Loading...
Hearings Officer Packet - 08/26/2006Patty Lunsford - Fwd: Longstaff Appeal Canceled Page 1 GI)k From: Gary Pagenstecher To: Lunsford, Patty Date: Monday, August 28, 2006 10:10:11 AM Subject: Fwd: Longstaff Appeal Canceled Gary Pagenstecher 08/28 10:01 AM Sue, You inquired why the appeal hearing for Longstaff has been canceled. According to ORS 227.178 the applicant has the right to seek a Writ of Mandamas with the County Circuit Court if the local jurisdiction has not made a final local decision with 120 days of application. A final decision includes any decision on appeal, in this case, by the hearings officer. The staff decision was made on June 20th, the 120-day period ended on July 6th. Your appeal was received on July 6th. The appeal date was set for August 28th. The Petition for Writ of Mandamus was received August 24th. Any decision regarding this application is now in the jurisdiction of the court. If you have any further questions please 66H me (7f8-2434). Gary Gary Pagenstecher Associate Planner City of Tigard 503-718-2434 GaryP@tigard-or.gov CC: Bewersdorff, Dick; Coffee, Tom 4 / N Gary Pagenstecher - Uancelecl Public Hearing on Lognstatt Appeal Page 1 , From: Patty Lunsford To: Sue Beilke Date: 8/24/2006 9:12:19 AM Subject: Canceled Public Hearing on Lognstaff Appeal Dear Sue, The public hearing on Monday (8/28//06) night has been canceled for the Longstaff Condominiums appeal. If you have specific questions regarding the cancellation, please contact the project planner Gary Pagenstecher. I also left a message on your home phone this morning at 9:08 regarding the cancellation so please disregard the phone message if you get this first. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, will you please confirm receipt of this notice at your earliest convenience? Sincerely, Patricia Lunsford, Planning Secretary City of Tigard, Oregon 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171, ext. 2438 patty@tigard-or.gov CC: Dick Bewersdorff; Gary Pagenstecher; Tom Coffee ~00ALDRD HEARINGS OFFICER MONDAY - AUGUST 28, 2006 - 7:00 PM Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Hearings - er meetings by noon on the Friday prior to the meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, Ext. 2438 (volt r - 27 2 (TDD - :i th Cit ill l d i l i i D i f th D f U t d T l y w so en e anguage ecommun ons ev ces or e ea pon reques , e a ea g e cat ualified b ' al ; ter reters for ersons with s eech or hearin im airments and inter t f . g p q p p p p Since these services must be scheduled with outside is ro ' I s, A p , ? t t uch lead time as possible. To request such services, please notify the Ci T' f yo 3: ) . 5: ess than one (1) week prior to the meeting date at the same phone numb li . c abov o 'k at we can - e ate arrangements. 'Q h.. , d i at the City of Tigard t Boulevard ea St i r• a available to the publi N pno o e a t date x 1. CALL TO ORDE Q 2. PUBLIC HE G 2.1 "APPEAL" OF AFF CONDOMINIUMS SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2005-00011 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2005-00021 ITEM ON APPEAL: On June 20, 2006, the Director issued a decision approving a request for Site Development to create 43 attached single-family condominium units on an approximately 5.17- acre site. Sensitive Lands Review was required for the wetlands and drainageways located on site. One appeal by Sue Bielke was received by the appeal filing deadline of July 6, 2006. The specific grounds of the appeal are set forth in the appe ant's letter, available for view at City Hall. This appeal raises issues previously raised in the apppellant's comment letter related to the appropriate review rocess useable outdoor recreation areas of the rotection of si iuficant wedands ade uac p , p , , q y g im act stud bufferin wetland delineation si nificant wedands ma in tree removal lan tree p y, g, , g pp g, , p reser ati n tre t de i nd fir fet and t rm draina e In additi n the a ellant takes n p v , s a e sa y, . , pp o e s s o o g g issue with the number o£ conditions of approval required in the Director's decision and with the adequacy of staffs responses to issues raised in comment letters. LOCATION: 10890 SW 95`h Avenue and 9365 SW Longstaff Street; WCTM 1S135AC, Tax Lots 100, 2500, 4600 and 4700. The sub)ect site is bounded by SW 95`'' Avenue and Highway 217. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate 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 permitted conditionally. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Comprehensive Plan 3.2.4; Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.360, 18.385, 18.390, 18.775, 18.790 and 18.810. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT Page 1 of 1 Q T QA R DD HEARINGS OFFICER MONDAY -AUGUST 28, 2006 - 7:00 PM Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Hearings Officer meetings by noon on the Friday prior to the meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, Ext. 2438 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments and qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. To request such services, please notify the City of Tigard of your need(s) by 5:00 p.m., no less than one (1) week prior to the meeting date at the same phone numbers listed above so that we can make the appropriate arrangements. Hearings are held in Town Hall at the City of Tigard at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Staff reports are available to the public 7 days prior to the hearing date 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 "APPEAL" OF LONGSTAFF CONDOMINIUMS SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2005-00011 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2005-00021 ITEM ON APPEAL: On June 20, 2006, the Director issued a decision approving a request for Site Development to create 43 attached single-family condominium units on an approximately 5.17- acre site. Sensitive Lands Review was required for the wetlands and drainageways located on site. One appeal by Sue Bielke was received by the appeal filing deadline of July 6, 2006. The specific grounds of the appeal are set forth in the appe ant's letter, available for view at City Hall. This appeal raises issues previously raised in the appellant's comment letter related to the appropriate review rocess rotection of si nificant wetlands useable outdoor recreati n r d f th p , p , g o a eas, a equacy o e i d b ff l li i mpact stu y, u er ng, wet and de neation, significant wetlands mapping, tree removal plan, tree reservation street desi n and fire safet and storm dr in In dditi th ll k t t p , y, g a age. a on, e appe an a es issue with the number of conditions of approval required in the Director's decision and with the adequacy of staffs responses to issues raised in comment letters. LOCATION: 10890 SW 95`h Avenue and 9365 SW Longstaff Street; WCTM 1S135AC, Tax Lots 100, 2500, 4600 and 4700. The subject site is bounded by SW 95`'' Avenue and Highway 217. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate 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 permitted conditionally. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Comprehensive Plan 3.2.4; Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.360, 18.3855 18.390, 18.775,18.790 and 18.810. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT Page 1 of 1 0 0 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.1 • COMMUNITY N~SPAPERSI 6605 SE Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 • PO Box 22109 • Portland, OR 97269 Phone: 503-684-0360 Fax: 503-620-3433 Email: legals@commnewspapers.com AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopt- I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, ed by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of proce-' depose and say that I am the Accounting dure set forth in Chapter 18.390. Testimony may be submitted in Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, writing prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of hearing only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at general circulation, published at Beaverton, in some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by state- the aforesaid county and state, as defined by ments or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that 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 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an Public Hearing Item-Longstaff Condominiums appeal based on that criterion. TT10843 A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submit- red by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are, a copy of which is hereto annexed, was available 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' published in the entire issue of said prior to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided: newspaper for at a reasonable cost. 1 Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division successive and consecutive weeks in the (staff contact: Gary Pagenstecher) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,; following issues Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 503-639-4171. August 10, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2005-00011/SENSI- TIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2005-00021 OAPPEAL OF LONGSTAFF CONDOMINIUMS ? C j J ITEM ON APPEAL: On June 20, 2006, the Director issued a; {~✓t * decision approving a request for Site Development to create 43> Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Manager) attached single-family condominium units on an approximately'- 5.17-acre site. Sensitive Lands Review was required for the wet- lands and drainageways located•on site. One appeal by Sue Bielke, was received by the appeal filing deadline of July 6, 2006. The, August 10, 2006 specific grounds of the appeal are set forth in the appellant's lettea,z available for view at City Hall. This appeal raises issues previ- ously raised in the appellant's comment letter related to the appro= priate review process, protection of significant wetlands, useable NOTA PUBLIC FOR OREGON outdoor recreation areas, adequacy of the impact study, buffering, wetland delineation, significant wetlands mapping, tree removaT My commission expires\__y1C V, plan, tree preservation, street design and fire safety, and storm drainage. In addition, the appellant takes issue with the number of conditions of approval required in the Director's decision and with the adequacy of staffs responses to iss es raised in comment let= Acct #Patricia10 093001 Lunsford ters. LOCATION: 10890 SW 95th Avenue and 9365 SW KNOM Longstaff Street; WCTM 1 S 135AC, Tax Lots 100,1500, 1500,4600 and. City of Tigard 4700. The subject site is bounded by SW 95t Avenue and 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Highway 217. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density ResiderttilAl Tigard, OR 97223 District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate°a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 squaie Size:2 x 12.25 feet. A wide range of civic ana mstttuttonat uses are atso perm}t- Amount Due $204.57 red conditionally. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: 'Remit to address above Comprehensive Plan 3.2.4; Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.360, 18.385, 18.390, 18.775, 18.790, a4d, 18.810. Publish 8/10/2006 TT10843 CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING ITEM . The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Monday August 28, 2006 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. 0 - a • »emmranv SDR2005.00011 " SLR2005.00021 LONGSTAFF r CONDOMINIUMS FT TI 141 . 0 • "TAB B" Applicant's Materials & All Correspondence Filed with Hearings Officer Prior to the Public Hearing. SUMMARY OF ATTACHMENTS Longstaff Condominiums SDR2005-0001 I /SLR2005-00021 Attachment 1: 8118/06 Memorandum from Gary Pagenstecher Attachment 2: Planning Director's Notice of Type II Decision for Longstaff Condominiums Attachment 3: Appeal Filing from Sue Beilke Attachment 4: Residents, Agencies and Other Staff Comments Attachment 5: Staff/Applicant Correspondence Relative to the Application Attachment 6: Revised Site Plan Attachment 7: Applicant's Application Submittal • • ATTACHMENT I MEMORANDUM TO: Joe Turner, City of Tigard Hearings Officer FROM: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner RE: Longstaff Condominiums (SDR2005-00011) Appeal Summary DATE: August 18, 2006 On June 20, 2006, the Director issued a decision approving a request for Site Development to create 43 attached single-family condominium units on an approximately 5.17-acre site. Although Sensitive Lands Review was required for the wetlands and drainageways located on site, a sensitive land permit was not required because the proposed development avoided impacts to wetlands. Sue Beilke filed a timely appeal with the City, received by the appeal filing deadline of July 6, 2006. The appeal requests the Hearings Officer reverse the City's decision and deny the application based on the specific grounds of the appeal set forth in the appellant's letter. This appeal raises issues previously raised in the appellant's February 22, 2006 comment letter. In general the issues raised include the appropriate review process, protection of significant wetlands, useable outdoor recreation areas, adequacy of the impact study, buffering, wetland delineation, significant wetlands mapping, tree removal plan, tree preservation, street design and fire safety, and storm drainage. In addition, the appellant takes issue with the number of conditions of approval required in the Director's decision and with the adequacy of staff's responses to issues raised in the comment letters. Staff believes that the subject decision addresses the applicable criteria with specific findings and that conditions of approval have been imposed where warranted. Staff addressed the issues raised on appeal in the applicable sections of the subject decision, as described below. In addition, the applicant submitted a letter to the file dated April 3, 2006 "Response to Public Comments", which included Exhibits A 1 through A 3 iof the applicant's proposal and narrative findings. The applicant's Response to Public addressed those issues raised in the three comment letters received by the City, including the appellant's letter. SPECIFIC ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL AND STAFF RESPONSES: A. 18.350 Planned Developments APPEAL STATEMENT: As stated in my original comments, this section of the code states that PDs are done to preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities through this procedure. Based on the existing site features (forests, significant wetlands, etc.,) this application should be submitted as a PD. Reference is made in the application which shows the words "Planned Devlop" and on page 8, under Procedure, it shows a check mark next to 8/28/2006 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 1 of 9 RE: SDR2005-0001 1/SLR2005-00021 - Longstaff Condominiums Appeal • • "Public hearing before the Planning Commission". We believe this is also proof that the applicant should be proposing their development as a planned development, as it was considered at some point but why it was not done as a PD is unclear. We therefore request of the Hearings Officer that the Decision of approval for this application be denied and the applicant resubmit an application under the Planned Development review process. STAFF RESPONSE: In this case, application for planned development review was not required but could be applicable as the appellant suggests "to preserve existing landscape features The comment relates to the Pre-application notes dated July 14, 2005, in which planned development was considered by the applicant, as well as site development review. Because the applicant's proposal preserved the natural features of the site and did not request any variances from any Tigard Development Code standards, site development review is the appropriate review process. Decision, Section V., page 7. B. Tigard's Comprehensive Plan 3.2.4 APPEAL STATEMENT: Again, we are requesting that the Hearings Officer reverse the approval of this proposed development as it does not meet the City of Tigard's Compprehensive Plan. Under this section of the Comprehensive Plan. it states that the citv shall prohibit development within areas designated as significant wetlands. A portion of the project site is currently "significant wetlands" on Tigard's wetlands ma , and hence because of this, the Decision should not be approved be denied since it proposes to develop in a portion of one of the city's mapped significant wetland. The Plan also goes on to state that developments proposed adjacent to significant wetlands need to be done under the Planned Development section of the code. Again, since this application fails to adhere to this portion of the Comprehensive Plan, we request the application be denied. In the Pre-A plication notes, on page 1 under Necessary Applications, it shows the words "Planned Devlo.p" an dpon page 8, under Procedure, it shows a check mark next to "Public hearing before the Planning Commission". We believe this is also proof that the applicant should be proposmg their development as a planned development, as it was considered at some point but why it was not done as a PD is unclear. STAFF RESPONSE: The TDC is the implementing ordinance for the Comprehensive Plan. Since the wetlands included on the City's Significant Wetlands Map are generalized as a result of the methodologies used, the TDC regwires wetland delineations for developments proposed on propperties so mapped. Where wetlands are confirmed through delineation, development is prohibited unless otherwise allowed under an ESEE analysis provided for in Section 18.775.130, Plan Amendment. The applicant's wetland delineation demonstrated that the location of the proposed development avoided any delineated wetlands. In addition, Clean Water Services (CWS) required a 50-foot buffer around the delineated wetland, ensuring that the proposed development was greater than the 25 feet stipulated in the Comprehensive Plan. Since the proposed development was not adjacent, the planned development standards are not necessarily applicable. Decision, Section VI.B., page 20. C. 18.360.7 Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas APPEAL STATEMENT: As we stated in our on final comments, all wetlands, buffer areas, etc. are to be protected according to CWS standards and regulations. The city's Decision to approve the use of these areas (17,763 sq. ft. of wetland buffer) for "useable outdoor recreation space' is not an acceptable use under CWS standards and regulations. The developer needs to find other suitable areas for outdoor recreation, and we suggest that some of the condominiums be eliminated to provide that required outdoor recreation space. Wetland buffers serve to "buffer" the negative effects of development, in this case the removal of vegetation, and construction of streets, condos, etc., from the wetland area. To allow recreation in the buffer area would eliminate the very purpose of the buffer area. Recreation, including a paved trail, creates impervious surfaces that 8/28/2006 