susan G. Beilke, Director The Biodiversity Project of Tigard 0 "EXHIBIT C" WRITTEN TESTIMONY (Applicant's materials and pertinent correspondence filed with Hearings Officer prior to Public Hearing.) CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: Larry Epstein, City of Tigard Hearings Officer FROM: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner DATE: June 11, 2002 SUBJECT: Cascadian Place Subdivision (SUB 2002-00002) Appeal Sue Beilke, Director of the Biodiversity Project of Tigard and area resident, has filed an appeal with the City of Tigard in regard to the approval of the aforementioned subdivision. The appellant has requested your review of the City's approval based on several particular issues as enumerated in her letter of appeal received May 22, 2002. The issues concern street access and circulation, right of way dedication, future street connectivity, and emergency vehicle turnaround; potential wetlands on site; and that non-hazardous trees have- been incorrectly identified for removal as hazardous. The subject site is located on the north side of SW Tigard Street, between SW Tiedeman and SW 115th Avenue within the R-4.5 residential zone. The Notice of Decision and record is attached for your review. The appellant argues that the street access and circulation standards are not met. The City's position is as follows: Direct Access. Specifically, with regard to 18.705.030(D), the standard requires in part: "All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.0301 shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use". The decision reflects that all lots will have access to a public or private street, however, 18.705.030 (G)(2)' also stipulates that direct individual access to collector streets shall be discouraged. In this case, because there are practical alternatives to access a local street, a condition was put in place to prevent direct vehicular access to Tigard Street: "The 6/24/2002 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 1 of 5 RE: SUB2002-00002/Cascadian Place Subdivision Appeal applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat indicating that no direct vehicular access to SW Tigard Street shall be permitted from any lot."" In reality, this only pertains to lot 1, but since it is possible the lot numbers may change on the final plat or subsequent changes in the future such as a lot line adjustment grant other lots frontage on SW Tigard Street, a generic statement was placed to limit this direct access. The condition does not preclude access to SW Gallo, or the private street, which in turn connect with SW Tigard Street. Emergency vehicle turn-around. The two streets in question, SW Gallo and Tract B, both do not have standard cul de sac bulbs. The reason that SW Gallo does not terminate in a bulb or turn-around, is that it is part of a through street (this will be discussed in greater detail later). Although the street does not continue through at the present time due to inadequate right of way width to the north, it is not intended to dead end. Generally, in cases where a street is expected to be extended through adjacent property, a temporary easement for emergency turnarounds is created on the project site until such time the street is extended. However, in this case, the location and dimension of the private street serve to meet the turn around requirements for SW Gallo, refer to Exhibit 1. The appellant argues that the development code requirements of 18.705.030(H)(4)are violated. The applicant's initial submittal showed Tract B to be less than 150 feet in length. After staffs completeness review, it was not that Tract B should be extended to the west property line for future street connection to better meet the standards of the City's recently adopted Transportation System Plan as well as existing development code standards found at 18.810.030 (F)(2)", future streets, and 18.810.040 (B)v, block lengths. However, it was later determined that a future extension of a public street would require the demolition of one or more existing dwellings on the adjacent lot. Staff also determined that a narrower private street would not be feasible since the development code limits private streets to serve no more than 6 lots except in conjunction with a Planned Development, 18.810.030(S)(3). The City Engineer has also expressed reservation in allowing private streets to be through streets, especially those that cross subdivision boundaries for reasons of maintenance responsibility and that they generally are not designed to carry through traffic. As a result, staff determined that the street stub to the property line is not necessary, and that Tract B can be terminated at 150 feet. Per section 18.705.030(H)(4), if the access is less than 150 feet, there is no requirement for a turn around. This too was reflected in the conditions of approval: "The applicant's construction drawings shall show that the proposed private street will only be improved to an ultimate length of 150 feet or otherwise will provide for a standard turn-around." To resolve the issue related to connectivity, a pedestrian/bicycle connection was required, as authorized by Section 18.810.040(B) and memorialized in the conditions of approval as well. Other clarifications in this section. There is no prohibition on culs de sac in the City of Tigard. Culs de sac are not as prevalent in recent development proposals due to the city's connectivity requirements which require extensions of streets to neighboring properties to create through routes, as well as block length standards that encourage through connections. 6/24/2002 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 2 of 5 RE: SUB2002-00002/Cascadian Place Subdivision Appeal 0 0 The appellants argue that SW Gallo Street cannot be extended to allow for future connection to SW North Dakota Street as there is no right of way present. The City's position is as follows: Right of Way for SW Gallo was dedicated as part of an earlier partitioning of property north of the subject site, refer to Attachment 2. This right of way is presently 25 feet wide which is insufficient to improve the street to public standards, see Attachment 3. The property lying to the east of this right of way is large enough to be further subdivided. Staff acknowledges that there is no present plan to develop that property. Nevertheless, if development were to occur, additional right of way may be required which would allow the street connection to be improved. Other clarifications in this section: staff acknowledges that the term "development" can be confusing as it is used interchangeably to refer to structures and other site improvements as well as to partitioning or subdividing parcels of land. The code defines development as 1) A building or mining operation; 2) a material change in the use or appearance of a structure or land; or 3) division of land into two or more parcels, including partitions and subdivisions as provided in Oregon Revised Statutes 92." As such, when staff refers to the future development of parcels, the reference is to the possibility for future land division, not the presence of structures. On the other hand, when there is a reference to street connectivity being precluded by existing development, this generally relates to the improvements that have been constructed' The appellant argues that Section 18.810.040.8.2. (Future Extension of Streets) is violated The City's position is as follows: Staff originally believed that the private street stub could be extended to the property to the west at the time that property developed. However, as mentioned previously, site constraints are such that a full public street could not be accommodated and a through private street would not acceptable to the City Engineering department. The staff report notes that "The proposed private street "Tract B" will be able to provide an intervening connection to SW 115 when the street is extended. A public easement will be needed to assure that this connection is reserved. The applicant's plans do not propose a sidewalk, however to meet this standard, a sidewalk on at least one side will be required." This finding is not clear as to what type of connection is being called out for Tract B. The intent is made clearer by subsequent discussion in the decision and the conditions of approval: "The applicant's construction drawings shall show sidewalks on at least one side of the private street. The sidewalk shall extend to the west property line. "The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private street will be Jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from it. Additionally, a public access easement shall be recorded over the sidewalk on the private street. These conditions show that the intent was for a pedestrian connection to the adjoining western property for potential future connection. 6/24/2002 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 3 of 5 RE: SUB2002-00002/Cascadian Place Subdivision Appeal The appellant argues that wetlands have not been properly identified on the property. The City's position is as follows: Staff refers to the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory prepared by Fishman Environmental Services in 1994 and the Clean Water Services Sensitive Area Pre Screen Map prepared April 11, 2000 to identify potential water and wetland resources. Both maps indicate no such resources on the subject property. Because the resources that staff relies on did not indicate any wetlands or streams, the sensitive lands criteria (18.775) were not applied. There is no definitive information indicating that a wetland exists on this property. As such, a wetlands inventory is not required. If it is found that wetlands are present on the property, then a sensitive lands review may be necessary. The appellant argues that non-hazardous trees were incorrectly identified as hazardous. The City's position is as follows: The applicant submitted an arborist report and tree assessment as part of the application. The City Forester reviewed the findings in the report and had questions related to several trees noted as hazardous. Staff, including the Forester, met with the applicant's arborist on site to review the disputed trees. From that meeting and a follow up inspection, the City Forester concurred with the applicant's arborist on all but two trees (#235 and #520). As such, these trees were not found to be dead, diseased, dying or dangerous and if removed, would need to be accounted for in the tree mitigation calculations. The appellant has not provided any further assessment or specified any particular tree in her appeal, so staff is unable to respond more specifically to this argument. In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision request satisfies the general approval criteria and standards of the Tigard Development Code, and that the appeal should be denied. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - City of Tigard Standard Detail for a Fire Truck Turn Around Attachment 2 - City of Tigard Case File MLP90-013 Attachment 3 - Partition Plat 1992-049 EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Notice of Decision Exhibit B - Agency Comments Exhibit C - Neighborhood Comments Exhibit D - Appeal Filing Form Exhibit E - Applicant's Submittal 6/24/2002 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 4 of 5 RE: SUB2002-00002/Cascadian Place Subdivision Appeal ' 18.705.030 (G)(2) - Direct individual access to arterial or collector streets from single-family dwellings and duplex lots shall be discouraged. Direct access to major collector or arterial streets shall be considered only if there is no practical alternative way to access the site. " Condition Number 24, Page 4 of Exhibit A 18.705.030 (H)(4) - Access drives in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus by one of the following: a. A circular, paved surface having a minimum turn radius measured from center point to outside edge of 35 feet; b. A hammerhead-configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet;. c. The maximum cross slope of a required turnaround is 5%. 18.810.030(F)(2) - Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed, and a. These extended streets or street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cull-de sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. b. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost. c. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub streets in excess of 150 feet in length. 18.810.040(B) - 1. The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right of-way line except: a. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water, or pre-existing development; or b. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. 2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is not possible. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. However, this is not always the case. Sometimes, the lotting pattern is arranged in such a manner that future connections are unlikely, due to the number of parcels that would require a consolidated development plan, and the areas remaining on those parcels for creating new lots. Condition Number 10, Page 3 of Exhibit A Condition Number 23, Page 4 of Exhibit A 6/24/2002 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 5 of 5 RE: SUB2002-00002/Cascadian Place Subdivision Appeal Attachment 1 I FJ I I I -I I I I I NOTE: 45' I 20 R = 25" 55' ~ 65' RIGHT OF WAY PAVEMENT I WIDTH PER STD. PLAN I APPROPRIATE SIGNING SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE FIRE MARSHALL. APPROVED BY: NO SCALE AGUSTIN P. DUENAS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FIRE TRUCK DWG. NO. 13125 S.W. HALL BLVD. CITY ENGINEER VOICED, OREGON 97223 MARCH 1998 TURNAROUND 165 VOICE 503 639-4171 CM OF I1CM FAX: SOJ3 684-7297 APPROVAL DATE • Attachment 2 CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF AMOMED DECISION MAJOR LAND PARTITION MLP 90-0013 VARIANCE VAR 90-0023 WINTERS/ZEHNTBAUER - OWNER/APPLICANT APPLICATION: The applicants request major land partition approval to allow an approximately 54,450 square foot parcel to be divided into 3 parcels approximately 26,136, 11,979, and 16,335 square feet in size. A variance is also requested to: 1) allow continued use of an existing gravel driveway where a paved driveway is normally required, 2) waive the requirement that a sidewalk be provided along a portion of the drive that serves all 3 proposed parcels, and 3) allow 10 and 13 foot front yard setbacks where 20 feet is normally required. LOCATION: 11240, 11260, and 11280'SW North Dakota (WCTM 1S1 34DB tax lot 2600). ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre) AMENDMENT: This decision is being amended to change two of the conditions of approval from the original decision issued on September 21, 1990. They are conditions no. 1 and no. 10. Condition no. 1 is being changed because it forbade direct access to SW North Dakota for all parcels created by the partition. Instead, direct access to North Dakota Street shall be permitted for the dwelling located on the most northerly lot (the one that abuts North Dakota Street) until such time as additional improvements are proposed for the site or for North Dakota Street. Other circumstances may arise that require closure of the direct access but until such time as they occur the existing driveway, located on the east side of the lot, may be used for access to the most northerly parcel. Condition no. 1 now reads: 1. Direct access to SW North Dakota Street will not be permitted except for the existing driveway serving the most northerly lot. In the event the subject site or SW North Dakota Street is improved, or other special circumstances arise, this exception may be revoked. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department (639-4171). Condition no. 10 is being eliminated because no building permit is required for the existing accessory structure. A. PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: XX The applicant and owners XX Owners of record within the required distance XX The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization XX Affected government agencies 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON 10/11/90 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION - MLP 90-0016/VAR 90-0023 PAGE 1 3. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal must be filed with the City Recorder within 10 days after notice is given and sent. Appeal fee schedule and forms are available at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 p.m. 10/11/90 4. Ouestions: If you have questions, please call City of Tigard Planning Department, City of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. 060A Z.-' 1 941 PREPARED BY: iola R. Goodwin , / / gqvgopment Review Planner APPROVED BY: Keith S. Liden Senior Planner DATE A' DATE NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION - MLP 90-0016/VAR 90-0023 PAGE 2 CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION MAJOR LAND PARTITION MLP 90-0013/VARIANCE VAR 90-0023 WINTERS/ZERNTBAUER - OWNER/APPLICANT APPLICATION: The applicants request major land partition approval to allow an approximately 54,450 square foot parcel to be divided into 3 parcels approximately 26,136, 11,979, and 16,335 square feet in size. A variance is also requested to: 1) allow continued use of an existing gravel driveway where a paved driveway is normally required, 2) waive the requirement that a sidewalk be provided along a portion of the drive that serves all 3 proposed parcels, and 3) allow 10 and 13 foot front yard setbacks where 20 feet is normally required. LOCATION: 11240, 11260, and 11280 SW North Dakota (WCTM 1S1 34DB tax lot 2600). ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre) DECISION: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director's designee for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above described application SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted below. A. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background In August, 1986 a minor land partition and variance, MLP•5-86/V 19- 86, was approved by the Director. The minor land partition was similar to the present request with a small variation in the proposed lot sizes. The partition was not recorded with Washington County and the approval has expired. In July, 1987 an application (M 87-08) to allow the placement of a 475 square foot accessory structure on the site was approved. 2. Vicinity Information The subject property is completely surrounded by property also zoned R-4.5. Development in the area consists of single-family residences on medium to large size lots. 3. Site Information and Proposal Description There are presently 3 separate single-family residences and an accessory structure located on the site. The accessory structure is a small residential building although it is not being used for this purpose. It was placed on the site to prevent it from being demolished when North Dakota Street was being realigned. There are no utility connections to the structure. The portion of the lot containing the accessory structure is overgrown with weeds and also contains 2 nonoperating vehicles and a trailer loaded with what appears to be refuse covered with a tarp. NOTICE OF DECISION - WINTERS/ZEHNTBAUER - MLP 90-0013/VAR 90-0023 PAGE 1 • • A gravel driveway serves all 3 residences from North Dakota Street. The driveway entrance has no apron and is in poor condition. Overgrown berry vines grow along the west side of the driveway, reducing its usable width substantially from that shown on the site plan. There are a number of fir trees on the parcel including 7 located along the east property line, 2 between the residence closest to North Dakota and the accessory structure, and 1 located near the rear of the lot. Four birch trees grow along the east side of the driveway within 125 feet of North Dakota. The applicants propose to divide the parcel into 3 parcels containing 26,134, 11,979, and 16,335 square feet including the area of the driveway in the calculation of the proposed parcel sizes. Approximate parcel sizes without inclusion of the driveway are 21,834, 9,779, and 15,835 square feet. The largest parcel abuts North Dakota and contains a residence and the accessory structure. The two remaining parcels each contain a single residence. The applicants also request a variance to allow 1) the existing gravel driveway to remain unpaved and 2) a waiver of the requirement that a walkway be provided along the driveway. 4. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. There is an existing house on each of the proposed lots; no construction or other improvements are proposed. 2. Approval of a variance requires meeting the criteria set out in subsection 18.134.050(A) of the Code. Paragraph two of that subsection requires that there be "special circumstances that exist which are particular to the lot over which the applicant has no control". As mentioned in the applicant's submittal, the existing driveway could become a public right- of-way upon development of the parcel to the west. This could result in the removal of improvements to the private drive for the construction of improvements to public street standards. To ensure the availability of the existing drive for a future public street, the westerly 25 feet of the parcel should be dedicated for a public right-of-way. Public improvement of the dedicated right-of-way should be delayed until the remaining portion of the right-of-way is dedicated and improvements are proposed. The Building Division points out the existing buildings must be at least 3 feet from any property line to satisfy the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Plumbing permits will be required for NOTICE OF DECISION - WINTERS/ZEHNTBAUER - MLP 90-0013/VAR 90-0023 PAGE 2 • • installation of new water lines. If the buildings are to share one sewer service line, a joint access and maintenance agreement must be recorded with each lot. The Division also requests a plan showing the location of all existing utilities be submitted and notes that if the utilities cross new property lines, easements must be provided. The driveway should be paved to the North Dakota Street right-of-way line. The Division also points out that separate accounts should be set up with the Sewer Billing Department for each new lot and a building permit will have to be obtained for the accessory structure, unless the applicants can show proof that they have obtained one previously. Although a quorum was not in attendance at the NPO #7 meeting, the 3 members present raised objections to the proposal. All 3 members object to allowing a variance to the requirement the driveway be paved and one member objects to approval of the variance to waive the requirement a sidewalk be provided along the portion of the driveway that serves all 3 proposed parcels. These members also recommend the proposal be considered either a major land partition or a subdivision for the purpose of review because there is a potential for additional development in the future. These members express concern the applicant will be able to develop a subdivision without benefit of subdivision review by applying for 2 consecutive minor land partition approvals. The Fire Marshall notes that 1) the drive shall not have less than a 20 foot wide, unobstructed driving surface, 2) where dead end roads are 150 feet or longer, a turnaround must be provided and must comply with the Uniform Fire Code, 3) the turning radius shall not be less than 45 feet on the outside and 25 feet on the inside, and 4) hydrants are required within 500 feet of all portions of buildings. P.G.E., Tigard Water District, School District 23J, G.T.E., and Metro Area Communications have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. No other comments have been received. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Code Section 18.162.020 (Partition Requirements) provides the guidelines for determining whether a proposal is to be considered a major or minor land partition. A major land partition is required when a division of land (3 lots or less) creates a street or road. A minor land partition is required when 3 lots or less are created without the creation of a street or road, within one calendar year. The current application is being reviewed as a major land partition because the property owner will be required to dedicate right-of-way to accommodate a future public street. The western portion of the site has NOTICE OF DECISION - WINTERS/ZEHNTBAUER - MLP 90-0013/VAR 90-0023 PAGE 3 • • been selected as the location for a public street intended to provide a connection between North Dakota Street and Tigard Street. This site was selected because it provides the most direct connection possible in the area between North Dakota and Tigard Streets and 108th and 115th Avenue. As other properties south and west of the site are developed, additional right-of-way will be acquired for a street built to local street standards. A local street requires a 50 foot wide right-of-way and the applicant will be required to dedicate 25 feet of this along the west property boundary. As a result of the required street dedication 2 of the 3 existing dwellings located on the parcel will be in violation of the front yard setback requirements of the R-4.5 zone.. Therefore, a variance request to allow 10 and 13 foot setbacks where 20 feet is normally required is also considered as a part of this review. This variance is discussed in the section headed "Variance Requests". Maior Land Partition The proposal must satisfy the land partition criteria of Section 18.162.040 (Partition Approval Criteria). They are as follows: 1. The proposal conforms with the City's comprehensive plan; 2. The proposed partition complies with all statutory and ordinance requirements and regulations; 3. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposal; 4. All proposed lots conform to the size and dimensional requirements of this title; and 5. All proposed improvements meet City and applicable agency standards. The existing situation, wherein 3 residences are located on one parcel, will be remedied because each residence will now be located on a separate parcel. Except for Uniform Fire Code requirements, discussed below, this brings the site into compliance with the Community Development Code. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposal as demonstrated by the comments submitted by the various agencies in the area. The lots conform to the minimum size and dimensional requirements of the R-4.5 zone. A variance to allow reduced front yard setbacks for two of the existing dwellings is discussed below in the "Variance Requests" section of the report. The third dwelling and the accessory structure satisfy the front yard setback requirements. The two larger lots are of a size that will allow future partitioning and the smallest lot exceeds the 7,500 square foot minimum lot size by approximately 2,229 square feet. NOTICE OF DECISION - WINTERS/ZEHNTBAUER - MLP 90-0013/VAR 90-0023 PAGE 4 • • The proposal also meets the standards for lot width, minimum setback requirements for flag lots, and for a conventional lot fronting a street with the possible exception of one proposed lot line. The lot line in question is proposed to be located between the parcel closest to North Dakota and the middle parcel. It is not clear from the site plan that it is at least 5 feet from the side of the residence located on the proposed middle lot. As a condition of approval the proposed lot line will be required to satisfy the 5 foot side yard setback requirement. There are other concerns. Specifically, the proposed parcel on which the accessory structure is located is overgrown with weeds and contains 2 inoperable vehicles and a refuse-filled trailer. There are berry vines along the driveway that reduce its usable width below that required by the Fire District for access and an adequate turnaround area is not provided. The entrance to the driveway is unsafe because it is too bumpy to allow entry to the driveway without having to reduce vehicle speed excessively while still traveling on North Dakota. To bring the proposal into compliance with Code Section 18.96.060 the applicants will be required to remove the 2 vehicles and the trailer. To satisfy the Uniform Fire Code and Municipal Code Section 7.40.050 the berry vines and overgrown weeds must be trimmed and maintained or removed. The applicants will be required to provide evidence that the proposal satisfies the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code with respect to width and provision of an adequate area for turning an emergency vehicle around. Finally, the portion of the driveway located in the North Dakota Street public right-of-way and extending into the site a distance of one car-length must be paved. Variance Requests In addition to the major land partition the applicants request a variance to allow 1) the driveway to remain unpaved and 2) a waiver of the requirement that a sidewalk be installed along the driveway. A variance to allow 10 and 13 foot front yard setbacks where 20 feet is normally required is also necessary to accommodate a future public street along the west side of the site. Variance requests must satisfy the criteria contained in Code Section 18.134.050. They are as follows: (1) The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, be in conflict with the policies of the comprehensive Plan, to any other applicable policies of the Community Development Code, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity. (2) There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; NOTICE OF DECISION - WINTERS/ZEHNTBAUER - MLP 90-0013/VAR 90-0023 PAGE 5 • (3) The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this Code and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent possible, while permitting some economic use of the land; (4) Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected anymore than would occur if the development were located as specified in the Code; and (5) The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. A discussion of the requested variances follows. Each must satisfy the above criteria. Variance to Allow the Driveway to Remain Unpaved The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Code or be in conflict with the policies of the comprehensive Plan. The Engineering Division has approved the variance, as required by Code Section 18.106.050.J(5). A paved apron must be installed on the portion of the driveway located in the public right-of-way and extending from the edge of the road a distance of one car-length to provide for safe ingress and egress and to eliminate the tracking of gravel and mud onto the public right-of-way. There are special circumstances that exist. The applicants do not propose to make any physical changes to the site. The major land partition will bring the parcel into conformance with the Code and the Comprehensive Plan by providing a separate lot for each of the existing residences. Any future division of the land will require the provision of a paved public or private street. Pavement installed now, unless built to public right-of-way standards, would have to be removed prior to installation of such a street. Requiring paving to public right-of- way standards at this time would be excessive in light of the fact that no.physical development is occurring on the parcel and the configuration and extent of future development on this and adjacent sites is not known. Code Section 18.164.030.A(1) allows the Director to accept a nonremonstrance agreement and a dedication of right-of-way in lieu of street improvements. The applicants will be required to execute a nonremonstrance agreement and dedicate to the public a 25 foot wide portion of the property along the western property line to accommodate a future public street The use of the property will be the same as permitted under the Code: single-family residences. All other standards required by the Code for the R-4.5 zoning district are or will be satisfied. Existing physical and natural systems will not be adversely affected because other than the creation of new tax lots, improvements to the NOTICE OF DECISION - WINTERS/ZEHNTBAUER - MLP 90-0013/VAR 90-0023 PAGE 6 driveway apron, removal of noxious vegetation and inoperable vehicles, and improved maintenance or removal of the berry vines to provide an adequate access width, no physical changes to the site are proposed. The improved driveway apron will enhance traffic safety by allowing entry to the driveway without undue slowing of vehicles traveling on North Dakota Street. The proposed variance is not self-imposed because the gravel drive and 3 houses per parcel met the standards at the time the lot was developed. The pavement requirement would constitute a financial hardship since no additional development will result from this proposal. Variance to the Required Sidewalk The above discussion also applies to this request. Additionally, if the driveway is to remain unpaved it would be nonsensical to require a sidewalk to be installed along the unpaved driveway, especially since there is no sidewalk along North Dakota Street in the vicinity of the site. - Both variance requests are approved. However, as discussed earlier the applicants must provide a hard surfaced apron at the driveway entrance and extending a distance of at least one car-length from the edge of North Dakota Street right-of-way line. The vegetation along the west side of the driveway must be trimmed and maintained or removed to provide at least a 20 foot wide access for emergency vehicles. The inoperable vehicles, the trailer, and the overgrown weeds must be removed. Variance to the Front Yard Setback Requirements As a condition of approval the applicants are required to dedicate 25 feet of right-of-way along the west side of the subject parcel and sign a nonremonstrance agreement for a future local improvement district. As a result of these requirements, two of the existing dwellings will not satisfy the 20 foot front yard setback requirements of the R-4.5 zone. These dwellings are located on the proposed northern and southern parcels. The residence located on the proposed middle parcel will still be in compliance with the setback requirements. The accessory structure, not shown on the site plan, appears to be at least 50 feet from the present west property line and will, therefore, also be in compliance with the setback requirements after the right-of-way is dedicated. With the approval of this variance, the proposal will not be in conflict with the Code, the Comprehensive Plan, or other applicable policies or standards. Special circumstances exist because the existing dwellings met the standards at the time the lot was developed. The property owner had no way of knowing the site would be used for the location of a future public right-of-way. NOTICE OF DECISION - WINTERS/ZEHNTBAUER - MLP 90-0013/VAR 90-0023 PAGE 7 • The use proposed, single-family residences, will not change and is a permitted use. City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent possible. No change is proposed for the location of the development. As explained above, the hardship is not self-imposed. Therefore, this variance is also approved. C. DECISION The Planning Director's designee for the City of Tigard approves MLP 90- 0013/Var 90-0023 subject to the following conditions: THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO RECORDING THE MINOR LAND PARTITION WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. 1. Direct access to SW North Dakota Street will not be permitted. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department (639-4171) 2. The western 25 feet of the parcel, along the existing driveway, shall be dedicated to the public for right-of-way. The required form and instructions are available from the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department (639-4171) 3. The owners of the individual proposed parcels shall execute a Roadway Maintenance Agreement, that requires the owners of each lot to maintain jointly the dedicated right-of-way until such time as the right-of-way is improved as a public street and accepted for maintenance by the City. In addition, the owners shall execute an agreement which waives the owner's right to oppose or remonstrate against a future local improvement district formed to improve North Dakota Street or the future public street for which dedication of right-of-way was required in Condition #2, above. The agreements shall be on a form provided by the City. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department (639-4171) 4. A hard-surfaced driveway apron constructed to City standards shall be installed and shall extend a distance of at least one car-length from the edge of North Dakota Street to serve as a landing for vehicles leaving and entering the site. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department (639-4171). 5. A lot line adjustment and partition survey plat and an outbound description shall be submitted to the Engineering Department and Planning Division for approval before recording. The plat shall clearly show the dedicated right-of-way, any easements, and the location of all existing buildings including the accessory structure. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Division (639- 4171). NOTICE OF DECISION - WINTERS/ZEHNTBAUER - MLP 90-0013/VAR 90-0023 PAGE 8 6. Plumbing permits shall be obtained prior to the installation of new water lines. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division (639- 4171). 7. A plan showing the location of all utilities shall be submitted. If any utility lines cross property lines, then easements shall be provided. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division (639- 4171). 8. The applicants shall provide evidence that separate sewer billing has been provided for each of the 3 lots. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division (639-4171). 9. The applicant shall provide evidence that the driveway configuration and hydrant placement has been approved by the Fire Marshall. STAFF CONTACT: Vi Goodwin, Planning Division (639- 4171). 10. The applicant shall apply for a building permit for the accessory structure or provide evidence that one has already been obtained. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division (639-4171). 11. The inoperable vehicles, the trailer, and the noxious vegetation surrounding the accessory structure shall be removed in accordance with Code Section 18.96.060 and municipal Code Section 7.40.050. The berry vines growing along the west side of the driveway shall be trimmed and maintained or removed to provide a driveway width of at least 20 feet for use by emergency vehicles. STAFF CONTACT: Vi Goodwin, Planning Division (639-4171). THIS APPROVAL IS VALID IF EXECUTED WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE FINAL APPROVAL DATE NOTED BELOW. D. PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: XX The applicant and owners XX Owners of record within the required distance XX The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization XX Affected government agencies 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON 10/2/90 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. 3. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal must be filed with the City Recorder within 10 days after notice is given and sent. Appeal fee schedule and forms are available at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. NOTICE OF DECISION - WINTERS/ZEHNTBAUER - MLP 90-0013/VAR 90-0023 PAGE 9 FO. Y-BRASS p/SL "H/TEON" SIAMGf0 PARTITION PLAT /9Y0 /979 IN THE \ 2 N ~ per o m m Z. o m H T DM ~v I N ~ 1 w V U N ' • V Op0 i M ~ N 'h h 41 ~l3 h m ~ N O 0 OIO O I JOHN HICKLIN D.L.C. NO. 54 NW1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 SECTION 34 TIS,RIW,W.M. DECEMBER OR.E990 H/✓~. NBC 6LlN DLC WASHINGTON I"050COUNTY SCALE N ao 0 Ap~~ yN CITY OF TIGARD 35 uR vEyNO N6A~ (",33. 79 OEE0~~ G. R. YSZ AS OER S.N 24,456 (173-Y. 26't. S. 22 YYY) E y33.cB"-- ~fvk 2 /OEEO) ----'-S B3/'S3' Bf '3/' 53'E z/7. 28' - - - S.L✓. NORTH OAffOTA ST. C. A. HS2 --/OS. LY=•--`N `o •589'3/'53'8-~ S 89'3/'S3E a - /OB.LY' ,~'J7w t1 i~v is n M yea vi ~ EcO 090) G c•5 3 a 0 M ~H . m ~ T h ~ 3 N 0 O 2 PARTITION PLAT NO. )99a SHEET I OF 2 .0319 DD Iq. SB9'3/"53 E 011, 10,93.4/ lg D• 1 N_S' 6) HERO Z~45 i0 h ~1• R V V /S. A` NEIO E-WL•c.s. 30907 l T C ' • o c , C ~ 3 4. n O 3 j41. ' N • ~ ^ , E o 0 o p ti EE~Z58 ~ V o PA ~CEL O N D 9B 4 QO O ~ 229S /8 F ma 3 . . m o4 N N h N e4 y -3. 5,5" N N . 4I m v 3 q ° ry OA9CEL 3 • 2 0 0 0 m°po y F N BY 99S IN . IN b D O O O 'd] 143 O ~ . ' 0 4 39 E Sg9 \ p 0 $3 S/ h 2 R P . SC EyP 11-' h ~ 3 , 3 °o ° 07 0 9 E~ ao PARCEL ~l O p 3 11 NJ p 0 A? 522 90 ' y. 1 v.3 e S. F 30 , NARRA T I V£ : THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY WAS TO MONUMENT THE PARTITION. INTO THREE PARCELS. OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED BY DEED IN WASHINGTON COUNTY RECORDS FEE NUMBER 86061530. FIELD WORK BEGAN ON NOVEMBER 1. 1990 WITH JEFF CASWELL AND BRUCE ROM INE AS FIELD CREW. A KERN DKM2 ONE SECOND THEODOLITE AND CITATION DISTANCE METER WERE USED FOR PRINCIPLE MEASUREMENTS. PER SURVEY NUMBER 24456, HELD MONUMENTS FOUND AT POINTS ( AND Q FOR THE CENTERLINE OF S.W. NORTH DAKOTA STREET AND THE NORTH LINE OF THE JOHN HICKLIN D.L.C. NO. 54. I HELD THE POSITION OF THE FOUND IRON AT POINT 26 AND THE EAST-WEST POSITION OF THE FOUND IRON AT POINT © TO ESTABLISH THE EAST LINE. I HELD SAID POINT ® AND THE NORTH-SOUTH POSITION OF THE FOUND IRON AT POINT (.-E) TO ESTABLISH THE SOUTH LINE. I ESTABLISHED THE WEST LINE BY HOLDING THE EAST-WEST POSITIONS OF THE FOUND IRONS AT POINTS © AND 28 THEN BY INTERSECTING BEARINGS. I ESTABLISHED POINTS AND Q. I THEN MID-POINTED POINTS 60 AND (ER) . NOT £ S : 1. O DENOTES MONUMENT FOUND AS NOTED - IRONS FOUND BENT .WERE STRAIGHTENED. 2. • DENOTES 5/8 X 30 INCH IRON REBAR AD. WITH PLASTIC YELLOW CAP INSCRIBED "HERTEL PLS 1896'. [SN 26L5GJ 3. C 2 DENOTES PROBABLE ORIGIN OF MONUMENT. 4. 1 1 DENOTES RECORD BEARING AND/OR DISTANCE. 5. BEARING BASIS: CENTERLINE OF C.R. 452 BETWEEN POINTS Q - 13 AS PER S.N. 2J, 456 6. REFERENCE MATERIAL COUNTY SURVEY NUMBERS: 3.090: 6.747: 19.265: 13.079: 22.444. COUNTY ROAD NUMBER: 452. DEEDS: FEE NO. 86061530. 90-17682. BK 522 PG 658. 7. Q DENOTES COMPUTER POINT NUMBER. S. TRACT 'A' HAS BEEN DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC AS RECORDED AS FEE NO. 92029574. WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS. FDO ~0 ° 00 Ccs c7v7J Z LL a4alp OE TA/L-A IC41 f0. 4%I, F E L PARCEL NO.2 0 R= IS. 00" I ' 599 9/'39'E ` q5 Iq ,E , 3g + dl 5 89 p. 417 REGISTERED PP.OFESSIONAL LAND SUKVEYOIt ~LAYNE CASWE 1 :ti~.t/i~/ /F~A✓ ogEGC..: p•r~ na uw s~rv.rcr arcs w. avre..a 4ve / 3 I AIEEN. E .E. nn, Or•. •/oB.y6I- - G sp. 7-Y, (GS/./O' C. S. 3o 9O)- - - - _ • - - - - I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS AN EXACT 9 COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PARTITION PLAT b~00 GiZKZ/N wz4x z y~4 vh. NB9 t/ 39 N ,i• 4,53 071/8 SB9.4/'39'E C• 22.36• INITIAL rzs= © e7. Gr' S~ ce•5L3.30'3/'E - "B a vG POINT ¢dE 639 E L • 23.18' 6 so°~a 5620.00.065 ®R• 2.00' 9 27.00 1 00 411 I _ +j .00 6+ 52.5z'Q6' C: 22.26" b~qq y5 ca-.5c3'S/'se•w y09 ;00 B' I ® PARCEL NO. 3 L + 23.07• 3 z TRACT •C3" tea. MA/NT6•NA1'/CE s ~c vr_ AGREEMENT- fEB NO. 92029576 ✓OB °¢7Aa 1+ • s :mw ff !D 42 PARTITION PLAT NO. 1992 -D 519 Jr PARTITION PLAT IN THE JOHN HICKLIN D.L.C. NO. 54 NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1 4 SECTION 34 TIS,RIW,W.M. WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON SCALE 1"=50' DECEMBER 1 I, 1990 CITY OF TIGARD CASWWELL BN wA 9.r. aIm I W. I~e.e A- ww<rton omm vlaos DECLARATION : KNOW ALL PEOPLE BY THESE PRESENT THAT MARVIN F. WINTERS. ALSO KNOWN AS MARVIN WINTERS. AND JOANN WINTERS. HUSBAND AND WIFE ARE THE FEE OWNERS AND JOHN ALAN 2EHNTBAUER AND SYLVIA ELAINE 2EHNTBAUER. HUSBAND AND WIFE. ARE THE CONTRACT PURCHASERS OF THE LAND REPRESENTED ON THE ANNEXED MAP. AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE ACCOMPANYING SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE. AND HAVE CAUSED THE SAME TO BE PARTITIONED AND SURVEYED INTO PARCELS AS SHOWN ON THE ANNEXED MAP. AND DO HEREBY DEDICATE ALL ROADS SHOWN ON SAID MAP TO THE PUBLIC USE FOREVER. THERE ARE NO WATER RIGHTS PERTAINING TO THIS PROPERTY. )LARVIN F. WINT RS J ANN W NTERS JOHN ALAN .TBAUER SY A ELAINE H AAII A C K N O W L E D O EME N T STATE OF OREGON 1 S.S. WASHINGTON COUNTY 1 S.S THI IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON THIS' DAY OF 1992. BEFORE ME. A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND OR SAID STATE AND COUNTY. PERSONALLY APPEARED MARVIN F. WINTERS. AND JOANN WINTERS. HUSBAND AND WIFE. WHO BEING DULY SWORN. DID SAY THAT THEY ARE THE IDENTICAL PERSONS NAMED IN THE FORGOING INSTRUMENT. AND THAT THIS INSTRUMENT WAS EXECUTED FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY. OFFlCNL SE4L MS►NK 0. OAA NDTAAY MIBl1D-OREGON N Lw6 W~IR.R IB96 A C K NOW L E D C E M E N T STATE OF OREGON I I S.S. WASHINGTON COUNTY 1 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON THIS A-V~ DAY OF - ~C,r,I 1992- BEFORE ME. A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND OR SAID STATE AND COUNTY. . PERSONALLY APPEARED JOHN ALAN 2EHNTBAUER AND SYLVIA ELAINE ZEHNTBAUER. HUSBAND AND WIFE. WHO BEING DULY SWORN. DID SAY THAT THEY ARE THE IDENTICAL PERSONS NAMED IN THE FORGOING INSTRUMENT. AND THAT THIS INSTRUMENT WAS EXECUTED FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY. IYILLAAtA.P.. OFFICUL SFAI MnNU[ R OMA NOTMYH,OIIG-OREGON MY CA+144510~N EM~pl~g MAR M~ 1490 STATE OF OREGON I S.S. WASHINGTON COUNTY I I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED PARTITION PLAT WAS RECEIVED FOR RECORD ON THIS YL75-DAY OF Saule, . 1992 AT /LR6 O'CLOCH--& M AND RECORDED AS PARTITION PLAT NO._z"O_/149 WASHINGTON COUNTY RECORDS. DIRECTOR OF ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION EX-OFFICCIOO COUNT;,LERK DEPUTY STATE OF OREGON 1 I S.S. WASHINGTON COUNTY ) I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 1 HAVE COMPARED THE WPR@I PLAT WITH THE ORIGINAL THEREOF. THAT THE SAME IS A FULL. TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT THEREOF. AS THE SAME APPEARS OF RECORD AS PARTITION PLAT NO. /99a-OW19 THEREOF. DIRECTOR OF ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION EX-OFFICIO COUNTY CLERK BY c tea/ t-19&. DEPUTY A P PROVA L S APPR D +G. 1992 BY WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYOR 4PPROV /~/t 8 1992 BY 2. f QTY OF TIGARD. CITY ENGtNEF4f SHEET 2 OF 2 • SURVEYOR' S CERTIITICAT Fs 1. ALBERT HERTEL. A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF OREGON. CERTIFY THAT I HAt'E CORRECTLY SURVEYED AND MARRED WITH PROPER MONUMENTS. AS NOTED. THE LAND REPRESENTED ON THE ATTACHED PARTITION MAP. THE BOUNDARIES BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE JOHN L. HICKLIN D.L.C. NO. 54. IN THE KW114 OF THE SEI/4 SECTION 34. TIS. R1W. W.M., WASHINGTON COUNTY. OREGON BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A POINT IN THE CENTERLINE OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 452. WHICH IS ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE JOHN L. HICKLIN D.L.C. NO. 54. SAID POINT BEARS S89' 3r 53-E 542.32 FEET FROM THE RECOGNIZED N.W. CORNER OF SAID JOHN L. HICKLIN D.L.C. NO. 54: THENCE. ALONG SAID CENTERLINE SB9'3T 53-E 108.64 FEET TO A POINT: THENCE 900'03.12-E 500.49 FEET TO THE INITIAL POINT: THENCE N89- 41' 39" W 10X.48 FEET TO A POINT: THENCE N00. 04'25' W 500.79 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF COUNTY ROAD 452 ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE JOHN L. HICKLIN D.L.C. NO. 54, THENCE SB9Bf53"E , 108.64 FEET : THENCE $00.031 ' E 500.48 FEET TO THE INITIAL POINT . CONTAV" L25 ACRES. f F:S.E 2 S'C i L'.'JO ~rTYEY07 I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS AN EXACT C~OP/Y OF THE ORIGINAL PARTITION PLAT Gee /c~ E c SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS 3 2G DAY OF NUgQy . 1991. Ril9ERT ✓L wK:: Wr Wa;. Owl, Pf e.~.~.,aan Euwca AA 106 'a7/3 • • MEMORANDUM TO: Morgan Tracy RECEIVED PLANNING FROM: Matt Stine ~T,$ JUN 18 2002 RE: Cascadian Place Subdivision CITY OF T►GARD DATE: June 17, 2002 As you requested, here are my comments pertaining to the document submitted by Sue Beilke, Director of The Biodiversity Project of Tigard. These comments are in response to Ms. Beilke's concerns regarding the removal of trees as part of the construction of the Cascadian Place Subdivision. As with every arborist report that I receive, I field checked the data supplied to me by the project arborist, Walter Knapp. My goal is to verify the accuracy of the data and identify any discrepancies between my observations and the comments provided by the project arborist. In the case of Cascadian Place Subdivision, I found discrepancies concerning Mr. Knapp's designation of numerous trees classified as "Dead, Dying, Diseased, or Dangerous (DDDD)". Early in the spring of 2002 you and I visited the site with Mr. Knapp and a representative from the engineering company involved with the project. During that visit several trees that Mr. Knapp labeled as "DDDD" were seen to have no signs of decay or health problems. They were then taken off of the "DDDD" list. There were however a few other trees that were labeled as "DDDD" in Mr. Knapp's arborist report that I agreed with. These trees in particular had basidiocarps (a fruiting body of a fungus belonging to Basidiomycotina, bearing or containing basidia) protruding from the trunk, an indication of the presence of Phellinus pini, a very damaging decay fungus found in the trunks of conifers throughout North America. As described in the book "Diseases of Trees and Shrubs" by Wayne A. Sinclair, Howard H. Lyon and Warren T. Johnson "Decay columns commonly extend 10 meters or more..." and "causes heartrot". They also write "Decay typically occurs well up in the trunk, but butt rot is common, and the rot sometimes extends into major roots." My first and foremost concerns about preserving trees, especially those that are infected with diseases such as Phellinus pini, is the safety of the people working near the trees and for the family that will move into the home that is within range of the tree when it fails. I believe that leaving a tree(s) that is infected with Phellinus pini is far too risky if there is a target within range of the tree(s). The tree's stability becomes an important concern since the rot can enter the major roots. Additionally, the rot can enter the heartwood. Heartwood's main functions are for the storage of nutrients and water j~ • • and for structural stability of the tree. When the rot enters the heartwood and the decay process begins, the stability of the tree is again adversely affected. When the neighboring trees are removed, the wind is one factor that will have very large and possibly very detrimental effects on all of the remaining trees, especially the infected ones. I want to make it very clear that I have always been, and always will be, one of the strongest advocates for preserving trees, especially large native trees. I will not, However, knowingly let my passion for tree preservation and protection interfere with the safety of a person or people. I require strict, and oftentimes restrictive, tree protection measures during the process of site development with the safety and best interests of the future homeowners and community in mind. My feeling is that the future homeowners or tenants will pay a hefty price when they have to deal with a dead or dying tree that did not receive adequate protection during the construction of the home or other buildings. I agree with Ms. Beilke that the presence of a fungus does not constitute a reason to declare a tree hazardous. The trees that are infected with Phellinus pini probably are not hazardous in their current growing site. In fact, they appear to be healthy and thriving. Technically, since there is no target within these trees' range, the trees are not hazardous. They will be hazardous trees, though, when the new community is built since the people, homes, automobiles, sidewalks and roads are all frequent or constant targets. I am concerned how the infected trees will react when the other trees are removed. Their stress will dramatically increase due to: • The loss of shared root systems thus adversely affecting water and nutrient uptake, storage and conduction. • The loss of protection from the wind and sun when woodland is opened up. • The impacts on the soil in terms of drying out, compaction and erosion (despite the presence of silt fences). • The availability of water due to drainage diversions and impermeable surfaces. • Nutrient availability due to the loss of soil. Vital microorganisms and fungus will be lost due to the impacts on the soil during site construction. • (Trunks Rots of Conifers, continued, Plate 169) Phellinus pini (Aphyllophorales, Hymenochaetaceae) is perhaps the most damaging trunk decay fungus of conifers throughout North America and elsewhere around the Northern Hemisphere. It causes heart rot and, in some hosts, cankers. The disease is known as red heart, red rot, ring scale, red ring rot, and white pocket rot. These names indicate decay features that vary with host and site of infection. Decay columns commonly extend 10 meters or more, rendering entire trunks useless for lumber. Damage is much greater in old trees in virgin and unmanaged forests than it is in managed forests where trees are harvested at relatively young ages. Most conifers that grow in temperate regions are susceptible. In North America, Douglas-fir, larches, pines, and spruces sustain great- est damage. Firs, hemlocks, and western red cedar are commonly affected. Occasional infections develop in arborvitae, incense cedar, false cypresses, junipers, and yews. The few reports of this fungus on angiosperms are suspect. Decay by P. pini is usually confined to the heartwood of mature trees, either in one central column or in several discrete columns that extend from branch stubs. Decay often begins near the junction of heartwood and sapwood and may extend into sapwood adjacent to wounds, near canker margins, and along the trunks of severely dis- eased pines nearing death. Decay typically occurs well up in the trunk, but butt rot is common, and the rot sometimes extends into major roots. Young trees become infected in special circumstances. For example, P. pini infects young jack pine at cankers caused by sweet- fern rust (Plate 133) and then slowly spreads upward and inward in the trunk. The decay is a white pocket rot characterized by selective removal of lignin. Wood in early stages of decay appears pinkish to reddish in pines and purplish in Douglas-fir and spruces. In pines it is sometimes bounded by a zone of resin-soaked wood. Small elongate pockets lined with white fibers appear later and slowly expand and merge. In advanced stages the wood is soft, usually light colored, and fibrous, often with irregular narrow black lines as seen on cut or broken surfaces. Sometimes the decay spreads tangentially, causing a cres- cent or ring of defective wood as seen in cross-section. The specimen of decayed wood shown in Plate 169G, while exhibiting pockets and the ultimate fibrous texture of decayed wood, lacks the typical white lining of pockets that could have been seen at an earlier stage of decay. The latter feature, as caused by Inonotus circinatus, is shown on Plate 154. Decay caused by I. circinatus in sand pine is nearly indistinguish- able from that caused by P. pini. External indicators of decay by P. pini include swollen knots where branches were shed many years earlier, irregular bulges with exuding. resin, resin flow from knots, and brown basidiocarps at branch bases, branch stubs, knots, wounds, and cracks and sometimes on seemingly normal bark. Punk knots are common in Douglas-fir, western larch, pines, and some spruces. A punk knot is a mass of tightly packed sterile brown hyphae that extend from a decayed branch stub within the trunk to a local swelling on the surface, there appearing like a black- ened knot. Swelling results from slight overgrowth of wood around the punk knot. Typical dark yellowish brown to reddish brown fungal tissue is exposed where a punk knot is cut. On western firs affected by P. pini var. cancriformans, the trunk may swell at the edges of large, flat, bark-covered cankers that bear small basidiocarps. Such cankers, often attaining dimensions of 40 x 60 cm, occur on grand, noble, Shasta, Pacific silver, and white firs. The associated decay is a white rot that lacks distinct white pockets. Cankers form as the result of successive advances of the fungus in inner bark, leading to cambial death. This process repeatedly opens new wood near canker margins to invasion and decay. The avenue of • initial advance into bark is unknown. Small cankers, to 9 x 24 cm, caused by typical P. pini and associated with white pocket rot, have occasionally been noted at branch stubs on balsam fir in the Great Lakes region. P. pini does not usually act as a canker-rot pathogen in other conifers. In some dying trees, however, it does apparently kill sapwood and cambium and begins to fruit on extensive areas of the bark. Basidiocarps of P. pini vary from nearly flat annual incrustations 2- 5 cm in diameter to large perennial bracket- or hoof-shaped forms and sometimes conchlike specimens with wavy edges, to 30 cm or more in diameter. The upper surface of perennial specimens is gray-brown to brownish black, roughened by concentric ridges and sometimes also by radial cracks. The margin and nearby upper surface are slightly to distinctly velvety. The margin, poroid lowersurface, and interiortissue are yellowish brown to reddish brown. The pores are round to radially elongate and average two to three per linear millimeter. Many dis- eased trees lack basidiocarps, but these develop rapidly and often in profusion after death of the trunk. Peak dispersal of basidiospores occurs in spring and autumn in eastern Canada and the northeastern United States. Basidiocarps of P. pini var. cancriformans, known only on cankers on fir in the West, are small (to 5.5 x 4.5 x 1.7 cm), more or less shelflike, perennial, and usually found in clusters. P. pini apparently colonizes wounds such as broken limbs or tops, felling scars, or rust cankers in some hosts, but decay by this fungus is associated with dead branches and stubs in other hosts. lack pine and black spruce are in the former category; western conifers and eastern white pine are in the latter group. The majority of infections by P. pini in eastern white pine occur through small branch or leader stubs. For example, decay often develops at points in heartwood where leaders were killed many years before by the white pine weevil (see Johnson and Lyon, 2nd ed., Plate 20) or where small branches near the trunk base died from various causes. Whether the decay fungus colonizes killed leaders soon after their death or only after several years (as is presumed to occur in small lateral branch stubs) is unknown. Once the site of entry is overtaken by heartwood, however, decay begins. Decay by P. pini advances slowly, only 5-10 cm per year up or down in white pines. In white fir, bacteria including nitrogen-fixing types are associated with all stages of wood colonization and decay by P. pini, but the ecological role of these microbes is unknown. Decay by P. pini in old-growth conifers formerly provided depend- able habitat for cavity-nesting animals. In the Southeast, for example, the red cockaded woodpecker learned to create nest sites by excavat- ing decayed wood from mature pines. This bird is now considered to be an endangered species because of the loss of nesting habitat as old- growth forests have been cut. Artificial inoculation of heartwood of southern pines with P. pini has been suggested as a means of providing more potential nest trees. References for Echinodontium tinctorium: 4, 550, 551, 692, 1028, 1029, 1204, 1993 References for Fomitopsis pinicola: 273, 550, 583, 638, 640, 742, 843, 977, 1027, 1029, 1109, 1358, 1669 References for Phellinus pini: 5, 117, 190-92, 228, 470, 583, 640, 705, 706, 820, 1109, 1478, 1669, 2002 A, B. Basidiocarps of Phellinus pini on trunks of western white pine. A. Young basidiocarps issuing from scars of old branch stubs, indicat- ing extensive heart rot. B. Perennial basidiocarps issuing from a flattened, dead area on the butt of another tree (ID, Jul). C. P. pini var. cancriformans fruiting on a large canker on grand fir. Callus growth at canker margins has resulted in trunk swelling (OR, Jul). D. A perennial basidiocarp of P. pini on sand pine (FL, Apr). E, F. Close views of upper and lower surfaces of a typical basidiocarp of P. pini from western white pine (ID, Jul). G. Pocket rot caused by P. pini in sand pine (FL, Apr). H. Heart rot caused by P. pini in old-growth western while pine. The trunk of this tree was left to rot because of extensive decay found at the time of felling. Blue-stain fungi invaded the sapwood after the tree was cut (ID, Jul). • RECEIVED PLANNING June 17, 2002 JUN 18 2002 Larry Epstein, City of Tigard Hearings Officer City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TC WD RE: Appeal of Cascadian Place (SUB 2002-00002) - Responses to Appellant's Issues Dear Mr. Epstein: The applicant would like to provide this additional. commentary and analysis in response to the appeal of Cascadian Place. An appeal filed by Sue Beilke on May 22, 2002, raises concerns with the development's compliance with Chapter 18.705 (Access, Egress, and Circulation), Chapter 18.715 (Density Computations), Chapter 18.790 (Tree Removal), and Chapter 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards). Regarding Chapters 18.705 and 18.810, the applicant supports the commentary and findings provided in the June 11, 2002 memorandum. The memorandum demonstrates that the appellant has misapplied or misinterpreted the standards within those chapters. The staff s response further demonstrates how the proposed subdivision complies with the standards either in design or through the imposition of conditions on the development. Iii response to the issue raised by the appellant on Chapter 18.715 and their assertion that there is a wetland or stream located on the property immediately west of the proposed subdivision, the applicant has had a wetland scientist conduct field surveys of the development site and portions of the adjoining property to the west (see attached letters and report prepared by Rita Mroczek, dated May 2 and June 14, 2002). The report finds that there are no wetlands, water features, or sensitive areas on the Cascadian Place site. An ephemeral swale is located approximately 80 feet.west of the project boundary. Research by staff, as indicated in their June 11th staff report further clarifies that mapping prepared by both Fishman Environmental Services and Clean Water Services indicated 11V se11s1LlVe 10.L1LLJ Vr resour\es W1L1ll11 L11%-, 111pat L area U1 L11G FlupubuU bumL1V1.S1V11. Lastly, in regard to Chapter 18.790, the appellant cites a discrepancy between the tree preservation plan that was shown at the initial neighborhood meeting and the ultimate plan that was submitted as a part of the subdivision application to the City. Attendees at neighborhood meetings are informed that the final plans submitted to the City may be different that those presented at the neighborhood meeting. Typically, neighborhood meetings are held several weeks in advance of submittal to the City to allow for input Plaza West • Suite 230 19600 SW Oak • Portland, Oregon 97223 Office 503-452-8003 • Fax 503-452-8043 11 r 0 ALPHA ENGINEERING, INC. ,%ww.alpha-eng.com • • from neighbors prior to finalization of the plans. Through further input from City staff, the client and design demands, plans are often modified prior to submittal. The appellant raises a concern regarding the coordination between the applicant's arborist and the City Arborist. As noted in the staff report, City staff and the City arborist met with the applicant's arborist on site and with the exception of two trees agreed with the applicant's analysis. Should the two disputed trees be removed the applicant will mitigate for them in compliance with City code. I hope these additional materials are helpful towards your review of this appeal. We support staffs recommendation to deny the appeal and affirm staffs approval of the Cascadian Place subdivision. We look forward to the hearing and will be available to respond to any questions on this matter. Sincerely, ALPHA ENGINEERING, INC. xae,~-Z4~ Matthew L. Sprague Project Manager / Planner cc Morgan Tracy, City of Tigard Rita N. Munk, PWS WETLAND SCIENTIST 3980 SW 17011 Ave. Aloha, Oregon 97007 aI (503) 642-3739 )0 Fax (503) 642-4158 May 2, 2002 Jerry Palmer AEI Development 9600 SW Oak St. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Palmer: As requested, I have examined 'a 2.92-acre parcel on Tigard St. in Tigard, Washington County. The legal description locates it-in the SE i/4 of Section 34, T 1S, R~ 1W, Tax Lot 200 Map # 1S134DC. Matt Sprague and I made a site visit on April 24, 2002 and at that time, I examined the,property for the presence/absence of wetlands and/or sensitive areas. The site slopes gently to the south, and is generally'located at the top of the slope. Vegetation consists of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Himalayan blackberry (Rebus discolor), English ivy (Hedera helix), hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), blue elderberry (Sambucus racemosa).andNeste rn sword fern (Polystichum, munitum). The Soil Conservation SeKvice (SCS) soil mapping for this property is Aloha silt loam, which is a non-hydric soil. After examining the plant community.. it would, appear that this. mapping is accurate. No evidence of hydrology or hydrophytic plants was found. After careful examination of conditions on the site, I' have concluded that no ' Wetlands, water features or sensitive areas are present. If yo4 have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance, please feel free to call me. Sincer , (Vek S ~CM MAY. Rita N. Mroczek, PWS WETLAND SCIENTIST 3980 SW 17011IAve. 0 Aloha, Oregon 97007 AV (503) 642-3739 ~O Fax (503) 642-4158 June 14, 2002 Matt Sprague Alpha Engineering Inc. 9600 SW Oak St. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Sprague: As requested, I have examined a 2.92-acre parcel on Tigard St. in.Tigard, Washington County. The legal description locates it in the SE 1%4 of Section 34, T 1S., R 1W, Tax Lot 200.-Map.# 1S134DC. Jack Parcell and_I made.a site visit on June 11,2002 and. at that time, I examined the property for the presence/absence of wetlands and/or sensitive areas. The site slopes gently to the south, and is generally located at the top of the slope. 'Vegetation consists of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor),,English ivy (Hedera helix), hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), blue elderberry (Sambucus racemosa) and western sword fern (Polystichum munitum). • A data point was taken in the northwest property corner under'a sole ash tree (Fraxinus latifolia). The soil here was the Aloha series. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil mapping-for this property is Aloha silt loam, which is a non-hydric'soil. After examining the plant community, it would appear that this mapping is accurate. No evidence of hydrology or hydrophytic plants was found. , After careful examination of conditions on the site, I have concluded that no wetlands, water features or sensitive areas'are present on the-site itself. (See enclosed .data sheets.) An area to the west on the adjacent property does have creeping buttercup (Ranunculas repens) and what appears to be an ephemeral swale' about 80 feet from the west property fine.- If you,have any questions, or if I can,be of further assistance, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, ORlita- N. Mroczek, PWS 24293 O' ~ p{'26~58 I r f ~i i I 1 901 J Y~901 /JJ I oll 113TH r I ~ J 11 + SW PLACE g ~ L 11 / l'I fn ► y A • " iy 1t _ ~ 11 ~ I Na s> SW GALLQ A~ _ _ I I v o ' / Q fif 1Nyv 1 ` L 1 h Ot 32'12 E.- c` t 1 J' 1 I Kt Of h l t I t 1 / otL w z tt. ~ !r• t r 1 1 1 1 r 1' / ►o I~ AAN ~ i l ~ 1 { ! I / to r~~ I 1 Lr--- =-~r i 1 ,r1 r 1 Iw► tr # r .c L ~ 1 11= 1 ~ 1 ~1 r / ~~W• ~ I ~ I g $1 ~ 1 t 1 / 1 ~ t o AV~U~ I rf 1 ~9y- 1' tl 1 ; 1 1 tr1 I>r 480'.32' ! h + m \ ~ Imo{{ l ~ 1 \ ' DIVISION OF STATE LANDS - WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM COUNTY: Washington DATE: 6.11.02 FILE PROJECT/CONTACT: AEI, M. Sprague DET. BY: Rita N. Mroczek, J. Parcell PLANT COMMUNITY: Forest PLOT #:1 PLOT LOCATION:NW Corner RECENT WEATHER:Dry DO NORMAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS YES EXPLAIN: EXIST? HAS VEG. SOIL HYDROLOGY BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY DISTURBED? EXPLAIN: No disturbance as occured VEGETATION DOMINANT SPECIES STATUS % COVER DOMINANT SPECIES STATUS % COVER TREE STRATUM HERB STRATUM TOTAL COVER:50% TOTAL C0VER:30% 1 Fraxinus latifolia FACW 50 1 Galium aparine FACU 15 2 2Polystchum munitum FACU 15 3 3 4 4 SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM 5 - TOTAL COVER:35% 1Symphcarpus alba FACU 35 6 2Rubus discolor FACU 5 7 3Corylus comuta FACU 5 8 4 9 ` 5 10 PERCENT OF DOMINANT SPECIES THAT ARE OBL, FACW, FAC (not FAC-) 50% OTHER NOTABLE SPECIES: CRITERIA MET? NO MAP UNIT NAME: Aloha- Like TAXONOMY: DEPTH, HORIZON MATRIX COLOR 0-8 10YR 3/2 8-24 10YR 4/2 24-31 10YR 4/3 HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS: HISTOSOL HISTIC EPIPEDON SULFIDIC ODOR REDUCING CONDITIONS (TESTS POSITIVE) GLEYED REDOX. FEATURES (W/IN 10") CRITERIA MET? NO RECORDED DATA RECORDED DATA YES NO AVAILABLE FIELD DATA SOILS DRAINAGE CLASS: moderately well to somewhat poorly ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST? NO REDOX REDOX TEXTURE STRUCTURE CONCENTRATIONS DEPLETIONS none none silt loam few 10YR 4/6 none silt loam common 10YR4/6 none silt loam CONCRETIONS/NODULES (W/IN3"; >2MM) HIGH ORGANIC CONTENT IN SURFACE (IN SANDY SOILS) ORGANIC STREAKING (IN SANDY SOILS) ORGANIC PAN (IN SANDY SOILS) LISTED ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST (AND SOIL PROFILE MATCHES) OTHER: HYDROLOGY AERIAL PHOTOS DEPTH OF INUNDATION none DEPTH TO SATURATION none PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATORS: INUNDATED SATURATED IN UPPER 12" WATER MARKS DRIFT LINES SEDIMENT DEPOSITS DRAINAGE PATTERNS CRITERIA MET_? NO WETLAND? NO COMMENTS: STREAM GAUGE OTHER: DEPTH TO FREE WATER none SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATORS (2 OR MORE REQUIRED) OXIDIZED ROOT CHANNELS (UPPER 12") WATER-STAINED LEAVES LOCAL SOIL SURVEY DATA FAC-NEUTRAL TEST OTHER Soils Form - 1 Soil Type A LOi„ Q Li KL Date 6111102, Stop No. Classification X ROCHQEP7 Location 71GAkb S7 N. Veg. (or crop) Parent material ODD A~[u✓iu DrainageHOOZ ATaL-/ WZU 7`0 pa;-Wk47- PdoQv' Depth to Water Table NO Slope n Moisture NaiS~. Permeability Mt OZt4.rL4 SLOW Is Soil Hydric? Why? - Additional Notes k PA ,O s ,?k,EK At ; Yd6~ is L ,C[UK p So. r Horizon Depth Color D(ry) M(oist) Texture Mottles Con- sistence Roots Special Features ,o'e z io Y2 S/2 vtcw M We &4A;'6P oft j s;cr 'LOAM HONE Sc164%v %iGky a:.au~sr,O G' 2 $ iC Y k `4 M Djw'+C. 6,Mvis4 f;Regsh Fr W ; cvd 24--3 i $ is /Q 47q M?ll.u tf 416 I I M D D M M D M, Notes: P~ By: ALL_2_ITa~C DIVISION OF STATE LANDS - WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM COUNTY: Washington DATE: 6.11.02 - FILE PROJECT/CONTACT: AEI, M. Sprague DET. BY: Rita N. Mroczek, J. Parcell PLANT COMMUNITY: Forest PLOT #:2 PLOT LOCATION:NW Corner RECENT WEATHER: Dry DO NORMAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS YES EXPLAIN: EXIST? HAS VEG. SOIL HYDROLOGY BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY DISTURBED? EXPLAIN: No disturbance as occurred VEGETATION DOMINANT SPECIES STATUS % COVER DOMINANT SPECIES STATUS % COVER TREE STRATUM HERB STRATUM TOTAL COVER: TOTAL COVER:30% 1 1Galium aparine FACU T 2 2Polystchum munitum FACU 15 3 3Erodium circutarium nol 15 4 4 SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM 5 TOTAL COVER:40% 1 Symphcarpus alba FACU 20 6 2Rubus discolor FACU T 7 3Corylus comuta FACU 20 8 4 9 5 10 PERCENT OF DOMINANT SPECIES THAT ARE OBL, FACW, FAC (not FAC-) 0% OTHER NOTABLE SPECIES: CRITERIA MET? NO SOILS MAP UNIT NAME: Aloha- Like DRAINAGE C LASS: moderately well to somewhat poorly TAXONOMY:Xerochrepts ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST? NO DEPTH HORIZON MATRIX REDOX REDOX TEXTURE STRUCTURE COLOR CONCENTRATIONS DEPLETIONS 0-11 10YR 4/2 none none silt loam 11-18 10YR 4/3 none none silt loam 24-31 10YR 4/3 few 10YR4/6 none silt loam HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS: HISTOSOL CONCRETIONS/NODULES (W/IN3"; >2MM) HISTIC EPIPEDON HIGH ORGANIC CONTENT IN SURFACE (IN SANDY SOILS) SULFIDIC ODOR ORGANIC STREAKING (IN SANDY SOILS) REDUCING CONDITIONS (TESTS ORGANIC PAN (IN SANDY SOILS) POSITIVE) GLEYED LISTED ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST (AND SOIL PROFILE MATCHES) REDOX. FEATURES (W/IN 10") OTHER: CRITERIA MET? NO HYDROLOGY RECORDED DATA RECORDED DATA YES NO AERIAL PHOTOS STREAM GAUGE OTHER: AVAILABLE FIELD DATA DEPTH OF INUNDATION none DEPTH TO DEPTH TO FREE WATER none SATURATION none PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATORS: SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATORS (2 OR MORE REQUIRED) INUNDATED OXIDIZED ROOT CHANNELS (UPPER 12") SATURATED IN UPPER 12" WATER-STAINED LEAVES WATER MARKS LOCAL SOIL SURVEY DATA DRIFT LINES FAC-NEUTRAL TEST SEDIMENT DEPOSITS OTHER DRAINAGE PATTERNS CRITERIA MET? NO WETLAND? NO COMMENTS: no wetland indications i r Soils Form - 1 Soil Type A BONA L 1 K~ Date 6~r r /!3 a. Stop No. z Classification XE;Q~LNQF01'S Location 7 G 4 ST N. Veg. (or crop) Parent material Qc.v gcLuv•u4 Drainage h~ A Ecr` 1Nc`ci ro o.~~w~;a' poQ Depth to Water Table NQ CEZ WAS Slope 0 o Moisture ~4 16NTCy M rt7 Permeability r~QUE7~~.cc~ s.nw Is Soil Hydric? Why? Additional Notes Horizon Depth Color D(ry) M(oist) Texture Mottles Con- sistence ( Roots Special Features Q-1 fOve 4/1 MOx,~~ C+Qh+%fSp 6rPc.: r s,L; LG~A"1 NOti~E Sc~ZNt'aY 57'K:1[Y f r r-; $ M lG~a M D M M M D M' Notes: By ~Qn[a1D • • Exhibit "A" 120 DAYS = 7/17/2002 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION CASE NO.: Subdivision (SUB) SUB2002-00002 REQUEST: A request for Subdivision approval to create 12, single-family lots on an approximately 2.92 acre site. APPLICANT: AEI Development OWNER: Chik Chor and Sing Lai All Jeck, Matt Sprague 9360 SE 92"d Avenue 9600 SW Oak Street, Suite #230 Portland, OR 97266 Portland, OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: R-4.5; Single-Family, Low-Density Residential. ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Low-Density Residential - 7,500 Square Feet Per Unit, 4.5 Units Per Acre. The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish sites for single-family residential developments. LOCATION: 11275 SW Tigard Street; WCTM 1 S134DC, Tax Lot 200. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.390 (Decision Making Procedures); 18.430 (Subdivision); 18.510 (Residential Zoning Districts); 18.705 (Access, Egress and Circulation); 18.715 (Density Computation); 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening); 18.765 (Off-Street Parking); 18.790 (Tree Removal); 18.795 (Visual Clearance Areas); and 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards). SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby 'that ahe. City .°of Tigard 'Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above;_request subjectto cetaln contlltions of approval The findings and conclusions on which the declslon-is based are noted in Section VI of this Decision NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 1 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION • • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRLOR TO COMMENCING;ANY`ON SITE IMPROVEMENTS,,?INCLUDINGCLEARING,`GRADIN;G, EXCAVATION ANDIOR FILL, THEFOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED Submit tote ngineering Department rian ager, 639-4171, ext. . for review an approval: Prior to commencing onsite improvements, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this roject to cover the infrastructure of the subdivision and the street work in Tigard Street. Eight (8) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.tigard.or.us). 2. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation,. limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 3. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 4. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they will construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of Tigard Street. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a neighborhood route street from curb to centerline equal to 16 feet; B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 5 foot concrete sidewalk with a planter stri , F. street trees in. the planter strip spaced per DC requirements; G. street striping;. H. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; 1. underground utilities; J. street signs; and K. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Tigard Street in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 5. A profile of Tigard Street shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 6. The applicant shall install No Parking signs along one side of Gallo Avenue. 7. The applicant's construction plans shall show that the centerline of Gallo Avenue will align properly with the existing centerline of Gallo Avenue south of Tigard Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 2 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION 0 0 The applicant's Public Facility Improvement permit construction drawings shall indicate that full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, street trees, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the interior subdivision streets. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. The plans shall indicate the location, species and size (minimum 2" caliper) of street trees for both the public and private street frontages. 9. 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. 10. The applicant's construction drawings shall show sidewalks on at least one side of the private street. The sidewalk shall extend to the west property line. 11. The applicant's construction drawings shall show that the proposed private street will only be improved to an ultimate length of 150 feet or otherwise will provide for a standard tum-around. 12. The applicant's construction drawings shall show that they will extend the 8-inch public sanitary sewer line in Tigard Street to the west boundary of this site. 13. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed Public Facility Improvement PFI) permit construction drawings.and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the PFI permit plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 14. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) as a part of the Public acility Improvement plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract to the City of Tigard on the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 15. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, December 2000 edition." 1 A A find nrnrlinn pion chnll ho ei ihmiffnrl ehnuvinn fhn nvief;nn nnri nrnnnenrl nnnfnu ire The Winn W. rl 111 ICA1 a,.. GlAll 1a I./.u.I .~I.uu va. VaAV.. nawv V. .v VV uIII a. .a. aaa.VU..U "I- F.v vaaa.aA vv..avaA. aa. ...v p..a.... shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show hat 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. 17. The design engineer shall indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 3 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION 0 0 Submit to the Planning Division (Morgan Tracy, 639-4171, ext. 407) for review and approval: 18. The applicant shall submit deed restrictions for the trees proposed to be retained. Prior to and during construction, if any trees currently proposed to be retained are removed, approval must be granted by the City Forester PRIOR to any tree removal. Following construction . and establishment of a Homeowner's Association comprised of individual owners, review and . approval for tree removal requests will become the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association. 19. The applicant shall certify that tree protection measures have been installed per the arborist report for all trees to be retained. Once installed, a certified arborist and a member of the Planning Staff must approve the tree protection measures. 20. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that indicates the total number of caliper inches being removed, and shows how the required 50% of the removed caliper inches will be mitigated. For any trees that cannot be accommodated on site or off site, a payment in-lieu of planting the balance will be assessed (presently at $125 per caliper inch). 21. Certification from the applicant acknowledging that this land use approval does not authorize any act that will constitute a take of Federally Listed Rare or Endangered Species. Any subsequent discovery of said species shall be addressed within the confines of federal law. ~ PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINALtPLAT, r THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE ?SATISFIED: n.! .<t ..l.o 4: i, r ,ti . :'3..« ,s i,.e •.f s„~ . w,"4a^,.F. ._c^+,. .-a, Submit-to the Engineering D epa men (Brian ager, 639-4171, ex t. or review an . approval: 22. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee in the amount of $360.00. (STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat, Engineering). 23. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private street will be jointly. owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from it. Additionally, a public access easement shall be recorded over the sidewalk on the private street. 24. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat indicating that no direct vehicular access to SW Tigard Street shall be permitted from any lot. 25. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private street. The CC&R's shall obligate the private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the street. The applicant shall submit a.copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) prior to approval of the final plat. 26. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have formed and incorporated a homeowner's association. 27. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Tigard Street underground as a art of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergroundmg. The fee shall be calculatedby the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 Fer lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $4,648.00 and it shall be paid prior o approval of the final plat. 28. 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: NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 4 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION i • GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey. By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. 29. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Submit for City review four (4) paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. B. Attach a check in the amount of the current final plat review fee (Contact Plannin~/Engineering Permit Technicians, at (503) 639-4171, ext. 426). C. The fins plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. D. The right-of-way dedication for Tigard Street and Gallo Avenue shall be made on the final plat. E. NOTE: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive notice from the Engineering Department indicating that the City has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor. F. After the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer signature (for partitions), or City Engineer and Community Development Director signatures (for subdivisions). PRIOR:TO IS.SUANCEOF BUILDING-PERMITS, THE-FOLL`OWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE ;SATISFIED. ' Submit to the ngmeering apartment (Brian agar, , ext. or review an 639-4171 318 f approval: 30. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. 31. Prior to issuance of building permits within the subdivision, the City Engineer shall deem the public improvements substantially complete. Substantial completion shall be when: 1) all utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities, 2 all local residential streets have at least one lift of asphalt, 3 any off-site street and/or utility improvements are substantially completed, and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. (NOTE: the City apart from this condition, and in accordance with the City's model home policy may issue model home permits). 32. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2 a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features)) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). Submit to the Planning Division (Morgan Tracy, 639-4171, ext. 407) for review and approval: 33. The applicant shall submit a bond for the mitigation trees that have not been planted, and were not part of the payment in-lieu option. The bond shall reflect the amount of caliper inches to be planted, assessed at $125 per caliper inch. 34. Building permit applications for each lot shall include a site plan that shows the location of the trees on the lot designated from the applicant's submittal as "trees >12" to remain" and the "building envelope line" as shown on the applicant's Tree Preservation/Building Envelope plan. The building footprints for the proposed homes shall be entirely contained within the building envelope line. IWADDITIM-THE"APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE,~OFsTHE FOLLOWING SECTIONS:OF.THE 77, 7 nCOMMUNITY ,DEVELOPMENT-CODETHIS IS NO AN EXCLUSIVE LIST " NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 5 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION 0 0 18.430.080 Improvement Agreement: Before City approva is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: 1. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and 2. Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract. 18.430.090 Bond: As required by Section 18.430.080, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: 1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; 2. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it may be terminated; or 3. Cash. The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 18.430.100 Filin and Recordin : Within 60 days o 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. Three copies of the subdivision plat prepared by a and d surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. The subdivision plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: Centerline Monumentation In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. The following centerline monuments shall be set: 1. All centerline-centerline intersection points; 2. All cul-de-sac center points; and 3. Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. Monument Boxes Required Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 6 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION • • The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 18.810 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: 18.810.120 Utilities All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.810.130 Cash or Bond Required All improvements installed by the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to Workmanship and material for a period of one. year following acceptance by the City. Such guarantee shall be secured. by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.810.180. 18.810.150 Installation Prerequisite No land division improvements, including sanitary. sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefor have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.810.180 Notice to Ci Required Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 18.810.200 Engineers Certification The an dividers engineer sha provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices,- and are of high grade, prior to the City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. THIS APPROVAL SHALL B;E VALID FOR,18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE,DATE:OF THIS DECISION SECTION 111. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Histo City recor s do not indicate any previous development approvals have been granted for this property. Site Information and Proposal Description_ I 1 TI II i _1_ IA _ 1_ L_I_ _ 1.1. I ne applicant is requesting Subdivision approval to create i single-family Iots on an approxirnaLeiy 2.92 acre site. The existing single-family home will be demolished to enable the proposed street to align with the intersection of SW Gallo and SW Tigard Street. There is one public street proposed, which will continue SW Gallo to the north and stub at the north property line. A right-of-way continues SW Gallo northward to SW North Dakota Street, but is presently too narrow to be utilized for general vehicular access and functions as a driveway for three parcels. The proposed development will install a temporary barricade until the remainder of the street has been brought up to public street standards. A private street will extend west from the proposed public street and sidewalk connection will be stubbed at the west property line for a future connection to SW 115 Avenue. Vicinit Information: The proposed development is adjacent to SW Tigard Street, approximately 2,400 feet west of SW Tiedeman Avenue. The surrounding parcels are all zoned R5, and the Fowler Middle School property is southeast of the subject parcel. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 7 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION • • SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET A letter was received from Sue Beilke regarding the impacts to natural vegetation and trees. Specifically, there are a number of Trillium and Willamette Valley Ponderosa Pine on the site that will be removed to accommodate this development. The letter also inquires whether a traffic study was required for this development. Ms. Beilke also inquires whether the property could be purchased and used for a park. Staff Response: While Trillium persistens and Trillium reliquum are endangered plant species that occur in Georgia and South Carolina, the western native Trillium chloropetalum is not a federally listed plant species, nor is the Willamette Valley variety of Pinus ponderosa. The neighbors may contact the applicant/owner to see whether some of the native plant materials may be transferred prior to site clearing; however, as there are no specific City standards or requirements to preserve these plants, this issue cannot be addressed through the land use process. Tree removal is addressed under Chapter 18.790 of this decision. A traffic study was not required of this development, as determined by the City Engineer. Generally, small scale developments (fewer than 20 homes) located on streets that may not be fully improved with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, but have adequate width travel lanes, and intersections that are not failing in terms of capacity are not required to provide traffic studies. The proposed development is anticipated to generate 120 trips per day to and from the subject site. Tigard Street has been designated as a neighborhood route whose intended function is to provide connectivity to collector or arterial streets. The required street improvements along the subject site frontage will contribute to the overall capacity envisioned for this neighborhood route, as designated in the City's adopted Transportation System Plan. Finally, with regard to the use of the parcel for park purposes, the City's continuing budget shortfall severely limits the ability for the City to acquire new parcels, let alone maintain he existing park lands. If the property owner were willing to dedicate the property for park purposes, the City Council would have to determine whether to accept the parkland. Also, minimum residential density requirements mandate that if a portion of the site is to be developed with additional lots, then 80% of the maximum units must be provided, limiting the availability of land within the development to be set aside for park use. There is no specific requirement for providing open space. 