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 2 of 9 RE: SDR2005-00011/SLR2005-00021- Longstaff Condominiums Appeal • • reduce vegetation and prevent absorption of rainfall. There are numerous examples in Tigard of recreation that has been allowed in our public open spaces and forested areas in arks. We have photos and have talked to city park employees of the problems that have resulted from recreation occurring in opens aces. This includes complete removal of ALL vegetation due to children playing in an area, riding of bikes, dirt bikes, etc., to a point where the ground becomes as hard as concrete and nothing can grow in the area. This then results in compacted soils that do not absorb rainfall, creates severe erosion problems, etc., and would result in negative impacts to water quality, which is the point of having "buffers" in the first place, that is, to protect "water quality". Allowing outdoor recreation in the buffer areas is not a compatible use when protecting water quality, as the CWS is required bylaw to do. The wetlands and buffer areas cannot be considered available for "usable outdoor recreation sj)ace" as they are sensitive areas that must be protected. The CWS letter states in the conditions section that "protection of the vegetated corridors and associated sensitive areas shall be provided bythe installation of permanent fencing andsienage between the development and the outer limits of the vegetated corndors". This requirement is a condition of the proposed project and is required in order to provide protection for the wetlands and buffers as well as to protect wildlife and water quality in this area. The applicant needs to provide other areas for outdoor recreation, and since they have failed to meet this part of the code, we therefore request that the Hearings Officer reverse the city's approval of this application. STAFF RESPONSE: The standard for shared outdoor recreation space allows for a combination of common and private space, including balconies not less than 48 square feet. Staff's analysis for this finding estimated a recreation requirement of 10,200 square feet with approximately 10,000 square feet provided in an outdoor area located at the site perimeter served by a walking trail. In addition, 2,365 squared feet in private deck area (43 units x 55 feet per unit) has been proposed or otherwise conditioned. These areas do not include the wetland or wetland buffer on the subject site and are adequate to meet the standard. Decision, Section VI.C., page 25. D. 18.390.040.e Impact Study APPEAL STATEMENT: Again, as stated in our original comments, we did not see any evidence that the impact study included an analysis of the im act that the addition of the estimated 80+ cars from the development would have on the surrounding streets/traffic including SW Greenburg road. Streets in this area are narrow and provide no sidewalks for pedestrians and having additional 80+ cars in the area would lead to a greater level of hazard which would negatively affect public safety. SW Greenb urg road is already very congested at ALL times of the day due to the overdevelopment of Tigard. Add more cars from this proposal would significantly increase number of vehicles and the number of trips made on these city streets, and we request a traffic impact study be done in order to evaluate the impacts of this project to the current traffic load on the streets in this part of Tigard. STAFF RESPONSE: Pursuant to 18.810.030.AC a traffic study is required under certain circumstances, but in no case when the expected vehicles per day (vpd) are less than 500. The proposed development is expected to generate approximately 430 vpd (43 units x 10 trips per unit). The findings in the Street and Utility of the decision address related issues of street dedication and improvements. Trafc impact fees, designed to recapture a percentage of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system, are calculated in the Decision, Section VI.E., Impact Study, page 34. 8/28/2006 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 3 of 9 RE: SDR2005-00011/SLR2005-00021- Longstaff Condominiums Appeal • • E. 18.745 Buffering APPEAL STATEMENT: As stated in our original comments, the applicant proposes to install an 8 foot pre-cast concrete or cast masonry unit screening wall along Hwy. 217 right-of-way for 650 feet from the NE corner of the site to the south. It appears that this wall may extend south into the buffer area based on our calculations done on the site plan map # 5 which shows the wall along Hwy. 217. If one inch equals 40' as depicted, the southern end of the 650 foot wall length would extend into the wetland buffer zone and this is not an allowed use under the CWS regulations and conditions stated in the C%5 Service Provider Letter, pale 2 of 4. We therefore request the application be denied based on the failure of the application to adhere to the CWS conditions for allowed uses in the wetland buffer zone. STAFF RESPONSE: The wetland buffer zone and proposed screening wall are clearly shown on the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 5). The wall remains outside of the 50-foot buffer shown on the plan. The scale of this plan is 1 inch = 50 feet, not 1 inch = 40 feet, as the appellant suggests. F..18.385.040 Miscellaneous Permits APPEAL STATEMENT: As stated in our original comments, in addition, if the applicant proposes to construct the wall in a part of the wetland buffer zone, they are required to apply for a sensitive lands permit as required under 18.385.040 of the Tigard Development Code. We saw no evidence of this to the application file nor is this section of the Development Code listed as one of the Applicable Review Criteria. STAFF RESONSE: Each of the permit Sections listed in Chapter 18.385 is also addressed separately in the Specific Development Standards of the Tigard Development Code (18.700 to 798). In practice, the Specific Development Standards chapters are the applicable standards. In this case, the Sensitive Lands Chapter 18.775.070 includes all of the standards in Section 18.385.040, in addition to other standards. G. 18.775 Sensitive Lands APPEAL STATEMENT: Again, as stated in our original comments, the applicant's wetland delineation shows that no plots were done in the areas where develo ment is proposed to occur. Plots were only done in tax lot 100, the area outside of the proposeldevelopment. Tigard's own wetlands inventory ma shows the wetland area to be much larger, containing 3.02 acres of "significant" wetlands, labeled G 12 on the cites map. In order to accurately determine the exact wetland boundaries, the applicant's wetland delineation should have also included all of the other tax lots in order to determine whether any wetlands existed in these areas. No lots were done in these tax lots. We therefore request the application be denied based on the failure- to adequately inventory the entire site to determine the wetland boundaries. The wetland delineation was conducted on June 2" and July 26 2005, a period of time when rainfall had been relatively low for the two weeks prior to the visits. The site visits at these times of the year missed the wet Winter season when the possibility of standing or surface water would have been much greater and would have more accurately indicated what the wetland hydrology conditions were like on the site. For example, the site, including the portions of the northern portion of the site, had standing water in January of this year, 2006, when heavy winter rains occur in the area. We request the delineation be done in the northern portion of the site at a time of year when surface water may be visible in order for a more accurate delineation of the site be completed, especially in light of the fact that a large portion of the property is designated "significant wetlands" on Tigard's wetlands ma .Oregon ash, a wetland tree species, is present in these tax lots according to the tree inventoryWEmette Valley Ponderosa Pine, also present in these tax lots, can occur in wetlands. The city of Tigard is planting WV Ponderosa Pine in its wetlands, for example in Fanno Creek Park south of City Hall; also, Fans of Fanno Creek has planted this tree species to the wetlands along Fanno Creek, north of SW North Dakota Street. Oregon white oak, also in these tax lots, can grow in wetlands; in the Willamette Valley, Oregon white oak is present in the wet prairie habitats, an example of this is 8/28/2006 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 4 of 9 RE: SDR2005-00011/SLR2005-00021 - Longstaff Condominiums Appeal • • at Bonita Park in Tigard or in the West Eugene wetlands at the Willow Creek Preserve. Since Oregon white oak and WV Ponderosa Pine are resent on the site and can occur in wetlands, we request the application be denied based on the failure to adequately sample the entire site. Page 9 of the tree inventory lists willow as occurring on the site (trees # 946 1 and 9462). These willows are obligate wetland species and are another indication that this northern portion of the site may contain wetlands. Again, the wetland delineation and plots should have included the entire site so that it would be more accurate. We request the application be denied based on the failure to adequately survey the entire site. The wetland delineation states that it must be reviewed and approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands in accordance with OAR 141-090-0005 through 141-090-0055. We saw no evidence of approval of the wetland delineation by DSL in the file. Further, the Decision to approve this application states that the wetland delineation has still not been approved byDSL. We therefore ask the Hearings Officer to reverse the approval of this application. "Sensitive Lands" include both wetlands and associated buffers. On page 20 of the Decision, it states that "a sensitive lands permit maybe required" if a sewer line is required to cross the wetland and buffer to serve tax lot 8400 south of the wetland. Then it goes on to state that "a sensitive lands permit is not required for the proposed development". These are conflicting statements and need to be resolved before this application can be approved. Under 18.775.090, requirements of the Statewide Planning Goal 5 are addressed in order to protect Oregon's natural resources, in this case, the unique wetlands, vegetation, and wildlife located on the site. As we stated under 18.360, the city's approval of allowing for the "outdoor recreation areas" to be placed in the buffer areas, also known as "Sensitive lands", would be in direct violation of this part of the Code, and would negatively impact water quality, vegetation, wildlife, etc. and therefore should not be allowed. We therefore request the Hearings Officer reverse the city's approval of this application. Metro Regional Government has recently adopted the Ordinances No. 05-1077C and No. 05- 1097A. These ordinances include Title 13, Nature in Neighborhoods, in order to comply with Statewide Land Use Planning Goals 5 and 6, in order to protect water quality and to ensure that fish and wildlife habitat is conserved and restored. We argue here that this development does not meet the provisions of these ordinances, as it fails to adequately protect water quality and to ensure that fish and wildlife habitat is conserved and restored. For example, as stated above, the approval of the use of the buffer areas as "outdoor recreation space" is in direct conflict and violation of these ordinances. In addition, allowing storm water runoff to be dumped directly into Ash Creek without an approved storm water facility is also in violation of these ordinances, as well as CWS standards and regulations. STAFF RESPONSE: The applicant provided a professional wetland delineation by Fishman Environmental which was sent to DSL for review and approval. On April 18, 2006, staff followed up with a call to DSL staff who explained that the proposed development, which avoids impacts to the delineated wetlands, is under a Tier II review. Tier II reviews are defined as those developments where no im acts to the resource are proposed, including no removal or fill. DSL staff explained that, generally, due to their current work load, only Tier I developments, which propose impacts to wetlands, are timely processed. The applicant's proposed sanitary sewer proposal may or may not be feasible depending on how tax lot 8400 can be served. The subject decision requires the applicant's development proposal to provide sanitary sewer service to tax lot 8400 but does not determine how it is to be served. In the event providing sanitary sewer would adversely impact wetlands, the decision requires a sensitive lands permit be obtained. 8/28/2006 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 5 of 9 RE: SDR2005-0001 1/SLR2005-00021 - Longstaff Condominiums Appeal 0 • The decision addresses outdoor recreation areas but does not include the wetland buffer areas in the calculation when determining that the proposal meets the standard. The Tigard Development Code, through implementation of the Clean Water Services (CWS) standards, protects water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. The Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places (an alliance of Washington County jurisdictions including the City of Tigard and CWS) has collaborated since 2002 to form a basin-specific habitat protection program which was approved b Metro as an implementation alternative for their Nature in Neighborhoods (NIN Program. T e Partners must adopt applicable elements of the Tualatin Basin Program within one year following the Metro Council's final decision to approve the NIN program in December 2005. The Program recommends potential code amendments to facilitate and encourage the use of habitat-friendly development practices. The program does not intend to increase development restrictions ..use of the standards would be at the option of the developer/property owner. Metro is still waiting for the Functional Plan provisions for their Nature in Neighborhoods Program to be acknowledgment by the State (LCDG~. H. 18.775.070.E Sensitive Lands APPEAL STATEMENT: As stated in myprevious comments, on Tigard's Com rehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetlands Map, the area of the entire western large lot is shown as `significant" wetlands. According to this section of the Code, a sensitive lands permit shall not be granted if the development is in a significant wetland., Even if it is determined that this part of the site is not in a significant wetland, the appplicant would still need to apply for a map amendment which is done under a Type IV proceeding and we have not seen that proposed for this application. We therefore ask that the application be denied based on this information. STAFF RESPONSE: Pursuant to TDC 18.775.050.B, "precise boundaries [of wetlands] mayvary from those shown on wetland maps; specific delineation of wetland boundaries may be necessary [and] delineation will be done by a qualified professional This provision acknowledges that Tigard's significant wetlands inventory may include lands that are not actually wetlands if determined not to be by wetland delineation. Hence the Goal 5 safe harbor standard in TDC 18.775.130, which requires a Type IV Council hearing and decision, does not necessarily apply to all lands shown generally as mapped as significant. The safer harbor standard is meant to apply onlyto those lands that are actually wetlands, as delineated. The purpose of a Type IV Council review is to apply a high level of discretion through an evaluation of an ESEE analysis that weighs the value o the significant wetland resource against other community values. The ESEE analysis would be irrelevant if the mapped lands were not actually wetlands. Decision, VI.B., Page 20. 1. 18.790.030 Tree Removal APPEAL STATEMENT: As stated previously, there are 470 trees on site, of which 106 trees are greater than 12". Page 3 of the Tree Inventory states 16 trees greater than 12" will be removed. Then in another part of the application, it states 20 trees greater than 12" will be removed. These are two conflicting statements and this needs to be addressed so citizens know what is correct in order to adequately comment on the tree removal part of the proposal. The tree removal/preservation map may also need to be revised based on what is correct. STAFF RESPONSE: The findings in the decision state that "the arborist report shows a total of 125 non-hazardous or diseased trees (:including 3 trees in the 95' Avenue right-of-wa~ greater than 12 inches of which 106 (84%) are to be retained." The three trees located in the rig t-of-wa may explain the difference the number of trees accounted for in the arborist report Staff includes all trees proposed for removal, including those in the right-of-way. Decision, Section WB., page 21. 8/28/2006 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 6 of 9 RE: SDR2005-00011/SLR2005-00021- Longstaff Condominiums Appeal 0 0 j. 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention APPEAL STATEMENT: As stated in our original comments, Willamette Valley Ponderosa Pine are genetically different from Ponderosa Pine on the east side of the Cascade Mountains, and as such are unique to the Willamette Valley. There are very few stands left in the Portland area, and the one on this site, mixed with other mature Oregon ash and oak, is a unique and outstanding feature of this area. As the applicant notes, some trees in this stand are over 40" d.b.h. The uniqueness and the size of some of the trees in this stand require that more trees be preserved in the northern and west sections of the site than is presently done in this application. This art of the code provides for incentives to retain existing trees on the site, for example, lot width anldepth could be altered to save more trees in this area. Sidewalks and planter strips can be narrowed, curved, etc. in order to save some of these unique trees (see also provisions under 18.810.070 which states that planter strips do NOT have to be required if there are significant natural features such as large trees that would be destroyed if the sidewalk was located where required). An example of this is the development on North Dakota street just west of SW 115th where two verylar~e Ponderosa Pine trees were saved by narrowing or eliminating the planter strip and curving the sidewalk. This may have been an Alpha Engineering development? We believe a greater effort to save more trees in this area is warranted in this case because the unique stand of pines and oaks: Tigard's tree code states that trees on a given site must be preserved to the greatest extent possible, and this has not been done. We therefore ask that the Hearings Officer reverse the approval of the city's Decision for failure to protect at least some of these unique and marvelous trees on the site. STAFF RESPONSE: Pursuant to TDC 18.790.040, Incentives for Tree Retention, the Director may apply one or more of five incentives, only one of which, density bonus, applies to the proposed development. Up to 8.8 additional units would be allowed (max 20% bonus of 44 units maximum allowed in the R 12 zone), provided 40% of canopy cover could be retained with trees over 12 inches in caliper. Staff did not apply the tree retention standard to the proposed development because it was clear the applicant had made an effort to retain trees on the developed portion of the site and any additional units would likely require removal of more trees than otherwise proposed. Pursuant to TDC 18.745.030, existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible by providing methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and 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 individual trees). The applicant's Existing Conditions and Tree Preservation plan (Sheet 2) show existing trees, trees to be removed, trees to remain, and protection fencing for those trees to remain. The methods for protection are further elaborated in the arborist report and in the conditions of approval. Decision, Section VI.B., page 22. K. 18.810 Street & Utili Improvement Standards APPEAL STATEMENT: The width of private streets in the application is 24 feet as stated on page 11 of the Decision. Page 36 of the Decision states that "roads 26 feet wide or less shall be posted on both sides as a fire lane." "Signs shall read "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE... This condition is not enforceable and thus this Decision forapproval should be reversed. As we stated in our comments dated 2/22/06, we have seen evidence of-violations of the "No Parking" in several new developments in Tigard, and if cars are parked on both sides of the street, it would prevent fire trucks from accessing the area. For example, the Cascade subdivision off Tigard Street has "No Parking" posted on the west side of the street. Cars regularly (daily) ark on the No Parking side. (We have pictures of cars parked on both sides of the street within the past two years.) In addition, cars also re arlypark on the other side of the street, which creates a very serious health and safety risk, since it would prevent fire trucks from getting through. This condition is NOT enforceable by the city of Tigard and therefore cannot be met by-this proposed development. I therefore request the Hearings Officer reverse the city's decision to approve this application. 8/28/2006 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 7 of 9 RE: SDR2005-00011/SLR2005-00021 - Longstaff Condominiums Appeal 0 STAFF RESPONSE: The City requires that the developer meet the conditions of the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVFR) Comment Letter for the proposed development. The City generally does not provide enforcement on private property, such as the subject "A Street", unless there is a hazard to people. The City of Tigard police department would, however, respond to a complaint by TVFR, in case of emergency. TVFR also has the authority to enforce and can be contacted. L. 18.810.100.C Stonn Drainage APPEAL STATEMENT: As stated reviously, there is a great deal of concern in the neighborhood over drainage in the area due to the proposed development. Neighbors already complain of water in subbasements and in their drainage ditches under current conditions. This project proposal may contribute to the problem since it appears their drainage calculations assume a 5.03 acre drainage area, when in fact, assessing the topography of the area, it appears that 10-15 acres drain downhill to the proposed development. The Tigard Development Code requires that a drainage facility "shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from the entire upstream drainage area whether inside or outside the development." The application fails to comply with the current standards for storm drainage design and construction (Design and Construction Standards 04-09). Based on this information, we request the Hearings Officer reverse the city's approval of this application since it fails to adequately address the drainage issues on the site. STAFF RESPONSE: The applicant submitted additional storm water analysis on April 4, 2006, including a Drainageway Exhibit showing upstream drainageways. The decision requires the appli cant's engineer to coordinate the design and construction of the public storm sewer in 95th Avenue and the discharge into Ash Creek with the engineers for the Livingston Lane Subdivision. It further requires the plans be revised to provide a Stormwater Management vault, pond or swale and the final design plans and calculations for the proposed private water quality facility to be submitted to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) as a part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans. Decision, Section VI.D., pages 30/33. M. Conditions of Approval & Code Requirements APPEAL STATEMENT: We also request that the Hearings Officer reverse the city's Decision to approve this application based on the exorbitant number of conditions placed on the ap lication, namely 43 by our account, and that some of these, as we described above, cannot be erorced and thus cannot be met by the applicant in order to ensure the safety and well being of the current citizens of this community. In addition, there are numerous code requirements that have not been met as stated in the Decision. Two examples are on pages 14 and 15, where it stated that the requirements for buffering and screening and service facilities have not been met. When this occurs, the application should be denied until the applicant shows they have met the requirements and so that citizens can also see the code requirements are being met. In this case they have not been met, and thus we request the Hearings Officer reverse the city's Decision to approve this application. STAFF RESPONSE: The number of conditions of approval of any decision is immaterial to the validity of a decision. The appellant broadly asserts that there are numerous code requirements that have not been met, but offers only two examples. The examples are instances where staff finds the standards have not been met and then requires the applicant to meet conditions of approval so that they can be met. The use of conditions of approval to meet standards is typical of any land use decision. Decision VI.B., pages 14 and 15. 8/28/2006 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 8 of 9 RE: SDR2005-00011/SLR2005-00021 - Longstaff Condominiums Appeal N. Failure to address citizen's comments APPEAL STATEMENT: I and two other citizens of Tigard provided comments on this application. The city has failed to adequately address our comments in their Decision, and thus we request that the Hearings Officer reverse the cites appproval of this application. The failure to address our comments denies citizens their ri ht to be adequately informed about city issues and developments and to participate in these developments and issues in an equal and fair manner. The "Response" noted on page 7 of the Decision is not adequate in addressing our comments for it sirplyrefers to a letter in the file date Apri13, 2006. This information must be in the Decision and so that I and others can adequately review the Decision. The Decision does on to state that staff has addressed these issues in the applicable sections of this decision, yet I fund little to no evidence of that in this Decision. STAFF RESPONSE: As discussed in the staff responses above, staff adequately addressed the issues raised in the appellant's comment letter within the body of the decision. 0. Filing Fee: Attached is my check for $ 250. APPEAL STATEMENT: I am, however, requesting this fee be refunded to me as most of my comments submitted on February 22, 2006, were not addressed in the Decision issued by the City of Tigard, and it is unfair for citizens to be made to appeal a decision and paya fee when their comments and concerns have not been adequately addressed by the city and the decision maker during the original comment period. STAFF RESPONSE: As discussed in the staff responses above, staff adequately addressed the issues raised in the appellant's comment letter within the body of the decision, making the requested fee refund moot. In Summary, staff believes that the issues raised on appeal have no merit and requests that the Hearings Officer uphold the Director's Decision. In addition, the applicant will be responding separately to the issues raised. NOTE: For all references, please see the File for Longstaff Condominiums (SDR)2005-00011. 8/28/2006 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 9 of 9 RE: SDR2005-0001 1/SLR2005-00021 - Longstaff Condominiums Appeal • ATTACHMENT 2 SEC'T'ION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: LONGSTAFF CONDOMINIUMS CASE NOS.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR2005-00011 Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) SLR2005-00021 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval for a proposed 43-unit attached residential condominium project m.e~ght (8) buildings. .The property is 5.17 acres _in size. Sensitive Lands Review is required due to the sensitive resources on site, the proposal avoids the wetlands and drainage areas and impacts only approximately d b ill b y a e serve 52°` of the site. The project fronts on SW 95th Avenue and w private street. APPLICANT: Palmer & Associates OWNER: David Abrams 9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 230 PO Box 19087 Portland, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97280 OWNER'S REP.: Alpha Community Development 9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 LOCATION: 10890 SW 95h Avenue and 9365 SW Longstaff Street; WCIIVI 1S135AC, Tax Lots 102, 2500, 4600 and 4700. The subject site is located on property bounded by SW 95 Avenue and Hwy. 217. ZONE: R-12 Medium Density . Residential. The R 12 zoning district is designed to accommodate 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 permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard` Community. Development: Director's designee has APPROVED the request for Site Development subject .to the, following conditions of .approval:` The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are rioted in Section VII: NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF CONDOMINIUMS PAGE 1 OF 38 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF SITE PERNIITSt The applicant shall preare a cover letter an submit it, along with anyy~ su~pppporting documents and/or lans that adpdress the following requirements to the CURRANT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-639171, EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 1.. Prior to issuance of site permits, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing a 10-foot side yard setback from the property line abutting Highway 217 to the eastern most unit. 2. Prior to the issuance of site permits, the applicant shall submit a letter from Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) .demonstrating that the Z7niform Fire Code standards as contained in TVF&R's comment letter have been met. 3. Prior to the issuance of site permits, the applicant shall revise their landscape plan to include street trees as approved by the City Forester at the proper spacing along A Street in accordance with Section 19.745.040.0 4. Prior to the issuance of site permits the applicant shall revise their landscape plan to include a 4-foot hedge along the subject site's boundarywlth Tax Lot 1700, consistent with the standards in 18.745.2. 5. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit revised site plans that show two (2) ADA compliant spaces. 6. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit revised site plans that show three (3) additional bicycle-parking spaces located at the guest parking areas and a detail of the bike rack to be used. 7. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing wheel stops in proposed parking spaces. 8. Prior to any site work the applicant shall install all proposed tree protection fencing. The fencing shall be inspected and approved by the City Forester prior to commen any site work The tree protection fencing shall remain in place through the duration of all 67 the building construction phases, until the Certificate of Occupancy has been approved. 9. Prior to any Certificates of Occu an,( the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the _ity Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone ('IPZ) fencing installation, through the building construction phases, as he monitors the construction. activities and progress. This inspection wM be to evaluate the tree protection f enc' , determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. These reports must be provided to the City Forester until the time of the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy. The reports shall include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fen If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was move and shall certify that the constriction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long- term health an stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan are not being followed by the contractor or a sub- contractor, the Katy can sto work on the project until an inspection can be done by the a aty Forester and the Project Arbonst. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the Project Arborist will submit a final certification indicating the elements of the Tree Protection Plan were followed and that all remaining trees on the site are healthy, stable and viable in their modified growing environment. ~t- NOTICE OF= II DEQSION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF GDNDOMINn MS PAGE 2 OF 38 10. The following text shall be included in all construction documents: Notwithstanding an y other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of the tree removal chapter (including but not limited to removal or damage to trees not approved for removal) shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 pursuan t to Chapter 1.16 of the Tiga~~nd Municipal Code and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: A. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 18.790.060 (D)of the Tigard Development Code• and B. Payment of an additional civil ppena~ty re resenting the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as detemiinedpusing the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. Only those trees authorized for removal by the Cit/s Casefile No. SDR2005-00011, and any trees that are exempt may be removed by the ap li can t. If in the process of constructing improvements, it is found that removal of a tree designatedorpreservation must occur, the applicant will be subject to mitigation for 100% of the caliper inches of that tree. Any trees damaged or removed without prior City authorization will constitute a violation. The applicant shall repare a cover letter and submit it, along with any su porting documents and/or pplans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ATTN:.I~M MCMILLAN 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the-required information is found: 11. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement (Pq permit is required for this project to cover half-street improvements and an other work in the public nght-of--way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineenng Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any dra required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to pp)ic unprovemen~blic Facility Improvement (PFI) . ppermit plans shall conform to City of TigardPublic Improveme nt Design Standards, which are availa le at City Hall and the Gay's web page (wwwtigard-or.Coy). 12. 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, LLQ 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. 13. 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. 14. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit a suite layout rna to Bethan le Stewart, Engineering Department. If the applicant is not sure how many suites will be used, y must estimate a number. The City will then assign suite numbers and the address fee will then be calculated The fee must be aid.by the applicant prior to issuance of the site permit. (STAFF CONTACT: BethanyStewart,Tngineerii*. 15. The applicant shall provide signage at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served by the given driveway or street. 16. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the fron e of 95`~ Avenue to increase the right-of-way to 27 feet from the centerline. The descri tiontsiall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on CAty forms.. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. NOTICE OF TYPE II DEQSION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF OONDOMr IILMS PAGE 3 OF 38 • 1 • 17. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the End' eering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit which indicate that they will. construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of 95' Avenue. WI improvements adjacent to this site shall include: . A. City standard pavement section for a Neighborhood Route from curb to centerline equal to 16 feet, but in no case shall the total pavement width be less than 24 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 5 foot planter strip; F. street trees. in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; G. street stppng• H streetlight la~o~ ut by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer, I. underground .utilities; street signs (if ap li vable driveway apron if applicable); and L. adjustments in vemcal anor horizontal alignment to construct SW 95`h Avenue in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 18. A profile of 95'h Avenue shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 19. The applicant's construction drawings shall show that the proposed public pedestrian access from the development frontage to the Tri Nlet bus stop will be a minimum 4 foot concrete sidewalk 20. The applicant shall provide connection of proposed buildings to the public sanitary sewerage system A connection permit is required to connect to the existing public sanitary sewer system 21. The appplicant shall provide a 15 foot public sewer easement at the south westerly property boundary. The public sarutarysewer shall be extended to the north side of the wetland buffer, termwating with a manhole. 22. The applicant. shall obtain approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connection prior to issuance of the City's Public FacilityImprovement permit. 23. The applicant's enineer shall coordinate that design and construction of the public storm sewer in 95 Avenue and the- discharge into Ash Creek with the engineers for the Livingston Lane Subdivision. 24. Ft esign plans and calculations for the pro osed private waterg facilityshall be submitted to tgineeru Department (Kim rn~ as a part of the P~Facility Improvement (PFI) plans. Th e plans shall be revised to provide a Stormwater Management vault, pond or Swale. 1 he Stormwater Management manhole w~l not be allowed, 25. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning ManuaL February 2003 edition." 26. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.74Q and the Federal Clean Water Act. 27. ' The applicant's engineer shall submit a tree removal plan to meet s* distan ce requirements to the north. Any trees removed pursuant to the tree removal plan shall comply with the standards of Section 18.790.050 for tree removal on sensitive lands, including submittal of tree removal permits. NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF GONDOhfiIUMS PAGE 4 OF 38 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF T 1 he applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with an su orting documents and/or Tans that a6dress the following requirements to the ~T PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-639-4171, EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 28. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a 'site plan illustrating the locations of all service facilities and demonstrate compliance witli the screening standards of Chapter 18.745 of the Tigard Development Code ('I'DC). 29. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit verification from the franchise waste hauler indicating that the Iocation of the proposed trash enclosures meets their requirements. 30. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit for review and ap roval, copies of CC&R or deed language restricting parking on the internal street or in front of units (to be specified) with less than 18.5 feet of setback distance from the internal driveway. The lan guage shall also note that parking in violation of this restriction is considered a violation of the land use approval subject to civil court citation, in addition to any other remedies provided by law. No parking signs shall also be posted on both sides of the internal driveway. 31. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall sign a copy of the Qr/s sign compliance agreement. . 32. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plan drawings in . catin the location of the trees that were preserved on the lot during site development, location otree protection fencing, and a signature of approval from the project arborist regarding the placement and construction techniques to be employed in budding the structures. All pro osed protection fencing shall be installed and inspected prior to commencing construction. Re fencing shall remain in place through the duration of alrof the building construction phases, until the Certificate of Occupancy, has been approved. After approval from the City Forester, the tree protection measures maybe removed. 33. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit revised plan and elevation drawings of the proposed units consistent with exterior elevation standards of Section 18.360.090.A.3.a. 34. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate in a revised site plan that the remaining four units will also be provided with private outdoor area consistent with Section 183O.A.6.a. 35. Prior to issuance. of buildingg permits, the applicant shall submit alighting plan addressing the requirements of Section 18.360.090.A.10.e. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPE CTION.. The app shall prepare a cover letter an submit it, along with ansu ortin documents and/or lans that address the following requirements to the . - NT KANNING DIVISIO , ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-639171, EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 36. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the proosed improvements in substantial conformance with the final approved plans. A member of the' planning division shall conduct a walkthrough of the site to ensure that this condition is met. 37. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall submit.a letter from Clean Water Services indicating that the conditions of their service provider letter have been satisfied. NOTICE OF TYPE II DEQSION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF OONDOMINrL MS PAGE 5 OF 38 38. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant/owner shall record a deed restriction and include in the CC&rR's language to the effect that any existing tree greater than 12" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction ma be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The applicant shall repare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or pplans that ad&ss the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ATTN: ISM MCMILLAN 503-639-417-1, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 39. Prior to a final building inspection, the appplicant shall complete the. required public improvements obtain conditional acceptance.from the Cary, and provide a one-year maintenance assurance for sale improvements. 40. Prior to a final building insppection, the appplicant shall provide the City with as-built drat s of the public improvements as foIlows: 1) 3 mnlmylar, 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 appli cant'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). 41. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 95Avenue underground as apart of this project, or they shall pay the fee in lieu of undergroun~Ybe The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and $35.00 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $4,130.00 and it shall be paid prior to prior to final building inspection. 42. Prior to a final building inspection, the apppplicant shall demonstrate that thZ: have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater ga-pagemen or another company demonstrates they can meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer, for the proposed onsite storm water treatment facility. 43. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant's engineer shall submit a final sight distance certification for the access onto 95 Avenue. THIS APPROVAL SHALL. BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (18)' MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site FEsto The subject propertyis part of the o ' ' Ashbrook Farm as indicated on the Counts tax map. Staff conducted a search of City records fort5e ubject property and found that no land use cases were associated with the subject property. The pro perty was developed with a single-family residence prior to its incorporation into the City of Tigard. A Bureau of Build's demolition permit was issued for removal of the 800 square foot d~lluig on Tax lot 2500 in August of 000. The site currently contains two small sheds on Tax Lot 2500 and 4600, both proposed for removal Vicinity Information: The site is ocate east of SW 95h Avenue, south of Shady Lane, and north of Lon gstaff Street. The majority of the site's northeast boundary abuts the Highway 217 right-of-way. The entire site is zoned R 12. The site's southern boundary along Tax Lot 4600 abuts R-4.5 zoned land. Site Information and Proposal Description: 'Ihe site slopes o from its sou ern boundary from an elevation of 174 feet to the wetland area, which ranges from 171 to 168 feet near !Yhway 2 The s ite then crests at approximately 171 feet in the center of the site, before sloping graddown toward SW 95th Avenue at an elevation of 168 feet. Average slopes range from less than 5% near the south side of the wetland to less than 1% elsewhere. The site is a mix of open space and forested areas with. ash and pine trees predominant. A 1.43 acre wetland and buffer covers the site's southern flank. NOTICE OF TYPE II DEMON SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF CONDOMESUUMS PAGE 6 OF 38 • • The proposed eight block 43-unit condominium development is laid out on the irregular shaped site south of the proposed access Street A and entirely outside of the wetland and buffer areas. SECTION IV. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS The Trg and Community Development Code requires that property owners within 500 feet of the subject site be notified of the proposal, andbe given an opportunity for written comments and/Or oral testimony prior to a decision being made. In addition, staff has posted a notice at the driveway to the site, visible from the street. Staff received three written comment letters from interested citizens. Sue. Bielke, Pat Whiting, and John Frewing submitted comment letters within the comment period which raise . a number of issues, including appropriate . type. of review, adequacy of the a pli cant's s materials, sensitive lands, tree preservation, streets, sewer, storm &Lnage, buffering, and transit improvements. RESPONSE: The applicant submitted a letter to the file dated April 3, 2006 "Response to Public Comments", addressL~3 e issues raised in the three comment letters, which included Exhibits A 1 through in support of the applicant's proposal and narrative findings. Additionally, staff has ssed these issues in the applicable sections of this decision. SECTION V. DECISION MAMNG PROCEDURES, PERMITS AND USE Use Classification: Section 18.130.020 Lists the Use Categories. The applicant is se appproval to construct 43-condominium units in 8 buildings Attached dwelling units and multi famulystyleveIopment are outright permitted uses in the R-12 zoning classification. Summa Land Use Permits: Chapter 18.310 Defines the decision-making type to w 'c the land-use application is assigned. The a plication is subject to Site Developpment Review for the proposed use. No new lots are proposed. No Planned development is proposed Site Development Review is an administrative Type" II reviewyrocess. Although some sensitive land reviews must be reviewed under Type III (Bearings Officer) and Type IV (Planning Commission and City Council hearings) processes, the following review will show these processes are not applicable. Decision Makin Procedures: Chapter 18.390 Descries the decision-ma ' g procedures. kaZon procedures ay to qua si judicial pe s provide pc notice d are aappppeals a Dctor's Te II degs Officer.54; NOTICE OF TYPE u DECISION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF ODNDOMINILMS PAGE 7 OF 38 W SECTION VI. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections: A. Zoning Districts 18.510 Residential Zoning Districts B. Applicable Development Code Standards 18.705 Access Egress and Circulation 18.715 Density Computations 18.720 Design Compatibility Standards 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards 18.745 Landscaping and Screening 18.755 Mixed Solid-Waste and Recyclable Storage 18.765 Off-Street parking and loading requirements 18.775 Sensitive Lands 18.780 Signs 18.790 Tree Removal 18.795 Visual Clearance C. Specific SDR Approval Criteria 18.360 . D. Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810 E. Decision Making Procedures 18.390 Impact Study SECTION VII. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS A. ZONIING DISTRICTS Residential Zoning District: Section 18.510.020 Lists the description of the Residential Zoning Districts. The site is located in the R-12 zoning district. The proposed use, condominiums, is outright permitted in the zone. Condominiums area type of multi f amdy development. Development Standards: Section" ection 18.510.050 States that Development standards in Residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2 below: TABLE 18.510.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES STANDARD K-12 ..PROPOSED..' Minimum Lot Size h d i MFDU S i 3,142 S.F. per unit b d l l - Detac e un t . 3,050 .F. per un t ase on net bui dab e - Boarding, lodging, rooming house area Average of Vridth None NA Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 20 ft 20 ft - Side facing street on corner & through lots 20 ft 20 ft - Side yard 10 ft 10 ft - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district 30 ft 200 ft. - Rear yard 20 ft 20 ft. - Distance between front of garage & property line abutting a public or private street 20 ft NA Maximum ei t 35 34 Maximum Site Coverage 1 80% 48% Minimum Landscape Requirement 126% 1 52% [1] Includes all buildings and impervious area NOTIc E OF TYPE H DEQSION SDR2005-0001YLONGSTAFF OONDONffNR MS PAGE 8 OF 38 • • Since no individual lots will be created in this'multi family condominium development, lot size and width do not apply, except in determining density. It should be noted that the interior access drive is considered a driveway, and not a private street as defined by the development code. As such, the approaches to the individual units need not be spaced 20 feet from the drivewa they are only subject to a 20 f6ot setback from SW 95 h Avenue. No units receive access directly from SW 95 Avenue. Nevertheless, many of the units provide insufficient distance in front of the garage to park vehicles without encroaching into the internal driveway. This issue is addressed further in Section 18.765 below. The setbacks from the properly line for the eight buildings are met except for the side yard setback for the eastern most unit adjacent to Highway 217 as shown on e applicant's site plan. The setback ranges from 5 feet at the front end of the unit to 12 feet at the back end The standard requires a 10-foot setback for multi-family dwelling units. Therefore, this standard is not met. The applicant's narrative states and the elevation dra show that the proposed height of the buildings at 34 feet will be less than the maximum height allowed ~e zone. Due to the significant wetland and wetland buffer on site, the 48% site coverage is substantially below the maximum coverage of 80% allowed in the zone. Based on the analysis above, the underlying zone's development standards are met: FINDING: Based on the foreggoing analysis, not all of the development standards in the R 12 zone have been met. With the following condition of approval the standards may be met. CONDITION The applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing a 10.foot side yard setback from the property line abutting Highway 217 to the eastern most unit. B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS The Site development Review approval standards require that a development proposal be found to be consistent with specific development standards of the Community Development Code. The applicable standards in this case include Chapters 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.-795, and 18.810. The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections. Access Egress and Circulation (18.705): Requirewa ay location. ate pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: L 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; This is neither a commercial, institutional, and industrial use, therefore this standard is not applicable. 2. Within all attached housing (except two-family dwellinggs) and multi-family developments, each residential dwelling shall be connected by walkway to the vehicular parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities; The applicant's revised site plan (Sheet 5, received May 10, 2005) includes a sidewalk north of A Street connecting SW 95`h Avenue with the turnaround at the terminus of A Street. Each residential dwelling is located south of A Street and is connected by a walkway to the internal sidewalk system, parking areas, and common open spaces, consistent with this standard. 3. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways. or parking~lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required wakways 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 pemiitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appro priate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkwa s shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; NOTICE OF TYPE a DECISION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF CONDOMRgL MS PAGE 9 OF 38 The applicant has proposed a complete internal sidewalk system as described in the finding above. Where the walkways cross Street "A" they are marked by contrasting materials (concrete in an asphalt drive). The walkways are a minimum of four feet, consistent with this standard. 4. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. The pro posed walkway is concrete. The- appplicant has shown that the interior driveway will be lit with pole mounted. lights as shown on Sheet 5. The applicant has not proposed any soft-surfaced pathways. This standard has been met. Minimum access requirements for residential use: Section18.705.030H. Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight _ distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHO. The applicant's engineer has submitted the prelinunary sl'ght distance certification for this development. The speed lin it on 95 Avenue is 25 mph which requires 25Q feet of s~'ght distance in both directions. Required stopping sight distance is 155 feet. The applicant's engineer states that s~'ght distance to the south meets the reguu-e 250 feet. The sight distance to the north is approximately 205 feet, which does not meet this criterion. The engineer further states that sight distance can be improved to the north by removing trees in the creek corridor. The City Engineer requires that sight distance requirements be met for safety and that stopping sight distance is deferred to only in unusual circumstances. Therefore, the applicant shall remove the trees In the creek corridor; with proper approvals, to achieve.the minimum s' ht distance. The engineer shall provide a plan showing which trees are to be removed and the achievable s 9t distance. Upon completion of the public improvements, the applicant's engineer shall provide the final sight distance certification. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the night-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway' The setback may be reater depending upon the influence area, as detennined from City Engineer review of a traMiC impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street fivntage, the applicant-must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as. far from the intersection as possible. 95d' Avenue is classified as a Neighborhood Route; therefore this criterion does not apply. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of drivewa and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet The minimums acing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet The minimum spacing of local streets along a local sreet shall be 125 feet SW 95th Avenue is a local neighborhood street. This criterion does not apply. Vehicular access and egress for single-family, duplex or attached single-family dwelling units on individual lots and mult<-family residential uses shall not be less than as provided in Table 18.705.1 and Table 18.705.2. NOTIc E OF TYPE n DEQSION smoo5-00011/LONGSTAFF coNDONIII Lm PAGE 10 OF 38 TABLE 18.705.2 VEMCULARACCESS/EGRESS REQUIREMENTS: MULTIFAMILYRESIDENTIAALL USE e g Units/Lots Mnnunum Number o Drivewa Required Minimum - cess Width: um ..avement Width 20-49 1 30 feet 24 feet The applicant has proposed an access road (A Street) 24 feet in width with a 4-foot wide sidewalk alon one side for the length of the pro'ect site. A Street terminates in a turnaround. In addition short Streets B, and D provide lateral access off of A Street for approximately half of the proposed units. As proposed, the application complies with the minimum access requirements for serving 43 units. 