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 18.430 B. Applicable Development Code Sections 18.510 Residential zoning districts) 18.705 Access, Egress,and Circulation) 18.715 Density) 18.745 Landscaping and screening) 18.765 Off-street parking and loading requirements) 18.790 Tree removal) 18.795 Vision clearance) C. Street and Utili Im rovement 18.810 Street an Utility Improvement Standards) D. Decision Makin Procedures 18.390 Impact Study) The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of these Specific Development Standard Code Chapters: 18.710 (Accesso Residential Units), 18.730 (Exceptions to Development Standards), 18.740 (Historic Overla~Iolid 18.742 (Home Occupations), 18.750 (Manufacturedp/Mobil Home Regulations), 18.755 (Mixed Waste & Recyclable Storage) 18.760 (Nonconforming situations), 18.775 (Sensitive Lands), 18.785 (Temporary Uses), 18.797 (Water Resources Overlay NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 8 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION District), and 18.798 (Wireless Communication Facilities). These chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A - SUBDIVISION GENERAL PROVISIONS: Future Re-Division. When subdividing tracts into large lots, the Ap roval Authority shall require that the lots be of such size and shape as to facilitate future revision in accordance with the requirements of the zoning district and this title. The largest lot in the subdivision is 10,195 square feet, and is not large enough to divide in the future, therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: Because none of the lots are large enough to be re-divided, this standard does not apply. Lot Size Averaging: Section 18.430.020.D states Lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed in the underlying zoning district as long as the average lot area for all lots is not less than allowed by the underlying zoning district. No lot created under this provision shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the underlying zoning district. The applicant has proposed to use the lot averaging option. The average of all lots is 7,780 square feet. The smallest lot is 6,844 square feet, which exceeds 80% of the 7,500 square foot minimum lot size. Phased Development: The Approval Authority may approve a time schedule for developing a subdivision in phases, but in no case shall the actual construction time period for any phase be greater than two years without reapplying for a preliminary plat; The criteria for approving a phased site development review proposal are: a.)The public facilities shall be scheduled to be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase to ensure provision of public facilities prior to building occupancy; b.) The development and occupancy of any phase shall not be dependent on the use of temporary public facilities: For purposes of this subsection, a temporary public facility is an interim facility not constructed to the applicable City or district standard; and The phased development shall not result in requiring the City or other property owners to construct public facilities that were required as a part of the approval of the preliminary plat. 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. A roval Standards - Prelimina Plat: The proposed preliminary plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations. Compliance with the specific regulations and standards of the zoning ordinance will be addressed further within this decision. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92. The applicant has provided evidence that the proposed subdivision name has been reserved. with Washington County, thus insuring that the name is not duplicative. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 9 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION 0 • The Streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions or subdivisions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern. Street layout is discussed in more detail, and `conditioned if necessary, under the Street and Utility section'of 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 the Street and Utility Improvement Standards section. 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. B- APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOMENT CODE SECTIONS Residential Zoning Districts (18.510) Lists the description of the residential Zoning District. The site is located in the R-4.5: Low-Density residential zoning district. The R-4.5 zoning district has the following dimensional requirements: R=4`_ 5~ fr Minimum Lot Size Detached unit 7,500 sq. ft. Duplexes - Attached unit 1 10,000 s .ft. Average Minimum Lot Width Detached unit lots 50 ft. Duplex lots - Attached unit lots 90 ft. Maximum Lot Coverage Minimum Setbacks Front yard '20 ft. Side facing street on corner & through lots 15 ft. Side yard 5 ft. Rear yard 15 ft. Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district - Distance between property line and front of garage 20 ft. Maximum Height 30ft. Minimum Landscape Requirement [1] Single-family attached residential units permitted at one dwelling per lot with no more that five attached units in one grouping. The proposed lots ranae in size from 6.844 sauare feet to 10.195 square feet. Based on the lot averaging standards ofJSection 18.430.020.D, lof sizes can be reduced to a minimum of 6,000 square feet as long as the average lot size for the entire subdivision is at least 7,500 square feet. The average lot size for the 12 lots proposed for this subdivision is 7,772 square feet. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum lot size and averaging requirements of the Code. All lots meet the minimum lot width requirements, based on the dimensions provided on the plan. The applicant will be required to comply with the setbacks, height and lot coverage/landscape requirements during the building permit review process for the homes on individual lots. There is one lot with adequate area for a duplex, however, the lot width provided for this lot does not meet the 90 feet required for a duplex lot. Therefore, all lots within this subdivision will be for single-family units. This is not a planned development, therefore, the setbacks are as prescribed by the base zone. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the residential zoning district dimensional standards are satisfied. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 10 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION Access, Egress and Circulation (18.705 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 access and egress for single-family dwelling units on individual lots shall be one, 10-foot paved driveway within a 15-foot-wide accessway. The minimum access width for 3-6 dwelling units is 20 feet with 20 feet of pavement. The access and egress into the site itself is discussed later in this decision under the Street and Utility Standards section of this decision. Access to individual lots will be reviewed for compliance during the building permit phase. Access plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. Scaled site plans have been submitted that indicate how the requirements of access, egress, and circulation are met. Joint access. Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint use, and Copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. Joint access is proposed over a tract of land for lots 8-12. The joint access is a private street labeled "Tract B" on the preliminary plan, however, "Tract B" is a separate piece of land, outside the boundaries of all proposed parcels. There are no proposed shared driveways. Public street access. All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.0301 shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. Based on the plans submitted, lots.1 through 7 have access to SW Gallo, Lots 9, 10, and 11 have access to Tract B, and Lots 8 and 12 may access either SW Gallo or Tract B. Access to SW Tigard Street will be restricted. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N. Curb cuts will be addressed under Chapter 18.810 Street And Utility Improvements Standards later in this decision. Walkwavs- On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 11 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION • 0 compliance with ADA standards; Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. Public sidewalks are proposed on both sides of the proposed public street and along the site's SW Tigard Street frontage. Sidewalks shall be constructed per City standards. There are no other walkways proposed with this development. Inadequate or hazardous access: Applications for building permits shall be referred to the Commission for review when, in the opinion of the Director, the access proposed would cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or would provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or would in any other way cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public.health, safety and general welfare. Based on the preliminary plan submitted by the applicant, the pproposed alignment of SW Gallo with the existing segment to the south has a 1046ot offset. The applicant has been made aware that this alignment will not be acceptable and a condition to that effect has been imposed. The applicant notes that realigning the intersection will be possible. With the corrected alignment, Staff cannot foresee any hazardous conditions associated with the proposed access. The plans also provide for emergency vehicles by situating the proposed private street so that it can be utilized as a turn-around in the in erim until SW Gallo is extended north through to SW North Dakota. Direct vehicular access from the lots will be restricted to SW Tigard Street. Direct individual access to arterial or collector streets from single-family dwellings and duplex lots shall be discouraged. Direct access to major collector or arterial streets shall be considered only if there is no practical alternative way to access the site. Access to SW Tigard Street will be restricted. All lots in the subdivision will access either SW Gallo, a local street, or the private street. In no case shall the design of the service drive or drives require or facilitate the backward movement or other maneuvering of a vehicle within a street,. other than an alley. Single-family and duplex dwellings are exempt from this requirement. This criterion does not apply. Minimum access requirements for residential use: Vehicular access and egress for single-family, duplex or attached single-family dwelling units on individual lots and multi-family residential uses shall not be less than as provided in Table 18.705.1 and Table 18.705.2; According to the plans submitted, no access will be less than 20 feet in width, in accordance with Table 18.705.1. Vehicular access to multi-family structures shall be brought to within 50 feet of the ground floor entrance or the ground floor landing of a stairway, ramp, or elevator leading to the dwelling units; No multi-family structures are proposed with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Private residential access drives shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the. Uniform fire Code; This provision will be discussed under "Agency Comments" later in this decision. Section 18.705.030.H.4 states that Access drives in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning, around of fire apparatus by one of the following:. a circular, paved surface having a minimum turn radius measured from center point to outside edge of 35 feet or a hammerhead-configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet. The maximum cross slope of a required turnaround is 5%. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 12 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION • 0 The proposed private street, labeled "Tract B" is shown at approximately 165 feet in length, and would require a turn-around. However, engineering staff have commented that since private streets cannot serve more than 6 lots, an extension of this street in an abutting development would cause this standard to be violated. This is discussed in further detail in the Street and Utility Improvements section of this decision. Without the need to extend this street to the abutting lot, the private drive may be reduced in length so. that it will not exceed 150 feet. The applicant also has the option of creating a turn-around at the end of the private street in order to comply with this standard. Provision for a pedestrian connection will still be required, but that will not affect compliance with this standard. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have not been satisfied. If the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the standards will be met. CONDITIONS: The final plat shall reflect that no direct vehicular access will be permitted to SW Tigard Street. The construction plans for the private street, "Tract B" shall show that the pavement section will only be improved to an ultimate length of 150 feet or otherwise will provide for a standard turn-around. Density Computations and Limitations: p ter 111.715 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-way, and land for private streets from the total site area. Of the total site area (127,195 square feet, 29,560 square feet will be dedicated to public street right-of-way and private streets; there are no wetlands or land dedicated to the public for parks. This results in a net developable area of 97,635 square feet. The maximum number of lots permitted on this site, therefore, ,is 13 and the minimum number of lots is 10. The applicant's roposal to build 12 lots for single-family detached homes meets the maximum and minimum density requirements in an R-4.5 zone. FINDING: Because the applicant has proposed 12 lots and 13 lots is the maximum permitted based on the net acreage of the site, this standard has been satisfied. Landscat) ing and Screening (18.745 Chapter-18.745 contains landscaping provisions for new development. Section 18.745.100 requires that street trees be planted in conjunction with all development that fronts a street or driveway more than 100 feet long. A proposed planting list must be submitted for review by the Director since certain trees can damage utilities, streets and sidewalks or cause personal injury. Section 18.745.030.E states that existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as Possible (for example, areas not to be disturbed can be fenced as in snow fencing which can be around individual trees). This section has typically been construed to protect large plant species, such as trees. However, based on comments received from neighboring residents related to the potential presence of rare or threatened species on the site, additional discussion is warranted. As the Tigard Development Code does not contain language specific to the Federal Endangered Species Act, requiring special studies or analysis related to endangered species from the applicant is outside the City's authority. There are 16 plant species and 36 animal species listings for Oregon. As discussed earlier in this decision, the two previous mentioned species were not found to be on the Federal Listing, but as with any site in the City, the potential exists for the presence of threatened or endangered species. Because there is no authoritative documentation from a qualified specialist of NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 13 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION • • the presence of any of these species on the subject site, the City cannot affirmatively find that a potential "take" or "harm" will occur. The applicant is still, nevertheless, bound by federal law to not undergo any action that would take a listed species. This will be noted as a condition of approval. It is additionally noted that the applicant's tree protection areas will preserve some areas as not to be disturbed, including individual trees and groundcover which complies with this general code provision. Section 18.745.040.C contains specific standards for spacing of street trees as follows: Small or narrow stature trees (under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart; Medium sized trees (25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; and Large trees (over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart; The applicant has not provided information related to the planting of street trees. Street trees will be required along the proposed extension of SW Gallo and the private street, `Tract B". The applicant will be conditioned to submit a revised street utility plan that shows the location, species, and size (minimum 2" caliper) of required street trees. Section 18.745.050 contains the provisions and requirements for buffering and screening. The Buffering and Screening Matrix (Section 18.745.1) does not require buffering or screening when a single-family 'detached residential use is proposed adjacent to existing detached single-family dwellings. The Cascadian Place Subdivision site is surrounded by detached single-family homes and undeveloped parcels with R-4.5 zoning. Therefore, this section does not apply. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff cannot confirm that all of the landscaping and screening standards have been met. If the applicant complies with the condition listed below, the standards will be met. CONDITION: Submit a revised street utility plan that shows the location, species, and size (minimum 2" caliper) of required street trees. Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements (18.765): Chapter 18.765, able 18.765. requires that single-family residences be provided with one (1) off-street parking space for each dwelling unit. Compliance with this standard will be enforced during the building permit review process. Since the Code requires 20 feet from the property line to the face of a garage, this will insure that at least one car can park off of 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. 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 160 trees over 12 inches in caliper. Of these, 52 are considered hazardous or in poor condition. Of the remaining 108 non-hazardous trees over 12 inches in caliper, the applicant is proposing to remove 40 and retain 68. The applicant is retaining 63% of the non-hazardous trees on site. Therefore, half of the 826 total caliper inches being removed will be required to be mitigated. This number is subject to some adjustment based on the findings presented below. The applicant's arborist has provided tree protection recommendations. Following the tree protection recommendations will help assure that trees to be protected are not damaged during construction. A condition to this affect will be required. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 14 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION • • There are several trees along the site's frontage on SW Tigard Street. These trees, for the most part, are in good condition with the exception of trees #836 and #859. It is difficult to determine whether the required street improvements will necessitate their removal, however, with the combined reduction in required right-of-way dedication, and requirement for planter strip separation between the curb and sidewalk, it may now be possible to preserve these trees. Of notable quality are the Ponderosa Pine and Oregon Oak, #860 and #842, totaling 48 caliper inches . The City Forester has reviewed the applicant's arborist report and questions some of its findings with regard to the hazardous or poor conditioned trees. Specifically, trees #235 and #520 did not exhibit conspicuous evidence of poor or hazardous condition. The project arborist noted that the trees had conks which are indicators of Phellinus pini, a decay fungus. A field inspection by the City Forester and staff was unable to confirm these conks were present. The applicant is then faced with a choice: either retain the trees or remove them, subject to mitigating for the additional 31 caliper inches (50% of the 62 inches removed). The addition of the disputed hazard trees to the mitigation ratio if these trees were to be removed would be 61.8%, and would, therefore, not affect the percentage of mitigation required as previously stated. The applicant's inventory of trees to be retained is partially ensured through specific building envelopes that have been shown on the tree removal and protection plans. The specific envelopes limit the amount of ground disturbance and provide greater separation from trees than would be afforded by the underlying zone setbacks. 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 deed restrictions for the trees proposed to be retained. Prior to and during construction, if any trees currently proposed to be retained are removed, approval must be granted by the City Forester PRIOR to any tree removal. Following construction and establishment of a Homeowner's Association comprised of individual owners, review and approval for tree removal requests will become the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association. Prior to ANY site work, tree protection measures must be installed for all trees to be retained. Once installed, a certified arborist and a member of the Planning Staff must approve the tree protection measures. Submit a revised landscape plan that indicates the total number of caliper inches being removed, and shows how the required 50% of the removed caliper inches will be mitigated. For any trees that cannot be accommodated on site or off site, a payment in-lieu of planting the balance will be assessed (presently at $125 per caliper inch). Building permit applications for each lot shall include a site plan that shows the location of the trees on the lot designated from the applicant's submittal as "trees >12" to remain" and the "building envelope line" as shown on the applicant's Tree Preservation/Building Envelope plan. The building footprints for the proposed homes shall be entirely contained within the building envelope line. Vision Clearance: Chapter 18.795 applies to all development and requires that clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways and at the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A visual clearance area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, signs, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three feet in height. The applicant has not proposed any structures or vegetation in the vision clearance area. Construction plans for the streets will need to be reviewed and approved that satisfies the visual clearance requirements. Subsequent grading and vegetative removal may be imposed during infrastructure construction to assure that this standard is met. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 15 OF 27 SUB20022MW2-CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION 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. C - STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS 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 minor collector street to have a 60-foot right-of-way width and a 40-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. SW Tigard Street This site lies adjacent to SW Tigard Street, which is classified as a neighborhood route on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 20 feet of ROW north of the centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. The applicant should dedicate additional ROW to provide 27 feet from the centerline. The applicant's plan actually shows dedication to provide 30 feet from centerline because Tigard Street was previously classified as a minor collector. A minor collector street required a 60-foot ROW. The neighborhood route cross section standard for parking on both sides is 54 feet. Staff recommends the new classification be used for this project and that a 54-foot ROW is used. SW Tigard Street is currently paved but not fully improved to meet the current City standard. In order to mitigate the impact from this development, the applicant should construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of the site to meet the new neighborhood route standard. SW Gallo Avenue Gallo Avenue is an existing local residential street south of Tigard Street. ROW was also dedicated north of this site that would eventually allow for the connection between Tigard Street and North Dakota Street. The applicant has proposed a ROW width of 46 feet within this project to accommodate a 28-foot wide paved section, sidewalks and street trees. The 28-foot wide paved section is acceptable, as this street should not experience over 500 vehicles per day once the area is fully developed. The 28-foot wide paved section will require a parking restriction to one side of the roadway. The developer will be required to install No Parking signs on one side of the street as a part of the public improvements. The plan currently shows a curb-tight sidewalk on Gallo Avenue. The new TSP standard requires a planter strip between the curb and sidewalk. Even though this application was received prior to the effective date of the TSP, there will be ample ROW to enable the sidewalk to be placed 6 inches from the ROW line as the new standard will require. Staff has spoken with the applicant and they agree that a planter strip can be accommodated. Therefore, the plan will be changed to show a planter strip between the curb and sidewalk. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 16 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION • - • Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030(F) states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street. These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sacs since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de- sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub streets in excess of 150 feet in length. The applicant submitted a Future Circulation Plan that shows how the properties to the west could be developed in the future. This area is difficult to analyze because there are parcels with existing homes. It is hard to predict how a future developer will want to split the parcels. The applicant hqs shown that it would be possible for the parcels to be split in such a way that they take access to 115 Avenue (now classified as a neighborhood route) via a' separate private street. The applicant's private street (Tract B) will serve five lots within this development. The maximum number of lots a private street can serve is six lots. Even though the applicants plan shows Tract B stubbing to the west property line, Staff recommends that the private street be terminated before it reaches the west property line. The Circulation Plan shovs a potential through street, which would result in a private street serving well over six lots. With 115"' Avenue as a neighborhood route now, the access restrictions will be less cumbersome, making infeasible that as the parcels to the west develop, some lots would be able to have direct access onto 115 Avenue. The potential six lots behind those future frontage lots could be served from the future private street. Therefore, Staff finds the applicant's future street plan to be acceptable, but recommends against the private street being stubbed to the west property line. Cul-de-sacs: 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. The proposed private street will be a maximum length of 150 feet. 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. Staff has a concern with regard to the centerline alignment of Gallo Avenue as it. intersects with Tigard Street. The new centerline would be offset 10 feet west of the existing centerline of Gallo Avenue south of Tigard Street. The applicant will need to alter their plan to align the two centerlines. Staff has spoken to the applicant about this issue and was assured that the standard can be met. 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: NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 17 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION • • 1. 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 2. 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 shown in the Street Profiles plan, the proposed public street has a maximum slope of 10.5% and the private street does not exceed 6%, below the stated maximum. Access to Arterials and Major Collectors: Section 18.810.030.P states that where a development abuts or is traversed by an existing or proposed 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 nonaccess 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. SW Tigard Street is classified in the City's Transportation System Plan as a Neighborhood Route. Nevertheless, traffic conflicts are minimized since access will be restricted to the internal street system. Private Streets: Section 18.810.030.S states that design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer. The City shall require legal assurances for. the continued maintenance of 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. There is one private street proposed in this development, Tract B. Tract B will serve between 3 and 5 lots, and will thereby meet the standard. Tract B appears to be configured to provide for access to the property immediately west of the site. According to the applicant's Circulation Plan, this adjacent parcel could provide for up to eight additional lots. The code prohibits private streets from serving more than 6 lots (except when in conjunction with a planned development). A public street connection would require a right-of-way width that could not fit between the existing structures on the adjacent lots. In consideration of these factors, the private street will not need to be extended to the property line; however, a pedestrian connection will be required. The pedestrian connection will necessitate a sidewalk be constructed on at least one side of the private street. This sidewalk is not shown, and the present width of Tract B is insufficient to accommodate one. The applicant will need to revise the plans to show the required sidewalk and the termination of the private street short of the western property line. The width of the private street is adequate for vehicular access, but must be restricted to no parking on both sides. The applicant shall place "No Parking" signs on both sides of the private street. The applicant shall place a statement on the final plat indicating the private street will be owned and maintained by the properties that will be served by it. In addition, the applicant shall record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) along with the final plat that will clarify how the private propert y owners are to maintain the private street. These CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of the final plat. The City's public improvement design standards require private streets to have a pavement section equal to a public local street. The applicant will need to provide this type of pavement section. FINDING: The provisions for streets have not been fully ensured. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 18 OF. 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION • 0 CONDITIONS: The aptplicant shall revise the plans to show the private street with sidewalks on at leas one side. The applicant shall place a statement on the final plat indicating the private street will be owned and maintained by the properties that will be served by it. 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 street s). These CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of the final plat. 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 18.810.040.6.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development or; For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. The existing block, formed by SW Tigard, SW 115th, SW North Dakota, and SW Tiedeman is approximately 8,700 feet. There are no full blocks in the proposed development, however, the proposed extension of SW Gallo will reduce the block length to 3,125 feet. The applicant h@,s proposed extending the private street to the west property line for a future connection to SW 115"'. This would have created two blocks, 1900 feet and 2,260 feet in length. However, staff finds that the existing development on the adjacent properties precludes a full public street connection, and the code limits the number of lots served by a private street. The formation of blocks in complete conformance with this standard is precluded by pre-existing development, but the proposal furthers street connectivity standards as much as possible within the pre existing constraints. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Section 18.810.040.B.2 states that bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is not possible. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. According to the plans, future street connection is possible from SW Tigard to SW North DakoV The proposed private street "Tract B" will be able to provide an intervening connection to SW 115 when the street is extended. A public easement will be needed to assure that this connection is reserved. The applicant's plans do not propose a sidewalk, however to meet this standard, a sidewalk on at least one side will be required. Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.810.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. The minimum lot size of the R-4.5 zoning district is 7,500 square feet . The depth of proposed lot 7 exceeds 2.5 times the average width. This lot, however, is in compliance with this standard because it is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size for this zone. All other lots have depths that are less than 2.5 times the average width. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 19 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION • • 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 in the proposed development have at least 25 feet of frontage on a public or private street. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A =arterial, that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both collector and local residential streets. By constructing a new sidewalk on the north side of SW Tigard Street, and sidewalks on both sides of the extension of SW Gallo Avenue, the.applicant will meet this standard. Additionally, as conditioned previously, a sidewalk will be required on one side of the private street to meet the connectivity 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 sewer line in Tigard Street with a manhole in the intersection at Gallo Avenue. The applicant's plan shows they will extend a new 8-inch line north in Gallo Avenue to the north property line and west in the private street, Tract B. The sewer line should also be extended west in Tigard Street- to the west property line to enable future service to the west. Sewer lines are to be located on the north and west side of streets, so when the applicant constructs their half-street improvement on Tigard Street, the sewer should be installed as well. 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, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). There are no upstream drainage ways that affect this site. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer .shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage agency in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 20 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION • • In 1997, the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) completed a basin study. of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plain. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to.the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. The applicant's plans indicate they will provide 25-year detention in a pond to be located at the southwest corner of the site (Tract A). The facility will also serve as a water quality facility. The preliminary sizin calculations submitted with the application indicate the detention volume will need to be approximately 2,201 cubic feet (cf). The outlet pipe from the pond will be tied into the existing public main line in Tigard Street. The area in Tract A should have ample space to accommodate a pond of this size. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. Neither Tigard Street or Gallo Avenue are designated as bike facilities. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.13 states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. No bikeway is associated with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.C states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. No bikeway is associated with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; All iinrdernrmind iftilitiec_ in~hi inn canitarv cewerc nnrd ctnrm riminc inctallerl in ctreetc by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streetsi and Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.C states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-groundin 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. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 21 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION • • There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW Tigard Street. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 169 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $4,648.00. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT TAN ARD : Public Water S stem: This site is located in the CV-'s water service area and can be served from the existing main line in Tigard Street. The applicants plans show they will extend a new 8-inch main in Gallo Avenue to the north boundary, and would propose to extend a 6-inch line in Tract B. The City will not likely allow the. applicant to install a public main line in a private street, so the applicant should be prepared to bank the meters at the ROW of Gallo Avenue and run private service lines in Tract B. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that' will meet the intent of the CWS Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. As was stated previously, Tract A will also serve as a water quality facility. There will be a 100-foot long swale in the bottom of the pond that will treat the summer rain events. This length of Swale will be more than adequate to serve the development. Prior to the City accepting this facility as a public facility, the developer shall maintain it for a minimum of three years after construction is completed. The pond shall be placed in a tract and conveyed to the City on the final plat. The developer will be required to submit annual reports to the City which show what maintenance operations were conducted on the facility for that year. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. Grading and Erosion Control: USA Design and Construction Standards also 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 arraiarnfac arncinn Par 11RA ranidnfinnc fha annlirant is ranidrPr1 to sllhmit an ~~•••v•• wvvv•v•wavv v•vv•v••. • v• vv.. .v.J ......r.v..v, ...v r. erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. 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 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. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 22 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION 0 • Address Assi nments: The City o Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee in the amount of $30.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to approval. of the final plat. For this project, the addressing fee will be $360.00 (12 lots X $30/address = $360.00). Survey Requirements 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 the City's GPS survey. By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. E. - IMPACT STUDY Section 18.3 0.050 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum the transportation system including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.390.050 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall.adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. Any required street improvements to certain collector or higher volume streets and the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures that are required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-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 a detached, single- family dwelling is $2;260. The internal streets within the subdivision are needed to allow the subdivision to develop and the need for these streets is created by the subdivision. Because the need for the internal streets is created by the development, the Impact of the development is directly proportional to the cost of dedication and construction of the internal streets. The applicant is proposing to dedicate approximately 10 feet of right-of-way along SW Tigard Street and to make half-street improvements. The estimated cost of half-street improvements along SW Tigard Street is $21,125 (169 feet x $125 a linear foot) and the estimated value of 7-foot dedication is $3,546 (1,182 square feet x $3 per square foot). Uppon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's totaling approximately $27,120 ($2,260 x 12 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 $84,750 ($27,120 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact, is considered as unmitigated impact. Since the TIF paid is $27,120, the unmitigated impact can be valued at $57,630. Given that the estimated cost of the dedication and half-street improvements is $24,671, the requirement to make these improvements is clearly proportional to the impact of the development. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 23 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION • 0 SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Operations Utility Manager has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments regarding water service: • Double up on services at each lot comer • Lot 8-12 to be served off of Gallo Avenue [staff note: this means that the proposed 6" water line in the private street is not allowed. Separate water meters placed in the public right-of-way will be needed to serve these lots.] • Place valves per detail • Place water on east side of street Cut in 8"x8" tee (MJ) G.V. to north of tee. • Existing service to be removed by City of Tigard Public Works at developer expense. The City of Tigard Forester has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments: TREE PROTECTION DEVICES 18.745.030 E. PROTECTION OF EXISTING VEGETATION. Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as muc as possible: 1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and 2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.g., areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed around the individual trees). 1.1. All tree protection devices shall be located on the Tree Protection Plan. Any tree that will not be removed onsite that is within the limits of disturbance of this project must be protected. Any tree that is located on property adjacent to the construction project that will have more than 20% of its root system disturbed by construction activities shall also be protected. 1.2. Details and specifications are required as to how the trees will be protected on site. The details and specifications are included in this memo. 1.3. Provide a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, or installation of sediment and erosion control measures, and other activities that may be required to implement the tree protection measures. 1.4. Include in the notes on the final set of plans that equipment, vehicles, machinery, dumping or storage, or other construction activities, burial, burning, or other disposal of construction materials must not be located inside of any tree protection device or outside of the limits of disturbance where trees are being protected. No grading, filling or any other construction activity may occur within the tree protection devices at any time or outside of the limits of disturbance where trees are being protected unless approved by the City Forester. 1.5. All tree protection devices shall be: ■ Visible. ■ Well-anchored. ■ Approved in the field prior to clearing, grading, or the beginning of construction. ■ Remain in place and maintained until all construction is completed and a final inspection is conducted. 1.6. All tree protection devises shall be constructed according to the attached illustrations (Figures D-5 and D-6). NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 24 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION • 1.7. To determine the size of the tree protection zone follow the guidelines listed below: ■ For individual trees follow the trunk diameter method. For every one-inch of diameter at breast height (DBH), or 4 Y2 feet above the ground, allow 9 inches of space from the trunk of the tree. For example, a tree that is 15" at DBH must have at least 12' of tree protection zone around the entire canopy of the tree. ■ For groups of trees the tree protection zone must be outside of the dripline of the trees on the edge of the stand. If there are conifers with narrow crowns on the edge of the stand follow the trunk diameter method or the dripline method, whichever is greater. 1.8. Identify, on the Tree Protection Plan, the location of the stockpile area and the staging area (If different from the stockpile area). 1.9. All of this information must be included in the final Tree Protection Plan's notes or drawings. 1.10 Specific to this project: • Trees marked as "save" on the plans must be protected. ■ Trees located on neighboring properties must also be protected. ■ These trees must be protected according to the guidelines written above. 2. TREE SPECIES SELECTION & PLANTING 18.745.030 C. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. The installation of all landscaping shall be as ollows-. 1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures. 2. The plant material shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock (ANSI Z-60, 1-1986, and any other future revisions); and 3. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. G. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION. The review procedures and standards for required landscaping and screening shall be specified in the conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less than that required for conventional development. 2.1. It is recommended that all tree planting follow the guidelines set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture s tree planting guidelines as well as the standars set forth in the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards, 10u' edition. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications. I recommend that these guidelines be followed and adhered to at all times. 2.2. In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed: ■ No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite. ■ No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite. ■ No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite. 2.3. 1 recommend that all of this information be included in the final plan's notes or drawings. The City of Tigard Operations Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 25 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Clean Water Services of Washington Count has reviewed this proposal and notes that no service provider was included with the application. staff note: a pre screen assessment conducted by the City of Tigard based on maps supplied by C S showed that there were no sensitive areas that would trigger a site assessment. A copy of the City's assessment will be sent to CWS) Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: 1. Fire hydrants shall be installed so that no part of any dwelling is more than 500 feet from a fire hydrant. The proposed layout of fire hydrants meets fire district standards. 2. Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access roadway that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. (UFC Sec. 901.4.3) 3. The minimum available fire flow for single-family dwellings and duplexes shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. Fire flow documentation shall be provided. If the structure(s) is (are) 3,600 square feet or larger, the required fire flow shall be determined according to UFC Appendix Table A- 111-A-1. (UFC Appendix 111-A, Sec. 5) 4. Where fire apparatus roadways are less than 28 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are more than 28 feet wide but less than 32 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on one side of the road way and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are 32 feet wide or more, parking is not restricted. SW Gallo Avenue is proposed as 28 feet wide, therefore one side of the roadway shall be posted "No Parking". Design and location of signs shall be as per City of Tigard Standards. The private drive (Tract B) is proposed as 25 feet wide, therefore, shall be posted "No Parking" on both sides. Design and location of signs shall be as per City of Tigard Standards. 5. Approved fire apparatus access roadways and firefighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to stockpiling combustibles on-site or the commencement of combustible construction. (UFC Sec. 8704) SECTION IX. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: X ThP nnnlirnnt nnri nwnarc X . Owner of record within the required distance X Affected government agencies NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 26 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION • 0 Final Decision: EE THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MAY 8, 2002 AND EFFECTIVE ON MAY 23, 2002 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. A eal: T e Director's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.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 tote specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted by any party during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time o time y the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON MAY 22, 2002. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171. PREPARED BY:. Morgan racy Associate Planner May 8. 2002 DATE • G" May 8 2002 APPROVED BY: Richard B ersdorff DATE Planning Manager \\tig333\usr\depts\curpin\morgan\work6pace\sub\sub2002-00002 (cascadian pl.)\sub2002-00002 draft decision.doc NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 27 OF 27 SUB2002-00002 - CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION W Z W Q I al I I I c~ ~I ld N 4 1T3 -T - 9 7 ( S W, ST b 4M~ s ).lp 4 q 1 '1 - H' ~.'Q 41aa X - TRACT "B" PRWATE DRNE z ~w ar w Uav v~ - - - W Q 1w 5 \ 1 7.Ma! 10 4N~ s 1 v i 1.000 4 iz \ ~p S 4 Y a 1 1 I ~s 4 r , N w I s .i.ao- [ ~s4r1 I - s I k 7 500 F ' , \ \ ~aao s 2 \ w I I s ~ a \ TRACT "A" 1 1 1 $ 4M0 s I ( x;DET. RM , ROAD DWA to @ s s ..nr E woY y - - SW TIGARD STREET - L,, >t L%u ' I i I l ~ a I I I I l l - a - I ~ ~ I I C I I N CITY OF TIGA T RD SITE PLAN N (Map is not to scale) Z ~0w) I V _Z z z a. ♦Q V .u. 0 U SUB2002-00002 CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION TV i • • TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE ® COMMUNITY SERVICES • OPERATIONS • Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue April 1, 2002 Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Cascadian Place Subdivision - SUB 2002-00002 Dear Morgan, Exhibit T" • SOUTH DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION I have reviewed the submittal for the above named project and have the following comments: 1: Fire hydrants shall be installed so that no part of any dwelling is more than 500 feet from a fire hydrant. The proposed layout of fire hydrants meets Fire District standards. 2. Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access roadway that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. 3. The minimum available fire flow for single family dwellings and duplexes shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. Fire flow documentation shall be provided prior to the issuance of building permits. If any of the structure(s) is (are) 3,600 square feet or larger, the required fire flow shall be determined according to UFC Appendix Table A-III-A-1. 4. Where fire apparatus roadways are less than 28 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are more than 28 feet wide but less than 32 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on one side of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are 32 feet wide or more, parking is not restricted. SW Gallo Ave. is proposed as 28 feet wide, therefore, one side of the roadway shall be posted "No Parking". Design and location of signs shall be as per City of Tigard Standards. The private drive (Tract B) is proposed as 25 feet wide, therefore, shall be posted "No Parking" on both sides. Design and location of signs shall be as per City of Tigard Standards. 5. Approved fire apparatus access roadways and firefighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to stockpiling combustibles on-site or the commencement of combustible construction. Please contact me at (503) 612-7010 with any additional questions. Sincerely, Eric T. McMullen Eric T. McMullen Deputy Fire Marshal 7401 SW Washo Court, Suite 101 9 Tualatin, Oregon 97062 • Tel. (503) 612-7000 • Fax (503) 612-7003 • www.tvfr.com 03/29/02 15:36 FAX 503 640 3525 CLEAN WATER SERVICES REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: TO: FROM: March 21, 2002 Lee Walker. CieanWater ScruieeS/SWM Program Ci of Tigard Planning Dlulston STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Trae , Associate Planner 0140M Phone: [503163941711fte 05031684-7291 SUBDIVISION (SUB] 2002-00002 ➢ CASCADIAN PLACE SOBDIVISICN I?I0 01 A CITY Of TIGARD Community (Development Shying fl Getter Community MAR 2 i 2oot REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide a 2.92 acre parcel into 12, single-family detached residential lots. LOCATION: 11275 SW Tigard.Street; Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 1 S134DC, Tax Lot 200. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.390, 16430'18.510,18.705,18.715, 18.725.18.745,18-765,18.790,18.795 and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. F'()m information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE EED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: APR L 4. 2002. You may use the space provided below or al,tach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. .~l?EASE~C,HEM'K~Ti!H~O'LL'01f~1(G~~1NIS;TIh,PL; J,ll;,lj'hli'I,',~~, _ We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: IJ cti S~-v tics. P e-o-V 10&Q-J Lim J Name & Phone # of Person(s) Commenting: 0 • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: March 21, 2002 TO: Gary lampelia, Building Official FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner [0011 Phone: 15031639-4111/Fax: (5031684-1291 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development ShapingA Better Community RECEIVED PLANNING MAR 2 5 2002 C) ~ y ;1F i GARS SUBDIVISION (SUB] 2002-00002 ➢ CIISCADWN PIACE SUBDIVISION < REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide a 2.92 acre parcel into 12, single-family detached residential lots. LOCATION: 11275 SW Tigard Street; Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 1 S134DC, Tax Lot 200. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. if you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: APRIL 4, 2002. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT'APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: of our office. ~~zlo2a 41ZZ/_AA` / Z ~ v Name & Phone # of Person(s) Commenting: 3~ 0 • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: March 212002 TO: ! Roy, Property Manager/Public Works De artment FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT. Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner [0071 Phone: [503) 6394111/Fax: [503) 684-1291 CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development Shaping -A Better Community RECEIVED PLANNING PEAR 2 1 2002 C1 i Y °Ck7 i i;ARD SUBDIVISION (SUB] 2002-00002 ➢ CASCADIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION 4 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide a 2.92 acre parcel into 12, single-family detached residential lots. LOCATION: 11275 SW Tigard Street; Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 1 S134DC, Tax Lot 200. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: APRIL 4. 2002. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. [PLF E .CHECK THE .FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY; We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: of our office. Name 8 Phone # of Person(s) Commenting: 0 r REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: March 21, 2002 TO: Jim Wolf, Tigard Police Department Crime Prevention Officer FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner 1x4011 Phone: [5031639-4111/Fax: [5031684-1291 CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development ShapingA Better Community RECEIVED PLANNING 2 1 2002 Ci►1 ; eiGARD SUBDIVISION (SUB] 2002-00002 ➢ CIISCIIDIAN RACE SUBDIVISION Q REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide a 2.92 acre parcel into 12, single-family detached residential lots. LOCATION: 11275 SW Tigard Street; Washington County Tax Assessors Map 1 S134DC, Tax Lot 200. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: APRIL 4, 2002. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. J.PLEASE"CHECK_THE FOLLOWING ITEMS'THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. _ Please contact _ Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: of our office. Name & Phone # of Person(s) Commenting: i tA W o -A LL0 MEMORANDUM TO: Morgan Tracy FROM: Matt Stine, City Forester RE: Cascadian Place Subdivision DATE: April 16, 2002 As you requested I have provided some comments on the "Cascadian Place Subdivision" project. If you have any questions or concerns regarding my comments please contact me anytime. 1. TREE PROTECTION DEVICES 18.745.030 E. PROTECTION OF EXISTING VEGETATION. Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible: 1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and 2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.g., areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed around the individual trees). 1.1. All tree protection devices shall be located on the Tree Protection Plan. Any tree that will not be removed onsite that is within the limits of disturbance of this project must be protected. Any tree that is located on property adiacent to the construction project that will have more than 15% of its root system disturbed by construction activities shall also be protected. 1.2. Details and specifications are required as to how the trees will be protected on site. 1.3. Provide a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, or installation of sediment and erosion control measures, and other activities that may be required to implement the tree protection measures. 0 1. 1.4. Include in the notes on the final set of plans that equipment, vehicles, machinery, dumping or storage, or other construction activities, burial, burning, or other disposal of construction materials must not be located inside of any tree protection device or outside of the limits of disturbance where trees are being protected. No grading, filling or any other construction activity may occur within the tree protection devices at any time or outside of the limits of disturbance where trees are being protected unless approved by the City Forester. 1.5. All tree protection devices shall be: ■ Visible. • Well-anchored. • Approved in the field prior to clearing, grading, or the beginning of construction. • Remain in place and maintained until all construction is completed and a final inspection is conducted. 1.6. To determine the size of the tree protection zone follow the guidelines listed below: For individual trees follow the trunk diameter method. For every one-inch of diameter at breast height (DBH), or 4 Y2 feet above the ground, allow 12 inches of space from the trunk of the tree. For example, a tree that is 15" at DBH must have at least 12' of tree protection zone around the entire canopy of the tree. For groups of trees the tree protection zone must be outside of the dripline of the trees on the edge of the stand. If there are conifers with narrow crowns on the edge of the stand follow the trunk diameter method or the dripline method, whichever is greater. 1.7. Identify, on the Tree Protection Plan, the location of the stockpile area and the staging area (if different from the stockpile area). 1.8. All of this information must be included in the final plan's notes or drawings. 1.9. If it is necessary to enter the tree protection zone at any time with equipment (trucks, bulldozers, etc.) the City Forester must be notified before any entry occurs. Before entering the protection zone a layer of at least five (5) inches of wood chips or mulch must be placed over the root zone where the vehicles will be driven. This method will minimize the . adverse impacts of compaction from the equipment. When access to this area is no longer needed the wood chips or mulch must then be dispersed 'Y i (somewhere onsite is okay) down to a level of not more than four (4) inches deep. 1.10. Specific to this project: Trees marked as "save" on the plans must be protected. Trees located on neighboring properties must also be protected. These trees must be protected according to the guidelines written above. 2. TREE SPECIES SELECTION & PLANTING 18.745.030 C. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures. 2. The plant material shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock (ANSI Z-60, 1-1986, and any other future revisions); and 3. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. G. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION. The review procedures and standards for required landscaping and screening shall be specified in the conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less than that required for conventional development. 2.1. It is recommended that all tree planting follow the guidelines set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture's tree planting guidelines as well as the standards set forth in the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards, 10th edition. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications. I recommend that these guidelines be followed and adhered to at all times. 2.2. In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed: ■ No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite. ■ No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite. ■ No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite. 2.3. 1 recommend that all of this information be included in the final plan's notes or drawings. If you have any questions please call me anytime. Thank you for requesting my comments on this project. MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: April 30, 2002 V TO: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer RE: SUB 2002-00002, Cascadian Place Subdivision Street And Utility Improvements 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 neighborhood route to have a 50-foot right-of-way width and a 32-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. SW Tigard Street This site lies adjacent to SW Tigard Street, which is classified as a neighborhood route on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 20 feet of ROW north of the centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. The applicant should dedicate additional ROW to provide 25 feet from the centerline. The applicant's plan actually shows dedication to provide 30 feet from centerline because Tigard Street was previously classified as a minor collector. A minor collector street required a 60- foot ROW. Staff recommends the new classification be used for this project and that a 50-foot ROW be used. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 2002-00002 Cascadian Place PAGE 1 • • J SW Tigard Street is currently paved but not fully improved to meet the current City standard. In order to mitigate the impact from this development, the applicant should construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of the site to meet the new neighborhood route standard. SW Gallo Avenue Gallo Avenue is an existing local residential street south of Tigard Street. ROW was also dedicated north of this site that would eventually allow for the connection between Tigard Street and North Dakota Street. The applicant has proposed a ROW width of 46 feet within this project to accommodate a 28-foot wide paved section, sidewalks and street trees. The 28-foot wide paved section is acceptable, as this street should not experience over 500 vehicles per day once the area is fully developed. The 28-foot wide paved section will require a parking restriction to one side of the roadway. The developer will be required to install No Parking signs on one side of the street as a part of the public improvements. The plan currently shows a curb-tight sidewalk on Gallo Avenue. The new TSP standard requires a planter strip between the curb and sidewalk. Even though this application was received prior to the effective date of the TSP, there will be ample ROW to enable the sidewalk to be placed 6 inches from the ROW line as the new standard will require. Staff has spoken with the applicant and they agree that a planter strip can be accommodated. Therefore, the plan will be changed to show a planter strip between the curb and sidewalk. Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030(F) states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street. These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sacs since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub streets in excess of 150 feet in length. The applicant submitted a Future Circulation Plan that shows how the properties to the west could be developed in the future. This area is difficult to analyze because there are parcels with existing homes. It is hard to predict how a future developer will want to split the parcels. The applicant has shown that it would be possible for the parcels to be split in such a way that they take access to 115th Avenue (now ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 2002-00002 Cascadian Place PAGE 2 0 0 L classified as a neighborhood route) via a separate private street. The applicant's private street (Tract B) will serve five lots within this development. The maximum number of lots a private street can serve is six lots. Even though the applicant's plan shows Tract B stubbing to the west property line, Staff recommends that the private street be terminated before it reaches the west property line. The Circulation Plan shows a potential through street, which would result in a private street serving well over six lots. With 115th Avenue as a neighborhood route now, the access restrictions will be less cumbersome, making it feasible that as the parcels to the west develop, some lots would be able to have direct access onto 115th Avenue. The potential six lots behind those future frontage lots could be served from the future private street. Therefore, Staff finds the applicant's future street plan to be acceptable, but recommends against the private street being stubbed to the west property line. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.810.030(G) states that staggering of streets making "T" intersections at collectors and arterials shall not be designed so that jogs of less than 300 feet on such streets are created, as measured from the centerline of such street. Spacing between local street intersections shall have a minimum separation of 125 feet. 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. Staff has a concern with regard to the centerline alignment of Gallo Avenue as it intersects with Tigard Street. The new centerline would be offset 10 feet west of the existing centerline of Gallo Avenue south of Tigard Street. The applicant will need to alter their plan to align the two centerlines. Staff has spoken to the applicant about this issue and was assured that the standard can be met. Cul-de-sacs: 18.810.030.K states that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet Iona. shall not provide access to areater than 20 dwellinn unit-_ and -hall 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 ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 2002-00002 Cascadian Place PAGE 3 6, 0 W • 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. The proposed private street will be a maximum length of 150 feet. 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: 1. 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 2. 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. The maximum gradient of Gallo Avenue will be 10.5%, thereby meeting the City standard. Private Streets: Section 18.810.030.S states that design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer. The City shall require legal assurances for the continued maintenance of 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. As was stated previously, Tract B is a private street that will serve a maximum of five lots in this development (Lots 8 -12). The applicant shall place a statement on the face of the final plat indicating the private street(s) will be owned and maintained by the properties that will be CPrvarl hV it/tharn In artrlitinn the nnnlinnnf chnll rcr•nrrl r`nnrlifinno r`nvon~n+c ...v awr~.rnvu..a v. wn ..vvv vvwuv.~, vvrvl 1"I Iav and Restrictions (CC&R's) along with the final plat that will clarify how the private property owners are to maintain the private street(s). 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. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 2002-00002 Cascadian Place PAGE 4 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 18.810.040.8.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of- way line except: • Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development or; • For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. • For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. PLANNING Section 18.810.040.B.2 also states that bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is not possible. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. PLANNING 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. PLANNING 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. PLANNING 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. By constructing sidewalks on both Tigard Street and Gallo Avenue, the applicant will meet this standard. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 2002-00002 Cascadian Place PAGE 5 0 10 Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.C states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There is an existing 8-inch public sewer line in Tigard Street with a manhole in the intersection at Gallo Avenue. The applicant's plan shows they will extend a new 8-inch line north in Gallo Avenue to the north property line and west in the private street, Tract B. The sewer line should also be extended west in Tigard Street to the west property line to enable future service to the west. Sewer lines are to be located on the north and west side of streets, so when the applicant constructs their half- street improvement on Tigard Street, the sewer should be installed as well. 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, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions'or amendments). There are no upstream drainage ways that affect this site. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.1) 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 ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 2002-00002 Cascadian Place PAGE 6 Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. The applicant will provide an onsite detention facility at the southwest corner of the site in Tract A. The facility will also serve as a water quality facility. The detention pond volume will be approximately 2,200 cubic feet to accommodate the peak flows of design storms up to the 25-year event. The outlet pipe from the pond will be tied into the existing public main line in Tigard Street. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. Neither Tigard Street or Gallo Avenue are designated as bike facilities. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.6 states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. Not applicable. Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.C states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. Not applicable. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 2002-00002 Cascadian Place PAGE 7 Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: • The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; • The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; • All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and • Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.C states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under- grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case- by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under- grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW Tigard Street. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 169 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $ 4,648.00. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 2002-00002 Cascadian Place PAGE 8 • • ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Public Water System: This site is located in the City's water service area and can be served from the existing main line in Tigard Street. The applicant's plans show they will extend. a new 8-inch main in Gallo Avenue to the north boundary, and would propose to extend a 6-inch line in Tract B. The City will not likely allow the applicant to install a public main line in a private street, so the applicant should be prepared to bank the meters at the ROW of Gallo Avenue and run private service lines in Tract B. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the CWS Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. As was stated previously, Tract A will also serve as a water quality facility. There will be a 100-foot long swale in the bottom of the pond that will treat the summer rain events. This length of swale will be more than adequate to serve the development. Prior to the City accepting this facility as a public facility, the developer shall maintain it for a minimum of three years after construction is completed. The pond shall be placed in a tract and conveyed to the Citv on the final plat The developer will be required to submit annual reports to the City which show what maintenance operations were conducted on the facility for that year. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 2002-00002 Cascadian Place PAGE 9 Y 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: CWS 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 CWS 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 design engineer shall also indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee in the amount of $ 30.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to approval of the final plat. For this project, the addressing fee will be $360.00 (12 lots X $30/address = $360.00). ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 2002-00002 Cascadian Place PAGE 10 • • Survey Requirements The applicant's final plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates [NAD 83 (91)] on two monuments with a tie to the City's global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control network. These monuments shall be on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be established by: • GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey. • By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. In addition, the applicant's as-built drawings shall be tied to the GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). Recommendations: THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY_ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS. INCLUDING GRADING. EXCAVATION AND/OR FILL ACTIVITIES: Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: Prior to commencing onsite improvements, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover the infrastructure of the subdivision and the street work in Tigard Street. Eight (8) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.tigard.or.us). The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited, partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 2002-00002 Cascadian Place PAGE 11 • • v person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided. on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they will construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of Tigard Street. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a neighborhood route street from curb to centerline equal to 16 feet; B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff, E. 5 foot concrete sidewalk with a planter strip; F. street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; 1. underground utilities; J. street signs; and K. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Tigard Street in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. A profile of Tigard Street shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. The developer shall install No Parking signs along one side of Gallo Avenue. The developer's construction plans shall show that the centerline of Gallo Avenue will align properly with the existing centerline of Gallo Avenue south of Tigard Street. The applicant's Public Facility Improvement permit construction drawings shall indicate that full width street improvements, including traffic control ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 2002-00002 Cascadian Place PAGE 12 • • 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. 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. The applicant's construction drawings shall show that they will extend the 8- inch public sanitary sewer line in Tigard Street to the west boundary of this site. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the PFI permit plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) as a part of the Public Facility Improvement plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract to the City of Tigard on the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans. submittal, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take nvP_r mnintAnnnntm of thin farilihi 1lnlccc An ncrron+ r%f +ho hnrl c.nnr:.~r. ;n - 11- jr ........r.r vv F%ol vvi is vl a is lGil lua%.avn lu iJ 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. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 2002-00002 Cascadian Place PAGE 13 Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, December 2000 edition." 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 design engineer shall indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT: Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee in the amount of $360.00. (STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat, Engineering). The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private street will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from it. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private street. The CC&R's shall obligate the private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the street. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) prior to approval of the final plat. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have formed and incorporated a homeowner's association. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 2002-00002 Cascadian Place PAGE 14 The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Tigard Street underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $ 27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $ 4,648.00 and it shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat. 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 the City's GPS survey. By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Submit for City review four (4) paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. B. Attach a check in the amount of the current final plat review fee (Contact Planning/Engineering Permit Technicians, at (503) 639-4171, ext. 426). C. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. D. The right-of-way dedication for Tigard Street and Gallo Avenue shall be made on the final plat. E. NOTE: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive notice from the Engineering Department indicating that the City has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor. F. After the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer signature (for partitions), or City Engineer and Community Development Director signatures (for subdivisions). ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 2002-00002 Cascadian Place PAGE 15 • 0 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. Prior to issuance of building permits within the subdivision, the City Engineer shall deem the public improvements substantially complete. Substantial completion shall be when: 1) all utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities, 2) all local residential streets have at least one lift of asphalt, 3) any off-site street and/or utility improvements are substantially completed, and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. (NOTE: the City apart from this condition, and in accordance with the City's model home policy may issue model home permits). Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch. basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). j INA DDITION; THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF, THE FOLLOWING,SECTIONS-OF THE COMMUNITY, D„EVELOPMENT : e CODE, THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST: 18.430.080 Improvement Agreement: Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: 1. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 2002-00002 Cascadian Place PAGE 16 • • 2. Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract. 18.430.090 Bond: As required by Section 18.430.080, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; 2. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it may be terminated; or 3. . Cash. The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 18.430.100 Filing and Recording: Within 60 days of the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. 18.430.070 Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: Three copies of the subdivision plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 2002-00002 Cascadian Place PAGE 17 The subdivision plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: Centerline Monumentation In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. The following centerline monuments shall be set: 1. All centerline-centerline intersection points; 2. All cul-de-sac center points; and 3. Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PTs). All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. Monument Boxes Required Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 18.810 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: 18.810.120 Utilities All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.810.130 Cash or Bond Required ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 2002-00002 Cascadian Place PAGE 18 All improvements installed by. the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the city. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.810.180. 18.810.150 Installation Prerequisite No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefor have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.810.180 Notice to City Reguuired Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 18.810.200 Engineer's Certification The land divider's engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to the City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. THISAPPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS' FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB 2002-00002 Cascadian Place PAGE 19 Exhibit "C" RECEIVED 1 rat ~ - - - - - ` - CITY OF-TIGARD - - - - - - - - - PLANNING/EN GINEERING.- - e---c k-- ~----~'2{gin..-- - - - --------------~-'-Stn.-c.~---!~------=------ ~-I- ' ~ ~ --~~-L~~~__ ~'(i`y~-..l~J ~sl rte"-i-•-~~'1--~.y,-?_ < _ c•Z.;~-~-~- C~-~: _`.-----------'-~''~.c~..----------------------------- i~~.'~_-- -!-"fit-_~-~-°--~~.-'~' - I c - - • Exhibit "D" APPEAL FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS TYPE 11 CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX.' (503) 684-7297 The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code, therefore, sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phone/fax listed at the top of this form. GENERAL INFORMATION Property Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the Application Being Appealed: oq_rrv f C_RAi'c Gt,o + La,~ 1127 55tZ "'.A- Si wLT" 1513ggbc , I K (df Zoo . How Do You Qualify As A Party?: A h9-tny~f ~Ov x,00 Ca ttias ~.'L~~ 1 ofQ t t-?(S r~lw ~/o►e~. f_'p Appellant's Address: I l SS //~(f'k City/State: Zip: n) ZZ 3 Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached:(5o3) 3 36 -oz ZoteiD Scheduled Date Decision Is To Be Final: .5 ~zz 16 Date Notice of Final Decision Was Given: ~E:Lo ~Vo z. Specific Grounds For Appeal or Review: FOR STAFF USE K T5 ~ZZ a REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS ✓ Application Elements Submitted: ❑ Appeal Filing Form (completed) ❑ Filing Fee (based on criteria below) > Director's Decision to Hearings Officer $ 250.00 > Expedited Review (deposit) $ 300.00 > Hearing Referee $ 500.00 > Planning Commission/Hearing's Officer to City Council $1,745.00 Transcript) Signature(s) of Appellant(s): APPEAL FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS I:\curplnlmasterslappeal (OVER FOR ADDITIONAL WRITING SPACE) PAGE 1 OF 1 Regarding: File Name: Cascadian Place Subdivision; Case No. SUB2002-00002 Specific Grounds for Appeal: We are hereby notifying the City of Tigard and the owners of this property that we are appealing the decision to approve the request to develop the afore mentioned property based on the following reasons, as addressed to each of the applicable review criteria below as found in the Community Development Code: 1. Chapters 18.705.030 and 18.705.0301: Under public street access: it is stated that "access to SW Tigard Street will be restricted". Since Tigard street is the only means by which people living in the proposed development could get out of the development, we believe this is erroneous and needs to be addressed. Under inadequate or hazardous access: it is stated that "the plans also provide for emergency vehicles by situating the proposed private street so that it can be utilized as a turn-around in the interim until SW Gallo is extended north through to SW North Dakota." We believe this violates alts part of the code since it is later stated in the decision that the proposed private street is a stub street and therefore cannot serve as a means for emergency vehicles to turn around since there would not be adequate room for fire trucks, for example to turn around. Stub streets do not have a turn-a-round as a cul-de-sac would and thus the proposed stub street could in no possible way provide safe access for emergency vehicles. In addition, again as stated previously, the assumption that SW Gallo will be extended north to SW North Dakota is erroneous and misleading since it will never be extended and thus requirements under this part of the code have been not been met. Section 18.705.030.H.4: It is stated that "the proposed private street, labeled "Tract B" is shown at approximately 165 feet in length and would require a turn-around." It goes on to say that this standard is violated. On page 17, it states that the private street, "Tract B", would be 150' in length, not 165' as stated here. It then goes on to say that the applicant has the option to create a turn-around at the end of the private street in order to comply with this standard, yet under the above inadequate or hazardous access section, it clearly states that in order to provide for emergency vehicle access, a turn-around is not an option but would be required by the city. We have been informed by the City of Tigard that no more cul-de-sacs will be permitted in the city. We believe that a street with a dead-end street with a turn around is by definition a cul-de-sac, which as just stated is no longer permitted in Tigard. Again, this section of the code is violated by the conflicting and erroneous information given. Chapter 18.715: It is stated that "there are no wetlands or land dedicated to the public for parks." Since there is a stream on the property immediately adjacent to the west or this property in the application, we believe there may also be wetlands on this site, in part since it contains plant species that are indicators of wetland soils, such as alder and Oregon ash on the property, as well as several species of shrubs. As a result, we are requesting a wetland delineation be completed by the developer as well as results from the Goal 5 natural resource inventories done by the City of Tigard (as required by state land use laws) be submitted prior to approval of any development of this property. • • M Tree Removal / Chapter 18.790: We are requesting another inspection of all trees on the property be done, in part since the City arborist did not agree with findings of the property owner's arborist, in which many of the trees on the site were labeled as hazardous or in poor condition when in fact they are not. We believe this mislabeling is a method by which fewer trees will be left on the property, which at the initial public meeting was not disclosed and according to plans handed out showed more trees left on the site than is currently intended. The project arborist noted that some trees had conks which are indicators of Phel inus pini, a decay fungus, which is a normal part of the life cycle of trees and does not mean they can be declared hazardous. All trees, just like all people, will eventually die. Having a fungus does not constitute a reason to declare a tree hazardous. This site also contains rare plants such as the west side ponderosa pine, which should have shown up and should be documented on the city of Tigard's own tree inventory as rare plants and should have shown up during inventories required under the Goal 5 inventories. These rare plants should be protected by any means possible. Section 18.810: Street and Utility Improvements Standards: Section 18.180.030(E): It is stated under the section on SW Gallo Avenue that "ROW was also dedicated north of this site that would eventually allow for the connection between Tigard Street and North Dakota Street." We have no evidence that ROW exists as stated previously, this land is privately owned and as mentioned previously the current owners will not grant an easement nor sell their property just so Gallo street could be extended. Rather, a conservation easement may occur so that these properties can be protected and restored for wildlife habitat. Section 18.810.030(F): This section states that "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." This section, as well as the reply to it by the applicant and the city planner, are misleading and erroneous since it is based on the assumption that the property to the west of the proposed project will be developed, when in reality they are already developed, have a house, pool and barn, and also include a stream on the east side of the property which is protected by state regulations. There is no way that the proposed private street could or would ever be extended to 'go through this property! Since the city's own codes state that stubs are not cul-de-sacs, when just below it states under the Cul-de-sac section 18.810.030K that the proposed private street is a cul-de-sac which will not be more than 150 feet long, and which is required to have a turn-around, then the proposed private street would be a cul-de-sac, and this is currently not allowed under Tigard's codes, nor is the proposed SW Gallo Street which would be a dead-end or cul-de-sac since it can never be extended. Section 18.810.030.K: The proposed private street is listed under this section and since it is required to have a turn-around, it is a cul-de-sac which according to planners from the City of Tigard staff have told the neighbors that cul-de-sacs are no longer being permitted under city codes. • • Section 18.810.030.5: Private Streets: It is stated that "Tract B appears to be configured to provide for access to the property immediately west of the site." It also goes on to mention a Circulation Plan which none of the neighbors were aware even existed, nor is it correct in stating that the property west of the proposed development could provide up to eight additional lots, since the current owners will not develop the property and part of it is a wetland with a stream which is protected by state and federal regulations. This section is therefore violated. Section 18.810.040.B.1: Block sizes: This section of the code is violated, since it is stated that "the proposal furthers street connectivity standards as much as possible within the pre- existing constraints" when in reality it has not done so, since as stated above we believe that it is proposing streets which are not currently approved by the city and has put together a street circulation plan which was not disclosed to any of the adjacent property owners nor does the plan in any manner meet code requirements since it is based on erroneous and misleading information. This section of the code may also be violated since as stated previously, we believe a wetland delineation, which was not done, should be done since there are wetlands on the property immediately to the west which include a stream and facultative wetland plants including Oregon ash. Section 18.810.040.B.2: It is stated in this section that "the 9roposed private street "Tract B" will be able to provide an intervening connection to SW 115 when the street is extended." This section is violated also since the private street "Tract B" can in no manner provide a connection to SW 115', since there is private property located between SW 115` and the proposed private street "Tract B", and no public easement exists through this private property nor will it ever be obtained as stated by the current owners. Thank you. Respectfully, Sue Beilke, Director The Biodiversity Project of Tigard 1 1 A 1 i 1 i 1 e 1 Exhibit "E" Cascadian dace -A 12-Lot Subdivision Owner Chik Chor and Sing Lai 9360 SW 92nd Avenue Portland, OR 97266 Applicant AEI Development Aljeck 9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 230 P 01 UaIld, OR 97223 503.452.8003 Applicant's Representative Matt Sprague Alpha Engineering, Inc. 9600 SW Oak Street, #230 Portland, OR 97223 (503) 452-8003 I ALPHA ENGINEERING, INC. March,13, 2002 Morgan Tracy City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 Addendum for Cascadian Place Dear Morgan: In addition to my letter in response to the notice of incomplete for Cascadian Place, I have made the following changes due to the arborist's report. I am amending the narrative information regarding the Tree Removal, Chapter 18.790.. A total of 160 trees greater than 12 inches in stem diameter have been inventoried on-site. 52 of those trees are considered Dead, Dying, Diseased, or Dangerous Trees (DDDD) with a recommendation for removal. Of the remaining trees on site (108), 68 will be retained and 40 will be removed. The retention is equal to 63%. The total diameter inches of trees to be removed that are not DDDD are 413 diameter inches. Thus these 413 diameter inches will need to be mitigated. Should you have any additional questions regarding this_ application please contact me at our office. Sincerely, ALPHA-ENGINEERING, INC. Matthew L. Sprague T rr__ujc __ct t Aivl.i____g__aua~er_iTrila.iuier Plaza West • Suite 230 • 9600 SW Oak • Portland, Oregon 97223 Office 503-452-8003 • Fax 503-452-8043 N:\proj\328-008\Word\32881tr. doc - www. alpha-eng. com 0 0 CASCADIAN PLACE TREE PROTECTION & REMOVAL PLAN March 13, 2002 Background and Purpose As required by the City of Tigard tree ordinance, this Tree Protection and Removal Plan identifies existing trees at Cascadian Place and provides a specific assessment for all trees over twelve inches in diameter. The Plan describes conditions, results, recommendations, and tree protection standards for saving or mitigating the removal of existing trees. Description Much of Cascadian Place is heavily forested. A stand of mature Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) occupies much of the property, but other species are common.' A total of 160 trees greater than 12 inches stem diameter (DBH) was inventoried on the site. Tree Classification As shown in Table 1, trees larger than 12 inches in diameter were classed into three categories. These were (1) trees that are dead, dying, diseased, or dangerous ("DDDD"); (2) trees that will be retained on the site ("Retain"); and (3) trees that must be removed due to construction ("Remove"). These categories are consistent with the City of Tigard tree ordinance. ' See tree inventory spreadsheet for a complete listing of tree species, sizes, and conditions. Waller H. Knapp Silviculture & Forest Management Urban Forestry 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane Beaverton, OR 97007 Phone (503) 646-4349 Fax (503) 265-8117 i • Cascadian Place Page 2 3/.13/02 Findings Many of the 160 trees greater than 12 inches DBH are diseased or damaged. A large group of Douglas-firs west of the site entrance are dead and dying. The cause appears to be laminated root rot resulting from infection by the fungus Phellinus wierii. As shown in the tree inventory spreadsheet, many other trees have stem decay or other defects that require their removal. Results of Tree Survey and Classification 1. Dead, Dying, Diseased, or Dangerous Trees (DDDD). A total of 52 trees were diagnosed as dead, dying, diseased, or dangerous. Recommended treatment is removal 2. Retain. A total of 68 trees will be retained on the site. This is 63% of the trees larger than 12 inches in diameter that are not dead, dying, diseased, or dangerous. Remove. An additional 40 trees that are not dead, dying, diseased, or dangerous will need to be removed due to their locations within the planned streets, utilities, parking, or building areas. 4. Mitigation Requirement - City of Tigard Tree Ordinance. As shown on the mitigation calculations in the tree inventory spreadsheet, a total of 413 diameter inches will need to be mitigated in order to meet Code requirements. Tree Protection Standards Trees designated for retention will need special consideration to assure their protection during construction. These measures include: Fencing. Retention trees will be protected by installation of orange construction fencing to prevent injury to tree trunks or roots, or soil compaction within the root protection area, which generally coincides with the tree dripline. Preliminary locations of tree protection fencing are shown on the site map. The project arborist/urban forester will determine the exact location and type of fencing. Trees located more than 30 feet from construction activity will not need fencing. Walter H. Knapp Silviculture & Forest Management Urban Forestry 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane Beaverton, OR 97007 Phone (503) 646-4349 Fax (503) 265-8117 Cascadian Place Page 3 3/13/02 Mulching. If it is necessary to have any vehicle or construction equipment drive or maneuver within the root protection area of a retained tree, a layer of gravel or 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 material placed during construction will be removed at the end of construction. Tree protection fencing will be immediately replaced after such operations are completed Storage of Equipment. Construction equipment will be stored in suitable locations away from retained trees. Soil protection. The stripping of topsoil around retained trees will be restricted. No fill (including temporary storage of spoils) will be placed within the root protection area. Excavation. The project arborist/urban forester will provide on-site consultation during all excavation activities within the tree root protection zone. Excavation immediately adjacent to roots larger than 2 inches in diameter within the tree root protection zone of retained trees will be by hand or other non-invasive techniques to ensure that roots are not damaged. Where feasible, major roots will be protected by tunneling or other means to avoid destruction or damage. Exceptions can be made if, in the opinion of the project arborist/urban forester, unacceptable damage will not occur to the tree. Where soil grade changes affect the root protection area, the grade line should be meandered wherever practicable. This will require on-site coordination to ensure a reasonable balance between engineering, construction, and the need for tree protection. Quality Assurance. The project arborist/urban forester will supervise proper execution of this plan during construction activities that could encroach on retained trees. Enclosure: Cascadian Place Tree Inventory Spreadsheet Walter H. Knapp Silviculture & Forest Management Urban Forestry 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane Beaverton, OR 97007 Phone (503) 646-4349 Fax (503) 265-8117 0205 Cascadian Place T• Invento .xls • Page 1 of 5 ry3/13/2002 Walter H. Knapp Tree No. Species DBH (in.) Condition Causal A ent(s) DDDD Retain Remove 225 Douglas-fir 42 42 226 Douglas-fir 28 28 230 Douglas-fir 23 Sweep 23 231 Douglas-fir 23 Crown ratio <30% Competition/ suppression 23 233 Douglas-fir 13 13 234 Douglas-fir 20 Old to break 20 235 Douglas-fir 32 Stem decay. Phellintis pini decay fungus (conk resent) 32 238 Douglas-fir 15 Good crown ratio 15 240 Douglas-fir 29 One-sided crown, short crown ratio 29 241 Douglas-fir 27 Crown ratio <30% Competition/ suppression 27 242 Douglas-fir 14 Crown ratio <30% Competition/ suppression 14 246 Douglas-fir 39 Good crown ratio 39 247 Douglas-fir 40 Good crown ratio 40 253 Douglas-fir 20 Nails, construction damage Tree house 20 254 Douglas-fir 29 Nails, construction damage Tree house 29 257 Douglas-fir 20 20 258 Douglas-fir 31 31 259 Douglas-fir 22 22 260 Douglas-fir 24 24 262 Douglas-fir 25 25 263 Douglas-fir 18 18 263 Douglas-fir 18 Crown ratio <30% Competition/ suppression 18 264 Douglas-fir 24 24 265 Douglas-fir 38 38 266 Douglas-fir 22 Sweep, pistol butt 22, 268 red alder 16 16 269 red alder 15 15 270 Douglas-fir 19 19 271 Douglas-fir 20 20 272 bigleaf maple 13 13 274 red alder 18 18 275 red alder 15 15 276 Dou las-fir 22 Bark duffing, loss on 3/4 circum. Mechanical damage, insects (borers) 22 277 Douglas-fir 34 34 278 Douglas-fir 27 Sweep, broken top, fork, multi-to 27 279 Douglas-fir 20 20 280 Dou las-fir 15 Crown ratio <30% Competition/ suppression 15 281 Douglas-fir 20 Broken top, stem injury Mechanical, wind 20 285 Douglas-fir 34 34 312 Douglas-fir 27 27 1 _j • 0205 Cascadian Place Tree Inventory.As Page 2 of 5 3/13/2002 Walter H. Knapp Tree No. Species DBH (in.) Condition Causal A ent(s) DDDD Retain Remove 312 Douglas-fir 15 15 313 Douglas-fir 24 Wire fence attached 24 314 Douglas-fir 31 Edge tree, wire fence attached 31 315 Douglas- ir 18 Rot seam 20 ft. long Phellinus ini decay fungus 181 317 Dou las-fir 29 Extreme top and trunk breakage (d,18 ft. Mechanical -wind 29 318 Douglas-fir 25 25 319 Douglas-fir 25 25 329 bitter cherry 13 13 330 bitter cherry 16 16 333 bitter cherry 13 13 334 Douglas-fir 28 Sweep, to fork - extreme Wind, mechanical 28 341 bitter cherry 13 13 346 bitter cherry 13 13 346 bitter cherry 13 13 348 Douglas-fir 15 Branch dieback 15 349 Oregon ash 15 15 350 Oregon ash 17 17 351 Douglas-fir 16 16 352 Douglas- ir 21 21 388 western redcedar 31 Multiple top, exposed heart 31 392 bitter cherry 14 14 395 red alder 16 16 397 bigleaf maple 18 18 398 bi leaf maple 17 17 401 red alder 14 14 407 bitter cherry 20 Large fork, conk at fork. Decay fungus 20 409 Douglas-fir 19 19 410 Douglas-fir 23 23 411 Douglas-fir 22 22 412 Douglas-fir 24 Sweep. Crown ratio 40% 24 414 Douglas- ir 15 Edge tree. 15% lean 15 416 Dou las-fir 15 Crown ratio <30%; broken top, lean Competition/ suppression 15 417 bi leaf ma le 14 Double to 14 418 Douglas- ir 17 Crown ratio <30%; bk. top, sweep _ Competition/ suppression 17 420 onderosa pine 30 30 421 Douglas- ir 20 Edge tree. Full crown on SW 20 425 Douglas-fir 19 Edge tree. Full crown on south 19 , 0 0 0205 Cascadian Place Tree Inventory.As Page 3 of 5 3/13/2002 Walter H. Knapp Tree No. Species DBH (in.) Condition Causal A ent(s) DDDD Retain Remove 434 Douglas- ir 16 Crown ratio <30%; sweep, lean, raised roots Competition/ suppression 16 435 Douglas-fir 13 Crown ratio <30%; sweep, lean, raised roots Competition/ suppression 13 439 Douglas- ir 27 27 442 Douglas-fir 15 15 442 bitter cherry 15 15 446 Douglas-fir 15 Double forked to 15 447 bi leaf maple 18 One trunk, three tops 18 447 bi leaf maple 18 One trunk, three tops 18 447 bi leaf maple 16 One trunk, three tops 16 455 bitter cherry 15 Lean, double fork 15 456 bi leaf ma le 19 Double fork, heart rot with 5 inch rind 19 457 Douglas-fir 19 Rot and seam 12-50". Broken top. Lean. Basal bark damage. Multiple causes, defects 19 458 red alder 15 15 459 western redcedar 36 36 463 red alder 14 14 465 Douglas-fir 23 Stem scar. Stable -good crown, CR>50% 23 466 Douglas-fir 29 Sweep, lean, old broken to 29 488 Douglas-fir 20 Root erosion; shallow rooting. Incipient root decay. Surface erosion 20 489 western redcedar 16 16 491 Douglas-fir 32 32 492 Douglas-fir 21 Crown ratio <30% ompetitiorL/ suppression 21 493 Douglas-fir 14 Crown ratio <30% Competition/ suppression 14 494 Douglas-fir 23 Crown ratio <30% Competition/ suppression 23 495 Douglas-fir 13 Crown ratio <30%; leaning to north Competition/ suppression 13 496 Douglas-fir 24 Crown ratio <30% Competition/ suppression 24 no'7 Lvu iaS-... ~v ~Inoi ~ AV"Xi rauo vv r i l kJ1tLj'GLLL1UlU siireSSiori nn LV 500 Douglas-fir 13 13 502 western redcedar 23 Butt rot, stem scorch Fire, mechanical 23 504 western redcedar 27 27 505 western redcedar 26 26 • 0205 Cascadian Place Tree Inventory.xis Page 4 of 5 3/13/2002 Walter H. Knapp Tree No. Species DBH (in.) Condition Causal A ent(s) DDDD Retain Remove 507 red alder 16 Decayed stem, unstable fork 16 508 Douglas-fir 23 23 513 Douglas-fir 13 13 514 Douglas-fir 16 Crown ratio <30% CompetitionJ suppression 16 515 Douglas-fir 26 Crown ratio <30% Competition/ suppression 26 516 Dou las-fir 26 26 517 Douglas-fir 25 25 518 Douglas- ir 14 Burls, itch, dry frass Suppression, mechanical damage 14 519 Douglas-fir 12 12 519 Douglas-fir 32 32 520 Dou las-fir 30 Crown ratio <30%. Stem decay Fungus/ conk (Phellinus ini) 30 521 Douglas-fir 28 Crown ratio <30% - .Competition/ suppression 28 522 Douglas-fir 19 Crown ratio <30%; sweep Competition/ suppression 19 523 Douglas-fir 31 Pitch, stem crack Wind 31 524 Douglas-fir 29 Crown ratio <30% Competition/ suppression 29 525 Douglas-fir 21 Crown ratio <30% Competition/ suppression 21 526 Dou las-fir 24 Multiple top, with weak attachments Mechanical/ wind 24 531 western redcedar 20, 20 532 Douglas-fir 19 19 533 Douglas-fir 26 26 534 western redcedar 14 14 539 Douglas-fir 19 Crown ratio <30%; pitch seams Competition/ suppression 19 540 western redcedar 24 24 542 Douglas-fir 30 Full crown 30 543 Douglas-fir 28 Multiple pitch seams at base. Broken top. Sweep. Mechanical 28 616 Douglas-fir 26 Dead/ dying/ infected root rot 26 619 Douglas-fir 15 Dead/ dying/ infected root rot 15 621 Douglas-fir 15 Dead/ dying/ infected root rot 15 622 Dou las-fir 18 Spike top, top dieback. Roots damaged and decayed. root rot 18 624 Douglas-fir 18 Dead/ dying/ infected root rot 18 626 Douglas-fir 24 Dead/ dying/ infected root rot 24 626 Douglas-fir 15 Dead/ dying/ infected root rot 15 627 Dou las-fir 18 Large intrusive wound Mechanical damage; subject to stem breakage 18 • Page 5 of 5 0205 Cascadian Place Tree Inventory.xls 3/13/2002 Walter H. Knapp Tree No. Species DBH (in.) Condition Causal A ent(s) DDDD Retain Remove 834 European white birch 13 13 835 ponderosa pine 34 34 836 Douglas-fir 30 Stem decay-advanced @ 12- 15 ft. Conk- fungus (Phellinus ini) 30 837 Douglas-fir 19 Dead/ dying/ infected 19 837 Douglas-fir 21 Dead/ dying/ infected root rot 21 840 Douglas-fir 17 Dead/ dying/ infected root rot 17 842 Oregon white oak 19 ly 859 Douglas-fir 18 Dead/ dying/ infected root rot 18 860 ponderos pine 291 29 861 Douglas-fir 20 Dead/ dying/ infected dead, root rot 20 866 Douglas-fir 24 Dead/ dying/ infected root rot 24 867 Douglas-fir 21 21 900 bitter cherry 17, Rot at base, split to A e, unstable stem crotch 17 901 western redcedar 26 Multiple top, broken top, stem decay Decay fungi 26 902 Douglas-fir 13 Crown ratio <30%; leaning to NE 13 903 Douglas-fir 21 Crown ratio <30% 21 904 Douglas-fir 21 Crown ratio <30% 21 905 Douglas-fir 26 Stem decay. Decay fungus- multiple conks (Phellinus ini) 26 906 Douglas-fir 29 29 N/A English walnut 21 21 Total # Trees: 160 52 68 40 % Trees Retained (total): 43% MITIGATION % Trees Retained (no DDDD): 63% CALCULATIONS Mitigation 50% Total DBH Cut: 826 inches Amt. to Mitigate: 413 inches # 2-in. Trees to Mitigate] 206.5 trees ~ I I I Now N 88V9'07' W 360.04 I ax y 7 9 8 i n. ° I S N I 8ti I I °J,IiD I ~ I w I CTJ+uvi) }1~ wI L ► 6~ ~ ~uumm 1 ° jam,. F I - - 2-0 Ij FJ TRAC B" a ~Q ° IVA RIVE * y y O R I m 1 1 I 1 X- 5 I rc 110 4.j 2 I n I < t o L I ~ ° I k-Y4 F-4 I s 1-3 s 88.145Ci 190.75' TEMPORARY TREE 1 I !I $ 3 PROTECTIVE FENCING,TYP ,ems nm I•°" _ > I m o I mvm° I I =<w A < 5 u II 3 F,i n i, 2 4b. 202 ` ` rrFF LEGEND aou - - 1 n - - BUILDING ENVELOPE LINE • J -F I =TREE PROTECTION FENCING _ I z 7[,o^r 198 Z TREES >12" TO BE REMOVED Q 1 I = TREES >12" DEAD, DYING, z CL TRACT "A" 1 iI DISEASED OR DANGEROUS 0 U-1 TRACT I TREES >12" TO REMAIN 0 W SCALE: 1" = 30' 627 F 15 j W g F a DIAMETER (INCHES) LU Z. Q Eop SPECIES (SEE KEY) (n W Q n S 88'1613 EOP TREE U - - d U S.W. TIGARD STREET TREE KEY Z _ - - ° ° s- - - - - o _ _T - - CONIFEROUS TREE LU Q w DECIDUOUS TREE LU J ~W~ W( F FIR > P PINE F- Ep Q I N a 4 C6 a CE CEDAR I~ S SPRUCE B BIRCH CH CHERRY TREE PRESERVATION/BUILDING ENVELOPE PLAN A ALDER N o n so 1s o so so M MAPLE OAK OAK * DEAD TREE PRUCCAMEp NO. TYPE ALPHA ENGINEERING, INC. March 11, 2002 Morgan Tracy City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Notice of Incomplete for Cascadian Place Dear Morgan: This letter is a response to the incomplete notice for Cascadian Place. The items listed in the notice are addressed below in order as listed in the incomplete notice. This information should complete the application for the Subdivision in accordance with the City of Tigard Development Code. 1. Submit 20 (full set) copies of your revised and new materials. The application resubmittal contains 20 copies of the revised and new materials. 2. Submit a tree assessment and protection plan prepared by a certified arborist. A tree assessment and protection plan prepared by a certified arborist has been completed and included within the resubmittal package. - 3. Submit water quality and quantity calculations. Water quality and quantity calculations are included within the resubmittal package. 4. The site plans do not show the visual clearance triangles (this may alternatively be shown on the street improvement/utility plan). The visual clearance triangles are now shown on the street improvement/utility plan. ' Plaza West • Suite 230. 9600 SW Oak • Portland, Oregon 97223 Office 503-452-8003 • Fax 503-452-8043 N:\proj\328-008\Word\3288compltr.doc • www.alpha-eng.com 1 r s 1 Regarding your comments attached to the notice of incomplete: 1. Alpha-Engineering completed a re-analysis on the tree locations and sizes to ensure that the plans submitted were accurate and complete in order to avoid problems during construction of the project. 2. The six t rees in the Tigard Street right of way would be extremely difficult to preserve. During development of the construction plans, consideration could be given to those trees however at this point it appears they will have to be removed. Should they be preserved through . the construction process, the mitigation requirements would have to be adjusted to reflect the change and duly noted by the City. Regardless, if an attempt is made at saving them and they end up having to be removed, we would need a letter from the City stating that no penalty charges would occur as a result of their removal other than required mitigation. One other alternative the City has is to allow a reduction in the required street width along the frontage that would help us to be able to preserve the trees in question. 3. The private street stub has been extended to the adjacent property line. As a result of changing the plans, the smallest lot is now 6,844 square feet and the overall average lot size is 7,780 square feet. Additionally, I have contacted the Deputy Fire Marshall (Eric T. McMullen) requesting that since the private drive is only 161-feet long that they not require a turnaround. He has approved that request per a telephone conversation on 3/11/02 stating that even though the street is proposed to be longer than 150 feet, it still meets the requirements for pulling hoses around the houses and therefore a turn-around is not required. Should you have any additional questions regarding this application please contact me at our office. Sincerely, ALPHA-ENGINEERING, INC. 0144wez~ Z e~r~e~ Matthew L. Sprague Project Manager/Planner t I N:\proj\328-008\Word\3288compltr.doc 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 1 1 1 1 • • Cascadian Place Table of Contents 1. Applications, Proposal Summary and Land Use Application Checklist 2. Narrative 3. Documentation of Neighborhood Meeting 4. Impact Statement 5. Pre-application Notes 6. Water Quality / Detention Calculations 7. Subdivision Name Approval 8. Arborist's Report/Tree Protection & Removal Plan (To be submitted) 9. Title Information 10. Reduced Plan Sets t 1 1 1 11 Applications, Proposal Summary and Land Use Application Checklist 1 F~~IM • PHONE NO. • JAN. 19 2002 03:48AM P1 ASC~~ SUBDIVISION TYPE 11 or TYPE III w1PCB 1 APPLICATION CITY OF T1GAkD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tgard, OF 97223 (603; 639-4171 FAX, (503) 684-7297 PRE-APP. HELD Wtl-!°I: -rraG-, DATE OF PRE-AFF.- _ GENERAL INE0RMATIOM Property Address/Location(s): ! 22 7fJ Sr r'. .r } Tax Map & Tax Lot #(s)'. I 5 / 3 D Site Size. Propcrry Owner/Deed Holder(s)*: Address:n (aO SIL 6 7,~?t / . Phone' City t'1 2 Zip: Applicant: Address: 0,J(a,fy,MS1~ /~Q G fir- _~lahone. a3 ZQC ' City 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 authorizatlon with this application.. _PR,UPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of recorp of the subject property request Subdivision approval to divide a, parcel into 1 lots between sp(~ and t r„~ square feet in size. (provide any additional infix n Afton here) 1 REQUIRED SUB( ALE EMENTS (Note: applications will not be accepted without; the required submittal elements) J Application Form ❑ Owner's SignatureM/ritten Authorization I Li Title Transfer Instrument or Dccd 0 Copy of Pre-Application Conf. Notes ❑ We. Co. Subdivision Name Approval ❑ Site/Plot Plan of copies based on pre-app ahoek fist) ❑ Site/Pibt Plan (reduced 8'/2"x 11 ) Applicant's Statement o: copies basest ort pre-app check iist) ❑ USA Sewer Use Information Card (Di ;trlbuWd/Gompltted at applicaton subri,0=0 USA Service Provider Letter Q 2 Sets of Pro-Addressed/Pre-Stamped 910 Envelopes & Copy of 500' Property Owner List Generated by the City G Ncignborhood Mtg. Affid14vit5 & Notes ❑ Filing Fee tPraminary Plat) $2,125.00 O S10 Par Lot) I. (Final Plat) $ 735 d0 . ` Add 20% PD.Fee i FROM • PHONE NO. • JAN. 19 2002 03:49AM P2 USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application List any VARLANCF_ OR OTHER LAND 1 APPLICANTS: A consider an 2pplicati m complete, you will need to summit ALL of the REQUIRED SUE3,S(II7TAL ELEM TS' as described on the frortt.of this application in the "Required Submittal Elements" boz. (Detailed Submittal Requirement information sheets can be obtained. upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT; The above request does not violate any eod restrictions that may be attacj~el~m oR sedsir~r~n the eta A arooerty. if the application .is granted, the applicant will a~cerdt;e the rights grantcd in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions anal limiiatiors 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 appliration. Including the policies and crit&. 1a, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this day of -e ..4 J ✓ (z Z., / owner's Signature /,/A ' W~ _ owner's Signature 1 Gwne -s Signature Owner's Signature 1 1 t t w 0 i N atto,&e FACT SHEET Project Name: Cascadian Place Proposed Actions: 12- Lot Subdivision 34DC 1 S 1 Tax Map: - Tax Lot: 200 Site Size: 2.92 acres (127,195 SF) Location: Located on the north side of SW Tigard Street, east of SW 114th Avenue and west of SW Twin Park Place Zoning: R-4.5 (City of Tigard) Owner: Chik Chor and Sing Lai 9360 SW 92nd Avenue Portland, OR 97266 l Applicant: opment AEI Deve Al Jeck 9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 503.452.8003 l Applicant's Representative: Alpha Engineering, Inc. Matthew L. Sprague (Project Planner) 9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 503.452.8003 Cascadian Place 1 Alpha Engineering, Inc. i GENERAL INFORMATION: The applicant is requesting preliminary approval of a 12-lot single-family detached subdivision. The subject site, specifically identified as Tax Lot 200 of Tax Map IS 1 34DC, is approximately 2.92 acres and is currently zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 7,500 square foot minimum lot size) by the City of Tigard. Portions of the site are wooded with a slope of approximately 6%. There are no r wetlands or drainageways on the site. VICINITY & SITE INFORMATION The immediate area is currently undergoing a transition from a semi-rural community to an urbanizing residential area. There are some larger parcels remaining that are underdeveloped on all sides except the south. Nearby development consists of single family homes on parcels that are 7,500 square feet or larger. ' Site Location The site is located on the north side of SW Tigard Street directly opposite where SW Gallo Avenue intersects from the south, west of SW Twin Park Place and east of SW 115`h Avenue. Access to the site occurs via the extension of the SW Gallo Avenue right- of-way from SW Tigard Street to the north project boundary. A private street tract will extend west from the new SW Gallo Avenue right-of-way to the west project boundary to provide access to Lots 8 through 12 and future development on Tax Lots 100 and 102. The site is bordered by underdeveloped property to the north, east, and west, and by SW Tigard Street to the south. r Existing Uses The property currently contains a single-family residence and outbuildings. All will be removed. Topography In general, the site slopes downhill from northeast to southwest from an elevation of 220 feet to an elevation of 190 feet. The slope averages a fairly consistent 6% over the site. Vegetation The property is fairly wooded consisting primarily of Douglas fir and western red cedar. A stand of deciduous trees are located in the north-western portion of the site. The existing conditions plan illustrates the type and diameter of the trees on the site over 6-inches in diameter. ' Surrounding Land Uses The subject site is located in a developing area of single-family residential development on relatively large lots. Densities vary and parcel sizes range from 7,500 square feet to nearly 2 acres. Transportation There are currently no Tri-Met bus routes on SW Tigard Street near this site. The closest route and stop is on Greenburg Road where bus routes 76 and 78 can be utilized. This service is approximately 3/4`h of a mile from the project site. Cascadian Place 2 Alpha Engineering, Inc. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Cascadian Place is a quality single-family. residential development that will blend in seamlessly with surrounding residential development. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 2.92-acre site into 12 lots. All of the newly created lots will be developed with single-family detached homes. The proposed lots range in size from 6,945 square feet to 10,195 square feet, with an average lot size of just over 7,830 square feet. The resulting gross density is approximately 4.1 units per acre. SW Gallo Avenue will be dedicated and constructed as a public street from the south plat boundary to the north plat boundary. The newly dedicated portion of SW Gallo will extend northward from SW Tigard Street. The centerline of the right-of-way is offset 10 feet to the west of the existing SW Gallo right-of-way located to the south of SW Tigard Street. The proposed public street will be comprised of a 46-foot right-of-way with a 28-foot paved surface, curbs, 5- foot curb-tight sidewalks and a 4-foot landscape strip. SW Tigard Street will be improved with a half-street improvement along the site's frontage. SW Tigard Street will have a 10-foot right-of-way dedication for a total of 30 feet north of centerline. The proposed half-street improvement will include a 17-foot paved surface north of centerline, curb, 5-foot curb-tight sidewalk and an 8-foot landscape strip. A private street will be constructed within Tract "B" extending westward approximately 140 feet from the new SW Gallo Avenue. The private drive will provide access and utility extensions to serve Lots 8 through 12. The developer will construct the private drive providing 24-feet of paving with curbs on both sides. Sanitary sewer and water service will be provided to all proposed lots via construction of new lines extended from existing lines in SW Tigard Street. An 8-inch sanitary line will be constructed in the new SW Gallo Avenue right-of-way and the private street. The sanitary sewer line will be extended to the north plat boundary, due to topography the line in the private street tract will only be extended far enough to serve Lots 8 through 12. Under-developed property to the west of the project site would obtain sanitary sewer service from SW 115`" Avenue. An 8-inch domestic waterline as well will be constructed in the SW Gallo Avenue right-of-way and ' terminating at the north plat boundary. A 6-inch water line will extended to serve Lots 8 through 12 within the private street tract. Storm water will be handled through a series of ten and twelve-inch pipes and catch basins, which will convey the storm drainage to storm water quality/detention facility. The storm water facility will be located within a water quality/detention tract (Tract "A"). (See Grading, Erosion Control & Storm Drainage Plan). APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE CRITERIA 18.164.120 This section requires overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or at the election of the developer; a fee in-lieu of under grounding can be paid at a rate of $27.50 per lineal foot of Cascadian Place 3 Alpha Engineering, Inc. I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 • street frontage. Because the site contains only about 169-feet of frontage along SW Tigard, the developer will elect to pay the fee in lieu of under grounding the overhead utilities. 18.390: QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING The applicant is submitting a proposal in complete compliance with all relevant code and Comprehensive Plan requirements. Included in the application is all the information requested on the application form, along with this narrative addressing the appropriate criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; the required fees; a list of all surrounding property owners, as well as other potentially affected parties. The Subdivision is consistent with the underlying zoning requirements and all relevant City ordinances and standards. 18.430.040: SUBDIVISION APROVAL CRITERIA: PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant will be subdividing the site into 12 residential lots. A proposed preliminary plat in compliance with the R-4.5 zoning district has been submitted. The preliminary plat is also in conformance with other applicable ordinances as reflected by this narrative and the preliminary plans. The Washington County Survey Department has approved "Cascadian Place" as the proposed plat name. SW Gallo Avenue has been designed to align with the existing Gallo Avenue intersection at SW Tigard Street at the south plat boundary and with the partial dedication of SW Gallo at the north plat boundary. This document serves as the narrative for the project and contains an explanation for all of the common improvements proposed. 18.510: R-4.5 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL The property is currently zoned R-4.5 by the City of Tigard. The purpose of the R-4.5 Land Use designation is to establish sites for single family detached and attached units for medium density residential developments. The proposed detached single family homes are permitted outright per Table 18.510.1. 18.510.2: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES The proposed development site will comply with the dimensional requirements as laid out in Table 18.510.2, specifically except where changes to those standards are allowed and requested through the planned development process. Required Setbacks Front Yard 20 feet Side Yard 5 feet Street Side 15 feet Rear Yard 15 feet Garage 20 feet Other Requirements Lot Size: 7,500 square feet minimum Lot Width: 50 feet Height: 30 feet - Cascadian Place~ 4 Alpha Engineering, Inc. t • • The proposed subdivision will comply with all of these development standards. Per Section 18.430.020(D), lot averaging is allowable provided no lots are less than 80% of the minimum lot size of the underlying district. In this case, the minimum lot size allowed would be 6,000 square feet. The smallest proposed lot is 6,860 square feet. The project's average lot size is 7,778 square feet. 18.705: ACCESS/EGRESS & CERCULATION Vehicular Access: As required under section 18.705.030, all proposed lots have direct access to the public or private street. Curb cuts will be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N and each lot will have a single driveway at least 15 feet wide. 18.715: DENSITY COMPUTATIONS According to the Residential Density Calculation provisions within the code, the number of dwelling units permitted on this site can be calculated by dividing the net area by the minimum lot size, which in this case is 7,500 square feet. The net area, in this development, is derived by subtracting the public right- of-way and private street tract from the gross acreage. The density computations for Cascadian Place are as follows: Net Area Calculation Gross Square feet Minus Right-of-ways Minus Private Street Tract 127,195 square feet (2.92 acres) 25,480 square feet 4,080 square feet Equals Net Area subtotal 97,635 square feet/7,500 square feet = 13.02 dwellings I Minimum Dwelling Units Required: 13.02 X.80 = 10.42 units Total Units Proposed: 12 units 18.725: ENVIItONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The applicant understands that compliance with state, federal, and local environmental regulations are the continuing obligation of the property owner, and will abide by the applicable standards. 18.745.040: STREET TREES Street trees will be provided in accordance with this section on the public and private streets. The specific standards listed in Section 18.745.045C shall dictate the spacing, size, as well as other specifications inherent to planting of street trees (see Tree Preservation & Street Tree Plan). 18.755 MIXED SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING STORAGE Waste/recyclables management will function in the same manner as any other single-family detached residential development with curbside service. Cascadian Place 5 Alpha Engineering, Inc. 1 • • 1 1 18.765: OFF-STREET PARKING Each lot will have a minimum of two off-street parking spaces to serve the detached single family residential homes. 18.780: SIGNS No signs are proposed at this time. Any signs necessary or requested will be placed in accordance with the requirements of this chapter 18.790: TREE REMOVAL Tree plan requirements A tree preservation plan has been developed and reviewed by a certified arborist, including the location, size and species of all existing trees. The plan identifies individual trees for removal or retention. The plan illustrates the proposed building envelopes of the homes on each of the lots. Only those trees located within the proposed building envelopes and those trees located within the proposed street rights-of-way or water quality facility are designated for removal. As the project is retaining 51% of the trees greater than 12-inches in diameter, mitigation is required. Per Section 18.790.030, fifty percent of the trees will be mitigated. The tree protection standards proposed include fencing, mulching, proper equipment storage, soil protection, responsible excavation and quality assurance by the project arborist. ' 18.795: VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS Any future landscaping will be consistent with this section. The intersection proposed with SW Gallo Avenue and SW Tigard Street will require the preservation of vision clearance triangles. 18.810: STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS Streets: The public street (SW Gallo Avenue) will be constructed to City standards as illustrated on the plans. The roadway will consist of a 28-foot paved surface with curbs and 5-foot curb-tight sidewalks on both sides. The private street will be constructed to City standards as shown on the plans. The private street will be constructed to a 24-foot width to facilitate 2-way traffic with curbs on both sides. The proposed layout will provide access to homes on the site. Sanitary Sewer: Sanitary sewer service is currently available from an existing line in SW Tigard Street south of the main body of the site. A new 8" line will be extended into the site to serve all lots fronting SW Gallo Avenue. A new 6" line will be installed within the private street tract to serve the lots fronting the private street. Cascadian Place 6 Alpha Engineering, Inc. r 0 r I Surface Water Run-off: Storm water runoff will be collected via a system of pipes and catch basins within the newly constructed public and private street. The water will then be conveyed to a storm water quality/detention pond before discharging into an existing storm drainage line in SW Tigard Street. The proposed storm facilities will be constructed in compliance with Resolution 91-47 whereby; the Unified Sewerage Agency and the City of Tigard have agreed to enforce Surface Water Management regulations requiring the construction of said facilities. Domestic Water: Adequate domestic water will be provided to the site by extending a new line from the existing line in SW Tigard Street at the south boundary of the site. Hydrants will be placed to provide adequate fire suppression to all lots within the development. 18.810.030: STREETS A. Improvements. ' The proposed subdivision has frontage on SW Tigard Street. The development will also dedicate public right-of-way to extend SW Gallo Avenue from the south plat boundary to the north plat boundary. All improvements to within and adjacent to the plat will be to City standards. d B. purposes. Creation ofri hg is-of-way for streets and relate With the approval and recording of the final plat of the Cascadian Place subdivision, the necessary rights-of-way will be created. The proposal contains a private street in a 25-foot wide tract serving lots 8 through 12. C. Creation of access easements. A public access easement will be recorded over the private street tract to facilitate edestrian circulation cle and vehicular/bic . p y D. Street location, width and jzrade. i h t The proposed street location, width and grade comply with the requirements of this section w grades to be approved by the City Engineer. Th h i d e y. ue to topograp es The private street is not intended to continue to adjacent propert property to the west of the project site is falling towards SW 115th Avenue making it impracticable to provide sanitary sewer or storm drainage to that property. The circulation plan provided illustrates how the adjoining property could logically develop with access from SW 115th Avenue. E. Minimum rights-of-way and street widths. The proposed SW Gallo Avenue right-of-way is 46 feet in width, which is sufficient to accommodate improvement necessary for a street generating less than 500 ADT. This includes 28 feet of paving with curbs and sidewalks on both sides. Cascadian Place 7 Alpha Engineering, Inc. proposed tract containing the private street is of sufficient width to accommodate The improvements necessary for a street generating less than 200 ADT. This includes 24-feet of paving with curbs on both sides. F. Future street plan and extension of streets. A future streets plan has been submitted with this application showing the pattern of existing and proposed future streets within 530 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed project. All items that are required to be shown have been placed on the plan. The portion of SW Gallo Avenue that would be dedicated through this development has been designed to align with the existing SW Gallo / SW Tigard Street intersection at the south plat boundary and the existing portion of SW Gallo stubbing into the north plat boundary. The proposed private street is not designed as a through street capable of being extended for ' future development to the west due to the topographic impacts discussed previously in this section. The plan also demonstrates that based upon the size, shape and natural features of the parcels to the west, they can develop better with access from SW 1151' Avenue. ' I. Existing ri hts-of-way. 1 SW Tigard Street is the only existing right-of-way adjacent to the project site. With the proposed 10-foot dedication of additional right-of-way north of centerline SW Tigard Street will have its ultimate right-of-way width. S. Private Streets. The design of the proposed private street is approvable by the City Engineer and legal assurances for the continued maintenance such as a maintenance agreement will be recorded. The proposed private street will only serve five lots as permitted by this section. z Street cross-sections Cross-sections of the public street, half-street, and private street have been placed on the preliminary plans for review. 18.810.040: BLOCKS A. Block Design. The SW Gallo Avenue extension is provided to connect the existing intersection of SW Gallo at SW Tigard Street with the SW Gallo right-of-way stubbing into the north plat boundary. The private street is not proposed to be extended westward due to topographic considerations in providing utility services. The adjoining property to the west is better served by accessing SW 115`h Avenue as illustrated on the circulation plan. Cascadian Place 8 Alpha Engineering, Inc. 1 1 i 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • A Sizes. The proposed extension of SW Gallo Avenue will allow for north-south traffic movement between SW Tigard Street and SW North Dakota Avenue. The block size does not exceed the 1,800-foot perimeter required by code. SUMMARY The proposed Development complies with all applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and Development Code. The proper steps have been taken to ensure compatibility with the established neighborhood character within the City boundaries. Adequate public facilities and services exist to serve the development and all improvements will be constructed to City and other applicable standards. Cascadian Place 9 Alpha Engineering, Inc. 0 • Documentation of Neighborhood Meeting t 1 1 1 'o. 11F • ALPHA ENGINEERING, INC. January 10, 2002 Resident Re: SW Tigard Road Subdivision Dear Interested Party: ' Alpha Engineering, Inc. is representing the developer of the property located at 11275 SW Tigard, otherwise identified as Tax Lot 200 of Map 1 S 134 DC. The applicant is proposing a 12-lot subdivision at this location. i ld li ts, I wou ke to discuss Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary perm the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: 6:30 p.m., Thursday, January, 31, 2002 Town Hall Room City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 Please notice this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the City. I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at (503) 452-8003 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Matthew L. Sprague Project Planner Plaza West • Suite 230. 9600 SW Oak • Portland, Oregon 97223 Office 503-452-8003 • Fax 503-452-8043 • www. alpha-eng. com ' AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING 1 STATE OF OREGON ) ) SS. ' City of Tigard ) 1 I, ✓ e/ ► 6 L/v being duly sworn, depose and say that on-) Lv4NS~ >9_Lt'5C4 caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list; notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (or near) 025 dt&-) T-1 !3/9~ 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 T A~ t with postage prepaid thereon. Signature In the presen of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the Ll day of Jow.vA-a-y-i ~DO Z OFFICIAL SEAL 1 CAROLS A. PEDRO NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION ON NO. 344575 0C P_a_" * my COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 3, zoos NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON My Commission Expires: a f CL 3' (Applicant, please complete information below for proper placement with proposed project) - - NAME OF 1'ItOJEC'1' OIt I'ItOI'OSED NAME: TYPE OF I'ItOPOSED DEVELOI'MENT- Narne of Applicant/Owncr: Address or General Location of Subject Properly: Subject Property Tax Map(s) and I,otft(s)_-- -----1 h V~~n~~3uy4iias(crsWffmail fist 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE ::.;:....:..:..ELNSEVEN.(7) 1AiE:NDA;fZ:DASs'SOF:TEiE;:SIGN:.1'QSTING'<tETL1RIU.>?iI . < ' > » > > > <s« ><< > . WMall......y.......... S4[( [h f [u~ I, , do affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed f ~nn affecting the land located at (state the approximate location(s) if no address(s) and/or tax lot(s) currently registered) I Z 7 S LAD O~ and did on the I day of 6~2 - ~ personally post notice indicating that th slte may be proposed for a _ Su cj Si application, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal.. The sign was posted at 112 75. 5 l:J 7~,4-r-d a f (state location you posted notice on property) jU_j2---' / E Signature (I he presence f a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 1-7 day of Sc..+1.,~ar OFFICIAL SEAL CAROLE A. PEDRO NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION N0.344575 r *.W*COAARA1QQ1r%k.OtPIRESAPRIL3,2005 NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON My Commission Expires: a.,. t 3 200 S .(Applicant, please complete information below for proper placement, with proposed project) NAME OF 1'ItOJEC'P OR PROPOSED NAME: (TYPE OF I'ItOPOS1'D DEVELOI'MEN'I': Name of ApplicanUOwncr: I Address or General Location of Subject Property: l .Subject Property'I'ax Map(s) and LoL #(s): - - - - - - - - - - 11 VoginyV3Uytr113S1CfSL1lfp0sl m51 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES FOR CASCADIAN PLACE An informational neighborhood meeting was held on January 31, 2002 at Tigard City ' Hall regarding the 12-lot development on Tax Lot 200 of Map 1 S 1 34DC. The meeting time was 6:30 p.m. Below are the meeting notes as recorded by Alpha Engineering, Inc. The meeting notes address concerns and issues raised by the attendees. Mr. Sprague, a land planner with Alpha Engineering, Inc., gave a brief presentation (with a preliminary site plan, aerial photo and tree preservation plan for reference) describing the proposed development, the development process and why the meeting was being held. Questions and Concerns Raised by the Attendees To avoid duplicity the following questions are examples of the main concerns raised by ' the attendees. Q. Will fencing be constructed around the perimeter of the development? ' A. Fencing is typically completed by individual builders or buyers of the lots and fencing the project will not be done with construction of the development . ' Comments: The neighbors on all sides had concerns about fencing. The biggest concern was in regards to a property owner northwest of the site that had horses and was afraid that kids would damage his wire fencing and let the horses out or would trespass in the pasture. Q. Who will build the homes and what kind will they be. A. The lots will be sold to a builder and it is unknown what exactly they will build ' yet however they will all be single-family detached homes. Q. How can we find out if the new homes will devalue our properties? A. We don't expect the new homes to devalue neighboring properties. Based upon the values we expect to be constructed there may be an increase in values for ' adjacent properties as facilities are constructed that better serve them. Q. How does the water quality facility work? Will it be a mosquito farm? ■ A. function were described in The basics of the water quality and detention facility i _ terms of collection, treatment, detention and how it mitigates downstream problems. Q. How can we find out who will build the homes? A. You could ask at the city to have them let you know when building permits were applied for or towards the end of construction check with the developer. Q. Has a traffic study been completed? N:\proj\328-008\Word\NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES.doc A. A traffic study is required by the City in this case. Q. How will local schools accommodate this development? A. We are not currently aware of how the proposed development will impact the local school system. Q. Which trees are going to be removed? What types of deciduous trees are located on the site? A. The tree preservation plan was explained as well as the tree types that exist on- site. ' Q. Where is the Cell Tower that is being proposed? A. The Cell Tower is proposed on the property adjacent to the west in its northeast corner. Q. What about the runoff from the site? Will it affect surrounding properties? A No. Some of the downhill properties may see a reduction to the wet conditions they currently experience. Run-off from buildings and roads (paved surfaces) are treated in the water quality facility, detained and released slowly into the existing ' drainage facilities. Q. Could a builder put a manufactured home on the lots? A. Yes but based upon the value of the lots and potential buyers of the lots this is highly unlikely . Comment: Discussion continued about architectural style and value of property. Concerns included loss in value of adjacent property. ' The meeting was ended at approximately 7:15. At that time the property owner with the cell tower site suggested that the homes proposed in this subdivision be built as far from the proposed cell tower location as possible to preserve trees and promote a better living environment for potential buyers of the homes. Some of the neighbors remained where discussion turned towards 2 specific issues. One issue was that a neighbor to the north was describing the 25 foot portion of SW Gallo to the north was not a public street and ' that she doesn't want the development because she fears people impacting her property by trespassing, stealing and vandalizing properties. The second issue focused primarily on the neighbors deep concerns regarding the cell tower proposed on adjacent property to this development and that the neighborhood meeting held for that project was done on a weekday in the morning when few of the neighbors could attend. 1 N:\proj\328-008\Word\NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES.doc rr rtr rr r rr r r ® r rr r ® r ar a~, ® ar ~ ATTENDANCE ROSTER MEETING DATE: 1-31-02- PLEASE PRINTI NAME ADDRESS CITY, STATE ZIP CODE PHONE # -1~►Orn vi I ! 7&0 SIB 61-k i+Ve- T rd d 2 q7a~3 0 LARAY GAD hQA I~ < JD`. J? • Q~~' i 55G t 75S S /j u......Ae]~......~..A.~.... 1- A- ~ ?5 • = = = = ® ® = = = = = ® ® ® l I= M GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM ST AREA NOTIFIED 77 w m > somim a (500') use » 3700 „amine un4mm" vouni U real °tlQp SW TORLAND ST. _ t w Immm , samara co FOR: Shelley Holly a mmIm 2 Rama1U no RE: 1 S134DC, 200 enuseseles Y "1C""' samaaa. J Property owner information LL' d is valid for 3 months from eln same 111340011111111 d '91d"1° the date printed on this map. W unman so,mnm z Z tm,maaa ss,mesn samara O TIGARD W Q 1 I swae "a r~nN .s,aaa,tn samwt D9a°pm m mom su mnm sa,m„ e, „wmaen Sn,mettae „asan11 ,,,mean ~''1 .n,.aa.11 samml.a r - - -i r swmam sam,m swK~wn 2 -511110 samnee sweee,en 394M M sta,mtae tts,aalm snunmm sowaxw -hi, samas" A D ilAlenem - N 0 100 200 300 400 Feet 1'= 291 feet City of Tigard Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 6394171 httpJh-.ci.tiga rd. or.us e: Jan 8, 2002; CAlT1agicWIAGIC03.APR C 00101 ' 1S134D6-09900 14'134D ADAMSKI CURTIS R BO U ARY & TANJA ' 4109 FIR ST 1145 TH AVE VANCOUVER, WA 98660 RTLAND, OR 7223 1S134DB-05400 1 134DC-00102 ALBERS DEBRA L & B;45T5 UE Y & TANJA TERRANCE L 1TH AVE 11280 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST LAND, 0 7223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DC-00600 1S134DC-09600 ANDERSON LARRY R AND BRYANT DONNA J & ROSS A CYNTHIA M 11545 SW CORNELL PL ' 11355 SW TIGARD ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134CD-10000 BAKER ERIC A & JOELLE L 1S134DC-00500 BUSSCHAU DEAN B & LUWANNA F 11530 SW TIGARD DR 11476 SW TWIN PARK PL TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 134DC-08800 1 S134DC-08700 BARRIE WILLIAM N AND CYNTHIA C CAMPBELL SUSAN KATHLEEN & ' 11489 SW TWIN PARK PL CAMPBELL NAOMI L TIGARD, OR 97223 11505 SW TWIN PARK PL TIGARD, OR 97223 ' 1S134CA-07900 1S134DC-07200 BEAN JAMES R & DEBRA A CARRIER TIMOTHY S 11452 SW 115TH AVE 11695 SW GALLO AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DC-08500 1S134DB-07100 BECKMAN TED E & HOLLY S CAUFIELD JOHN R & LESLIE A 11549 SW TWINN PARK PLACE 11133 SW TORLAN ST ' TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DC-05300 1S134DB-07600 ' BLOCK PATRICK L & KELLY D CHAN WENG C 11730 SW 113TH PL 11222 SW TORLAND ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 1 S134DC-00700 1 S134CA-00719 BOCHASANWASI SHREE AKSHAR CHRISTIANSEN LEROY WINTHER PURUSHOTTAM SWAMINARAYAN 11468 SW 115TH SANSTHA-WEST TIGARD, OR 97223 6472 CANDAN AVE STE 208 SAN JOSE, CA 95120 1 S134DC-00100 1 S134DB-03100 BOURQUE GARY & TANJA CLARK MARIE M ' 11455 SW 115TH AVE 11140 SW NORTH DAKOTA PORTLAND, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 ' 0 • 1S134DC-02400 ' 1S134DC-09000 COGHILL DOUGLAS F ETTER LARRY D & BEVERLY E LINDA M ' 2809 SW ARROWHEAD CT 11445 SW TWIN PARK PL LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 TIGARD, OR 97223 ' 1S134DB-07200 1S134DC-07300 CORRADO ANDREW J & KELLY S FARRAND VERNON V/NAOMA R 11119 SW TORLAND ST 11715 SW GALLO AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 ' 1S134DB-06500 1S134DC-09300 CRAWFORD ROBERT J & KRISTA S FREDERICKSON ANDREW J & CATHERI 11311 SW 112TH AVE 11514 SW TWIN PARK PL TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DC-02000 1S134DC-02900 ' CUPIT CHRISTINA M & GALLO, JAMES ANNA H OCHSNER JEREMY J 11200 SW TIGARD ST 11720 SW 114TH PL TIGARD, OR 97223 ' TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S134D6-07000 1S1341)13-02000 DOANE CHIKAKO IGUCHI GARCIA HERNANDEZ JOSE MELECIO & ' 11147 SW TORLAND GARCIA HERNANDEZ LIDIA TIGARD, OR 97223 11492 SW 115TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 ' 1S134DB-06900 1S134CD-09700 DOVER DANIEL P & DANIELLE F GERTH ERIK N AND KARI J ' 11102 SW TORLAND ST TIGARD, OR 97223 11436 SW 115TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 ' 1S134DC-09800 1S134DC-04500 EIDSON DONALD L AND MARY H HENSLEY BARBARA S 11501 SW CORNELL PL 11695 SW 113TH PL ' TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DB-06400 1S134DC-08600 ENGLE DALE W & SHARON R HOOPER MARTIN B & SUSAN T 11287 SW 112TH AVE 11527 SW TWIN PARK PLACE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S134DB-03300 1 S134DB-05200 ESPY BRENT AND GEORGIA HOPKINS DARRELL D SR ' 3418 SW HAMILTON ST 11240 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST PORTLAND, OR 97201 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DB-03400 1S134CA-07600 ESPY BRENT E & GEORGIA L HOWER PHIL W & 3418 SW HAMILTON ST BAY-HOWER DEBORAH J ' PORTLAND, OR 97201 11580 SW BURLCREST DR TIGARD, OR 97223 ' 0 0 1S134C6-09600 ' 1S134DC-04700 INMAN DAVID BEN KING DEBORAH LOUISE 3106 NE 78TH AVE 11655 SW 113TH PLACE ' PORTLAND, OR 97213 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DB-03700 1S134DC-05400 JABS WILLIAM M KIRK PAMELA E 10970 SW NORTH DAKOTA AVE 11750 SW 113TH PL TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 ' 1S134DB-06100 1S134DC-04901 JACKSON NATALIE S & CHAD H KLUDAS DONALD C & JEAN C 11230 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST 11658 SW 113TH PL TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 ' 1S134DC-04900 JENSEN E C R VIRGINIA 1S134DC-04800 KUMMER KIMBERLY ANN 11340 SW TIGARD ST 11370 SW TIGARD ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DC-02700 1S134DB-07400 JENSEN LARRY J 11330 SW TIGARD ST LAFOUNTAIN DALE B & LAFOUNTAIN CHARLENE E TIGARD, OR 97223 11202 SW NORTH DAKOTA TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134CA-04400 1S134DC-00200 JIMENEZ SERGIO G & LAI CHIK CHOR & SING ANDA-JIMENEZ PATRICIA E 9360 SE 92ND AVE PO BOX 4017 PORTLAND, OR 97266 BEAVERTON, OR 97076 1S134DC-09400 1S134DC-02300 JONES CHARLES B JR/CATHYANN LAMB TED A JANNENE R 11536 SW TWIN PARK PL 11650 SW 114TH PL ' TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1SI34CA-04300 1S134DB-06600 ' KAIN FAMILY TRUST LEE GREGORY K 11590 SW NORTH DAKOTA 11170 SW TORLAND ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DB-01800 1S134DC-07100 KALSCH LAWRENCE P LEE RAYMOND E & ARLEEN P ' 4441 SE WITCH HAZEL RD 11675 SW GALLO AVE HILLSBORO, OR 97123 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DC-08300 1S134DC-09700 KIEHLBAUCH JAMES MICHAEL & LOWE LARRY C & ROSE M VALLI DAWN 11523 SW CORNELL PL ' 11620 SW GALLO AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 ' . 0 6 0 1S134D -08000 1S134DC-07900 LUONG PHIET AND O'NEAL PATRICK AND MICHELE LUONG TIN T AND 11700 SW GALLO AVE ' LUONG THUY B TIGARD, OR 97223 11680 SW GALLO AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 ' 1 S134DC-02200 1 S134DC-05000 MARTIN WILLIAM & PANASEWICH MICHAEL R & BILLIE D OLSON CINDY 11660 SW 113TH PL ' 11670 SW 114TH PL TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DC-07800 1S134OB-07500 MARTINI PETER JOSEPH & PARKER JOHN & TERESA SUSAN RAYE LIBY 11228 SW TORLAND CT 11720 SW GALLO TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 SI34DB-02200 1 S134DB-06700 MCDONALD ROBERT E & JEANNE L TR PHILLIPS WILLIAM & 11475 SW 115TH PHILLIPS DENISE C TIGARD, OR 97223 11156 SW TORLAND ST ' TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S134DC-04400 1 S134CA-07500 MOBRAY AVIS 11725 SW 113TH PL PORTER DOROTHY J TRUSTEE 11600 SW BURLCREST DR TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 1 S 134DC-05200 1 S 134DC-08400 MOCZULSKI MEGAN N REA KENNETH N 11700 SW 113TH PL 11600 SW GALLO AVE ' TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 ' 1S134DC-08900 1S134DB-06800 MUNDELL REBECCA S RIES DAVID E & LORI A 11467 SW TWIN PARK PL 11124 SW TORLAND ST ' TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DC-01000 1S134DC-02801 ' NERLAND DAVID A & MARGERY A SCHECKLA LEONARD 11645 SW 114TH PL 16535 NE HERD RD TIGARD, OR 97223 NEWBERG, OR 97132 1 S134DC-05100 1 S134DB-01900 NICHOLS JANE L SCHLEICHARDT JASON L ' 11680 SW 113TH PL 11500 SW 115TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 ' 1S134DC-02100 1S134DC-00400 NORSKE D BRIAN SCHNEIDER CHARLES A 11690 SW 114TH PLACE DOLORES S TIGARD, OR 97223 11195 SW TIGARD ST TIGARD, OR 97223 i 6 • 1S134D -03000 1S134DC-07400 SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 23J SWANSON HAROLD & SUZANNE WASHINGTON COUNTY 11735 SW GALLA AVE 13137 SW PACIFIC HWY TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DC-04300 1S134DC-00900 SCOTT MATTHEW C & TANNER NANCY TRUSTEE SCOTT LAURETTE LARSON 10940 SW GARDEN PARK PLACE A 11745 SW 113TH PL TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR .97223 1S134DB-02500 1 134DB-01801 ' SCOTT SAM R JR ERMA L TIG D C OF 11370 SW NORTH DAKOTA 1312 HALL TIGARD, OR 97223 T ARD, 0 97223 1 134DB-02400 SC SA JR ERMA L j 1 S134DB-07300 TORLAND MARY HANSON ; ~ 1137 RTH DAKOTA 11100 SW NORTH DAKOTA e ARD, OR 9 23 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S134DC-04600 1 S134DC-08200 SHEEHAN MICHAEL R & LANA C 5210 SW ELM AVE TRANBY GARRY N AND LYNNETTE I BEAVERTON, OR 97005 11640 SW GALLO ST TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DC-09500 1S134DB-02100 SHEELER CHARLES W & KATY L WASSERMAN ROBERT A 11558 SW TWIN PARK PL 11482 SW 115TH TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 134CD-09800 1 SI34DC-02800 SNOW DAVID T & SUSANNE WEAVER ANDREW M/KATHERINE M & 11444 SW 115TH AVE HAYHURST JOHN W/MARILYN K TIGARD, OR 97223 11310 SW TIGARD ST PORTLAND, OR 97223 1S134DC-09200 STEWART PETER B & TRACY D 1S134DB-02300 WERNER STACEY L & MARIL 11498 SW TWIN PARK PL do FERREL DORIS L LIFE ESTATE TIGARD, OR 97223 11400 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 134DC-08100 1 S134CA-00720 STRANDBERG KENNETH L & WHITE TOBY M & KIMBERLEY M KIRSTI D 11460 SW 115TH 11660 SW GALLO AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 134D -09100 S C 1S734DC-07000 STROM KATHLEEN D WIEGAND JENS & MARLYS 11454 SW TWIN PARK PL 11655 SW GALLO AVE ' TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DB05300 ' WOLFE DUSTIN 11260 SW NORTH DAKOTA TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DB-06300 WYNKOOP DANIEL L & DEBRA K 11245 SW 112TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 1 1 i r 1 1 Q 1 r I G Jack Biethan ' 11023 SW Summerfield Drive #4 Tigard, OR 97224 Brooks Gaston 10272 SW Meadow Street Tigard, OR 97223 Don & Dorothy Erdt 13760 SW 121stAvenue Tigard, OR 97223 Ellen Beilstein 14630 SW 139th Avenue " Tigard, OR 97224 Martha Bishop 10590 SW Cook Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Vanessa Foster 13085 SW Howard Drive Tigard, OR 97223 Susan Beilke 11755 SW 114th Place Tigard, OR 97223 Nathan and Ann Murdock PO Box 231265 ard OR 97281 Ti g , t 11 ITY OF TIGARD - CENTRAL CIT SUBCOMMITTEE . (i:\curpln\setup\labels\CIT Central.doc) UPDATED: December 27, 2001 A 1 A i 1 I 1 1 • • Impact Statement s IMPACT STATEMENT For Cascadian Place Purpose The purpose of the Impact Study is to review existing public facilities and address any proposed modifications to these that will help mitigate the proportionate project impacts that will likely ' occur as a result of development. All necessary facilities for serving this site are currently in place in SW Tigard Street and can be constructed on site. The transportation system, storm water, sanitary, water and other private utilities are all available and adequate in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Transportation System SW Tigard Street is classified as a minor collector in the Transportation Plan. This project will construct a half-street improvement along the site's SW Tigard Street frontage. t There are currently no Tri-Met bus routes on SW Tigard Street near this site. The closest route and stop is on SW Greenburg Road where bus routes 76 and 78 can be utilized. This intersection 1 is approximately 3/4th of a mile from the site. ,J We expect no adverse impacts to the current capacity of SW Tigard Street. The City has not requested any additional improvements beyond the dedication and half-street improvement along the site's SW Tigard Street frontage. ,5-", Drainage Systems The proposed drainage system will be collected via a piped system and be treated by a water quality and detention facility. The designs will be in accordance with the standards set up by Clean Water Services. The treated water will then be released to the existing storm drain line in SW Tigard Street. Detention will be required for this site based on conversations with City of Tigard. Detention will be accommodated by the pond in Tract "A". Water Systems There is an existing 8-inch water line in SW Tigard Street. We are proposing to connect to this line, which will supply more than adequate flow and pressure for the proposed domestic and fire Jr flows to the housing units. The newly constructed water lines within the proposed development will be an 8" line within the SW Gallo Avenue right-of-way and a 6-inch line within the private street tract. These newly constructed lines will be extended to the north plat boundary and to the terminus of Tract "B", respectively. NAproj\328-008\Word\Impact Statement,doc ~1 Sanitarv Sewer Svstem Sanitary sewer service is available in SW Tigard Street. We are proposing to use the existing system in Tigard Street to serve this site. An 8" line will be extended from the line in SW Tigard to serve all proposed lots within the development. Noise Impacts No negative noise impacts will result from this project. Noise generated would be typical of a single-family neighborhood. Parks System t Englewood Park is in the immediate vicinity (1/4 to /z mile) of the project site. Jack Park is the next closest park and can also be accessed from 124`x' Avenue, however it is about 1 mile away. PD 'b k 6089 OREGON A-P r r I N:\proj\328-008\Word\Impact Statement.doc 1 y 1 c 1 I • Pre-application Notes I CITY OF T]GARD PRE-APPLI CATION CITY of n"RO: CREWN Coma uni ty Development ing A Better CONFERENCE NOTES Shap Community (Pre-Application Meeting Notes are Valid for Six-(6) Months M~ APPLICANT: w1-26giW1a.-iyt1 AGENT: Mall 5?!'sta`ve. Phone: (5c3) Y5z- acxn Phone: ) PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION: J'I2 ~cA/ l ► i" IL ti6Zvy TAX MAP(S)/LOT #(S). ~S ~ 3 y ~ ~ NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: CS~b~lr-, r5ic.-t) "'ROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: t2 fo'r Svhc~t ✓+5(C;~ o` Z. n ctc.~ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: X1.5 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (C.I.T.) AREA: ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18.5C0.0501(t do c~~c v1) MINIMUM LOT SIZE: "7500 sq. ft. Average Min. lot width: 56 ft. Max. building height: 3d ft. Setbacks: Front 'O ft. Side 5 ft. Rear 15 ft. Corner 15 ft. from street. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: ~1~% . Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: P NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING [Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handouu THE APPLICANT SHALL" NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, THE APPROPRIATE CIT FACILITATOR, AND THE MEMBERS OF ANY LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE(S) of their proposal. A minimum of two (2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting your application or the application will not be accepted. NOTE: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans d t b tt 1 f I A I' tion RESIDENTIAL Examiner is encourage prior o su mi a o a an use app ica CITY OF 71GARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 10 Residential ApprxasonlPlanoing oivision Section NARRATIVE (Refer to Code Chapter 18.390) The APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings based on the applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. The applicant should review the code for applicable criteria. ,FTIMPACT STUDY (Refer to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.390.050) As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to INCLUDE IMPACT STUDY with their submittal package.' The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact. of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. ACCESS [Refer to Chapters 18.705 and 183651 Minimum number of accesses: / pu," Minimum access width: 151 Maximum access width: Minimum pavement width: ' ❑ WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Chapter 183051 ~ Within all ATTACHED HOUSING (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each residential dwelling SHALL BE CONNECTED BY WALKWAY TO THE VEHICULAR PARKING AREA, COMMON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION FACILITIES. I RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7151- SEE EKAMPLE 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: All sensitive lands areas including: 1.'I J'^ , ➢ Land within the 100-year floodplain; 127; q(Z r ➢ Slopes exceeding 25%; _ •25, 49Z I C ao/ Ro ➢ Drainageways; and ➢ Wetlands for the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 zoning districts. 1 Or2~.6 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 i3 , 5~ 9 f°r/ ➢ If available, the actual public facility square footage can be used for deduction. E KAMPLE 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 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 8,712 sg. ft. (20%) for public right-of-way NET. 34,848 square feet - 3.050 (minimum lot area) = mts er cre INulti-Family J 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 6,534 soft (15%) for public right-of-way NET. 37,026 square feet 3,050 minimum lot area 12.1 units er cre * no Development Code requires drat the net site area e4st forme nextwhole dwelling unit. NO ROUNDING UP IS PERMITTED. Minimum Prelect Demsl4l Is 80% of the maldmum allowed denshy. TO DETERMINE THIS STANDARD, MULTIPLY THE MAMMUM NUMBER OF UNITS BY.B. ~ CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 10 Residential AWcatimftnning Division section SPECIAL SETBACKS [Refer to Code Section 183301 ➢ 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. 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 zoning district for the primary structures' setback requirements.) f FLAG LOT BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS [Refer to Code Chapter 183301 MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 1'/2 STORIES or 25 feet, whichever is less in most zones; 2'h stories, or 35 feet in R-7, R-12, R-25 or R-40 zones provided that the standards of Section 18.730.010.C.2 are satisfied. tee; ❑ BUFFERING AND SCREENING [Refer to Code Chapter 18.1451 -s t ujpp"tff In order TO INCREASE PRIVACY AND TO EITHER REDUCE OR ELIMINATE ADVERSE NOISE Sony 1" OR VISUAL IMPACTS between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the 1 CITY REQUIRES LANDSCAPED BUFFER AREAS along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Development Code. The ESTIMATED REQUIRED BUFFER WIDTHS applicable to your proposal area are: feet along north boundary. feet along east boundary. feet along south .boundary. feet along west boundary. IN ADDITION, SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: LANDSCAPING [Refer to Code Chapters 18.745,18365 and 18.7051 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. RECYCLING [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7551 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. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 10 Residential ApplicatlaNPlanning Division Section PARKING [Refer to Code Chapters 18365 a 183051 ALL PARKING AREAS AND DRIVEWAYS MUST BE PAVED. ➢ Single-family............ Requires: One ~1~ o ff-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 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED AS COMPACT SPACES. Parking stalls shall be dimensioned as follows: ➢ Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet. 6 inches X 18 feet, 6 inches. ➢ Compact parking space dimensions: 7 feet. 6 inches X 16 feet, 6 inches. ➢ 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. ❑ BICYCLE RACKS [Refer to Code Section 181651 BICYCLE RACKS are required FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. SENSITIVE LANDS [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7151 Non& ~oJnd f d! Ja 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 PERCENT, OR ON UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will attempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre- application conference based on available. information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely identify sensitive land areas and their boundaries, is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting the definitions of sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans submitted with the development application. Chapter 18.775 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS. ❑ STEEP SLOPES [Refer to Code Section 18.715.080.C1 Nc,:v. 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 Section 18.775.080.C. ❑ CLEANWATER SERVICES 1CWS1 BUFFER STANDARDS (Refer to R a 0 96-441USA Regulations - Chapter 31 LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a )e"f4z' vegetated corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive r dt~,- area. 1^0V r 2.f' Design Criteria: r"6 ~-'ci'f' The VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTH is dependent on the sensitive are The following table identifies the required widths: CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 10, Residential Appkafimeanning Division secdon I • TABLE 3.1 VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTHS r, SOURCE: CWA DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUAL/RESOLUTION & ORDER 96-44 NI ION" EA DEF O*E A S "SLOPE ADJACENT . k, WIDTH OF ',EGETATED " R I T E T,O SENSITIVfE AREA4 CORRIDOR PER SIDES • Streams "with intermittent flow draining: <25% 15 feet 0 10 to <50 acres 25 feet 0 >50 to <100 acres • Existing or created wetlands <0.5 acre 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands >0.5 acre <25% 50 feet • Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow • Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres • Natural lakes and ponds • Streams with intermittent flow draining: >25% 30 feet 0 10 to <50 acres 50 feet it >50 to <100 acres • Existing or created wetlands >25% Variable from 50-200 feet. Measure • Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow in 25-foot increments-from the starting • Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres point to the top of ravine (break in • Natural lakes and ponds <25% slope), add 35 feet.past the top of ravine6 Starting point for measurement = edge of the defined channel (bankful flow) for streams/rivers, delineated wetland boundary, delineated spring boundary, and/or average high water for lakes or ponds, whichever offers greatest resource protection. Intermittent springs, located a minimum of 15 feet within the river/stream or wetland vegetated corridor, shall not serve as a starting point for measurement. 5Vegetated corridor averaging or reduction is allowed only when the vegetated corridor is certified to be in a marginal or degraded condition. 6The vegetated corridor extends 35 feet from the top of the ravine and sets the outer boundary of the vegetated corridor. The 35 feet may be reduced to 15 feet, if a stamped geotechnical report confirms slope stability shall be maintained with the reduced setback from the top of ravine. Restrictions in the Vegetate Corridor: NO structures, development, construction activities, gardens; lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, except as provided for in the USA Design and Construction Standards. Il 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. CWS Service Provider Letter: PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a CWA Service Provider Letter which will outline the conditions necessary to comply with the R&O 96-44 sensitive area requirements. If there are no sensitive areas, CWS must still issue a letter stating a CWS Service Provider Letter is not required. SIGNS (Refer to Code Chapter 183801 SIGN PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGN in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application. may be filed for Director's review. TREE REMOVAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18190.030.CJ 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 dl-ei' opment application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development, or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal where possible. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 10 Residential Applica nlPlmning Division Section 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; ~«dl;A ➢ 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 and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: r . ♦ Retainage of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees; ♦ 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.; ♦ 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. MITIGATION [Refer to Code Secdon 18390.060.0 REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to the following guidelines: ➢ A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. ➢ If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damages is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. ➢ If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: ♦ The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property. ➢ The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. y■ 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. CLEAR VISION AREA [Refer to Code Chapter 183951 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. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 10 Residential AppkabinannhV Division Sedw 1 • • ❑ WATER RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT [Refer to Code Section 183910301 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 Wetlands Inventory. Specifically, this chapter allows reasonable economic use of property while establishing clear and objective standards to: protect significant wetlands and streams; limit development in designated riparian corridors; maintain and enhance water quality; maximize flood storage capacity; preserve native plant cover; minimize streambank erosion; maintain and enhance fish and wildlife habitats; and conserve scenic, recreational and educational values of water resource areas. Safe Harbor: The WR OVERLAY DISTRICT.ALSO MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 5 (Natural Resources) and the "safe harbor' provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 660, Division 23). These provisions require that "significant" wetlands and riparian corridors be mapped and protected. The Tualatin River, which is. also a "fish-bearing stream," has an average annual flow of more than 1000 cfs. Major Streams: Streams which are mapped as "FISH-BEARING STREAMS" by the Oregon Department of Forestry and have an average annual flow less than 1000 cubic feet per second (cfs). ➢ Major streams in Tigard include FANNO CREEK, ASH CREEK (EXCEPT THE NORTH. FORK AND OTHER TRIBUTARY CREEKS) AND BALL CREEK. Minor Streams: Streams which are NOT "FISH-BEARING STREAMS" according to Oregon Department of Forestry maps . Minor streams in Tigard include Summer Creek, Derry Dell Creek, Red Rock Creek, North Fork of Ash Creek and certain short tributaries of the Tualatin River. Riparian Setback Area: This AREA IS MEASURED HORIZONTALLY FROM AND PARALLEL TO MAJOR STREAM OR TUALATIN RIVER TOP-OF-BANKS, OR THE EDGE OF AN ASSOCIATED WETLAND, whichever is ggreater. The riparian setback is the same as the "riparian corridor boundary" in OAR 660-23- 090(1)(d). ➢ The standard TUALATIN RIVER RIPARIAN SETBACK IS 75 FEET, unless modified in accordance with this chapter. ➢ The MAJOR STREAMS RIPARIAN SETBACK IS 50 FEET, unless modified in accordance with this chapter. ➢ ISOLATED WETLANDS AND MINOR STREAMS (including adjacent wetlands) have no riparian setback; however, a 25-foot "water quality buffer" is required under Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) standards adopted and administered by the City of Tigard. y ❑ RIPARIAN SETBACK REDUCTIONS [Refer to Code Section 18397.1001 The DIRECTOR MAY APPROVE A SITE-SPECIFIC REDUCTION OF THE TUALATIN RIVER OR ANY MAJOR STREAM RIPARIAN SETBACK BY AS MUCH AS 50% to allow the placement of structures or impervious surfaces otherwise prohibited by this chapter, provided that equal or better protection for identified major stream resources is ensured through streambank restoration and/or enhancement of riparian vegetation in preserved portions of the riparian setback area. Eli iq bility for Riparian Setback in Disturbed Areas. TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR A RIPARIAN SETBACK REDUCTION, the applicant must demonstrate that the riparian corridor was substantially disturbed at the time this regulation was adopted. This determination must be based on the Vegetation Study required by Section 18.797.100 that demonstrates all of the following: ➢ Native plant species currently cover less than 80% of the on-site riparian corridor area; ➢ The tree canopy currently covers less than 50% of the on-site riparian corridor and healthy trees have not been removed from the on-site riparian setback area for the last five years; CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 7 of 10 Residential Aoica6onlPlannug Division Section ➢ That vegetation was not removed contrary to the provisions of Section 18.797.100 regulating removal of native plant species; ➢ That there will be no infringement into the 100-year floodplain; and ➢ The average slope of the riparian area is not greater than 20%. FUTURE STREET PLAN AND EXTENSION OF STREETS (Refer to Code Section 18.810.030.FJ A FUTURE STREET PLAN shall: s ➢ 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. ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.810.0601 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: Q5 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15-foot wide access easement. The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2Y2 TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the parcel is less than 1'/2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. BLOCKS (Refer to Code Section 18.810.0901 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 330 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. CODE CHAPTERS 18.330 (Conditional use) 18.340 (Director's interpretation) 18.3tO (Planned Development) ? 18.360 (Site Development Review) 18.370 (variances/Adjwtments) 18.380 (zoning Map/Text amendments) 18.385 (Miscellaneous Permits) 18.390 (Decision Making Proceduresnmpact Study) 18.410 (Lot Line Adostments) 18.420 (Land Partitions) 18.430 (subdivisions) i stricts) 18.510 (Residential Zoning D 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts) 18.530 (Industrial zoning Districts) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Residential Applicatior0lanning Division Section 18.620 (Tigard Triangle Design Standards) 18.630 (Washington Square Regional / Center) V/ 18.705 (AccesslEgmsUrculation) 18.710 (Accessory Residential Units) 18.715 (Density Computations) 18.720 (Design Compatibility Standards) 18.725 (Environmental Performance standards) 18.730 (Exceptions To Development Standards) 18.740 (Historic Overlay) 18.742 (Home Occupation Permits) 18.745 (Landscaping & Screening Standards) 18.750 (Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) 18.755 (Mixed solid waste/Recycing Storage) 18.760 (Nonconforming Situations) Z 18.765 (Off-Street Parking/Loading Requirements) - 18.775 (Sensitive Lands Review) 18.780 (signs) 18.785 (remporary Use Permits) 18.790 (Tree Removal) 18.795 (visual clearance Areas) 18.797 (Water Resources (WR) Overlay District) 18.798 (Wireless Communication Facilities) 18.810 (Street & Utility improvement Standards) Page 8 of 10 ADDITIONAL CONCERNS BRBOMME • • 1 IV PROCEDURE ✓ Administrative Staff Review. (5vLsvtVt610:t/7) Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. (PV Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS All APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED BY A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF MEMBER of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications \ submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned The Planning counter closes at 4:00 PM. r CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 9 of 10 Residentiai Application/Planning Division Section The Planning Division and Engineering . Department will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. The administrative decision or public hearing will typically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. A 10-day public appeal .period follow all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would a heard by the Tigard IWL r t lta4 L~ r A basic flowchart which illustrates the review process is available from the Planning Division upon request. Land use applications requiring a public hearing must have notice posted on-site by the applicant no less than 10 days prior to the public hearing. 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. SUBDIVISION PLAT NAME RESERVATION (County Surveyor's Office: 503-648-8884) PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A SUBDIVISION LAND USE APPLICATION with the City of Tigard, applicants are required to complete and file a subdivision plat naming request with the Washington County Surveyor's Office in order to obtain approval/reservation for any subdivision name. Applications will not be accepted as complete until the City receives the faxed confirmation of approval from the County of the Subdivision Name Reservation. 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 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 City's policy is to apply those s~rstem OBTAINED). PER AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS PLEASE NOTE: The conference an noes cannot cover a Code requirements an aspects related to site planning that should a pl to the development of your site plan; Failure of the staff to provide information required by the I odye shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended that a pros ective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions of City sta, relative to Code requirements prior to submitting an application. AN 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 CONFERENCE (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). PREPARED BY: 1 c [ rc CITY OF TIGARD PLAN NG DIVISION - STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP. MEETING PHONE: (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 E-MAIL: (rtes first name)@ci.tigard.or.us TITLE 18 (CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) INTERNET ADDRESS: ci.tiganLomis CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 10 of 10 Residential AWIicationlPlanning Division Section CITY OF TIGARD LAND USE APPLICATION CHECKLIST Tease 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) 6394171. 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 f 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 #10 envelopes for all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property. Mailing envelopes shall be standard legal-size (#10), addressed with 1" x 4" labels (see envelope submittal requirements). Property owner mailing lists must be prepared by the City for a minimal fee (see request for 500' property owner mailing list form). 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): MdVicinity Map 19'/ Preliminary Grading/Erosion Control Plan Existing Conditions Map C~ Preliminary Utilities Plan - Subdivision Preliminary Plat Map Preliminary Storm Drainage Plan ❑ Preliminary Partition/Lot Line Adjustment Plan L9' Tree Preservation/Mitigation Plar(4.4tb0,-,.S,N Re_p,;- ❑ Site Development Plan ❑ Architectural Drawings C Landscape Plan ❑ Sign Drawings [ Public Improvements/Streets Plan 3. NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED 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. i City of Tigard Land Use Application Checklist Page 1 of 5 . • • 1 4. SPECIAL STUDIES AND REPORTS Because of the nature of your project and/or the site you propose to develop, THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL STUDIES WILL BE REQUIRED. These studies must be prepared by certified professionals with experience in the appropriate field: ' Local Streets Traffic Study ❑ Wetlands/Stream Corridor Delineation and Report ❑ Habitat Area Evaluation ❑ Geotechnical Report ❑ Geotechnical Report must address liquefaction potential and soil bearing capacity ❑ Other S4v,w, i,./ "tr cl- •-I'~f•ziv~ it,~,zltLl'i>✓t, c'u[r5• Artx ty~' '*r~~lm tGr 5&& 5. PREPARING PLANS AND MAPS Plans and maps should be prepared at an engineering scale (1" = 10/20/50/100/200') and include a north arrow, legend and date. The same scale should be used for all your plans. Where possible the City prefers the use of a scale that allows a site plan or subdivision plat to be shown on a single sheet.. Architectural drawings may be prepared at an architectural scale. One copy of each plan must be submitted in photo-ready 8Yx 11 format. THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR EACH TYPE OF PLAN (If the plans you submit do not include all of the information requested because you feel it is not applicable, please indicate this and provide a brief explanation). Vicinity Map Showing the location of the site in relation to: Adjacent properties ❑ ♦ Surrounding street system including nearby intersections ❑ Pedestrian ways and bikeways ❑ • Transit stops ❑ • Utility access ❑ Existing Conditions Map Parcel boundaries, dimensions and gross area El Contour lines (2' intervals for 0-10% slopes or 5' for slopes >10%) Drainage patterns and courses on the site and on adjacent lands ❑ Potential natural hazard areas including: ♦ Floodplain areas ❑ Areas having a high seasonal water table within 24" of the surface for three or more weeks of the year ❑ • Slopes in excess of 25% ❑ • Unstable ground ❑ • Areas with severe soil erosion potential ❑ Areas having severely weak foundation soils ❑ • Locations of resource areas including: \A/:1 JI LL L_1-:a_4 - :.d.....t:C. J •L 4 P- L... VVIIUI IIC IIaUIldl 01 eas IUCI Il111CU 111 Li IV %-UIIIPI CI ICI IJIVG an 17_1 U • Wetlands ❑ Other site features: Rock outcroppings ❑ ♦ Trees with 6" caliper measured 4' from ground level ❑ Location and type of noise sources ❑ Locations of existing structures and their uses ❑ Locations of existing utilities and easements ❑ Locations of existing dedicated right-of-ways ❑ City of Tigard Land Use Application Checklist Page 2 of '5 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 d l d bdi id f l ❑ an v e un-su s o Names of adjacent subdivisions or names of recorded owners of adjoining parce n ' ' tervals for i intervals for 0-10% grades and 5 Contour lines related to a City-established benchmark at 2 grades greater than 10% ❑ 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 lines • 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 ❑ 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 ❑ 1 Preliminary Partition/Lot Line Adjustment Plan The owner of the sybject parcel The owner's aut nzed agent The map scale, orth arrow and date Proposed property l Description of parcel location and bourn l~ Contour lines (2' intervals for slopes 0-1b% or 5' for slopes >10%) 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 Location and width of all watercourses Location of any trees with-16" or greater caliper at 4' above ground level All slopes greaterp8lh25% Location of existing and proposed utilities and utility easements Any applicable deed restrictions Evidence that land p-artitier~vui reclude efficient future land division where applicable Future street extension plan showing exi ing and potential street connections City of Tigard Land Use Application Checklist Page 3 of 5 Si te Development Plan The proposed site and surrounding properties ❑ Contour line intervals ❑ The locations, dimensions and proposed names of the following: ♦ Existing and platted ~d streets and other public ways ❑ e"and on adjoining properties ♦ Easements on th I s ❑ ♦ Proposed streets ter public ways and easements on the site O r El ♦ Alternative routes of dead end or proposed streets that require future extensions ❑ The locations and dimensions of t following: ♦ Entrances and exits on the site ❑ ♦ Parking and circulation areas ❑ ♦ Loading and service areas ❑ ♦ Pedestrian and bicycle circulation ❑ ♦ Outdoor common areas ❑ ♦ Above ground utilities ❑ ♦ Trash and recyclable material areas ❑ The locations, dimensions and setback distances of the following: ♦ Existing p rmanent structures, improvements, utilities and easements which are locate on the site and on adjacent property within 25' of the site ❑ ♦ Proposed str tares, improvements, utilities and easements on the site ❑ ♦ Sanitary sewer facile ❑ ♦ Existing or proposed s er reimbursement agreements ❑ ♦ Storm drainage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions ❑ Locations and type(s) gPoutdoor lighting considering crime prevention techniques ❑ The locations of the following: ♦ All areas to be ndscaped ❑ ♦ Mailboxes ❑ ♦ Structures an their orientation ❑ Landscape Plan 1na~v,;je, ~i6L 5v+'+'~/►''urtZt1J( ~LZS : eyttJJ~ b~~! St2t:.& Location of trees to be removed -h r - he M gat. ~ 2+~ SsZL. ❑ Location, size and species of existing plant materials Cc a^ y~ P-+ 04 K415u ho') ❑ General location, size and species of proposed plantmaterials o^ x,,t-pa ruk a /4ye, ~ ❑ Landscape narrative that addresses: ♦ Soil conditions and how plant selections were.derived for them ❑ ♦ Plans for soil treatment such as stockpiling the top soil ❑ ♦ Erosion control measures that will be used ❑ Location and description of the irrigation system where applicable ❑ Location and size of fences, buffer areas and screening ❑ Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and common open spaces ❑ Public Improvements/Streets Plan Proposed right-of-way locations and widths ❑ A scaled cross-section of all proposed streets plus any reserve strips ❑ ' Approximate centerline profiles showing the finished grade of all streets including street extensions for a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision ❑ City of Tigard Land Use Application Checklist Page 4 of 5 Grading/Erosion Control Plan I, The locations and extent to which grading will take place ❑ ■ Existing and proposed contour lines ❑ Slope ratips ❑ IJ 'J ! ^~royP,j~ p~J'O`~ifJll G'v11~j~`l Utilities Plan Approximate plan and profiles of proposed sanitary and storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes indicated on the plans ❑ Plan of the proposed water distribution system, showing pipe sizes and the locations of valves and meter sizes ❑ Fire hydrants (existing and proposed) ❑ Proposed fire protection system ❑ 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 ❑ S1.0w1 yti{~ur"i1f`rzt~ loca-ho n -vP 4Y\ee, Architectural Drawings Floor plans indicating the sgdare footage of all structures and their proposed use ❑ Elevation drawings foy each elevation of the structure ❑ Sign Drawings / Specify proposed location, size and height ❑ 1 1 i:\;curpln\masters\revised\checklist.doc 18-Sep-01 City of Tigard Land Use Application Checklist Page 5 of 5 0 i 1 w r t Quality j Detention Calculations Water 1 Is WATER QUALITY SWALE CALCULATIONS JOB NUMBER: 328-008 PROJECT: Cascadian Place FILE: REFERENCES: 1. Clean Water Services R&O 00-7. 2. Discussions with Clean Water Services. REQUIRED WATER QUALITY TREATMENT: 65% Phosphorus Remova PROPOSED TREATMENT METHODS: 1. Sumped Catch Basins 15% 2. Bio-Filtration Swale 50% total 65% DESIGN STORM: Precipitation: 0.36 inches Storm Duration: 4 hours Storm Return Period: 96 hours Storm Window: 2 weeks IMPERVIOUS AREA: Watershed Area: 2.92 acres Percent imp: 39.5 % Impervious Area: 1.15 acres Design Inflow = (1.15 ac)*(43560 ft^2/ac)*(0.36 in / 4.0 hrs) cfs BIOFILTRATION SWALE DESIGN CRITERIA: Max Velocity: 0.9 ft/s Side Slopes: 4 :1 (treatment area) Base: 2 feet (2' min) n Factor: 0.18 (plantings) SWALE CHARACTERISTICS: 1 Q= 0.10 Design Storm Discharge (determined above) N= 0.18 Plantings B= 2 ft Base width of channel Z= 4 :1 Side slopes SLOPE= 0.005 ft/ft Slope of channel (0.005 minimum) ASS. Y= 0.5 ft Assumed depth to begin analysis (0.5 ft maximum) cascadian SWALEI.xls\ SWALE 03/08/2002 3:35 PM ITERATIVE SOLUTION OF MANNING'S EQUATION FOR NORMAL DEPTH: ITERATION Y (FT) 1 0.50 P (FT) 6.12 A(FTZ) 2.00 R 0.33 Q (CFS) 0.56 % ERROR 455.22 V (FPS) 0.28 2 0.16 3.31 0.42 0.13 0.06 -37.83 0.15 3 0.22 3.81 0.63 0.17 0.11 11.04 0.18 4 0.20 3.68 0.58 0.16 0.10 -2.42 0.17 5 0.21 3.71 0.59 0.16 0.10 0.57 0.17 6 0.21 3.70 0.58 0.16 0.10 -0.13 0.17 7 0.21 3.71 0.59 0.16 0.10 0.03 0.17 8 0.21 3.71 0.58 0.16 0.10 -0.01 0.17 9 0.21 3.71 0.58 0.16 0.10 0.00 0.17 i 10 0.21 3.71 0.58 0.16 0.10 0.00 0.17 ' 11 0.21 3.71 0.58 0.16 0.10 0.00 0.17 12 0.21 3.71 0.58 0.16 0.10 0.00 0.17 13 0.21 14 0.21 3.71 3.71 0.58 0.58 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 15 0.21 3.71 0.58 0.16 0.10 0.00 0.17 NORMAL DEPTH = 0.21 ft FLOW WIDTH = 3.66 ft VELOCITY = 0.17 ft/s TREATMENT TIME = 9 min TREATMENT LEN(zTH 9232 ft LOW FLOW ORIFICE CALCULATIONS loot 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 = &0 $ 2gh Q= 0.10 cfs (Design Discharge form above) A = Cross sectional area of orifice Ca = orifice coefficient = 0.62 g = gravity (32.2 ft/sec2) h = average hydraulic head = 6 inches below high flow $ _ 4 & 0 2 gh A = 0.03 ft2 A=7C r2 r= 0.10 ft. radius d=2r d = 2.28 in. diameter, use cascadian SWALEI.xls\ SWALE 03/08/2002 3:35 PM WW' 4W on, fm Hydrograph Summary Report M- go an N. M 0110 oft an so Page 1 Hyd. No. Hydrograph type (origin) Peak flow (cfs) Time interval (min) Time to peak (min) Volume (cult) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) Maximum storage (cuft) Hydrograph description 1 SBUH Runoff 2.08 6 480 30,843 - post 2 SBUH Runoff 1.69 6 480 25,913 - pre 3 Reservoir 1.59 6 492 30,843 1 189.58 2,201 Thru basin Proj. file: cascadian place.gpw Return Period: 25 yr Run date: 03-08-2002 0 0 1 11 t Subdivision Name APPxoval it, -18 02 09:03 FROM: • TO:9~034528043 PAGE:01/02 jan'18, 2002 8:56AM - 97 M. RAJ r ~ nwi , I:.,.,.,, , ..4 sUauE:YM sea-Sei -e9a9 To: ALPHA No , 4473 FP ~I , WASHINGTON COUNTY LAND OF AND TRANSPORTATION SURVEYOR'S OFFICE 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 I request that the Washington- County $tirveyor's 0Mce reserve the following subdivision name: PROPOSED NAME OF SUBQIVISION: 6ascae'-&Ln MAP AND TAX LOT NUMSER: / S 13 ~ OC. ~~av CITY JURISDIC ON (Which City?) OR 000NTY JURISDICTION: r--- SURVEYOR'S NAME= n OWNER'S NAME: I understand that if the name is not used within two years, it -will be automatically canceled. Name of person reserving n rns: Address; Q Telephone number: D - f- Fax number- ,fA_ ~ y - Signature Date: / -'T- r-)Z I • I v2 'SU 3- ~y 6 - ~Z.S Name app o ed Washington County Surveyor's Office f55 North First Avenue, Suite 35a-15 Hillsboro, OR 97123 Fax: 60 -2509 P:%5MANED\SURvEY\wP$HARB\SUSNAME DOC Arborist's Report/Tree Protection & Removal Plan (To be submitted) Tide Information Chicago Title Insurance Company PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT September 28, 2001 To: Chicago Title Insurance Co. 10001 SE Sunnyside Rd. 0110 Clackamas, OR 97015 Attention: Tammy Weaver t Phone No: 503-794-5860 I Standard Owners Coverage I Service Fee 1 1 $ 25.00 We are prepared to issue a title insurance policy in ALTA (1992) form and amount shown above insuring the title to the property described herein. This report is preliminary to the issuance of a policy of title insurance and shall become null and void unless a policy is issued, and the full premium therefore paid. Vestee: CHIK CHOR LAI and SING LAI, not as tenants in common but with the right of survivorship I Dated as of: September 24, 2001 at 8:00 A.M. Subject to the exceptions, exclusions, conditions and stipulations which are part of said policy, and to exceptions as shown herein. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON By. ` Tony Schadl Title Officer 10001 S.E. Sunnyside Road Clackamas, OR 97015 (503) 653-7300 ISTIONS CONCERNING THE CLOSING OF THIS TRANSACTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO YOUR ROW OFFICER, Tammy Weaver, at phone 503-794-5860 and fax number 503-353-1458. Order No: 234687 Escrow No: 4500-42834-TW Ref: Lai/Alpha Eng. $ 400,000.00 Premium $ 995.50 (Short term rate applied $ 154.50) 1 Order No: 234687 DESCRIPTION (Continued) GENERAL EXCEPTIONS (Standard Coverage Policies only) 1. a. Taxes or_assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. ti b. Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. a. Easements, liens,.encumbrances, interests or claims thereof which are not .shown by the public records. b. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. 4. a. Unpatented mining claims; b. Reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; c. Water rights, claims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the public records. 1 5. Any lien or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. s I Order No: 234687 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 6. Taxes for the fiscal year 2001-2002, a lien but not yet payable. 7. The premises.herein described are within and subject to the statutory powers including the power of assessment of Clean Water Services. 8. City liens, if any, of the City of Tigard. (An inquiry has been directed to the City Clerk concerning the status of said liens and a report will follow if such liens are found.) 9. The rights of the public in and to that portion of the premises herein described - lying within the limits of SW Tigard St. 10. Trust Deed, including the terms and provisions thereof, given to secure an indebtedness with interest thereon and such future advances as may be provided therein; Dated: November 3, 1999 Recorded: November 24, 1999 Recorder's-Fee No.: 99 130826 Amount: $228,800.00 Grantor: Chik Chor Lai, an unmarried individual and Sing Lai, a married man as his separate estate Trustee: Transnation Title Insurance Company, an Arizona corporation Beneficiary: Washington Mutual Bank Loan No.: 01-0230-000920614-5 NOTE: Taxes for the fiscal year 2000-2001, paid in full; Amount: $3,614.94 Levy Code: 023-74 Account No.: R269872 Map No.: IS134DC Tax Lot No.: 00200 NOTE: Any transfer of the herein described property is subject to the payment of Washington County Transfer Tax at the rate of $1.00 per $1,000.00 or fraction thereof of stated consideration. i il t i ar o: nst name s m NOTE: We find the following unsatisfied judgment aga Alpha Engineering, Inc. A judgment for the amount herein stated and any other amounts due; Case No.: 0001234CV Entered: July 5, 2000 Amount: $139,930.06 judgment and $222.12 court costs Debtor: Nathan Michael Gates dba Alpha Engineering Inc. Creditor: Karen Hagenauer (Cont inued) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Order No: 234687 • • SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS (Continued) NOTE: An inquiry of the Corporation Department of the State of Oregon reveals Alpha Engineering, Inc., is the assumed business name of Palmer & Associates, Inc., an Oregon corporation. END OF REPORT CC: Alpha Engineering, Inc. Chik and Sing Lai TS/j n September 27, 2001 Order No: 234687 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL I: A tract of land in the J.L. Hicklin Donation Land Claim No. 54, Section 34, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian,.in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at an iron pipe at the Northeasterly corner of a two-acre tract of land, said iron pipe being South 502.44 feet and South 89041' East 378.9 feet from the Northwest corner of the J.L. Hicklin Donation Land Claim No. 54, Township 1 South, ' Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon, and going thence from said iron pipe and true point of beginning South 481.21 feet to an iron pipe on the Northerly line in a 40.0 foot roadway; thence continuing South 20.0 feet to center line; thence on center line South 89°51' East 260.90 feet to a point ;thence North 20.0 feet to an iron pipe on aforesaid Northerly line; thence continuing North 480.63 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 89041' West 260.90 feet to the true point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the portion described in Deed to James H. Morrison, et ux, recorded in BoQk 402, Page 431, Deed Records Washington County, Oregon. PARCEL II: A tract of land in the J.L. Hicklin Donation Land Claim No. 54, in Section 34,Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon. described as follows: Beginning at an iron pipe at the Northwesterly corner of a three-acre tract of land, said iron pipe being South 502.44 feet and South 89041' East 639.80 feet from the Northwest corner of the J.L. Hicklin Donation Land Claim No. 54, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon, ' and going thence from said iron pipe and true point of beginning, South 430.63 feet to an iron pipe on the Northerly line of a 40.0 foot roadway; thence continuing South 20.0 feet East to a point on the center line; thence along center line South 89051' East 98.56 feet to a point; thence North 20.0 feet to an iron pipe on aforesaid ~j. Northerly line; thence continuing North 480.4 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 89041' West 98.50 feet to the true point of beginning. t 1 1 174.30 989-40.17E b06r . D1~ I v3,y` ~ 2>,N 780 , r % eia4c>X ;;n 8134 { 8 ODD, 10>#. Sw, ,48 3 ir9a~s1-39w' pAa•si %le@ saafew ; E4.90, 1 1.11 ;A 7 All 9TERLY / . i 200 I 2.92 AC I 400 l$ a 9 1.85 AC 190.80 o vl$ a $ 389.41-ODE = I I z - 600 I 1.04 AC w a, Ln o I 2 AdML 3 91 t 4 C ~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'cis\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~ ~i .~\\~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\b\\\\\\\~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ 3 9 -5 43 ~0 72,00 78.00 93.04 60 , ~J 88.99 65.09 s0 50' 9♦~od ^y ♦ 69.91 ~ m '400 700 800 n ^ 1 2900 c Zy 4900 g 2800 m 8400 n I W 17 e m o 00 co 38.00 0 15 w ( 87 103.00 W 26 w 90.00 181.1 1 c 65.69 ---4700 p V w % 8300 a ~ 300 2 ca Q ~ 4901 2801 Q 14 155.13 a , r m iR ♦ n ^ 111.13 125.90 l.i+ N / c's • b 6 ° 8200' m 13 x 00 mob' a 11x 57 ltd 4600 u N N 50 y♦ . 3 J 0 25 7000 °s n 8100 0 m 120.00 116.03 138.00 , '4 C^ 12 50 m 14500 24 0 N 7100 o ° 2 110.21 0 4 120.00 i o0 0 ti 8000 . O m 11 a CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 00 J J J`' 3 ~ C- .00 N Q a 7900 tL1 ' - Map number id in locating l0 6 10 C1 This plat is for your a to streets and 16 16 o 21 your land with reference i 00 . s others parcels. While this plat r w 00 believed to be correct, the c nY h a 9 a assumes no liability for any lass o r occurring by reason of reliance ^n'~O thereon. 9000 8900 6 m, 5 800 a ? 4 0 ~ c 60 105.07 M N~ w 8700 7 0 a r,/ o 3 ~ Q n , 138.00 a 8600 Z s 2 m 138,00 8500 5D' a 1 i 9 , ' 120.97 y r'w Q 3• ~ -6 72.00 I 72.00 I I I 72.00 I I I I I I C~ I I I I I ~ 6 5 I 4 l I 1 I I Reduced Plan Sets 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CASCA IAN PLACE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT III Poo-III Subdivision I I I I Washington County, City of Tigard, Oregon Sheet Index: 1. Preliminary Plat 2. Existing Conditions 3. Grading & Drainage 4. Street/Utility Plan 5. Tree Preservation/ Building Envelope Plan 6. Circulation Plan 7. Street Profiles W Q 0I I I I - m - - N_=Wor w _ N m - _ 7,o o 1713 S T w -T ± i u 6,BM SF I 1,259 SF 4 II ' 10.1957 SF ul C I ' al ~ I Project Team: ~U J 70 - - _ V 9.135 SF mi OWNER z r r TRACT "B" ±`a54 4 5. ~ PRIVATE DRIVE c7 CHIK CHOR AND SING LAI - 5 y _ 140 9360 SE 92ND A VE. sr ,,p• ~.z9 0 - - I Portland, OR. 97266 I y" iK 5 ai APPLICANT q° ° q° I p ry SA" SF I 7.900 s I 12 1 t 7'~ S` I AEI DEVELOPMENT, INC S S 3 "`S0 s s t I$ 9600 SW OAK, SUITE 230 o m o 'II - - - - - I PORTLAND, OR. 97223 I I I 7 PH: (503)452-8003 w p p °g I I a 4 I I CONTACT AL DECK I I 7,5W SF b~ APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE s SS14'50' E 19 - - 1t1 - - ALPHA ENGINEERING, INC. 190'7s y 9600 SW OAK, SUITE 230 3 PORTLAND, OR. 97223 T 7.550 SF h I PH. (503)452-8003 ~I of FAX..-(503)452-8043 CONTACT.- MATTHEW L SPRAGUE 's UTILITIES & SERVICES WATER: CITY OF TTGARD WATER DISTRICT t 2 0l ` I STORM: UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY 7.700 SF ' SCALE 1 = 407 SEWER: UNIRED SEWERAGE AGENCY I - POWER: PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC I GAS NORTHWEST NATURAL I s FIRE.. 7UALA17N VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE 7 I ' POLICE CITY OF TIGARD POLICE DEPT d U s I ` 7 SCHOOLRGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT W t.. PARKS CITY OF TIGARD g TRACT "A" 7 t t AI I PHONE. GENERAL TELEPHONE 49Q s 190/DE4 I NOTES: Q Q Z o SITE AREA: 2.92 ACRES Q L _ _ 'r 40, 10'ROAD ~nON ZONING: R-4.5 J Q ~ S IS1/1Y E n TAX MAP: 1S1 340C W - U 16097 TAX LOT.- 100 A S.W.TIGARDSTREET - - A _ - - - - - NUMBER OF LOTS 12 d - A A W BENCHMARK: y i v I I y I w WASHINGTON COUNTY BENCHMARK NO.168 < g A BRASS DISC SET IN CURB AT THE SOUTHWEST 2r I CORNER OF 121ST & MERESTONE COURT 47 FEET SOUTH OF THE C OF MERESTONE CT 21 FEET WEST OF THE C OF 121ST AVE ELEVATION = 173.148 y r ° a00ECTCAWAL16N 7UCE N0. 07!401 TYPE RMM10 .I ! ! ! w = ~ r g r vans ~ g 01'26'S8~ 210 V n~ll / ~ / / ~ C ~ (n tl z o n ~ v / c ~ ~ q4 u ' ~ ~ fKKkRRA.""!! aaii x m I~ r 1 a / i f^ I a l r~ / Q 23e.4' tip j 1 r n~ mow' / III ~ 1 I1 ~ ~ I i ~ 1` ~ \ . ~ ~ ~ 312 t .-.'~.-,N_ LL ~ ~ i ilk ~ i ~ 1 " b~ r 11 ~ w► y' j 1 ~ 1 / v~VE u ' I I A ! J I I rr v x oil p9e l I5 480.32'. I~ Q~) 25 i ~g N01'321~~ I~ o ~ i\ ~ y 1 ~ yI w I I I I ' r v 7s m m a ~ z z ~ o°- ~ ' C z D m ~ N ~ ,gyp so 00 1 30r 20' 13TH ~ ~L _ _ Jli • ~~J GS 1 11 r ' I. i 2;2.93' 25'58 r_ " Q 1 / - 1 G p z Sw GALLS A Y yy~ y AF / U / / i 212 I/ 1 1 53 h t 1 Q 1J 1j 67 . t 1 1 ' 1 i i t J~ 1* ~ ~L _ ~l17! r 11 ~1 - _ _ 1 1 1 r1 Ln tt 1 1--~ It t I r -1 I I ~ 1 1 r 1~ r 1 1 i It tl ` j r 1= 1 r 1 ilt 1 t r 40 1/ 1 Igp of N I` y; 1 i t 1 t J, 1 _ \@ 1 •r ~ ' ' ~ 0132'1 ~t + ~ \ q 1 _ . i ~ I ' r 1 0 ` N N N 1 ~4 Z m S~ Z n 1 1 1 I N 88!9'07• W I MI ~ I• 9 "I I 8 N I 1 VISION CLEARANCE TRIANGLE S co 360.04 7 I 6 VISON I I I CLEARANCE TRIANGLE , . m . 10 11 12 1 1 . I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 5 8814'50• E 190.75' i m 11 I II m n I . I o 11 I N I I 1 a 1 I ~ 1 1 ~ W n I OND VOLUME= z 1 5000 CFS± 1 TRACT "A" I WQ/DET. CLEARANCE TRIANGLE I cB - 1- ~m11. i9s19 ~ _ R s - --fir-pro _ >r~r - E S.W. TIGARD STREET ; W-wWW..~ w~ w ; -W_" W F- - m STOW W ra U 9A1- 191.3) Q cA +9'(L 5} ,94a~ co 0. m STREET UTILITY PLAN I I 111, 1 I I I I 1 I I I 5 1 n m -•I I I 4 I I 1 1 I 1 I 3 I I I - - J 2 , I n SCALE: 1" = 10 1 ^ 4F0.YC o I 2 I 1 I 1 I VISION 1 CLEARANCE , R TRIANGLE I -ss- s- - ss- --ss- -sue -ss- MM- W I D z W ~II I 30 15 0 LEGEND 8"SS>---m SANITARY SEWER 10"SD STORM DRAIN 8"W- WRIER LINE FIRE HYDRANT siM l/19 I " 4 S ~i m Z a N 5 K a a a a a 0 0 0 ~ >m e WG' ~ w ~ U 0 0 0 D V Q J a J o. z ~ Q ~ U F" Q W U ~q* oN N0. SlCD! TYPE PLARM GALLO AVENUE SECTION PRIVATE STREET SECTION TIGARD STREET SECTION N 4 r I~ I~ I I n I CIRCULATION PLAN' _ `:LW r----~---- a n n ~a , m K n nm I I I y a l SW NORTH DAKOTA STREET I I I I I --I-- I I I - - - - - - I I I II I I ~ I®I I I I I I l r I I®I 77 I I I I L-J I I I I I®I ~ I I I L I i It , _ LI.___ II J I I II I I - - -rAr T. - I J~I ~ jl I I I II I I I®I A O 5tD I LEGEND VEHICULAR & PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION - - - iM Or Atl - i I "1" 1 O~G II I 1=1 I FUTURE VEHICULAR & PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION Pilo II qoso~ - - - rox LOT NPI- r , i /_,'I\ I y I ra wr sm 1 I o L_J I I I - - -i,U LOT i100 - ~ it! \ I II , . r , I I I ' I~/ , wl I I rumTNro I I I I I l a I -LOT o l I rA1 LOT 500 I I I , I ar 'gwl I I I I L__J 7A1101 aro I W LOT 1IW LOT aaD DX LOT 7W I I m L°-`_j L°'J I I r--, I I r-- --I I ~ - -I- - - r- - L-- I I 7 I~ I I I -----I I I I- - - - - r-g 7_ anRTRACT ATEO n TAfLOr101 o I~ I L I i i i T 5 I I I f io i I I n I i 12 J ' i I --_L~- i I I I I I ' 4 I I -I I I I ~ ' I I - - _ - - I ---I I I I I o~ i I J s It I I I .,,,o¢A I j, Pm" ca I I I I I I--J I---~ ; Y I l CMRCH I L_ J I I % I SCALE- 1° =50' L TRACT 'A' WQ/oET. Ta lor oo TAT LOT 4W I - - - I w nrem - - - - - - - -----L--------~= - - - : J <W. TIWRD STREET ~E m 0 s a m tftt F F F r 0 0 o tt > r m o m m o F O O K V! Z g EL v z :5 o a Q ~ o UIY v U A V.-C O :N . . . r m1 r = . m . m . m . . . . . i Y tl N ti 8 k 8 x I Y 8 Q SHEET DESIGNED BY NEH DATE NO. DATE REVISION BY DRAWN BY- DATE_1LOg_ 7 STREET PROF= REVIEWED BY LU DATE OF PROJECT NO. ~ REF. G9 7 CAEIM PLACE SCALE Kf-w V. r4 Mr ALMUL ~-•Qt f Lugo 1p0 on= 000-40-am a M sOh40-1111MIll pan 9mr+ sDm 990 - 9909 " On & /'D)< =M 9r, r u A AGENDA ITEM NO. 4• °2 • • Depending on the number of people wishing to testify, the Tigard Hearing's Officer may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Hearing's Officer may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Hearing's Officer to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO.: 2.2 DATE: JUNE 24, 2002 FILE NAME: VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET STATION CASE NOS.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2002-00004 ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2002-00012 APPLICANT: WFI/Verizon Wireless OWNER: Larry & Cindy Anderson Attn: Shanin Prusia 11355 SW Tigard Street 4520 SW Water Avenue, #201 E Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97201 REQUEST: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use Approval to construct a 60-foot- high lattice telecommunications facility on the property and an Adjustment to allow the tower to be located closer to the property line. LOCATION: 11355 SW Tigard Street; WCTM 1S134DC, Tax Lot 600. ZONE: R-4.5, Low-Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, .18.795, 18.798, and 18.810. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR THE AGENDA ITEM INDICATED DIRECTLY ABOVE. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.2 (PAGE I of I • DATE: JUNE 24, 2002 PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE Proponent - (Speaking in Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) me, Address, Zip Co a and Phon No Name, Address, Zip Code and Pho a No. / e ~t Q✓ 2 ie'x III _7 t y _ Na ress, ip Code and Phone No. IA.~ 6 n rG s/ 4.,- Iw Nam V, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. K 1 S a 7c, eS . v- ver, d+ ~ t H (o-7 Sw Tw. r-, ?e c-k V'1 2,01e J 0/ 0Q- 0-1-1223 503-G0S-9Q,31 Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. AttIe,'m M• 4j-;57 ~ ~Ar ~l ~pnlA , c Z o - ~ 2Y o G 72 (off Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Add es ip C de and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zi Code and Phone No. mpu-S(" vCove v,s kryN ~ r, ~ I~Sa SIN ~~rGreS Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, r7ss,iZip ogle and Pho~p"e No. I V~c 97zv 3 Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address i p Co a and Phone No. r4,14 - ~ No I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Nam A dress Z W a Phone No. 9 9 -7ZIzA 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 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503)684-0360 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising City of Tigard ' ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 STN Hall. Blvd. • Tigard , Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit Accounts Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Ti ga rd -Tu a 1 at i n T, a newspaper of general circula>rgpn as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at ligar in the aforesaid county and state; that the Public Hearina/CUP2002-00004 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONTF successive and consecutive in the following issues: June 6,2002 Legal NoticeTT 10034 SEAL SUZETTEI1.LCURRAN s1N NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 329400 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 28, 2003 S E I. ;_iJR~ f NCt)~1:1f;Y aiiiiLIC or;t=f..":*1 MYCOMhtiSSlii.. ` )Et3 Subscribed and sworn to befo?4 me this 6th day of June, 2 0 0 2 ~nAeAn 0_Qk (X AA ~wv p Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: ` d'v()~ AFFIDAVIT i • The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Monday June 24, 2002 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.390. Testimony may be submitted in writing prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence suf- ficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on that issue. Failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are avail- able for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Brad Kilby) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 503-639-4171. ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2002-00012 ESS TIGARD STREET STATION < REQUEST: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use approval to construct a 60-foot high lattice telecommunications facility on the property and an Adjustment to allow the tower to be located closer to the property line. LOCATION: 11355 SW Tigard Street; WCTM 1 S 134DC, Tax Lot 600. ZONE: R-4.5: Low- Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted con- ditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795, 18.798, and 18.810. •ION"T N" CUP2002-00004 VAR2002-00012 VERIION WIRELESS TIGM STREET STATION TT 10084 - Publish June 6, 2002. • BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application for a conditional use pen-nit and an ) F I N A L O R D E R adjustment (variance) for a 60-foot tall tower for cellular ) CUP 02-0004 telephone antennas and an accessory structure in the R-4.5 ) VAR 02-0012 zone at 11355 SW Tigard Street in the City of Tigard, OR ) (Verizon/Tigard Street) A. SUMMARY 1. The applicant, WFI/Verizon Wireless, requests approval of a Type III conditional use permit for a 60-foot tall lattice tower that will support an antenna array of up to six antennas ranging from 4 to 8 feet in height for cellular telephone services and a related 12- foot x 28-foot equipment building and associated development. The proposed tower and accessory building will be situated in a roughly 2,000-square foot leased area in the extreme northeast corner of a one-acre parcel at 11355 SW Tigard Street; also known as tax lot 600, WCTM 1S134CD (the "site"). The site now contains a single-family dwelling and accessory uses. The applicant proposes to enclose the leased area with a sight-obscuring fence, built of chain-link with wooden slats and with arborvitae shrubs except shrubs will not be used at the access gate on the south side of the enclosure. Existing vegetation within and around the enclosure will be retained, including several large Douglas firs, to buffer the tower from surrounding properties. The tower also will be painted a matte brown color to further blend in with its surroundings. The applicant will place gravel over the remainder of the fenced enclosure. 2. The applicant proposes to provide a 12-foot vehicular access drive within a 15- foot easement extending from the south side of the fenced enclosure to SW Tigard Street along the east lot line of the site, removing all vegetation there. Tigard Community Development Code (CDC) 18.765.040.B(5) requires that access drives be paved in concrete or asphalt. The applicant wants to use gravel on the driveway, so as not to create additional impervious surface on the site, but did not apply for a variance under Chapter 18.370. 3. The applicant requests a Type II adjustment under CDC 18.370.020.C(8)(a) to place the tower closer to two property lines than the required setback. CDC 18.798 requires a tower in a residential zone to be set back from property lines a distance at least equal to the height of the tower; in this case 60 feet. The applicant proposes to set back the tower about 15 feet from the north lot line, about 27 feet from the east lot line, and more than 60 feet from the west and south lot lines. 4. Tigard Hearings Officer Larry Epstein (the "hearings officer") conducted a duly noticed public hearing to receive testimony and evidence in the matter. City staff recommended conditional approval of the application. The applicant testified in support of the application. The property owner offered written testimony. Seven persons testified orally against the application, and two of these also submitted written testimony. The hearings officer held open the public record for 14 days to allow the parties to offer additional written testimony and evidence. The principal disputed issues in this case include the following: a. Whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed tower location complies with the adjustment criteria in CDC 18.370.020.C(8)(a) and the conditional use standards in CDC 18.330.030; b. Whether the proposed tower should be a monopole rather than a lattice structure in order to minimize visual impacts on surrounding property owners; Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 02-00041VAR 02-0012 (Verizon Wireless) Page • • c. Whether access from the site to SW Tigard Street should be restricted or alternative access provided to reduce the potential and significance of adverse impacts, including loss of existing vegetation that otherwise would buffer the tower. 5. In this final order, the hearings officer approves the conditional use permit and partially grants the adjustment to reduce the tower setback based on the findings and conclusions included and incorporated herein and subject to conditions at the end of this final order. B. HEARING AND RECORD 1. The hearings officer received testimony at the public hearing about this application on June 24, 2002. All exhibits and records of testimony are filed with the Tigard Department of Community Development. At the beginning of the hearing, the hearings officer made the declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex pane contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. The hearings officer disclosed his familiarity with the site and invited witnesses to question and rebut his observations. He also disclosed that he has extensive expertise and knowledge related to wireless telecommunication facilities, having represented private clients and prepared zoning regulations for such facilities for over 20 years. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected testimony offered at the public hearing in this matter. 2. City planner Brad Kilby summarized the Staff Report to the Hearings Officer dated June 10, 2002 (the "Staff Report"). He briefly summarized the proposal and indicated that the staff recommended approval of the proposed tower with the adjustment for the proposed location, subject to several conditions of approval. The most important of these included the submission of a noise study to illustrate that the operation of the proposed facility at this location will comply with the City's noise standards, per CDC 18.798.060; submission of a revised landscaping plan to intensify the landscaping on the eastern property line; submission of a revised street plan per the requirements of CDC 18.745.040; and submission of a tree protection plan per the requirements of CDC 18.790. City staff did not support the applicant's request to use gravel rather than a more permanent surface such as asphalt or concrete as required by CDC 18.765. 3. The hearings officer asked the City staff if consideration had been given to requiring access to the facility from SW Gallo Avenue, the new street serving the Cascadian Place Subdivision, rather than SW Tigard Street, because it appears to be more direct. Mr. Kilby responded that the City had not considered this because the application for the subdivision was not processed, and it was not known whether the subdivision would be approved. The hearings officer then established that the subdivision's owners had agreed to dedicate both the proposed street and the intervening stormwater facility, so that implementing a revised access from the site to SW Gallo would be relatively easy. 4. Shanin Prusia represented the applicant, WFI/Verizon. She described the site search ring for this facility and concluded that there were no non-residential sites that met Verizon's technical requirements. She also testified that there were no other towers within 2,000 feet and that the proposed facility would be engineered to accommodate a second user. She further noted that the applicant had selected the proposed location of the fenced enclosure in collaboration with the lessor, because its topography and vegetation provided the best place on the subject parcel to minimize visual impacts both from the lessor's and off-site dwelling units. She said that using the lessor refused to allow use of the existing driveway for access to the enclosure, so the applicant was proposing a separate access road along the east edge of the site. She reiterated the request to permit the use of gravel on the Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 02-00041VAR 02-0012 (Verizon/ligard Street) Page 2 access drive instead of concrete or asphalt. The hearings officer asked her how many trees would be affected by the proposal. She responded that all of the trees within and immediately adjacent to the fenced enclosure would be preserved. However, four trees along the east lot line would be removed to make way for the access drive to SW Tigard Street. The hearings officer asked if the applicant would oppose an alternative access to SW Gallo Avenue, provided it was constructed in time, as this would eliminate the need to remove trees. She responded that the applicant would not object to that access but that construction for the proposed tower was scheduled for the first quarter of 2003, which may be before SW Gallo Avenue is completed. 5. Seven persons testified against the proposed use: James Kiehlbauch, Kisa Jones, Allister Jeck, Marsha Jurgenson, Valli Kiehlbauch, Gary Tannby and Cindy Anderson. These witnesses expressed similar concerns, which are summarized below: a. The proposed location in the extreme northeast corner of the site is not justified as it does not meet the approval criterion that the selected location equally or better reduce the visual impacts on off-site residences than a location that meets the minimum required setbacks, that is, at least the height of the tower. Due to the lack of mature trees on the east side of the enclosure and the loss of several trees further to the south to accommodate the proposed access road, there would be substantial off-site visual impacts, particularly for existing and future residences to the east. Therefore, the applicant fails to meet one of the approval criterion for granting the adjustment. b. Doubts were voiced by several opponents about the sufficiency of the applicant's contention regarding the structural integrity of the proposed structure. One opponent alleged that debris from a failed tower falling within the fenced enclosure, as is the applicant's contention, was not the same thing as "collapsing upon itself', an approval criterion for granting the adjustment. Another pointed out that the applicant's consulting structural engineer only evaluated the tower and not the tower with the antennas and lightning rod attached. Several opponents argued that in its current configuration, the tower is closer to existing and proposed off-site residents than to the lessor's home, placing these dwellings at greater risk in case of tower failure. One opponent argued the City should conduct its own engineering study to assess the proposed tower's structural integrity. c. One opponent questioned the staff's calculation of the proportion of trees removed because of disease or structural instability as only 16%, less than the 25% trigger for mitigation. His calculation is that the number of trees removed is 30% of total number of trees on the site, which warrants the planting of additional replacement trees. He asked that staff reconfirm its calculation. In any event, if the adjustment is granted, additional landscaping on the north and east property lines is warranted to reduce visual impacts. d. Concern was raised that the applicant had failed to submit a noise study to demonstrate that the equipment in the accessory building will not exceed the maximum day/night noise standards established in the Community Development Code. The applicant should be required to do this prior to approval. e. One opponent argued that a 60-foot tower was inadequate for collocation because a second provider lower on the tower would have its signals blocked in some directions by trees. The hearings officer noted that collocation is not required, only encouraged by CDC 18.798. f. Several people noted that a monopole is preferable to a lattice structure, as it would have less visual impact and would be less dangerous in the event of a failure. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 02-00041VAR 02-0012 (Verizon/ligard Street) Page 3 g. Several other issues were raised by the opponents but the hearings officer ruled that these were irrelevant, because they did not specifically pertain to the applicable approval criteria. 6. Mr. Kilby clarified that the City had not required the applicant to build a lattice tower. Planning manager Dick Bewersdorff responded that the City does not have the internal expertise to conduct an independent engineering study nor the budget to hire a consulting engineer. 7. Ms. Prusia testified for the applicant in rebuttal. a. She indicated that the tower would be constructed to accommodate the antennas for a second provider at a lower level on the tower, but there is insufficient space within the proposed enclosure to accommodate a second accessory building the size of Verizon's. The lessor is unwilling to expand the leased area to include space for a second accessory building, but might change his mind at a later date. However, there may be space within the enclosure for a smaller equipment cabinet. b. The applicant would have preferred to use a monopole at this location but was told at the Pre-Application Conference that monopoles were prohibited. c. The applicant is aware of the needs to meet the City's maximum day/night noise standards at the property line. She assured the hearings officer that the applicant would undertake the noise study and implement any necessary remediation with the understanding that it could not build and operate the facility if it failed to bring the noise down to acceptable limits. d. She contended that the structural engineering study was adequate and would submit the full study to the record to substantiate this. e. She further contended that the proposed site was selected because of its topography and landscaping on the grounds that it is the location on the site that best shields the tower from surrounding off-site residences. f. She asked that the record be held open 14 days to allow the applicant to provide supplemental information to address the concerns raised by the opponents. 8. At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearings officer ordered the record held open for seven days for all parties to introduce new evidence and testimony. The hearings officer held open the record for another seven days to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to new evidence submitted by others and to offer a closing argument. The record in this matter closed at 5 PM on Monday, July 29, 2002. 9. While the record remained open, Ms. Prusia submitted additional evidence on behalf of the applicant, as follows: a. Additional discussion about the structural integrity of the proposed tower particularly with regard to its failure characteristics, including a full copy of the applicant's consulting structural engineer's report. b. Discussion about the capacity of the proposed tower to accommodate additional carriers. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 02-00041VAR 02-0012 (VerizonlTigard Street) Page 4 • • c. A revised landscaping plan, including 1) up-grading the fence around the enclosure to cedar; 2) increasing the depth of the planting strip on the east property line to eight feet; and 3) adding six Red Cedar trees immediately beyond the north and east sides of the fenced enclosure. The applicant also committed to planting seven street trees and completing half-street improvements along the lessor's front property line. d. An expression of willingness to use SW Gallo Avenue for access to the site if available in a timely manner. If the applicant's facility is built and operated before the SW Gallo Avenue is built, she suggested the City allow access to the enclosure by means of a temporary graveled access drive to SW Tigard Street until a permanent connection to SW Gallo Avenue can be constructed. e. Concurrence with the staff's calculation that 16% of regulated trees will be removed, consistent with the City's tree preservation regulations. f. Argument that the proposed location in the northeast corner of the site is the best location to reduce the visual impacts on off-site residences. To this end, she submitted an aerial photograph illustrating the existing tree cover and photographic simulations of the tower on various locations on the site. 10. Also while the record was held open, two opponents submitted the following. a. Jim Kiehlbauch continued to question the applicant's contention that the proposed location is the best one from a visual impact perspective. He proposed an alternative location slightly to the west and south that would have better buffering from existing trees and yet have the required setback in the CDC. b. Allister Jeck, representing Alpha Engineering, the developer of the adjacent Cascadian Place Subdivision, presented further information on his concerns about the project, including the proposed tower's structural integrity; calculation of the proportion of trees removed as it affects the application of the City's mitigation requirements; and the proposed location with regard to its adverse visual impacts on his company's subdivision. He also presented a letter by a structural engineer who works for Alpha Engineering that challenges the findings and conclusions of the applicant's consulting structural engineer. 11. Ms. Prusia responded to the written testimony presented by Mr. Kielhbauch and Mr. Jeck by reiterating the applicant's position in these matters and requesting the approval of the conditional use and variance. C. DISCUSSION 1. The overall issue in this case is whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof by providing sufficient substantial evidence showing that the proposed wireless telecommunication facility at this location does or will comply with the applicable approval criteria of the Tigard CDC for a conditional use permit and adjustment.' I CDC 18.330.030 provides as follows: The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a conditional use based on findings of fact with respect to each of the following criteria: 1. The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 02-00041VAR 02-0012 (VerizonITigard Street) Page 5 • • 2. The Staff Report identified the applicable approval criteria for the application and applied them to the record in the case. The hearings officer largely concurs in the identification of applicable criteria in the Staff Report and in the analysis and conclusions of City staff in that report. That is substantial evidence in the record shows that the proposed use does or can comply with the applicable approval standards and criteria for a CUP, and adoption of recommended conditions of approval as amended will ensure final plans are submitted and implemented as approved consistent with those criteria and standards and will prevent, reduce or mitigate potential adverse impacts of the development consistent with the requirements of the CDC. Therefore hearings officer adopts the findings and conclusions in the Staff Report as his own except as otherwise expressly provided herein. a. The City must base its decision on "substantial evidence," which is evidence on which a reasonably prudent person would rely in the conduct of a serious matter. If, based on such evidence, a proposed use can comply with applicable approval standards using conditions of approval, then the City must approve the use subject to those conditions.2 b. If an application is complete within 180 days after it was filed, the relevant approval standards for the application are the standards in effect when it was filed, and the decision cannot be based on any other consideration.3 3. The applicant has demonstrated it needs an additional cell in its system in south Tigard to increase capacity to accommodate additional demand, as required by its license with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The applicant has explored other 2. The impacts of the proposed use of the site can be accommodated considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features; 3. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal; 4. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter; 5. The applicable requirements of 18.330.050; and 6. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, if applicable, are met. 2 ORS 197.522 provides as follows: A local government shall approve an application for a permit, authorization or other approval necessary for the subdivision or partitioning of, or construction on, any land that is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable land use regulations or shall impose reasonable conditions on the application to make the proposed activity consistent with the plan and applicable regulations. A local government may deny an application that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable land use regulations and that cannot be made consistent through the imposition of reasonable conditions of approval. (emphasis added) 3 ORS 227.173(1) provides as follows: Approval or denial of a discretionary permit application shall be based on standards and criteria, which shall be set forth in the development ordinance and which shall relate approval or denial of a discretionary permit application to the development ordinance and to the comprehensive plan for the area in which the development would occur and to the development ordinance and comprehensive plan for the city as a whole. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 02-00041VAR 02-0012 (VerizonlTigard Street) Page 6 • 0 non-residential sites and other towers on which it could potentially collocate. There are none in its search area. Accordingly, CDC 18.798.060.A allows the proposed wireless telecommunication facilities on a freestanding tower in residential zones subject to a Type III conditional use review. 4. In the design of its proposed facility, the applicant has complied with all development and design standards in CDC 18.798.060.B with one exception: setbacks. This includes compliance with standards related to color, tower spacing, lighting, fencing, security and landscaping. It has demonstrated that it is or can be in compliance with all applicable state and federal regulations. 5. With regard to setbacks, CDC 18.798.060.B(3) requires that a wireless telecommunication tower in a residential zone be set back from the property line by a distance equal at least to the height of the tower. However an applicant may apply for a Type II adjustment (variance) to reduce this setback, subject to the approval criteria in CDC 18.370.020.C(8)(a).4 6. The applicant has applied for such an adjustment to place the fenced enclosure in the northeast corner of the site so that the base of the tower is approximately 27 feet from the east lot line and 15 feet from the north lot line. CDC 18.270.020.C(8)(a) contains approval criteria for the adjustment in question, two of which are in contention in this case:5 7. With regard to the issue of structural integrity, the opponents claim that the applicant's consulting structural engineer does not make a compelling case that the tower will "fall within itself'. Rather the consulting engineer suggests that in the event of a failure, debris will fall within a five-foot radius, which is not the same thing. As a result, there is insufficient guarantee that the debris from a failed tower will be wholly contained within parent parcel's boundaries, thus, putting off-site homes and residents at risk. a. The hearings officer has read both the applicant's structural engineering report and the letter presented by Alpha Engineer's structural engineer. Based on the evidence in the record and his own technical expertise in this field, the hearings officer is persuaded that the proposed facility meets this criterion. b. The term "falling within itself"is inherently ambiguous, because two objects cannot occupy the same space. The City Council could not have intended to use that term to require what is not physically possible. The term must be construed in light of physical possibilities. The hearings officer interprets the term "falling within itself"to mean that the tower parts would fall generally within the circumference of a circle whose origin is the center of the tower structure and whose radius is the farthest horizontal 4 CDC 18.798.060.B(3) requires that a tower be set back at least one tower height from property lines. The language in CDC 18.370.020.C(8)(a) refers to "the requirement that a wireless communication tower be set back at least the height of the tower from any off-site residence.....". 5 The disputed standards in CDC 18.370.020.C(8)(a) read as follows: (1) A structural engineer certifies that the tower is designed to collapse within itself; and (2) Because of topography, vegetation, building orientation and/or other factor, a site closer to an off-site residence will equally or better reduce the visual impacts associated with the tower upon the off-site residences. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 02-00041VAR 02-0012 (VerizonITigard Street) Page 7 • • extension from the origin of any part of the tower or its attached antennas and structural members. Such an interpretation is consistent with the context of the term. Towers are built in segments. In the case of a failure due to wind or ice, which is extremely rare, the hearings officer is persuaded that the upper portions of the tower will fold over and either remain attached to the base or drop to the ground around the base of the tower. Although the distance that the debris could fall may vary, it generally will be contained within the fenced enclosure due to the relatively heavy weight of antennas and tower parts. Nothing in the record persuades or compels the hearings to find that the proposed tower, if it fails, would fall over from its base as an intact unit. 8. With regard to the second criterion, the hearings officer agrees with the opponents that the applicant, who bears the burden of proof, has failed to provide adequate evidence that the proposed location is the best one with regard to minimizing the visual impacts on existing and future residences on adjacent parcels. The hearings officer commends the applicant's efforts to preserve large trees in the vicinity of the proposed enclosure. But the proposed access along the east boundary will eliminate several trees that provide buffering to existing and future residences to the east and southeast (see more discussion of this below). Even the enhanced landscaping plan, in which the applicant proposes to plant an additional seven Red Cedars around the north and east sides of the enclosure, is not adequate because of the time it will take for these to reach maturity. The hearings officer's opinion in this matter is based on his site visit and a review of the applicant's written and graphic testimony, including photo simulations. 9. The hearings officer concurs with Mr. Kiehlbauch whose testimony of 7/22/02 (Exhibit F) proposes an alternative location in which the enclosure is rotated 90° and moved to the west and south towards the greenhouse. In this manner, the base of the tower can be placed at least 60 feet from the east boundary and at least 40 feet from the north boundary, which will reduce the adjustment to the least required. The relocation of the enclosure has many benefits. It places the tower more squarely within the existing tree canopy and, combined with relocation of the access road (to be discussed below), reduces the number of trees that must be removed, although the property owner may still remove diseased and unstable trees per the regulations in CDC 18.790. In this configuration, the base of the tower can be shielded from the lessor's residence to the southeast by the greenhouse and from the residences to the north by the equipment shelter. This also places the equipment shelter further from the property boundaries, thus, reducing the chance the noise from the operation of equipment will violate the City's day/night noise standards. 10. Subject to City staff review and approval, the hearings officer leaves the exact re-configuration of the fenced enclosure to the applicant and lessor, provided that the tower is at least 60 feet from the east boundary and at least 40 feet from the north boundary and the enclosure meets the minimum setbacks for accessory structures in the underlying zone. The location should preserve the large Douglas firs in the northeast portion of the site including the two immediately east of the greenhouse. The applicant also should plant what will become a relatively opaque screen of evergreen trees reaching a mature height of 50 feet on the north property line from the northeast corner of the property westward a distance of about 120 feet to the large Douglas fir, in compliance with planting standards in CDC 18.790, to ensure additional screening for residences to the north. 11. With regard to the type of tower, the hearings officer concurs that a monopole is the less visually obtrusive design when compared to a lattice tower. Based on the its representative's testimony, it appears that the applicant also would have preferred to propose a monopole design except for the mistaken belief that the City prohibited such a design in residential zones. For these reasons, the hearings officer will authorize the applicant to substitute a monopole, painted matte brown, for the proposed lattice tower. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 02-00041VAR 02-0012 (Verizon/figard Street) Page 8 • • 12. With regard to the access, City staff and applicant agree with the hearings officer that access to proposed SW Gallo Avenue in the Cascadian Park subdivision to the east is more efficient and, therefore, preferable to the proposed access to SW Tigard Street. This alignment also will preserve several trees on the east lot line of the parent parcel and, thus, will have less visual impact on all surrounding residences, including the lessor's home. a. The hearings officer is sensitive to the concerns expressed by the applicant that SW Gallo Avenue may not be completed by the time the applicant begins to build the tower in the first quarter of 2003. However the applicant and City can negotiate an agreement to provide access to SW Gallo Avenue when such access is available. If such an agreement is executed before the City issues a building permit, temporary gravel access to SW Tigard Street should be permitted, provided healthy trees on the east lot line are preserved in good health. When access to SW Gallo Avenue is completed, the temporary access way should be removed and its former route should be restored to its pre- construction condition. b. If, before final inspection or an occupancy permit for the proposed tower, the City and applicant do not execute an agreement to use SW Gallo Avenue for access, the access way to SW Tigard should be asphalt or concrete, because that is what the Code requires; and it should preserve the healthy trees on the east lot line, because that will reduce adverse visual impacts and maintain vegetation that buffers the tower. D. CONCLUSIONS 1. Based on the findings and discussion provided or incorporated in this final order, the hearings officer concludes that the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed conditional use permit does or will comply with the applicable criteria and standards of the Community Development Code, provided development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state, and federal laws and with conditions of approval warranted to ensure such compliance occurs in fact. 2. The hearings officer further concludes that the applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof that the proposed setback adjustments comply with the applicable provisions of the CDC, because a location with larger setbacks albeit one that still requires a lesser adjustment would reduce adverse visual impacts the tower. Therefore the hearings officer authorizes an adjustment pursuant to which the base of the tower must be at least 60 feet from the east lot line and must be at least 40 feet from the north lot line, although the equipment shed and fence may be situated anywhere consistent with applicable dimensional standards of the zone. E. DECISION In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the Staff Report and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the hearings officer hereby approves CUP 02-0004 and VAR 02-0012 (Verizon/Tigard Street), subject to the conditions of approval in Section H of the City of Tigard Staff Report, with the following additions and changes: 1. Condition of approval 2 is hereby amended to read as follows: 2. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan, designed by a professional landscape architect, to increase the intensity of landscaping along the eastern and northern property Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 02-00041VAR 02-0012 (VerizonITigard Street) Page 9 • • lines to better reduce adverse visual impacts of the proposed tower and accessory building, considering the tree removal plan for the Cascadian Place subdivision. The plan should provide for what will become a relatively opaque screen of evergreen trees from the northeast corner of the property westward along the north property line a distance of about 120 feet to a large, existing Douglas fir tree. 2. Condition of approval 4 is hereby amended to read as follows: 4. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a tree protection plan from a certified aborist that defines standards that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction as required by Section 18.790.030.B(4). At a minimum, the plan shall provide standards to ensure protection of the mature, healthy trees with a trunk whose diameter is at least six inches measured four feet above grade in the vicinity of the tower enclosure, including the two Douglas fir trees immediately east of the greenhouse, and along the east edge of the site. 3. Condition of approval 5 is hereby amended to read as follows: 5. Prior to site work, the applicant shall: a. Provide the City Arborist with a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading and paving; and b. Notify the City Arborist when tree protection measures are in place so he or she can verify the measures will function properly prior to construction. 4. Condition of approval 6 is hereby amended to read as follows: 6. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan. a. The site plan shall show that the proposed fenced enclosure is rotated 90° and moved to the west and south so that the base of the tower is at least 60 feet from the east lot line and at least 40 feet from the north lot line and all structures comply with setbacks under the Uniform Building Code. b. The site plan may provide for a monopole tower structure instead of a lattice structure if the applicant accompanies the site plan with an engineering analysis showing the monopole tower, if it fails, will fall within itself as construed herein. C. The applicant shall initiate and make a diligent good faith effort to participate in discussions with the City to provide access to the tower enclosure by means of SW Gallo Avenue. (1) If, before the City issues a building permit for the proposed tower, the City and the applicant execute an agreement in fact or in kind to provide access to the Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 02-00041VAR 02-0012 (Verizon/ligard Street) Page 10 • 0 tower enclosure from SW Gallo Avenue, the applicant shall access the site consistent with that agreement; provided, if Gallo Avenue is not built and accepted by the City when the City issues a building permit for the tower, and until Gallo Avenue is built and accepted by the City, the applicant shall access the tower enclosure by means of SW Tigard Street. Such access may be improved with gravel and shall not result in removal of healthy trees with a diameter of six inches or more measured four feet above grade. (2) If, before the City issues a building permit for the proposed tower, the City and the applicant do not execute an agreement in fact or in kind to provide access to the tower enclosure from SW Gallo Avenue, the site plan shall show access to the tower enclosure from Tigard Street. Such access shall be paved in asphalt or concrete and shall not result in removal of healthy trees with a diameter of six inches or more measured four feet above grade. (3) The access road shall at least 12 feet wide, except that it can be reduced to 10 feet in width where necessary to save mature trees. 3. Condition of approval 15 is hereby amended to read as follows: 15. The applicant shall place a sign on the gate of the fenced enclosure stating the name of the carrier and an emergency telephone number. This sign shall not exceed two square feet. No other signs on the premises shall be permitted. DATED this 12th dayp€' gust 2002. City of TigakMeanngs Officer V-- Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 02-00041VAR 02-0012 (Verizon/Tigard Street) Page 11 I EXISTING TREE TYPICAL; TO REMAIN I PROPOSED VERIION WIRELESS PROJECT AREA: ` SEE ENLARGED SITE PUN, THIS SHEET , f S 8456'30 E~If190.B3' I/ ' EXISTING AWNING i ExISRNG SHOP 01, a P pff LINE58456'E 1 ,.I I I ' EXISTING POSED 12' . i GREENHOUSE WIDE GRAVEL I PARCEL 80269918- ~ ACCESS DRNE for 7 soD + PROPOSED RO ' OF POWER/TEL 0, A 'EXISTING ew t WF 1 ,ASPHALT EXISTING WELL PAVING HOUSE, TO BE REMOVED EXISTING EXISTING II LANDSCkPf HOUSE EXISTING SHED n L ISLAND ,11 ~ BE REMOVED 11YIIY I t TAl h EXISTING TREE TYPICAL; TO RE . g I :2 V ~ • P EXISTING / GARAGE a ~ Y I } I TIN CAP , EXISTING TREE ' GRAVEL INSIDE FENCED COMPOUND, ttP. 11 TYPICAL; TO BE 's i L REMOVED I EXISTING HEAVY I ` PROPOSED 40150' LEASE Y BLACKBERRY B SH 8 F 1 Q~ I I NA1NE _,;IT I N; TO AREA , I BE REMOVED A 4Lr.;I , 1 ] I PROPOSED ROAD PROPOSED 15' .I t i WIDE ACCESS I ' EASEMENT, SEE SURVEY FF i L I PROPOSE 6' . C UNK FENCE - ALMQAOMYEAST 1 PROPERTY LINE , P POSED 1/ . W a 1l LLLONG AHAIi FyIVED I PRON A A" ~ 1 I PROPOSED CHAIN -LINK FENCE AND GATE WITH CREEK PRNACY I : ( . h._J 1 SLITS 1 , N B45T1SW 190.29' ,,,C• -~_---T - - T - ,j ~3 r k 4'y ~7"I p 3tSt'~• 1.k O~ F .A. n k 3 ~ ~v r r ~l4P5f +4 h' L r PROPOSED PREFABRICATED) EQUIPMENT SHE T , N"t ER L olw OHP - oNV' oHP plp PROPOSED UTILITY BACKBOARD) OHP oHP OHP a+P EXISTING PGE UTILITY POLE, NO I P F4, EXISTING VER170N PROPOSED 5'-0`.5'-V CONCRETE STOOP f TELCO PEDESTAL EXISTING TREE LEGEND t.t. _.}f 118724 SYM. DESCRIPTION 3 y WESTERN RED CEDAR 'fHUJA P CAT ' PROPOSED RF WARNING SIGNS A U DOUGLAS FIR OREGON WHITE OAK *OUERCUS GARRYANA' HAWTHORN ' CRATAEGUS DOUGLASII O WILLOW " " S1LIX SPECIES ® RED ALDER ' ALNUS RUBRA Q CHERRY " PRUNUS SPECIES G OREGON ASH 1. SITE PUN IS A DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION ONLY, 'FRAXINUS LATIFOLIA' y3Tj, DO NOT SCALE; VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ® ROCK MAPLE A, 2. VERIFY ALL PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION WITH FACER GLABRUM' ® 1. PROPOSED PREFABRICATED EOUIPMENT SHELTER I' STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES EXISTING SURVEY DATA. 2. TREES NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY OVERALL SITE PLAN ° 10 O SCALE: 1' 30'-O' 8 ENLARGED SITE PLAN ti b 1 I 1 1 .Crr Z = 1 1 i 1 w Xi 1 1 I 1 I I 1 i 1 !!~fjj e it (4 Via S .,o 1 la rl z J ~1 I W a t "EXHIBIT A" PARTIES OF RECORD (Written Public Testimony received at the hearing) EXHIBITS SUMMARY (C U P2002-00004NAR2002-00012) 6/24/02 PUBLIC HEARING EXHIBITS: Exhibits A & B Submitted at the 6/24/02 public hearing from neighboring property owner, Alpha Engineering, Inc. Exhibit C Submitted at the 6/24/02 public hearing from citizen, James M. Kiehlbauch. EXHIBITS SUBMITTED WHILE THE RECORD WAS HELD OPEN: (Week one the record was held open) Exhibit D Submitted by Shanin Prusia on behalf of the applicant, WFINerizon Wireless. (Week two the record was held open) Exhibit E Submitted by Allister M. Jeck on behalf of Alpha Engineering, Inc. in response to Exhibit D. Exhibit F Submitted by citizen, James Kiehlbauch in response to Exhibit D. (Week three the record was held open) Exhibit G rural closing arguments submined by Shanin Prusia on behalf of the applicant, WFINerizon Wireless in response to Exhibit E HAdocs\exhibits summary.doc EXHIBITS A & B SUBMITTED AT THE 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING FROM A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER, ALPHA ENGINEERING, INC. EXHIBIT C • The Case for Opposition to Conditional Use Permit CUP2002-00004 Introduction: My name is James M. Kiehlbauch. My address is 11620 SW Gallo Ave., Tigard, OR, 97223. I am chairman of a group called "Tigard Neighbors Against Residential Cell Towers". I am a resident with standing in this case by virtue of living within the 500-foot notification zone. I am currently employed as an engineer. I have an engineering degree in Ceramic Engineering and a health sciences degree in Microbiology, both from the Univ. of Washington in Seattle, Washington. I also have a degree in English Literature from the Univ. of Washington. This latter qualification is, I feel, of particular significance because the success or failure of this application depends greatly upon exactly what the code says and how it says it. The meaning of words is a key aspect of this deliberation. What the code actually says, rather than what someone thinks it says or intended to say, is the key to fair disposition of this application. Nowhere will this be more evident than when we deal with the issue of tower collapsibility as it relates to the Type II adjustment for tower setback. When we received our letter of notification for the neighborhood meeting, we also received, in the same envelope, a page titled "Frequently Asked Neighborhood Meeting Questions". I have included this page as "Attachment 1" in our presentation binder. As • is the case for all key passages of the code or related documents to which we refer in our presentation, I have highlighted, in yellow, two important sentences at the bottom of the page. They admonish the concerned residents to "Be prepared, however, that you >U not LIKE all the standards, but at least you know what they are. If a development meets the code standards, it can proceed." Conversely, we expect that, if a development does not meet the code standards, it cannot proceed. I can assure you that, for the most part, we know and "LIKE" the pertinent standards. We ask only that due respect is accorded to the code standards and that the code standards be followed as written. If that is done, we are confident that we will prevail in our opposition to this proposed residential tower installation. Procedure: Our presentation will consist of identifying the pertinent code chapters and sections and then addressing each element individually, describing how the application violates each provision and providing evidence in support of our contention. Presentation: To begin our presentation, we would like to call attention to Section 18.510.010 of Chapter 18.510, "Residential Zoning Districts". See "Attachment 2". This section of the Community Development Code describes one of the major purposes of the regulations • governing development in residential zoning districts, and, as such, is a cornerstone of our presentation. This "Purpose" section reads as follows: 0 0 • "A. Preserve neighborhood livability. One of the major purposes of the regulations governing development in residential zoning districts is to protect the livability of existing and 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." The key mandate of this section is: "protect the livability of existing and future residential neighborhoods". We will return to this requirement later when we address the specifics of Chapter 18.798, "Wireless Communication Facilities". The bulk of our arguments against the installation of a cellular phone transmission tower in a residential zone of Tigard are related to the requirements for regulation of wireless communication facilities as outlined in Chapter 18.798, "Wireless Communication Facilities", under section 18.798.010, "Purpose". See "Attachment 3". This section reads as follows: "A. Purpose. The purpose of these regulations are [sic] to ensure that wireless communication facilities are regulated in a manner which 1) minimizes visual impacts; • 2) promotes universal service to all customers; 3) encourages collocation of facilities to minimize the number of new facilities required; 4) ensures structural safety; 5) ensures all providers are fairly treated; and 6) protects neighborhood liveability." Definition of "ensure" as found in Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition: "1. to make sure or certain; guarantee;" We will address these six (6) requirements individually: 1) minimizes visual impacts; This requirement will be best addressed by another party opposed to this application. Therefore, we defer comment to that party but would like to reserve the right to comment at a later time if appropriate. 2) promotes universal service to all customers; No challenge to the satisfaction of this requirement will be made. • I • • • 3) encourages collocation of facilities to minimize the number of new facilities required; Definition of "encourage" as found in Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition: "2. to give support to; be favorable to; foster; help" We believe the proposed application fails to satisfy this requirement for the following reason: The height of the tower is insufficient to encourage collocation. Evidence: Background Information: 1. Question and answer from "Verizon Neighborhood Meeting 3/7/02 Meeting Notes", page one. See "Attachment 9". "Sue: If you add more antennas, will you make the tower taller?" "Shanin: No, the future antennas will go below the ones at the top of the tower." • 2. Answer from "Verizon Neighborhood Meeting 3/7/02 Meeting Notes", page two. See "Attachment 10". "Shanin: The tower will be designed for collocation. However, the additional carrier would have to lease more ground space outside of our area." As part of this hearing, we would like to ask the site property owner the following question: Will you lease additional property to other cell tower providers? 3. Statement from Application CUP2002-00004, Impact Study, page one. See "Attachment 11 "Visual Impact: We have proposed a tower that will compete with the height of the surrounding trees." Argument for Denial: A. We have provided pictures of representative cell towers located in Tigard and Beaverton in an effort to establish typical distances of separation between collocated antenna arrays. See "Attachments 4 and 711 . Attachment 4: This is a 100-foot monopole located at 8777 SW Burnham in Tigard in the back parking lot area of the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue station. This is tower number 8 on "Attachment 5, List of Cellular Telecommunications Facilities within the • City of Tigard, January 2002". "Attachment 6" is a letter from Morgan Tracy to Washington County that authenticates "Attachment 5". The estimated separation 9 • distance, center to center, between the top array and the one immediately below is ten (10) feet. The estimated distance from the center of the top array to the antenna tip of the array immediately below is seven (7) feet. Attachment 7: This monopole is located at 5355 SW Western Ave., Beaverton, behind the Beaverton Light Shoppe. The estimated height is 100 feet. The estimated separation, center to center, between the arrays is twenty (20) feet. The estimated distance from the center of the top array to the tip of the antenna of the array below is sixteen (16) feet. Attachment 16: This lattice tower is located at 10255 SW Western Ave., Beaverton, across from the Beaverton Light Shoppe. The estimated height is 100 feet. The estimated separation, center to center, between the arrays is twenty (20) feet. B. Requirement for Clear Line-of-Sight Path for Microwave Transmission: 1. See "Attachment 12", "Antenna Installation", page one, and "Attachment 13", "About QSL.NET". "The hardest part of setting up a microwave network is finding a location for the antennas for all the nodes in the network. Your radio signal path must have a clear, line-of-sight path and a clear Fresnel zone in front of antenna. This is because microwaves travel • essentially in straight lines through the atmosphere due to their short wavelengths." "Signals will propagate through a few obstructions such as trees ...but you shouldn't always count on it." "Attenuation By Trees It's safe to assume that if light can't penetrate a stand of trees, microwave losses will be unacceptable." 2. See "Attachment 14", "Line of Sight", pages one and two, and "Attachment 15", "about solectek". "Radio transmission requires a clear path between antennas known as radio line of sight. Line of sight is the direct free-space path that ebsts between two points. Using binoculars on a clear day, it is easy to determine if visual line of sight ebsts between two points that are miles apart. To have a clear line of sight there must be no obstructions between the two locations. The following obstructions might obscure a visual link: • Buildings and other man-made objects • Trees • If any of these obstructions rise high enough to block the view from end to end, there is no visual line of sight. 14 • Obstructions that can interfere with visual line of sight can also interfere with radio line of sight. But one must also consider the Fresnel effect. If a hard object, such as a mountain ridge or building, is too close to the signal path, it can damage the radio signal or reduce its strength. This happens even though the obstacle does not obscure the direct, visual line of sight. The Fresnel zone for a radio beam is an elliptical area immediately surrounding the visual path. It varies in thickness depending on the length of the signal path and the frequency of the signal. The necessary clearance for the Fresnel zone can be calculated, and it must be taken into account when designing a wireless links. As shown in the picture above, when a hard object protrudes into the signal path within the Fresnel zone, knife-edge diffraction • can deflect part of the signal and cause it to reach the receiving antenna slightly later than the direct signal. Since these deflected signals are out of phase with the direct signal, they can reduce its power or cancel it out altogether. If trees or other'soft' objects protrude into the Fresnel zone, they can attenuate (reduced [sic] the strength of) a passing signal. In short, the fact that you can see a location does not mean that you can establish a quality radio link to that location. There are several options to establish or Improve the line of sight • Raise the antenna mounting pant on the epsting structure • Build a new structure, i.e. radio tower, which is tall enough to mount the antenna • Increase the height of an eAsting tower • Locate a different mounting point, i.e. building or tower, for the antenna • Cut down problem trees" • J • • • C. Now let us examine the proposed configuration of the tower as depicted in the application. See "Attachment 8". This is a south elevation view of the proposed tower as it appears in the final application. The height at the top of the antennas is 64 feet above ground level. This represents the effective height of the main structural components of the tower. The antenna "RAD" center is at 60 feet. This indicates the panel to be 8 feet in height, placing the bottom of the antenna at 56 feet. The tip height of the future proposed Verizon antennas, to be located below the initial antennas, is 55 feet. Since these are also 8-foot panels as indicated on the drawing, the height of the bottom of the Verizon panels is 47 feet. As indicated earlier (Attachment 9), any collocation must occur below this level. Conservative collocation scenario: 8-foot panels are installed by collocator using only a 1-foot separation between the top of their antennas and the bottom of Verizon's secondary future antennas. This is the separation distance that Verizon has indicated on their drawing that they will use between their own installations. This places the top of the collocated antennas at 46 feet and the bottom at 38 feet. Reasonable collocation scenario: The collocated panels are installed using a 5-foot separation between the top of these panels and the bottom of Verizon's secondary future antennas. This is a much more reasonable distance yet still conservative compared to earlier references to antenna separation distances on pages 4 and 5 of this document. Also, see again "Attachments 4, 7, and 16". This places the top of the collocated • antennas at 42 feet and the bottom at 34 feet. Note: One wonders why Verizon chose to separate their two arrays by only one foot. This certainly does not appear to be a typical separation distance for the industry. Perhaps Verizon does not wish to locate their secondary array any lower on the tower than necessary for reasons I will now present. Earlier, I presented evidence to substantiate the requirement that cell towers must be configured in such a manner as to provide a clear line-of-sight for the microwave radiation they emit, otherwise, there are unacceptable losses to the signal strength. The height of this tower does not nrov_ide a clear line-of-sight for anv antennas that a collocator might install and, as such, does not encourage collocation. The bottom of any collocated antenna would be at either 38 feet or 34 feet, depending on which scenario applies. This is well below the tree line, even as depicted by Verizon's schematic, a drawing that, I might add, does not do justice to the actual height of the surroundincy trees- See "Attachment. 17. 1 R and 19" Attachment 17: TOP: View of proposed site looking north from Tigard Street. BOTTOM: Same as TOP with better visualization of tree heights. Attachment 18: TOP: View of proposed site looking north from Tigard Street. BOTTOM: View of proposed site looking northeast from Tigard Street. • 6 • • • Attachment 19: TOP: Long-range view of proposed site looking northeast from Tigard Street. BOTTOM: View of proposed site looking northeast from Tigard Street. As can be easily seen in these pictures, the forestation is tall, very extensive, and has very dense foliage, consisting of both deciduous and non-deciduous trees. Any collocation extending down to the 34 to 38 foot level on the proposed tower must beam microwaves directly through this dense barricade of trees. It is virtually impossible to obtain a clear line-of-sight under these conditions. I have indicated the approximate position of the proposed tower with an arrow on each picture to aid in visualizing the tree heights with which the proposed tower must compete. Just how tall are these trees? See "Attachment 20". The information regarding approximate tree heights surrounding the proposed tower location was provided by Alpha Engineering, owners of the adjacent subdivision. As depicted on the diagram (Attachment 20), taller tree heights range from 70 feet to 135 feet. The tallest tree height depicted in Verizon's south elevation schematic view is only 55 feet tall, hardly an accurate depiction of the trees prohibiting effective microwave transmission for any potential collocator and, for that matter, also prohibiting effective transmission for Verizon's own arrays at the 64 foot level. I will elaborate upon this latter assertion shortly in a supplemental section. Earlier, pages 4 and 5, we described the disruptive effects of hard objects within the Fresnel zone and how they interfere with effective microwave transmission. Such objects • will potentially come into play regarding this particular proposed installation with respect to the prohibition of feasible collocation at the 34 to 38 foot level. These hard objects are the two-story houses that will be built on the adjacent subdivision in close proximity to the proposed tower location. They can be as tall as 30 feet and, at that height, will constitute a significant obstacle within the Fresnel zone for antennas located at or near that level. In conclusion, the absence of a clear line-of-sight due to surrounding trees and the contribution to the Fresnel zone effect afforded by future housing development virtually prohibit collocation on the proposed tower. As such, the proposed wireless communication facility cannot be "regulated in a manner which 3) encourages collocation of facilities to minimize the number of new facilities required;" and therefore violates Section 18.798.010, A, 3) of Chapter 18.798, "Wireless Communications Facilities". We respectfully contend that this is grounds for denial of this application. Supplemental Factors Related to Collocation Feasibility As I researched the various aspects related to this proposed installation, one aspect of the installation never seemed to make any sense. That aspect is the effective height of the proposed tower, 64 feet. If one considers the evidence already presented concerning the necessity of a clear line-of-sight for microwave transmission and the true height and density of the trees with which this tower must compete, it appears obvious that the tower is simply too short to compete effectively with the surrounding trees. According to Brad • Kilby, city planner, a tower as tall as 100 feet can be installed without triggering any additional requirements on the part of the applicant. Why was 64 feet chosen as the 7 • • • tower height, not 65 or 75 or even 100 feet? A taller tower would certainly compete more effectively with the trees and have a genuine chance of accomplishing the goal as stated earlier by the applicant and referenced on page 3 of this document under "Evidence, 3., and per "Attachment 11 "We have proposed a tower that will compete with the height of the surrounding trees." The applicant will probably respond that they chose a shorter tower height to lessen the visual impact. This is, of course, plausible. However, I believe there is another equally plausible explanation for the height of the tower and that is, the applicant did not choose the tower height, it was essentially chosen by the property owner. Let me explain. In an effort to determine where the 64-foot figure came from, I took another look at the site plan provided by the applicant. See "Attachment 21 Using a ruler and the property dimensions as they appear on the north and east property lines, I determined a factor that allows me to convert distances measured in 16ths of an inch on the site plan into actual distances in feet. Details of the method used can be found in "Attachment 22", "Site Plan Measurements". Using this method, I determined that the distance between the center of the proposed tower and the nearest corner of the property owner's house is 76 feet. The house, however, is not the closest structure to the proposed tower. The greenhouse is the closest structure. Using this method, I determined that the distance between the center of the proposed tower and the nearest corner of the greenhouse is 64 feet. • It appears that the property owner may have chosen a tower height that would insure the safety of his family and his property when the tower falls over. This is understandable. Given a choice between believing that the tower will collapse within a radius of 5 feet as alleged by a structural engineer (see "Attachment 23") or simply choosing a tower height such that, when it falls over, it is short enough not to strike family or structures, any reasonable person would choose the latter option. Of course, it is possible that the equality of the tower height and the distance from the center of the tower to the greenhouse is merely a coincidence. However, if it is not, or whether it is intentional or not, one thing is certainly clear: the property owner is afforded a setback distance, between his property and the tower location, equal to the height of the tower. This is the same code requirement that the property owner is attempting to nullify with respect to his neighbors by filing for a Type II adjustment to the tower setback. Common decency dictates that any current or future neighbors should receive the same consideration for their safety. I will now continue with the rest of our presentation. The next segment of Section 18.798.010, "Purpose", to be addressed is "that wireless communication facilities are regulated in a manner which 4) ensures structural safety;". • 9 • • • Definition of "ensure" as found in Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition: "1. to make sure or certain; guarantee;" It should be clear based upon my comments immediately above concerning tower setback that, if approved in the manner desired by the applicant, that is, with approval of the Type II adjustment, this application will ensure structural safety only for the property owner, not for any adjacent neighbors. The only foolproof way to ensure, to guarantee, the safety of adjacent neighbors is to maintain a setback of the tower from the property line equal to the height of the tower as required in Chapter 18.798, Section 18.798.060, B 3. Setbacks. We believe that, as proposed, this application violates the above code requirement to "ensure structural safety". We respectfully contend that this is grounds for denial of this application. Since we have already addressed the topic of tower setback in great detail, it is appropriate that we postpone consideration of Section 18.798.010, 5) and 6), and now address the filing by the applicant of a Type II adjustment to the setback of the proposed • tower from the property line. Chapter 18.798, Section 18.798.060, B 3., Setbacks, states: "Towers shall be set back from the property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower." See "Attachment 24". The applicant has filed a Type II adjustment to reduce this setback. This is subject to criteria of approval contained in Section 18.370.020 C10a. [Note: the reference to the appropriate section, made in Section 18.798.060 B3 of Update 01/00, has not been revised to reflect the recent revision of Chapter 18.370, Update 04/02. The correct reference is 18.370.020 C10a, not C8a.] The criteria are as follows (See "Attachment 25"): "10. Adjustments to wireless communications facilities (Chapter 18.798). a. By means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the requirement that a wireless communication tower be set back at least the height of the tower from any off-site residence based on findings that at [sic] the following criteria are satisfied: • (1) The proposed location of the tower complies with the setback requirements for the underlying zone in which the property is located; • • (2) A structural engineer certifies that the tower is designed to collapse within itself; (3) Because of topography, vegetation, building orientation and/or other factor, a site closer to an off-site residence will equally or better reduce the visual impacts associated with the tower upon the off-site residence." We will address (2) at this time: Definition of "within" as found in Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition: "1. in or into the interior; on the inside; internally prep. 1. in the inner part of; inside 2. not beyond in distance, time, degree, range, scope, etc. 3. inside the limits of What the code says: "(2) A structural engineer certifies that the tower is designed to collapse within itself;" What the code does not say: A structural engineer certifies that the tower is designed to collapse within "a fall zone radius of 5'." See "Attachment 23". • What the code does not say: A structural engineer certifies that the tower is designed to collapse within "the footprint of the leased area." See "Attachment 26", page 9 of the "Staff Report to the Hearings Officer for the City of Tigard, Oregon". We have come full circle with respect to statements I made in the Introduction to this presentation. They are as follows: "The meaning of words is a key aspect of this deliberation. What the code actually says, rather than what someone thinks it says or intended to say, is the key to fair disposition of this application. Nowhere will this be more evident than when we deal with the issue of tower collapsibility as it relates to the Type II adjustment for tower setback." "We ask only that due respect is accorded to the code standards and that the code standards be followed as written. If that is done, we are confident that we will prevail in our opposition to this proposed residential tower installation." Again, we ask only that the code standards be followed as written. Nowhere in the application before us is there any certification by a structural engineer that the tower will "collapse within itself'. The application fails to meet the requirement of Chapter 18.370, Section 18.370.020, 10a(2). • Therefore, we respectfully contend that this is grounds for denial of this application. /0 • • • We will now return to addressing the remaining two points listed under 18.798.010, "Purpose". "5) ensures all providers are fairly treated;" No challenge to the satisfaction of this requirement will be made. "6) protects neighborhood liveability." Definition of "livable" as found in Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition: "1. fit or pleasant to live in; habitable" We maintain that the livability of the neighborhood will be adversely impacted by the presence of a cellular microwave transmission tower. We have 113 signatures on a petition indicating support for this contention. See "Attachment 27, Petition Opposing Installation of Verizon Cellular Phone Tower". Neighborhood livability is impacted adversely for the following reasons: 1. Decreased property values. Property values can be affected by the presence of • cell towers in a manner similar to the impact of transmission lines upon property values. See "Attachment 28, Illinois Real Estate Letter", page 3. 2. Visual impact. The towers are ugly and inconsistent with the character of the surrounding low-density neighborhood. 3. The unknown effects of continuous exposure to insidious low-level microwave radiation generate fear and anxiety in those captive residents who are unable to escape the effects of a nearby cell tower. Unlike commercial exposure, the residents cannot simply leave work at the end of the day to avoid further exposure. The continuous exposure exists where they live. For mothers who stay at home to raise their children, this is of particular concern. 4. Potential disease effects due to continuous exposure to microwave radiation. When these effects occur, they will be more likely to occur in the United States than in most other countries in the world. This is because the maximum exposure limit imposed by the FCC in the United States is several thousand times higher than that imposed by other countries. See "Attachment 29", page 1. The various biological effects possible are outlined in "Attachment 30, Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 56", from the Federal Communications Commission. See below. "More recently, other scientific laboratories in North America, Europe and elsewhere have reported certain biological effects after exposure of animals ("in vivo") and animal • tissue ("in vitro") to relatively low levels of RF radiation. These reported effects have included certain changes in the immune system, neurological effects, behavioral effects, 0 0 • evidence for a link between microwave exposure and the action of certain drugs and compounds, a "calcium efflux" effect in brain tissue (exposed under very specific conditions), and effects on DNA." Any neighborhood that suffers the effects outlined in 1, 2, 3, and 4 above cannot be "fit or pleasant to live in" for its residents. We contend that approval of this application under consideration would constitute a failure to "protect neighborhood livability" as mandated by Chapter 18.798, Section 18.798.010, 6). Therefore, we respectfully contend that this is grounds for denial of this application. This concludes our presentation. Jim Kiehlbauch Tigard Neighbors Against Residential Cell Towers June 23, 2002 • • I W ~'r cL Gh M 26 ta-* • PETITION OPPOSING INSTALLATION OF VERIZON CELLULAR PHONE TOWER We, the undersigned, oppose installation of a cellular phone tower at 11355 SW Tigard St. because it adversely impacts the neighborhood livability, 4 Name Signature I Address her v arddr- /a -t'~"AAe 7 v Su ~ Sit o w S G~J a~ 0 S U Y `OD 5 Ld ST- 71 t2o Pa<0X ST Cky T1~ , OCUC bAVC-~ sco Ua w 11W a -1 u5 /1/ c Ut.~ S vs 1 cd11 77 2 A M &A H C; LLo v oa ~.v ~~cv D > (Lt Cyr 41 ),U I ltd l r A', . /(I c ° / - xo --zzw i ~L . O r M J1, ze 1 1 u 1 -I i c i a-. I I Y AV, 77D 5 tc> 1l 3 t l~ ~i l 0~ jb L Le7e-- 1 l~-170 l2 i o- 1,e V-Q1 1 >~0 mp 'A t~ G` A2~ oyQ V " iV V VAI'k ' • • • PETITION OPPOSING INSTALLATION OF VERIZON CELLULAR PHONE TOWER We, the undersigned, oppose installation of a cellular phone tower at 11355 SW Tigard St because it adversely impacts the neighborhood livability. Name Signature Address tiff K , //<V s"i'll . w P/ LL fSjqk cs 'A. f6i t 3 Le C", k~ w 1), pv a it G7 a - a P K sev l'~ k' 09 I Tz Z' 5 v/\ c4 Gl^~t isl 111r76 3w 'Twim l 9 7 zL 3 ,C>p ~`l c SGei r-k ~~e -irr'C ~Csn~ l151 y.Sw 'Two n fa.-r,CP& ~-7 z 2-3 .4 Ap ejj Ipc - M6A /A 7 2 Stv I l L F 2-3 15 S Li -IL I~rNE -DUE . l ox~ Te899 q-17-z PL~Z L U-) x 1 i7y S~ & ;11 n ~IU~ ~i, 1 ~ b-(c7 S\j 1 T cc~ °►"Z ZZ3 ;~A Lam, s0 sW - P/ 471D--> a -3 9 • PETITION OPPOSING INSTALLATION OF VERIZON CELLULAR PHONE TOWER We, the undersigned, oppose installation of a cellular phone tower at 11365 SW Tigard St. because it adversely impacts the neighborhood livability. • • . PETITION OPPOSING INSTALLATION OF VERIZON CELLULAR PHONE TOWER We, the undersigned, oppose installation of a cellular phone tower at 11355 SW Tigard St. because it adversely impacts the neighborhood livability, 4 k X k, Name Signature Address A<o Sri C° ' T-M (A" 4 O S~ V CAl 1,0 kl-z- A SON` 1;7z, (7 5 Gf~LL9 1~~~ 0 w k) - moo, lino ti Gu I v-~ -T' ,rc~. It ~o S LP--) Z - G- A a- Fore ; - ~ I a ~ ~ ~ ~ a v r,e ~r //lam oG S fc/ c~ p ~G~ e~S~ osc Sa 7-30 i LE E 66: //z 8 w "S jr lA"" 9 1 • PETITION OPPOSING INSTALLATION OF VERIZON CELLULAR PHONE TOWER We, the undersigned, oppose installation of a cellular phone tower at 11355 SW Tigard St. because it adversely impacts the neighborhood livability, 4 Name Signature Address - l i6--o S vi --11 i V L ~ v e- - S N 6 S'Ge~ Ma 2 O U3 al 3 • • PETITION OPPOSING INSTALLATION OF VERIZON CELLULAR PHONE TOWER We, the undersigned, oppose installation of a cellular phone tower at 11355 SW Tigard St. because it adversely impacts the neighborhood livability Name Signature Address /Y..C,/rey~ _ ~ lOGss sc~ G~G~~ f~llE. i 1G~4~~ R'Zr4s . eg 11~SS .SGi (j~tll~ % ve . tZ l l l33 S G~ ~1.~L14ND ST. T ~'~u-3 V- 9 72 z~ 1*1 • PETITION OPPOSING INSTALLATION OF VERIZON CELLULAR PHONE TOWER We, the undersigned, oppose installation of a cellular phone tower at 11355 SW Tigard St. because it adversely impacts the neighborhood livability, Name Signature Address set-,, /ncim C~ Ni c ,v~~'rL._ C ~0V7 lI G T X32 .4 A fl 60 a1 y o LAD - )w B ~.6b .~T s- O2 ~W Gz rm dvl )t,,) Z60 S r,✓ D4~~~~ , ~sZ • PETITION OPPOSING INSTALLATION OF VERIZON CELLULAR PHONE TOWER We, the undersigned, oppose installation of a cellular phone tower at 11355 SW Tigard St. because it adversely impacts the neighborhood livability, 4 Name Signature Address ~~a ,erg 1t~y0 ~Ul6alla Ave. T 0r, 97;Z,5 Y1 Y~40y ~/1,90 SWGoo(h) 6d2 9?aa Gffi$.el 5' / 9~Ss~ G fZ~ :!57, lJ( yes Sc~v>e~d~~ 1 r 7az &-XN K04 9 a 't'om \ . ~ t~ 4YS Q L 7zy -(f ~J Ion o 7 &27 'RAU6~ J 3~ 5 11 1 0 • • Published by the Office of Real Estate Research University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Winter 1999 JJ~H&-L4_ hn, On,,74 1 S 0 Illinois Real Estate Letter The Price of Zoning Revisited: Zoning Issues Raised by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Carol C. McDonough The Telecommunications Act of 1996' contains provisions that may affect a municipality's ability to implement zoning regulations. This article briefly summarizes the history and purpose of zoning regulations, discusses the chal- lenge to local zoning posed by the Tele- communications Act (along with recent activities at the state level and in the federal courts), and offers an approach by which municipalities can optimize their role in the process of locating sites for telecommunication towers. Traditions of Local Control For the better part of a century, land use control has been largely a local govern- mental function in our country. The first comprehensive zoning ordinance in the United States was adopted in New York City in 1916, and other municipalities soon followed. The zoning enabling acts of many states are based on the federal Standard Zoning Enabling Act of 1926. In the 1926 landmark decision Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., the US Supreme Court rejected arguments that zoning laws were an unconstitutional depriva- tion of property without due process, and subsequently many state courts upheld the concept of zoning. The Court's deci- sion, involving a land owner in suburban Cleveland, is noteworthy because it reinforced the earlier notion of a hierar- chy of land uses - with single-family residential use at the top of the hierarchy - to be protected From an economic standpoint, municipal zoning regula- tions are meant to mitigate the negative erternalities that a real estate owner's use of his property might impose on other members of the community. Challenges to Local Zoning Municipalities' longstanding and broad power to oversee land use has been called into question as legislative enactments and judicial nilings have pushed local zoners' wishes aside in favor of improved wireless phone service. One example is Congress's 1996 passage of the Telecom- munications Act, which opens doors for a federal agency to ovemile local officials on siting telecommunication towers. The Act (which has no impact on most zoning functions) empowers the Federal Com- munications Commission (FCC) to pre- empt local officials' decisions on the placement, construction, and modifica- tion of personal wireless service facili- ties. The FCC is given express regulatory power over wireless facilities' radio fre- quency emissions when concerns arise over possible environmental impacts. Inside This Issue... • The Vrdue of Zoning, Pnee Impacts of Incompatible Lang Uses 8 The GreatsrtrReal Estate Movies ofAU Trine 9 77 7 f .Dealslllastrated 16 The 1996 Act was passed following the somewhat recent development of the personal communication services (PCS) mode of wireless communication (PCS is a type of digital service). The develop- ment of PCS, which offers better sound quality and better security than the older cellular systems, has brought with it an increased need for tower sites on which transmitters can be placed. PCS is located at a higher frequency range, requiring towers that are closer together than the older cellular towers were. The improved technology is also likely to necessitate more tower; through increased custom- er demand It is estimated that, in high demand areas, PCS transmitters will have to be situated about a mile apart. The typical municipal zoning ordi- nance requires a PCS provider to obtain a variance or a special permit in order to construct a cellular tower. A variance is required when the proposed tower would be built in a zoning district that prohibits such structures; receipt of a variance usually requires proof of hardship owing to the topography of other nearby sites. A special permit is required when a cell tower is a permitted use of the proposed locus; the permit indicates that the local- ity has found the proposed tower not to be unreasonably detrimental. Of course, under the 1996 Act the FCC can second- guess a local decision to deny approval. The FCC seems willing to require accep- tance of towers that local officials reject, though the evidence to date is limited The federal judiciary also has shown a willingness to substitute its views for the wishes of local regulators, although it • • 0 Illinois Real Estate Letter 0 YWinYer 1999 =Volume 13; Ny, rtiber 1 Aknors Real Finite Letter is ptdifish ed bj± the Offi ce elf Real Ai6te Research at the.' University of Ilhnorsat Urbana?Champaign http://W W W 0118 t~10C.ed0%re[10"r htID Copyrght1999, Stibkiipttons $16 peryear f Editor Peter F Colwell, University of ,F IIlmois at Urbana-Clmmpaign - ` r t e-mail pco1we17Quiue:edu Associate Editor Jasepb W Trefzger , Ilhnors Siate'Uiversrty f, email ,twtxejz®17stu.edu ' Assistant Director Carolyn A,Dehrwg e=maiL orer®uwc erlirt 5 Media Jpecralist' S6ellcy A. Campbell r, acampbelQu:uc`edu Secretary $liirleyfd ,Walla Address' correspondence to y OtTioe of Reat,EstateFReseamt 304=p David Kmley Ha11 i407}W Gregory lhive Urbana, Q,, 6180I' Phone (217)244-0951. FAX (21');2449867 r `t e Mall are'@t inc edu f ORER Advisory Comnitttee` Gar}' L Clayton ' ' Execimve Vice Presrdenit~ Iliingis Association of Reahorr~ Diiei tor,ofRWa EstaW esearch, Y ORERProfessa r ofcRealrEstate?and Professor of;)±inarrce, ;University of klhnors ' s ,rat Urbana.-Chawpa~gn , ~ ; c4 Connie Conway Vice' President, Kocnrg & Stray; Inc David C Fades Managing General Partner, Regency /?►5soclates, ` ~ .va n 4 r William E. Long i ` President,and,CluelExecutrve Officer Lasalle Home Mortgage Corporation Crag R Oldham , - ,D>rrector,ofdCommerceResearch ands ~ IBEtDrshnguished Professor of,Busuiessr r f~Admuustrahon, Univ'ersity,~of IWnors at`Urbana=ChamP,atgn rGerald N'~Perlow.~ "f t ~ ; r; Priesident; Prgperty Valuation Services' Pas't'iesidenf, Illmow ts>.'Assri ofRealtors® EIi Bidwell, JF ~ ~ i s _d Drzector of Real Estate, OfficfBanks, r and4Real Estate, State of Illinois ~ Arlen R Speelmrari T- rPtesident,speckman~Realty PastPre~dent, [lhnors Assn' of Realtors® 11)onald d that) tF Retired Ptes~dent, Coldwell,Banker, Rpsident~aliReal Estate Services A f, Past President, IIlrnors Assn of Realtors 1" page 2 Policy Perspectives has not completely gutted local control. For example, in Sprint Spectrum, L.P. u City of Medina (1996), a federal district court upheld Medina, WA's six-month tower moratorium as an appropriate use of the city's authority to determine a tele- communications policy, and procedures for processing applications. However, in Illinois RSA No.3 v. County of Peoria (1997), another federal district court overturned a county's decision denying a plaintiff's request for a cellular tower, ruling that adequate reasons for the denial were not given. Stating that the mere existence of opposition is insufficient to support denial, the court directed that the permit be issued, without even remanding to the county for fiuther decision making. Even the states may be inclined to overrule local officials when wireless phone service is the issue. In Massachu- setts, municipalities' zoning authority has been diluted by the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy's designation of wireless service providers as public service utilities. This designation exempts the providers from Ch. 40A, the state's basic zoning regula- tion, thereby limiting local authority to deny permission for tower construction. Paying the Freight In general, opportunities for relief from zoning restrictions - through receiving a variance or permit, or the overriding actions of a court or a legislative body - can have unexpected side effects' The recipient of zoning relief obtains windfall economic rent (a return in excess of that called for by the accompanying risks), because he is able to put his property to a use that had previously been prohibited or controlled At the same time, despite the fact that a use is not to be approved if it would be unreasonably detrimental to the neighborhood or municipality, negative externalities may be suffered by abutters, and by others in close proximity to the locus on which local, state, or fed- eral relief has been granted. In the Summer 1991 issue of this publication,' David Mills suggested that, because of such externalities, resource use would be enhanced if zoning rights were bought and sold, rather than given away. The development of PCS and the attendant need for towers creates a forum Dlinois Real Estate Letter in which the sale of zoning rights can be revisited. In fact, the FCC employs a sim- ilar process for issuing licenses to operate PCS systems within the fifty-one major trading areas (MIAs), and the 493 basic trading areas (BTAs), within which PCS systems are marketed. Since demand by potential PCS providers typically exceeds the limited supply of licenses that the FCC issues in a particular MTA or BTA, the FCC auctions off the licensing rights. It should be pointed out that the fed- eral government is not hypocritical in providing relief from local restrictions; it also makes its own land available to wireless service providers. The 1996 Act specifies that a federal department or agency must make property under its control available for the placement of the new telecommunication services when doing so does not directly conflict with the department's mission. Yet even then, reasonable fees may be charged to PCS providers. (The Act also requires the FCC to provide technical support to states, to encourage them to use property under their jurisdictions for PCS purposes.) By taking a cue from federal fee- collection efforts, and selling zoning permits for PCS transmitters, municipali- ties would gain revenues to offset, at least partially, the cost imposed on municipal residents by any associated negative externalities. Residents would benefit from the sale of zoning permits, in that revenues so generated would fund increased municipal services and/or allow for reduced taxes. Such a plan contains the acknowledgment that perceived aesthetic or health problems can be asso- ciated with towers and transmitters, and that residents should be compensated for those negative effects. The price of a per- mit should be based on the magnitude of the negative externalities, not on the PCS provider's expected profit. The greater the perceived visual or health derogation, the higher the amount that should be charged for a permit. (It is assumed that the PCS provider owns, or has leased, the land on which the tower is to be built.) Measuring the Damages How can the magnitude of the negative externalities - aesthetic and health issues - associated with towers be estimated? . The aesthetics debate is not easily Winter 1999 • Policy Perspectives resolved: beauty is in the beholder's eye, and some might argue that towers in fact • enhance, rather than detract from, the municipal panorama's appearance. The health debate might be almost as diffi- cult; with cell towers still in their infan- cy, it is far too soon to develop reliable scientific information on health effects. Moreover, issues of aesthetics and health intertwine when tower opponents argue that towers reduce property values. Indeed, opponents might disguise con- cerns about aesthetics as health concerns, because the latter appear less frivolous. Yet whether the dangers are imagined or real, opponents' concerns have delayed tower approval by many local planning boards, and several lawsuits have been brought by residents against municipali- health risk, but only that the perception of danger led to a drop in property value. The court held that whether the danger is scientifically genuine is irrelevant to the central issue of market value impact. Taldng the Initiative Residents concerned about PCs towers for reasons of aesthetics, health, or property values may oppose tower siting on public land under any circumstances, viewing the receipt of money as inappro- priate collaboration with PCs providers. However, because the Telecommunica- tions Act of 1996 precludes the blanket denial of permission to build cell towers, and because courts and state legislatures have also supported the industry, it would seem to be in residents' best interests to participate actively in the process. In fact, by offering to lease municipal land for tower siting, a locality would be able to gain some control over the process, along with some revenue. The rent would com- pensate citizens, at least in part, for any negative externalities created by the wire- less systems. Moreover, if operators had to price their services to reflect the nega- tive externality costs currently borne by others, the allocation of societal resour- ces to this burgeoning industry would be reduced to a more efficient level. ■ Dr. McDonough is a Professor of Econ- omics at the University of Massachusetts- Lowell. She also serves as Clerk of the Andover, MA Zoning Board of Appeals. Notes 1. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, Sec. 704. Facilities Siting; Radio Frequency Emission Stds. 2. Colwell, Peter F., 'Tender Mercies: Efficient and Equitable Land Use Change," Real Estate Economics 25(4), Winter 1997, pp. 525-537. 3. Mills, David E., `The Price of Zoning," Illinois Real Estate Letter 5(3), Summer 1991, pp. 1-4. 4. Colwell, Peter F., "Power Lines & Land Value," J. of Real Est. Rsch. 5(1), Spring 1990, pp. 117-127. 5. Gregory, Robin and Detlof von Winterfeldt, "The Effects of Electromagnetic Fields from Trans- mission Lines on Public Fears & Property Values," J. of Environmental Mgt. 48, 1996, pp. 201-214. 6. Ibid. 7. Mid. The Rental Alternative Because the PCS operator seeking access to a site can possibly obtain it by pursu- ing federal, state, or judicial remedies, a seemingly sensible approach for a muni- cipality is simply to make the desired rights available at an appropriate price. As noted earlier, the municipal sale of zoning rights for cellular tower construc- tion would enable a community, and thus its residents, to be compensated for the negative externalities that may derive from cell towers' existence. Yet while The'muntcipgl'salefof zoning rights for tower constructto;n, r would enableya community, and thus tts restderrts,tofbe'~Y z ri compensated for tWe negattve exteft' ldl tes'that,inay'ilertve om cell towers' existence ties that have approved the construction • of towers. Concern over cell towers has led to the formation of organizations such as the Cellular Tower Coalition (CTC), which advocates increased local control over tower siting, monitors relevant legislation, and maintains a Web site for the dissemination of information. It is certainly possible to infer that transmission towers impose negative externalities on property values, if not necessarily on human health. Available evidence relates to the siting of electric power lines, which admittedly involve higher voltage electrical transmission than do cell towers. Colwell's 1990 article in the Journal of Real Estate Research" reports that proximity to towers supporting transmission lines reduces property values, a finding that is corroborated by the 1993 work of Gregory and von Winterfeldt.s Moreover, a 1993 ruling by the New York State Court of Appeals6 (along with a similar ruling in Komis v. City of Sante Fe)' supports the idea of a stigmatization associated with power lines. Ruling for the plaintiff, the New York court did not • require proof that the power line posed a selling zoning rights is the most efficient economic solution, the outright sale of regulatory approval raises legal questions. Still, a city or town might achieve a similar economic outcome, while avoid- ing legal confrontations, by leasing space owned by the municipality to PCs oper- ators for the construction of towers. The centralized locations of publicly owned buildings could prove ideal for the siting of wireless transmitters. Municipally- owned access strips adjacent to streets and highways would be other possible sites for the placement of cell towers. Several localities have already con- sidered "renting" out municipal space for cellular towers. Prince Georges County, MD plans to charge rent to telecommuni- cations firms for putting towers on public land. In Illinois, the Warrenville village council approved a permit to allow a cell- ular transmitter on the local water tower, in exchange for benefits to the village, although nearby Naperville rejected plans to install cellular antennae on a local post office and the Municipal Center, and North Barrington home owners actually sued local planning officials for approv- ing a cellular tower at the Village Hall. Winter 1999 Illinois Real Estate Letter page 3 • TIE M l~~ nETWORK !ANON-PROFIT CORPORATION www.EMRNetwork.org CITIZENS AND PROFESSIONALS FOR THE RESPONSIBLE USE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION (EMR) PO Box 221, MARSHFIELD, VT 05658 TEL: (802) 426-3035 FAX: (802)426-3030 E-MAIL: infoCa)EMRNetwork.org FACT SHEET September 6, 2001 Support Federal Legislation on Radio Frequency Radiation Protection • The expansion of wireless connections as part of everyday life has resulted in the proliferation of antennas and towers in close proximity to the general public for the first time in history - a massive deployment of a wireless communications infrastructure that has brought around-the-clock exposure to radio frequency/microwave (RF/MW) transmitters to residential neighborhoods, schoolyards, apartment buildings, and workplaces throughout the country. While the technology is now in widespread use, it should be noted that scientific and medical questions about adverse health effects due to chronic or excessive exposure remain shrouded in controversy. Three decades of research demonstrate effects that include weakened immune systems, neurological disorders, tumors, learning and memory problems, sleep disturbances, headaches, and skin rashes. As recently as June 6, 2001, the press called attention to a Swedish study on the use of cellular phones that found a statistically significant link (26% for all cell phone use; 77 % for tumor induction period of > 10 years) between analogue cell phone use and brain cancers (Hardell, 2001). While other developed nations, have taken significant steps to support independent research into the health effects of this radiation and to develop public policies to protect their citizens, the United States has lagged behind. Other countries and some local jurisdictions, Salzburg, Austria, for example, have more protective exposure standards for radio frequencies used in personal wireless technology. Key comparisons using the 900 megahertz frequency are as follows: Country Microwatts Per Square Centimeter United States 580.00 Australia 200.00 Poland 10.00 Russia 10.00 Italy 10.00 China 10.00 Toronto, Canada 10.00 Salzburg, Austria 0.10 New Zealand (proposed) 0.02 Currently, no significant federal research program exists in the United States to investigate the possible health effects of radio frequency and microwave radiation. Increasingly, citizens and local communities are struggling to lawfully comply with federal policies that require them to site licensed 40 A • 0 COMA( Federal Communications Commission V S Office of Engineering & Technology Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields OET BULLETIN 56 Fourth Edition 0 August 1999 ' • • • restrictive limits on exposure are found in this frequency range (the very high frequency or "VHF" frequency range). Although not commonly observed, a microwave "hearing" effect has been shown to occur under certain very specific conditions of frequency, signal modulation, and intensity where animals and humans may perceive an RF signal as a buzzing or clicking sound. Although a number of theories have been advanced to explain this effect, the most widely-accepted hypothesis is that the microwave signal produces thermoelastic pressure within the head that is perceived as sound by the auditory apparatus within the ear. This effect is not recognized as a health hazard, and the conditions under which it might occur would rarely be encountered by members of the public. Therefore, this phenomenon should be of little concern to the general population. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it could be caused by telecommunications applications such as wireless or broadcast transmissions. At relatively low levels of exposure to RF radiation, i.e., field intensities lower than those that would produce significant and measurable heating, the evidence for production of harmful biological effects is ambiguous and unproven. Such effects have sometimes been referred to as "non-thermal" effects. Several years ago publications began appearing in the scientific literature, largely overseas, reporting the observation of a wide range of low-level biological effects. However, in many of these cases further experimental research was unable to reproduce these effects. Furthermore, there has been no determination that such effects might indicate a human • health hazard, particularly with regard to long-term exposure. More recently, other scientific laboratories in North America, Europe and elsewhere have reported certain biological effects after exposure of animals ("in vivo') and animal tissue ("in vitro') to relatively low levels of RF radiation. These reported effects have included certain changes in the immune system, neurological effects, behavioral effects, evidence for a link between microwave exposure and the action of certain drugs and compounds, a "calcium efflux" effect in brain tissue (exposed under very specific conditions), and effects on DNA. Some studies have also examined the possibility of a link between RF and microwave exposure and cancer. Results to date have been inconclusive. While some experimental data have suggested a possible link between exposure and tumor formation in animals exposed under certain specific conditions, the results have not been independently replicated. In fact, other studies have failed to find evidence for a causal link to cancer or any related condition. Further research is underway in several laboratories to help resolve this question. In general, while the possibility of "non-thermal" biological effects may exist, whether or not such effects might indicate a human health hazard is not presently known. Further research is needed to determine the generality of such effects and their possible relevance, if any, to human health. In the meantime, standards-setting organizations and government agencies continue to monitor the latest experimental findings to confirm their validity and determine whether alterations in safety limits are needed in order to protect human health. • R T'7~G~-G~ Lvt ~dc~ ~e FREQUENTLY ASKED City of Tigard NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING QUESTIONS Sh~~nq.A Better Community What Is The Purpose Of This Neighborhood Meeting? The purpose of the meeting is to allow the prospective developer to share with you what they are planning to do. This is your opportunity to become informed of their proposed development and to let them know what issues or concerns you have in regard to their proposal. -What Happeris After The Neighborhood Meeting? After the neighborhood meeting, the prospective developer finalizes their submittal package (often .taking into account citizen concerns) and submits an application to the City. Sometimes it takes a while before the developer's application is ready to submit, so there could be several months between the neighborhood meeting and the submittal of an application. Once an application is submitted to the City, Staff reviews it for completeness. Once an application has been deemed complete; the formal application review begins. It takes approximately 6-8 weeks from the time the application is accepted for a decision to be made. Many types of applications require a public hearing at which citizens are given the opportunity to provide comments or concerns. ~or all types of applications, property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcels receive notice of the public hearing (if applicable), notice of the decision, and are given the opportunity to appeal the decision. What If The Proposal Presented At The Neighborhood Meeting Is Not What Is Actually Submitted? Applicants are not required to submit exactly what was presented at the neighborhood meeting if it generally follows the type of development proposed. This provides for the opportunity to address the neighborhood issues and address other changes necessitated by the development or staff. If the project is entirely different, a new neighborhood meeting would be required. In any case.- notice of decision is sent to property owners within 500 feet of the proposed development allowing them the opportunity to appeal. How Do I Know What Issues Are Valid? A decision is reviewed .based on compliance with the Tigard Development Code. Review the development code to. familiarize yourself with what is permitted and what may not be permitted. A copy of the development code is available for viewing at the Tigard City Library or a copy may be purchased at the Community Development Services counter. You may also contact City Planning staff and ask what the standards are for a specific issue.' Be prepared, however,-that you may not LIKE all the standards, but at least you- know what they are. If a development meets the code standards, it can proceed. 0 • • Chapter 18.510 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Sections: 18510.010 Purpose 18.510.020 List of Zoning Districts 18510.030 Uses 18.510.040 Minimum and Maximum Densities 18.510.050 Development Standards 18.510.060 Accessory Structures 18.510.010 Purpose A. Preserve neighborhood livabili ty. One of the major purposes of the regulations governing development in residential zoning districts is to protect the livability of existing and 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. B. 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. 0 18.510.020 List of Zoning Districts A. R-1: Low-Density Residential District. The R-1 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. B. R-2: Low-Density Residential District. The R-2 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. C. R-3.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-3.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Duplexes are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. D. R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 s- re Let Duel' vaa anA nf+oA 6^A oinnlu_foma., , e.. .++-A ...7:x:....11.. c,. . ,r vv .sy..w avv.. ..Yaa.AVV gaga.. Y.wvLVY .l...5'Y-14.W11' Yll1W {Ll py1lL1L~K1 VoLL41LLVLOllr. JVLLIG civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. E. R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 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. 0 Residential Zoning Distriets 18510-1 SE Update: 01100 ky& • 1. 1. A - -a-* 3 • CHAPTER 18.798 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Sections: 18.798.010 Purpose 18.798.020 Definitions 18.798.030 Exemptions 18.798.040 Uses Permitted Outright 18.798.050 Uses Subject to Site Development Review 18.798.060 Uses Permitted Subject to Conditional Use Review 18.798.070 Submission Requirements 18.798.080 Collocation Protocol 18.798.090 Abandoned Facilities 18.798.010 Purpose A. ose. The purpose of these regulations are to ensure that wireless communication facilities are regulated in a manner which 1) minimizes visual impacts; 2) promotes universal service to all customers; 3) encourages collocation of facilities to minimize the number of new facilities required; 4) ensures structural safety; 5) ensures all providers are fairly treated; and 6) protects neighborhood liveability. 18.798.020 Definitions is A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to facilities regulated by this chapter: 1. "Antenna" means a device commonly in the form of a metal rod, wire panel or dish, for transmitting or receiving electro-magnetic radiation. An antenna is typically mounted on a supporting tower, pole, mast or building. 2. "Collocation" means the placement of two of more antenna systems or platforms by separate FCC license holders ("providers") on a structure such as a tower, building, water tank or utility pole. 3. "FAA" means the Federal Aviation Administration. 4. "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission. 5. "Provider" means a person or company in business of designing, installing, marketing and servicing wireless communication services including cellular telephone, personal communications services (PCS), enhanced/specialized mobile telephones and commercial paging services. 6. "Wireless communication facility" means an unmanned facility for the transmission or radio frequency (xF) signals, usually consisting of an equipment shelter, cabinet or other enclosed structure containing electronic equipment, a support structure, antennas or other transmission and reception devices. 7. "Wireless communication facility, attached" means a wireless communication facility that is affixed to an existing structure, e.g., an existing building wall or roof, mechanical equipment, tower or pole, water tank, utility or light pole, which does not include additional wireless communication support structure. • Wireless Communication Facilities 18.798-1 SE Update: 01/00 • , a 4? k A, t List of Cellular Telecommunications Facilities within the City of Tigard. January 2002 • 1. 8540 SW Pfaffle Street (Zone: C-P) WCTM: 1S135DA Tax Lot: 01100 Tigard File Number. CUP 94-00003NAR 94-00002 (100' Monopole) 2. 10195 SW Cascade (Zone: C-G) WCTM: 1S135BB Tax Lot: 00300 Tigard File Number: BUFF 96-00191 (100' Monopole) 3. 11744 SW Pacific Highway (Zone: C-G) WCTM: 1S136CC Tax Lot: 02100 Tigard File Number. CUP 96-00006/VAR (130' Monopole) 4. 12390 SW Scholls Ferry Road (Zone: C-G) WCTM: 1S134BC Tax Lot: 00600 Tigard File Number. CUP 97-00002 (80' Monopole) 5. 12655 SW North Dakota (Zone: C-G) WCTM: 1S134BC Tax Lot: 00700 Tigard File Number: CUP 95-00004 (55' Monopole) 6. 12925 SW Pacific Highway (Zone: C-G) WCTM: 2S102BD Tax Lot: 02600 Tigard File Number. CUP 96-00009 (80' Monopole) • 7. 8900 SW Burnham (Zone: CBD) WCTM: 2S102DB Tax Lot: 00200 Tigard File Number SDR 98-00010 (100' Monopole) 8. 8777 SW Burnham (Zone: CBD) WCTM: 2S102AD Tax Lot: 02000 Tigard File Number: CUP 96-0004 (100' Monopole) 9. 16295 SW 850 Avenue (Zone: I-P) WCTM: 2S114AA Tax Lot: 00300 Tigard File Number. No file number available (Lattice Tower) 10. 10955 SW 65"' Avenue (Zone: C-G) WCTM: 1S136AD Tax Lot: 06300 Tigard File Number. SDR 2000-00022 (120' Monopole) 11. 14020 SW 72"d Avenue (Zone: I-L) WCTM: 2S101 DD Tax Lot: 00800 Tigard File Number: CUP 96-00001 (100' Monopole) 0 61nuary 10, 2002 • Washington County Department of Assessment and Taxation 155 North 1St Avenue, Suite 320 Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072- Attn: Fred Smith Dear Mr. Smith: Per your request on January 3, 2001, 1 am providing the following list of know cellular communications facilities that have been constructed within the city limits of Tigard. This list does not include rooftop antenna sites, nor does it attempt to document which wireless carriers are present at the cell tower sites. I noted that we have had several land use approvals that have not been constructed, but a majority of these approvals have expired. These were not included in this list. I hope that this information is helpful. Please contact me at (503) 639-4171, extension 407 if you have any questions or require additional information. Also, I would be interested in receiving a copy of your compiled list of the other cell sites in Washington County, when such a list becomes available. Yours truly, Morgan Tracy Associate Planner Enclosure • 46 0 dArevision backups imklMist of monopoles fred smith 01.10.02.doc ~ • ~ ' y - '?g ' - • ~~~i • GLlZ haP 6 • TOP OF LIGHTNOVO ROD 67'-O AGL (3) PROPOSED VERRON PANEL ANTENNAS 0 VERIZON W 5430 N.E. 1221 PORTLAND, ORE( PHONE 503.408.3434 F. w the global leader W TELECOM OUTSOU Wireless Focil' 4520 S.W. Water Ave Portland, Oreg PB ASSOCUTES 1 m1AID6 SWeO (310.7) 229-16f9 (60.7) 229-3m GATE 1°NOVOI PRUACNARY i 15NOY01 FINAL ZONM 20rEBQ2 REVISED ZONI 27WARD2 REVISED ZONI PROPOSED PREF.. EO(RPMENT .1. 316"" PROPOSED URLIIY BACKBOARD - PROPOSED CPWN-LM FENCE - AND CATE WITH SLATS TO MATCH Dunks 1tEVL51016 IN D. aTE 1 5m Na¢ PAC SIZE MBtBFIt PORPECAN-C ,ae NRIBER 201292 SIDE ADDRESS 11355 S.W. TIG TIGARD. OR • TN ELEVATION SCALE W - V` -V 20 0 um TRLE EXTERIOR ELEVATK sNEET 111AIBER A-2 Plnr srAtE: • Verizon Wireless Neighborhood Meeting 3/7/02 Meeting Notes (Transcribed from handwritten notes after the meeting concluded) Sue Beilke: When will you find out if it will be lighted? What kind of lights? Flashing? White? Etc. Shanin: The FAA will determine the kind of lighting the tower will require. It may be nothing at all. We will know once the FAA issues a formal Determination. Sue: Will gravel road be 15' wide or 12' wide? Drawings shows 15'. Shanin: We hEve an easement for 15' wide but plan to gravel only 12' wide. Sue: How many trees will be removed? I have a large concern for the wildlife (frogs, salamanders, etc.) that live in the woods and the shrub area in your access road. Shanin: We will be submitting an arborist report with a tree mitigation plan. At this moment we will be removing three trees. • Cindy Anderson: Comment: Landscaping will be provided in the area they are developing. Jim Kiehlbauch: How tall is the tower? What type of an adjustment are you asking for? Are there any towers within 2000' feet of this one? Shanin: The tower will be 60' tall. The pre-application conference advised we will need a type I adjustment. I am clarifying that with the City. No, there are no towers within 2000'. Sue: Will you provide a report on tower engineering? When will that come out. Shanin: Yes, submitted at the building permit :stage. Sue: If you add more antennas, will you make the tower taller? Shanin: No, the future antennas will go below the ones at the top of the tower. Doug Coghill: (Question to Larry Anderson Do you approve of this tower and the site plan? Is 113ti' the cross street or 114 as the plan shows? Shanin: That is an error. It should be SW 114ti'. Martha Bishop: What is the address of the tower? Shanin: 11355 SW Tigard St. 0 //P Jose Garcia: Will the vehicle traffic increase once the tower goes in? Are there any cancer signals from the tower? Shanin: There will not be any increase in traffic. This is an unmanned facility. A service tech will visit the site every 45 days. There is not conclusive evidence if the radiation emitted by wireless antennas is harmful. For more information, you could consult the Verizon Wireless website. On their home page they have an emissions link. Peekay Chan: How long is the lease? Once its terminated what will happened to the tower? Why this location and not across the street? Shanin: The terms of the lease are confidential. Once it is terminated the tower will be removed within 90 days as required in the lease. We have selected this site because the tower will be naturally, screened in the trees. It is also at the crest of a hill where more area can be reached by the signal. Valli Kiehlbauch: Will there be cables (power)that will be dangerous to kids? If terrorists attack site, will it be harmful to people? Shanin: The site will be surrounded with a fence and anti climbing devices will be used on the tower. There will not be any support cables for the tower. If terrorists attack the site and cause a power failure, the power will shut off and so will the antennas. The tower will be designed to collapse on itself. • Sue: What are the dimensions of the fence? Shanin: We are leasing and fencing a 40'x 50' area. Peekay: Can Verizon go underground and upgrade or change their underground cables? Shanin: Verizon has a utility easement on the property that allows them to maintain or changes the power and telco runs to the site. Jim Kiehlbauch: Who needs to have the tower here? Verizon? Carriers? City of Tigard? Will other carriers come and put up more towers or go on this one? Shanin: The tower will be designed for collocation. However, the additional. carrier would have to lease more ground space outside of our area,. The City would prefer to have collocation rather than additional towers in the immediate area. Doug Coghill: If everything goes well, when will construction start? Shanin: Beginning of 2003 Sue: Is the tower actually 68? How wide the lightning rod? Shanin: Tower is only 60' but there is a lightning rod that extends another 8'. I • don't' know the width of the rod. Impact Study: • The proposed development will have the following effect on public facilities and services: Transportation System: A technician will visit the site approximately once every 30 to 45 days for maintenance of the base station equipment. Because of the infrequent trips to the site, the traffic pattern for the area will not be effected. No improvement to the transportation system is needed. Bikeway System The proposed development will not impact the current design of bike paths in the area. The site will be located on private property that does not have a bikeway system passing through it. No improvement to the bikeway system is needed. Drainage System: The access to the site will be gravel instead of asphalt. By replacing the existing grass with gravel we are not creating any impervious surfaces. The ground water absorption will remain the same, if not improved. The 40' x 50' lease area at the rear of the property will also be gravel for the same reason. Parks System: This site is located on private property, utilizing existing trees for natural screening of the tower to minimize the visual impact from local park districts. The tower will also be painted brown The proposed development will not effect the Parks System. is Water System: This proposed development does not require water to the site. It will be an unmanned facility. Any additional landscaping will be hand watered for the a year as specified by the landscape plan. No irrigation is needed. No improvement to the water system is needed as it will not be utilized. Sewer System: This proposed development does not require sewer service to the site. It will be an unmanned facility and no waste will be generated. No improvement to the sewer system is needed as it will not be utilized. Noise Impact: The tower and antennas will not generate any noise. The base station equipment will be located inside a 12' x 28' shelter. This prefabricated shelter will be equipped with two HVAC units for climate control. The units will meet the requirement of the Wireless Communications code 18.798.60 B. 8. Visual Impact: We have proposed a tower that will compete with the height of the surrounding trees. As noted in the submitted site plan, we have selected a portion of the property where the most trees can be preserved and utilized as natural screening. The tower has been designed to be the smallest lattice tower possible with a three foot width for each of the three sides. The tower and antennas will also be painted a dark brown to blend in with the trees. The fence surrounding the 40'x 50' area will be chain link with green privacy slats on all sides to reduce the visual impact from surrounding properties and from SW Tigard St. The 12' x 28' shelter will be finished in a natural light brown • stucco color. All of these measures have been taken to reduce the visual impact of the site from the street and adjacent properties. Low Cost Wireless Network How-To - Antenna Installation Page 1 of 5 • 0 Antenna Installation The hardest part of setting up a microwave network is finding a location for the antennas for all the nodes in the network. Your radio signal path must have a clear, line-of-sight path and a clear Fresnel zone in front of antenna. This is because microwaves travel essentially in straight lines through the atmosphere due to their short wavelengths. You can think of Fresnel zones as a series of imaginary cones with their base pointing in the direction of your antennas. The greatest Fresnel zone losses generally occur when a diffracting object lies within the first 0.6 Fresnel zone. The losses and gains for all other Fresnel zones are small enough (1 dB or less) to be ignored. Fresnel zone losses of up to 6 dB can be avoided by ensuring that there are no object large enough to act as diffracting edges within the first 0.6 Fresnel zone. If a large, rounded object is in your path, losses may exceed 20 dB through several Fresnel zones. This will force you to mount your antennas on towers or buildings at a significant height. Unfortunately, microwave frequencies can also be affected by too much antenna height, and the signal can be degraded due to ground reflections canceling out the signal. Signals will propagate through a few obstructions such as trees or small buildings, and the radio signal will slightly extend over the line-of-sight horizon, but you shouldn't always count on it. Attenuation By Trees It's safe to assume that if light can't penetrate a stand of trees, microwave losses will be unacceptable. Frequency (MHz) Approximate Attenuation (dB/meter) 432 0.10 - 0.30 1296 0.15 - 0.40 2304 0.25 - 0.50 3300 0.40 - 0.60 5600 0.50 - 1.50 10000 1.00 - 2.00 • Microwaves are not effected by the ionized layers in our atmosphere because these layers are higher than the normal line-of-sight transmission of the signals. Temperature inversions can be a problem though. This is because as hot air rises, moisture rising with the air causes attenuation of the signal. Lower microwave frequencies are also not as affected by water vapor and oxygen as you might think. Refer to this table, or this Navy site for more information on atmospheric http://www.gsl.net/n9zia/wireless/pageO6.htmi 5/5/02 About QSL.NET Page 1 of 2 ABOUT QSL.NET "Connecting Hams around the world!" 0 QSLNET was started in the Winter of 1996 by K3TK) as an experiment in managing a live Internet network and learning the Linux Operating System The System you see here has grown by word of mouth to be largest site devoted totally to Amateur Radio on the Internet. Recently QSL.NET went over 400,000 users, it sends and receives over 1 million a-mails daily and has online over 50,000 individual and club web pages. Not links-the pages live here. Now 6 years old, QSL.NET, QTH.NET and SWL.NET are the largest collection points of ham radio knowledge to be found anywhere. The QSL system consists of 21 servers offering the following FREE services.... all you need is to be a ham. WWW.QSL.NET • FREE email address automatically forwarded to your real address... http://www.qsl.net/aboutqsl.html 6/19/02 Solectek: Tech Library L w SALECTEK • wireless networking solutions hams ;news & events products support customer profiles I about us technical papers- - white nauers I I I I Line of Sight • Radio transmission requires a dear path between antennas known as radio line of sight It is necessary to understand the requirements for radio line of sight when designing a network using Solectek equipment. tine of sight is the direct free-space path that exists between two points. Using binoculars on a dear day, it is easy to determine if visual line of sight exists between two pants that are miles apart. To have a dear tine of sight there must be no ~j obstructions between the two locations. Often this means that the observation points PQV Qst Rea r must be high enough to allow the viewer to see over any ground-based obstructions. The following obstructions might obscure a visual link: • Topographic features, such as mountains • The curvature of the Earth • Buildings and other man-made objects • Tres If any of these obstructions rise high enough to block the view from end to end, there is no visual line of sight. Obstructions that can interfere with visual line of sight can also interfere with radio line of sight. But one must also consider the Fresnel effect. If a hard object, such as a mountain ridge or building, is too dose to the signal path, it can damage the radio signal or reduce its strength. This happens even though the obstacle does not obscure the direct, visual line of sight. The Fresnel zone for a radio beam is an elliptical area immediately surrounding the visual path. It varies in thickness depending on the length of the signal path and the frequency of the signal. The necessary clearance for the Fresnel zone can be calculated, and it must be taken into account when designing a wireless links. • http://www.solectek.com/techlib/techpapers/whitepapers/wp-los.htmi Page 1 of 2 5/5/02 Solectek: Tech Library Page 2 of 2 As shown in the picture above, when a hard object protrudes into the signal path within • the Fresnel zone, knife-edge diffraction can deflect part of the signal and cause it to reach the receiving antenna stighty later than the direct signal. Since these deflected signals are out of phase with the direct signal, they can reduce its power or cancel it out altogether. If trees or other'soft' objects protrude into the Fresnel zone, they can attenuate (reduced the strength of) a passing signal. In short, the fad that you can see a location does not mean that you can establish a quality radio rink to that location. For short links of three miles or less, you can determine radio line of sight by climbing to the proposed antenna mounting point and looking for the other site with the aid of binoculars. If you can see the destination pant, you can calculate the Fresnel zone allowance by reference table or with Saectek's help. If any obstacles (buildings, trees, etc.) in the Fresnel zone between the two points could interfere with the signal, the calculation for the antenna height must take these obstructions into account Where trees or man-made objects obscure one end of the link, Solectek or a third-party specialist can float a large balloon on a calibrated tether. Using binoculars and cell phones or walkie-talkies, the person at one site can tell the person at the other site when the balloon is high enough for visual line of sight. The clearance requirement for the Fresnel zone is added to the visual line of sight height when calculating the antenna heights. For links of three to twenty-five miles, Solectek uses computerized maps provided by the US Geological Service to make a preliminary assessment concerning the feasibility of a radio link between two points. Where the preliminary finding leaves any doubt, it is the customers responsibility to engage the proper resources to certify that radio line of sight for the desired frequency is possible and what the antenna heights must be. Whenever possible, Solectek recommends that the customer establish a test link, using the proposed Solectek equipment between the sites to determine the actual quality of the path. Soledek Technical and Field Support has further information. There are.several options to establish or improve the line of sight • • Raise the antenna mounting point on the existing structure • Build a new structure, i.e. radio tower, which is tall enough to mount the antenna • Increase the height of an existing tower • Locate a different mounting pant, i.e. building or tower, for the antenna • Cut down problem trees top back to white papers Send mail to webmaster Msolectek.com with questions or comments about this web site. Copyright ® 2001 Solectek Corporation Last modified: August 3, 2001 • http://www.solectek.com/techlib/techpapers/whitepapers/wp-los.htmi 5/5/02 Solectek: About Us Page 1 of 1 9 ~-/t SALECTEK ABU • wireless networking solutions . s i t e map ; home news & events j products supporlj tech library customer profiles about S0hW :k awands,& necagnition - company history Solectek, based in San Diego California, designs, products manufactures and markets a full suite of wireless connectivity products. Our wireless bridges and contact us routers enable cost effective wireless LAN / WAN spread spectrum communications solutions that have data rates up to 11Mbps for ranges up to 30 p map miles. Solectek has received the Market Engineering Award from Frost & Solectek products conned buildings and multiple marketarketin, ng an in consuulting lting o and d m training remote sites in minutes without recurring leased line company- costs and without a license. Our focus is to continue to provide ISF's, Telco's and end-users the most advanced wireless networking solution available. Soledek's wireless networking solutions provide _ i seamless links over long distances with flexibility, reliability, and security. Soledek s specialties include bridging/routing, high speed data throughput, and remote control and monitoring. Looking forward, Solectek is further advancing its technologies to deliver scaleable bandwidth and added security at extreme high speeds. Keep watching as Soledek continues to broaden our product famTes adding new features and new applications for the largest corporations to the smallest home offices. • Send mail to webmasterCuRsolectek.com with questions or comments about this web site. Copyright ® 2001 Solectek Corporation Last modified: August 3, 2001 • http://www.solectek.com/about/index.htmi 5/5/02 • ~N. 6 0 0 'eO a~~i- le4ed ot4- 10 d L • • 0 4 0 G~-pPr ~ _ u va- 70 ~x 0 0 r 7,1--ebb `F ' ~cl'A ! ~q~ x Fir x X X, ~A,t x~ 1C Tyf¢ -7S 4 X ' rye K 9of X ~K i~ -ft'f-9 R,, g; d Qtt C'- • .s • • { GENERAL NOTES' PROPOSED ARBORVITAE SHRUBS; PLANTINGS MUST REACH 6'-0' W HEIGHT AND 95% OPACITY WITHIN THREE YEARS PER TIGARD 1. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED BY PERSONS FAMILIAR WITH THIS KIND OF WORK AND UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A QUALIFIED FORMAN 2. PLANT LOCATIONS ON PLAID ARE DIAGRAMMATIC AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT IN THE RE15 S ORDINANCE 18.798-6 FIELD BY LANDSCA PE CONTRACTOR. S B9* 56'34'E 1 3. PUNT TREES AND SHRUBS UPRIGHT AND FACE TO GIVE THE BEST APPEARANCE OR RELATIONSHIP TO ADJACENT STRUCTURES. EXISTING AWNING ' QD I®=~'' 4. BACKFILL SOIL MIX ORGANIC COMPOST TURE TO BE A SANDY TOPSOIL INCLUDING SANDY SO . USE CEDAR GROVE 2-WAY TOPSOIL IL AND HIGHLY I i 6q .L`~.L J I T j r I 5. PUNT TREES AND STAKE AS SHOWN IN DETAIL. 6. RAKE SOIL SURFACE SMOOTH AND FREE FROM ALL ROCKS, SOIL LUMPS. S➢CKS, AND OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIALS. 7. AFTER PLANTING, COYER ALL AREAS WITH THREE (3) INCHES OF FINE BARK MULCH, ' 1 01 1 s b B. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO GUARANTEE ALL PLANT MATERIAL FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR DOUGLAS FIR (PSEUDOTSUW MENZIESII) AFTER ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER. EXImNC sHUP . RUBBER OR PLASTIC PROTECTIVE SLEEVE AT TREE - 3/8' DIA NYLON ROPE ` - I ' k i . WOODEN OR STEEL STAKES DRIVEN 24" INTO UNDISTURBED SOD. MIN. j ~R09915 PARCEL I ' GREEN NO PROPOSED I2'r . I ' GRFFNH WIDE GRAVEL I I I (THREE LOCATIONS) PROPOSED 6'-0' TALL CHAIN UNK FENCE WITH (3) STRANDS BARB WIRE AT LOP, INSTALL (3) EXISTING RED AVER TREES (f0 REMAIN) PRUNE LOT 111 600 _ ACCESS DRIVE I GREEN PRIVACY SLATS AS REWIRED ~ I 1 ~ EXSTING . . /V/ ~v-I 11 PRO O~SEDRFABOR~-0' S I MGKT ' PLANTINGS ASPHALT PAVBG--- EXISTING HELLI .:.i HOUSE TO BE I OPACITY WITHIN THREE YEARS PER TIGARD WIRELESS ORDINANCE 18.798-6 \ n,, N I I EXISTING ELF REMOVED DSGPE HOUSE EXEIDIG SHED, N BE BE REMOVED I ~ / ~ ~ / ® ® ® ® ® _ ® ® ® 1 a .EY. I ~ n ' n X X X WPAGE ISTINC ® I I 6WN 1 I ' I I 1 ~ r TRES ROOT BALL I - 1 I X I 1 ' { E :I PROPOSED 15' T PVTMOSS AND FERTILIZED SOIL MIXTURE UNDISTURBED EARTH I 1 I X WIDE SURVD`` ACCESS 1 EASEMENT. SEE REE PLANTING CALE: NOT TO SCALE - - _ - _ - _ _ _ - - I - r ' ' i PROPOSED 6 [HUN-LIKK FENCE I ALONG EAST , . p 1 I / / 1 1 TY PROPERTY lWE LINE .;:x. PROPOSED 12': PROPOSED 'PACIFIC I BOCWOOD STRFF7 WIDE . IY LO I ASPHALT PAVED I' ®X I'~ i t ~j/ / / I I " TREE PVNTOIG, APRON 20-7 O.L. MAX ® I X 3 .F ° ` yA,4 TI~ 1 0 y 3' MULCH / / T t C t, : ' 'CST~hD Co`L w ^`N~' ''F f' .W TILARD "SIR C*.'I~ t S ~3 .ic~ FORM SAUCER WITH 3 CONTINUOUS RIM j ® ' ~1 / I 1 '.:r. ONP ~ 1 qIR i OHP OKP DNP - I I TI SPECIFIED P A J d S J n XISTING TREE LEGEND SYM DESCRIPTION NG L N MIX WATER & TAMP TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS -III ( I _ - I-I I I I-~ I I_I I I_I ® (o REM WILLOWPRUNETREE IRE AS RE X AS REWIRED I / . WESTERN RED CEDAR ! / i ® ' n• 5 ~?l t9?fS 1. SITE PLAN B A DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION ONLY, DO NOT SCALE; VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS 'THWA PIJGTA' DOUGLAS FIR a PSUEDOTSUGA MENZIESII" OREGON WHITE OAK "OUERCUS AWTHORN GARRYANA' O H 'CRATAEGUS DOUGLASU' 2 K BALL D.A. 1SHRUB PLANTING SCALE NOT TO SCALE ✓ I / I ® 1' I I ® X I 2 VERIFY ALL PROPERTY LINE WFORWTON WITH EX6IWG SURVCY DATA. LLOW X SPECIES' O WSW R NEW LANDSCAPE LEGEND SYM. DESCRIPTION ~ I L ' TT ' a R EFS T AT M DUSTING TREES HIT MUST BE REIgVED FOR 3. ACCESS ROAD ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAN FOR CIAPoh', ® BRA' INU © CHERRY PRUNUS SPECIES- PACIFIC DOGWOOD CORNUS NUTTAWI' QTY, MIN. 2' CALIPER 0 48' ' _ _ _ 1/JL1 OJT `~,j( 7 I . \ I I 4. THE FARTING UNDERSTORY TREES AOHODI THE OREGON ' O.C. MAXIMUM 10 SPACE 20 RS TALL LL A THE FIRS PINE SITE ARE IAnFOLLA ARBORVITAE ® CORN US NLNTAWI' I ° I I I TH SURROUNDING WC THE SITE ARE ARE 100'-110 TAIL 5. FOR ADOITIONLL INFORMATION SEE THE ARBOR51'S REPORT. ® ROCK MAPLE x 'ACER GLABRUM' ® Ott. MUST BE LARGE ENOUGH TO 50 REACH OPACITY 6, HEIGHT HEIGHT AND 95% THREE YEARS I I i / \ I I 1 w I I I I STREET TREE PLANTING PLAN ~~r m SGALF 1- = 30'-r B LEASE AREA LANDSCAPE PLAN " scALE % = 1'-0 20 V~I~YL011wiref VERIZON WIRELE 5430 N.E. 122nd AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97230 PHONE: 503.408.3434 FAX: 503.409.3489 Wireless Facilities, Inc. 4520 S.W. Woler Ave., Suite 201E Portland, Oregon 97201 PB ASSOCIATES PORTIAND 10 NIA 61105®11MIY ~IIAI (50]1 7N-IOAO ® (507) SPN-IS'A RELEASE RITE 14NOVO1 PREUMNART ZONING 15NOVOI FINAL ZONING 20FED02 REVISED ZONING 27MAR02 REVISED ZONING REVISgDB NO. DATE SITE NAME PECAN SITE PORPECAN-CV1 JOB NUYBFR IN IDUSE 201292 DAWN B. JD CHECKED BY: PMB SITE AMESs 11355 S.W. TIGARD ST~ TIGARD, OR, 97 SHEET 1171E STREET TREE PLANTING PLAN LEASE AREA LANDSCAPE PLAN L1 PLOT-_- 1:1 • • 0 Attachment 22 Site Plan Measurements East Property Line = 238.2 feet Measured Length on Plan (Attachment 21) = 89 16ths 238.2 feet/89 16ths = 2.68 feet per 16th inch as Conversion Factor Verification of Conversion Factor: Measured Length of North Property Line = 71 16ths 71 16ths x 2.68 feet/16th inch = 190.3 feet This compares favorably with the length of 190.8 feet listed on the site plan. Measured Length on Plan from Center of Tower to Nearest Corner Of Property Owner House = 28.5 16ths 28.5 16ths x 2.68 feet/16th inch = 76.4 feet, the distance between the nearest corner of the house and the center of the tower. Measured Length on Plan from Center of Tower to Nearest Corner Of Greenhouse = 24 16ths 24 16ths x 2.68 feet/16th inch = 64.3 feet, the distance between the nearest corner of the greenhouse and the center of the tower. Height of Tower = 60 feet + 4 feet Antenna Height = 64 feet 0 • -,A 6 kWeii i M)WIndustries,Inc. April 17, 2002 WE 575 Andover Park Street, Suite 201 Tukwila, WA 98188 Attention: Mr. Jim Pribbenow Fax: 206-574-6333 • World Headquarters 6718 W. Plank Rd. Peoria, IL 61604 USA Ph: 309-697-4400 FAX: 309-697-5612 Reference: 60 Ft. Model SSV Tower, Site: POR Pecan, Washington County, Oregon Dear Mr. Pribbenow: • The referenced tower will be designed to meet the specified loading requirements provided to ROHN in accordance with the ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-F Standards for an 80 mph basic wind speed and a % inch radial ice load. In the event an extreme wind speed were to occur, a failure would not be expected to occur the instant the design wind speed was exceeded. All tower members would be designed to support a minimum of 1.25 times their design load without permanent deformation. It is our understanding that the design of the referenced tower requires consideration of a contained fall radius in the event a catastrophic wind speed were to result in a failure. Although the tower would not be designed to fail, stronger leg and brace members than required by analysis could be provided in the lower portion of the tower. This would result in an increased safety factor in the lower sections. This design would enable the tower to fail through a combination of bending and buckling in the upper portion of the tower should a catastrophic wind loading occur. Failure in this manner would result in a fall zone radius of 5'. Please contact us at your convenience should you have further questions concerning the safety of tower structures o -othepaspeects of tower design. Please reference this letter with any forthcoming purchase • Over 1150 YearS. of Service to he Communications Industry OL±4 CLI La ~ a q • • (1) Investigate other locations within the same lot where such visual impacts can be minimized overall; (2) Investigate alternative tower designs that can be used to minimize the interruption of views from the residence to the point of visual interest; (3) Minimize visual impacts to the point of visual interest referred to above, by demonstrating that collocation or the use of other structures within the applicant's service area is not feasible at this time; (4) Minimize visual impacts by varying the setbacks or landscaping standards that would otherwise be applicable, so long as the overall impact of the proposed development is as good or better than that which would otherwise be required without said variations. 2. Color. Towers shall have a non-reflective surface and a neutral color that is the same or similar color as the supporting structure to make the antennas and related equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible, or, if required by the FAA, be painted pursuant to the FAA's requirements; 3. Setbacks: Towers shall be set back from the property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. A Type ll adjustment may be obtained to reduce this setback, subject to criteria of approval contained in Section 18.370.020 C8a; 4. Tower spacing: No new tower in a residential zone shall be allowed within 2,000 feet of an existing tower. No new tower in non-residential zones shall be allowed within 500 feet of an existing tower. • If, having completed the collocation protocol outlined in Section 18.798.080 without success, the provider will be required to build a tower less than the distances specified above, it will be required to obtain a Type I adjustment governed by 18.370.020 C8b; 5. Lighting: No lighting shall be permitted on a tower except as required by the FAA; 6. Fencing and security: For security purposes, towers and ancillary facilities shall be enclosed by a six-foot fence; 7. Landscaping and screening. a. Landscaping shall be placed outside the fence and shall consist of evergreen shrubs which reach six-feet in height and 95% opacity within three years of planting. b. When adjacent to or within residentially-zoned property, free-standing towers and accessory equipment facilities shall be screened by the planting of a minimum of four evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height at the time of planting. The planting of said trees shall be prescribed in number by a plan prepared by a registered arborist in locations that (1) most effectively screen the wireless facilities from residential uses and (2) promote the future survival of the trees while limiting adverse effects of the trees on abutting properties. Existing evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height may be used to meet the screening requirement of this section if the arborist demonstrates that they provide screening for abutting residential uses. • 8. Noise: Noise-generating equipment shall be sound-buffered by means of baffling, barriers or other suitable means to reduce the sound level measured at the property line to 50 dBA (day)/40 dBA Wreless Communication Facilities 1&79" SE Update: 01/00 &Aim • (a) The combined height of both signs shall not exceed 150% of the sign height normally allowed for one freestanding sign in the same zoning district; however, neither shall exceed the height normally allowed in the same zoning district; (b) Neither sign will pose a vision clearance problem or will project into the public right- of-way; and (c) Total combined sign area for both signs shall not exceed 150% of what is normally allowed for one freestanding sign in the same zoning district; however, neither shall exceed the height normally allowed in the same zoning district. b. In addition to the criteria in Subsection a above, the Director shall review all of the existing or proposed signage for the development and its relationship to the intent and purpose of Chapter 18.780, Signs. As a condition of approval of the adjustment, the Director may require: (1) Removal or alteration of nonconforming signs to achieve compliance with the standards contained in Chapter 18.780, Signs; (2) Removal or alteration of conforming signs to establish a consistent sign design throughout the development; and (3) Application for sign permits for signs erected without permits or removal of such illegal signs. • 9. Adjustments to setbacks to reduce tree removal (Chapter 18.790). By means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, the Director may grant a modification from applicable setback requirements of this Code for the purpose of preserving a tree or trees on the site of proposed development. Such modification may reduce the required setback by up to 50%, but shall not be more than is necessary for the preservation of trees on the site. The setback modification described in this section shall supersede any special setback requirements or exceptions set out elsewhere in this title, including but not limited to Chapter 18.730, except Section 18.730.040. 10. Adjustments to wireless communication facilities (Chapter 18.798). a. By means of a Type H procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the requirement that a wireless communication tower be set back at least the height of the tower from any off-site residence based on findings that at the following criteria are satisfied: (1) The proposed location of the tower complies with the setback requirements for the underlying zone in which the property is located; (2) A structural engineer certifies that the tower is designed to collapse within itself; (3) Because of topography, vegetation, building orientation and/or other factor, a site closer to an off-site residence will equally or better reduce the visual impacts associated with the tower upon the off-site residence. • Variances and Adjustments 18.370-7 SF✓Code Update: 04102 i fail through a combination of bending and buckling in the upper portion of the pole folding over the lower portion, resulting in a fall zone radius of 5'." In a later letter, Mr. Azoun states, i; "The referenced tower will be designed to meet the specified loading requirements ...for an 80 mph basic wind speed and a '/2 inch radial ice load. A 5-foot fall radius will put the tower within the footprint of the leased area. In consideration of this information, the tower would collapse within the confines of the fenced area with 22 feet to spare on the side property line, and 10 feet on the rear property line. This criterion is satisfied. 3. Because of topography, vegetation, building orientation and/or other factors, a site closer to an off-site residence will equally, or better reduce the visual impacts associated with the tower upon the off-site residence. As indicated earlier in this report, a 12-lot subdivision has received preliminary approval on the lot directly to the east of this site. The applicant of the subdivision has indicated that several of the trees that would screen the tower from homes constructed on that site would be removed thereby increasing the visual impacts to their proposed homes. FINDINGS: The proposed location of the telecommunications facility is located in a portion of the property that is currently heavily vegetated. Staff cannot determine with certainty that the removal of trees on the adjacent property will afford the same visual relief that exists currently. CONDITION: Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan, designed by a professional landscape architect, to increase the intensity of landscaping along the eastern property line to better reduce any visual impacts that may be incurred as a result of tree removal on the adjacent property. Staff will provide a • copy of the tree removal plan for the Cascadian Place Subdivision to the applicant. RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (18.510) The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Wireless communication facilities are also permitted conditionally. Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2. • STANDARD R-4.5 CUP Proposed Requirements Minimum Lot Size - Detached unit 7,500 sq.fL -0- 2,000 sq.fL - Duplexes 10,000 sq.fL Leased Area - Attached unit 1 verage Minimum Lot Width - Detached unit lots 50 ft. - 0- 40 ft. - Duplex lots 90 ft. - Attached unit lots Maximum Lot Coverage ___0_ N/A Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 20 ft. 20 ft. 200+ ft. - Side facing street on comer & through lots 15 ft. 15 ft. N/A - Side yard 5 ft. 5 ft. 165/5 ft. - Rear yard 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district - Distance between property line N/A and front of garage 20 ft. 20 ft. N/A As illustrated in the table and on the plans provided by the applicant, the proposal meets the minimum development requirements of the underlying zone where applicable. This criterion is ..~.-..-......•..e.~. r~.+..-... nTr..-rt Tr.. •.~r. nwnr n nr nn r, f 1► • • • • • CHAPTER 18.798 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Sections: 18.798.010 Purpose 18.798.020 Definitions 18.798.030 Exemptions 18.798.040 Uses Permitted Outright 18.798.050 Uses Subject to Site Development Review 18.798.060 Uses Permitted Subject to Conditional Use Review 18.798.070 Submission Requirements 18.798.080 Collocation Protocol 18.798.090 Abandoned Facilities 18.798.010 Purpose A. ose. The purpose of these regulations are to ensure that wireless communication facilities are regulated in a manner which 1) minimizes visual impacts; 2) promotes universal service to all customers; 3) encourages collocation of facilities to minimize the number of new facilities required; 4) ensures structural safety; 5) ensures all providers are fairly treated; and 6) protects neighborhood liveability. 18.798.020 Definitions A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to facilities regulated by this chapter: 1. "Antenna" means a device commonly in the form of a metal rod, wire panel or dish, for transmitting or receiving electro-magnetic radiation. An antenna is typically mounted on a supporting tower, pole, mast or building. 2. "Collocation" means the placement of two of more antenna systems or platforms by separate FCC license holders ("providers") on a structure such as a tower, building, water tank or utility pole. 3. "FAA" means the Federal Aviation Administration. 4. "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission. 5. "Provider" means a person or company in business of designing, installing, marketing and servicing wireless communication services including cellular telephone, personal communications services (PCS), enhanced/specialized mobile telephones and commercial paging services. 6. "Wireless communication facility" means an unmanned facility for the transmission or radio frequency (RF) signals, usually consisting of an equipment shelter, cabinet or other enclosed structure containing electronic equipment, a support structure, antennas or other transmission and reception devices. 7. "Wireless communication facility, attached" means a wireless communication facility that is affixed to an existing structure, e.g., an existing building wall or roof, mechanical equipment, tower or pole, water tank, utility or light pole, which does not include additional wireless communication support structure. Wireless Communication Facilities 18.798-1 SE Update: 01/00 • • • 8. "Wireless communication transmissions towers" means new structure, tower, pole or mast erected to support wireless communication antennas and connecting appurtenances. For the purposes of these regulations, such a support structure will be referred to as a "tower". Support structure types include: a. "Guyed tower" means a tower which is supported by the use of cables (guy wires) which are permanently anchored; b. "Lattice tower" means a tower characterized by an open framework of lateral cross members which stabilize the tower; c. "Monopole" means a single uptight pole, engineered to be self-supporting and requiring guy wires or lateral cross-supports. 18.798.030 Exemptions A. Exemptions. The following uses and activities shall be exempt from these regulations: 1. Existing towers and antennas and any repair, reconstruction or maintenance of these facilities which do not create a significant change in visual impact; 2. Ham radio towers, citizen band transmitters and antennas; 3. Microwave dishes; • 4. Antennas and equipment and other apparatus completely located within an existing structure whose purpose is to enhance or facilitate communication function of other structures on the site. 18.798.040 Uses Permitted Outright • A. Collocation of antenna(s) on existing towers in commercial and industrial zones. Installing an antenna(s) on an existing communication tower of any height is permitted outright, so long as the additional antenna(s) are no more than 20 feet higher than the existing tower, no more than three providers are collocating on the towers, and the color of the antenna(s) blends with the existing structure or surroundings; B. Collocation of antenna(s) on existing non-tower structure in commercial and industrial zones. Installing an antenna(s) on an existing structure other than a tower, such as a building, water tank, sign, light fixture or utility pole, is permitted outright so long as the additional antenna(s) is no more than 20 feet higher than the existing structure, no more than three providers are collocating on the structure, and the color of the antenna(s) blends with the existing structure or surroundings; C. Collocation of antenna(s) on existing non-tower structures in residential zones. Installing an antenna(s) on an existing structure other than a tower, such as a building, water tank, sign, light fixture or utility pole, so long as the additional antenna(s) is no more than 10 feet higher than the existing structure, no more than three providers are collocating on the structure, and the color of the antenna(s) blends in with the existing structure and surroundings; Wireless Communication Facilities 18.798-2 SE Update: 01/00 • • • D. Installation of accessory equipment shelters. Any provider who is authorized to collocate on an existing tower or non-tower structure as provided in Section 18.798.040 A-C above, shall be allowed to install any necessary accessory equipment shelters and related equipment at or near the base of the tower or structure, within the structure, so long as: 1. The accessory equipment shelter and related equipment are either located completely within the existing structure, or are located within the fenced area previously approved; 2. The equipment shelter and related equipment shall comply with the development standards, such as setbacks, height limitations and lot coverage, of the base zone; 3. No previously-approved landscaping shall be removed to locate the accessory equipment building and related equipment. If any such landscaping is removed, the applicant shall be required to replace it with the equivalent quantity and type of landscaping on site, in a manner to achieve the original intent, or to achieve sufficient screening of any proposed new shelter and/or equipment if the original intent would no longer be applicable. If any removed landscaping cannot be replace on site, then the applicant shall be reviewed per Section 18.798.050 below. E. Towers in the I-L and I-H zones. Locating a tower of any height, including antennas, other supporting equipment and accessory equipment shelters, is permitted by right in the I-L and I-H zones, providing that such a tower shall be set back from any existing off-site residence by a distance equal to the height of the tower. Any equipment shelter shall comply with the development standards of the base zone. 18.798.050 Uses Permitted Subject to Site Development Review • A. Uses permitted. The Director shall review the uses subject to Site Development Review, as regulated by Chapter 18.360, using approval criteria contained in Section B below. The following uses are subject to approval under this section: 1. Towers in commercial zones and the I-P zone. A tower, including antennas, other support equipment and/or accessory equipment buildings, in any commercial or I-P district, provided that such a tower shall be set back from any existing off-site residence by a distance equal to the height of the tower, 2. Public open space. A tower, including antennas, other support equipment and/or accessory equipment buildings, provided that such a tower shall be set back from any existing off-site residence by a distance equal to the height of the tower. A Type 11 adjustment may be obtained to reduce this setback, subject to criteria of approval contained in Section 18.370.020 C8a; 3. Collocation in commercial and industrial zones. Collocation of an antenna(s) that extends more than 20 feet above an existing tower or non-tower structure, or when collocating more than three providers in commercial and industrial zones; 4. Collocation in residential zones. Collocation of an antenna(s) that extends more than 10 feet above a non-tower structure or an existing tower; 5. Accessory equipment shelter. Installation of additional accessory equipment shelters or related equipment if required existing landscaping is removed and cannot be replaced on the site to achieve the original intent, or to sufficiently screen any proposed new shelter and/or equipment if the original intent is no longer applicable; • Wireless Communication Facilities 18.798-3 SE Update: 01/00 • • • 6. Towers and antennas in public rights-of-way. Installation of any tower or antenna within any public right-of-way, provided that such tower or antenna shall be set back from any off-site residence by a distance equal to the height of the tower. B. Review criteria. Any use subject to Site Development Review per Section A above, shall be evaluated using the following standards: 1. Aesthetic: a. New towers shall maintain a non-reflective grey finish or, if required by the FAA, be painted pursuant to the FAA's requirements; b. If collocation on an existing tower is requested, the design of any antenna(s), accessory structures or equipment shall, to the extent possible, use materials, colors and textures that will match the existing tower or non-tower structure to which the equipment of the collocating provider is being attached; c. If collocation on an existing non-tower structure is requested, the antenna(s) and supporting electrical and mechanical equipment shall be a neutral color that is the same as the color as the supporting structure so as to make the antenna(s) and related equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible. 2. Setbacks: 0a. Towers designed to collapse within themselves shall be set back in accordance with the setbacks contained in the base zone; b. Towers not designed to collapse within themselves shall be set back from the property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. 3. Tower spacing: No new tower shall be allowed within 500 feet of an existing tower. If, having completed the collocation protocol outlined in Section 18.798.080 without success, the provider will be required to build a tower less than 500 feet from an existing tower, it will be required to obtain a Type I adjustment governed by 18.370.020 C8b; 4. Tower height: No tower shall exceed 100 feet for a single user or 125 for multiple users; 5. Lighting: No lighting shall be permitted on a tower except as required by the FAA; 6. Fencing and security: For security purposes, towers and ancillary facilities shall be enclosed by a minimum six-foot fence; 7. Landscaping and screening: a. Landscaping-shall be placed outside the fence and shall consist of evergreen shrubs which reach six feet in height and 95% opacity within three years of planting; b. When adjacent to or within residentially-zoned property, free-standing towers and accessory equipment facilities shall be screened by the planting of a minimum of four evergreen trees at • Wireless Communication Facilities 18.798-4 SE Update: 01/00 • • • least 15 feet in height at the time of planting. The planting of said trees shall be prescribed in number by a plan prepared by a registered arborist in locations that (1) most effectively screen the wireless facilities from residential uses and (2) promote the future survival of the trees while limiting adverse effects of the trees on abutting properties. Existing evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height may be used to meet the screening requirement of this section if the arborist demonstrates that they provide screening for abutting residential uses; 8. Noise: Noise-generating equipment shall be sound-buffered by means of baffling, barriers or other suitable means to reduce the sound level measured at the property line to 50 dBA (day)/40 dBA (night) when adjacent to a noise-sensitive land use and 75 dBA (day)/60 dBA (night) when adjacent to other uses. C. Other requirements. At the time a provider requests a building permit, it must demonstrate compliance to all applicable state and federal regulations, including, but not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Structural and Building Codes and FAA. 18.798.060 Uses Permitted Subject to Conditional Use Review A. Uses permitted. The Hearings Officer shall review the uses subject conditional use review, by means of a Type IRA procedure, as regulated by 18.390.050 using approval criteria contained in Section B below. The following uses are subject to approval under this section: 1. Towers in residential zones. A tower, including antennas, other support equipment and/or accessory equipment buildings, in any residential zone; 02. Towers within areas with historic overlay designation. A tower, including antennas, other support equipment and/or accessory equipment buildings, in areas with historic overlay designation; 3. Towers in excess of 100 feet for a single user and 125 feet for multiple users except those located in the I-L and I-H zones, which are allowed outright per Section 18.798.040E. B. Review criteria. Any use subject to review per Section A above, shall be evaluated using the following standards: 1. Protection of points of visual interest: a. Views from residential structures located within 250 feet of the proposed wireless communication facility to the following points of visual interest shall be protected to the greatest practical extent: (1) Mountains; (2) Significant public open spaces; (3) Historic structures. b. The following standards, and only the following standards, shall be used to protect the above identified points of visual interest to the greatest practical extent if views from a residential structure located within 250 feet from a proposed wireless communication facility to a point of visual interest specifically identified above is significantly affected: • Wireless Communication Facilities 18.798-5 SE Update: 01/00 • • • (1) Investigate other locations within the same lot where such visual impacts can be minimized overall; (2) Investigate alternative tower designs that can be used to minimize the interruption of views from the residence to the point of visual interest; (3) Minimize visual impacts to the point of visual interest referred to above, by demonstrating that collocation or the use of other structures within the applicant's service area is not feasible at this time; (4) Minimize visual impacts by varying the setbacks or landscaping standards that would otherwise be applicable, so long as the overall impact of the proposed development is as good or better than that which would otherwise be required without said variations. 2. Color. Towers shall have a non-reflective surface and a neutral color that is the same or similar color as the supporting structure to make the antennas and related equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible, or, if required by the FAA, be painted pursuant to the FAA's requirements; 3. Setbacks: Towers shall be set back from the property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. A Type II adjustment may be obtained to reduce this setback, subject to criteria of approval contained in Section 18.370.020 C8a; 4. Tower spacing: No new tower in a residential zone shall be allowed within 2,000 feet of an existing tower. No new tower in non-residential zones shall be allowed within 500 feet of an existing tower. If, having completed the collocation protocol outlined in Section 18.798.080 without success, the provider will be required to build a tower less than the distances specified above, it will be required to obtain a Type I adjustment governed by 18.370.020 C8b; 5. Lighting: No lighting shall be permitted on a tower except as required by the FAA; 6. Fencing and security: For security purposes, towers and ancillary facilities shall be enclosed by a six-foot fence; 7. Landscaping and screening. a. Landscaping shall be placed outside the fence and shall consist of evergreen shrubs which reach six-feet in height and 95% opacity within three years of planting. b. When adjacent to or within residentially-zoned property, free-standing towers and accessory equipment facilities shall be screened by the planting of a minimum of four evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height at the time of planting. The planting of said trees shall be prescribed in number by a plan prepared by a registered arborist in locations that (1) most effectively screen the wireless facilities from residential uses and (2) promote the future survival of the trees while limiting adverse effects of the trees on abutting properties. Existing evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height may be used to meet the screening requirement of this section if the arborist demonstrates that they provide screening for abutting residential uses. 8. Noise: Noise-generating equipment shall be sound-buffered by means of baffling, barriers or other suitable means to reduce the sound level measured at the property line to 50 dBA (day)/40 dBA is Wireless Communication Facilities 18.798-6 SE Update: 01/00 • • • (night) when adjacent to a noise-sensitive land use and 75 dBA (day)/60 dBA (night) when adjacent to other uses. C. Other requirements. At the time a provider requests a building permit, it must demonstrate compliance to all applicable state and federal regulations, including, but not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Structural and Building Codes and FAA. 18.798.070 Submission Requirements A. Submission requirements. All applications for Site Development Review or Conditional Use, shall be made on forms provided by the Director. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about specific submission requirements. 18.798.080 Collocation Protocol A. Purpose. The purpose of this requirement is to create a process that will allow providers to equitable share publicly-available, non-proprietary information among themselves, with interested persons and agencies, and with the City, at the time the provider schedules a pre-application conference with the approval authority. This collocation protocol is designed to increase the likelihood that all reasonable opportunities for collocation have been investigated and the appropriate information has been shared among providers. The City recognizes that collocation is preferable, where technologically feasible and visually desirable, as a matter of public policy, but that collocation of antennas by providers is not always feasible for technical or business reasons. However, if all licensed providers are made aware of any pending tower • or antenna permit requests, such disclosure will allow providers to have the maximum amount of time to consider possible collocation opportunities, and will also assure the City that all reasonable accommodations for collocation have been investigated. The code creates strong incentives for collocation because proposals for collocation qualify for a less rigorous approval process. B. Applicability. Requirements for the collocation protocol apply only to new towers subject to Site Development Review or Conditional Use. • C. Pre-application requirement. A pre-application conference is required for all proposed free-standing towers except those in the I-L and I-H zones, which are permitted outright. D. Collocation request letter requirement. At the time a pre-application conference is scheduled, the applicant shall demonstrate that the following notice was mailed to all other wireless communication providers licensed to provide service within the City's boundaries: "Pursuant to the requirements of 18.798.080, [name of wireless provider] is hereby providing you with notice of our intent to meet with representatives of the City of Tigard in a pre-application conference to discuss the location a new free-standing wireless communication facility that would be located at [location]. In general, we plan to construct a [type of tower] of [number] feet in height for the purpose of providing [cellular, PCS] service. Please inform us whether your company Has any existing or pending wireless facilities located within [distance] of the proposed facility, that may be available for possible collocation opportunities. Please provide us with this information within 10 business days after the date of this letter. Your cooperation is appreciated. Wireless Communication Facilities 18.798-7 SE Update: 01/00 0 • • • Sincerely [Name of pre-application applicant]." E. Applicant's obligation to analyze feasibility of collocation. If a response to a collocation request letter is received by an applicant indicating an opportunity for collocation on an existing tower of another provider, the applicant shall make a good faith effort to analyze the feasibility of collocation. This analysis shall be submitted with an application for a freestanding tower. A good faith effort to investigate the feasibility of collocation on an existing facility shall be deemed to have occurred if the applicant submits all of the following information: 1. A statement from a qualified engineer indicating whether the necessary service can or cannot be provided by collocation at the potential collocation site; 2. Evidence that lessor of the potential collocation site either agrees or disagrees to collocation on his/her property; 3. Evidence that adequate site area exists or does not exist at the potential collocation site to accommodate ancillary equipment for the second provider and still meet all of the development standards required in the base zone; 4. Evidence that adequate access does or does not exist at the possible collocation site. F. Result of collocation feasibility analysis. If the applicant has provided information addressing each of the criteria in D above, the collocation protocol shall be deemed complete. The applicant's tower shall then be permitted subject to the applicable standards and restrictions contained in this chapter. 18.798.090 Abandoned Facilities A. Abandonment deemed. A wireless communication facility which has been discontinued for a period of six consecutive months or longer is hereby declared abandoned. B. Removal of abandoned facilities. Abandoned facilities as defined in Section A above shall be removed by the property owner within 90 days from date of abandonment. Failure to remove an abandoned facility is declared a public nuisance and is subject to penalties per Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code. C. Extension. Upon written application, prior to the expiration of the six-month period, the Director shall, in writing, grant a six-month extension for reuse of the facility. Additional extensions beyond the first six-month extension may be granted by the Director subject to any conditions required to bring the project or facility into compliance with current regulation(s) and make it compatible with surrounding development. m Wireless Communication Facilities 18.798-8 SE Update: 01/00 Bradley Kilby - RE: Public Hearing on Cq&ower 6/24/02 Page 1 _ Aft &~V"'G w-K A Al w07 ~ From: "blalway" <blalway@email.msn.com> To: <bradley@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 6/24/02 10:35AM Subject: RE: Public Hearing.on Cell Tower 6/24/02 To Whom It May Concern: I want to voice my concern and opposition to the purposed cell tower to be placed at 11000 block of Tigard Street in Tigard, Oregon. I do not want these towers placed in residential neighborhoods, they not only take away from the aesthetic view they also have the potential of other dangers. Low level voltage and the possibility of them falling down. Please put me on record as opposing this installation as an eyesore and a health hazard. Barbara Alway 11011 SW Geneva St Tigard, OR 97223 BARBARA ALWAY Stevens Mortgage Co 5000 SW Meadows Road Suite 450 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 503-670-0535 X104 -Office 503-670-0481 - Fax www.stevensmortgage.com/barbara blalway@msn.com 07/05/2001 16:37 FAX 2065746333 WIRELESS FACILITIES, INC WJUUS 10004 07/03/01 TUE 15:05 FAX i~ AIRTOUCH CELLULAR . Site Acquistion Request Form (SARF) Verizon Wireless, Inc. To: Real Estate Department SARF Issue Date: 05124/01 From: Thomas Fergusson, Project Engineer Coverage Object. Tigard around Walnut and 121st St Newirtevisea: Now ALPHA: PORPEN Proi Narne: PECAN Project /l: Customer IN SERVICE Date: 11/15102 Estimated IN SERVICE Date: SARF Issued Oate(Original): 05/24/01 SARF Issue Date (Revision): This slte is needed for: Metropolitan Service Area This site to be a: Cell, Digital ONy Option Requested: Yes Pref. Length of Option: 1YR Topographical Maps Attached: Yes Preferred Location: Whatever Available Code: WA _ Remark: Tower could be lower Building Height Req.: Tower Height: 70 AMSL Tower: Antenna Height Req.: 74 ft AMSL Antenna: Equipment Requirements: Whip Antennas: Panel Antennas: Link Antennas: Generator: Yes Tower Type: Monopole Tower Remark: Power Service Requirements: Voltage (Volts): 120 Amperage (Amps): 200 Phase: Single Phase Space Requirements: Parcel Size: 50 x 60 Building Size: 12 x 36 If in existing building, amt of int. space: Special Instructions: evasion istory: Current Future Sectorize tl Size Qt Size 6 8 9 8 0 O pao Re r nai Engineer Signature Date ALPHA ENGINEERING, INC. MEMORANDUM Date: June 24, 2002 To: City of Tigard Hearings O From: Allister M. Jeck Alpha Engineering, Inc. Re: Verizon Wireless Tigard S Conditional Use Permit Adjustment 2002-00004 2002-00012 Alpha Engineering, Inc. (AEI) is a majority owner of Casa Terra, LLC (CTL), which owns the property located at 11275 SW Tigard Street. CTL's property borders the proposed cell tower site to the north and the east. CTL has received preliminary approval for a 12-lot subdivision, and has construction plans in for review with the City of Tigard. CTL objects to the Verizon application and respectfully requests that the Hearings Officer consider the following arguments. 1. Chapter 18.510 (Residential Zoning Districts) states in its opening paragraph (O1 O.A) that one of its Purposes is to preserve neighborhood livability by "governing development in residential zoning districts (to) protect the livability of existing and future residential neighborhoods... As a future neighborhood having secured a preliminary approval from the City of Tigard, we request that the Hearings Officer take into account impacts on our future homes in terms of code standards imposed on this proposed wireless communication facility. 2. Chapter 18.798 (Wireless Communications Facilities), section 060 (Uses Subject to Conditional Review), part B, outlines review criteria. We wish to comment on the following: • 3. Setbacks. This provision requires that towers be set back from the property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. It allow for a Type 11 adjustment to reduce this setback. (We address this adjustment later in the memo.) • 5. Lighting. Only FAA-required lighting is permitted. This is of major concern to us in terms of the visual impact to future homeowners within our subdivision. The applicant fails to provide any evidence of an FAA determination, or even if such a determination has been requested. We believe the application is incomplete until this issue is determined. Plaza West • Suite 230 • 9600 SW Oak • Portland, Oregon 97223 Office 503-452-8003 • Fax 503-452-8043 www.alpha-eng.com • • • 7. Landscaping and Screening. The applicant makes the statement in paragraph (4) under its evaluation of "Review Criteria" in the application that "By locating in this area (referring to the NE corner of the Anderson property), only a couple of trees will have to be removed." The arborist's report in the same application actually identifies 20 trees for removal, more, in our opinion, than just "a couple." The Staff report identifies 25 trees over 12" in diameter (arborist identifies 24). Removing the nine identified dead, dying, dangerous, and diseased trees from the inventory would yield a healthy > 12" inventory of 15 trees. Staff calculates that four healthy trees are to be removed, which, by our reckoning, would represent 26.7% of the healthy inventory, thereby requiring the applicant to mitigate. We believe that Staff has incorrectly calculated this percentage at 16%, and, as a result, is not requiring mitigation. The applicant should be required to mitigate. The arborist is recommending no trees be planted on Verizon's property to screen our property (to the north and east), on the basis that there is no development and our site "has many evergreens that provide screening." A review of our subdivision plan shows that this is not the case. We believe that Verizon should provide the required screening to the north and east on its own property. • 8. Noise. The applicant states that the HVAC units in its shelter will meet the requirement in the Code, stating this requirement as 75dBA (day) and 60 dBA (night). This is incorrect. The Code under this section requires a 50 dBA (day) / 40 dBA (night) maximum level at the property line when adjacent to a noise-sensitive use. Residences qualify as a noise- sensitive use. The shed is located about five feet from the property line, which would put the equipment perhaps an additional couple of feet away from the property line. Verizon's outdoor sound pressure exhibit puts the sound level at 63-69 dBAs at this distance. To achieve the 40 dBA maximum at night as required, the applicant would have to reduce the sound level by 37-42%. The applicant has provided nothing but a promise to "design a noise mitigation plan" as evidence that this reduction can be achieved. Given the significant reduction required to achieve the acceptable standard for livability established by the City, we believe the applicant should be required to demonstrate this standard can be met prior to receiving approval. 3. Chapter 18.370 (Variances and Adjustments), Section 020.C.8.a (Adjustments to Wireless Communications Facilities). A type II adjustment is available to the setback provision in Chapter 18.798.060.B.3 that "Towers shall be set back from the property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower." There are three conditions for the Type II adjustment. The first condition we • • agree the applicant has met. However, we believe that neither the second nor the third conditions have been met. (2) "A structural engineer certifies that the tower is designed to collapse within itself." Our contention lies in the interpretation of the code language. In discussing this language with City Staff, all agree there is no further clarification within the Code. In the absence of clarification, we believe an objective, literal interpretation should apply. The statement refers to the "tower," not the shed, fenced area, the leased areas or any other area. Webster's New World Dictionary defines "collapse" as "1 to fall down or cave in, or 2 to break down suddenly." It defines "within" as "1 in the inner part of, 2 not beyond, or 3 inside the limits of." So, based on these definitions, the tower must fall down or break down in the inner part of itself. Verizon describes the tower as a three-sided lattice tower with each side three (3) feet wide. The footprint of this tower-an equilateral triangle with three-foot sides-is thus the area within which the tower must collapse. Verizon has provided a certification letter from a structural engineer. However, the letter does not certify that the tower will collapse as required. In fact, it certifies to something quite different. Specifically: o The engineer states that the tower "would not be designed to fail" in that the lower portion of the tower is designed (through over strengthening of the legs and brace members) to not collapse at all (the engineer does not specify how much of the lower portion) The Code requires collapsibility. o Then he says that the upper portion of the tower would be designed to fail, through a combination of bending and buckling, which would result in a fall zone radius of five feet. The literal interpretation of the Code requires a fall zone within the three-sided footprint of the tower. o The letter addresses failure only in the event of "catastrophic wind speed." Seismic and other realistic, possible causes of failure are not addressed. The Code does not limit the cause of failure to catastrophic wind speed. A concern not addressed in the engineer's letter is the failure of the attachments to the tower. Verizon states that the antenna array will consist of "up to six antennas, as a combination of four foot and eight foot antennas," plus a GPS antenna and a lightning rod. In the event of 80-100 mph winds from a height of 60 feet, it seems highly unlikely these attachments would fall straight down. Also, the engineer has provided no documentation of having performed structural failure simulations or wind tunnel testing to support his conclusions about the 5' fall zone radius. We feel that this modeling and the associated calculations are essential to certifying the safety of the design, and should be made available for public review. We are deeply concerned about the potential hazards of a possible tower failure for future homeowners within the subdivision. We have a specific concern for Lot 12, which extends 25 feet into the 68-foot "fall zone" of this tower. This situation can and should be eliminated by denying the adjustment to the setback. (3) "Because of topography (etc.)...a site closer to an off-site residence will equally or better reduce the visual impacts associated with the tower upon the off-site residence." We have prepared a cell tower view analysis based both from the existing site residence and from the future home sites within the subdivision. Without the setback adjustment, the permitted locations for the tower are to the immediate south and west of the Anderson house. Siting of the tower and shed in this area would render the facility almost completely obscured from our property, due to the location of trees and existing structures. Locating the tower and shed at the proposed NE corner location makes the facility more visible to our residences, under either existing or future conditions, for the following reasons: o The tower would be two times closer to our existing house, and roughly five times closer to our future Lot 12 house than if located within the unadjusted setback area. o Because of the greater distance, there are more trees in the line of sight to potentially obstruct visibility of the tower. We are not suggesting that we find the tower acceptable at the adjusted setback-we do not. However, we are asserting that the unadjusted setback location creates a considerably lesser visual impact to the off-site residences on our property than would the adjusted setback location. For this reason, we believe that condition (3) for the adjustment is not met. Based on the above analysis, we believe that the applicant has failed to meet the conditions for approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Adjustment. We appreciate your consideration of our arguments and perspective. r WHIWA482 & WHIWA602 Outdoor Sound Pressure ao.oa 75.0 70.0 65.00 s0.0a m V 55.00 50.00 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 0 h 1 h a k a ► I ► ► I I i l .f I ~ i _I ) ~I I I I I I 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 so 90 100 Distance (ft) All raWnos+A2dea • • City of Tigard EXHIBIT D RECEIVED M. 8 2002 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING Additional Submittal of Information for: CUP 2002-00004 and VAR 2002-00012 Verizon Wireless Proposed Lattice Tower July 8th, 2002 Prepared By: Shanin Prusia, WFI 4520 SW Water Ave, Suite 201E Portland, OR 97201 (503) 973-5146 shanin.prusiaC&wfinet.com • • 1. Structural integrity of the proposed tower: The letter dated April 17, 2002 provided by Rohn Industries, Inc. has outlined that the tower will be designed to fall in a radius of 5'. In the event of a failure, the tower will collapse with in the leased and fenced area. To further prove the design of the tower, we are submitting a full structural engineering report with design calculations. Please see attached Exhibit A. The engineering for a seismic event is less than the engineering required for the TIA/EIA therefore the requirements of the TIA/EIA control the design. This addresses the concern previously expressed that the tower was only designed to accommodate wind failure. The structural report also includes TIA/EIA criteria for the antenna mounts as addressed in the General Notes 5, 91 10, 11 & 17 (page 3 of the report). The areas and loads for the mounts are included in the tower design. During the hearing, the SARF (Site Acquisition Request Form) was submitted to provide evidence that the tower height we determined prior to any contact with the property owner. The tower was requested to be 70' or lower depending on the topography of the site. The proposed height of 60' was not elected because of a potential fall line conflict with the existing structures on site. The tower height was determined by radio frequency requirements. 2. Future Collocation by other carriers This tower will be designed for additional wireless carriers. However, we can not predict what the height requirements will be for the other carriers. Therefore, we have not requested a tower taller than the solution it provides the Verizon Wireless network. We do not feel that it is in the community's best interest to erect a tower in "hopes" that the upper section might be of use at a later date. If another carrier would like to collocate on the tower but requires a higher antenna placement, Verizon will allow the carrier to replace the tower with a taller one, provided the carrier receives a zoning approval. Our site is not designed to accommodate base station equipment that equals that of Verizon Wireless. Verizon's equipment needs exceed that of most carriers. If a carrier found an acceptable height on the proposed tower and could place their equipment inside the Verizon lease area without disrupting Verizon equipment, the collocation would be a welcomed situation. An additional tower would not have to be 2 • • built in the immediate area and additional land space would not have to be developed. If the carrier's equipment does not fit inside the Verizon lease area, the carrier would have the option of locating the equipment elsewhere. The property owners, Larry and Cindy Anderson, have expressed that they do not plan to allow additional wireless development on their property, but reserve the right to change their minds. 3. Landscape density Verizon has provided a draft of a potential landscape plan if the 12 Lot subdivision to the north and east is approved. Please see Exhibit B. The street improvements outlined in the staff report have also been implemented. Verizon is willing to go above and beyond the City of Tigard code with additional landscaping. Please note the following additions in Exhibit B: • Fence around the lease area and along the east property line has been upgraded to a cedar fence. • A preliminary street tree plan including the installation of seven parkway Maple trees. • Half street improvements (curbs/sidewalks) • Landscape buffer width along East Side has been increased to W to allow for additional vegetation. • Addition of six Red Cedar trees 15' in height on the North and East sides of the leased area. • Exhibit B-1 is an aerial photo of the property with the site sketched in. This plan view shows the existing density of the existing tree canopy and vegetation. • David Hunter, Consulting Arborist has reviewed our revised landscape plan and concurs with the changes. Please see Exhibit C. 4. Access to the site At the time of the original zoning submittal, we were not aware of the proposal to develop the 12 Lot subdivision. If the subdivision is approved and Tract A is dedicated to the City of Tigard, I suggest that Verizon abandon their proposed access from SW Tigard Ave and use Gallo Ave, provided an easement is granted at no cost for Tract A. See revised proposed access, Exhibit B. 3 • • In the event Gallo Avenue is not improved by the time our site has completed the building permit process, a temporary access to the site can be used as originally proposed from SW Tigard Street. If the subdivision is not approved, Verizon will need to continue with the originally proposed access. Because the vehicular traffic to the site is so minimal (as outlined in the original application) changing the design from gravel to asphalt does not appear warranted. By using concrete or asphalt, additional imperious surface is created and more rainwater will go into the storm drainage system. I propose that condition #14 as noted in the staff report be reconsidered. 5. Tree Removal The arborist report submitted with the application states that there are thirteen trees over 12" in diameter. Per the Tigard Development Code, these are the trees to be preserved or mitigated. However, of the thirteen trees that are over 12" in diameter, nine are currently diseased and hazardous, leaving four trees for the mitigation calculation. Therefore, we are proposing to remove 16% of the trees which is less than the 25% required for mitigation. If access is granted over tract A via Gallo Avenue, no trees will be removed from the eastern property line. All other trees will remain, adding additional screening of the tower from the street and parcels across SW Tigard Ave and to the east. 6. Special Adjustments (18.370) Item #3 "Because of topography, vegetation, building orientation and/or other factors, a site closer to an off-site residence will equally or better reduce the visual impacts associated with the tower upon the off-site residence". We chose the northeast corner of the property for the site because of the existing vegetation, even though some of the trees are as tall as our proposed tower (see Exhibit D-1). This will not affect our radio frequency transmission. By placing the site in the trees, we have reduced the visual impacts of the tower. For example, compare Exhibit D-1 and Exhibit D-2. The first places the tower where it is currently proposed. The second places the tower in the open space of the parcel where it meets setbacks per the Wireless Chapter but creates a view that is impossible to screen because it is in the open. Exhibit D-3 shows the tower moved to the trees of the NW corner of the property. 4 However, to comply with the 15' rear yard setback we are reduced to a very narrow rectangular buildable footprint that would only allow 25' in depth. We would have to elongate the site and remove all of the trees behind the existing shop to accommodate the shelter and tower base and driving access. It was determined that there is not enough space in the Northwest corner to accommodate the development. Exhibits D-1,2,3 shows the tower in a brown color. The final color of the tower can be selected by the City of Tigard Community Development Department upon receiving color samples from Verizon Wireless. If we were to move the tower toward the front to the parcel to the south, the tower height would need to be increased to adjust for the slope in grade. The elevation of the rear of the parcel is approximately 210. The front of the parcel is approximately 190'. Therefore, the tower height would have to increase from 60' with lightning rod at 68' to an 80' tower with lightning rod at 88'. Keeping in mind there would be no trees surrounding the tower and it would be completely visible to all parcels across SW Tigard Ave and to any pedestrians, cyclists or motorists passing along SW Tigard Ave. Placing the proposed tower closer to an off-site residence mitigates the overall impact of the tower on the surrounding neighborhood. 7. Noise As further clarification, Verizon Wireless is fully aware that if the code requirements for noise-generating equipment can not be met, then the proposed development will not receive a building permit as outlined in Condition #1 of the Staff Report from June 24, 2002. Additionally, we have consulted C.S. Acoustic Engineers, a licensed engineering firm in the state of Oregon, that will develop the noise mitigation design. The site will require a noise barrier an/or other additional devices to achieve City of Tigard, OR required 50 dBA (day) and 40 dBA (night) maximum noise levels. The design will require two visits to the site to measure the ambient noise levels to predict the noise at the property line and assess the required attenuation at post construction to verify performance of the mitigation design. 8. FAA Lighting As mentioned at the Public Hearing, this tower will not have any lighting or striping requirements. Please see Exhibit E. 5 9. Statement From Property Owner In addition to the items I have submitted for the application, the property owner, Larry Anderson has included a statement. Please see Exhibit F. In conclusion, Verizon Wireless is willing to increase landscaping to provide additional screening of the site from all sides if needed. Verizon is also willing to relocate the access to the site to come from SW Gallo Ave if the 12 Lot subdivision is approved. It will provide a route that has less of an impact on the surrounding vegetation by allowing most of the trees and shrubs to remain. However, if the 12 Lot subdivision is not approved, Verizon has proposed a site that will remove minimal trees. The site is located in a corner of the property farthest away from SW Tigard Ave in an existing tree canopy. Verizon Wireless requests an approval for the proposed 60' lattice tower with base station equipment. 6 ' T 07/08/02 10:48 FAIT; 3096976240 ROHN PROJ MGT/CONST • 2001 EWA Warld Headquarters 6718 W. Plank Rd. • Peoria, IL 61604 USA P0. Box 2000 • Peoria, IL 61656 USA Ph: 309-697-4400 • FAX: 309-697-5612 11Ind Inc. July 2 2002 WFI Attention: Jim Pribbenow 575 Andover Park Street Tukiwila, WA 98188 Reference: Pecan, Washington County, OR File Number: 50457JA PNumber: P168597 Enclosed, please find the following for your use: copies Drawing Number Description 4 A021385 Sealed OR Design Dwgs 4 A021386,1-3 Sealed OR Foundations 4 Sealed OR Seismic Calcs Sincerely, Jeff Arends 07/08/02 10:48 FAX 309697624 ROHN PROJ MGT/CONST. • 4 002 World Headquarters 6718 W. Plank.Rd. Peoria, IL 61604 USA Ph: 309-697-4400 FAX: 309-697-5612 Industries, Inc. PURCHASED,: WFI NAME OF PROJECT: ROHN FILE NUMBER ROHN DRAWING NUMBERS: PECAN, WASHINOTON COUNTY, OREGON 60 FT. MODEL SSY TOWER. 50457JA A021385 AND A0t1386, 1-3 I CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS WERE PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH TI -M AND SOIL CRITERIA r SPECIFIED BY THE PURCHASER AND'.[HAT I AM A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF OREGON. CER=;D BY: S116tdPE DATE:_ i ~1►Wt EXPIRATION [»►TE O I Oven 5a Years ~s . t0 the o.,.i~?mr-rfR~mcations Industry 4 AS TOWER REACTIONS COAPRESSION 150.0 KIPS TENSION = 145.6 KIPS TOTAL S!£AR = 8.5 KIPS O.T.Y. = 341.8 FT-KIPS SECTION MEMBER SCHEDULE SECTION LEG BRACE z 3 PIPE?. u:raarFe PFFE3.Ce.H 1 Z&VI.14 FATE. =T/d/ AUBERS ARE I W 9ETEIV QV. Y 0° TOWER Ax1s / / (TYP.-) TOWER CONFIGURATION N. T. S. GENERAL NOTES 1. ROHN COMMUNICATION TOWER DESIGNS CONFORM TO ANSI1TIA/EIA-222-F UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED UNDER TOILER DESIGN LOADING. 2. THE DESIGN LOADING CRITERIA INDICATED HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO Row. THE DESIGN LOADING CRITERIA HAS BEEN ASSUMED TO BE BASED ON SITE-SPECIFIC DATA IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-F AND MUST BE VERIFIED BY OTHERS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 3. ANTENNAS AND LINES LISTED IN TOWER DESIGN LOADING TABLE 'ARE PROVIDED BY OTHERS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 4. TOWER MEMBER DESIGN DOES NOT INCLUDE STRESSES DUE TO ERECTION SINCE ERECTION EQUIPMENT AND CONDITIONS ARE UNKNOWN. DESIGN ASSUMES COMPETENT AND OUALIFIED PERSONNEL WILL ERECT THE TOWER. S. WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI1TIA1EIA-222-F, ".STRLIC'TUR.4L STANLIA,RDS FOR STEEL ANTENNA TOWERS AND ANTENNA SUPPORTING STRUCTLNES". 6. THE MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH OF STRUCTURAL STEEL MEMBERS SHALL BE 50 KSI, EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW. ANGLE BRACES Ll.7SX3116 THRU L 2X2X114 SHALL BE 36 KSI. STRUCTURAL PLATES SHALL BE 36 KSI. 7. FIELD CONVECTIONS SHALL BE BOLTED. NO FIELD WELDS SHALL BE ALLOWED. B. STRUCTURAL BOLTS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A-325, EXCEPT WHERE NOTED. 9. PAL NITS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL TOWER BOLTS. 10. STRLCTURAL STEEL AND CONNECTION BOLTS SHALL BE HOT-DIPPED GALVANIZED AFTER FABRICATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI1TIA1EIA-222-F. 11. ALL HIGH STRENGTH BOLTS ARE TO BE TIGHTENED TO A "SNUGTIGHT CONDITION AS DEFINED IN THE NOVEMBER 13, 1985, AISC "SPECIFI- CATION FOR STRUCTURAL JOINTS USING ASTM A325 OR A490 BOLTS". NO OTHER MINIMUM BOLT TENSION OR TOROUE VALUES ARE REQUIRED,,. 12. PURCHASER SHALL VERIFY THE INSTALLATION IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL REOUIREMENTS FOR OBSTRUCTION MARKING AND LIGHTING. 13. TOLERANCE ON TOWER STEEL HEIGHT IS EQUAL TO PLUS IX OR MINUS /oX. 11 14. DESIGN ASSUMES THAT, AS A MINIMUM, MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION WILL BE PERFORMED OVER THE LIFE or THE STRUCTURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-F. 15. DESIGN ASSUMES LEVEL GRADE AT TOWER SITE. 16. FOUNDATIONS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO SUPPORT THE REACTIONS SHOWN FOR THE CONDITIONS EXISTING AT THE SITE. 17. DESIGN ASSUMES ANTENNAS AND MOUNTS ARE MOUNTED SYMMETRICALLY. 0 0 00 0 rv r 0 a Y w 0 cc ca ro 0 z 'O O C. G) H n O z 0 0 0 W 07/08/02 10:49 FAX 309697624 . ROHN PROJ MGT/CONST, • 2.004 1 NOTE : SEE TOWER ASSEMBLY DRAWING FOR FOJNDATI:ON LAYOUT AND ANCHORAGE EMBEDMENT ;DRAWING NUMBER. 7'-6 Centroid of ~r \ 7' - 6" Mat Tower ` - VOLUME OF CONCRETE 37.8 Cu.' Yds. L 15' - 0" Sq REACTIONS o PLAN Maximum OTM = 341.8 Ft-Kips Total Tower Wt = 5.7 Kips Total Shear = 8.5 Kips Max. Shear/Leg - 5.7 Kips Max. Ten./Leg = 145.6 Kips 15 No. 7 Horizontal Bars, Equally Max. CompJLeg = 150.0 Kips Spaced Each Way, Top and Bottom (60 Total) Ground Line ~ i 4:• 0" iV 4a.- - - 3 ' t r Sas t 3'- 6" T~! J Structural Backfil1 1 2' - 4" Dia. (See Note-1) 1 (Typical) - (Typical) ELEVATION SITE: FOR Pecan (Tigard, OR) SHEET 1 OF 3 I No. Revision Description 1 Dam 6 Rev By ckd BY APpd BY THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF ROHM. IT IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR TRACED IN WHOLE OR W PART WITHOUT OUR WRITTI''N CONSENT. O H N Scale: NONE By Date Title: D DWG 07/02/02 Mat Foundation Detail rawn: Ch k d - op F,r ec e : SQ 117-/02- >r A PP• °8 717-10 Z ENG. FILE: 50457JA ' DRAWING NO.: A021396-1 07/08/02 10:49 FAX 309697624 ROHN PROJ MGT/CONST Foundation General Notes 2005 1. Foundation Design has been developed in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practices within the limits of the 'subsurface data provided. Foundation design modifications may be required in the eveht the following design parameters are not applicable for the subsurface conditions encountered. A. Allowable net bearing pressure at 3.5 foot depth on structural backfill as recommended by a soils engineer = 2.0 ksf. B. Maximum frost depth less than depth of foundation. C. Ground water table at ground surface. 2. Work shall be in accordance with local codes, safety regulations and unless otherwise noted, the latest revision of ACI 318, "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete". Procedures for the protection of excavations, existing construction and utilities shall be established prior to foundation installation. ; 3. Concrete materials shall conform to the appropriate state requirements for exposed structural concrete. 4. Proportions of concrete materials shall be suitable for installation method utilized and shall result in durable concrete for resistance to local anticipated aggressive actions. The durability requirements of ACI 318 Chapter 4 shall be satisfied based on the conditions expected at the site. As a minimum, concrete shall develop minimum compressive strength of 3000 psi (20.7 MPa) in 28 days" 5. Maximum size of aggregate shall not exceed size suitable fox the installation method utilized or 1/3 clear distance behind or between reinforcing.' Maximum size may be increased to 2/3 clear distance provided workability and methods of consolidation such as vibrating will prevent honeycombs or voids. 6. Reinforcement shall be deformed and conform to the requirements of ASTM A615 grade 60 unless otherwise noted. Splices in reinforcement shall not be allowed unless otherwise indicated. 7. Welding is prohibited on reinforcing steel and embedments- 8. Minimum concrete cover for reinforcement shall be 3 inches (76 mm) unless otherwise noted. Approved spacers shall be used to insure a 3 inch (76 mm) minimurn cover on reinforcement. 9. Foundation design assumes structural backfill to be compacted in 8 inch (200 mm) maximum layers to 95% of maximum dry density at optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM D698. Additionally, structural backfill must have a minimum compacted unit weight of 100 lb./cu.ft. (15.7 Wm3).. 10. Foundation design has been based on geotechnical report no. P02-0112 dated 02/25/02 by GEOSTANDARDS CORPORATION. 11. Foundation depth indicated is based on the grade line described in, the referenced geotechnical report. Foundation modification may be required in the event cut or fill operations have taken place subsequent to the geotechnical investigation. 12. Foundation design assumes level grade at site. 13. Foundation design assumes the recommendations in the referenced geotechnical report Engr File No.: 50457JA Drawing No.: A021386-2 07/08/02 10:50 FAX 309697624 ROHN PROJ MGT/CONST W006 Foundation Genera! Notes Continued concerning verification of subsurface conditions are implemented prior to placement of concrete. 14. Foundation installation shall be supervised by personnel knowledgeable and experienced with the proposed foundation type. Construction shall be in accoirdance with generally accepted installation practices. 15. Foundation design assumes installation procedures will incorporate the procedures recommended in the referenced geotechnical report. 16. Foundation design assumes field inspections will be performed to verify that construction materials, installation methods and assumed design paramet6rs are acceptable based on conditions existing at the site. 17. For foundation and anchor tolerances see drawing A810214' 18. Loose material shall be removed from bottom of excavation prior to concrete placement. Sides of excavation shall be rough and free of loose cuttings. 19. Concrete shall be placed in a manner that will prevent segregation of concrete materials, infiltration of water or soil and other occurrences which may decrease the strength or durability of the foundation. 20. Concrete preferably shall be placed against undisturbed soil When forms are necessary, they shall be removed prior to placing strua[ural backfill. 21. Foundation design assumes continuous concrete placement without construction joints. 22. Top of foundation outside limits of anchor bolts shall be sloped to drain with a floated finish. Area inside limits of anchor bolts shall be level with la scratched finish. 23. Exposed edges of concrete shall be chamfered 3/4" x 3/4" (19mm x 19mm) minimum. Engr File No.: 50457JA Drawing No.: A021386-3 07/08/02 10:50 FAX 309697624 ROHN PROJ MGT/CONST, Q1007 .DATE-07/01/02 ROHM SELF-SUPPORTING TOWER ANALYSIS FOR WFI PAGE NO. I TIME-13:55:25 Output is NOT to be reproduced without Rohn's written consent.- FILE NO. 50457JA BY: DWG LEVEL - 4R4.3NT ----7------------------------------------------------------- NOTE-TONER DESIGN, WIND PRESSURES, AND SBAPE FACTORS CONFORM TO STANDARDS SETIBY TIA/EIA-222-F-1996. fP(~ - 7~Z O Z f A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TEE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOLLOWS- 1. 60' SSV TOWER DESIGN 2. DESI,3X WIND LOAD PER ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-F-1996 3. 90 MPH BASIC WIND SPEED - 1/2" RADIAL ICE LOAD- 4. STEP BOLTS N/ROSH LOC ONLY 5. This data is located@ Z:\Engr\W\dwq\50457JA.ssv INPUT PARAMETERS aaawar~aaaaeaaaa i TOWER HEIGHT o 60.0 FEET EFPOSUR& n C PROJ. AEA OF LAZOER, ROUND c .000 SQ.FT/FT FACE a S BASE ELEVATION . .0 FEET IMPORTANCE FACTOR: a 1.000 / PROD. A*Ep OF LRUDER, FLAT o .019 SQ.FT/FT /FACE = S/ WIND VELOCITY a 90.00 MPH RADIAL ICE c .00 IN., UNIFORM WEIG(7' OF LADDER o .001 KIPS/FT Gh = 1.201 i ESCALATED WINDLOADS ARE CALCULATED AT EACH SECTION MID-HEIGHT, WrNDLOADS ARE LISTED P7.04 TOP TO BOTTOM ' 'c FROM 6010 FEET TO 40.0 FEET USE .0280 KSF FROM 3040 FEET T(I 20.0 FEET USE .0249 KSF FROM 2010 FEET TO .0 FEET USE .0249 KSF I ANTENNA WIND EFT. ANT. DEAD LOAD PROJ. AREA 01 APPURTE1=4CES DEAD LOAD EFF.PROJ. ASSUMED ELEVATION PRESSURE PROJ.AREA OF JNT, (SQ.FT./FT.) OF APPUR. AREAaM.A. TORQUE (FEET) (K/SQ-FT) (39-FT.) (KIPS) (KIPS/FT) (SQ.FT-FT) .(FT-K) DESCRIPTION OF LOADS ROUNDS FACE' SLATS FACE (3►FR65-14-OODAL2 G (2) - 59.0/ .0294 76.00 1._'10/ .465 1 .307.-' 1/ .007 / 78.00 2.29 RR45-14-OODAL2 c (5)6'SA, 59.0 .0294 .00 .00 .000 0 .000 0 .000 .00 0O (3)DR90-17-OODP LEG MTD. 55.0 .0286 30.00 _40", .504,,' 1 .000 0 .003 .00 i .00 (2)OPS ON (2)31SIDEhAHS - 17.0 / .0249 14.00 0 IDA / 1 / .000 0 .002 / 24.00 .60 I 07/08/02 10:51 FAX 3096976240 ROHN PROJ MGT/CONST 0 008 DATE-07/01/02 ROHN SELF-SUPPORTING TOWER ANALYSIS FOR WFI PAGE NO. 2 TIME-13:55:25 Output is NOT to be reproduced without Rohn`s written consent.- FILM NO. 50457JA BY: DWG LEVEL - 4R4.3NT WINDLOAD ON TOWER SECTIONS AND SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS !►*at#rw}#}kaaaaa+al++Tla!laa of►t*tt}ttr}!~al+ff* rswwaarla# raaaaaaa#a aaaa+aaaa* *ataatt*r+ avert+aa+l+ aaaaaatalrrrt *a,rtaa*raa ar*}atrraa aalaa*ta#a *COLUMN 1} *COLUMN 2*' *COLUMN 3* *COLUMN 4* *COLUMN 5* * COLUW1 6 * *COLUMN 7* *COLUMN 8* *COLUMN 9* * TOWER * *WIND ON * *WIND ON * * TOTAL * * WEIGHT * *WT. OF ri.A.* * TOTAL, * *WT./SEC.* * ACCUM. * * * * SECTION* *CONCENTR. *WIND FOR* *OF MME.* *SECTIONIW/* * BCCUM- * *OF TOWER* * WEIGHT * *SECTION * • i UNIF.* *EFP'.PROJ* *EA. TWR.* *1'iOR EACH* *ICE/HDW9,-* * 17LATED * * STEEL * *OF TOWER* * * • APPURT.* * AREAS * * SECTION. * SECTION* *IF PRESENT. *SI:C.WTS.* * ONLY * • STEEL * * NUMBER * • (KIPS) * * (KIPS) * * (RIPS) * * (KIPS) * * (KIPR * * (KIPS) • * (HIPS) * * (RIPS) * rrwwwt!!fw wwarwtwwra .raver*twlw r#+wattwwt wwfa►aaa►a aatraal+rrfa '}w,tattwf#} #rtawlr#r! t#+!*a!*}r VG1820 **N 1.458 3.158 4.615 1.00 2.52: 2.52 .72 ( .26) .72 VG2S10 **N .692 .000 .692 ..11 .49' 3.01 .38 ( .13) 1.10 V02S10 **N .725 .000 .725 .12 .76' 3.77 .65 ( .40) 1.75 VG1S20 **N 1.554 .348 1.902 .45 1.961 5.73 1.51 ( 1.05) 3.26 TOTAL INCREASED TOWER WEIGHT, IN ADDITION TO f m STANDARD TOWER SECTIONS - 1.84 KIPS taala SECTION STATUS INDICATORS arafa i FOR EXAKPLE, VG1920 **N I INDICATORS LIRE: (PIMIOD) v HOMER NOT BEEFED . ..HORIZONTAL BRACE INDICATOR ( * (AIITERISK) = HOMER BEEFED 11.. DIAGONAL. BRACE Z=ICATOR ( I (EXCLAMATION) - NO b>mm LARGE ENOUGH 1.....LEG INDICATOR ( 7 (QUESTION) - INCORRECT DATA N i - NOT APPLICABLE 07/08/02 10:51 FAX 3096976240 ROHN PROJ MGT/CONST **+**!tt#fk fktfR*a *ait *COLUMN 16* *COLUMN 17* #tRir+Rrrr# arrf►f**tR* a f f MA(Ih-m • COMP. + *ALLOWABLE* + :rOR ONE * * LEG * * LEG + *CAPACITY * + (KIPS) * * (KIPS) * **r*f*rl*** is*Rr}#}*** 33.061 .58) 56.91 55.84[ .981 56.91 80.31[ .761 105.08 .871 160.19 150!0 INCREASE. DATE-07/01102 ROHN SELF-SUPPORTING TOWER ANALYSIS FOR WFI PAGE NO. 3 TINE-13:55:25 Output 1a NOT to be reproduced without Rohn's written conajent.- FIL: No. 50457JA BY: DWG LEVEL - 4R4,3NT SHEARS, OVERTURNING MOMENTS AND LEG DATA *Riffrf*►***Rr1#}f**!af*#*R#**RRalr r;**** #af raa##}#} #}+#+#+#k'kf rraffr#rrfa *COLUMN 10• *COLUMN 11* *COLUMN 12* *COLU)4N 13* * TOWER * * DIST- * * APPROX. * * TOTAL * r • a ANCE * a CENTER- * * ACCUM. * * SECTION R f BELOW * * CENTER * a SBEAR ON* a + + TOP + * OF LEGS * * TOWER * * NUMBER # r (FT.) * * (FT.) * * (KIPS) * lira*Rt!!RR r4!!}aftr*# Rrttt}##rtf Rff*}lR#atf VG1920 /**N 20.0 2.54 4.62 VG2S10 **N 30.0 2.54 5.31 VG2S10 **N 40.0 2.59 6.03 VGIS20 **N 60.0 2.68 mmmw 9.5 NOTE THE ALLOWABLE CAPACITIES ON THIS ANA NOTE 1 ) SHOWS LOAD/CAPACITY RATIO. *COLUMN 14* *COLUMN 15* k'!*r*Rtt*** *****ar#t#* M TOTAL # # MAXIbdjM * * OVER- * + TENSiPN * * TURNING * * FOR OJPE * * MOMENTS * + LEG * *(FT-KIPS)* * (rap # R**##rt*r}# flit!#!4lRk 70.64 31.32 120.26 53.03 176.96 77.165 s4 ~ 3yI.8 ly LYSIS INCLUDE A 33.3 PERCENT REACTIONS FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN ♦*rrdrrArr**f r*f *r****•A* O 0 . COMPRESSION/LEG I5 TENSIOWLEG ( ,Io KIPS KIPS SHEAR/L7:Grj.7 KIPS TOTAL SHEAR $,S KIPS OVERTURNING MOMENT FT-KIPS 341 g . ~ 2009 *t*if #tt♦#* *COLUMN 16* RffR!•#*a#R * TONER * + LEG * *DIHMSION* # ! * (INCHES) • .f##af##**# PIPE2.SSTD PIPE2.5STD PIPE3.0E.B PIPE4.OE.H ANCHOR BOLTS REQurRED la 1 ~K~B A )g. 1 07/08/02 10:51 FAX 309697624 ROHN PROJ MGT/CONST • 191010 DATE-07/01/02 ROHN SELF-SUPPORTING TOWER ANALYSIS FOR WFI PAGE NO. 4 TIME-13.55:25 Outp.it is NOT to be reproduced without Rohn'e written consent.- FILR NO. 50457JA BY: DWG LEVEL - 4R4.3NT ^-------BRACING LOADS, SIZES AND BOLTS a*+*+#taa*# ♦RR**iwff irw 'iii#iff*f*R ##*#llwR*R* to#ltfk*kk* **a#}*+*}#* #kliakf wan♦f wR 1f*#f#k*i fiw*#waf}a# *COLUMN 19* *COLUMN 20* *COLUMN 21* *COLUM 22* *COLUMN 23* *COLUMT 24* -COLUMN 25 * *COLUMN 26* *COLUMN 27* #tt*a#A #f i♦ !*f**#*wa#* a+#a++***++ calf*t****a !a#!***a!#* *******yt*a f*tt+tat***a* t!*+t#tta** ttaif a!#!i* * TOWER + * HORIZ. * * HORIZ. * *PM&INING* *)g1X.AXIAL* *AXIAL P.* *A11GLE/PIPE* * * *NO.6 SIZE* * a * COMP. OF* * COMP. * * SHEAR TO* *LOAD FOR * * COLUMN k/1iOLID RD.* * BRACH * * OF BRACE* * SECTION * + SHEAR IN* * OF LEG * * BE TAKEN* * TONER * *CAPACITy * *BAR/ BRACE* * CONNECT.* * BOLTS * * * + ONE FAC}+ * LOAD * *BY BRACES* * BRACING * *OF BRACES" * VMNSION* * CAPACITY! *REQUIRED * • NUMBER * + (KIPS) • * (KIPS) * • (RIPS) * * (KIPS) * * (KIP9) + ► (INCHES) • * (KIPS) * *FER CONN.* tilt*#!w*!a a#Rwt*#*#'F! Rfwlilai*** }}*w#w#*wwi tat 1*#+***# #*ilakiff la ff,k t#f 4f ►Rww iaiaf afRa}w i!#*iwaftit VG1S20 **N 4.119 .000 4.119 4.119 [,b?;312.276 Ll.'15)C3/16 mt> 6,r e, 1-5/BIN. DIA(•) .250 IN. CLIP V02910 **N 4.580 .000 4.580 4.580 [.151 12.27 L1.'15X3/16 QD &,0 1-5/SLN.DLA(*) - .250 IN. CLIP VG2S10 **N 5.043 .000 5.043 5.043 [ .561 19.480 L 2=114 <M> 9.06 1-5/6IN.DIA(*) i .250 IN. CLIP V01320 **N 6.537 .000 6.537 6.537 [-.721 19.48 L 2)[281/4 CD 9.06 1-5/BIN.DYA(*) .250 IN. CLIP NOTE THE ALLOFAABLE CAPACITIES ON T9IS A%ktYSIS INCLUDE A 33.9 PERCENT INCREASE. NOTS I ] 380143 M X.LOAD/CAPACITY RATIO. IF THE SYM30L--(*I--APPEARS AFTER THE BOLT SIZE, IT INDICATES THAT THREADS MUST 13E EXCLUDED FROM SHEAR PLANES. IF THE SYMBOL--(H)—APPEARS AFTER THE LOADS ABOVE, IT INDICATES THAT To LOADS AAE FOR THE MAIN HORIZONTAL. IF THE SYMBOL--*--APPEARS AFTER THE CLIP SIZE, IT INDICATES THAT THE HORIZONTAL 13RACE CONTROLLED TEE CLIP AND BOLT SIZE. IF THE SYMBOL--(+)--APPEARS AFTER TIM DIAGONAL CAPACITY(COL. 24), IT INDICATES T)M HORIZONTAL BRACE CAPACITY CONTROLS THE DIAGONAL BRACES CAPACITY. II THE LETTER APPEARING BEFORE THE CONNECTION CAPACITY IN COLUMN 26 INDICATES THE CONTROLLING FACTOR. <B> a BRACE BOLT CONTROLS CONNECTION CAPACITY; <C> m BRACE CLIP CONTROLS; dHfl - BRACE CONTROLS. r I 07/08/02 10:52 FAX 30969762400 ROHN PROJ MGT/CONST DATt-07/01/02 ROHN SELF-SUPPORTING TOWER ANALYSIS rOlt WFI TD Z-13:55:25 Output le NOT to be reproduced without Rohn's writ ten consent.- FILlt NO. 50457JA LEVEL - 4R4.3NT TWIST AND DEFLECTION DATA ' aaa+ar r#t*rrr#rr+►rww r+aa #++a#a*aaaa a+##ww•#aas tr+#r*+**rr wraawr~#*tr* ,M**►+ra#k#* *COLUMN 28* *COLUMN 29* *COLUMN 30* 1 *COLUMN 31* *COLUMN 32* ar#r#w#awar rra+wrrraw+ •*awaswwr*# a*rt*tittrt *rrrarrtrrr * TOWER * * TWIST * + TOTAL * + DEF'LtC- * * TOTAL * # r ► FOR EACH* * ACCUM- * *TION FOR * * ACCUM- * * SECTION * • TOWER * * ULA= * *W TOWER* * ULATED * r r SECTION * * TWIST * * SECTION * * REFL. * r NW7BER • *(DEGREES)* *(DEGREES)* *(DEGR;ZS)* 't(DEGREES)* #ww*w#*arer #arwr#w##** #,}r**##+rww #aaaaa~*+trr ,twwawwww*## VGiS20 **N .276 .721 .264 1.506 VG2910 **N .138 .445 .343 1.252 VG2310 **N t 099 .308 .2~9 .910 V01S20 **N .218 .218 .670 .620 zO11 PAGE NO. 5 H7: DWG i 1 I 07/08/02 10:52 FAX 309697624 ROHN PROJ MGT/CONST Q012 DATE-07/01/02 ROHN SELF-SUPPORTING TOWER ANALYSIS FOR WFI i PAGE NO. 1 TIME-13:55:12 Output is NOT to be reproduced without Rohn's written consent.- FILL( NO. 30457JA BY: DWG LEVEL - 4R4.3NT NOTE-TOWER DESIGN, WIND PRESSURES, AND SHAPE FACTORS CONFORM TO STANDARDS SETiBY TIA/E.A-222-F-1996. TPC7 - -J L~~Z L A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THI( DESIGN REQUIREMENT FOLLOWS- 1. 60' 8SV TOWER DESIGN 2. DESIGN W» LOAD PER ANSI/TIA/EIA-222••F-1996 3. 90 KPR BASIC WIND SPEED - 1/2" RADIAL ICE LOAD 4. STEP BOLTS W/ROHN LOC ONLY 5. This data is locat8d@ Z:\Engr\W\dwg\50457JAA.se INPUT PARAMETERS xttt+,ttt+ttttttt TONER HEIGHT o 60.0 FEET ~ EXPOSURE - C i PRO J. AREA OF LADDER, ROUND = .000 SQ.FT/FT FACE - S BASE ELEVATION - .0 FEET IMPORTANCE FACTOR = 1.000 PROJ. AREA OF LADDER, FLAT = .069 SQ.FT/FT 1,FACE - S / WIND VELOCITY - 90.00 MPH RADIAL ICE - .50 IN. - miri. RM WEIGH!P OF LADDER = .001 KIPS/FT -I Gh - 1.201 ESCALATED WINDLOADS ARE CALCULATED AT EACH SECTION K(D-HEIGHT, WINDLOADS ARE. LISTED FROM TOP TO BOTTOM FROM 6010 FEET TO 40.0 FEET USE .0210 KSF bO GJ J O-F CA FROM 4010 FEET TO 30.0 FEET USE 0190 KSF FROM 30F0 FEET TO 20.0 FEET USE .0167 KSF FROM 200 FEET TO .0 FEET USE 0197 KSP NOTE : ALL WIND PRESSURES HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO 75b OF ORIGINAL PRESSURES <<< ANTENNA WIND EFF. ANT. DEAD LOAD PROJ. AREA O~ APPURTENANCES DEAD LOAD EFF.PROJ. ASSUMED ELEVATION PRESSURE PROJ.AREA OF LINT. (SQ.FTI/FT.) OF APPUR. AREA+M.A. TORQUE (FEET) (K/SQ-FT) (SO-FT.) (YIPS) (KIPS/FT) (SQ.FT-FT) (FT-K) DESCRIPTION OF LOADS ROUNDS FACE! FLATS FACE (3)FR65-14-OODAL2 6 (2) - 59.0 / .0220 92.00 2.00- HHS l 1 .421= 11 .015 1, 92.00 / 2.03 RR45-14-OODAL2 6 (5)6-SA 59.0 .0220 .00 .00 .000 0 .000 0 .000 .00 .00 (3)DR90-17-OODP LEG MTD. 55.0 .0216 34.00 .50 .252 1 .375 "'1 .006 .00 .00 (2) CPS ON (2)31 SIDEAIU4S - 17.0 .0187 19.00/ .30 .274 i 1 .000 0 002 32.00 60 i i i 1 i , 1 07/08/02 10:52 FAIT 30969762400 ROHN PROJ MGT/CONST. . 0.013 DATEi-07/01/02 ROHN SELF-SUPPORTING TOWER ANALYSIS FOR WFI PAGE NO. 2 TIME-13:55:12 Output in NOT to be reproduced without Rohn's written consent.- FILE NO. 50457JA BY: DWG LEVEL -'4R4.3NT WINDLOAD ON TOWER SECTIONS AND SUMMARY OF *EIGHTS ##■rraa++*ara«*arlalaa+*t•#rr+rarf#rr*aaara#+*aai aararrr**a Farrar#*«a aaaa+raaa# aaaaa+++** ++r*#*•**• •tt•►r*•t#*# tfn***t*f* :****ff*ta **f*fatr+t *COLm4l 1* *COLTM 2* *COLUMN 3* *COLUMN 4* *0OLUMN 5* * COLUM!6 * *CCILUMN 7* *COLUMN 8* *COLUMN 9* • TOWER * *WIND ON * *WIND ON + # TOTAL * *.WEIGHT * *WT. OF EA.* * TOTAL * *WT./SEC.* + ACCUM. a t * # SECTION* *CONCENTR. *WIND FOR* *OF EDWE.* *SECTIONtW/* * IC=- * *OF TOWER* * WEIGHT * *SECTION * * 6 UNIF.* *EFF.PROJ* *EA. TWR.* *P'OR EAC8* *ICE/BDWi.-* * VLATED * • STEEL * *OF TOWER* # • a APPUAT.* a AREAS * * SECTION* * SECTION* *lr PRESz Tf* *SP:C.WTS.* * ONLY * * STEEL * # N(MEM • * (ASPS) * * (RIPS) a * (KIPS) + * (ICIPS) • * (RIPS) * * I;KIPS) • • (KI$S) a * (RIPS) * aaf *fr rrrr r*r•#*a**# ta*f to#f++ #!R*r#lrrr *trff**afa #ff alrrt♦+•# #iYi+a+tf+♦ •atf *kkar+r #««a«aafra VG1520-1 **N 1.453 2.763 4.216 2.92 3.93; 3.93 .72 1 .26) .72 V02810-1 **N .696 .000 .696 .24 .76 4.69 .38 ( .13) 1.10 VG2910-1 **N .716 .000 .716 .24 1.03: 5.72 .65 ( .40) 1.75 VGIS20-1 **N 1.526 .336 1.862 .81 2.60' 8.32 1.51 ( 1.05) 3.26 TOTAL INCREASED TONER WEIGHT, IN ADDITION TO APSE STAND= TOWER SECTIONS = 1.84 KIPS *r•aa SECTION STATUS INDICATORS r««i• FOR ZXAMPLE, VO1S20-1 **N I INDICATORS ARE: (PERIOD) = MEMBER NOT BEEFED' ..w _ HORIZONTAL BRACE INDICATOR I • (ASTERISK) MEMBER BEEFED II.... DIAGONAL BRACE INDICATOR ( ! (EIRSAMATION) - NO MEMBER LARGE ENOUGH I..... LEG INDICATOR I ? (QUESTION) - INCORRECT DATA I N - NOT APPLICABLE 07/08/02 10:53, FAX 3096976240 ROHN PROJ MGT/CONST 0 Q014 DATE-07/01/02 ROHN SELF-SUPPORTING TOWER ANALYSIS FOR NFI PAGE NO. 3 TIME-13:55:12 Output is NOT to be reproduced without Rohn's written consent.- FILS NO. 50457JA BY:' DWG LEVEL - 4R4.3NT sffmmts, OVERTURNING MOMENTS AND LEG DATA ♦rraar••+ra•r rf lwra•aaaalarra raarwa+;a+►• r!!a•♦r area rkr+rra+r„a ar+rrra+arr ref +a a•+a rr akaaaral4a! arrwRRlrfaa aaf+r►rraar aaalaltaaf♦ •ra4a++4k+w *COLUMN 10* *COLUMN li* -COLUMN 12* *COLUMN 13* +COUM 14* *COUAV 15+ +CDLvm is* *COLUMN 17* *COLUMN 18* arks++aarrr rra+a+a++a! aaaaraa4R+r rrrrrafr♦♦r rrar♦f♦rrra r♦arrawrrrr rrrrrr♦frRr erfrte♦rrfa frrrrrffrrr + TOWER • + DIST- * * APPROX. * * TOTAL a r CAI, r r MAXIMOM f r MAXIMUM ♦ r MAXIMUM t • TOWER * t • r ANCE * * CENTER- * * ACCUM. * * OVER- • • TENSION * * COMP. * *ALLOWABLE* LEG * * SECTION * + BELOW * * CENTER * * SHEAR ON* * TURNING * • FOR *E * • FOR ONE • * LEG • -DIMENSION- ! • + TOP * * OF LEGS * + TOWER • • MOMENTS * • LEG * * LEG • -CAPACITY * * + a DER • a (FT ) + * (FT.) a r (KIPS) * * (FT-KIPS) * + (RIPS) * * (KIPS) + • (KIPS) * *(INCHES) •larra+r••r estate-+aaa alar.aaaar+ •rrraaaaraR aRaaaaaarrf Rarrrrrrawa •frrrar+r+♦ +awrrrart♦r atarrrrraa• VG1S20-1 ++N 20.0 2.s4 4.22 63.49 z7 !67 30.43[ .533 56.91 PIPE2.5sTD VG2S10-1 **N 30.0 2.54 4.91 109.13 48.;23' 51.58[ .911 ~ 56.91 PIPE2.SSTD VG2320-1 **N 40.0 2.59 5.63 161.83 70,143 74.55( .713 105.08 PIPE3.0E.H VGIS20-1 **N - 60.0 2.68 95 3Y/ 8 & 150-0[.823 160.19 PIPE4.OE.9 NOTE THE ALLOWABLE CAPACITIES ON THIS ANALYSIS INCLUDE A 33.3 PEP)CENT INCREASE. NOTE [ ) SHOWS LOAD/CAPACITY RATIO. REACCIONS FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN •raraaRrrtraaa•+f arf R•f•lRrr!!a ' COMPRESSION/LEG 50.0- KIPS TENSION,/LEG 1 le/s,6 KIPS \ 11 K 1 6HEAA/L$G 7 KIPS ANCHOR 80L T9 REQUIRED \I~ }I /O TOTAL SHEAR J! KIPS T~~OVERTURNING MOMENT y/ . B FP-KIPS 07/08/02 10:53 FAX 309697620 DATE-07/01/02 TINE-13:55:12 LEVEL - 4R4.3NT #it*iaaa#r# *COLUMN 19* RftkttRtf t* * TOWER a r * SECTION x r r NOMBER a r*r*a**«rr* VG1920-1 **N VG2S10-1 **N V02SIO-1 **N VG1320-1 **N ROHN PROJ MGT/CONST • Z015 ROHN SELF-SUPPORTING TOWER ANALYSIS FOR NFI PAGE NO. 4 Outpi.tt is NOT to be reproduced without Rohn's written consent.- FIIA NO. 50457JA BY: DWG BRACING LOADS, SIZES AND BOLTS ' a*rr*t«r*rr•*xra#+i«+a**++rr«a« a********** ff+f *fff*ff a**f**arrt* +•*«+*r**+r* *******i**** **•*******f** ***r*****t* *******r*** *COLUMN 20* *COLUM 21* *COLM44 22* *COLUMN 23* *C=50 24* *0)LUMN 25 * *COLUMN 26* *COLUMN 27* *+***k**t•*t t++*+*x+*x• *rrt«rax*a* t•****ra«a*a rr***«a~r*rr axr*aaa4rara «►a«**r*rr* *ar«rr*•*rr * HORIZ. * * HORIZ. * *REMAINING* *MAX.ARIAL* #AXIALLD.* *ANGLE/PIPE* * * *NO.i SIZE* • COMP. OF* * COMP. * * SHEAR TO* *LOAD FOR * * COLUMN * */SOLID RD.* * BRACE - * OF RRACE* * SHEAR 110 * OF LEG * * BE TAHEN* * TOWER * *CAPACI0.'Y * *am/ BRACE* • CONNECT.* * BOLTS * • ONE FACE* * LOAD * *BY BRACES* • BRACING * *OF BRACES- * DIMENSION* * CAPACITY* *REQUIRED * • (KIPS) * * (RIPS) * + (RIPS) • * (RIPS) * * (KIPS) * * (INCHES) * * (KIPS) * *PER CONN.* r*r*•at*rxr +a*aarra*ar «rr.►rataaa *aaaa+*a«rr a+#aaa#4aaa *araa*+*aarr #f*rf*aaaaa aaaa#a**##a 3.732 .000 3.732 3.732 [,61) 12.27W L1.'75X3/16 QD 6. 08 1-5/81N.DIA(*) .250 IN. CLIP 4.196 .000 4.196 4.196 [,69) 12.27 L1.75X3/16 <M> 6.D8 1-5/SIN.DIA(*) .250 IN. CLIP 4.655 .000 4.655 4.655 1 .513 19.487 L :2827x/4 0D 9.06 1-5/BIN.DIA(*) .250 IN. CLIP 6.126 .000 6.126 6.126 [ .683 19.464 L 2X2X1/4 40d> 9.06 1-5/81N.DIA(«) .250 IN. CLIP NOTE THE ALLOWABLE CAPACITIES ON THIS ANALYSIS INCLUDE A 33.' PERCENT INCREASE. NOTE [ J SHOWS MAX.LOAD/CAPACITY RATIO. IF THE SYMBOL--(+)--APPEARS AFTER THE BOLT SIZE, IT INDICATES THAT TBR4DS MOST :BE EXCLUDED FROM SHEAR PLANES. IF THE SYMBOL-- (H) --APPEARS AFTER THE LOADS ABOVE, IT INDICATES THAT THE LOADS ARE FOR THE MAIN HORIZONTAL. IF THE SYl030L--*--APPEARS AFTER THE CLIP SIZE, IT DEDICATES THAT THE HOAU:ZONTAL :BRACE CONTROLLED THE CLIP AND BOLT SIZE. IF THE SYMBOL--(+) --APPEARS ASTER THE DIAGONAL CAPACITY (COL. 24), IT INDICATES TSE HORIZONTAL BRACE CAPACITY CONTROLS THE DIAGONAL BRACE CAPACITY. THE LETTER APPEARING BEFORE THE CONNECTION CAPACITY IN COLUMN 26 INDICATES THE OONTROLLING FACTOR. <B> - BRACH BOLT CONTROLS CONNECTION CAPACITY; <C> - BRACE CLIP CONTROLS; Qfl - ARACE CONTROLS. 1 0 53 0 • : 07/08/02 1 FAX 309697624 ROHN PROJ MGT /CONST [x]016 DATE=07/01/02 ROM SELF-SUPPORTING TOWER ANALYSIS FOR WFI i PAGE NO. 5 TIME-13:55:12 Output is NOT to be reproduced without Rohn's written consent.- FILE: NO. 50457JA BY: DWG LEVEL - 4R4.3NT --------a----- -----------7--- TWIST AND DEFLECTION DATA tf*atlfif t►i*f #fta+*f of 1+ ' iataaf staff ffaf *if of rt atft+ffa**# its tta~a++f 1•*#aattiaa* +COLUA4.1 28* *COLUMN 29* *COLUMN 30+ *COMd 31* 1'COLUMN 32* #faa#ltfaaa atffatattlr #rtrra**a*# ++f+#+~#ata 1'arltrartrr f TOWER a * TWIST + • TOTAL * + DEFLEC- * TOTAL * a r r FOR EACH* * ACCOM- * *TION FOR * ACCUM- * • SECTION * > TOWER * r MATED * *EA. TOWER* ' ULATED * * * * SECTION * * TWIST * * SECTION * " DEFT.. * * NUMBER * *(DEGREES)* *(DEGREES)* *(DEGREES)* 1'(DEGREES)* taf+t+*+*#* asfaaai*1fa sat*iiaaaaa rata*aaaat♦ raaitatitti VG1S20-1 **N .244 .643 .2i8 1.373 VG2S10-1 **N .122 .399 .310 1.145 V02910-1 **N .079 .277 .264 .836 VGIS20-1 **N .198 .198 .512 .572 i I 1 07/08/02 10:54 FAX 3096976240 ROHN PROJ MGT/CONST • _ MAT FOUNDATION - v2 File No: 50457JA CN: 2 Client: WFI TwrType: ssv 60. 0 Ft Site : POR Pecan (Tigard, OR) MAT FOUNDATION DESIGN PARAMETERS - V2 Compression/Leg 150.00 Kips ( Ult Strength Concrete: 3.00 KSI- Tension/Leg 145.60 Kips/ Unit Weight Concrete : 0.09 KCFI Total Tower Shear 8.50 Kips/ Yield Strength Reber : 60.00 KSI,,' Total Tower Weight: 5.70 Kips Z Max Soil Pressure 2.00 KSF OverTurning Moment: 341.80 FtKips Minimum Factor/Safety: 11501 Tower Face Width 2.68 Feet 0' Load Factor 1.30 / Tower Offset 0.00 Inches Total Fnd Thickness . 4.00 Feet/ AncBolt Diameter : 1.00 Inches Fnd Hgt Above Grade : 0.50 Feet AncBolt Per Leg 4 / EA Dimension 21.00 inches-' AncSolt Length 78.00 Inches i ES Dimension 25.00 Inches, Anc8olt Circ Diam 9.50 Inches J Minimum Pocket Diam 28.00 Inches- AncBoit Projection: 6.00 Inches Final Fnd Width 15.00 Feet i MAT FOUNDATION DESIGN RESULTS Total OTM at Base 375.80 Ft-Kips Act. safety Factor for OTM : 1.73 Min. Safety Factor 1.50 Act. Soil Pres/Diagonal Axis: 1.65 KSF Allowable Soil Pressure 2.00 KSF Beam Shear Capacity 37.39 Kips/Ft j Actual Beam Shear 3.08 Kips/Ft l-11 Punching Shear Capacity 546.03 Kips Calculated Pocket Depth 2.25 Ft i Final Pocket Depth 2.25 Ft Structural Backfill yes * FINAL MAT DIMENSIONS 15.00 FT SQUARE BY 4.00 FT THICK Final Pocket Dimensions 28.00 inch diem. BY 2.25 ft deep. i Total Volume of Concrete 37.79 'cubic yards. Area of Steel Required 0.52 sq-in/foot both ways, top and bottom. Use 15 #7 rebar on 11.57 inch centers, both ways, top & bottom. Designed By: DWG Date: 07/02/02 Checked By: Date: 2 0 2 0.017 0 07/08/02 10:54 FAX 309697620 ROHN PROJ hICT/CONST • Z018 File No.:50457JA Done By-DWG 7/1/2002 Checked By: -t cZ SEISMIC BASE SHEAR CALCULATIONS FOR 60 kF. Self Supporting Tower. Reference: 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, SECTION 1630.2.1 Per Equation (30-5), Total Seismic Base Shear !need not exceed: V = 2.5(QIW R WHERE: V = Total Seismic Base Shear Ca = Seismic Coefficient set forth in Table 16-Q. I = Importance Factor Given in Table 16-K. R = Numerical Coefficient from Table 16-P. W = Total Seismic Dead Load (From Analysis). • I C. = 0.36 I =1.0 (Standard Occupancy Structure) R = 2.9 (Trussed Towers) W = 5.73 Kips (From Analysis) V = 2.5(QIW _ (2.5)(:36)(1.0)(.73 Kips) R (2.9); Total Seismic Base Shear : V = 1.78 Kips Total Design Base Shear (From Analysis) = 8.5 Kids Total Design Base Shear is grc2ter than Total Seismic Base Shear OL DESI i i t i j . o 0 0 E0000r M% VerIZOnwireless, SITE NAME: PECAN SITE NUMBER: PORPECAN-CV1 LATITUDE & LONGITUDE COORDINATE DATA (PROVIDED BY WF ) NAD 113 LAT - 4526'1268' N LONG -12747'37.20' W ELEV• 209.00 FEET (NAVD 88(96)) A/C ADJ. AFF AMSL APPROX. ASDI BLDG. BUG. B/S CLG AIR CONDITIONING ADJUSTABLE ABOVE FINISH FLOOR ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL APPROXIMATELY AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS BUILDING BLOCK BUNTING STANDARD CEILING MAX NECH WL MFA. MCA MIN MIST N NA TITS MAXIMUM MECHANICAL META MANUFACTURER MANAGER MIMMUM MISCELLANEOUS NORTH NOT APPLY.ABLE NOT TO SCALE { k a ( ( Q ANGLE AND AT CENTER LINE NUMBER PLATE CLR. CLEAR D.C. ON CENTER CONC CONCRETE DPC. OPENING GO ST. CONSTRUCTION DPP OPPOSITE CONT. CONTINUOUS CO. COMPANY PL PROPERTY ME REVISION DBL DOUBLE P LYING. PR PLYIN 0 PAIR EY NOTE DA., 4 QUO DIAMETER DIAGONAL PROJ PROP PROJECI PROPERTY T y y- v DIM. DIMENSION PT PRESSURE TREATED DN DTL DETL DOWN OETAL e1 DETAIL REFERENCE DWG. DRAWING RED D REWIRED A-1 RM ROOM E EAST R.O. ROUGH OPENING U. EACH B ELEVATION EL ELEV ELEVATION S SOUTH - REFERENCE ELECt. ELECTRICAL SCHEO SC COULE E0. EQUAL 5HT SHEET EQUIP EQUIPMENT Sim S E.W. EACH WAY SPEC. SPECIFICAIION 100 ROOM NUMBER EX. EXISTING SO SOUARC Ul. EXTERIOR SS STAINLESS STEEL FIN. TINN ST I. STRUC STEEL STRUCTURAL 17 SECTION FLUDA. FLWAESCENT SUSP SUSPENDED _ _ - REFERENCE FUR FLOOR FF. FOOT THRU THROUGH TNND TINNED ,L GA GAUGE T.O.C. TOP OF CONCRETE ELEVATION MARK. GALV. GALVANIZE(D) 10.M. TOP OF MASONRY Y CC GENERAL CONTRACTOR TS TUBE STEEL GLB GLUE LAMINATED BEAM TYP TYPICAL GRND GROUND GWB GYPSUM WALL BOARD UBC UNIFORM BUILDING CODE HORIZ. HORIZONTAL UL UNDERWRITERS LAB HR HDUR UN) UxLESS NOTED HT. HEIGHT OTHERWISE WAG HEATING, VENTING AND MR CONDITIONING VEJRT VERTICAL IN. INCH NF VERIFY IN FIELD INFO INFORMATION It" UL INSULA➢ON W WEST INT. WEMR w/ Wa. MAM WINDOW LB(5) nouND(S) W/o WITHOUT ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS DRIVING DIRECTIONS FROM VERIZON OFFICE: Depart 5430 NE 122nd Ave, Portland, OR 97230 on WE 122nd 91A [NE 122nd Ave] (North) 0,2 mi Turn LEFT (West) onto NE Airport Way 1.0 mi Be., RIGHT (North) onto Ramp 0.2 mi 1-205 South Merge onto 1-105 [Ent Portland F.y] 3.0 ml Bear RIGHT (South) onto 278 03 mi-84 W~I/IJS-30 West Bear RIGHT (West) onto 1-84 [US-30] 5.1 mi Turn all onto Ramp 0.4 mi 1-5 South Merge onto 1-5 14 mu At I-5 .it 294, turn all onto Romp 0.3 mi SR-99W Merge onto SR-99 [SW Borbur Blvd] 1.4 mi Turn LEFT (South) onto SW Main St 0.3 mi Turn RIGHT (North-West) onto SW Lgard ST 1.2 mi Arrive 11355 SW ligned SL Tigard, OR 97223 SUMMARY Tata1 dlslance. 20.8 miles Length of trip. 32 minutes DRIVING DIRECTIONS I TL NA OWNER: PECAN LARRY AND CINDY ANDERSON 11355 S.W. TIGARD STREET SITE MaE ~ B' TIGAR D, OR 97223 PORPECAN-CVI 503.639.6035 SITE ADDRESS LARRY OR CINDY ANDERSON nus S.W. rIGARD STREET TIGARD, OR 97223 APPLICANT/ LESSEE OPERATOR APPLICANT'S R PRESENTATIVE VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS FACILITIES, INC. dba VERIZON WIRELESS CORPORATION 4520 S.W. WATER AVE, SUITE 201E 5430 N.E122nd AVE. PORTLAND, OR 97201 PORTLAND, OR 97230 PHONE: 503.9715146 PHONE. 503.408.3434 FAR: 503.973.5458 FAX: 503.408.3 489 CONTACT: SHANIN PRUSLA CONTACT: JOE AHSING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VERIZON WEST CORP. PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN AN UNOCCUPIED COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY. THE FACILITY WILL CCNSIST OF A PREFABRICATED EQUIPMENT SHELTER, (APPROX. 336 50. FT), INSTALLED ON CONCRETE FOUNDATION BEAMS AT GRADE, AND A 60' SELF SUPPORTING TOWER WITH ANTENNAS FOR COMMUNICATIONS THE SHELTER WILL HOUSE RADIO, ELECTRICAL, AND POWER EQUIPMENT. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES HALF STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND LANDSCAPING AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD. PARCEL WIMBER. JURISDICTION ELECTRICAL UTILITY. 80269916 CITY OF TIGARD PGE 503.736.5450 TELEPHONE UTILITY: FIRE DEPARTMENT: SCHOOL DISTRICT VERIZON TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE 6 RESCUIPITY OF TIGARD 503-666-1290 503.612.10011 SITE TYPE: RAW LAND CODE INFORMATION ZONING CLASSIFICATION: R4.5 BUILDING CODE: PROPERTY ACREAGE 1 ACRE PROJECT AREA 40'.50' BUILDING AREA 336 50. Fl, CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-N h V-1 HOUR PROPOSED BUILDING USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS OCCUPANCY : 5 2 EXCAVATION A.D.A. COMPLLANCE. FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMW HABITATION. PROJECT SUMMARY LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROVIDED BY N.W. GEOTECH:. Beginning at the northwest corner of the John L. Hickl'In donation Land Claim No 54, in Section 34, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, and running thence South 50244 feet to a point; thence, South 8941' East 3789 feet to on ion pipe; thence South 242.0 feel to an iron pipe, said ion pipe marking the We point of beginning of this description; thence continuing South 259.21 feet to appoint in the centerline of S.W. Tigard Avenue; Thence along said centerline. South 89'51' East 190.90 feet to a point; thence North 25845 feet to an ion pipe; thence North 89'41' West 190.90 feet to the true point of beginning. Subject to: Statutory powers and assessments of the Unified Sewage Agency, Rights of the Public in and to that Portion of the premises herein described lying within the limits of S.W. Tigard Avenue. I LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESIGNER LAND SURVEYOR PO ASSOCIATES NORTHWEST GEOTECH 208 S.W. STARK ST, SUITE 602 9120 S.W. PIONEER COURT PORTLAND, OR 97204 WILSONVILLE. OR 97070 TEL 503.229.1840 TEL: 503.582.1800 FAX: 503.229.1878 FAX. 503.682.2753 CONTACT: JOHN CRAIG CONTACT. TOM GINSBACH FOUNDATION ENGINEER GEOTECH INVESTIGATION RHON INDUSTRIES, INC. GEOSTANDARDS 1225 N.W. MURRAY BLVD., SUITE 102 PORTLAND, OR 97229 TEL: TEL: 503.6469069 FAX: FAX: 503.6468976 CONTACT CONTACT: BOB BURNS CONSULTANT TEAM THIS DRAWING IS COPYRIGHTED AND IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF THE OWNER. IT IS PRODUCED SOLELY FOR USE BY THE OWNER AND ITS AFFILIATES. REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THIS DRAWING AND/OR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN IT IS FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE OWNER. PROPRIETARY STATEMENT I THE FOLLOWING PARTIES HEREBY APPROVE AND ACCEPT THESE DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZE THE CONTRACTOR TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DESCRIBED HEREIN. ALL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ANY CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS THEY MAY IMPOSE, DATE APPROVALS SHEET DESCRIPTION AID. 7-1 TITLE SHEET C-1 OVERALL SITE SURVEY, LEGAL DESCRIPTION, BOUNDARY MAP L-I STREET TREE PUNTING, LEASE AREA LANDSCAPE PLAN, DETAILS A-1 SITE PUN, ENLARGED SITE PLAN A-2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SHEET INDEX Vert wireless VERIZON WIRELESS 5430 N,E 122nd AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97230 PHONE. 503 408.3434 FAX 503 408.3489 tlla 91OW beder IN TELECOM OUTSOURCING Wireless Facilities, Inc 4520 S.W. Water Ave., Suite 201E Portland, Oregon 97201 IIDOJ zz-Ie41 (sot) zzPP-Iere I RELEASE 14NW01 PRELIMINARY ZONING 15NOV01 FINAL ZONING 20FEB02 REVISED ZONING 27MAR02 REVISED ZONING 01JUL02 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REV. REVISIONS N0. DATE s SITE 94UE PECAN Sf1E NUMBER PORPECAN-CVI JOB NUMBER N HOUSE 201292 DRAWN 'Y' 'C B CHECKED BY; PM SITE ADDRESS 11355 S.W. TIGARD STREET TIGARD. OR, 97223 SHEET 118E TITLE SHEET SHEET NUMBER T-1 PLOT SC;!T I • 0 4 ~ b 0 N h o° 2 ~G P. 0.b. 1 ~5 0°~~ P~pF pF 5 8956'34'E 190.8 ONO POLE ro 5' FROM EACH J .VI Pv PROPERTY LINE s ~~c~`il, _ ' • LEASE AREA rd& N13 yb°0 0 7 1y WELL -"90.--- N 89'57't'J'W I -15' OENTERUNE OF 15' EASEMENT .P N M N h r b 0 01 J W a ~ 2 a a 10' 0' 40' W. 120' SCALE. 1'- 40' W R u° 11 NO nV/ 7::,o, 1 t0' 0' 10' 20' 30' SCALE.' 1'- 10' 15' CENTERLINE OF 15' EASEMENT AREA PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROJECT LEGAL DESCIPTION LATITUDE & LONGITUDE i SITE DATA Bphnhq of the narthnmst owner of the John L HicWin donation Land 0oim Na 54, in Section 34, Toenshrp I South. Range I West, of the IWlmette Yeddlan, Wnshhgtor County. Oregon, and numhg therm South 502.44 feat to o pant thence. South 89'41' East 3789 feet to an ion pier, therm South 242.0 MI to Of Wd~tkn; an k~ phuhg South 259.2~~ tthe true o gpoh point f the rlhheo S. thence .w rhence along "Id centedhe, South 89'3?' East 19090 Mt to o Point' then North 258.45 feet to an Fon pipe; than" North 8941' II6st 19090 legit to the true point of bpi-hg. Sub)ect to Statutory Poem and asse a ents of the Unified Serape Agency. Right. of the Public h and tc that portion of the prenisas herein described lying slthh the Lin/h of SW. Tigard A- Bephnhg at the oth-t come, of the Jahn L Hkedh donation Lard Oak" No 54, In Section W. Tonah4 I South, Range I Neat of the NWmette Nrldan, Washington tenth Oregon. and Weaning thence South 502.44 Mt to a paint thence. South 89'41' East J789 Mt to an inn plus than South 2120 Mt to an ion pee. thee" South 8956.4' East dap the oath the of that bast of knd -.).d to L Mdseson d C)Ath LL Mdenn, husband and dfe. In a statutory warranty dd rscardvd fee Nnnbr 840025J7 doted January 24 1954 Aar o Arlanee of 19090 MI to an ion PM at the northeast amen thrsof and the bue Poht of b gkmhg of this er d-0tkec three" South 0074'38' East along the east tune of sod Mderson Trot for a dhtones of 4000 Mt thence. North 8956:74' W1nt paoid dth the north the Of sad Mdrson bat for a diet- of 3000 Mt to a Pahl Bun" North 0074'38' Wkst and pao9d 11th the east the of said And- bat for a dir once of 4000 Mt to a point an the north tune of said Andrson bat thence South %930'34' Eat dong the north of vok Anderson, tract for a distan" or 3000 Mt to the trw paint of bphnhg I crtlfy that the latitude of 4576'12.68'N and the longitude of 122147'3520' Ware omrate to Within 50 Mt harfmntafly and that the aft, of.votio. of 209 feet NAM 68(96) N accurate to Mthh 20 Mt eetkdly. The planned structure height of 60 feet AQ Wahl be 269 Mt NATO 88(96) The hario tci datum ("ardhot") are h toms of North Amwkai Datum of 1983 (MAD 83) and are expressed h degree; minuta; and sacandr (to the newast hundredth of a second). The mHkd datum (heights) are In terms of North Msrkan Vertkd Datum of 1988(96) and we determined to the newest toot Sipiature: None of surseyr: Gang. a. Cathey Oregon Registration Numbc 979 VICINITY MAP I DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENTS S. W. TIGARD STREET (45) e 1 A 15L00 (dnesn) Mot sb4 of land lying 750 (mrn and on-hall) Mt an eum side of the Maehg aescnbd e centrfin Bphnhq of the nathmal comer of the John L Hk+/h donation Land 0ain Na 54, h Section 34, Tonsh/p I South, Range I AMC o/ th. N91m.tte Alrklan, Washington County. Oregon, and nmnhg than South 502." feet to a paht thence. Swth 89'41 East 3789 Mt to on Iran, pips three South 242.0 Mt to n ken POW thence, South 8936'34' East Bong the north an. Of that bat of land cnryd to Lorry R. Anderson and Cynfhk N. And-,, husbnd and efts, In a statutory wrranty dead rrrded h Fee Number 840025J7 doted Jm,wy 20. 1954 b a distan t/ of 19090 Mt to on ion p4se at the northeast ewer thereof; thence. South 0074'38' fast o'n9 the east the of said Mdrron trot fen o d'afonn of 4000 Ml theca Naar 8936'44' Neat pr.7,J efth the north foe Of said Mdrson trot fr a dstan" of I100 Mt to o point and the true point of beginning our the dnalofiac fence, South 0774'38' East and padld fth the east the of -Al Marsh bat for a dstn" of 1982 Mt for the north right-al-wry lire of SW. Tiyord street and the point of Irmhus The sddnee of mid 20.00 fat strip of land are to be estonded r shorted so as to create o ccnthuous 1500 Mot strip of land B. P. O.B. MONO POLE 5' FROM EACH PROPERTY LINE -oLEASE O ~t O Sits None: PORPECAN-CH Ate Numbs: Ste Address 11555 SW. DGARD S1. Olty of T19MA Washington Canty. Oregon. 97223 Onrs Nams: Larry and Cindy Mderson Assessors parcel M mben 80269916 TL600 TI$ RIW, Section 340C Net Are of UndeNyhg Parcels 1.04 Acres Net Are of Project Area., 900 square teat Coand Elevation: 209 Mt (NAM 88) Bach mart A 'PK' nai mt near the north gutter of SIC regard Street new the southdy pra)ectian of the east line of the Isom are. Said 'PK' nai pointed. j 2S ElevoUon - 188.95 Ba.b of Devotions NAW 88, City of rlgord brass 4:0 Bois Bearings Ceodetk North by edor oba-N- Note. 1. Latitude and longitude ond grand I.mtfm ere taken at the cntr of the A. 2. Spot elevation. are to the nest of fat 3 Nagnetk dedlnotin of 179' ran taken hm USCS 7-112 minute gudrangle V/ Ueffmwireless VERIZON WIRELESS 5430 NE 122nd AVE PORTLAND, OREGON, 97230 ME 503.408.3434 FAX: 503.408.3489 0 M Wireless Facilities, Inc. 4520 S.W. Water Ave., Suite E Portland, OR 97210 0 " Iraal ea-erm oNorthwest Geotech, Inc. 9122IT0E $W PIONEER COURT WILS 14LIE OR 97070 PHONE 550)j 682-1800 FAX (5U03) 682-2753 011E OCTOBER 29, 2001 REASONS Qj 1,1)09/01 Ilea. and eae 8 deea* nlnrol eaenea:dth 50E tW4 F=1 IF== CAN SHEET TIRE TOTPPO~GRAPHC SW IIeL I pw13~8ppNUIIBEA N HOUSE E1/E1f LL fi*m DRAWN BY-. LEC CHECKED Br: SITE ADMM 11355 S.W. TIGARD ST. TIGARC),OREGON 97223 MET NM B c- '1 • PROPOSED 6'- CHAN-UNK FENCE ALONG FAST PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED 'PARKWAY MAPLE STREET TREE PLANTING, 25'-V O.C. S.W. TIGARD STREET 1 I S 89 56'34"E 190.83' ' - EXISTING AWNING EXISTING SHOP I ~ I EXISTING GREENHOUSE PARCEL, R0269976 7/7 /Z PROPOSED PAVED LOT 1 600 ACCESS DRIVE ~_E%ISTING EXISTING WELL ASPHALT HOUSE, TO BE - PAVING~ REMOVED ;fEXISTING EXISTING SHED, TO n BE REMOVED „I EXISTING / GARAGE I/---/Z ,a-'' '1z I PROPOSED NEW 5' WIDE SIDEWALK AND P-6 RIDE PROPOSED NEW 6' ----4 PLANTER STRIP CONCRETE CURB I ONP aM WP al I n 31 Vi I CWI On, - OrrP ONP • X I . b I~ I$ m I d P om, 877 TIC PL.ANZ110 RAN 1 ea.ue.bl M CITY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: VERIZON WIRELESS IS TO PROVIDE THE CITY OF TIGARD WITH COPIES OF MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION AND ISSUANCE OF THE LETTER OF COMPLETENESS. ALL PLANTINGS ARE TO RECEIVE REGULAR WATERING USING DRIP OR OTHER RELIABLE IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR A MINIMUM OF 2 YEARS AFTER PLANTING W pQIc J ~ ;15 U) Enlll l OUTLINE SPECIr;CMAON - PLANTING GENERAL. All plants shall conform to all applicable standards of the latest edition of the "American Standard for Nursery Slack", A.N.S.I. 260.1 - 1973. EXISTING RED ALDER (3) Nursery stock shall be healthy, well hronched and rooted, formed true to variety and species, lull foliaged, free of disease. Injury, defects, TO REMAIN: PRIME AS REOU2ED Insects, weeds, and weed roots. Trees shall hove straight trunks, symmetrical lips, and have an intact single leader. he apparent silence of the Specifications, Plans and Special Provisions as to any detail or the oppvenl omission from them of a detailed escrpbon -,cerning my point shall be regarded as meaning that only the pest aenem, practice s to Prevail and that onh material an Qrkmosh'a of ist are to be use. All interpretations of these Specifications shall be made upon the basis above stated. S Only as approved by the Landscape Architect. UBSTITUTIONS: I GUARANTEE AND REPLACEMENT: All plant material shall be guaranteed from final acceptance for one lull growing season or one year, _ whichever is longer. During this period the Contractor shell replace any plant material that is not in good condition and producing new growth (except that material damaged by were weather conditions. due to Owner's negligence, or lost due to vandalism). Landscape Contractor shall keep on site for Owner's Representative's inspection, all receipts for soil amendment and topsoil deliveries. TOPSOIL AND FINAL GRACES: Landscape Contractor is to verify that the topsoil is ors not conducive to orooer olunt growth. Landscape Contractor is to supply and place 12' of topsail in planting beds if topsoil on site is not conducive to proper plant growth, 6„ 9 tuns s alhexise notified by General Contractor. Landscape Contractor is to submit samples of the impeded soil and/or soil amendments 4 b to the Londscope Architect Landscaping shall include finished grades and even distribution of topsoil to meet planting requirements. Grades and slopes shall be as ll b lk fi i h d li t t ll f b k I d i i or ng, n gro nes. ec , o a ow ar e approx nches below adjacent wa s e e indicated. Plontilg bed grades sha mately 3 s, pav GppOcation. Finish grading shall remove all depressions or low arms to provide positive drainage throughout the area. HERBICIDES: Prior to sod preparation, all areas showing any undesirable weed or gross growth shall be treated with Round-up in strict ' + s instructions. accordance with the manufacturer SOIL PREPARATION: , Work all areas by rololllling to o minimum depth of B inches. Remove all stoics (ever I I/2' size), socks, mailer, large clumps of vegetation, mots, debris, or extraneous matter turned up in working. Soil shall be of a homogeneous fine texture. Level, smooth and lightly compact area to plus or minus .10 of required grades. I otlon shall d< I NOTIFICATION: The Contractor shall notify the Landscape Architect 48 hours in advance of installation of the plants. Final loc I T - 1 approved by the Landscape Architect. PUNTING MOLE: Lay out all plant [motions and excavate all soils from planting notes to 2 1/2 times the aol boll or root system width. F Loosen soil inside bottom of plant hole. Dispose of any'subsoir or debris from excavation. Check drainage of planting hale with water, PROPOSED ARBORVITAE SHRUBS; and adjust any area showing drainage problems. { PLANTINGS MUST REACH V-0" IN HEIGHT PROPOSED 6' SOIL MIX: Prepare sod mix in each planting hale by mixing: AND 95x OPACITY WITHIN THREE YEARS TALL CEDAR I part native topsoil (no subsoil) PER TICAAD WIRELESS ORDINANCE FENCE 18.798-6 I pad Mushroom compost, Garden Compost, or as approved Thoroughly mix in planting hole and add fertilizers at the following rates: L_________ __________k__-___ Small shrubs - I/B lb./ plant Shrubs - 1/3 to 1/2 lb./ plant Trees - 1/3 to 115/ plant FERTILIZER: For trees and shrubs use Commercial Fertilizer *A7 Inorganic (5-4-3) with micro-nutrients and 50% slow releasing nitrogen. PROPOSED 15' :7 Place the plant on a layer of compacted planting mix at the center of the planting hole. Plant trees and shrubs upright and WIDE ASPHALT (ace for best appearance. Remove containers or ties and burlap from the top of Bk8 plants. Check rants and cut clean any froyed or PAVED ACCESS DRIVE EXISTING WELL broken roots. Stagger plants in rows. Bakfill planting hole with soil mix while working each foyer to eliminote voids. HOUSE, ill BE REMOVED When approximately 2/3 lull, water thoroughly. Then allow water to soak away. Place remaining backlill and dish surface around Dlonl to NOTES: 1. Contactor is to verify all plant quantities. 2. Adjust plantings in the field as necessary, i.e. shrubs away from doors large evergreens away from windows to blank wells, lull grown tree canopies ovoy from signs, etc. Notify Landscape Architect of any changes in layout. 3. Before construction begins, Landscape Architect is to approve layout of town and planting beds. 4. Project is to be irrigated with on automatic, underground irrigation system, MNNIENANCE NOTE5 HEDGE AND CEDARS SHALL BE MANTAJNED AS NEEDED BY TRIMMING, SPRAYING, MULCHING, WEEDING, IRRIGATING, STAKING AND BY ANY OTHER MEANS TO ASSURE ITS HEALTHY GROWTH. ALSO SEE 'CITY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL' ON THIS SHEET. ADDTINAL NOTES I. SITE PLAN IS A DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION ONLY, DO NOT SCALE; VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS 2. VERIFY ALL PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION WITH EXISTING SURVEY DATA. 3. EXISTING TREES THAT MUST BE REK40VD FOR ACCESS ROAD ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAN FOR CLARITY. 4. THE EXISTING UNDERSTORY TREES SURROUNDING THE SITE ARE 30-40' TALL AND THE FIRS AND PINE SURROUNDING THE SITE ARE 100-120' TALL 5. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SEE THE ARBORIST'S REPORT. hold coat". Final grade should keep root boll slightly above surrounding grade, not to exceed I inch. Water again unt no more water is absorbed. Initial watering by irrigation system is not allowed, STAKING OF TREES: Slake or guy all trees. Stakes shall be 2' X 7 (nom.) quality tree stakes with point. They shell be of Douglas Fn, clear and sturdy. Tice lies for deciduous trees shall be 'Choirdock" (or as approved). For Evergreen trees use'cro-Strait" Tree Ties (or as approved) with guy wires of a minimum 2 strand twisted 12 go. wire. MULCHING OF PLAN71NGS: Mulch planting areas with dark fir or hemlock bark (medium grind), or as app(oved, to a depth of 1 1/2 inches in ground cover areas and 3 inches in shrub beds. \ CLEAN-UP: AI completion of work all extra material, supplies, equipment, etc., shall be removed from the site. All walks, ig, or other Sluicees shall be swept clean, mulch areas shall have debris removed and any soil cleared from surface. F pw n X All areas of th c project shall be clean, orderly and complete. F v OR NEW L ANDSCAPE LEGEND SYM. DESCRIPTION PARKWAY Y MAPLE A 0 AC ER PLATANOIDES 'COLUMNARBROAO' Ott. 2" CALIPER 7 SPACING: 15' O.C. PYRAMIDAL ARBORVITAE " ' 0 PYRAMIDALI$ THUJA DCCIDENTAUS OT Y. Ott. 5' B&B 50 SPACING: 3' o.c. WESTERN RED CEDAR THUJA PUCATA Ott, 15' TALL MIN. 6 SPACING: 13' o.c. EXIS TING TREE LEGEND w SYM. DESCRIPTION 0. a WESTERN RED CEDAR ® 'THUJA PUCATA' z ( DOUGLAS FIR PSUEDOiSUGA MENZIESII' OREGON WHITE OAK Li O OUERCUS GARRYANA" ? A{P, HAWTHORN C& CRATAEGUS DOUGUSII' WILLOW W O SALfX SPECIES' ~x L-' g0, RED ALDER ' Q VY ALNUS RUBRA h~l RR V CHE Y "PRUNUS SPECIES" Q OREGON ASH M Q FRAXINUS UTIFOUA' U) ROCKY MOUNTAIN MAPLE I ® ACER GLABRUM' n; `rg o Ski =n o` w TOP OF BARK TO BE AT l CROWN M ROOTBALL fydA 2' MOUND FOR WATER BASH 2'x 2' DWG FIR STAKES. 3 STAKES EWAILY SPACED AROUND TREE REMOVE BURLAP- -HOSE: RDNFMCED ROBBER OR GRO- STRAIGHT TREE TIES -GUY WIRE: x10 GA. DBL STRAND. TWISTED. GALVANIZED. i --2 1/2' BARK MULCH -FINISH GRADE BACKFRL SOIL MIXTURE I_6'ulN. WON FERTILIZER EXISTING SUBGRADE Z ,yam CHAINaLC1l ONE[ DES F 1y^^.. (OR AS APPROVED) E I 2' . 2' D.F. STAKES O CROW4 d F00TBALL M BE ij 2' ABOVE FNiSHEO GRADE 2' MWND FOR WARN BASIN 2 1/3 8MK YuLCH k Hlcsx cRAOE \ _ ._CKFiL SARI MIXTURE NTH FERnUZER 2 to 2 1/2 X RCDIBALL EXISTING SUBGRADE 2 to 2 1/2 EVERGREEN TREE STAKING DETAIL n DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE ■ r1 wireless VERIZON WIRELESS 5430 N.E. 122nd AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97230 PHONE: 503.408.3434 FAX: 503.408.3489 ( 2 4 NET L. / j~FEGOON,gS~W 'CAS t the global leader IN TELEELECno oIA OUTSOURCIfdG Wireless Facilities, Inc. 4520 S,W. Water Ave., Suite 201E Portland, Oregon 97201 PEI ASSOCIATES PORTLAND IaLiAYD. 00401 m21 00 A PLR ;T, Sao, era ® (sa3) --One RELEASE DATE 14NOVOI PRELIMINARY ZONING 15NRJ01 FINAL ZONING 20FE602 REVISED ZONING 27UAR02 REVISED ZONING 0IJUL02 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REV. REYSIGNS N0. DATE SIZE NINE P~CA1~! SITE NUMBER PORPECAN-CV1 JOB NUMBEA M fpUSE BY: 201292 CH"" JG CHECKED D 6Y: PNB SITE ADDRESS 11355 S.W. TIGARD STREET TIGARD, OR, 97223 SHEET TIRE STREET TREE PLANTING PLAN LEASE AREA LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET HUMBER L-1 PLOT YALE: I 1 • EXISTING TREE TYPICAL, TO REM I PROPOSED VERUON WIRELESS PROJECT AREA SEE ENLARGED SITE PLAN, THIS SHEET S 59'5631 E 790.83' p - I EXISTING AWNING 1 ~ 11 -C~ If \ / 0 fN I f I EXISTING SHOP Li HIES 4 r~ LOT 1`600 ~E%ISiING , at ? EXls c q u ^ ~ A n ISLwD r1 y EXISTING E RAGE EXISIINC . i LANDS[ SLAND ~ PROPOSED 6' - CONCRETE CURB AND DRIVEWAY APPRONS T E%ISTINC r o. GREENHOUSE GREENHOUSE PROPOSED 15 WIDE PAVED ACCESS DFINE I PROPOSED ROUTE OF P(1WER/TELCO, WF r a G EXISTING WELL EXISTING HOUSE, TO BE HOUSE REMOVED EXISTING SHED, TO BE REMOVED EXISTING TREE m TYPICAL; TO REMAIN \ I I EXISTING HEAVY BLACKBERRY BRUSH 1, NATIVE VEGDATION I I/ PROPOSED 5' WIDE SIDEWALK W/ 4'-6 WIDE PLANTING ;5,• y> STRIP T E a S ~ jma 'es OHP OHP qp- 17a,j;,~', - 1. SITE PLAN IS A DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESEN-WIGN ONLY, DO NOT SCALE; VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS 2. VERIFY ALL PROPERTY UNE INFORMATION 'V'S'. EXISTING SURVEY DATA. OVERALL SITE PLAN T OP I r I • 4'-0. ~a ~ o tt OIL JI J ~ Q O 1N O ~o 3 O Na t 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ds? Yh~~A DHP' I I PROPOSED PREFABRICATED EOIRPMENT SHELTER PROPOSED UTMY BACKWARD Ejr3;r.A_, PROPOSED CONCRETE STOOP Y' t ,U - PROPOSED R( WARNING SIGNS 0HP OHP aNP - OHp alp EXISTING POE UTILITY POLE, NO I EXISTING VERIZON TELCO PEDESTAL j18724 OHP i r 71 i / I I s I I 1 I I I I X 1 I I ' I ~ x 1 I I x I x. ~ I I 11'- 6-4- SHELLER t 10. / ~ \ I PROPOSED 12' WIDE GATE Ig a 'J PROPOSED ROUTE OF UNDERGROUND Ia POWEA/TELCO NOTES - N 1. PROP05ED PREFABRICATED EOUIPUEN7 SHELTER IS GOLD SEALED BY WASHINGTON N STATE DEPARTMEN71 OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES T 2. TREES NOT SHOWN FOR CLARIFY SCALE: I- - DD'-o' 8 ENLARGED SITE PLAN 7'-0 _ PROPERTY UNE 58456'34' E I I I I w I ; O w I I X IS AFAR. SETDACN GRAVEL INSIDE FENCED I PROPOSED 60' SELF-SUPPORT TOWER; PAINT DARK BROWN PROPOSED TOWER FOUNDATION PROPOSED PANEL( ANTENNAS PER LEGEND (1) PROPOSED GPS ANTENNA COMPOUND. TYP. D ER PROPOSED 40•X50' LEASE AREA M 1 X t2 I PROPOSED r~. [ABLE BRIDGE 1 PROPOSED 6' TALL CEDAR FENCE Ip r I n ~ EDGE OF PROPOSED 15' PAVED ACCESS ' DRIVE - - - - ----------------------I I SECTOR 41; ( I ) PROPOSED ANTENNAS (FUTURE) AZIMUTH; 340, DOWNTILT; IT SECTOR 12; ( I ) PROPOSED ANTENNAS AZIMUTH; 100, DOWNTILT; 0 SECTOR 13; (1) PROPOSED ANTENNAS AZIMUTH: 220. DOWNTRT: D ANTENNA LEGEND ■ Verlp wireless VERIZON WIRELESS 5430 N.E. 122nd AVENUE PORTLAND, ON 97230 PHONE: 501408.3434 FAX: 503 408.3489 to AWW IN TELECOWader M OUTSOURCING Wireless Facilities, Inc. 4520 S.W. Water Ave., Suite 201E Portland, Oregon 97201 I D SE n S'!0 SI@I tall NS NIRIYI 06'AM 11141 Isml zzA-IZw ICI zzu-lem RELEASE DATE 14NOYDI PRELIMINARY ZONING ISNOVOI FINAL ZONING 20FEB02 REVISED ZONING 27MAR02 REVISED ZONING OIJUL02 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REV. REVISIONS N0. DATE As 5 WE NAME I PECAN WE NUMBER PORPECAN-CV1 JOB NUMBER PI HOUSE DRAWN BY: X 201292 CHECKED CHECNED BY: PUB SITE ADDRESS 11355 S.W. TIGARD STREET TIGARD, OR, 97223 SHEET TALE OVERALL SHE PLAN ENLARGED SITE PLAN N SHEET NUMBER A-1 SCALE: Y. I--Or 20 PLOT SCALE- 0 • 1 v: J4y J r /I~} t 91 c d \ 4 Ey . 2 PROPOSED B•Or HIGH LIGHTNING ROD ~ ti tt 1 _ 1, i.,` 2. , 1 a 1. r (3) PROPOSED VERRON (3) PROPOSED YER12CN PANEL ANTENNAS _ PANEL ANTENNAS r 1 J TO! Of LIGHTNING ROD 6B -U ACL 1` _ r I,` 1+ (3) PROPOSED MORE 8' T (3) PROPOSED MORE B' TALL TOP OF ANTENNAS PROPOSED CABLE BRIDLE PANEL ANTENNAS ~._0• PANEL ANTENNAS TOP OF MONOPOLE ANTENNA R.AO CENTER 7 T 'i.L 1 '-Or AGL PROPOSED PREFABRICATED EQUIPMENT SHELTER, PROPOSED W' SELF-SUPPORT FI J 6 MURE ANTENNA TIP HEIGHT 1 1 • a Y fir' \ 55'-0• AGL / 1 i TOWER FACE) 1 r PROPOSED 6' TALL CEDAR FENCE ! : I / 1 _ r v d S 1.. 11 - I MURE AMENNA RM CENTER ~ I I y`.~y,r 1• h iT ~ ~Ji ~t / '':ti• I I 1 `g',. r', .~q /1 1 1 Y k 1 !.t / PROPOSED PREFABRICATED EQIPMENi SHELTER+ PROPOSED APTALI CEDAR TREE / SEE LANDSCAPE PUN (L-1) PROPOSED ARBORVITAE SHRUBS SEE LANDSCAPE PUN (L-1) PROPOSED CABLE BRIDLE 1. : 1_ 1III6 3 Tc r / / ~i .V1 . / ~ i ~ ~ r } \ h ~•1 N./ ~ 1 a L;~ {AT{- ! T /'1C t / f Y1 ?tY PROPOSED UTILITY BACKBOARD 11 r / Q 'T ' 14- Al r / k, f +t\ PROPOSED 15' TALL CEDAR TREE 1 SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN (L-I)7Y- 11 th y ; PROPOSED ARBORVITAE SHRUBS , I SEE LANDSCAPE PUN (L-1) ❑ I I I I I~ ; 1 GRADE) ASSUMED 0'-07 PROPOSED 6' TALL CEDAR PROPOSED UTILITY BACKBOARD FENCE AND GATE A ,A , pn„w nA,-- a Verl f1wireless VERIZON WIRELESS 5430 N.E. 122nd AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97230 PHONE 503.408.3434 FAX: 503.408.3489 Oobal lea~ IN TELEt'X7A4 OUTSOURCING Wireless Facilities, Inc. 4520 S.W. Water Ave., Suite 201E Portland, Oregon 97201 I a>t n nm nem. Umn c mr n. am~ee rani 0 (NO) tzu-mve RELEASE DATE 14NOV01 PRELIMINARY ZONING 15NPAI FINAL ZONING 20FE802 REVISED ZONING 27VAR02 REVISED ZONING OIJUL02 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REV. REVISIONS NO. GATE 5 SIZE NWC PECAN PORPECAN-CV1 JOB NUMBER N HWSE 2(11292 DRAWN BY. JC CHECKED B/: PMB LIE A00RES5 11355 S.W. TIGARD STREET TIGARD, OR, 97223 SHEET 1TRE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SHEET NUMBER A-2 a - Ur, r. 1:1 rlllw~ r 6 ~PMI j~~ r. D7 fael I uesday, July U2, 2UU2 4:b2 AM Uavid Hunter (bU3) 9U2-Ulb9 DAVID D. NDNTER, Consulting ArRorist Rul ~Exhab~1~ G Certified Arborist # YN-1068 CCB # 119845 3406 NW Thatcher Road Forest Grove, Oregon 97116-7507 Phone 503-3574344 Fax 503-992-0169 Cell 503-319-0380 Email DDHurderArbork@aotcom July 02, 2002 Mr. John Craig, Project Manager PB Associates, Portland 208 SW Stark Street, Suite 602 Portland, Oregon 97204 (503) 516-0032 (503) 229-1878 fax Dear Mr. John Craig, RE: Pecan - Verizon Project 11340 SW Tigard Street Tigard, OR. I have reviewed your landscape plan for this project and the four (4) cedar trees your design is calling for is appropriate for this site.. There are existing evergreen trees on the property to the south and west of the proposed tower. There are cvergreen trees on the adjacent property to the east, and some to the north, but farther away. I would recommend that two (2) western red cedars be planted on the north side and two cedars on the east side of the proposed project. Over time these will fill in and provide adequate screening. The number and spacing of the trees is appropriate to allow proper growth and survival, and limits adverse affects to adjacent properties. There are evergreen fir trees on the adjacent property to the east, and if these trees have not been removed for site development, then these trees would aid in the screening of the proposed tower. Currently the adjacent sites to the north and east are wooded and do not have residential uses at this time. Western Red cedar is recommended due to the root disease situation on the property and the adjacent property to the east. If you have any questions concerning this letter or the tree preservation plan, please give my office a call. Sinoereiy, AwIdAKWb David D. Hunter .111` r'r} •r'r ~r 1, t/Z'' ~11, r" `•I5 i''al lrr V ~ ,}i t. ~5 ~ j ~ '~!1 I~, 'r 1•I ( `r~ •r .I ri,'~'1 , 1 } t ri, r Y., '1 1 S 3,'~~''~ , •v ,5 , r~( '1' ''S'.r, r I 5 r ; ~ ~ rv( 1,, •r' ',i S 551'; ~i 1 ~ .1 r` t{ rl 'I r,QA~S`~~n.gl Ir•ir''I.'I: :'f,'1•, .i, r~ (ri, ct, .t. •Il r yll'j5'• t, I,}.'l t~'l., i~. ~.S ~1,'r1i il}~')t jrS i , ' S' 1l, t . 5 { 't / rI'~t r}S'• lr, i5yi 11 j}'~ i '~r}~ty.,i,,'r~`'~l1 1'•1 llli I ~ 1r ( ~ r,rll l+j f 5f 1 -}'(t4`t . s tilt e?!; k ~'y< i'1' 1'• 1:~ t ' pg'ARCHITEQT$~SEATTIIE t`~EETrtAt LE,,IVA~IiINGffQN'y98121t1r I,,~ ` / t' ! 303 BQTTEKY r 5 ,S.1 II 1 ' nlr4 3r t' t !I1( t } ' 206.A4§:9875 S i rr5 , rjlb?. ! S'~ , i' r • : 1 ' 6 443,9790" iI h 20 , 1 1 Sr ,(t `t r'~ ,M`tii:~ / fi ~!ri ~I r,l~ 51 " . r. `5}•.' Ir r.~'~ ~ 5 r 2'1} 'I yy,-~,~f 5!. /.t 5,~ i (•1 !i •t' , rl y}, (IY I,'t'I i •:.S`•` r ~i r ~ ;r -'~1'`} ,r, rt,`f 51,•'\' ;•)rt (r ~ ,5), ,••t+l 51~5't `t,4)!t`rV t'(1 ,),~r,l r`! r ',•51,j .•~;r,rt5 v. ~,;~1't ty''tii 1, {tt l~; l l Ii 1!'1 1 ~1 i,11 `±St.yi} •I,i~` rf~ i t yet ~ , •,''t~ ; ~t. A I 1•'.r r;'Sr i r t ,rf (•'f Ir }i I`'~,, c ose prop t dr , r(',• t'• 1,,• )~5i Ir ..f • t , i 1. ~'''i, ♦ ! ! } ,1 '1,r •9'1 r'tr •r ;,f• s a 5 1' r i ' r Fr . . rf . 4`S r r 'I y' ,.hid-,k'~•, •t• 1 ;•r'', 'tS, >!r1•5I, r , ,!'r•('•, I' ti' } .r 55,15 1! 1~ ;~~Y'•. , S ~g~~?fi•7r 1'. -SS// 1 ' 7771 1..~ .S .1.1.kt '.1 I• t' ,'/r~Ilr rr.; 1• ! ~,y t. 1 j r„ !.i~`I •r, .',5 "t•t~r 'r.'•. ,rti 'j 'l~ .i +,n~'~~; ~ it, ' it; ~IJ1 5i , ,•I~i,S'1. 1' S '1 f r'~ • S Y +1 r 5`,,` ~ ' l i, , 1 , ! V . r ,r1 rt . '•t rl l ' 1 ) `I„ 'l i'1 'i„I,.tl+tir•`/,, SrSy;,r,5 •Y/~'S ( i r. a , •t. t'fi)1 ~ .Z '115 r 1 , t r• ,r/ •r~',, !ri(, .•i,i f+(, i"'. ~r :r, - + rti' S ,}i. 5 ,1 t. ,~'t'ri l~l';15 it li ' r., .1 'rt { ' 1}~,%:,jJY ✓ I',. t ' 'r ,^j 54 r',~;1' ,'?.1'~ 5' >a~~'+'S'1•,1 t.,.~~;i.i ,~'~,i % '11 rl' ,`,S `''r ,Lrl~' )'S' r• ri lE,`~li'~ Ii r i ' 'S, t•r •\i,r ..SSI't'''r'•''~ '••Ir i. ~yi't ~`;t',5 C". A, N CV ' ~ .~..rr , `r~; 5'Sir •`I , t 1 i • ~ ~:',5! 5:, r1 ,1~?l I,S~ •r,++,', 5 ,+r, ~'i' 11;5, 'f;,ti tiin 5' •'1 l,,S ,r•„ 1 ,1~! 5. 5 `1 1't, i, it Y. :r ,•I 1, \1 •r' , 1' ,t' { ,rri l tr ;j`r 5, "r1• t . rr; rti.t~)'y1'~'~'1••'it,`„i ,I~i'~r ~t15 1,1!S' 15 ''i' • .f ' r• !ri} 1 f r5 S'1 ,>i,,~~'S. ~~;`I,i;Si ,t• ,i5,,~ .tr ~ ri1''i C, 5• i!'S tl, il. ;l 1'. r, •''15 i~: <r f.. - ~J;, ry }~'}'''~•'1 ;1 !S `,~`'•1 ~ 1 I,i,, 1~•U'~', •,5,`l I'1 •'.5 'i ,'..11 r' •!'';;t• j 1,' ir'!. ;•i1 1, .5', ,r'.I 3 15;. $W ,T'i a,rd: Sreet; '.St11 t ''1 X11, '1 I t h h t/,'; r'1),~'1 •,,l I 'rr 1 1 •5'4 `}•,,f •r \tl 1,`•.`~~yili ,jr-'-'~• Y... e• azi,'~:h~6.~-."3gr~~~. k L r i 1;,'.,I '~'i r.li :i 'S;1.1 X11/', 1', r` Ij.''~ii,~ ~•`'r~', ,1 I' ~ ~ ~5, 5 ~ it r' 1•I rii'1 1. l:'•, , ~ ' .}r j.!r r,' r; ~ 1 . ''!It j'S'~j5• '`i 'I 15 5~}'.1~'S SSIr~`'''(,1~ Y'' ',5 Lattice. t, i , ; 5. 'ill"Illbi na;.' ,i f l r ;rli N.orth.to,pr}ap-6§'L erizon t '.~....._-r-,-, ±T71~} ' 'r e j (f ~ • ' ! ! 5' r r u'.1 ! 1• 'r'., a I„, 15r ,'.i~!}. 55 + , Ir 5 1'1 ''S , f' I r•:~'r1 5 551 ,1~/; i ,it'. I' 'I~. •r'1 .,5 f •i,'• 5' f r •I P 15 ' ' f,.~i 1 r { 1 r. .,i, Il -.5,~: I { ,~r1~\, t ~ .r/ r r, 5>>. i}i5. ; r'• •S. ~St ! rt ~~~,~s'.y~= , ;1.! 1 ~1 ilt 1 ' f•ir ,~.~~1 , i E ,I, I• r •i rr5 5`.•_" ~,,55,R/r-~-;\4,1 r~ ~ r4 51 r'~~ 1/, ,',I'r` ,t`.~ 'i( i.,,{Ih, I 14.1? 5 rr ,f1~~Iti`.I ~)r1!' •y~ I ~j~+~I ! 1' ,.,(.~rtt~ ,{•`.,5~• r S','li• .l!~ ~t . .'t 1 , I j``I 'I: 'n ,'1, '1.1, i', ,5•'}'1'~'r, 1 r. ,1 i ~ •1 ~ ti , ' ,It t r, , t~f .r. , i, r,-, r,• 5 r, rG ':7i t ,1 c i-r l r,i` '('.fI I ) 1' f )'%I,•r': • t ~ S ..I' I,'•t•! 4 ,,r'~y'~ '1..,( If f t~ ,i~ I t{t`~'.IrI ~~1 r ,'S vt~r }•,'rM11'' •iliy f•'~,1~ S ~ ' fi, `r! •{~r~' f,y. t, ff, .l ~~1~~' ,~'l •1}', ~r< I~iJ.r~ •'l! 1' 1 rr l~`~• • .•~I}~y.~ 1',,1 '~r, ,I 'Ir Q'A~.~1,`~1 -r iti r.'' ~I',. I. ( 'f•.,1' 'l f..•', /~1t~ 'r }•i t 1, ~ 1' r ~ l , I r. Y •,f 1~~ r 1 Ir ~r 1'•''y'f, •r~'' r rf , ~f " ~'i ~'t • }Rq t '1:. l,, ~{1lej 'r,l! t .'j ~'Ir iri, 'pr!r( ri,'•~1 ~I~ Sir i \ k f'i i•.,',~1fa,~~~,.`,,7~„Lf Il4•t r,Iy~('f~(.tj s I't ~~,~•I ((,Ir.'f,r},i S 'f" I, ` I'. ,•~r' r, is ~i I ;1,' r 1 It'' ,t r ''r'f I f(• r I , i'; .1 1'ft, is (t' i :'(.S •fl Y tl f'i~l!11t r'Ir i, ',f l't t, j'I,t 'lJ i;}. It~ t ~ ti}i, se. } r. 1~' "'111 1,itt,'h'1.} r,l Sir 15},I `7i°i ;'`'r( I•~•e ~ ~e ',I ' i't, ir'~~ti i( ~~~c'r1!)i'{!''•'1 y~,'}'. '~~•„Il.t 1,,,)~!ilrl ~•r r~l il,} ',,•r'`rj it, r,I r { ! + f r , r', .Ir l1t ` ; f •Rb ARCHITECTS';SEATTLE {'ly t C, r'rr ; } J 303 18 1TTERY,5T(EET+rS~ ATTLk ~IUASIiING~rON 981211 i 'I 111' r ~)r; .r l/I ,l (.`~ifl/'i Ifr}. t 1 ~y . , ; I r l' , '~06 443.9790 11,'~ ' 296A4.§1~:9~81 75 r 't 1 ,.r}). V~ ,'~~}'~,~i'i'rlf~a}'t~'~r'~'•I''i`,r••,,'1'`1{'1'''i'u~ I~tyr~t r1, 1a1~~~;7•~1117i1~',.f,'~~~~.1}S ,t •.'i cif i1; ~ t, y. r. 't',r ( r •a It' , ih 1' ' ! I• rr; ~ f•., ( S (fl''~'' r• f'' li ',.1i ;,'lIS•r\' `k, Sr i, , f ~ „+I I•~ ~6't'{ `•''rt\f ~'iS''"1 I rl r'~'I+'f r-'. ,r( 1.;~~ i i .``pr'r`y:4~ttr``1';~, l1 +r I;r~ttr•f' t!~• t~` 1'}'., tl`E ,}~;f ~~,f' ~ ~J.i ,S flljl{j 1, I, 1'~I,.~ ~a: }t•,1 ~1}''I(,I ~,'tl~'',~` I'iJr 1,r '1,1 t S rt ~'rf ;I'aj', e 1'f11,~ Ii l,' ,'~/4t (lr r'iJ.t'' (',r'f~tl/t,rl f t 4fl.,t,{ 11; Sl }rr et y r l f r i r , j711' I"Pr id dp'osL 1',rll,r ' (1 IS i t M: t 7t~:'',C ,,r '.'.l`) rrl i~.~ ,1r %l.',1. ,,1 (•r I'•, 'I,~ri~;1';1~~\~,r,~`R~;.',4i11':1f!(~ r'~1'%1•~tllSr.rt~l' ,~'~',~,}'1'''~' 1!. +'i;'+'?' '1'•'ti.,' ra}f'p' J rl ,r ,r f h ~'I, I v \;,'~',•!i,lf'1•!' ~ri',r ".,•r ••''J', r;,l l:'it if 1,,. ♦!i It r~r••rf1,t~1~S,h,',,,fl.1'' %''{,1••}•,;~,.rl:i'~..,'y'•If{,t i'fii•5,:'~1,1~r1'~ Vtr Ir ~'II~r4'('~1 V•.to•11t;l;Ib'~:'I`•~1(~lfj'~~~i1. .1 ~'f a'11~•1rr, 15', 1'~. i' 4.r,-.},', r=t'. 1. °,•I41'1 'r< '''1,'''r`.rSll. Lf~ IRP it~J~•~'• `'!t'. f:, .r ter .r, %It,~ ;'li~;. dr `',hl``' ,yr1, y:;,t 1,1,1''. rS ,i, ,~rt' t '~~.1'.yr; ` ~f l' 1, 11. rl'. '`''t is 'S't • ` !'.I~,t 'r^~,',I;, ,1,"fr'I'( ;7+~!f`r'''r•1;~1'l.}r`, ''1~,'„r,f~Lt'~. f PE.'1•;,'. r,f t~ : ,1 r 1.11r ~Ir 1 ` rI' r~ , '1{' "\',11•' ft,(r.l X111 }J~f I'i llir,',j~''• 1'I r~ S 1'1'1. 1 ,~•.•,~~'11/• ~1; 1~ rI:'~r. S'I:, I;,~t•1: 1..'11 ,.y'j •.1' 41 ' '.,L ,111' f;1 ,i ,l I,f {`'t, Z~ ( ~ 1' ~ ''f`I~•I r; t!'r'!fr''i'1• }1 r.l 1',;7'.~~(•. t,I~'. 1'+i~ ~ it ;t 1'~1(:} r!''~~rt ''1'i) .~~,~.'r "l';lSly\y I'r .7", 11 t'1,•~~';I,.'S„ '''•!'i 1 I,`y~., I ''1.•3,5'.5•, ~~f;1%V. T;i~, ~sr'd~r`S~r~,zyt~t ' i l Li lli 15,1 ;f,', f';1 ''.S' r , I' :l:';r'.i,t .1•.11, 'l •-1 •I •1 '~,'yfl~`''. ,'rp I•l~' t 'ts'I ;I 'I) ( 1' t 1,' t y !lr S1r 1 1, ' LI r,l l t ,1,7115 :fir.'`: ItIt•~' Ir,l 1 Il 'I~' .r i.,'i' ~~I•~\~ 11 ti'1 j••':ji'" I' lit ,}'•I't 1t" ~!Ir•~~''r%,~I i~t „'t..'~;(,•!r`,' Ir'~•1 II' r, l'•i!`I, r~lrt}IF',~':L`, ,to 111 ~r 3 ~r, '1 , 1 ;~_r'.t'., fl 1 1 ,'f•... 111 a;},✓,r![ 1 ' ' 'S 1 ,~rr5 1. 1 'f}'~•.1,~ 1,1':1. . ,1 '1, t r'• 1'~ :Uiei~isl©Qk ng;Nortl!tq:' ; roposedlWrizonr Latbce',jMt~elina.`' .1.!1r„1' ''r'tt,trlf'15,; r1' -~rl!,I 't'iIr'tl f,r 1. Lff'r~i~.Il f( I.r) , -11--~-- , f -r;• .5 11. i 1!.. . t ~".I - 1) ' . I' j 'I' 'i" 'll ' ` t,5' ,•,I t,} r~''.~~ 't•t \r+, 1; `'}'Ill' 'Jyi. 'rf ,ti.'S>,i S'• ;t r. "L'1•t, 1S, ~)1' ' '.~''I,,;I I i~ lf .t. t 1 , 'r' 1, ' ''tr, f. 5.,. '~y 7f i' 'i JI Y, ~ Sr Pr ;•','I'I`; .,'f lk, ',II f~~`t;Sl ;lfr~. 7~ I '',r + 5114,if41t.f L. f.~(`l •IyJ 1}~f 11't,, ~'r. t~, l! ~11f~ I,11~ 1, ;JI1, ,,f 111. 1.r~ )1 ,1. ~'4 ..5 n.S'...r'1,,. ,,.~I•` ti~:•~.`, I.Ir1r'11~,f 1 .1! U r,t'ra'r.,+ l' .;S `.ll 'r111, t~.r': .:i r.l)'~'y. o ~1 ,,t All& - I _ Ex_h:_b:~ ~•3 = _ - _ ~.P.B ARCHITECTS-SEATTL'E - - - = - _ - _ 303 JBATTERY.`STREETSEATTLE;'WASNINGTDI1 8121 206.443.98 5 _ - - 206,4.4.39790- N -Site f~umber--::- _ -P.E 113' -SW fiigard Street" _T(. rd .R. -97223 • t E E Shanin Prusia Subject: FW: POR PECAN/URGENT -----Original Message----- From: Lee, Lori [mailto: ] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 11:12 AM To: Shanin Prusia Subject: FW: POR PECAN/URGENT Good News... This site is a no notice required, so we definitely will not have to light it... See below the FAA study Sonya from our HQ Regulatory Dept. completed for this site. Lori Lee Verizon Wireless Engineering Anaylst (Regulatory Compliance) Desk: (425)603-2152 Fax: (425)603-2888 -----Original Message----- From: Dutton, Sonya R. Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 11:08 AM To: Lee, Lori Subject: RE: POR PECAN/URGENT Per your request, I ran Airspace and Towair for the parameters listed below. This site does not require notice to the FAA, nor does it required an FCC Tower Registration number. Please let me know if you have any questions. Pecan - No Notice Required Coordinates: 45-26-12.68 / 122-47-33.20 (NAD 83) Ground Elevation: 209 ft. AMSL Structure Height: 60 ft. Overall Structure Height: 68 ft. Airspace evaluation performed in accordance with the standards for determining obstructions to navigable airspace as set forth in Subpart C of Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The site is located 37,364 ft. from the nearest runway threshold of the Stark's Twin Oaks Airpark. The proposed structure is less than 200' AGL and does not exceed FAR 77.12(a)(1) and 77.13(a)(2). At this time, notice to the FAA is not required under FAR Part 77. 1 • &XVIA; bA F City of Tigard Hearings Officer July 1, 2002 Attn: Larry Epstein Ref: Communications Tower File No: CUP 2002-00004 & VAR 2002-00012 The purpose of this letter is to clarify our intentions as the property owners of the proposed Verizon communications tower at 11355 SW Tigard Street. 1. Location of the tower on the property - the NE corner of our property was selected as it is the least used part of our property and is the most sheltered by trees and as far from the street as possible. The NW part of our property has an existing shop building as well as parking which extends from our driveway, which is also on the West side of the property and house. During the hearing on June 24`h, there was mention of the tower being located at a distance that "coincidentally will not hit our home if the tower collapses". We did not even take this into consideration, i.e. concern with the tower falling. Again, the location of the tower is the least used and most sheltered part of the property. 2. Landscaping by Verizon of the impacted property for the tower and access road - we have been working with Verizon on these plans with a major commitment by Verizon to improve the existing area. They are planning on removing an old dilapidated house currently buried within blackberry bushes as well as removing unwanted weeds and brush. Updating the area with landscaping improvements will add to the appearance of our home as well as surrounding properties. Once the housing development removes their trees and brush, our small strip of "brush" will no longer appeal to the neighborhood. The planned landscaping improvements will add not distract from the surroundings. 3. Concerns with the new housing development East of our property - I agree the tower will be in the view of 2-3 homes, but not if the developers were removing so many trees. Mr. Jeck commented Verizon would be removing more trees than stated in their plan. I will be the first to monitor every tree planned for removal and ensure no tree is removed unless absolutely necessary. I do not want trees removed either, but am more concerned about the housing development's removal of -78 trees, which is over 50% of the trees on their property. Of course, if the development was not happening the cell tower would be almost 100% sheltered and hidden from public view. The housing development is removing the trees that would shelter the tower to the East and North. Therefore I feel there should also be burden on them to assist vs. trying to stop the tower altogether. The trees to the South and West on my property will be saved and shelter the tower. 4. Understanding this does not fall into the deciding factors, but I have planned numerous changes to my property, most recent to build a 4-car garage. These improvements have been denied by the city of Tigard. However, my neighboring property to the West will be building the BPAS Temple and now the property to the East a 12-house development. I seem to be stuck in the middle, restricted by the city for my minor development requests, but the large "take over the neighborhood" requests receive approval and happen. ti City of Tigard Hearings Officer • Page 2 5. Bottom line, our main purpose for moving forward with the tower is to further utilize our land and assist with financial planning for our daughter's education as well as retirement purposes. It is no secret the company's lease of the property is lucrative and will therefore assist in future financial planning. In closing, we appreciate your openness and request your approval to move forward with the proposed communication tower. Farry rely, RQ 4 -a,, & Cindy Anderson 11355 SW Tigard St. Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-6036 0 IWMF 0 ALPHA ENGINEERING, INC. EXHIBIT E RECEIVED MEMORANDUM Date: July 22, 2002 To: Larry Epstein, Hearings Officer City of Tigard From: Allister M. Jeck Alpha Engineering, Inc. Re: Additional Submittal of Information Verizon Wireless Tigard Street Station Conditional Use Permit 2002-00004 Adjustment 2002-00012 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING Alpha Engineering, Inc. wishes to submit the following information as a supplement to its previous memo of June 24, 2002 and oral presentation at the hearing that evening. This memo responds to comments made in the Additional Submittal by WFI, dated July 8, 2002. 1. Response to Item 1 of WFI's Additional Submittal: Structural Integrity of the Proposed Tower The first two sentences of WFI's remarks are inconsistent. WFI cites Rohn Industries 4/17/02 letter which states the tower is designed to fall in a radius of 5', then WFI goes on to say the tower will collapse within the leased and fenced area. The leased and fenced area is an enclosure of 40' by 50'. Obviously, the referenced criteria significantly differ one from the other. Our position remains that neither of these criteria meets the requirements of the Tigard code that requires the structural engineer to certify that the tower will "collapse within itself." WFI also states that it has submitted a "full structural engineering report with design calculations." in response, we have provided a letter from Steve Entenman, a registered structural engineer in Oregon, which addresses his analysis of the design report submitted by Rohn. This letter is attached as Exhibit A. Entenman's review concludes that the design report and calculations do not substantiate the claim in Rohn's 4117102 letter that the tower will fall within a 5' radius. Plaza West • Suite 230 • 9600 SW Oak • Portland, Oregon 97223 Office 503-452-8003 • Fax 503-452-8043 ,www.alpha-eng.com 2. Response to Item 5 of WFI's Additional Submittal: Tree Removal WFI and the property owner continue to make confusing statements about tree removal on the site. In the Additional Submittal (section 5, p. 4) WFI states that "The arborist report submitted with the application states that there are thirteen trees over 12" in diameter" and these are the trees to be preserved or mitigated." Of these, nine are currently diseased and hazardous, leaving four trees for the mitigation calculation. Four divided by 13 equals 30.77%. WFI states this quotient (incorrectly) as 16%, thereby allegedly falling under the 25% threshold for mitigation. At best, the math is incorrect. The property owner, Mr. Anderson, in the third paragraph of his letter (included in the WFI package), states that "The trees to the south and west on my property will be saved and shelter the tower." In fact, the arborist report shows 17 trees south and west of the tower that will be removed (tree numbers 5-13, 17, 19, and 34-39). 3. Response to Item 6 of WFI's Additional Submittal: Special Adjustments WFI goes into great detail showing alternative locations in an attempt to justify its rationale for the setback adjustment. WFI's conclusion is that "Placing the tower closer to an off-site residence mitigates the overall impact of the tower on the surrounding neighborhood." This statement is irrelevant in that this is not what the Code requires to meet the setback criterion: the Code requires that the adjusted setback location "equally or better reduce the visual impacts associated with the tower upon the off-site residence." As we have demonstrated in our previous narrative and line-of-site analysis, locating the tower at the proposed NE corner location significantly increases, not reduces, the visual impacts on our property's residences, both in terms of existing and future homes. As a final comment on this issue, Mr. Anderson states in Item 3 of his letter that "if the (Cascadian Place) development was not happening the cell tower would be almost 100% sheltered and hidden from public view." This is not true. WFI's own Exhibit D-1 shows that, at the proposed site, there is a virtually unobstructed view of the tower and fenced enclosure from Tigard St. And the trees along the east boundary of his property that Verizon will remove still show in this picture-once the trees are removed, the tower is fully and completely visible from residences to the south. Conclusions: The Applicant has failed to provide engineering certification with supportable evidence that the tower will collapse within itself. WFI has failed to prove that it should avoid tree mitigation fees. WFI has failed to demonstrate that locating the tower in the proposed NE corner location, closer to an off-site residence-thereby requiring an adjustment to the setback-will equally or better reduce the visual impact to the off-site residence. try, N1 C tT July 17, 2002 I,, r 0 ALPHA ENGINEERING, INC. Mr. AI Jeck AEI Land Development 9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 RE: Tower Design Report by Rohn Industries, Inc., dated July 2, 2002 Proposed Tower Installation, Tigard, OR Dear Al: Further to your request, we have reviewed the design report by Rohn Industries, Inc. and other information, which outlines the design criteria and design intent for the tower. We offer the following information and comment regarding our understanding of the conclusions made by the tower designers. The information we reviewed included a letter by Rohn Industries, dated April 17, 2002. In addition, a brief description of the design wind load requirements, a computer analysis of the tower structure based on the design requirements for wind, design for the mat foundations, and a comparison of the calculated wind load and the seismic forces per present Uniform Building Code was included. A letter of review confirmation by a licensed professional engineer was also included in the information packet we reviewed. The design wind velocity and exposure factor used in the design was 90 mph with exposure C as defined by the ANSI code criteria. It appears that this criterion is appropriate for the use and location of the tower structure. The seismic load calculation appears appropriate as well with one exception. It is our opinion that the importance factor, I, should be greater than 1.0 since the tower does function for telecommunication service which is vital during an earthquake emergency. Even with this adjustment, it appears that wind loads still govern the design of the tower. It is our opinion that questions still remain regarding the performance of the tower system during a failure situation. In my view, the design and analysis submitted for the tower does not substantiate the claim that the tower will fall within a 5 foot radius under failure as noted in the Rohn letter dated April 17, 2002. 1 would expect that scale model test results or failure mode analysis by computer would be needed to make such a claim. Neither of these, nor anything similar was submitted. Scale test results or failure mode analysis for the individual components that are attached to the tower were not submitted in the information we reviewed. In my Plaza West • Suite 230 • 9600 SW Oak • Portland, Oregon 97223 Office 503-452-8003 • Fax 503-452-8043 •www.alpha-eng.com 0 1 0 opinion, and to be consistent, analysis of the components and all of the connections to the tower structure would need to be reviewed under failure so that these components would likewise fall within a 5 foot radius. In the practical sense, it is my opinion that it is virtually impossible to state that the tower structure and the attached components would fall within a 5" radius during a failure event without substantiation. Imagine a design wind storm where a failure did happen. It seems evident to the writer that the wind would continue to drive the tower and/or the elements sideways as they fell, and carry them well outside the radius zone contended. We trust the information and comment included above is helpful as the review process continues for the tower installation. If you have any questions, or if other information is submitted for review, please feel free to .contact me. Very truly yours, ALPHA ENGINEERING, INC. z~ J e.~-...- Steven J. Entenman, PE, SE Structural Engineer Principal GlNE< 12,320 N vncuv~~ ` 1Y15 !P;N~kvP? h E144 EXPIRES: Z ~1 0 EXHIBIT F City of Tigard Additional Submittal of Information for CUP 2002- 00004 and VAR 2002-00012 in Response to Verizon Submittal Dated July 8tb, 2002 Attention: Larry Epstein, Hearings Officer Care of: Brad Kilby, Tigard City Planner Prepared by: - Jim Kiehlbauch 11620 SW Gallo Ave. Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 684-4883 RECEIVED CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING i • • This is a response to Verizon's comments regarding the Type II adjustment referenced in Chapter 18.370.020 C.IO.a. (3): "(3) Because of topography, vegetation, building orientation and/or other factor, a site closer to an off-site residence will equally or better reduce the visual impacts associated with the tower upon the off-site residence." Verizon's comments are found under item # 6 on pages 4 and 5 of their submittal dated July 8t", 2002. In this section, they provide examples of other sites as alternatives to the site they are currently proposing in the northeast corner of the lot. They then proceed to describe why they think these alternatives are inferior to their current proposal. We agree that the site depicted in Exhibit D-2 is obviously inferior. We do not agree that the site depicted in Exhibit D-3 is inferior. Its visual impact is primarily restricted to off-site residences to the north of the subject property rather than to both the north and east as is the case in Verizon's primary site. However, we will not belabor this point now because we feel there is another possible site that has not previously been depicted which is superior to Verizon's primary proposed site. See "Attachment P. This attachment depicts the tower site rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise and shifted in a southwesterly direction toward the existing house. This accomplishes the following: 1. It significantly increases the distance of the tower from the off-site residences on both the north and east property lines as compared to Verizon's primary site, thereby significantly reducing the visual impact. 2. It places the center of the tower at a distance equal to the height of the tower from both the north and the east property lines, thereby complying with the placement code without requiring an adjustment to the tower setback. The new site is to scale and the distance from the center of the tower to both property lines is 64 feet. This provides the margin of safety, in the event of tower collapse, to which the surrounding neighbors are entitled as prescribed in the primary placement code. 3. It provides additional screening benefits not provided by Verizon's primary site. See "Attachments 2 and 3". Attachment 2 shows the tower in relation to Verizon's Exhibit D-2. D-2 is obviously unacceptable due to its proximity to Tigard Street. However, in the case of the "Kiehlbauch" location, the tower is placed much further back from Tigard Street than is the D-2 tower, significantly reducing the visual impact compared to the D-2 tower. In addition, the large tree in front of the existing house affords significant screening from the snuth with this tower placement. The primary Verizon site depicted as their Exhibit D-1 (see "Attachment 3") places the tower in the middle of an open corridor that is not significantly screened by the large tree. Admittedly, the D-1 tower is located further from Tigard Street than is the "Kiehlbauch" tower, but only by approximately 45 feet. 4. It provides better screening of the tower site from the west. See "Attachment P. "View I" looking east affords a relatively clear view of the tower and 50% of the equipment building in the case of Verizon's primary site. In "View 2", both the • base of the tower and the entire equipment building are completely screened by the existing shop and greenhouse. 5. In conjunction with our new proposed site, we propose that the access drive be shifted to the east of Verizon's proposed location and connected to the southeast corner of the installation area. See "Attachment P. This negates the need to remove the trees along the eastern border of the subject property, thereby better complying with the code's mandate to minimize the impact upon existing trees, while at the same time minimizing the visual impact by retaining trees that afford screening of the tower. 6. In addition to minimizing the visual impact relative to the Verizon proposed site, the "Kiehlbauch" proposed site also affords greater minimization of noise impact by virtue of the greater setback distances from both the north and east property lines. The greatest concentration of residences is adjacent to these lines. 7. Finally, the placement of the tower closer to the property owner's existing structures in our proposal compared to Verizon's proposal should not pose a safety problem for the property owners. They have indicated in their letter of clarification to the Hearing Officer that they "did not even take this into consideration, i.e. concern with the tower falling." See "Attachment 4", item # 1. In conclusion, based upon reasons presented above, we contend that Verizon's site is inferior to the one that we have proposed, and, as such, does not meet the requirement of 18.370.020 C.IO.& (3) referenced above. Therefore, we respectfully request that Verizon's application for a Type II adjustment to the tower setback be denied. Jim Kiehlbauch July 21 s`, 2002 .1 / y1 ~ UZ 1 existing. T i i' t um: be,.r.. • ` P.M. CAN ~:'V1 j. . t 1 13.55: Sw T~~ga~rd-Street- Tig" O..R'...9722~~3 a> , . ; : ' :1~ieHrlQoirag ;Nord: tq ed'Veri off Ul' ice riten'na. ; ~ :;ir' ~ ~ . ~ ; 1 , ,fib:.., ` ~ . I: ~ , ` . I` ' 'I, ~i_.- '1+ ' `i'1 511;{~'.1'. .•4~', Site rnber:`: 1;3;55 SW ;Tigard Street" . I QkIng N. 'rth'tq 1 , a. `i isOd~Veriaon, Lailtice ~ritenn a. i.15; hfta~h~,#nf 4 ~xltib;i F City of Tigard Hearings Officer July 1, 2002 Attn: Larry Epstein Ref: Communications Tower File No: CUP 2002-00004 & VAR 2002-00012 The purpose of this letter is to clarify our intentions as the property owners of the proposed Verizon communications tower at 11355 SW Tigard Street. 1. Location of the tower on the property - the NE comer of our property was selected as it is the least used part of our property and is the most sheltered by trees and as far from the street as possible. The NW part of our property has an existing shop building as well as parking which extends from our driveway, which is also on the West side of the property and house. During the hearing on June 24th, there was mention of the tower being located at a distance that "coincidentally will not hit our home if the tower collapses". -We did not even take this into consideration, i.e. ,concern with the tower falling. Again, the location of the tower is the least used and most sheltered part of the property. 2. Landscaping by Verizon of the impacted property for the tower and access road - we have been working with Verizon on these plans with a major commitment by Verizon to improve the existing area. They are planning on removing an old dilapidated house currently buried within blackberry bushes as well as removing unwanted weeds and brush. Updating the area with landscaping improvements will add to the appearance of our home as well as surrounding properties. Once the housing development , removes their trees and brush, our small strip of "brush" will no longer appeal to the neighborhood. The planned landscaping improvements will add not distract from the surroundings. 3. Concerns with the new housing development East of our property - I agree the tower will be in the view of 2-3 homes, but not if the developers were removing so many trees. Mr. Jeck commented Verizon would be removing more trees than stated in their plan. I will be the first to monitor every tree planned for removal and ensure no tree is removed unless absolutely necessary. I do not want trees removed either, but am more concerned about the housing development's removal of -78 trees, which is over 50% of the trees on their property. Of course, if the development was not happening the cell tower would be almost 100% sheltered and hidden from public view. The housing development is removing the trees that would shelter the tower to the East and North. Therefore I feel there should also be burden on them to assist vs. trying to stop the tower altogether. The trees to the South and West on my property will be saved and shelter the tower. 4. Understanding this does not fall into the deciding factors, but I have planned numerous changes to my property, most recent to build a 4-car garage. These improvements have been denied by the city of Tigard. However, my neighboring property to the West will be building the BPAS Temple and now the property to the East a 12-house development. I seem to be stuck in the middle, restricted by the city for my minor development requests, but the large "take over the neighborhood" requests receive approval and happen. • 0 EXHIBIT G City of Tigard Final Conclusion For Extension Of The Public Hearing: CUP 2002-00004 and VAR 2002-00012 Verizon Wireless Proposed Lattice Tower July 29t", 2002 RECEIVED CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING Prepared By: Shanin Prusia, WFI 4520 SW Water Ave, Suite 201E Portland, OR 97201 (503) 973-5146 shanin.prusia@wfinet.com • • Verizon Wireless is requesting an approval for the siting of a sixty foot lattice tower in a residential zone in the City of Tigard. This site was selected due to the future network reconfiguration that will cause this area have minimal to no reception for Verizon Wireless users. As stated by Portland City Commissioner Eric Sten at a public hearing on July 24, 2002, it has been measured that 50% of the 911 emergency calls are made by cell phones. Even though this is a statistic for the City of Portland, it is a figure that would be consistent within the greater metropolitan area. In addition to providing optimal customer service, this tower will provide a reliable emergency call network. Verizon Wireless reviewed the options for siting the tower on the proposed parcel. We selected the northeast corner for the elevation it provides, the natural screening of the trees and the distance created from the tower to SW Tigard St. In our journey to find a solution to the pending problem, we followed the Tigard Code for this type of conditional use. As part of the requirement, we consulted the local community for input on our proposed development. We held two different community meetings at two different times of day. The first meeting was attended by 4 community individuals and Allister leak from Alpha Engineering, representing a possible subdivision that had not yet been submitted for zoning. The second meeting was attended by only 12 community members. The Subdivision representatives did not attend the second meeting. The attendance at both meetings was lower than expected. The impact to property to the east was not proposed as an issue specifically at either meeting. The issue of general aesthetics and screening was discussed. The owner/occupant of the residence located directly to the east of the proposed site did not attend either meeting and did not call with questions. This property owner was sent a letter on 7/30/01 at the same time the Anderson's received their letter, proposing a wireless development on their property. This lack of response from the adjacent property owner should not be construed as the property owner's impartiality to the development, but rather to show that ample notification and discussion opportunities that were given and not utilized. By placing the tower in the proposed location, we have equally or better reduced the visual impacts associated with the tower upon the off-site residence. The simulation (Exhibit D-2, submitted on 7/8/02) shows that placing the tower in an open space would not better the visual impact to the residence to the east because there are no trees or even taller trees to provide natural screening. Because the subdivision has been approved, the house to the east will be demolished and new lots created. The proposed tower will be located approximately 96' from the buildable footprint of a future home directly to the east, with SW Gallo Ave separating the two. The tower and antennas will also be 0 • painted a dark brown color to add to the visual blending in the trees. If Verizon were granted an easement across Tract A to the tower site, most of the trees marked for removal for the proposed access will remain. Overall, this will provide natural screening by trees that are close in height to the proposed tower. Through the course of this application, the structural engineering letters and report have been scrutinized by the Opposition. To be clear, please consider the following: • The Rohn tower will be built per the TIA/EIA national standards. Ultimately, Rohn Industries, Inc., will be liable for the tower and it is their responsibility to ensure it is designed correctly. No other engineering firm will face this liability or responsibility and this burden alone will ensure that Rohn Industries will design and manufacture an indisputable tower. Even though Verizon Wireless is confident in the design of the Rohn tower, an impartial third parry can be employed at the expense of Verizon Wireless to review the structural analysis, if requested as a condition of approval. • The Rohn tower is designed to fall within a 5' radius in the event of seismic or or extreme wind. This 5' radius is fully encompassed by the fenced lease area. In addition, the tower base is situated 7' from the west fence of the lease area, 14' from the north fence, 26' from the east, and 28' from the south fence. The fenced lease area will not be accessible to members of the community, or the land owner. The fenced lease area will be accessible to Verizon Wireless employees and contractors of Verizon Wireless only. The trees on the property are a very important part of this application. The tree calculation for removal and mitigation has been scrutinized by the Opposition. However, I have reviewed the calculations set forth in the Staff Report created by Brad Kilby, Planner. He has reviewed his calculation and maintains that it is correct and follows the Tigard City Code for calculation. Therefore, I will support his statement and maintain that our proposal is for 16% removal. However, as stated previously, if access to the proposed site were granted through an easement across Tract A of the subdivision, trees located along the east property line will be preserved. Even though the Arborist report submitted with the original application designates some of these trees for removal, the trees will remain. This is also the case with the trees located in the northeast corner of the property between the tower and the new lot to the north. The trees have been designated for removal but they will remain to provide additional screening. If requested through a condition of approval, Verizon Wireless will employ the expertise of an additional Arborist to determine if life and safety are threatened by the continued existence of the trees. If a 0 0 treatment plan can be devised to improve the health of a questionable tree, Verizon will employ that strategy as well. Ultimately, Verizon does not plan on removing any trees, regardless of health condition, if the tree is not in the buildable foot print of the tower, equipment shelter, or revised access route, unless the tree is a hazard to the livability of the surrounding properties. The installation of the proposed Verizon Wireless site will continue good quality reception in the area following the network changes in the upcoming year. Without this tower, the general area will have minimal to no coverage, which as mentioned before, will impact the available coverage of 911 emergency calls. I have touched on the key issues that have been in question through the course of the application. All other items not addressed in this conclusion have been satisfied through my personal testimony at the Public Hearing on June 24, 2002 or through the written submittals in the past 30 days. The property owners, Larry and Cindy Anderson would also like to extend the offer that any city official desiring to walk and review the property is welcome to do so at any time. In conclusion, we ask that CUP2002-00004 and VAR2002-00012 be approved. "EXHIBIT C" WRITTEN TESTIMONY (Applicant's materials and pertinent correspondence filed with Hearings Officer prior to Public Hearing.) 0 0 Agenda Item: 2.2 hearing uate: STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER CITY OF TIGARD Community Development FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Shaping A Better Community 120 DAYS = 08/22/2002 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET STATION CASE NOS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) CUP2002-00004 ADJUSTMENT (VAR) VAR2002-00012 OWNERS: Larry & Cindy Anderson APPLICANT: WFI/ Verizon Wireless 11355 SW Tigard Street Attn: Shanin Prusia Tigard, OR 97223 4520 SW Water Ave. #201 E Portland, OR 97201 PROPOSAL: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use Approval to construct a 60-foot-high lattice telecommunications facility on the property and an Adjustment to allow the tower to be located closer to the property line. LOCATION: The project is located on at 11355 SW Tigard Street and is described as: WCTM 1S134DC, Tax Lot 00600. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN and ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Telecommunication facilities are conditionally permitted. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.330, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, 18.798, and 18.810. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearings Officer find that the proposed Conditional Use Permit and Adjustment will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and meets the Approval Standards for a Conditional Use. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL, subject to the following recommended Conditions of Approval: VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET TOWER PAGE 1 OF 20 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS: Submit tote Planning Department (Brad i y, 639-4171, ext. 2 or review an approval: 1. Prior to any site work, the applicant shall provide staff with a noise study from a certified consultant that illustrates a design that ensures that any noise creating device used by the project does not exceed the allowable levels in TDC Section 18.798.060(6)(8). The study shall be governed by the prescribed techniques in TMC section 7.40.140. The projects accessory systems must be constructed to meet the prescribed standards. 2. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan, designed by a professional landscape architect, to increase the intensity of landscaping along the eastern property line to better reduce any visual impacts that may be incurred as a result of tree removal on the adjacent property. Staff will provide a copy of the tree removal plan for the Cascadian Place Subdivision to the applicant. 3. Prior to site work, the applicant shall provide a revised street tree plan that demonstrates compliance with the spacing requirements of the street trees as indicated in Section 18.745.040(C)(2)(a-1) in relation to the proposed street improvements. 4. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a tree protection plan from a certified arborist that defines standards that will be used by the applicat to protect trees during and after construction as required by Section 18.790.030(B)(4). 5. Prior to site work, the applicant shall provide the City Arborist with a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. 6. Prior to site work, the applicant shall notify the City Arborist when tree protection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly prior to construction. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide documentation from the FAA that the tower design complies with the applicable standards. Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and approval: 8. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) qrmit is required for this project to cover the proposed half-street improvement work in ard Street and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required b the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.tigard.or.us). 9. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 10. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant's engineer must submit their VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET TOWER PAGE 2 OF 20 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 • proposed water quality facility design to the Engineering Department for approval. 11. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they will construct a half- street improvement along the frontage of Tigard Street. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a neighborhood route street from curb to centerline equal to 17 feet; B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new im rovement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 5 foot concrete sidewalk with a planter strip; F. street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; 1. underground utilities; J. street signs (if applicable); K. driveway apron (i applicable); and L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Tigard Street in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 12. A profile of Tigard Street shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 13. The applicant's construction plans shall include the extension of the 8-inch public sewer line in 113'h Avenue to the north side of Tigard Street adjacent to the subject property. The line can terminate with a manhole with a lateral extended for the existing home. The main sewer line does not need to be extended east or west in Tigard Street. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit tote Planning Department (Brad i y, 639-4171, ext. or review an approval: 14. Prior to final occupancy, the access way shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface consistent with TDC Section 18.765.040(B)(5). 15. Prior to placement of any signs on site, the applicant shall apply for a sign permit and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with TDC Chapter 18.780. 16. Prior to final inspection and issuance of the Letter of Completeness, the landscaping shall be installed and a long-term maintenance plan including irrigation and pruning schedule shall be provided to and approved by the City. If the retained trees do not effectively screen the facilities from the neighboring properties, more trees shall be required. Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and approval: 17. Prior to issuance of a building permit, additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of Tigard Street to increase the right-of-way to 27 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 18. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET TOWER PAGE 3 OF 20 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, reference to NAD 83 (91). 19. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Tigard Street underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $5,225.00 and it shall be paid prior to final inspection. FAILURE TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION SHALL RENDER THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION VOID. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: This site is occupied by a single-family home and is situated on the north side of Tigard Street. A search of city records shows that other than miscellaneous electrical and plumbing updates, and the addition of a 2 car garage in the mid 1990's, no major alterations have been made to the site. The lot was originally created as part of the North Tigardville Subdivision and developed as a single-family home lot. Vicinity Information: The site is zoned R-4.5 and surrounded primarily by single-family residences. A subdivision is in process for the roperty that is located directly east of this parcel, and a religious facility has been approved for the parcel directly west of this parcel. Fowler Middle school is located to the south and east of this parcel. Site Information and Proposal Description: The site is currently developed with a single-family home, and the proposal is to construct and operate a telecommunications facility in the northeast portion of the lot. The applicant has also requested an adjustment to allow the tower to be located closer to the property line. The applicant has proposed to utilize some of the existing trees and vegetation for screening purposes. SECTION IV. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES. PERMITS AND USE Use Classification: Section 18.130.020 Lists the Use Categories. The applicant is proposing to build a 60-foot high lattice telecommunications facility. Telecommunication facilities are permitted by Conditional Use in the R-4.5 zone. Summa Land Use Permits: Chapter 18.310 Defines he decision-making type to which the land-use application is assigned. The proposed use (telecommunications facility) is a Conditional Use permit which is a Type III- HO decision. VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET TOWER PAGE 4 OF 20 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 0 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 report are as follows: A. S ecific Conditional Use Criteria (General Approval Criteria) Additional Conditions of Approval) B. Applicable Development Code Standards ts.~ru varianceS/Aajustments) 18.510 Residential Zoning Districts) 18.705 Access, Egress & Circulation) 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards) 18.745 Landscaping and Screening) 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements) 18.790 Tree Removal) 18.795 Visual Clearance) 18.798 Wireless Communication Facilities C. Street and Utilitv Improvement Standar s (18.810) D. Impact Study (18.39 SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 18.330.010.A states that the purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures under which a conditional use may be permitted, enlarged or altered if the site is appropriate and if other appropriate conditions of approval can be met. There are certain uses which due to the nature of the impacts on surrounding land uses and public facilities require a case-by-case review and analysis. Section 18.330.020.A states that a request for approval for a new conditional use shall be processed as a Type III-HO procedure, as regulated by Chapter 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.330.030A and subject to other requirements in Chapter 18.330. GENERAL APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR A CONDITIONAL USE: SECTION 18.330.030: The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; The existing site size is 45,302 square feet. This report evaluates the proposal and necessary setbacks, landscaping, etc., and as conditioned, the site size is adequate for the needs of the proposed use. The characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features; The site is currently developed with a single-family residence. The site slopes gently to the south, and the applicant has proposed to incorporate some of the existing trees into the design of the project. There are no other apparent natural features on this site. This site appears suitable for the proposed development. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal; and All public facilities including streets, storm and sanitary sewers, and water have adequate capacity to serve the site as discussed in detail elsewhere in this report. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter. The proposed site is located within the R-4.5 zoning district. As indicated earlier, telecommunications facilities are permitted conditionally. As discussed later in this report, VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET TOWER PAGE 5 OF 20 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 • the project will meet the applicable requirements of the zoning district. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this Code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, if applicable, are met or can be conditioned to be satisfied. The applicable review criteria in this case include the following chapters of the Community Development Code: 18.330, Conditional Use; 18.370, Variances and Adjustments; 18.390 Decision Making Procedures; 18.510, Residential Zoning Districts, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.725, Environmental Performance Standards; 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; 18.765, Off-Street Parking; 18.780, Signs; 18.790, Tree Removal; 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas; 18.798, Wireless Communications Facilities; and 18.810, Street and Utility Improvement Standards. The development standards and requirements of these chapters are addressed further in this report. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following chapters: 18.350, Planned Development; 18.360, Site Development Review;18.380, Zoning Map/Text Amendments; 18.410, Lot Line Adjustments; 18.420, Land Partitions; 18.430, Subdivisions; 18.520, Commercial Zoning Districts; 18.530, Industrial Zoning Districts; 18.620, Tigard Triangle Design Standards; 18.630, Washington Square Regional Center; 18.640 Durham Quarry Design Standards; 18.710, Accessory Residential Units; 18.715, Density Computations; 18.720 Design Compatibility Standards; 18.730, Exceptions to Development Standard; 18.740, , Historic Overlay; 18.742, Home Occupations; 1$.750, Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations; 18.755, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage; 18.760, Nonconforming Situations; 18.775, Sensitive Lands; 18.785, Temporary Uses; 18.797, and Water Resources Overlay District. These chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. The use will comply with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is implemented by the Community Development Code. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan policies are, therefore, assured by satisfaction of the applicable development standards of the development code as addressed within this report. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the General Approval Criteria for a Conditional Use are satisfied. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE. Section 18.330.0303 states that the Hearings Authority may impose conditions on the approval of a conditional use, which are found necessary to ensure the use is compatible with other uses in the vicinity, and that the impact of the proposed use on the surrounding uses and public facilities is minimized. These conditions may include, but are not limited to the following: Limiting the hours, days, place and/or manner of operation; The proposed use typically operates 24 hours a day, year around. The nature of the use will only require a maintenance technician to visit the site once eve 30-45 days to conduct routine maintenance. Staff can make no finding that would warrant limiting the hours, days, place or manner of operation for the proposal. This criterion is satisfied. Requiring design features which minimize environmental impacts such as noise, vibration, air pollution, glare, odor and/or dust; The proposal would not likely. generate any vibration, air pollution, odor, or dust that would be considered unacceptable. owever, in response to impacts that may occur as a result of glare, the applicant has proposed to paint the tower a deep brown color, which would theoretically absorb the light and help the tower blend in with the trees that are within close vicinity to the site. The applicant has also indicated that the site would not generate noise that exceeds the 75 dBA(day)/60 dBA(night) standards, but has provided a specification sheet from the manufacturer for the HVAC unit that shows the unit would exceed the VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET TOWER PAGE 6 OF 20 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER standards if placed within 5 feet of the property line as proposed. In fact, the specification sheet shows compliance only at 20 feet from the property line. The applicant has indicated that they have retained an acoustical consultant that would design a noise mitigation plan to make the project compliant. There are further restrictions on noise imposed by TDC Section 18.798.060(B)(8). FINDINGS: The project contains an HVAC unit with specifications that illustrate the unit would exceed the noise standards of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 7.40 and TDC Section 18.798.060(B)(8). The applicant has retained the services of an acoustical consultant to redesign the project to ensure that it is compliant with the TMC Chapter 7.40 and TDC Chapter 18.798. The proposed site is surrounded or will be surrounded b single-family residences which are defined as noise sensitive units in TMC Chapter 7.40. CONDITION: Prior to any site work, the applicant shall provide staff with a noise study from a certified consultant that illustrates a design that ensures that any noise creating device used by the project does not exceed the allowable levels in TDC Section 18.798.060(13)(8). The study shall be governed by the prescribed techniques in TMC Section 7.40.140. The projects accessory systems must be constructed to meet the prescribed standards. Requiring additional setback areas, lot area, and/or lot depth or width; As discussed later in this report, the applicant has requested an adjustment to allow the tower to be located closer to the property fine. Limiting the building height, size or lot coverage, and/or location on the site; The applicant is proposing to utilize a 2,000 square foot leased area of a 1.04-acre site, and the height of the tower is proposed to be 60 feet in height. As discussed later in this report, height is not specifically declared in the review criteria of telecommunications facilities in residential zones. The applicant has requested an adjustment to allow the tower to be located closer to the property line. Designating the size, number, location and/or design of vehicle access points; The applicant has proposed to utilize a separate 15-foot access off of Tigard Street, and has proposed to make necessary street improvements to bring Tigard Street up to standard along the frontage of the lot. Access is discussed in more detail later in this report. Requiring street right-of-way to be dedicated and street(s) to be improved; This criteria is addressed later in the street and utility improvements section of this report. Requiring landscaping, screening, drainage and/or surfacing of parking and loading areas; These items are addressed later in this report. As conditioned, the proposal will meet the prescribed requirements of the TDC. Limiting the number, size, location, height and/or lighting of signs; The applicant has proposed one (1) sign with emergency contact information. Compliance with the sign requirements for the underlying zone will be considered once a design is reviewed. The applicant will be required to indicate the location and type of sign proposed for this site prior to building permit issuance. VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET TOWER PAGE 7 OF 20 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • 0 Limiting or setting standards for the location and/or intensity of outdoor lighting; The applicant has indicated that the tower will only be lighted as determined by the FAA. Lighting is also discussed later in this report when discussing crime prevention. Requiring berms, screening or landscaping and the establishment of standards for their installation and maintenance; As discussed further in this discussion, the applicant has proposed a mixture of landscaping and fencing to screen the use from surrounding properties. Requiring and designating the size, height, location and/or materials for fences; The required and proposed fencing meets the height, location and material standards that are prescribed in the TDC Chapter 8.798 for wireless communication facilities. Requiring the protection and preservation of existing trees, soils, vegetation, watercourses, habitat areas and/or drainage areas; Some of the trees on site are scheduled for removal to accommodate construction. The applicant has provided a tree plan that will be discussed further in this report. Requiring the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain when land form alterations and development are allowed within the 100-year floodplain; and This development is not adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, therefore, a condition is not necessary. Requiring the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. This development is not adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, therefore, a condition is not necessary. B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS SPECIAL ADJUSTMENTS (18.370) Section 18.370.020(C)(10) allows adjustments to wireless communication facilities and the requirement that a wireless communication tower be set back at least the height of the tower from any off-site residence based on findings that at the following criteria are satisfied: 1. The proposed location of the tower complies with the setback requirements for the underlying zone in which the property is located; The required setbacks of the underlying zone are 5-feet from the side property lines, 15-feet from the rear property line, and 20-feet from the front propertline. The actual tower is located 15 feet from the rear property line, approximately 27 feet from the east property line, 165+ feet from the west property line, and 200+ feet from the front property line. The proposed location of the tower does comply with the setback requirements of the underlying zone. This criterion is satisfied. 2. A structural engineer certifies that the tower is designed to collapse within itself; The applicant has provided a letter from Habib J. Azoun, a registered professional engineer in the state of Oregon and engineering representative from Rohn Industries, Inc., that states, "Although this pole will not be designed to fail, stronger sections than required by analysis could be provided in the lower portion of the pole. This would result in an increased safety factor in the lower sections. In the event of a catastrophic wind, this would enable the pole to VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET TOWER PAGE 8 OF 20 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 9 0 fail through a combination of bending and buckling in the upper portion of the pole folding over the lower portion, resulting in a fall zone radius of 5'." In a later letter, Mr. Azouri states, "The referenced tower will be designed to meet the specified loading requirements...for an 80 mph basic wind speed and a'/2 Inch radial ice load.' A 5-foot fall radius will put the tower within the footprint of the leased area. In consideration of this information, the tower would collapse within the confines of the fenced area with 22 feet to spare on the side property line, and 10 feet on the rear property line. This criterion is satisfied. 3. Because of topography, vegetation, building orientation and/or other factors, a site closer to an off-size residence will equally or better reduce the visual impacts associated with the tower upon the off-site residence. As indicated earlier in this report, a 12-lot subdivision has received preliminary approval on the lot directly to the east of this site. The applicant of the subdivision has indicated that several of the trees that would screen the tower from homes constructed on that site would be removed thereby increasing the visual impacts to their proposed homes. FINDINGS: The proposed location of the telecommunications facility is located in a portion of the property that is currently heavily vegetated. Staff cannot determine with certainty that the removal of trees on the adjacent property will afford the same visual relief that exists currently. CONDITION: Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan, designed by a professional landscape architect, to increase the intensity of landscaping along the eastern property line to better reduce any visual impacts that may be incurred as a result of tree removal on the adjacent property. Staff will provide a copy of the tree removal plan for the Cascadian Place Subdivision to the applicant. RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS ~18.510~ The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Wireless communication facilities are also permitted conditionally. Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2. STANDARD R-4.5 CUP Proposed Requirements Minimum Lot Size Detached unit 7,500 sq.ft. ----0---- 2,000 sq.ft. Duplexes 10,000 sq.ft. Leased Area Attached unit 1 Average Minimum Lot Width Detached unit lots 50 ft. ---0--- 40 ft. Duplex lots 90 ft. Attached unit lots Maximum Lot Coverage ---0--- N/A Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 20 ft. 20 ft. 200+ ft. - Side facing street on corner & through lots 15 ft. 15 ft. N/A - Side yard 5 ft. 5 ft. 165/5 ft. - Rear yard 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district - Distance between property line N/A and front of garage 20 ft. 20 ft. N/A As illustrated in the table and on the plans provided by the applicant, the proposal meets the minimum development requirements of the underlying zone where applicable. This criterion is VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET TOWER PAGE 9 OF 20 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 • satisfied. ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION (18.705) Where the provisions of Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, do not apply, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an access plan submitted under the provisions of this chapter in conjunction with another permit or land use action. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The applicant has proposed a 12-foot-wide access within a 15-foot easement. As there will only be two vehicular trips to and from the site every 30-45 days by a technician, this access is sufficient. Access is discussed in more detail later in this report under Chapter 18.765. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS - CHAPTER 18.725: Requires that federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 Performance Standards regulates: Noise, visible emissions, vibration and odors. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions . of Sections 7.41.130 through 7.40 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Visible Emissions. Within the Commercial zoning districts and the Industrial Park (I-P) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water steam which is visible from a property line. Department f Environmental Quality ( EQ) rules for visible emissions (340 21-015 and 340-28-070) apply. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is permitted in any given zoning district, which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply. Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted, and; 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2) these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. Many of these items have been addressed earlier in this report. As stated previously, there is no evidence in the record that would suggest that any problems associated with emissions, vibrations, odors, glare and heat, or insects and rodents. Glare has been addressed by the proposal to paint the tower a deep brown to blend in with the existing trees. A condition has been suggested to ensure that the noise levels do not exceed the allowable levels as defined in the Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 7.40. FINDING: Based on the information provided by the applicant, the expanded use of the property will conform to the above requirements. If for some reason the above standards were VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET TOWER PAGE 10 OF 20 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • 0 in question, and it was subsequently found that the use was out of compliance with any of the above standards, the property owner would be subject to code enforcement, court review, possible fines until they were brought back into compliance, and revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. A search of City records does not indicate any code enforcement issues associated with the existing use. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING - CHAPTER 18.745: Street trees: Section 18.745.040 states that all development projects fronting on a public street shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C Section 18.745.040.C required that street trees be spaced between 20 and 40 feet apart depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity (small, medium or large). The project fronts SW Tigard Street, and the applicant has proposed to plant Pacific Dogwood 20 feet on center along the frontage of the site. Pacific Dogwood is an approved street tree, and meets the standard. The applicant should be cognizant that a final design for the street improvements should demonstrate compliance with the spacing requirements of the street trees as indicated in Section 18.745.040(C)(2)(a-1). FINDING: The applicants landscaping plan does not show the street improvements, and staff cannot verify the spacing requirements at this time. CONDITION: Prior to site work, the applicant shall provide a revised street tree plan that demonstrates compliance with the spacing requirements of the street trees as indicated in Section 18.745.040(C)(2)(a-1) in relation to the proposed street improvements. Land Use Buffering and Screening: Buffering and Screening is required between different types of land uses. The proposed facility is in a residential zone and abutting residential uses on three sides. There is a 12-lot residential subdivision with preliminary approval directly east of this site. The applicant of that proposal may be removing some trees that would have helped screen the tower from view, so conditions related to landscaping and screening have been suggested elsewhere in this report to minimize any impacts incurred as a result of this proposal by adjacent property owners. In residential zoning districts, telecommunication facilities are subject to the special screening standards of TDC Section 18.798.060(8)(7). Landscaping and screening will be discussed in more detail under that section. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING (18.765) At the time of the erection of a new structure within any zoning district, off-street vehicle parking will be provided in accordance with Section 18.765.070. Table 18.765.2 does not require a minimum off-street parking requirement. The site plan indicates that the applicant intends to park on the access when present. This criterion is satisfied. With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: Access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; The applicants proposal to improve Tigard Street along the frontage of the property will ensure the pedestrians are off of the street and that the driveway is clearly delineated with concrete. One serviceman is expected to visit the site once every 30-45 days. There should not be any additional pedestrian traffic on site. This criterion is satisfied. VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET TOWER PAGE 11 OF 20 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • The number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; The access is 12-feet wide and located within a 15-foot easement. As discussed earlier in this report, this criterion is satisfied. Access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; As discussed earlier in this discussion, the applicant has proposed street improvements to SW Tigard Street, and the driveway apron will be concrete. Additionally, the applicant has proposed a 6-foot-high chain link fence along the east property line to delineate the east boundary of the property.. The proposal also includes two street trees that flank the driveway. Although staff is not requiring slats, it is suggested that the applicant consider lacing neutral colored slats within the chain link fence along the property line and around the tower. This criterion is satisfied. Access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; As discussed later in this report, the applicant has proposed to remove shrubbery that would currently be located within the clear vision area. Future maintenance of the street trees should ensure that the vision clearance is free of obstruction. This criterion is satisfied. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; The applicant has proposed to gravel the access that does not meet this standard. FINDING: The access drive is proposed to be gravel. A gravel access way does not satisfy the above standard. CONDITION: Prior to final inspection, the access way shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface consistent with TDC Section 18.765.040(6)(5). Excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030P, groups oftwo or more parking spaces shall be served b a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a stree~or other public right-of-way will be required. There are no parking spaces other than the access way proposed with this project, and there is room for the service vehicle to turn around and enter the street so that no backing movement will be required. This criterion is satisfied. SIGNS (18.7801 Requires that a permit be issued for any sign that is erected, re-erected, constructed, structurally altered, or relocated within the City Limits. The applicant has indicated that they only intend to place one sign on the site to give contact instructions, but did not provide the dimensions or location of the sign. This criterion is not satisfied. FINDING: There are no plans provided for the proposed signs, so staff cannot verify compliance with the sign standards. CONDITION: Prior to placement of any signs on site, the applicant shall apply for a sign permit and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with TDC Chapter 18.780. VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET TOWER PAGE 12 OF 20 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • TREE REMOVAL - CHAPTER 18.790 Section 18.790.030 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist be provided for a conditional use application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, identification of which trees 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. The applicant has provided a tree survey and removal plan from, David Hunter, consulting arborist that generally describes the trees that are on the project site and their condition. According to the report, there are a total of forty-one trees on site. Twenty-five trees are over 12 inches in diameter. Thirteen of the trees that are over 12 inches in diameter will have to be removed to accommodate construction. Nine of those eighteen trees are diseased or hazardous due to the poor condition identified by the arborist, and the applicant cannot be penalized for those. Since the applicant is only removing 16% of the trees, and according to TDC Section 18.790.030(B)(2)(d)), the applicant will not have to mitigate for any of the removal. The arborist has estimated that less than 25% of the canopy cover will be lost as a result of the removal. FINDINGS: The applicant has proposed to retain greater than 75% percent of the trees over twelve inches on site and is not subject to tree mitigation in accordance with TDC Section 18.790.030. The applicant did not propose any tree protection measures that would be necessary in order to ensure the viability of those trees that are in close proximity to the construction areas as required by Section 18.790.030(B)(4) CONDITIONS: The applicant shall submit a tree protection plan from a certified arborist that defines standards that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction as required by Section 18.790.030(B)(4). The applicant shall provide the City Arborist with a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. The applicant shall notify the City Arborist when tree protection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly prior to construction. VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS - CHAPTER 18.795 Section 18.795.020.A. states that the provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. Section 18.795.030.6. states that a clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. The applicant has proposed to remove vegetation that would potentially be located within the vision clearance areas and the street trees are permitted as Iona as they are maintained properly. Therefore, there are no proposed structures inside of the vision clearance area, and this standard is satisfied. VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET TOWER PAGE 13 OF 20 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES- CHAPTER 18.798 Section 18.798.060 states that the Hearings Officer shall review wireless communication towers in residential zones subject to conditional use review, by means of a Type IIIA procedure, using the following approval criteria. Views from residential structures located within 250 feet of the proposed wireless communication facility to the following points of visual interest shall be protected to the greatest practical extent: ill Mountains; 2 Significant public open spaces; 3 Historic structures. Staff has visited the site, and has determined that no visual points of interest will be obscured by the proposed location. There is a large stand of trees along the east and north property lines that currently obscure any views. The nearest historical property is the Tigard Farmhouse and Windmill and is located about of a mile east of this site and cannot be seen from any of the properties that are immediately adjacent to the proposed tower. The historic site is far enough away that the tower will not obscure its view from any surrounding properties. This criterion is satisfied. Color. Towers shall have a non-reflective surface and a neutral color that is the same or similar color as the supporting structure to make the antennas and related equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible, or, if required by the FAA, be painted pursuant to the FAA's requirements; The applicant has proposed to paint the tower and antennas a deep brown to help the tower blend in with the surrounding trees. This criterion is satisfied. Setbacks: Towers shall be set back from the property line by a distance equal to the hei'ht of the tower. A Type II adjustment may be obtained to reduce this setback, subject to criteria of approval contained in Section 18.370.020 C8a; The applicant has requested a setback to the tower location that has been addressed earlier in this report. Although the proposed site is located close to the northeast property corner, the remainder of the site is open, and the proposed location would provide better visual relief for surrounding properties. The adjustment is warranted only for that reason. This criterion is satisfied. Tower spacing: No new tower in a residential zone shall be allowed within 2,000 feet of an existino tower. No new tower in non-residential zones shall be allowed within 500 feet of an existing tower. There are no other towers located within 2,000 feet of this tower. The closest towers are located at 12390 SW Scholl's Ferry Road (C-G zoning), 12655 SW North Dakota Street (C-G zoning), and 10195 SW Cascade Street. All of these towers are located well over 2,000 linear feet from the subject site. Lighting: No lighting shall be permitted on a tower except as required by the FAA; The applicant has indicated that the tower would only be lighted if the FAA required it. Fencing and security: For security purposes, towers and ancillary facilities shall be enclosed by a six-foot fence; The applicant has proposed a 6-foot-high chain link fence around the equipment. This standard is satisfied. VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET TOWER PAGE 14 OF 20 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • Landscaping and screening. Landscaping shall be placed outside the fence and shall consist of evergreen shrubs which reach six-feet in height and 95% opacity within three years of planting. When adjacent to or within residentially-zoned propert y, free-standing towers and accessory equipment facilities shall be screened by the planting of a minimum of four evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height at the time of planting. The planting of said trees shall be prescribed in number by a plan prepared by a registered arborist in locations that (1) most effectively screen the wireless facilities from residential uses and (2) promote the future survival of the trees while limiting adverse effects of the trees on abutting properties. Existing evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height may be used to meet the screening requirement of this section if the arborist demonstrates that they provide screening for abutting residential uses. The applicant has provided a landscape plan in which they show arborvitae outside of the fence all the way around the facility. Additionally, they plan to retain an existing Willow tree and three Red Alders. However, in order to meet the above screening standards, the applicant must install a minimum of four additional evergreen trees. The proposed landscape plan illustrates intent to meet the code. In order to ensure that the landscape plan is effective the following condition is recommended. FINDINGS: The applicant has proposed a landscape scheme that meets the written criteria and intent, but staff cannot ensure that it is effective until the improvements are in place. Red Alders and Willow trees are not evergreen trees and do not satisfy the requirement. CONDITION: Prior to final inspection and issuance of the Letter of Completeness, the landscaping shall be installed and a long-term maintenance plan including irrigation and pruning schedule shall be provided to and approved by the City. Additionally, the revised landscape plan requested in Condition #2 Shall include a minimum of four evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height to satisfy the criterion. Noise: Noise-generating equipment shall be sound-buffered by means of baffling, barriers or other suitable means to reduce the sound level measured at the property line to 50 dBA (day)/40 dBA (night) when adjacent to a noise-sensitive land use and 75 dBA (day)/60 dBA (night) when adjacent to other uses. Noise was discussed previously in this report, and the applicant has expressed their willingness to comply with the standards. This criterion is satisfied. Other requirements: At the time a provider requests a building permit, it must demonstrate compliance to all applicable state and federal regulations, including, but not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Structural and Building Codes and FAA. The applicant is required to obtain a building permit prior to construction. The plans examiner will ensure that the structures comply with all applicable building codes, and the applicant is responsible for ensuring compliance with FAA standards. FINDING: Staff has no way of ensuring that the roposed tower meets the requirements of the FAA as required in Section 18.798.060FC). CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide documentation from the FAA that the tower design complies with the applicable standards. VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET TOWER PAGE 15 OF 20 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • Chapter 18810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private fac i lities 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 gCrtion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030(E) requires a neighborhood route street to have a 54-foot right-of-way width and a 32-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 SW Tigard Street, which is classified as a neighborhood route on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map, as amended by the Transportation System Plan (TSP). At present, there is approximate) 20 feet of ROW north of the centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. The applicant should dedicate additional ROW along Tigard Street to provide a minimum of 27 feet north of the centerline. SW Tigard Street is currently paved, but not improved to current City standards. The applicant's development has the need of an additional access onto this roadway. The applicant has stated in a letter dated June 4, 2002 that they will install street improvements along the frontage of the property in order to comply with TDC18.810.030.A. 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. By constructing the half-street improvements on Tigard Street, the applicant will meet the provisions of this code section. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.C states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There is an 8-inch public sewer line in 113th Place, south of Tigard Street. It is this public sewer line that would best serve the existing home on the parcel as well as any future development of the site. Since the applicant will be constructing a half-street improvement in Tigard Street, it makes sense that any public sewer line extension be accomplished at the same time to avoid having to tear up the street improvement at a future date when the remainder of the parcel is developed. The applicant should extend the public sewer line in 113th Avenue to the north side of Tigard Street where it could be terminated with a manhole. A sewer lateral should be provided to serve the existing home. No further extension of the main line is needed to the east or west, as those adjacent parcels can be served from other existing main sewer lines. VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET TOWER PAGE 16 OF 20 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states regwires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.C states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). There are no existing upstream drainage facilities that affect this parcel. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Mana ement Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-gear event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. The proposed cell tower facilities add 361 square feet of impervious surface, and the paved drive will add 2,259 square feet of impervious surface for a total impervious addition of 2,620 square feet. CWS standards state that impervious area additions of less than 5,000 sf do not require onsite detention. Therefore, no detention is required for this project. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. Tigard Street is not designated as a bike facility. So no bikeway improvements are required. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.13 states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. Not applicable. Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.C states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. Not applicable. VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET TOWER PAGE 17 OF 20 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; 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-groundingg costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing ufilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval auhority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under- grounding in con unction with the development. The determination shall be on a case- by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in- lieu of under-grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW Tigard Street. If the fee in- lieu is proposed, it is equal to $27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 190 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $5,225.00. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Public Water System: No public water line improvements are necessary to support this development. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. The 2,620 square feet of additional impervious area warrants consideration for an onsite water quality facility. Although this area is roughly the same size as a typical single-family dwelling site (which would not require a water quality facility) the applicant should have their engineer look at the option of designing a facility to treat yhis runoff. Perhaps a vegetated Swale along the access drive could handle the additional runoff. If the engineer is not able to design such a facility to work for this site, Staff would be comfortable recommending the fee in-lieu of water quality facility. The applicant's engineer must submit their proposed water quality facility design to the Engineering Department prior to issuance of the site permit. VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET TOWER PAGE 18 OF 20 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • D. IMPACT STUDY: Section 18.390.040.B.2.e states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the'projected impacts of the development. The telecommunications facility is not subject to any traffic impact fees, so all improvements that have been proposed are required by the code in order to meet the criteria that is related to access. All other impacts have been addressed elsewhere in this report. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Cit of Tigard Building Division has reviewed this application and offered no comments or objections. The City of Tigard Engineering Department was sent this proposal for review and the comments have been incorporated into this report. The City of Tigard Operations Utility Manager has reviewed this application and has expressed that they have no objections to the proposal. All utility work should be coordinated with the City. City of Tigard Property Manager has reviewed this application and offered no comments or objections. City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this application and offered no comments or objections. Long Range Planning Division has reviewed this application and recommended a noise study. They also questioned the justification for the setback adjustment. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Clean Water Services has reviewed the proposal and offered comments which have been incorporated into the body of this report as part of their preliminary review. Oregon Department of Aviation has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments. WCCCA Technical Services have found insufficient amount of interference from 13-band cellular (Verizon in this case) to 800 Mhz public safety communications. Portland General Electric, Verizon, Qwest Communications, ODFW, and The Oregon Public Utilities Commission were given the opportunity to review this proposal and submitted no comments or objections. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed this application and offered the following comments: Emergency service providers, both police and fire, have been experiencing ongoing interference problems with our 800 MHz radio system. As wireless communications VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET TOWER PAGE 19 OF 20 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • providers continue to expand their use of the frequency spectrum, we can expect the problem to get worse. As a result, we have done an extensive amount of research in an attempt to determine what actions might be taken at the local level to protect public safety communications systems. We have determined that our local planning departments can be a key component in the protection of the emergency communication capabilities of their police and fire departments. It is well established that local jurisdictions have the right to attach reasonable conditions to the approval of conditional use permits for communication sites. Within that context, we feel that local jurisdictions have the responsibility to attach conditions that protect the public safety of its citizens. Accordingly, we suggest that clause be included as a condition of approval for the application referenced above: "In order to ensure the adequate protection of the public safety, health and welfare of the citizens of Tigard, no permitted cell tower operator, "wireless communication facility" operator, "radio frequency transmission facility" operator, communication site operator, [or however the local code describes a cell tower operator], shall operate the permitted facility in any way that impedes, impairs, or negatively impacts the communication abilities of any public safety or emergency response organization serving the public within Tigard's jurisdictional limits." Additionally, you may want to include a clause that makes the federal regulations that require priority be given to communications involving safety-of-life or property as a condition of approval. Such language might read as follows: 47 CFR 5 90.403 (d) provides, in relevant part, that communications involving the imminent safety-of-life or property, are to be afforded priority by all licensees. If interference complaints are filed against the cell tower operator, which allege radio frequency interference, the cell tower operator shall provide documentary evidence from the FCC that the cell tower operator has complied with all federal laws and regulations regarding the handling and resolution of such complaints, and confirming that the communications involving the public safety provider have been given priority by the cell tower operator. In response to these comments, the proposed conditions are not recommended because they are already imposed by the Federal Communications Commission, and staff would not be able to verify compliance with the condition. PREPARED BY: Brad Kilby Associate Planner 1 y APPROVED BY: Richard Bewe rff Planning Ma ager June 10. 2002 DATE June 10. 2002 DATE VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET TOWER PAGE 20 OF 20 6/24/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF'REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER P COTTO a - - SW GENEVA GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION evaTEM VICINITY MAP w 2ANITA ST ~4NITC CUP2002 00004 TI MOTH ° VAR2002-00012 ST NORT DA O A S j VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET DR SW TORIAND ST. _ STATION 0 G O~~ E S Y Qr, 1~~ :-~fAY4iR$FERR a CI F-If O TIGARD U S ; "I Imo. ~ .z wl J r s+ °'j !1 (n @uu. rrnq' r >t I . ......E_ J I Q HONI'rA1 RD aEEF aENV RG _OUHHAM__.-LRG, Tigard Area Map ~c N Q DAWN'S CT 0 200 400 600 Feet RINE ST 1"= 404 feet City of Tigard Oo Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. D D 13125 SW Hall Blvd m m Tigard. OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 httpJAvww.ci.tiga rd. or. us Community Development Plot date: Apr 29, 2002; C:\magic\MAGIC03.APR i cuue ms m'w ro I Y[ Wlr[0 m ~ f41 4-- YC4 I~: Kwr lvF O1~[e. w%~nuu ~1 5(nav M: 11~AbrvlO -I[W 04¢ v aTldl 14 111 -aoYe wrtrs •(uAn i . 4CMll:4 ANTENNA LEGEND i L-1 f, L ,i I D6,.4 I 3 raNa I x x x , •I Ap(yl[IC4 I I~YL4 IAwt M -I Naa10 RLL °.'I I~ ~I , M IDN K i AACINO rt~fA Jrl , Q6Ir( i NArY pRirtK 914 N L~ R`mK. " x. I 11) NAMpOf[0 pf x omK ue[i Ava , . I, y l Aooim <en ~ I aicAaAAA wva1. i ~ x I AuN 4 !ii' I x 1 ~ i;i rAa0Y0 4MM-U.ArtIa t'ln'~ i fASI ~ I;i I i rAO an K I IFAYp. I - - I I - i i ! I i SW TIGARD STREET A.awe 1m,1, 4Y,a,1-.-/ 1 I 1af. b I i 1 -O ~1M1 [4ML tAY ° Ex15TING TREE LEGEND 1 X ® 51„1` „~°i:i°" A.a~Yr..N..~,w1A . •.T.,-_. ~ ._-_.-T _ I '~%~'rc I ~ ~ I reran AK iiuc'"oon~u 1a11zaa• ® I / 4 ~ I ~ ' ~iic~A<us-mwNrzO4.wA• rseresm Ar va arc I~ / ~ \ ~ I L ~ Name 1r N ~c'r pus oowA e I a.KC mss x g ~i0°n srccxs• Wawa A4nc a 1Kaazoelo I ~ F^ rovoymco Iii 1. o01a aii .~'o..`ravw.m. ,~p0(( ~,A.cu.• ~ ~ ~ i ® '/L[~ yi I. I~a03m 1V/ ~.tl ~tA~ v1~211 4 ta0 YwID Ar uYKiM L Agar Au r-varn %a r0.aaie omr (VJJ] mn ovrlAnll mm awn az. z. nm .eN slow re u.Aer OARAL SITE PLAN scr[: Y . W d d ENLARGED WE PLAN ® CITY OF TIGARD T CITY OF TIGARD SITE PLAN N Ma is not to scale) I N - 1• CU P2002-00004NAR2002-00012 VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET STATION STAFF $ AGENCY COMMENTS (CUP2002-00004) 0 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: June 4, 2002 TO: FROM: RE: • Brad Kilby, Associate Planner Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer CUP 2002-00004, Verizon Wireless Tigard Street Station Street And Utility Improvements 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 neighborhood route street to have a 54-foot right-of-way width and a 32-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 SW Tigard Street, which is classified as a neighborhood route on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map, as amended by the Transportation System Plan (TSP). At present, there is approximately 20 feet of ROW north of the centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. The applicant should dedicate additional ROW along Tigard Street to provide a minimum of 27 feet north of the centerline. SW Tigard Street is currently paved, but not improved to current City standards. The applicant's development has the need of an additional access onto this roadway and has indicated that they will construct a half-street improvement along the entire frontage of the parcel to meet the provisions of 18.810.030.A. ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP 2002-00004 Verizon Wireless PAGE 1 • • 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. By constructing the half-street improvements on Tigard Street, the applicant will meet the provisions of this code section. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.C states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There is an 8-inch public sewer line in 113th Place, south of Tigard Street. It is this public sewer line that would best serve the existing home on the parcel as well as any future development of the site. Since the applicant will be constructing a half-street improvement in Tigard Street, it makes sense that any public sewer line extension be accomplished at the same time to avoid having to tear up the street improvement at a future date when the remainder of the parcel is developed. The applicant should extend the public sewer line in 113th Avenue to the north side of Tigard Street where it could be terminated with a manhole. A sewer lateral should be provided to serve the existing home. No further extension of the main line is needed to the east or west, as those adjacent parcels can be served from other existing main sewer lines. 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, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP 2002-00004 Verizon Wireless PAGE 2 size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). There are no existing upstream drainage facilities that affect this parcel. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage. of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. The proposed cell tower will not add a significant amount of impervious area, so the affect on the downstream drainage system is negligible. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. TIA'alrl }rGG+ IC rl Af I^AnCIrIG rGrI 7 kil~o f7nili+v Ce no hikew ay irvararove-e«a4.. . .~aw~v vu vva w ..va VVIIV Iaa ails m a MOM- IG4%A11Lr. vV I1%J VITGVVCAY 1111PI VVVI 1101 I s are required. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.6 states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP 2002-00004 Verizon Wireless PAGE 3 • Not applicable. 0 Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.C states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. Not applicable. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: • The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; • The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; • All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and • Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.C states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under- grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case- by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a shvr frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under- grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW Tigard Street. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP 2002-00004 Verizon Wireless PAGE 4 0 that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 190 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $ 5,225.00. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Public Water System: No public water line improvements are necessary to support this development. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. The small amount of impervious area for this development does not warrant the construction of an onsite water quality facility. The applicant should pay the fee in-lieu of a water quality facility. Recommendations: THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE PERMIT: Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover the proposed half-street improvement work in Tigard Street and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP 2002=00004 Verizon Wireless PAGE 5 which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.tigard.or.us). The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they will construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of Tigard Street. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a neighborhood route street from curb to centerline equal to 17 feet; B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 5 foot concrete sidewalk with a planter strip; F. street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; 1. underground utilities; J. street signs (if applicable); K. driveway apron (if applicable); and L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Tigard Street in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. A profile of Tigard Street shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. The applicant's construction plans shall include the extension of the 8-inch public sewer line in 113th Avenue to the north side of Tigard Street adjacent to the subject property. The line can terminate with a manhole with a lateral extended for the existing home. The main sewer line does not need to be extended east or west in Tigard Street. ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP 2002-00004 Verizon Wireless PAGE 6 • • THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT: Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: Prior to issuance of a building permit, additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of Tigard Street to increase the right-of-way to 27 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Tigard Street underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $ 27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $ 5,225.00 and it shall be paid prior to final inspection. i:Xeng\brianr\com mentsXcup\cup2002-00004.doc ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP 2002-00004 Verizon Wireless PAGE 7 • • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: Will 30, 2002 TO: Matt Stine, Urban Forester/Public Works Department FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Brad IGlby, Associate Planner [x3881 Phone: (5031639,4111/ Fax- 1503) 684-1291 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development S6iapingA Better Community CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP)2002-00004/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2002-00012 ➢ VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET STATION Q REQUEST: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use approval to construct a 60-foot high lattice telecommunications facility on the property and an Adjustment to allow the tower to be located closer to the property line. LOCATION: 11355 SW Tigard Street; WCTM 1S134DC, Tax Lot 600. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single- family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795, 18.798, and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement/Plans for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK. BY: MAY 14, 2002. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING. ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: i~al~oR~sr ~~2u iR[;J ~-v A 00251 _ lid I IZer P t~rtc.rlonl (g ( 9C6 RCeLACCMr✓dJi - /}iM AW sec-Cro, ?l, dtig~ tOCArt)n1 crC, IF r~ I(6e&L• f ~f (Tk=eprovdethefollaanginfomuation)Name of Person(s) Commenting: Phone Number(s): • • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: April 30, 2002 TO: Daryl Jones, Senior Plans Examiner FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Brad IGlhy, Associate Planner (x3881 Phone: 15031639-4171/Fax. 15031684-1291 CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development ShapingA Better Community RECEIVED PLANNING JUN 17 2002 CITY OF TIGARD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP12002-00004/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2002-00012 ➢ VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET STATION Q REQUEST: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use approval to construct a 60-foot high lattice telecommunications facility on the property and an Adjustment to allow the tower to be located closer to the property line. LOCATION: 11355 SW Tigard Street; WCTM 1S134DC, Tax Lot 600. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single- family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. -Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795, 18.798, and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement/Plans for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: MAY 14, 2002. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with. your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK-THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT_APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. _ Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comme is provided below: (IVN CA O i v► Sri ~'a !c s /=moo t~ y ae s~~ n ~g D (hease pravide the following infonnation) Name of Person(s) Commenting: Phone Number(s): • • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: April 30, 2002 TO: John Boy, Properly Manager/Public Works Department FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Brad Klby, Associate Planner 113881 Phone: [5031639,4111/ Fax: [5031684-1291 CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development ShapingA Better Community RECEIVED PLANNING ~P.8Y 1 1 2002 Li'" t - - i iuARD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT [CUP]2002-00004/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2002-00012 ➢ VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET STATION Q REQUEST: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use approval to construct a 60-foot high lattice telecommunications facility on the property and an Adjustment to allow the tower to be located closer to the property line. LOCATION: 11355 SW Tigard Street; WCTM 1S134DC, Tax Lot 600. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single- family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795, 18.798, and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement/Plans for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: MAY 14, 2002. You may use the space provided below or attac a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE.FOLLOWING`ITEMS THAT.;APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. _ Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: ? 2, no d s ((Please provide the fo&ming informtion) Name of Person(s) Commenting: Phone Number(s): • • rVOK TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RES..iE • SOUTH DIVISION COMMUNITY SERVICES • OPERATIONS • FIRE PREVENTION Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue May 7, 2002 Brad Kilby, Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Verizon Wireless Tigard Street Station Dear Brad, Emergency service providers, both police and fire, have been experiencing ongoing interference problems with our 800 MHz radio system. As wireless communications providers continue to expand their use of the frequency spectrum, we can expect the problem to get worse. As a result, we have done an extensive amount of research in an attempt to determine what actions might be taken at the local level to protect public safety communications systems. We have determined that our local planning departments can be a key component in the protection of the emergency communication capabilities of their police and fire departments. It is well established that local jurisdictions have the right to attach reasonable conditions to the approval of conditional use permits for communication sites. Within that context, we feel that local jurisdictions have the responsibility to attach conditions that protect the public safety of its citizens. Accordingly, we suggest that clause be included as a condition of approval for the application referenced above: "in order to ensure the adequate protection of the public safety, health and welfare of the citizens of Tigard, no permitted cell tower operator, "wireless communication facility" operator, "radio frequency transmission facility" operator, communication site operator, [or however the local code describes a cell tower operator], shall operate the permitted facility in any way that impedes, impairs, or negatively impacts the communication abilities of any public safety or emergency response organization serving the public within Tigard's jurisdictional limits." Additionally, you may want to include a clause that makes the federal regulations that require priority be given to communications involving safety-of-life or property as a condition of approval. Such language might read as follows: 47 CFR § 90.403 (d) provides, in relevant part, that communications involving the imminent safety-of-life or property, are to be afforded priority by all licensees. If interference complaints are filed against the cell tower operator, which allege radio frequency interference, the cell tower operator shall provide documentary evidence from the FCC that the cell tower operator has complied with all federal laws and regulations regarding the handling and resolution of such complaints, and confirming that the communications involving the public safety provider have been given priority by the cell tower operator. Thank you for your consideration of this vital public safety concern. Respectfully, TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE AND RESCUE Gary C. Wells Division Chief 7401 SW Washo Court, Suite 101 9 Tualatin, Oregon 97062 • Tel. (503) 612-7000 • Fax (503) 612-7003 • www.tvfr.com uaiuaiux ltiLi 13:30 FAA 503 531 0186 J DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF CONTACT: WCCCA ADMIN • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS gro as, 2002 111M AaStla,II CIA CI11V Of Tiga[d Plaanllte IM MOD Brad 111ft, Aseclltte Planner fx888I Phana:1508160941W Fax: [5031684-1291 L0001 A, k CITY Of nGAao Community tVeVe(opmeut Sf1ping.31 Metter community eoNOmoNu USE eWItr (aMoot-oeaoGAo1usneM tvw 2002-0e012 YERIION WN{F1ESS 11611RD SiREEf STATION Q REQUEST: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use approval to construct a 60-foot high lattice telecommunications facility on the property and an Adjustment to allow the tower to be located closer to the property line. LOCATION: 11355 SW Tigard Street: WCTM 1S134DC, Tax Lot 600. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single- family homes with or without accessoryresidential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795, 18.798, and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement/Plans for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: MAY 14 2002. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate etter to return your comments. you are unable to respond b the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CH THE,#bLLQVI 1f~tC' I"fI=1 A TNS4T PpLlf`~'~.`' We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: CCA -TPA \'ra l St?Rut c-Ps G r C' 8 (rac( uL U U- v' i ;-L~~ ~ s CvsP 4Mc,u\n4 cf 1~8f.er t•-er'gNrP M B - N 4=L29: MY --j- Pu (r- tt v F . r 0 c, o w\ 1.1 VA \ c cu 4 i C" S, ' (vamepwi& th fr~iV information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: Number(s): i ~ -3 --G qW- L4 4 I I V a6 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIGARD Community Development ShapingA Better Community DATE: Will 30, 2002 TO: Barbara Shields, Long Range Planning Manager RECEIVED PLAN NING^~ FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division 0 2002" STAFF CONTACT: Brad 161bv, Associate Planner 1x3881 c' r OF 7iGARD Phone: (5031639-4171/ Fax: [503) 684-1291 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT [CUP)2002-00004/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2002-00012 ➢ VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET STATION Q REQUEST: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use approval to construct a 60-foot high lattice telecommunications facility on the property and an Adjustment to allow the tower to be located closer to the property line. LOCATION: 11355 SW Tigard Street; WCTM 1 S134DC, Tax Lot 600. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single- family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795, 18.798, and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement/Plans for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: MAY 14, 2002. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. _ Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: rolcain 141 .SAI 'S 04--f A,AZe"', 74iil~inf /.Sl~✓yl~Ile- roes ia~P Can ~-ic✓ riC~b '41141-C ~f41-C I,/ / D~1iv/ec/ l i4l"I-1f/'o" S-7k'l SA ws 1.41 G~ io en sv-,e 7k (/n!r- (y, 11,5AV G+'r' vv~ICCe /v r7 bGG AVOA A reC0,-Q c.~~ q Co~1q~~L0 ~ ])d# T~ S~/vM~ ci /Io/SC S 9n~2ivr<~'~' "r 'X ullell n n evG~Sra n tb q;-v n1Q_ TEL ir'ST/ ~ T GA T✓a /'n 1:r i 7 4 rf4,1 K 4 d'~ 7"/Kti'JT ? ap ~fs (Please provide the foiro in9 information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: 91 Phone Number(s): 0 April 30, 2002 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS i 011i TO: FROM: STAFF CONTACT: City of Tigard Planning Division Brad IGlhy, Associate Planner [x3881 Phone: (50316394171/Fax. 15031684-1291 • CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development ShapingA Better Community pup fns y ~qNr~~~~ 00 r . oe CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP)2002-00004/ADJUSTMENT (VAR] 2002-00012 ➢ VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET STATION Q REQUEST: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use approval to construct a 60-foot high lattice telecommunications facility on the property and an Adjustment to allow the tower to be located closer to the property line. LOCATION: 11355 SW Tigard Street; WCTM 1 S134DC, Tax Lot 600. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single- family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795, 18.798, and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement/Plans for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a -decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: MAY 14, 2002. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING -ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: (,Please provide thefoQowing informtion) Name of Person(s) Commenting: Aviation Phone Number(s): eq 3 - 1 = X 2~ uo/U"Z 11:Z9 FAA 503 540 3525 CLEAN WATER SERVICES • . REQUEST FOR COMMENTS I DATE: A012 30,200 T0: Lee Walker, CleuWater SeruieWSWM Mpg FROM: Cidl of Tigard Planning [Immen / STAFF CONTACT.- Brad Ifift. Associate Planner [x3881 Phone: 15031639-41M Fax:1508168 72W u~ 0001 CITY OF TIGARD Cammuraty IDeveropmeul S&TingA (Better Community CONDMONAL USE PERMIT [1101012002-0000VADJUSMENT [TIM 2002-00012 ➢ VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET STATION Q REQUEST: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use approval to cons-truct a 60-foot high lattice telecommunications facility on the property and an Adjustment to allow the -sower to be located closer to the property line. LOCATION: 11355 SW Tigard Street; WCTM 1 S134DC., Tax Lot 600. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to ac i;ommodate detached single- family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum Ict size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Sorne civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765., 18,790, 18.795, 18.798, and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement/Plans for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other infomnation available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: MAY 14.2002. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate: letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond b the above date, please phone the staff -,;ontact noted above x+ith your comments an confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you nave any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223- L' EA4 1tA, J< t81b L, 0 '~"01A- I11 hAI?1?~, We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. (a,4.,,prvmdet&efofmonginf rmtiorc)Name of Person(s) Commenting: Phone Number(s): 5 b3 $,410 ° . • • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF CONTACT: April 30, 2002 Jim Wolf, Tigard Police Department Crime Prevention Officer City of Tigard Planning Division Brad IGIUy, Associate Planner (x3881 Phone: 150316394171/ Fax- 15031684-7291 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development ShapingA Better Community RECEIVED PLANNING 0 2 2002 CITY OF TIGARD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT [CUP]2002-00004/ADJUSTMENT (VAR] 2002-00012 ➢ VERIZON WIRELESS TIGARD STREET STATION Q REQUEST: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use approval to construct a 60-foot high lattice telecommunications facility on the property and an Adjustment to allow the tower to be located closer to the property line. LOCATION: 11355 SW Tigard Street; WCTM 1 S134DC, Tax Lot 600. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single- family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795, 18.798, and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement/Plans for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: MAY 14 2002. You may use the space provided below or a-ft-a-c-fi a separate letter to return your comments. I you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLPASE CHECK'THE'FOLLOWING ITEMSFTHAT APPLY: : , We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to tfie enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: (Tease pmide thefoarcting information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: VvO~ Phone Number(s): * Z24 G• .I A . k CITY OF TIGA6 GENERAL INFORMATION • • C'~- bq loa, CONDITIONAL USE I V TYPE III APPLICATION 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX. (503) 684-7297 Property Address/Location(s): SAO ~~QICkr Tax Map & Tax Lot #(s): % S \ T -1 J)(_ cio co U O Site Size: `A O ' \e 50 t , o4 au-e_ Applicant*: W U Address: ~-AS D Q City/State: PpSaand Zip: Primary Contact: Phone: ~J3 - q73 - G Fax:X03 -ck-l3 - 158 Property Owner/Deed Holder(s)*: (Attach list if more than one) V ` J Address: 35S g~~~5c~` C~ Phone: 3°t -(.yO o City/State:~f Zip: ~~la 3,3 * 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 Conditional Use approval to allow (please be specific): PRE-APP. HELD WITH: R K I DATE OF PRE-APP.: rFOR STrk1FF USE O'NL~ Case'~lo ~ ~ ~ W ~ 'a r ti ~ d4 1 rS"' p ,r,~0=pq~ase~` f tcp Ion Acc~epc p* ;F ~4 r t k~ fkC• rx r Rhlil y{ae eterrr~i(i~ej ~drrtp~ei~'*titi 4 h ~1y~N' I,h ~Re fs8/1r r i1~ , nimafe~~k~ iro z ~M..'FnMn~i REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS (Note: applications will not be accepted without the required submittal elements) Application Form Owner's SignaturelWritten Authorization itle Transfer Instrument or Deed Copy of Pre-Application Conf. Notes Site/Plot Plan of copies based on pre-app check list) V / ite/Plot Plan (reduced 8'/2"x 11 pplicant's Statement K# of copies based on pre-app check list) CMS Sewer Use Information Card istributed/completed at application submittal) WS Service Provider Letter 2 Sets of Pre-Addressed/Pre-Stamped /#10 Envelopes & Copy of 500' Property / Owner List Generated by the City ~ 1 ghborhood Mtg. Affidavits & Notes Filing Fee (City) $1,615.00 (Urban) $2,126.00 • i List any VARIANCE, SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT, OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: APPLICANTS: To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application in the "Required Submittal Elements" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained, upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: ♦ The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. ♦ If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. ♦ All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. ♦ The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this 1 Owner's Signature Own r' gnature day of -4yC~~ ,20 C~ Owue;!s Signature ic* k C~~)C, a&6a,V,unkv~. Owner's Signature 2 r' A CITY OF TIGARD GENERAL INFORMATION Property Addresss//LLo-c; Tax Ma & Tax Lot #(s): Site Size: • ADJUSTMENT TYPE II APPLICATION 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 Applicant: ~ n rn w\ f`ous Address: `!►Sz'o Z%'D w c'Aaf QO 1 b City/State: Pcckk b'd (2 Zip: C?-)a0 I Primary Contact: 7,-~,,rA Phone: !~T'3 S -973 -5-1 N (a Fax:-::~O~3_ti-)3 -s43-(6 Property Ownfir/Deed Notder(s)`: _(Attach lift if more than one) Address: City/State: Zip: ~]a~3 ` 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 to The owners of record of the subject property request permission for an Administrative Adjustment to the . following provision(s) of the Community Development Code (please circle one only): ➢Saecial Adjustments: ♦ Access and Egress Standards Adjustment s ♦ Parking Adjustments - Reduction in Minimum Parking ♦ Parking Adjustrnenth - Increase in Maximum Parking 4 Parking Adjustments - Reduction in Required Bicycle Parking ♦ Parking Adjustments - Reduction in Minimum Parking for Transit ImprovementsMew Dev. ♦ Parking Adjustments - Use of Alternative Parking Garage Layout ♦ Sign Code Adjustment ♦ Street Improvement Requirements Adjustment ♦ tireless Communication Facility Adjustments - Distance From Off-Site Residential Please state the reason for the Adjustment request: Q (L~ cl'tk0.C('~8 PRE-APP. HELD WITH: g DATE OF PRE-APP.: FOR.STAFF USE ONLY Case No.: Vft - ©©0 t01 Other Case No.(s): Receipt No.: _ao_- Application Accept B Date: Date Determined To Be Complete: Comp Plan/Zone Designation: 2 4. ~ c CIT Area: Recording Date and Number: Rev. 11/1/01 iskxuplntrnasterslrevisedladjustment-2.doc REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS ✓ Application Elements Submitted: Application Form wner's Signature/Written Authorization V tle Transfer Instrument or Deed [Site/Plot Plan (6 copies) VApplicant's ~ ite/Plot Plan (reduced 8'/:"x 11") Statement (Addressing Criteria Under Section 1 0 L3 Filing Fee $5545V0 G 10• 1 og 00 ti APPLICANTS: , To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application in the "Required Submittal Elements" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained, upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications) THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: ♦ The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subiect property. ♦ If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. ♦ All of the above statements, and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. ♦ The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this day of &,a'A , 20 Oa Owner's Signature iwner~-Signrtr" dg,~~ Owner's ' nature Own is Signature 2 World Headquarters 6718 W. Plank Rd. Peoria, IL 61604 USA Ph: 309-697-4400 FAX: 309-697-5612 Industries, Inc. 11 March 19, 2002 WFI 575 Andover Park Street, Suite 201 Tukwila, WA 98188 Attention: Mr. Jim Pribbenow Fax: 206-574-6333 Reference: 60 Ft. Model SSV Tower, Site: POR Pecan, Oregon Dear Mr. Pribbenow: The referenced tower will be designed to meet your specified loading requirements in accordance with ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-F standards. In the event an extreme wind speed were to occur, a failure would not be expected to occur the instant the design wind speed was exceeded. All tower members would be designed to support a minimum of 1.25 times their design load without permanent deformation. It is our understanding that the referenced pole requires consideration of a contained fall radius in the event a catastrophic wind speed were to result in a failure. Although this pole will not be designed to fail, stronger sections than required by analysis could be provided in the lower portion of the pole. This would result in an increased safety factor in the lower sections. In the event of a catastrophic wind, this would enable the pole to fail through a combination of bending and buckling in the upper portion of the pole folding over the lower portion, resulting in a fall zone radius of 5'. Please contact us at our convenience should you have further questions concerning the safety of tower structures of tower design. Please reference this letter with any forthcoming purchase order. ~gaeiGiNEF~S'Pt to R 0 Sin*VY, 5887VE ORE(( bl cc - Are: a 3 jerr e File 50457JA Over 50 dears of Service to the Communications industry A 1/@I'IMwireless March 11, 2002 Verizon Wireless 5430 NE 122nd Avenue Portland, OR 97230 City of Tigard Attn: Brad Kilby, Planner 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Subject: Proposed Verizon Wireless site at 11355 SW Tigard St., Tigard, OR 97223 Mr. Kilby: As Verizon Wireless heads into the future, wireless usage will increase and more efficient network technology will be needed to help with the wireless demand. This new technology will not adequately service the wireless traffic demand and the network must expand with more cell sites that increase capacity. These new cell sites must be shorter thus covering a smaller area. This is the basic design concept of a cellular network. The Verizon Wireless objective for this proposed site is to increase the signal strength of the local area and off load the traffic of two very tall sites that are currently running at high traffic levels. To accomplish this traffic off load, two cell sites must be built. Circled in Figure 1 is the most likely server signal strength of the existing area. Each letter represents the best signal measured from a particular cell site sector. The area that is circled is the area of concern. The goal is a -75 dBm signal in the metropolitan area as noted in red and yellow. Note that the area of concern is predominantly green and blue signifying signal strengths between -80 to -90 dBm. Also note that the predominant letters (cell site sectors) are "P" and "L". "P" represents sector 3 of the Tigard site and "L" represents sector 2 of the Tyco site. Even though we are short of our -75 dBm goal, these two cell sites have given us moderate quality. The quality degradation comes from the heavy traffic loads of these sites since they both share the traffic around Washington Square and Highway 217 and marginal signal strength in the area in question. Verizon Wireless is working on a plan to add cell sites between Tyco and Tigard at the Hwy 217/Scholls Ferry Road interchange and the proposed site. Once these new cell sites are in place, the Tyco sector 2 will be moved due West and Tigard sector 3 will be moved south and down tilted to minimize the area that they cover. This change will reduce the traffic levels on the tall older sites by shedding the traffic on to the new shorter sites, including the proposed site. The. change will also affect the signal strength of the area in question. In Figure 2 is the Most Likely Server signal strength when the Tigard sector 3 and Tyco sector 2 are removed. Notice the signal strength is weaker compared to Figure 1 and is more of an assortment of cell sites. This will become a poor service area without a single dominant signal. The proposed site will fix this problem. The actual proposed drive test data is shown in Figure 3. Notice this site will give adequate signal (denoted by red and yellow) to most of the area of concern. Integration of the rest of the network, excluding Tigard sector 2 and Tyco sector 3 is shown in Figure 4. , Notice the coverage hole has disappeared in the circle. This particular site was selected by driving the area and locating a parcel with enough elevation to deliver the Radio Frequency (RF) signal to the desired area and enough land to place the equipment and tower. Unfortunately, this area does not have viable commercial or industrial property that could fill the RF hole, thus a residential property was selected. Verizon Wireless will also need this cell site to offer high speed data rates. High-speed data demands higher signal strength and/or one dominant signal. Without this, the speed will decrease too much lower speeds. This area today will most likely have data rates around the minimum of 9.6 MHz due to the heavy traffic and low RF in the area. When the proposed site is in service, the speed could be as high as 153 MHz with the ability of even higher speeds as we adopt future technology. Sincerely,; ~ i Tom Fergusson Senior RF Engineer J • Most Likely Coverage Without Pecan, Current Network Figure 1 dBm ' <=-110 I <=-100 <7--90 -85 <=-80 -75 _ 0 A t MLS 334W 4+0 A 335W 5+0 B l~ M 336W 6+0 C t` I I M 337W 7+0 D 338W 8+0 E M 339W 9+0 F M 340W 10+0 G M 341W 11+0 H 342W 12+01 M 343W 13+01 'Y 344W 14+0 K 345W 15+0 L M 346W 16+0 M 347W 17+0 N 348W 18+0 O M 349W 19+0 P M 350W 20+0 Q _ M 351 W 21+0 R Bull 352W 22+0 S !lam 353W 23+0 T M 354W 24+0 U C Tyco 9,1~ S S LPLI PL Dr ~ C C C ~ C J C jj~ 1-5 LF1 JJ q P L I_ 1. L f/ I K11 IL IK 1, ~1j.~L1 K 1 • • Most Likely Coverage Without Pecan, Tigard Sector 3 and Tyco Sector 2 Figure 2 dBm M<=-110 0<=-100 M -90 M -85 M -80 -75 M<=0 MLS M 334W 4+0 A O 335W 5+0 B M 336W 6+0 C M 337W 7+0 E 338W 8+0 E M 339W 9+0 F .M 34OW 10+0 M 341W 11+0 342W 12+0 M 343W 13+0. 1413 344W 14+0 346W 16+0 M 347W 17+0 M 348W 18+0 35OW 20+0 351W21+0 M 352W 22+0 M 353W 23+0 132 354W 24+0 Watts ERP f'o . Phan Cover2k d A ark 60 ft Antenna Hrgure 3 A -110 - -tOd h - -90 -85 -80 i -15 Tyco I --A gull .1-1 i i Vost Likely Coverage With Pecan and Without • Tigard Sector 3 and Tyco Sector 2 Figure 4 dBm 0<=-110 -100 -90 -<=-85 -80 -75 M<=0 MLS 334W 4+0 A 335W 5+0 B 336W 6+0 C 337W 7+0 D 338W 8+0 E 339W 9+0 F 34OW 10+01 341W 11+01 342W 12+01 343W.1 3+0 J f 344W 14+01 346W 16+01 347W 17+01 348W I8+01 350W 20+01 351W 21+01 352W 22+01 353W 23+01 a 354W 24+0 536W 46+0' • • World Headquarters 6718 W. Plank Rd. Peoria, IL 61604 USA Ph: 309-697-4400 FAX: 309-697-5612 Industries, Inc. April 17, 2002 WFI 575 Andover Park Street, Suite 201 Tukwila, WA 98188 Attention: Mr. Jim Pribbenow Fax: 206-574-6333 Reference: 60 Ft. Model SSV Tower, Site: POR Pecan, Washington County, Oregon Dear Mr. Pribbenow: The referenced tower will be designed to meet the specified loading requirements provided to ROHN in accordance with the ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-F Standards for an 80 mph basic wind speed and a''/z inch radial ice load. In the event an extreme wind speed were to occur, a failure would not be expected to occur the instant the design wind speed was exceeded. All tower members would be designed to support a minimum of 1.25 times their design load without permanent deformation. It is our understanding that the design of the referenced tower requires consideration of a contained fall radius in the event a catastrophic wind speed were to result in a failure. Although the tower would not be designed to fail, stronger leg and brace members than required by analysis could be provided in the lower portion of the tower. This would result in an increased safety factor in the lower sections. This design would enable the tower to fail through a combination of bending and buckling in the upper portion of the tower should a catastrophic wind loading occur. Failure in this manner would result in a fall zone radius of 5'. Please contact us at your convenience should you have further questions concerning the safety of tower structures or ects of tower design. Please reference this letter with any forthcoming purchase order. 0 PROF S Sin ~y 'OGINFF~ SAO b GR;qpN in rim sistant ARA 4 Scott We (DATE: 3 File 50457JA Over 50 `ears of Service to the omrr unications Industry Jun 0;; 02 09:02a Wireless Facilities, Inc. (3) 973-5458 P-2 wov June 4, 2002 City of Tigard Brad Kilby, Planner 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Wireless Facilities, Inc. 4520 SW Water Ave. Suite E Portland, OR 97201 USA Telephone + 1 503 973 5146 Fax + 1 503 973 5458 RE: 11355 SW Tigard St., / Proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Site Mr. Kilby: Thank you for your phone call this morning. As you advised, our development will be subject to street improvements in the future (curbs and sidewalks). This issue was discussed during the pre-application. However, we were advised that our development would not trigger this requirement which is why street improvements are not reflected on the current set of architectural plans. That being said, Verizon Wireless will comply with the code requirement and install street improvements in front of 11355 SW Tigard St. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (503) 973-5146. Sincerely, Shanin Prusia Site Acquisition Specialist RECENEn PLeruN;SNIG JUN 0 4 2002 CITY OF WARD wpiv Wireless Facilities, Inc. 4520 SW Water Ave. Suite E Portland, OR 97201 USA Telephone + 1 503 973 5146 Fax + 1 503 973 5458 April 17, 2002 City of Tigard Attn: Brad Kilby, Associate Planner 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 RE: CUP 2002-00004 Verizon Wireless Tower Proposal Brad: Attached is a specification sheet from the shelter HVAC manufacturer that shows the sound pressure of the WH/WA602 unit we would propose to use. Please keep in mind that Verizon Wireless has retained -an acoustical consultant to design a noise mitigation plan as required by the City of Tigard. We are not willing to incur that design cost until an approval with conditions is granted for this development. Please feel free to call me at (503) 973-5146 with any questions. Sincerely, • Shanin Prusia Site Acquisition Specialist for Verizon Wireless i • WHIWA482 & WHMA602 Outdoor Sound Pressure 80.00 75.00 1 70.00 65.00 60.00 55.00 y y y ~ y 50.,00 k . p, 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 L I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Distance (ft) AY rmange+1- 2 d8A W N O O N A A a m 0 c m c n ~e 0 0 r 0 0 a d , ao 0 3 • • C41 ~ Y , f , { v ~ ~4 ~8~ _ TIC i ~RI~Y'OF ~1gG AQDy~ {7KE1oR1 9A ip Uo ' s O e1A, P r N, t 4'Y" i1~9 r t tas3 'k ~r, ,,,a +t' + J , sh e,~tec .,.a Ibf Y(+ 1 'f+. . • r r f rT,t, -.,.t, ( J s;(Pra_bnn~Jrfir~n ~1fiaP~fir~d=NmtPC.ara 1'alifarYkl~anftmcl NUN-KESIUENIIAL RW. MG 0E WWI bR APPLICANT: UVI Sar Vr-,R;,T► 0.^eAQ.Ss AGENT: S~am: m ' PRds;A Phone: (5a3 7 3 S i -i t, Phone:( 1 Same PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESSIGENERAL LOCATION: 1 S5 jw i ~Ctf~RD _ TAX MAP(S)/LOT #(S): iS i - LA bC - W U G G NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: CAI;C0i~l 0 tfi_ PF~tyi,Y ; Ad, y mP PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: R S CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (C.I.T.) ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18. s %e I MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 'ISm sq. ft. Average Min. lot width: SO ft. Max. building height: 30 ft. SeMacks: Front a0 ft. Side 5_ ft. Rear I :s- ft. . Comer aO ft. from street. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: - % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: [✓~NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING (Beier to the Neighborhood Meeting Nandoutl THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET AND THE APPROPRIATE CIT FACILITATOR AND THE MEMBERS OF ANY LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE(S) of their proposal. A minimum of two (2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting your application or the application will not be accepted. t 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. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 9 NON-Residential Appficafiw Planning Divisiw Section 9 . • []'NARRATIVE [Refer to Code Chapter 18.3901 The APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings based on the applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. The applicant should review the code for applicable criteria. d1MPACTST90Y [Refer to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18290.0501 As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to INCLUDE IMPACT STUDY with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. [ACCESS [Refer to Chapters 18305 and 18.7651 , Minimum number of accesses: l Minimum access width: Minimum pavement width: t0 All driveways and parking areas, except for some fleet storage parking areas, must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas: ❑ WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18305.0301 WALKWAYS SHALL EXTEND FROM THE GROUND FLOOR ENTRANCES OR FROM THE GROUND FLOOR LANDING OF STAIRS, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and. industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways should be constructed between a new development and neighboring developments. H/SPECIAL SETBACKS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7301 ➢ STREETS: _30 feet from the centerline of SW ~%'rrsRo S~ ➢ LOWER INTENSITY ZONES: - feet, along the site's boundary. ➢ FLAG LOT: 10-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. ❑ SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS [Refer to Code Section 18.730.010.BJ BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS - Buildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided that: ➢ A maximum building floor area to site area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; ➢ All actual building setbacks will be at least half of the building's height; and ➢ The structure will not abut a residential zoned district. &KRUFFERING AND SCREENING [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7451 In order TO INCREASE PRIVACY AND TO EITHER REDUCE OR ELIMINATE ADVERSE NOISE OR VISUAL IMPACTS between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may pWI be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Development Code. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 9 NON-Residential Applicationnanning Division Section • • The ESTIMATED REQUIRED BUFFER WIDTHS applicable to your proposal area are: feet along north boundary. feet along east boundary. feet along south boundary. feet along west boundary. IN ADDITION, SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: VLANDSCAPING [Refer to Code Chapters 18.745,18.765 and 18.7051 i S, '7l 9 T 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. ❑ RECYCLING [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7551 ❑ PARKING [Refer to Code Section 18.765.0401 REQUIRED parking for this type of use: Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE HAU R FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE SERVICING COMPATIBILITY. Locating a tras ecyding enclosure within a clear vision area such as at the intersection of two (2) driveways wi n a parking lot is prohibited. Much of Tigard is within Pride Disposal's Service area. Lenny H' is the contact person and can be reached at (503) 625-6177. SECONDARY USE REQUIRED parking: Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): NO MORE THAN 50% OF REQUIRED y9'PACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED AS COMPACT SPACES. 7 PARKING STALLS shall be dimension d as follows: ➢ Standard parking space dimensi s: 8 feet, 6 inches x 18 feet, 6 inches. ➢ Compact parking space dimen ons: 7 feet, 6 inches x 16 feet, 6 .inches. Note: Parking spac idth includes the width of a stripe that separates th parking space from an adjoining space. Note: A maximum of three (3) feet of the vehicle overhang area in front of a wheel stop or curb can be inclu ed as part of required parking space depth. This area cannot be included as landsca ing for meeting the minimum percentage requirements. ➢ All parking areas /shall PROVIDE APPROPRIATELY LOCATED AND DIMENSIONED DISABLED PERS PARKING spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provi , ed, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities A t (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbol shall be ainted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. ➢ BICYCLE RACKS ARE REQUIRED FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. ❑ LOADING AREA REQUIREMENTS efer to Code Section 18.765.0801 Every COMMERCIAL O NDUSTRIAL BUILDING IN EXCESS OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET shall be provided with a loadi space. The space size and location shall be as approved by the City Engineer. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Appl-iwtion Conlerence Notes Page 3 of 9 NON-Residential Applicaft0anniq Division section ❑ BICYCLE RACKS [Refer to Code Section 18.7651 BICYCLE RACKS are required FOR DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall bE convenient locations. / 0 LTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ted in areas protected from automobile traffic and in ❑ SENSITIVE LANDS [Refer to Code Chapterf8.7151 The Code provides REGULATIONS FOR LAN WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT DUE TO AREAS WI IN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND AREAS, SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT, OR ON UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will attem to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre- application conference based on avail a information. HOWEVER. the resoonsibilitv to orp-nsely Chapter 18.775 also provides r ulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPI AINS ❑ STEEP SLOPES [Refer to Code Section /achieving When STEEP SLOPES exist, pance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the andards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.775.080.C. The repoased upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendationthe requirements of Section 18.775.080.C. ❑ CLEANWATER SERVICES ICWSI BUFfEIR STANBA S [Refer to R a 0 96-MIUSA Regulations -Chapter 31 LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT T SENSITIVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a vegetated corridor for a buffer wide nough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive area. Design Criteria: The VEGETATED CORRID WIDTH is dependent on the sensitive area. The following table identifies the required widt TABLE 3.1 VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTHS SOURCE: CWS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUAL/R ESOLUTION & ORDER 96-44 NSITI .E E` _ , T D ~E T.• -'0 T V~. D Y E ED -5 - FOR IDO ::P ER ID # . _ • Streams with intermittent flow draining: <25% It 10 to <50 acres 15 feet >50 to <100 acres 25 feet Existing or created wetlands <0.5 acre 25 feet Existing or created wetlands >0.5 acre <25% 50 feet • Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow • Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres • Natural lakes and ponds Streams with intermittent flow draining: >25% ► 10 to <50 acres 30 feet >50 to <100 acres 50 feet • Existing or created wetlands >25% Variable from 50-200 feet. Measure • Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow in 25-foot increments from the starting Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres point to the top of ravine (break in Natural lakes and ponds <25% slope), add 35 feet past the top of ravine" Starting point for measurement = edge of the defined channel (bankful flow) for streamstrivers, delineated wetland boundary, delineated spring boundary, and/or average high water for lakes or ponds, whichever offers greatest resource protection. Intermittent springs, located a minimum of 15 feet within the river/stream or wetland vegetated corridor, shall not serve as a starting point for measurement. 5Vegetated corridor averaging or reduction is allowed only when the vegetated corridor is certified to be in a marginal or degraded condition. sThe vegetated corridor extends 35 feet from the top of the ravine and sets the outer boundary of the vegetated corridor. The 35 feet may be reduced to 15 feet, if a stamped geotechnical report confines slope stability shall be maintained with the reduced setback from the top of ravine. CITY OF 11GARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 9 NON-Residential Appficationnanning Division Sec4an 9 • Restrictions in the Vegetate Corridor: NO structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, except as provided for in the CWS Design and Construction Standards. 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. CWS Service Provider Letter: PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a CWS Service Provider Letter which will outline the conditions necessary to comply with the R&O 96-44 sensitive area requirements. If there are no sensitive areas, CWS must still issue a letter stating a CWS Service Provider Letter is not required. [J S16NS [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7801 SIGN PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGN.in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for Director's review. "EE REMOVAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18.790.030.0 A TREE PLAN FOR THE PLANTING, REMOVAL AND PROTECTION OF TREES prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development, or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal 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 and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: 0 Retainage of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees; # 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.; 0 Retainage of 75%a 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. fi1muT10N [Refer to Code Section 18.790.06011 REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to the following guidelines: ➢ A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. ➢ If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damages is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 9 NONAesWenfial Apprkabon"anning Moon Swfion ➢ 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: 0 The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property. ➢ The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. IN LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. [CLEAR VISION AREA [Refer to Code Chapter 18.1951 The City requires that CLEAR VISION AREAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THREE We AND EIGHT (8) FEET IN HEIGHT at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification and any existing obstructions within the clear vision area. ❑ WATER RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT [Refer to Code Section 18.797.0301. The WATER RESOURCES (WR) OVERLAY DISTRICT implements the policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and is intended to resolve conflicts between d velopment and conservation of significant wetlands, streams and riparian corridors identifie in the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory. Specifically, this chapter allows reasonabl economic use of property while establishing clear and ob'ective standards to: protect signifi a wetlands and streams; limit development in designated riparian corridors; maintain and en ance water quality; maximize flood storage capacity; preserve native plant cover; minimize strea ank erosion; maintain and enhance fish and wildlife habitats; and conserve scenic, recreati al and educational values of water resource areas. Safe Harbor: . The WR OVERLAY DISTRICT ALSO MEETS THIRE IREMENTS OF STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 5 (Natural Resources) and the "safe harborons of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 660, Division 23). These provisions require thacant" wetlands and riparian corridors be mapped and Protected. The Tualatin River, whic o a "fish-bearing stream," has an average annual flow of more than 1000 cfs. Major Streams: Streams which are mapped as "FISH-BEAR I STREAMS" by the Oregon Department of Forestry and have an average annual flow less than 1 00 cubic feet per second (cfs). ➢ Major streams in Tigard include ANNO CREEK, ASH CREEK (EXCEPT THE NORTH FORK AND OTHER TRIBUTARY REEKS) AND BALL CREEK. RAinnr Cfrn-imc• / avu99WI vua.waw. Streams which are NOT "FISH-BEA NG STREAMS" according to Oregon Department of Forestry maps . Minor streams in Tigard in ude Summer Creek, Deny Dell Creek, Red Rock Creek, North Fork of Ash Creek and certain shod tributaries of the Tualatin River. Riparian Setback /TREAMS This AREA IS MERIZONTALLY FROM AND PARALLEL TO MAJOR STREAM OR TUALATIN RIVER KS, OR THE EDGE OF AN ASSOCIATED WETLAND, whichever is reater. The riis the same as the "riparian corridor boundary" in OAR 660-23- oo~b(1)(a). ➢ The standRIVER RIPARIAN SETBACK IS 75 FEET, unless modified in accordance ter. ➢ The MAJORIPARIAN SETBACK IS 50 FEET, unless modified in accordance with this ch CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application o nference Notes Page 6 of 9 NOWRmilenfialAWcafionl raring DvWad Section • • ➢ ISOLATED WETLANDS AND MINOR STREAMS (including adjacent wetlands) have no riparian setback; however, a 25-foot "w aYer quality buffer" is required under Cleanwater Services (CWS) standards adopted and Oministered by the City of Tigard. ❑ RIPARIAN SETBACK REDUCTIONS (Refer to Code SeCion 18.797.1001 The DIRECTOR MAY APPROVE A SITE- ECIFIC REDUCTION OF THE TUALATIN RIVER OR ANY MAJOR STREAM RIPARIAN SET CK BY AS MUCH AS 50% to allow the placement of. structures or impervious surfaces othe se prohibited by this chapter, provided that equal or better protection for identified major stream r sources is ensured through streambank restoration and/or enhancement of riparian vegetation in reserved portions of the riparian setback area. TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR A RIPARIAN SETBACK REDUCTION, the applicant must demonstrate that the riparian corridor was subs ntially disturbed at the time this regulation was adopted. This determination must be bas on the Vegetation Study required by Section 18.797.100 that demonstrates all of the followI g: ➢ Native plant species rrently cover less than 80% of the on-site riparian corridor area; ➢ The tree canopy ently covers less than 50% of the on-site riparian corridor and. healthy trees have not be removed from the on-site riparian setback area for the last five years; That vegetation as not removed contrary to the provisions of Section 18.797.100 regulating removal of nativ plant species; ➢ That there will a no infringement into the 100-year floodplain; and ➢ The average lope of the riparian area is not greater than 20%. ❑ ADDITIONAL LOT [Refer to Code Secdon 18.810.0601 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 25 eet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a parti ' n must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15-foot wide access easeme . The DEPTH OF ALL L S SHALL NOT EXCEED 2Y2 TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the parcel is less than 1 Y 2t* es the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. CODE CHAPTERS 18.330 (conditional use) 18.340 (oirwws Intevetation) 18.350 (Planned DeveopmenQ 18.360 (site Deveio merit Review) 18.370 (varianceslAdjustrnents) 18.380 (Zoning Mage)d Amendments) 18.385 (Miscellaneous Peraft) 18.390 (Derision Malang ProoedureAnpact Sb*)- 18.410 (-ot Line Adiusherits) 18.620 (rgard Triangle Design 18.630 (Washington Square Regional center] 18.705 (AmesslEgrewciraeation) 18.710 (Accessory Residential units) 18.715 (Denny computations) 18.720 (Design cornpatiW4 standards) 18.725 (Environmental Perforamm 18.730 (Exceptions To Development standards) 18.740 (Hisbricoveday) 18.420 (Land Partitions) 18.430 (sumpAsions) 18.510 (Residential Zoning Districts) 18.520 (cornam al zoning Districts) 18.530 (Industrial zoning Districts) 18.742 (Home occupation PemMs) 18.745 (landscaping & sawing standards) 18.750 (Manufactured/Mobil Hans Regulations) 18.755 (Hoed solid waswRe%dng Storage) 18.760 (Nonoonfomdng situations) 18.765 (off-street Parkirglload'alg Requimnents) 18.775 peruitive Lands Review) 18.780 (signs) 18.785 (Temporary use Peraft) 18.790 (Tree ReravaQ 18.795 (visual Clearanoe Areas) 18.797 (water Resources (wR) overlay stro 18.798 wireless corrlrnunrcation Faames) 18.810 (street & uauy Improvement Standards) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 7 of 9 NON-Residential AppkAmVP1arvin9 Division Section s ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: • RCS[l~~sr 5 40 4yie Co - IoCal inn rPC~.~FS ~s . -IC fib,-oER 1,C3cpmoNS wsk\- ,n amc--) F7P S SdE v ~P.h(~ f.1o1~rC_P. Wit'N ~c~~.n~~P.n~l (3S~pd o ,P, S~DnS MAIJ In rll nnn1, GC6,1e rx,;4,-r, la ~ i-ItJpFac~C Nc~RO ~ t:.qR~ C' ; zra Co~~.~ I +1 11noc- `S+aVemeni apas1 cc(~nP.ss l {en+;cll ~;Sc~al ~r~,a~~~~ PROCEDURE Administrative Staff Review. - Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS All APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED BY Community Development Department at Tigard A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF MEMBER of the City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications Dr Without Plannina Division accentance may be The Planning Division and Engineering Department 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. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 8 of 9 NONAesidenU Appfwtio Mm(king OivWm Section a The administrative decision or public hearing will Aanning ically occur approximately 45.to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the 'public hearing A 10-day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard C i-,,, Conkir_;1 A basic flowchart which illustrates the review process is available from the Planning Division upon request. Land use applications requiring a public hearing must have notice posted on-site by the applicant no less than 10 days prior to the public hearing. 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. 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 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 City's policy is to apply those system DIRECTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS OBTAINED). PLEASE NOTE: The conference an noes cannot cover a e requirements an aspects related to site planning that should appply 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 a plicable standards or requirements. It is recommended that a prospective applicant either obtain and read- tie Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submitting an application. AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE 1S SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). PREPARED BY: JR+~o CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION - STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP. MEETING PHONE: (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 E-MAIL: (staffs first name)@ci.tigard.or.us QFwo~~ TITLE 18 (CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) INTERNET ADDRESS: ci.tigard.orus H:lpa"asterslPre-App Notes Commeraal.doc Updated: 18-Jan-2001 (Engineering section: preapp.eng) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 9 of 9 NON-Residenfial Appfica =TUnniq Division Section r ~ • the global leader IN TELECOM OUTSOURCING Conditional Use Permit Type II Adjustment 11355 SW Tigard St., Tax Map IS 134DC-00600 A Proposal Submitted to the City of Tigard April 1, 2002 Prepared for: Verizon Wireless 5430 NE 122nd Avenue Portland, OR 97230 Prepared by: Wireless Facilities, Inc. Shanin Prusia 4520 SW Water Ave. #201 E Portland, OR 97201 (503) 973-5146 9 1. PROPOSAL SUMMARY INFORMATION Applicant: Verizon Wireless 5430 NE 122°d Avenue Portland, Oregon 97230 Preparer for Applicant: Wireless Facilities, Inc. Shanin Prusia 4520 SW Water Ave. # 201E Portland, OR 97201 (503) 973-5146 mobile: (503) 720-7295 shanin.prusia@wfinet.com • Property Owner: Larry and Cindy Anderson 11355 SW Tigard St. Tigard, OR Request: A Conditional Use Permit with Type II Adjustment for a 60' lattice communications tower. Location: 11355 SW Tigard St., Tigard, OR Zoning: R4.5 i II. INTRODUCTION 40 Verizon Wireless (Verizon) is requesting a Conditional Use Permit approval from the City of Tigard to locate up to six communications antennas on a newly constructed 60 foot lattice tower. The new telecommunications site is proposed to improve wireless communications in the Service Area as technology needs increase. Currently, Verizon Wireless plans to alter two existing towers along Hwy 217 that provide service to this area that will create a gap in service and/or dropped calls. (See attached letter from RF Engineer, Tom Fergusson) The proposed installation is necessary to eliminate the gap and thereby insure quality service in the future as the number of customers in the area increases. III. GENERAL PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION The proposed site is zoned R4.5. Verizon has leased a 40' x 50' area with plans to install a 60' tower and a 12' x 28' prefabricated shelter for the base station equipment. The antenna array will consist of up to six antennas, as a combination of four foot and eight foot antennas. They will be mounted in three sectors of up to two antennas each. The highest antenna will extend above the tower by four feet to 64' and a lightning rod will be affixed to the top extending to 68'. A small GPS antenna will also be affixed to the 12ft level. A technician will visit the site typically once every thirty (30) to forty-five (45) days. There will be no discernible transportation impact to the surrounding area based on the infrequent trips generated by Verizon's maintenance personnel. This site is unoccupied and will therefore not have operating hours or deliveries. Furthermore, there will not be water or sewer service to the site. Verizon's construction schedule spans an approximate 45- to 60-day time frame. The construction schedule allows for mobilization, material delivery, poor weather conditions and other scheduling constraints. The communications equipment is pre-manufactured off-site. All staging of construction equipment will occur on the subject property in conformance with a City of Tigard building permit. IV. APPLICABLE CODE Wireless Communications Facilities Chpt 18.798 This proposed development qualifies under section 18.798.60 subject to a Conditional Use Review because it is located in a residential zone. 18.798.60 B. Review Criteria 1. b. Protection of points of visual interest: (1) The proposed site will be located within 250 of residential structures. Verizon looked at locating the site in the northwest corner of the property but would not meet the setbacks due to existing structures on the property. Additionally, multiple trees would have to be removed to develop the site in the northwest corner. All other areas of the parcel are open space and the tower would not have natural screening from trees. (2) Verizon employed the design of a tower that is as slim as possible. The tower will be a three-sided lattice tower with each side three (3) feet wide. The antennas and the tower will also be painted brown to reduce the visual impact. (3) Prior to submitting for the pre application conference, Verizon inquired with other carriers to see if any towers were proposed in the near vicinity. No responses were received to the inquiries. Additionally, the search area was reviewed for 60' structures and again found nothing of that height. Verizon prefers to collocate whenever possible. It is more economically feasible and usually preferred by the jurisdiction. However, this option is not available in this area. (4) We have selected this portion of the property because of the trees that will provide natural screening. By locating in this area, only a couple of trees will have to be removed. 2. Color: We are proposing to paint the tower a deep brown color to blend with the surrounding trees. 3. Setbacks: See Type II Adjustment Application. 4. Tower Spacing: There are no towers located in the surrounding 2000 feet. 5. Lighting: The only proposed lighting for the tower will be as determined by the FAA. 6. Fencing and Security: We are proposing a 6' chain link fence around the site. 7. Landscaping and Screening: See attached landscaping plan. 8. Noise: This site will not generate noise that exceeds the 75 dBA(day)/60 dBA (night) requirement. 18.798.080 Collocation Protocol D. Collocation request letter requirement: Please see attached sample. No responses were received. Remaining Items Not Address Per Pre-application Conference Notes: • 9 1. Neighborhood Meeting: Requirements fulfilled. See attached data. 2. Narrative: Attached above 3. Impact Study: See Attached 4. Access: We are proposing a 15' wide easement area. Only 12' wide will be graveled with the idea to preserve as much green space as possible. 5. Special Setbacks: The site will be located in excess of 30' from the centerline of SW Tigard St. 6. Buffering and Screening: See attached landscaping plan. 7. Landscaping: See attached landscaping plan. 8. Signs: The site will be posted with emergency contact information. The sign will be in compliance with the City of Tigard code. 9. Tree Removal: See attached tree mitigation plan. 10. Clear Vision Area: The removal of shrubbery will satisfy this requirement for the access road. V. Conclusion Verizon Wireless has taken all measures possible to mitigate visual impacts of this site on the surrounding residential area by locating the site in a wooded area, building around existing trees, painting the tower and antennas brown to blend with the trees. Because of the increase in demand for the technology there is a need to bring this type of development into the area. If there were collocation opportunities available or nearby commercial / industrial uses, Verizon Wireless would prefer to locate the site on those parcels. Verizon Wireless requests and approval for this development. Impact Study: The proposed development will have the following effect on public facilities and services: Transportation System: A technician will visit the site approximately once every 30 to 45 days for maintenance of the base station equipment. Because of the infrequent trips to the site, the traffic pattern for the area will not be effected. No improvement to the transportation system is needed. Bikeway System: The proposed development will not impact the current design of bike paths in the area. The site will be located on private property that does not have a bikeway system passing through it. No improvement to the bikeway system is needed. Drainage System: The access to the site will be gravel instead of asphalt. By replacing the existing grass with gravel we are not creating any impervious surfaces. The ground water absorption will remain the same, if not improved. The 40' x 50' lease area at the rear of the property will also be gravel for the same reason. Parks System: This site is located on private property, utilizing existing trees for natural screening of the tower to minimize the visual impact from local park districts. The tower will also be painted brown The proposed development will not effect the Parks System. Water System: This proposed development does not require water to the site. It will be an unmanned facility. Any additional landscaping will be hand watered for the a year as specified by the landscape plan. No irrigation is needed. No improvement to the water system is needed as it will not be utilized. Sewer System: This proposed development does not require sewer service to the site. It will be an unmanned facility and no waste will be generated. No improvement to the sewer system is needed as it will not be utilized. Noise Impact: The tower and antennas will not generate any noise. The base station equipment will be located inside a 12' x 28' shelter. This prefabricated shelter will be equipped with two HVAC units for climate control. The units will meet the requirement of the Wireless Communications code 18.798.60 B. 8. Visual Impact: We have proposed a tower that will compete with the height of the surrounding trees. As noted in the submitted site plan, we have selected a portion of the property where the most trees can be preserved and utilized as natural screening. The tower has been designed to be the smallest lattice tower possible with a three foot width for each of the three sides. The tower and antennas will also be painted a dark brown to blend in with the trees. The fence surrounding the 40'x 50' area will be chain link with green privacy slats on all. sides to reduce the visual impact from surrounding properties and from SW Tigard St. The 12' x 28' shelter will be finished in a natural light brown stucco color. All of these measures have been taken to reduce the visual impact of the site from the street and adjacent properties. Type II Adjustment This adjustment is required per the Wireless Communication section 18.798 when proposing a tower that is not setback from the property lines the height of the tower. Therefore, we are proposing a lattice tower that meets the following criteria: Chapter 18.370.020 8. Adjustments to wireless communication facilities. a. (1) The proposed location of the tower complies with the setback requirements for the underlying zone in which the property is located: The lattice tower is located 15 feet from the rear property line and 5 feet from the side property line as outlined in the R4.5 base zone requirements. (2) A structural engineer certifies that the tower is designed to collapse within itself. See attached letter from structural engineer. (3) Because of topography, vegetation, building' orientation and/or other factor, a site closer to an off-site residence will equally or better reduce the visual impacts associated with the tower upon the off-site residence. This proposed site was selected in the northeast corner of the property because of the existing trees and available ground space to place the site. Locating the tower in this corner of the parcel will minimize the visual impact to adjacent properties because it places the tower in the trees as opposed to an open area of the property. Currently there is one adjacent off site residence along the east property line. • CleanWater Services Our commitment is clear. • File Number Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site Assessment Jurisdiction -T-.C,a gQ Date Map & Tax Lot J l 1°iGC 'it_ f__00 Owner Site Address U 355 :iti 7X-812 Contact Proposed Activity S'~F^ L t lewd ~ AsToc- Address i A-i Lof sr~ ~ Phone Official use only below this line d❑ ❑ Sensitive Area Composite Map ❑ ❑ ❑ Stormwater Infrastructure maps Map # QS # Y NA Y N NA ❑ ❑ Locally adopted studies or maps ❑ ❑ ❑ Other Specify Specify Based on a review of the above information and the requirements of Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards Resolution and Order No. 00-7: ❑ Sensitive areas potentially exist on site or within 200' of the site. THE APPLICANT MUST PERFORM A SITE CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER OR STORMWATER CONNECTION PERMIT. If Sensitive Areas exist on the site or within 200 feet on adjacent properties, a Natural Resources Assessment Report may also be required. ❑ Sensitive areas do not appear to exist on site or within 200' of the site. This pre- screening site assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered on your property. NO FURTHER SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS REQUIRED. THIS FORM WILL SERVE AS AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE A STORMWATER CONNECTION RMIT. The proposed activity does not meet the definition of development. NO SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS REQUIRED. Comments: Reviewed By: fightnd.- Date: Returned to Applicant Mail_ Fax_ Counter_ 155 N First Avenue, Suite 270 • Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 Date By Phone: (503) 846-8621 9 Fax: (503) 846-3525 www. c lea nwaterservices.org Goooq ✓ 11,ursday, March 26, 2VU2 1:20 AM • Uavid Hunter (503) 992-0169 • nayid D Hunter, Consulting Arhorisz_ March 28, 2002 Project Name: Pecan - Verizon Tigard, Oregon Tree Identification, I DF 13" Poor Insects 5% lean and limbs to SW 2 DF 12" Poor Insects, crook, leaning 3 OWO 14" Fair Limbs only on W and SW 4 DF 14" Poor Disease, insects, leaning 5 OWO 18" X Fair Limbs to west/ south 6 DF 22" X Poor - Insects, diseased, lean, cracks 7 HAW 6" X Fair understory 8 DF 16" X Dead Root Disease ( Laminated Root Rot) 9 DF 20" X Fair- Diseased, poor limb growth 10 DF 26" X Dead HA ARDOUS , conks on tree I1 DF 28" X Dead UAZARDOU~S 12 Will 10" Y Poor Rotten 13 DF 25" X Fair Diseased 14 RA 9" X Poor % lean, 14" RA cut to S - hollow 15 RA 14" X Fair Near corner pin 16 RA 8" X Poor Corner, 10%+ lean 17 Will 8" X Dead 18 DF 23" Fair+ Ivy, insects 19 DF 29" X Fair- Carpenter ants 20 Will 6" Poor Clump of six stems 21 DF 21" Fair 22 DF 25" Poor Wire damage, lean toward house 23 Haw 8" Poor Lean toward house 24 Haw 6" Poor 25 Haw 9" Poor Lean to S, house/ animals 26 Will 6" Poor 27 DF 28" Fair Insects, border tree 28 CH 5" Fair 29 CH 8" Fair 30 CH 9" Fair 31 DF 21" Fair metal in tree 32 DF 19" Fair- metal in tree 33 DF 26" Fair- metal in tree 34 DF 5" X Poor near road 35 WRC 17" X Poor hollow, dead tops 36 DF 21" X Fair Diseased 37 DF 14" X Fair- Diseased 38 DF 13" X Dead. Diseased 39 DF 11" X Poor- Brown root rot conics visible 40 OA. IT, Fair+ 41 maple 11" Fair- lean p.02 DDH/02-074 14iursday, March:20, ZUUL 1:ZU AM • Uawd Hunter (SU;i) Y92-U1b9 • na .id D Hunter ,C2nsulting Arborist March 28, 2002 Project Name: Pecan - Verizon Tigard, Oregon OWO = Oregon White Oak DF - Douglas Fir RA = Red Alder OA = Oregon Ash WRC = Western Red Cedar HAW = Hawthorn Will = Willow CH = Cherry Common Name Cherry Rock Maple Douglas Fir Oregon White Oak Western Red Cedar Red Alder Willow Hawthorn Oregon Ash Scientific Name Prunus species Acer glabrtrm Pseudotsuga rneenziesd Quercus garryana Auja plicata Alms rubra Saft species Crataegus douglasii Froximcs latifolia IDBH : This is a measurement of tree diameter at breast height. A standard measurement taken at 4.5 feet above ground. Tags: Tags were placed on trees for aid in location and identification. Tags should be removed upon the completion of the project. Trees to be removed for the project have an X in the removal column in the inventory. Once approval for their removal is given, then the trees will be marked with tree paint stating their removal. Twenty trees are recommended for removal, but their canopy cover is less than 25% of the property canopy total. Condition Good : Trees rated as good are in apparent good health and appear structurally sound. No apparent problems or immediate concerns. Fair : Trees rated as fair are in a state of decline. It can be possible to remedy some of the trees' problems, but the fact is, once tree decline starts it is difficult to remove all aspects of the tree decline. Poor: Trees rated as poor are in poor health or have structural problems that make it difficult , if not impractical to save the tree. Removal is recommended. Dead : These trees are dead and may pose an immediate risk due to the extent of decay in the main trunk stem or larger branching. See hazardous. Hazardous : Trees rated as hazardous are not in good shape either structurally or health condition. Some of the hazards can be taken care of by proper pruning , if practical. p.Ui DDH/02-074 i2ursaay, Marcn zu, LUUL t:lu KM • Uawp Hunter (5u3) vvz-ulbv Dravi D. Hunter, Consulting Arbarist March 28, 2002 Project Name: Pecan - Verizon Tigard, Oregon Usually , REM VAL fS UMMMED as scion as possible to avoid injury to life or property. Trees that are in poor health usually have a low landscape value, Trees that are dead or hazardous usually have no landscape value or even a negative value. The mitigation value for these trees should also be similar value of low or none. The area on the east side of the property has many trees that are diseased/ dying and dead. The potential for tree failure on root diseased trees is high, see hazardous definition. Looking at the canopy cover that is to be removed , and the canopy cover on the property to remain, I believe that the remaining trees have a canopy cover of over 75% of the total canopy cover. In observing the property from Tigard Street to the south of the property, the majority of the tree vegetation appears to be on the eastern and north portion of the property. Beyond the property to the east and north, are also more trees that provide canopy and screening to the property. Many of the trees on the east side of the property are in an area where root rot diseases are present. Replanting of evergreen trees along the east side of the property will be difficult, unless a variety of tree that is resistant to Armillaria root rot, laminated root rot, and brown root rot. All three root rots were observed on the east side of the property. At this point, the property to the east has more trees that are evergreens that are in close proximity to provide screening of the project (15.790.030), and the property to the north also has many evergreens that provide screening. The property to the north is undeveloped at this time. The trees on the site property will provide screening to the west and south on the project. Planting of evergreen trees along the street may be an option, but the site has had other evergreens that have died and are now stumps, and these can be seen throughout the property. The Tree Protection Plan can be finalized once exact markings of where the site and development will be on the ground. Then, an accurate assessment of protection measures can be written for the trees to be protected. p.u4 DDIV02-074 Thursday, March 2U, 2002 1:20 AM Uavld Hunter {5U3) 992-0169 • MAR-27-2002 15:52A FROM:PB RSSOCIRTES PORTL.R 5032291B7e T0:50399c016`3 SYM, DESCRIPTION ,sk wESTERN RCO CEDAR I;W THUJA PLICATA` DOUGLAS FIR PSUE001SUGA 14ENZIES11- OREGON WHITE OAM 0 'QUERCUS GARRYANA' ,l k. HAWTHORN @TT CRATAEGUS OOUGLASIP WILLOW O "SAL SPECIES'' ® RED ALDER 'ALNVS RUBRA" R CHERRY Q Q PRUNUS SPECIES" OREGON ASH " 'FRAMNUS LATIROUA ROCK MAKE "ACER GLABRUM" 2 3 r d 2 M 1: a~ IL 1 `I I I t 6s;e•11 ~ . t ~ r t r r Coo" sw a r ASWAT S i ~ rsrrm 3.= taus[ ~t a ~ dtsurc _ r I ~ t 1 I f 00 J IL ~I 3.111 a~ P:1/1 I I IQ I I S.W. 1TEARD STREET - "-90-ow-ow vwm ML ro #101.4 p.US ua - 31 Lqlo Z- 'TR eg f-vop'l waal &V 57,r e - l i ` 25 t. Sal: DIi07 6 1 ONfA~itC MAP607drOf 1M4I. W dW VAQ VWV ALL 00 6" ruw f r.ll~ l`, / l L ~ g 50m ~tv on mob..". GVERALL SITE PLM L~ (Jig ~JV 7: Ws. 8 VerI70nwireless SITE NAME: PECAN ji. SITE NUMBER: PORPECAN-CV1 LATITUDE & LONGITUDE COOTmP4ATE DATA (PROVE BY WFO NAD 83 LAT - 4526'1268' N LONG -12T473320' W ELEV.- 20900 FEET (NAVD 88(96)) A/C AN. AFF ANY APPROX. ASTM BLDG. BUT. B/S CUS AN CONDRONNo ADJUSTABLE ADM FINISH RIGOR ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL APPROXIMATELY AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS BUILDING BLOCS BUILDING STANDARD CEILING IIIY MECH MR TIN. MGR Ma MSC N MA NR MAXIMUM MECHANICAL METAL MANUFACTURER MANAGER MNMUY MISCELLANEOUS NORTH NN APPIIpBIE NOT TO SCALE { d 0 ( I t ANGLE AND AT CENTER LINE NUMBER PLATE CU. CONC. CLEAR CONCRETE O.C. OPG ON CENTER OPENING CONST. CONSTRUCTION OPP OPPONE CONT. CONTINUES Co. COMPANY PL PROPERTY NNE Q 3 REVISION DBL DOLE PLYWD. PLYWOOD DAR A DIAMETER PR PL KEY NOTE . DM O ~.l NW DIMENSION PROP PROPERTY DOWN PT PRESSURE TREATED DTL DELL DETAIL DCTM REFERENCE ONG. DRAWING REOO REOURM A- 8 RM ROOM E EAST RD. ROUGH OPENING EA EACH B ELEVATION EL EIEV ELECT. ELEVATION ELECTRICAL S SCHED SOUDI _ REFERENCE E0. EOIAL SHT SHEET EOUP. EOLSPMFW Sim. SIMILAR EACH WAY SPEC. SPECGTON 700 ROOM NUMBER EX. EXISTING SO SOUARE EXT. EXTERIOR SS STAINLESS STILL SIT. STEEL FN FINISH RRUC STRUCTURAL . FLUOR FU FLUORESCENT FLOOR SUSP. SUSPENDED 17 --I SECTION REFERENCE FT. FOOT THRU THOUGH TWO TINTED ,L GA GAUGE T.O.C. TOP OF CONCRETE RFATON MARKER GLLV. GALVANIZE(D) T.O.M. TOP OF MASONRY Y GC GENERAL CONTRACTOR S 1LSE STEEL GUI GLUE EALWMTED BEAM TYP TYPICAL GRNJ GROUND Gwe GYPSUM WALL BMRD UBC UNIFORM BULDNG CODE NORQ. HORIZONTAL LL UNDERWRITES U8 HR HOUR UND UNLESS NOTED N. MOAT OTHERWISE HVAC HEATING, VENTING AND AIR CONDITIONING VERY. VERTICAL N. NCI W VERIFY IN FEED INTO INFORMATION NSUL MUTATION W WEST on. NTENN W/ WITH WOW WINDOW Lets) POUND(S) W/O WRMOUI ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS DRIVING DIRECTIONS FROM VERIZON OFFICE: Deport 5430 NE 122nd Ave, Portland, OR 97230 an NE 122nd Blvd (NE 122nd Ave] (North) 0.2 mi Turn LEFT (West) onto NE Airport Way LO mi Bear RIGHT (North) onto Romp 0.2 mil-205 South Merge onto 1-205 [East Portland Fry] 3.0 mi FMm RIGHT (South) onto 21B 0.3 mi 1-84 Walt/US-3U West Bear RIGHT (West) onto 1-84 [US-30] 5.1 rni Turn off onto Ramp 0.4 nr 1-5 South Merge onto 1-5 7A mi At 1-5 Exit 294, turn off onto Ramp 0.3 mi SR-99W Merge onto SR-99 (SW Borbur Blvd) 1.4 mi Turn LEFT (South) onto SW Main St 0.3 mi Turn RIGHT (North-West) onto SW Tigard St 1.2 rni Arrive 11355 SW Tigard S1, Tigard, OR 97223 SUMMARY Total distance: 20.8 miles Length of trip: 32 minutes DRIVING DIRECTIONS AY o ~ T SW nGARD S4 ~o N VICINITY MAP SITE NAME: PECAN LARRY M'0 CINDY ANDERSON S N noorR• 11355 S.W. TIGARD STREET PORPCCW-CVt TIGARD, OR 97223 50.7.639.5036 11355S~W. .T~IC~ARD STREET LARRY OR CINDY ANDERSON TIGARD, OR 97223 APPLICANT/ LESSEE OPERATOR. APPLICANTS REPRESENTATN_E VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS FACILITIES, INC. dba VERIZON WIRELESS CORPORATION 4520 S.W. WATER AVE. SURE 201E 5430 N.E.I22rd AVE. PORTLAND, OR 97201 PORTLAND, OR 97230 PHONE: 503.973.5146 PHONE: 503.408.3434 FAN: 503.973.5458 FAX: 503.408.3489 CONTACT: SHANIN PRIISA CONTACT: JOE NHSING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: YFRQON WEST CORP. PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN AN UNOCCUPIED COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY. THE FACILITY WILL CONSIST OF A PREFABRICATED EQUIPMENT SHELTER, (APPROX. 336 SO. FT). INSTALLED ON CONCRETE FOUNDATION BEAMS AT GRADE, AND A 60' MONOPOLE WITH ANTQIMS FOR COMMUNICATIONS. THE SHELTER WILL HOUSE RADIO, ELECTRICAL, AND POWER EQUIPMENT. PARCEL NUMBER' JURISDICTION ELECTRICAL UTILITY R0269916 CITY OF TIGARD PCE 503.7365450 IEIEPHONE Fill Try., FIRE DEPARDJENf: SCHOOL DISTRICT VERQON TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE W RESCUECITY OF TIGARD 503-666-1290 503.6121000 SITE TYPE: RAW LAND CODE INFORMATION ZONING CLASSIFICATION: R4.5 BUNTING COaPROPERTY ACREAGE: 1 ACRE PAOhCi /PLEA 40150' BURaNG AREA 336 SO. F1. CONSTRICTION TYPE: V-N a V-1 HOUR PROPOSED BUILDING IaL' TELECOMMUNICATIONS S2 EXCAVATION; A.D.A. COMPLIANCE: FACILITY S UNMANNED AND HOT FOR HUMAN 2ABATXD PROJECT SUMMARY LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROVIDED BY N.W. GEOTECH:. Beginning at the northwest corner of the John L Hicklin dmol'an Land Claim No. 54, in Section 34, Township 1 South, Range I West, of the Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, and running thence South 502.44 feet to o point; theme. South 89'41' East 378.9 feel to an iron pipe; thence South 242.0 feel to on imn pipe, sod ion pipe narking the true point of beginning of this dmript'an; Vence continuing South 259.21 feel to appoint in ft centerline of S.W. Tigard Avenue; Thence along said centerrn. South 89'51' East 190.90 feet to a point; thence North 258.45 feel to an iron pipe; thence North 89'41' West 190.90 feet to the true point of beginning. Subject lo: Statutory powers and assessments of the Unified Sewage Agency, Rights of the Public in and to that portion of the premises herein al-iled lying within the limits of S.W. Tgord Avenue. I LEGAL DESCRIPTION I PROJECT DESIGNER 208 S.W. STRAIT ST, SUITE 602 LAND SURVEYOR NORTHWEST 9120 S.W. PIONEER COURT PORTLAND, OR 97204 WILSONVILLE. OR 97070 TEL 503.229.1840 TEL 503.6821800 FAX: 503.229.1878 FAX: 503. 82.2753 CONTACT: JOIN CRAG CONTACT: TOM ONSBACH FOUNDATION ENGINEER RHON INDUSTRIES, INC. GEOTECH INVESTIGATION GEOSTANDARDS 1225 N.W. MURRAY BLVD., SINE 102 PORTLAND, OR 97229 TEL TEL 503.646.9069 FAX: FAX: 503.646.8976 CONTACT: CONTACT: BOB BURNS CONSULTANT TEAM THIS DRAWING IS COPYRIGHTED AND IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF THE OWNER. IT IS PRODUCED SOLELY FOR USE BY THE OWNER AND ITS AFFILIATES. REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THIS DRAWING AND/OR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN IT IS FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE OWNER. PROPRIETARY STATEMENT I THE FOLLOWING PARTIES HEREBY APPROVE AND ACCEPT THESE DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZE THE CONTRACTOR TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DESCRIBED HEREIN. ALL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ANY CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS THEY MAY IMPOSE. DATE APPROVALS SHEET DESCRIPTION NO. T-1 TITLE SHEET C-1 OVERALL SITE SURVEY, LEGAL DESCRIPTION, BOUNDARY MAP L-1 STREET TREE PUNTING, LEASE AREA LANDSCAPE PLAN. DETAILS A-1 SITE PUN, ENLARGED SITE PLAN A-2 WERIOR ELEVATIONS SHEET INDEX V V~Y~lwireless, VERIZON WIRELESS 5430 N.E. 122nd AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97230 PHONE: 503.408.3434 FAX: 503.408.3489 the global leader IN TELECOM OUTSOURCING Wireless Facilities, Inc. 4520 S.W. Water Ave., Suite 201E Portland, Oregon 97201 PB AMCIATBS PORTIA" 4AW1R6ffi 15050 IAN -WIIlI ® 1saa1 E2R-IW1a ®laool aR-sWrt RELEASE DATE 14NMI PRELIMINARY ZONING 1SNOVOI FINAL ZONING 20FE802 REVISED ZONING 27MAR02 REMISED ZONING REY15ONS NO. MATE A 5 COF IM16 PECAN MBER PORPECAN-CV1 JOB NUMBER N HOUSE 201292 DRAWN BY.' JC CHECKED FETE AWR65 11355 S.W. TIGARD STREET TIGARD, OR, 97223 SHEET TITLE TITLE SHEET SHEET won T-1 PLOT SCALE: ,:I • • P.O.B. 1 +5°~3"°° P.O.B. 5 89'5634'r 190. 8,1, 0+" ONO POLE ' 0 5' FROM EACH \ 6 P ROPERTY LINE Q~ 40.00' V MONO POLE f\ s0° LEASE AREA 3 S 89.56' 4" 5' FROM EACH 6°0 15. 00 PROPERTY LINE ' CENTERLINE OF L1° be f' V $ 7. 15' SEASEMENT \ c d wELC N us E+1 (~`L P\,O +y N N _oLEASE AREA 2 I ~h et N AO N S. W,- TIGARD STREET (45) v IF ~ W - W ti p ~ h 3W O 40' 0' 40' 80' 120' SLOE 1'- 40' 0 i~ 10' 0' 1 ' 20' SCALE I'- 10' 15' CENTERLINE OF 15' EASEMENT PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION I PROJECT LEGAL DESCIPTION I Lao TIT UDE & LONGITUDE I SITE DATA BeglnMp at the nartlnwest cane of the John L Nkddh donatk. Land aahn No 54, h Settiar 74, io=6041 1 South, Range I Nbst of the NRlanmette NafdAm% Rkrihpton Counts Oregon, and nanhg thence South 50244 het to o poht thence, South 6941' East 7789 feet to an iran pow thence South 2420 lest to this desorption; thence Can~tM1~ Stith 2s Inert to appdn! ht the coon ~e of SW Tigard A.6; Thence dory said anterrh4 South 8951' East 19090 het to o pant thence Nash 25845 feet to an iron p*w theme North 8941' Neat 190,90 feet to the true point of bagkmft Sub)eat to Statutory powers and ossasan-ts of the Un1Red Sewage Ag-cs RI nhh the Me Pooh SW. Tigard that Ian of the promises hreb deembed Ong of the IManef UwkVa% Nashbgton Seoottknn N, Towshb I Sou Rape NYst. L HkMh donation Land abb" No, 54 h A~m Counts Oregad and nmhg thence South 50244 Net to a Rohl thence, South 89'41' East 7789 /wt to - ion pins Mara South 242.0 Mt to an ion pins Mna South 8956:54' Easi aMp Me Toth 8re at Mal bacf d krd annpd to Larry R Mdwsam ad Cs,thk k Mdersan, boob-d and sR4 h a statutory warty deed recorded h pn kenber 840025T7 doted J muwy 20, 1984 for a ethane of 19090 kd to on kan p$w at Bee northeast caner Need end Me inn pant of fwgiwnlp of thin dssorbtim, thence South 007438' East ak»g n !!It led of add Anderson oaf for o distance of 5000 het thaw% North 895634 Neat poratd MM Me north the of said Anderson treat 6d, a dbfarce of 4000 feet to a point Mess North 001438' Nkat and padsi alth the east lero of sole AMrson bed fn a d/tonar of 5000 test to a point on Me north bar of sole Anderson bact thence South 8950'34' East ateng Ore norm of sold Anders- treat for a distance of 4a00 kart to Me bee paht of bepiwbg I c Mfy that the bNf niv of 4526'1268'N and the lagltuds of 1274777.20' ware accurate to whinier .40 feet borbontally and that the site aeration of 209 leer NAM 86(96) is accurate to within 20 /eat rwrrfa9y The pkmed sbuchrr height of 60 feet AGL wa dd be 269 Nat NAM 88(96) The hairantd datum (cwdiratas) ere h terms of North American Dahm, of 1967 (NAG 63) and ere expressed In deva minutes, and seconds (to the neaaat.hundiedth of o sxcwdk fir wrflcd datum (heights) arc In tams of North American Wrtkd Datum of 1986(96) and m determined to the nearest fool Signature: Rare of Sonya: George D cathey Oregon Ragbtratl n Number. 979 VICINITY MAP I DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENTS 0 Sw AGARD A 1500 (8th-) loot sob of fad 11ap 7:50 (non and one-Ad0 feet an each side of the fodoehg drao~Eed o-feline BegMhq at fed northwest toner of the Jaw L Nkleh donation L-d airn Na 56 h Secti on 3A 7ownslb I San64 Rape I Nksl of the RWOnetty Nerfa-, RaaMpt- Counts Oregod ale m-ip thence South 50244 ket to a pobt them South 69'41 East 3789 feet to an has pow Nana South 2420 Mt to w ion pins tows, South 895'74' East dap Me north Me of that tract of lad anw3ed to Lary R Anderson and Cywthb LL Andwsal husband end wih, h a statutory warranty deed recorded h Fee, Nuabw 64002537 dated Jouuory 20 1984 for a oWance of I9a90 Mt to on inn pine at the northeast comer thnal; thence, South 007436' East along M. east am of sold Anderson bat far o dsto ae of 5a00 Mt thence North 695634' Not pardld with die north Me of sold Anderson hoot for o distance of 1100 feat to a point mad 6d, hue a Mast- of ~23 ~ ket to 01. South norm ~4~t-ofa~ porotal In the Tigard sS&twt /be of ~t of fwmbus The sidsihsa of sold 20.00 foot ebb of lend ore to be 40a or shortened so as to ante a rMiuous 1500 foot sbb of Ord Site Nano POTPECAN-CAL We Number: Site Add*= 11755 S.W AGARD ST. afty of Tigard, Nbshbgton Cowls Oregon, 97223 Owners Nana: Lary and Cidy Anderson A.>sassars P4. Nasba.. 80269916 IL600 TTS R1W Section 34X Net Area of Undelibg Portals: 1.04 Acres Net Area of Prapof Area 900 square test Ground Elewtbn: 209 feet (NAM 88) B-cb mark A 'RC nay set near the north patter of SW Tpad Street neor the southerly profiWkn of the east one of Bee loose area Said ?R' sal pointed 125. Devotion - 18895 Basis of EiewMws• NAM 84 aly of Agora{ bran d1 A Bask 6eahgr Geodetic North by sda obnrwNan Notes 1. Latitude and longitude end grand deratkn era token at flit tents of fine srta 2 Spot dewtfaru are to the nearest at feet 7 Nagnetk declination of 17.9' eas taken ban USGS 7-1/2 minute quadrangle WiM *t. VERIZON WIRELESS 5430 NE 122nd AVE PORTLAND, OREGON, 97230 MOW- 503108.7434 FAX 5011M-M t1EGISTEAED LAND OR GEORGE 9789 IGTNEY RQMEWU DATE 12/31/03 0.w boV leader IN~ LECOM OUTSOURCING Wireless Facilities, Inc. 4520 S.W. Water Ave., Sulte E Portland, OR 97210 e pw1 eta-me pal «a .,a NNorthwest Geotech, Inc. 9120 PIONEER COURT OR 97070 6a2 800 i() 682-2753 WE OCIOM 29, 2001 1F1G016 Ha DATE 159E 11/09/01 Is. aea sM O deaVi.6 11/11/01 eaenM *wn 03/12/02 bow ern she a aesapioie Ste ALOE PEECAN %m ma TOPOGRAPHC SURVEY ,08 MftBER N FDIR meeee~.hLLnls pW111N: WC EVTTLIAOrLrr CHEM W. SIZE /OGRESS 11355 S.W. TIGARD ST. TIGARD,OREGON 97223 naT 111f9~ C- 1 0 0 EXISTING TREE TYPICAL; TO REMAIN SECTOR 11; (Q PROPOSED ANTENNAS (FUTURE) I AZIMUTH: ]101, DOWMIL7; a AZIMUTH: VERIZON WIRELESS PROJECT AREA SEE ENLARGED SITE PUN, THIS SHEET SECTOR J2; (1) PROPOSED ANTENNAS AZIMUTH; 1W, DOWNTILT; Or S 8556'347E 190.83' SECTOR }3; (1) PROPOSED ANTENNAS AZIMUTH; 2201, DOWNTIL7; a - - - - - - I 1 ,r WSINC ANTENNA LEGEND A WNWG 40'-O ~ ? j ~ ~ TEASE ARU J l f I I 4~ ' JJ 1 f-? &I 3'-a fENCE . 7'-01 101-8 t7-a 3'-f s6arER 1 1 1 EXISTING SHOP PROPERTY LINE S8S 56'N _ i EXISTING POSED 12' ..I i PARCEL R0269916 GREENHOUSE WIDE GRAVEL . X X X ACCESS DRIVE 1 LOT 600 I I . PROPOSED60' 60' ( b _ PROPOSED ROUTE { E SELF- I OF FOWFR/IELCO, V HF TOWER PAM DARK BROWN E%SRNC ASPHALT EXISTING WELL h ROUSE, TO BE PAVNC PROPOSED TOXCR i ~ EXISTING RENOrED FOUNDATION .6 °0 MUSE EXISTNG SHED, TO PROPOSED PANEL BL REMOVED I ANTENNAS PER - I X LEGEND „ 1 I I g I EXISTING TREE IYPIOA: 10 REMAIN I •+r.. . (I) PROPOSED CPS x i t pISIING b GNACE ~Y ISTIN i 15' REAR SETB1p - ANTENNA t - - LANDSCAPV $ „ ISLAND GRAVEL INSIDE FENCEDI I I EXISTING TREE i I 1~.'. I 1 TYPICAL: TO BE COMPOUND. IYP. ' REMOVED r E 10WER ~ i ~ - I I PROPOSED 40'X50 LEASE t /'r rr • , ' r L MG HTYY '~f1 I ~ ARU B A I BLACKBERRY BRUSH B NATIVE VEGRATION; TO I BE REMOVED A7 I •4) i , Iii r r~~ r r~ PROPOSED ROAD I i I X PROPOSED 15' WIDE ACCESS 1 i EASEMENT. SEE SURVEY Iii i ' / r , / I b b b A ' ' u PROPOSED CABLE r r r r ' ' y PROPOSED 6 A4 CHAN-UNX FENCE ALONG EAST PROPERTY LINE I III BRIDGE r , r ' r i r , i , 1 r' I , PROPOSED 12' ~ b IS' ONG x ' r } MANE L ASPHALT PAVED I,,.-'1 I I / ' r i.r' , r r APRON }j fY PROPOSED CHAIN-LINK FENCE AND HD GATE G1rE WITH fH GREEN PRIVACY i r X r ' i: r ~/l i J N89'57'17W_ 190.29' T T , ; i i r 1' ~ t • I ~ ~ r'~ S.1Y TIGARD SIRE -c= - - - ~r a t. l i at-~R.' t zy- a ,r y ~ W.; PROPOSED PREFABPoUIEDJ EOUIPMEM SHELTER x , r I PROPOSED UiefD' BACKWARD 1 EXISTING PCE I UTILITY POLE NO M TXFLCO WING STALE EXISTING TREE LEGEND 118724 SYM. DESCRIPTION 3 1 ROPOSED 5'-az5'-a I CONCRETE STOOP i L PROPOSED RF WARNING SONS X 2'-0' 6'- S b SHELTER a t-- f . PROPOSED 6' I RED ® UA WESTERN CEDAR H L . EKT FENCE EAAS ALONG 2U I I / \ I PROPERTY LINE DOUGLAS FIR 4 ' ' PSUEDOTSUGA MENZIESII ` a I I OREGON WHITE OAK OUERCUS GURRYANA HAWTHORN GRATAECUS DoucIASII• , / . I ly I I/ ` PROPOSED 17 WALE GATE , PROPOSED Q' I0,4, GRAVEL ACCESS I DRIVE O WILLOW SPU% SPECIES" PROPOSED ROUTE OF UNDER GROUND IW POWE R/TELCO I RED ALDER AL "RAJ ® 'AS RUBRA' I I a . Q CHERRY ' ' PRUNUS SPECIES NOTES XIINUASH ATIFOLIA' AX RR NOTE, II 1. SITE PUN A A VERIFY DIMENSIONS EMAIDN ONLY, ALL ll ® N W NOT SCALE; VERIFY' A ROCK MAPLE ACER GLABRUM' 1. PROPOSED PREFABRICATED EOUIPMENT SHELTER IS GOLD SEA'.ED By WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES y 2. VERIFY ALL PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION WITH IX61R4G SURVEY DATA. 2 TREES NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY OVERALL SrrE PLAN 1. SCALE: 1' . 30'-0' 8 ENLARGED SITE PLAN " SCALE: Y. 1'-0 20 ■ U~IT~lwireless, VERIZON WIRELESS 5430 N.E. 122nd AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97230 PHONE: 503.408.3434 FAX: 503.408.3489 the global leader IN TELECOM OUTSOURCING Wireless Facilities, Inc. 4520 S.W. Water Ave., Suite 201E Portland, Oregon 97201 PB ASSOCIATES PORTLAND 1 0 s a>m W>m. 10R a Imuo, ®r2v (50X) M-1040 ® (500) 229-ID4 RELEASE DATE 14NOV01 PRELIMINARY ZONING 15NOVO1 FINAL ZONING 20FEB02 REVISED ZONING 27MAR02 REVISED ZONING AEYEDXS ND. DATE 5 SITE NAME F=0 ECAN SITE NUMBER PORPECAN-M JOB NLIIIBEA N IDUSE 201292 DRAWN BY. JC CHECKED BY. PMB SIZE AOpzs 11355 S.W. TIGARD STREET TIGARD. OR, 97223 SHEET TITLE OVERALL SITE PLAN ENLARGED SITE PLAN SHEET NICER A-1 I:I PLOT SCALL. 0 0 PROPOSED B'-B HIGH LGHTNING ROD (3) PROPOSED VERIZON PANEL ANTENNAS 18 TOP OF LIGHTNING ROD BJ'_V (3) PROPOSED VFRIZON PANEL ANTENNAS 19 3 PROPOSED CABLE BRIDGE , 3 (3) PROPOSED FUTURES' TALL PANEL ANTENNAS TOP OF ANTENNAS 611_0' AGL P OF AMONOPOLE / ANTENNA PAD CENTER TO (3) PROPOSED FUTURE a' TALL PANEL ANTENNAS PROPOSED PREFABRICATED EGUIPMEN1 SHELTER n1NAE ANTENNA TIP HEIGHT PROPOSED 60' SELF-SUPPORT CHAIN-LINK FENCE PROPOSED . f Si-0 AGL FUTURE ANTENNA RAD CENTER * I TOWER (J ' FACE) . I 4 i 8 >i I I a. r 7 \ f• -Cr ACL 51 PROPOSED PREFABRICATED EOUIPNENT SHELTER I I /s. :r , t , K a J 1 1 / Ail / ~ I y~'U $ /.--{-P a ) l i y K / A'r A~.,N PROPOSED CABLE BRIDGE l 1 v / yy,~,, %5 PROFSED UTILITY BACKBOARD / l PROPOSED CK4N-LM FENCE A ND GTE WITH SLATS TO MATCH EXIS'NC ( I AcuD DTUNED 0'-Cr WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 'ti = v 12 SOUTH ELEVATION Z~r SGAt 'IV = -0 20 U~1 11wireless. VERIZON WIRELESS 5430 N.E. 122nd AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97230 PHONE: 503.408.3434 FAX: 503.408.3489 the global leader IN TELECOM OUTSOURCING Wireless Facilities, Inc. 4520 S.W. Water Ave., Suite 201E Portland, Oregon 97201 PB ASSOCIATES PORTIAND 1 0 NI A 6LD half NN@ E~IIIDI Ism) SY61-1140 ® Ism) GYNEiE RELEASE BATE 14NOVOI PREJIONRARY ZONING 15NWUI FOUL ZONING 20FEB02 REVISED ZONING 27WR02 REVISED ZONING RLNSp16 NO. DATE PE=CAN SITE mumBEA PORPECAN-M AOB MAIM N HOUSE DRAWN BY: JC 201292 CHECKED Erf: P MB SITE ADDRESS 11355 S.W. TIGARD STREET TIGARD, OR, 97223 SHEET 1111E EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SHEET Mumm A-2 1:1 PLOT SML.