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. Vehicle access is brought directly to each unit as each unit is served by a garage. This criterion is satisfied. Private residential access drives shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code. The individual homeowners will maintain the access drives once the property is developed and sold. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue district has reviewed the proposal and their comments have been incorporated at the end of this Decision. The applicant shall submit a letter from TVFR demonstrating that the.Uniform Fire Code standards as contained in TVFR's comment letter have been met. 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 ed a of 35 feet; A hammemead-configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 Teet and a minimum width of 20 feet;. The maximum cross slope of a required turnaround is 5%. The access drive is approximately 800 feet long and terminates in a turnaround with an outside radius of approximately 130 feet. Although this outside radius meets the TDC 35 foot radius standard, it must be reviewed by I VFR for consistency with their standards for turnarounds for fire apparatus and a letter submitted by the applicant demonstrating compliance, as conditioned above in the previous finding. Vehicle turnouts, (providing a minimum total driveway width of 24 feet for a distance of at least 30 feet), may be. required so as to reduce the need for excessive vehicular backing motions in situations where two vehicles traveling in opposite directions meet on driveways in excess of 200 feet in length. The vehicular access is 24 feet in width to allow for two way traffic on the site. This standard is not applicable. Where pemutted, minimum width for driveway approaches to arteri als or collector streets shall be no less than 20 feet so as to avoid traffic turning from the street having to wait for traffic exiting the site. There are no driveway approaches proposed to any arterials or collector streets: SW 95th is a neighborhood route. This criterion is satisfied. FINDING: The proposed development is not consistent with all of the applicable standards for access, egress, and circulation, but may be consistent with the following conditions of approval: NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DEQSION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF CONDOMINIUMS PAGE 11 OF 38 • CONDITIONS: Prior to the issuance of a site Aws it, the applicant shall submit a letter from Tualatin Valle Fire & Rescue 8~ demonstrating that the Uniform Fire Code standards as contained in comment letter have been met. The applicant's enineer shall submit a tree removal plan to meet sight distance reeuirements to the- north. Any trees removed pursuant to the tree removal plan s comply with the standards of Section 18.790.050 for tree removaC on sensitive lands, including submittal of tree removal permits. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant's engineer. shall provide the final sight distance certification. Density Computations (18.715) Density Calculation: 18.715.020 Definition of net development area. Net development area in acres, shall be determined by subtractin the followin land area(s) from the gross acres, whicl'i is all of the land included in the legal description ofe property to be. developed: • All sensitive land areas: a. Land within the 100-year floodplain; b. Land or slopes exceeding 25%; c. Drainage ways; and d. Wetlands. All land dedicated to the public for park purposes; • All land dedicated for public nghis-of-way. When actual information is not available, the following formulas may be used Singgle-family development: allocate 20% of gross acreage; Multi-family development: allocate 15% of gross acreage. • All land ro osed for private streets* and • A lot of at-least the size required by the applicable base zoning district, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site. Calculating maximum number of residential units. To calculate the maximum number of residential units per net acre divide the number of square feet in the net acres by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot in the applicable zoning district Gross lot area 225,405 square feet ROW/Street dedication 881 square feet Private access drive 26,949 square feet Sensitive Lands (steep slopes 62,463 square feet NETDEVELOPABLE AREA 135,112 square Teet To calculate the maximum allowed density, net developable area is divided by the minimum allowed square footage within the zone, as follows: R 12 zone 135,112 =3,050 = 44.3 dwelling units Calculatin minimum number of residential units. As required by Section 18.510.040, the minimum number of residential. units per net acre shall be calculated by multiplying the maximum number of units determined in Subsection B above by 80% (0.8).. . The minimum required density is determined by the following calculation: 44.3 X 0.80 = 35.4 units FINDING: The applicant has proposed 43 units, consistent with the minimum and maximum density requirements. NOTICE OF TYPE II DEQSION . smoo5-oooll/LONGSTAFF cc)NDomngL MS PAGE 12 OF 38 • • Design Com ailiStandards 18.720 These provislons app y to a m ti- amily and attached sin le-family residential rolects in zoning districts R 4.5 through R 40 that abut property zoned for singe-family residential development. The subject site abuts an R-4.5 zone to the south and an R 12 zone to the south and west. The northeastern boundary of the pproperty abuts Hwy 217. These standards would apply to that portion of the property adjacent to the R 4.5 zone where multifamily dwellings are not rmitted. However, the proposed development is separated from this zone by a minimum 61180 feet of~wedand and wetland buffers on the subject property. Therefore, the design standards in this chapter are not applicable to this proposal. Environmental Performance Standards (18.725): . T ese standards re quire that edera and state environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 Performance Standards regulates: Noise, visible emissions, vibration and odors. Noise: For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through 7.40.210 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Visible Emissions: Within the commercial zoning districts and the industrial park (IP) 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 proeity line. Department of Environmental Quality (DE Q) 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 ggases 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. This is an attached multi-family project, which is an outright permitted use within the R-12 zoning classification. There is no indication within the application that these standards will not be met. However, ongoing efforts to meet these standards shall be maintained and any violation of these standards will be addressed by the City of Tigard's Code Enforcement Officer. FINDING: The Environmental Performance standards are met. LandscaoinL, and Screening- (18.745): Street Trees: Section 18.745.040 states that all development projects fronting on a public street'or a private drive more than 100 feet in length shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C Section 18.745.040.C re uires 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). NOTICE OF TYPE U DEQSION SDR2005-0001 YLONGSTAFF CONDOMINIUMS PAGE 13 OF 38 i/ The applicant has pprovided a Preliminary Planting Plan (Sheet 10) that includes street trees. The trees proposed are lncluded on the City's Street Tree List but do not meet the s acing standards. The applicant's narrative states that the site layout precludes meeting the standard spacing. This standard is not satisfied. The applicant shall revise their Preliminary Planting Plan to include street trees as approved by the City Forester at the proper spacing along A Street in accordance with Section 18.745.040.0. Buffering and Screening: Section 8.745.050 states that buffering and screening is required to reduce the im acts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter (Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). The owner of each proposed development is responsible for the installation and effective maintenance of buffering and screening. When different uses would be abutting one another except ffoorrseparation by a right of-way, buffering, but not screening, shall be required as specified in the In lieu of these standards, a detailed buffer are for the Director's approval as an alternative to i provided it affords the same degree of buffering n landscaping and screening plan may be submitted he buffer area landscaping and screening standards, and screening as riegi Ay this code. Buffering and screening requirements. 1. A buffer consists of an area within a required setback adjacent to a property line and having a depth equal to the amount specified in the buffering and screening matrix and containing a length equal to the length of the property line of the abutting use or uses; 2. A buffer area may only be occupied by utilities, screening, sidewalks and bikeways, and landscaping. No buildings, accessways or parking areas shall be allowed in a buffer area except where an accessway has been approved by the City; The proposed development is multi famil y in blocks of 4, 5, and 6 units. The existing/abutting uses are single-familydwe ble lli 1 745 on th 1 , e -5 south and west sides uof the subject site in the R4.5 and R 12 zones, respective~lyy. Pursuant to T a 1 unit buildings reqire buffer "A" and 6+ unit buildings require b4fer "ZT Table 18.to T includes standards for required screening for buffer "C'. The applicant's narrative states the pro posed development will meet the 10- foot buffer standards, which is indicated in the site plan. It further states that the R 4.5 zone is adequately buffered by a 90 to 200 foot setback of wetland and wetland buffers. However, neither the narrative nor the plans show that the screening standards have been addressed for the 6-unit buildings adjacent to parcel 1700 which contains a s~n1e-family dwelling No alternative landscaping and screening plan was submitted for the Director's approval Therefore, this standard is not met. The applicant shall revise their landscape plan to include a 4-foot hedge along the subject site's boundary with Lot 1700, consistent with the standards in 18.7452. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.745.050.E re quires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parkin spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the landscape islands sha pe three (3) feet wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. The landscape plan provided by the applicant indicates that the parking areas will be landscaped with a mixture of ground cover, low lying shrubs, and trees. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. Screening Of Service Facilities. Except for one-family and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or disposal area and service facilities such as gas meters and air conditioners which would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area, any public facility or any residential area shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area; NOTICE OF TYPE H DEQSION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF CONDOMINIUMS PAGE 14 OF 38 The appplicant does not show the location of any service facilities especially air conditioning units, so comp&ance with this standard cannot be verified at this time. Therefore, this standard is not satisfied. The applicant shall submit a site plan illustrating the locations of all service facilities and demonstrate comp ance with the screening standards of Chapter 18.745 of the TDC Screening Of Refuse Containers. Except for one- and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or refuse collection area which would be visible from a public street, parking lot, residential or commercial area, or any public facility such as a school or park shall be screened or enclosed from view by placement of a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge. All refuse shall be contained within the screened area. The applicant's narrative indicates that the development will be served by individual trash bins characteristic of the trash bins utilized in single-family residences. Individual trash bins are typically stored on the site and onlyvisible from the street on collection days. This standard is satisfied. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the landscaping and screening standards have not been fully met. If the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the standards will be met. CONDITIONS: Prior to site work, the applicant shall revise their landscape plan to include street trees as approved by the City Forester at the proper spacing along A Street in accordance with Section 18.745.040.E Prior to site work, the applicant shall revise their landscapa ftconsistent to include a 4-foot hedge along the subject site's boundarywith Tax Lot 176with the standards in Section 18.745.2. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit a site plan illustrating the locations of all service fades and demonstrate compliance with the screening standards of Chapter 18.745 of the Tigard Development Code. Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage (18.755 pter 18.755 requires that new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source separated Recyclables prior to pick- up and removal by haulers. The applicant must choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign Off. The appplicant will have to submit evidence or a plan which indicates compliance with this section.. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant will have.to submit a written sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility. The applicant has indicated that the homes will be served by individual garbage bins typical of a single-family residence. However. the applicant has not provided any evidence that a franchise hauler would be satisfied with this style of co ection for this type of development. Therefore, this standard is not satiSfieci_ E DING: Because the applicant has not provided evidence of compliance with the Mined Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage design standards, the standards of the chapter have not been met. If the applicant complies with the condition listed below, the standards will be met. CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit verification from the franchise waste hauler indicating that the location of the proposed trash enclosures meets their requirements. Off-Street Parkin and Loading 18.765 T is pter is app 'cable or eve opment projects when there is new construction, expansion of existing use, or change of use in accordance with Section 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off- Street Parking Requirements. NOTICE OF TYPE H DECISION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF CONDONMLM . PAGE 15 OF 38 1 • 6 The Proposed project will create 43 condominiums. Condominiums are treated as multifamily development and the minimum parking standards are based on the number of bedrooms in individual units. The required parking is addressed later in this discussion. r Location of vehicle parking: . Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellin~ggs and single-famil attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwellings. Oft=street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 200 feet from the building or use that they are required to serve, measured in a straight line from the building with the following exceptions: a) commercial and industrial uses which require more than 40 parking spaces may provide for the spaces in excess of the required fast 40 spaces up to a distance of 300 feet from the primary site; The applicant has proposed condominium dwellingunits in a multi-family building configuration with 16 three-bedroom units and 27 two-bedroom units. TT. e applicant's narrative states each unit will contain 2 parking spaces. Guest parking is also provided.within 200 feet of the proposed units, consistent with this. standard. Visitor Parking in Multi-Family Residential Developments: Multi-dwelling units with more than 10 required parking spaces shall provide an additional 15% of vehicle parking spaces above the minimum required for the use o} guests of residents of the complex. These spaces shall be centrally located or distributed throughout the development. Required bicycle parking facilities shall also be centrally located within or evenly distributed throughout the development. The units configured as described above would re quire 69 parking spaces. The applicant's proposal includes a total of 86 spaces provided within the units. The ~ units on Street "B" and 6 units at the terminus of Private Street "A" can accommodate an additional 1 space outside the garages for an additional 14 spaces. An additional 33 spaces will be created for visitor parking in four parking courts adjacent to and distributed along Street A". Overall, the applicant has provided for an additional 47 spaces (68%), consistent with this standard. Twenty-two bicycle spaces are required at 1 for every 2 units per Table 18.765.2. The applicant has provided for indoor bicycle parking within each of the 43 condominium units, consistent with this standard. Disabled-Accessible Parking: All parking areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces for disabled persons as specified by the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code (UBC) and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and married as required by these regulations. The a p has proposed 33 accessory parking spaces, therefore, two (2) ADA handicap spaces are require The apppli~cant's plans do not demonstrate any ADA spaces, but the narrative speaks to providing them This stan. is not met. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing two (2) ADA handicap spaces sized, signed, and marked asrequired bythe UBG Access Drives: With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: access drives from the street to off- streetparking 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 number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation- access drives shall be clearly and_pemranently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markets on frontage not occupied by service drives; access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030.P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right- of-way will be required. NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DEQSION SDR2005-00011/I.ONGSTAFF GDNDOMINR MS PAGE 16 OF 38 . • The access drive, has been designed to facilitate traffic flow, is identifiable, and paved. Vision clearance is addressed later in this decision under the discussion of Chapter 18.795. Staff has expressed concern, as has the Fire Marshall that the 24 foot wide driveway is the minimum width for two-way travel. Any obstruction of this travel way will jeopardize residents' safety. Several of the units are situated with less than the minimum distance required to park a vehicle. The Fire Marshall has commented that the private drive be signed with "No Parking" signs on both sides of the driveway. Additionally the City, will require that the applicant submit for review and approval, CC8zR or deed language stating ghat parking shah not be allowed in front of units (specific units to be identified) with less than 18.5 }eet of distance to the internal driveway or pedestrian sidewalk The language shall also note that parking in violation of this restriction is considered a violation of the land use approval subject to civil court citation, in addition to any other remedies provided by law. Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. All parking areas have pedestrian access byway of the interior sidewalk system. This criterion is satisfied. Parking Lot Stripping: Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off-street parking requirements as contained in this Chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and all interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety.. The fans submitted show the parking spaces will be clearly marked with striping. This criterion is satisfied. Wheel Stops: Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at. least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. The applicant has not shown wheel stops on the site plan for any of the proposed parking stalls in the accessory parking areas which are located along the boundaries of the lot and adjacent to interior landscaped areas. Therefore, this standard is not met. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing wheel stops in proposed parking spaces. Space and Aisle Dimensions: Section 18.765:040.N states that: "except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2 the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: 8.5 feet x 18.5 feet for a standard space and 7.5 feet x 16.5 feet for a compact space"; aisles accommodating two direction traffic? or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width. No more than 50% of the required spaces 'maybe compact spaces. The applicant's plans and narrative indicate that no more than 50% of the required parking will be developed as compact spaces. This criterion is satisfied. NOTICE OF TYPE II DEQSION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF CONDONM\UL MS PAGE 17 OF 38 W 0). Bicycle Parkingg Location and Access: Section 18.765.50 states bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on-site buildings and/or the street. When the bicycle parking, area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to located the parking area; and bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not requirethe bicyclist to use stairs to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for parking on upper stories within a multi-story residential building. The site plan and narrative do not indicate any exterior bicycle parking spaces. Accordin to Table 18.765.2 of the Tigard Development Code the minimum bicycle parking requirement for a multi- amilyuse is 1 space for every two units. Therefore, t 1e proposal is. required to provide 22 bicycle parking spaces. Considering the premise that each unit possesses a g e, it is not likely that the owners will be parking their bikes in racks. The garages will most likely serve to house the residents' bicycles. However, no accommodations for guest parking are pprovided. Using the premise that guest vehicle parking should account for 15% of the required parking, 15% of 22 bike spaces is 3 guest spaces, This standard is not satisfied. Bicycle Parkingg Design Requirements: Section 18.765.D50.C. The following design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: The racks re quired for required bicycle parking spaces sha 'ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience. Provision of bicycle lockers for long-term (employee parking is encouraged but not required; bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the groun~, wall or other structure; bicycle parking spaces shall be at least 21/2 feet by six feet lopg, and when covered, with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shaA be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle; required bicycle parking spaces may not be rented or leased except where required motor vehicle parking is rented or leased. At cost or deposit fees for bicycle parking are exempt from this reqqu!irement; and areas set aside for required bicycleiparking must be clearly reserved' for bicycle arkmg only. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material, i.e., pavers, asphalt, concrete or similar material. This surface must be designed to remain well drained The applicant has. not provided a detail of the bike rack to be used, therefore, Staff is unable to confirm that this standard is met. Minimi.im Bicycle Parking Requirements: The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table 18.765.2 in Section 18.765.070.H. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. As discussed above, according to Table 18.7652 of the Tigard Development Code, the minimum bicycle-parking requirement for amulti-famil use is 1 space for every two units. The ap li cant is providing a garage with each unit. Therefore, three (3TadditionaI bicycle-parking spaces shall be lpicated at the guest parking areas. This standard is not satisfied. . Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.765.070.H states that the minimum and maximum parking shall be as required in Table 18.765.2. Table 18.7652 states that the minimum parking for multifamily uses is 125 spaces for every one bedroom dwelling unit, 1.5 spaces for every two bedroom dwelling unit, and 1.75 spPaces for every three bedroom dwelling unit. The proposal calls for 16 three-bedroom units and 27 two-bedroom dwelling units. e o nit ace per rut Number o nits of Parl6ng Required 2 Bedroom 1.50 27 40.5 3 Bedroom 1.75 16 28 43 68.5 NOTICE OF TYPE II DEQSION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF GONDONMC M3 PAGE 18 OF 38 The proposed units would require 69 parking spaces. The applicant's proposal includes .a total of 86 sppaces provided within the units. In addition multi-family uses are required to provide an additional 15~1o for visitor Parking (an additional 10 spaces. The 8 units on street "B" and 6 units at the terminus of Private Street A' can accommodate an additional 1 space outside the garages for an additional 14 spaces. An additional 33 spaces will be created for visitor parking in four parking courts adjacent to and distributed along street Overall, the applicant has provided for a total of 133 spaces, consistent with this standard. FINDING: Based on the analysis above,'the off-street parking and loading standards have not been fully satisfied. The applicant has exceeded the pparking requirement for resident and guest parking. However, the site plan does not account for required ADA spaces which occupy more area than standard spaces, wheel stops in the guest parking spaces, or a prohibition on parking on the private driveway and in front of units without a mi=um of 18.5 feet between the garage and the driveway. The site. plan will need to be revised to reflect- these requirements. Provided the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the standards will-be met. CONDITIONS: • Prior to site work, the applicant.shall submit revised site plans that show two ADA compliant spaces. • Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing wheel stops in proposed parking spaces. • Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit revised site ppl~ans that show three (3) additional bicycle-parking spaces located at the. guest parldng areas and a detail of the bike rack to be used. . • Prior to the issuance of buil ' permits, the applicant shall submit for review and ap roval, copies of C or deed a restricting park' on the intemalPstreet or in front of units (to be specifie with less than 183 feet of setback distance from the internal driveway. The e shall also note that parking in violation of this restriction is considered a vio tion of the land use approval subject to civil court citation, in addition to any other remedies provided by law. Sensitive Lands (18.775 . Purpose: Maintain integrity of rivers, streams, and creeks. Sensitive land regulations contained in this chapter are intended to maintain the integrity of the rivers, streams, and creeks in Tigard by minimizing erosion, promoting bank stability, maintaining and enhancing water quality, and fish and wildlife habitats, and preserving scenic quality and recreation potential. There bons also impplement the comprehensive plan and rood lam* management program , Clean Water Service (M), Design and Construction Standards the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources), and protect public health, safety, and welfare. Sensitive lands are lands potentially unsuitable for development because of their location within the 100-year floodplain or 1996 flood inundation line, whichever is greater, natural dramageways; wetland areas which are regulated by the other agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands, or are designated as si nificant wetland on the C,rty of Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridors Map; and steep slopes of 25% or greater and unstable ground. The subject site is located approximate_lyy ~200 lineal feet east of Ash Creek as it emerges downstream of the Hwy 217 culvert. According to the FE& Flood Insurance Rate Maps the flood elevation at this location is 161 feet. The subject site's elevation ranges from 168 to 172 feet. Ae pro pposed development is located outside the 100-year floodplain. Accordiiig to the City's GIS system, the 1996 flood inundation line on Fanno Creek does not extend past Fanno Creek Park west of City Hall and is, therefore, inapplicable. The Cit~ s steep slope inventory shows that no steep slopes exist on the subject site: The site is almost flat with onlyfour.feet of elevation difference across its length of approximately 1,000 lineal feet. NOTICE OF TYPE n DECISION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF GONDOMIINIILMS PAGE 19 OF 38 • ) The subject property does include a drainsgeway at the southern end that drains a significant wetland as indicate on the City of Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridors Map (Wetland G 12 in Unit 2 - Lower Ash Creep The wetland inventory, conducted by Fishman Environmental Services in 1995, characterizes the wetland as a 3.0-acre Palustrine Forest type with moderate wildlife, hydrologic, and aesthetic values and low values in the other listed categories. Pursuant to TDC 18.775.050.B, "precise boundaries [of wetlands] may v from those shown on wetland maps; specific delineation of wetland boundaries may be necessary. [and delineation will be done by a quaaled professional This provision acknowledges that T"~gaid's significant wetlands inventory may include lands that are not actually wetlands if determined not to be by wetland delineation. Hence the Goal 5 safe harbor standard in TDC 18.775.130 which requires a Type IV Council hearing and decisior~ does not necessarily apply to all lands mapped as significant. The safer harbor standard is t to apply only to those lands that are actually wetlands, as delineated. The purpose of a Type IV Council review is to apply a high level of discretion through an evaluation of an ESEE analysis that weighs the value of the significant wetland resource against other community values. The ESEE analysis would be irrelevant if the mapped lands were not actually wetlands. The applicant submitted a Wetland Delineation and Natural Resource Assessment prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants, dated September, 2005, which identified a 1.4 acre w &t con tax lot 100. Pursuant to Section 18.775.020, the applicant obtained a Clean Water Services service provider letter (File Number 05-004325, dated December 20, 2005) for the proposed develo ment. The provider letter (Condition # 13) required a minimum buffer from delineated wetlands of 50 feet. The applicant's site plan shows the delineated wetlands and required buffers, consistent with condition #11 All proposed development is located outside the delineated wetlands and associated buffers. However, if a sewer line extension from the subject site is required to cross the wetland and buffer to serve tax' lot 8400 south of the wetland (applicant's Sanitary Sewer Exhibit Option # 3), then a sensitive lands eermit may be required (as indicated by the ap li cant, boring a line under the wetland and buffer may be easible). The app cant Sanitary Sewer Exhibit ~ption # 1 demonstrates that tax lot 8400 can be served by the sewer line in SW North Dakota, in which case no sensitive lands permit would be required. Sensitive lands permits shall be required for the drainageways and wetlands when any of the following circumstances apply: ground disturbance(s) or land form alterations involving more than 50 cubic yards of material; repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an existing structure or utility, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure prior to the improvement or the damage requiring reconstruction; residential and non-residential structures intended for human habitation; and Accessory structures which are greater than 528 square feet in size, outside floodway areas. All proposed development is located on the portion of the subject site outside of any sensitive lands. Therefore, a sensitive_lands permit is not required for the proposed development. FINDING The applicant has obtained a service provider letter from Clean Water Services. The provider letter contains conditions of approval for the pro osed subdivision. To ensure sensitive lands located on the subject parcel are protecte the applicant must comply with all conditions of approval contained in the letter. CONDITION. Prior to final bul7ing inspections the applicant shall submit a letter from Clean Water Services indicating that the conditions of their service provider letter have been satisfied. Si ens (18.780): Chapter 18.7-80.130.B lists the type. of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the R 12 Zoning District No signs are, proposed in conjunction with this development. The applicant may a Ply for sign permits to erect entry signs as authorized in Section 18.780.130(A (3). Any future signage w be subject to the sign permit requirements in Chapter 18.780. There has een a proliferation of sign violations from new development: In accordance with a new policy adopted by the Director's Designee, all developers must enter into a sign compliance agreement to facilitate a more expeditious court process for citations. NOTICE OF TYPE U DECISION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF GONDOMMUMS PAGE 20 OF 38 0 • FINDING: To expedite enforcement of sign violations, a sign compliance agreement will be required: CONDITION. Prior to the. issuance of building permits, the applicant shall sign a copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. Tree Removal (18.790). Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees pre pared by a certifie d arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application fr a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. As required for subdivisions, the applicant submitted a tree plan dated January 26, 2006) conducted by Walter Knapp, a certified arborist. The report contains the four require components. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; The Arborist Report identifies the location, size and species of 470 inventoried trees on the subject site, consistent with this standard. 2. Identification of a program to save existin trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guilAelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees- b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; C. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. The arborist report shows a total of 125 non hazardous or diseased trees ('including 3 trees in the 95' Avenue right, of-way) greater than 12 inches of which 106 (840/6) are to be retained. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no nuugation. Therefore, no mitigation is required. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; All of the trees proposed to be removed are identified in the applicant's Existing Conditions and Tree Preservation Plan (Sheet 2). 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. Guidelines for tree protection are outlined in the arborist report. 18.790.040.B Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the'effect that such tree maybe removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. A condition of approval will ensure that this standard is met. NOTICE OF TYPE n DEQSION smoo5-00011/LONGSTAFF CONDOIv mLm PAGE 21 OF 38 M FINDING: The applicant has provided an Arborist Report that addresses the four parts of the required tree removal plan. No tree mitigation is required. However, tree protection measures fonihose trees to remain are required and addressed in the following conditions of approval. CONDITIONS: Prior to any site work the applicant shall install all pproposed tree protection fencing. The fencing shall be inspected and approved by the qty Forester prior to commencing any site work. The tree protection fencing shall remain in place through the duration of all of the building construction phases, until the Certificate of Occupancy has been approved. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site . plan drawings indicating the location of the trees that were preserved on the lot during site development, location of tree protection fencing, and a signature of approval from the project arborist regarding the placement and construction techniques to be employed in building the structures. Allproposed protection fending shall be installed and inspected prior to commenting construction. , The fencing shall remain in place through the duration of all o} the building construction phases, until the Certificate ertificate of Occupancy has been approved. After approval from the City Forester, the tree protection measures maybe removed. Prior to any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the Caty Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone ('TPZ) fencing installation, through the building construction phases, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing determine if the fencing was . moved at any point during construction, an~ determine if any part of the Tree Protection flan has. been violated. These reports must be provided to the Cary Forester until the time of the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy. The reports shall include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved,. and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree (s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan are not being follpwe, ~ by the contractor or a. sub-contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arbonst Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the Pro ect Arborist will submit a final certification indicating the elements of the ree Protection Plan were followed and that all remaining trees on the site are healthy, stable and viable in their modified growing environment. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occ~uppan~~cy, the applicant/owner shall record a deed restriction and include in the CX &R s language to the effect that any existing tree greater than 12" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arbonst. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The following text shall be included in all construction documents: Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any pparty found to be in violation of the tree removal chapter (including but not limited to removal or damage to trees not approved for removal) shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code and shah be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: NOTICE OF TYPE II DEQSION SDR2005-00011/I.ONGSTAFF CONDOMINIUMS PAGE 22 OF 38 0 • A. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 18.790.060 (D) of the Tigard Development Code; and B. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. Visual Clearance Areas (18.795): Chapter 18.795 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right.of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shall-contain no vehicle, hedge, plantingg,~ fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height The code provides that obstructions that may be located in this area shall be visual clear between three (3) and ei ht (8) feet in height (8 (trees may be placed within this area provided that all branches below eight 8) feet are removed). A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed b measuring a 30-foot distance along the street right of way and the driveway, and then-connecting these two (2), 30-foot distance pints with a straight line. The applicant has indicated in the narrative and the site plan that a clear vision area will be maintained. Staff will review the areas at the time of final occupancy to ensure compliance with the standards. This criterion is satisfied. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the vision clearance standards have been met. C. SPECIFIC SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL STANDARDS Section 18.360.090(A)(2) through 18.360.090(A)(15) provides additional Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of the previously listed sections. These additional standards are addressed below: Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title including chapter 18.810, Street and Utility Standards; Those titles of the Tigard Development Code ('IDC, have been addressed elsewhere in this decision where applicable. Chapter 18.810 is discussed later in this chapter. Compliance with the chapters has been demonstrated, or conditions have been imposed on the development to ensure compliance where applicable. Relationship to the natural and physical environment: Buildings shall be located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where possible based upon existing site conditions; located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding, located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light, air circulation, and fire-fighting; and Oriented with consideration for sun and wind. The applicant has provided a tree plan. The site is proposed to be developed with respect to the natural and physical environment retaining a Large number of trees located in the wetland and wetland buffer areas on the southern portion of the site. The minimum distance between buildings is 10 feet with most distances ranging from 15 feet to 58 feet. The applicant has been careful to ensure that there is adequate distance between the buildings to ensure that adequate light, air circulation, and firefighting is attainable. The buildings are oriented primarily to the south and southwest such that all buildings will receive some sun during a day. Twentyfour second level decks face south, 11 face southwest and 4 face west. This criterion is satisfied. Trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. Tree preservation has been addressed previously in this decision under the Tree Removal Section. NOTICE OF TYPE H DEQSION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF OONDOMDZLMS PAGE 23 OF 38 of •i Exterior elevations: Along the vertical face of single-family attached and multiple-family structures, offsets shall occur at a minimum of every 304eet by providing any two of the following recesses, e.g., decks, patios, entrances, floor area, of a minimum depth of eight feet; Extensions, e.g., decks, patios, entrances floor area, of a minimum depth of eight feet, a maximum length of an overhang shall be 25 feet; and Offsets or breaks in roof elevations of three or more feet in height The applicant has indicated in the narrative that offsets will occur at a minimum of every thirty feet through a comblriation of recesses and extensions, and that the minimum depth for all decks patios and entrances is 8 feet. According the definition of building plane in TDC 18.720.030.A.2.d, a single building plane includes planes with offsets less than four feet, but does not include the roof plane. It apppears from the Preliminary Floor Plan that most of the building planes are setback approximately two }eet at 35-foot intervals. In addition, the Preliminary Floor Plans and Elevation drawings show that proposed decks are approximately 5 feet deep, entrances are approximately 6 feet deep, and floor area projections are approximately 2 feet. These recess and extension dimensions are less that the required 8 foot minimum The applicant's narrative states the roof lines are ro osed to be offset every 33 feet- 4 inches. However, it is likely that since the vertical building planes are offset only 2 feet, that the roof line offsets would be correspndinil 2 feet and less than the 4 foot minimum Therefore, the exterior elevation standards are not met. a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit revised pplan and elevation drawings of the proposed units consistent with exterior elevation standards of Section 18.360.090..3.a. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses: Buffering and screening shall be provided between different types of land uses, for example, between single-family and multiple-amily residential, and residential and commercial uses, and the following factors shall be.considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the buffer. On site buffering and screening from view from adjoining properties of such things as service areas, storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops, i.e., air cooling and heating systems, shall be provided and the following factors will be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: Buffering and scree ' of abutting single-fi y uses to the west and south of the subject site has been addressed above under e analysis in Chapte745. This standard is satisfied. Privacy and noise: multi -family or group living uses: Structures which include residential dwelling units shall provide private outdoor areas for each ground floor unit which is screened from view by adjoining units as provided in Subsection 6.a below; The buildings shall be oriented in a manner which protects private spaces on adjoining pro perties from view. and noise; On-site uses which create noise, light, or glare shall be buffered from ad1'ouung residential uses; and buffers shall be placed on the site as necessary to mitigate noise, light or glare from off-site sources. The applicant is providing a buffer and has been conditioned to provide screen' to ensure that the adjoining properties will be protected from views and noises that are nuisances. In addition, the applicant proposes an 8-foot high concrete screening wall between the subject site and adjacent way 217 to the northeast to provide attenuation of the ic noise and a visual barrier to the highway forit e benefit of the residents in the proposed development. This standard is met. Private outdoor area: multi-family use: Private opens ace such as a patio or balcony shall be provided and shall be designed for the exclusive use oT individual units and shall be at least 48 square feet in size with a minimum width dimension of four feet; and balconies used for entrances or exits shall not be considered as open space except where such exits or entrances are for the sole use of the unit; and required open space may include roofed or enclosed structures such as a recreation center or covered picnic area. Wherever possible, private outdoor open spaces should be oriented toward the sun; and private outdoor spaces shall-be screened or designed to provide privacy for the users of the space. NOTICE OF TYPE H DEC[SION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF 00NDO1vMUMS PAGE 24 OF 38 The a pplicant has indicated in the narrative that all units will have a private second-floor deck, 5 x 11 feet (55 square }eet) in size. However, the site plan shows that four units abutting the proposed Street "B" do not have these decks. Decks for 24 of the proposed units are facing south, 13 units are fac'g west and 2 units are facing east. No proposed decks are facing north and all face away from -i'ighway 217. Tie proposed private outdoor areas are consistent with this standard. However, the applicant shall demonstrate in a revised site plan that the remaining four units will also be provided with private outdoor area consistent with this standard. Shared outdoor recreation areas: multi-family use: In addition to the requirements of the subsections above, usable outdoor recreation space shall be provided in residential developments for the shared or common use of all the residents in the following amounts: Studio up -to and includin tw -bedroom units, 200 square feet per unit; and Three or more bedroom units, 300 square fee per unit The required recreation space may be provided as follows: It may be all outdoor space] or It may be part outdoor space and part indoor space; for example, an outdoor tennis court, and indoor recreation room; or It may be all public or common s.pace; or It may be part common space and part private; for example, it could be an outdoor tennis court, indoor recreation room and balconies on each uniand where balconies are added to units, the balconies shall not be less than 48 square feet. Shared recreation space shall be readily observable to promote crime prevention and safety-, Of the 43 residential condominiums units, 27 will be 2-bedroom and 16 willbe 3-bedroom units. Therefore, 5,400 square. feet of space is required for 2-bedroom units and 4,800 square feet is required for the 3- bedr6om.units; 10,200 square feet in total. The applicant proposes that the 17,763-square foot wetland buffer serve as the required useable outdoor recreation space. An approximately 10,000 square foot portion of the site perimeter will be enhanced with landscaping and left as open space.. This common area is traversed by a 4-foot wide concrete path for access and recreational use. In addition, there is a 1.4-acre wetland and associated stand of trees in the. southern portion of the site. Therefore, the proposed development is consistent with the standard for outdoor space for common use of all residents. Where landfill and/or development is allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining. and within the floodplain. This area shall include pportions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/ bicycle plan. The subject site is located approximatelyy 200 lineal feet east of Ash Creek as it emerges downstream of the Hwy 213 culvert. According to the FM Flood Insurance Rate Maps the flood elevation at this location is 161 feet. The subject site's elevation ranges from 168 to 172 feet.-!I e proposed development is located outside and is not adjacent to the 100-year floodplain. This standard does not apply. Demarcation of public, semi-public and private spaces for crime prevention- The structures and site improvements shall be designed so that public areas such as streets or public gathering places, semi-public areas and private outdoor areas are clearly defined to establish persons having a right to be in the space, to~prodvide for crime prevention and to establish maintenance responsibility; and these areas may tie efined by, but not limited to: A deck, patio, low wall,, hedge, or draping vine; A trellis or 'arbor, A change in elevation or grade; A change in the texture of the path material, Sign; or landscaping. The applicant has stated in the narrative that passive outdoor areas will not be paved in any fashion, where other areas are paved with curb delineating the surfaces. The applicant has provided a landscaping plan to demonstrate compliance, and the public areas are apparent on the site plan. The site itself is served by a private drive that will be marked with alternative signage. Compliance with this standard as with all other standards related to privacy will be verified at the time staff does a final inspection. This standard is satisfied. Crime prevention and safety: Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants- Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; MA boxes shall be located in li hted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic- The exterior li htin levels shall be selected and Vie angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; an lihgt fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentia y dangerous areas such as parking lots, stairs, ramps and abrupt rade changes. Fixtures shall be placed at a height so that ,light patterns overlap at a height ofgseven feet which is sufficient to illuminate a person. NOTICE OF TYPE U DEC[SION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF CONDOMINIUMS PAGE 25 OF 38 0 The applicant has indicated in the narrative that they intend, to meet these standards. Perhaps the area most susceptible to crime is the wetland and buffer area. Twelve of the proposed units will have second and third floor windows that look over this area. Each unit will have its own private laundry area; mailboxes will be along the private drive or located out on the public street. The applicant has not provided a lighting plan to address the me and location of lighting required under this standpard. Therefore, as a condition of approval the applicari shall submit a lighting plan addressing the requirements of 360.090.A.10.e. Public transit: Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to or within 500 feet of existing or proposed transit route; The requirements for transit facilities shall be based on: The location of other transit facilities in the area; and the size and type of the proposal. The applicant submitted a revised Site Plan dated May 10, 2006, on which the applicant proposes street improvements on SW 95t` Ave for pedestrian access to Tri Met bus routes 76 Beaverton-Tualatin) and 78 (Beaverton-Lake Osweggo) which operate nearby along SW Greenburg Road. The stops are located within roughly 1,400 feet and T,900 feet of the site, respectively. This standard is met. . Landscaping: All landscaping shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.745; Landsca ing and the applicable landscaping standards have been addressed previously in this decision. Tllis stan dard is satisfied. Drainage: Alldrainage plans shall be designed in accordance with the criteria in the adopted. 1981 master drainage plan; Discussion relating to compliance with drainage standards has been addressed in the following discussion of streets and utilities. This standard is satisfied Provision for the disabled: All facilities for the disabled shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in ORS Chapter 447; and The applicant has not addressed this standard. Compliance with this standard is ensured during plan review of the individual buildings and site work permit. This standard is satisfied All of the provisions and reulations of the underlying .one shall apply unless modified by other sections or this title, e.g., Planned Developments, Chapter 18.350; or a variance or adjustment granted under Chapter 18.370. These items have been discussed elsewhere in this decision. Where the standards have been found to be deficient, conditions have been imposed on the development to ensure compliance. This standard is satisfied. FINDING: The .application has not demonstrated compliance with all applicable Site Development Review Criteria. With the following conditions of approval the standards can be met. CONDITIONS: The applicant shall submit revised plan and elevation drawings of the proposed units consistent with exterior elevation standards of Section 18.360.090.A.3.a. The applicant shall demonstrate in a revised site plan that there four units will also be provided with private outdoor area consistent with ection 18.360.090.A.6.a. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan addressing the requirements of Section 18.360.D90.A.10.e. NOTICE OF TYPE II DEQSION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF GONDOMINMMS PAGE 26 OF 38 • • Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of ublic an private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: 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 pplanned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Ri hts-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.81030.E requires an arterial street to have a 100-foot right-of-way width and a -foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and sheet trees. This site lies adjacent to SW 95' Avenue, which is classified as a Neighborhood Route on the City of T" and Trans ortation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 20 feet of r~ht-of-way (RM from centerr e, acco to the most recent tax assessor's map. The applicant should dedicate the additional ROW to provide l7 feet from centerline. ODOT is not requiring additional ROW along the Highway 217 frontage. SW 95h Avenue is currently partially improved. In order to mitigate the impact from this development, the applicant should construct half-street improvements along their frontage. In addition, the applicant shall provide a minimum of 24 feet of paving on 95' Avenue to a point where the paving meets this minimum width. . 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 circulation plan. Due to existing development, Highway 217 and the wetlands, there are no opportunities to provide for future streets or extensions. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.810.030.H.1 states that full street connections with spacing. of no more than 530 feet between connections is . required except where prevented by banners such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre- existin developments lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior toIay 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. Section 18.810.030.H.2 states that all local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide througgh circulation when not precluded by environmental or toppographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in tFiis code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15% for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case 'of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. The applicant submitted a circulation plan. Due to existing development, Highway 217 and the wetlands, there are no opportunities to provide additional street connections. NOTKE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2005.00011/LONGSTAFF GONDOMII*iII PAGE 27 OF 38 *t Cul-de-sacs: 18.810.030.1 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 appproved 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 Ion g, a li ghted direct pathway to an adjacent street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the City. The proposed development is served by an access road and not a public or private street. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.N states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet). Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer. The grades on 95`h Avenue are less than 12%, thereby meeting this criterion. Access to Arterials and Major Collectors: Section 18.810.030.Q 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 mininuze 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; ♦ Screenplanting 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. The sub'ect site abuts SW 95`h Avenue, a neighborhood street and Highway 217, a freeway. Therefore, this stands does not apply. Private Streets: Section 18.810.030.T states that design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer. The City shall require legal assurances for the continued maintenance of 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: Since this project is a condominium developpment, the entire internal access network is classified as a private driveway to be privately maintained by the condominium owners. State statutes set out specific regulations as to how ownership and maintenance of common areas is established. The internal access system will be reviewed and inspected by the Building Division as a part of the Site Permit. 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, contro l and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DEQSION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF C)ONDONIINN MS PAGE 28 OF 38 • 0 Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.B.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: • Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development or, 4 For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. • . For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. No streets are being created by this development. Future street connection for this development is prohibitive due to the wetlands on the southern portion of the site and Hrghw_ay 217 to the northeast. The applicant's Connectivit~Plan (Sheet 4 of 10) shows SW Longstaff Street andd SW 93~ Avenue connecting to e west of the site. TTllvvss connection would create a block length of approximately 1,850 lineal feet, consistent with this standard. 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 ppossible. 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. There are no Opportunities for a bile or pedestrian connection to surrounding streets other than along the pprivate drive to SSW 95 Avenue, !22h is proposed. The proposed Street D which goes to the property Iune at the end of the.private drive, could be extended through to a future SW 93`d Avenue when the adjacent property to the west is developed, consistent with this standard. 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 L5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. The subject site, comprised of four parcels will be re-.platted into a single parcel; the applicant is not proposing to create any new parcels: This standard is satisfied Lot Frontagge: 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..4.c a pes, which requires a parcel to either have a minimum 15-foot frontage or a minimum 15-foot wide recorded access easement. In cases where the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit, the frontage shall be at least 15 feet. The parcel is pre-existing and has over 117 feet of frontage onto SW 95th Avenue, consistent with this standard. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A reqyuires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides 0 arterial, collector and local residential streets: The appplicant's plans indicate they will be constructing a public sidewalk alo their frontage. In addition the app-hcant's plan indicates they will extend pedestrian access to the Tri Met bus stop. -The pedestrian access.shall be a minimum of a 4 foot wide concrete sidewalk Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.C states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. NOTICE OF TYPE H DEQSION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF cDNDOMR~IUMS PAGE 29 OF 38 0) The applicant has proposed to extend the public sewer into the development in two locations. The applicant has provided maps showing how future connections from other properties might be made. Because of the wetlands the extension of the sewer along the southwest corner of the property is difficult. The applicant has shown how the remaining unnerved properties can connect to the public sewer in North Dakota-Street. The plans also show that the applicant is willing to provide a 15 foot easement along the south westerly Wroperty boundary, in the event an extension of the public sewer. through the wetlands becomes necessary. TThherefore, the applicant will provide a 15 foot public sewer easement along their south westerly property boundary and the public sewer shall be extended to the north side of the wetland buffer, terminating with a manhole. 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 Designand Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). The drainage pattern in this area is mainly flowing north towards Highway 217. The runoff is then directed to the northwest into Ash Creek Some of the- u drainage that enters the development will be collected and eventually discharged to Ash Creek Xch of the upstream runoff will enter the wetlands area. 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 prog resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that alI new developments resul ' in an increase of 'm ervious surfaces provide onsite detention facfties, unless the development is located~j n acent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. The plans indicate the installation of a detention pi a on site. The stormwater will then be discharged to a public storm sewer that will be constructed by another development on the west side of 95' Avenue. The applicant has agreed to share in the cost to upsize this pipe to include runoff from their development. The applicant shall coordinate their design with the approved development's engineer. If the approved development, known as Livingston Lane Subdivision, is not under construction prior to issuance ofpemuts for this development, then this applicant shall construct the public storm sewer. in 95`~ Avenue and the discharge into Ash Creek 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 bikeys through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. SW 95th Avenue is not classified as a bicycle facility. NOTICE OF TYPE II DEaSION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF 0ONDOMENULM3 o PAGE 30 OF 38 • Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.B 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 unprovements. Since SW 95' Avenue is not classified as a bicycle facility, this standard is 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 uty 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 pnor to the surfacing of the streets; and • Stubs for service connections shall be Iong enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-GroundingRequirement: - 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 lace on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority detemmines 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. There are existing overhead utility lines alonz the frontage of SW 95 h Avenue. If the fee in lieu is proposed, it is agar to $35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 118 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $4,130.00. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Public Water S tem: Tualatin Valley Water District (I'VWD) pprovides service in this area. The applicant shall provide approved plans from TVWD prior to issuance of Qty permits. Stone Water Quality. The Ca has agree to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quali ty fa es. 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 fora water quality facility that will meet the intent of the CWS Resign Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the Gty prior to constriction. NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2005-00011/I.ONGSTAFF OONDOMMLM3 PAGE 31 OF 38 The proposed manhole unit from Stormwater Management is not acceptable. The Stormwater Management vault >s acceptable, provided the property owner agrees to hire the manufacturer (or approved equal) to provide the required maintenance of the unit. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management, or another company that demonstrates they can meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer. Gradin and Erosion Control: CWS sign an 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 subtrut an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City pern its. . 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 one or more acre of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer wilt 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 The applicant will be required to obtain an NPDES 1200-C permit. Site Permit Re uired: The applicant is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to coverall on-site private utility installations (water, sewer, storm, etc) and driveway construction. This permit shall be obtained prior to approval of the final plat. Address Assi nments• The City o Trg ard is responsible for ass' g addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An ad~mg fee in the amount of $50.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of the Site permit. For multi tenant buildings, one address number is assigned to the building and then all tenant spaces are given suite numbers. The City is responsible for assigning the main address and suite numbers. This information is needed so that building permits for tenant improvements can be adequately tracked in the G s permit tracking system. Based upon the information provided by the ~appplicant, this banding will be a multi tenant bur7din. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shallprovide a suite layout map so suite numbers can Se- assPnmulti-level ed. The addressing fee will then be calculated based upon the number of suites that must be addressed. structures, ground level suites shall have numbers preceded by a second level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "2", etc. The developer will also be required to provide signage at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served by the given driveway or street. This will assist emergency services personnel to more easily find a particular home. FINDING: The application has not demonstrated compliance with all applicable Street and Utility Standards. With the following conditions of approval the standards can be met. CONDITIONS: Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover half-street improvements 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 addiuon to any drawings regaired by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to ubli c ' rovements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit Ql-ahs shall conform to a7 of Tp and Public Impro vement Design Standards, which are available at ~atyHall and the City's web rage www.ti and-or. ov). The PH 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 NOTICE OF TYPE n DEQSION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF G0ND0IvI]TgU S PAGE 32 OF 38 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 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. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit a suite layout ma to Bethany Stewart, Engineering Department. If the applicant is not sure how many suites will be used, they must estimate. a number. The City wilt then assign suite numbers and the address fee will then be calculated. The fee must be. paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the site permit. (STAFF CONTACT: Bethany Stewart, Engineering). The applicant shall provide signage at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served by the given driveway or street. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the fromtae of 95th Avenue to increase the right-of-way to 27 feet from the centerline. The descri ption shaII be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on Citytorms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the E Bering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that theyNconstruct a half-street improvement along the frontage of 95th Avenue. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a Neighborhood Route from curb to centerline equal to 16 feet, but in no case shall the total pavement width be less than 24 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 5 foot 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, I. underground utilities; T street signs (if ap livable); driveway apron H applicable ; and L. adjustments in vertical an or horizontal alignment to construct SW 95~ Avenue in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. A profile of 95th Avenue shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. The applicant's construction draerrigs shall show that the proposed ublic pedestrian access from the development frontage to the Tri Met bus stop will be a m;n,r„um foot concrete sidewalk. The applicant shall provide connection of proposed buildings to the public sanitary sewerage system A connection permit is required to connect to the existing public sanitary sewer system. The applicant shall provide a 15 foot public sewer easement at the south westerly property boundary The public sanitary sewer shall be extended to the north side of the wetland butter, terminating with a manhole. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connection prior to issuance of the City's Public Facility Improvement permit. The applicant's engineer shall coordinate that design and construction of the public storm sewer in 95th Avenue and- the discharge into Ash Creek with the engineers for the Livingston Lane Subdivision. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF OONDOMINR MS PAGE 33 OF 38 Final design plans and calculations for the proposed private water quality facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) as a part of the Public Facility lmprovement (PFI) hermit plans. The plans shall be revised to provide a Stormwater Management vauCt, pond or swale. The Stormwater Minagement manhole will not be allowed. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, February 2003 edition." The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City:of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.746 and the Federal Clean Water Act. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required public improvements obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. Prior to a final building insppection, the applicant shall Pprovide the Catywith'as-bunt drawings of the public improvements as fonows: 1) 3 milmylar, 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 Qt~s GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points or 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 exists overhead utility lines along SW 95th Avenue underground as a ppart i this shall project, or they shall pay the fee nn lieu of undergrounding. The fee be calculated b the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $35.00 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $4,130.00 and it shall be paid prior to prior to final building inspection. _ Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Managemen or another company that demonstrates they can meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer, for the proposed onsite storm water treatment facility. E. IMPACT STUDY (18.3901 Section 18.360.090 states, "The ctor shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an application:" Section 18.390.040 states that the applicant shall provide an mi act study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public Tacility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City, standard, 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 rojected impacts of the development. Section 18.390.040 states that when a condition of approvl 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. The applicant has provided an impact study addressing the project's impacts on public systems. The Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TTF) is a mitigation measure that is required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A -Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61 TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. The TIF rate is currently $285 per average weekday trip. Residential condominiums have a weekday average trip rate of 5.86. Therefore, the applicant will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $71,814.. NOTICE OF TYPE U DEaSION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF CONDOMINIUMS PAGE 34 OF 38 Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements ci de, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $224,419 ($71,814 divided by 3 The difference between the TIF paid, and the full impact, is considered the unmitigated impact on the street system. In this case the value of the unmitigated impact is $152,605. The applicant will be dedicating approximately 881 square feet of right-of ;way on SW 95th Avenue, and will also be required to construct a new sidewalk.e value of these exactions is: Right of-waydedications, 881 s.f. (117.48 feet of frontage x 7.5 feet) @ 3.00 per s.f $2,643. Sidewalk Improvement, 4501.f. @ 20.00 per l.f. $9,000. Half street iin rovement along approximately 117 lineal feet of SW 95 Avenue @ $200/ lineal foot $23,400 TOTAL $35,043 FINDING: Since the value of the exactions is less than the value of the remaining unmitigated impact, these exactions-are proportionate and justified. SECTION VIII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. The City of Tigard Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and has offered comments regarding storm outfalls and culverting at 10940 SW 95h that have been incorporated into this decision. The City of Tigard Police Department has re viewed the proposal and' has no objections to it. The City of Tigard Forester has reviewed the proposal whose comments have been included in the body of this decision. SECTION IX. * AGENCY COMMENTS The Department of State Lands states that the wetland delineation associated with the wetland located on site has been submitted, but not yet approved A Tier H level review has been assigned to the delineation as the proposed development does not require any removal of fill in the wetland. Washington County has reviewed the proposal and has provided comments regarding access and improvement to SW 95h Avenue, which are included in the bodof this decision. The Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and endorses it predicated on the following criteria and.conditions of approvaE In an email from Eric McMullen, TVFR Deputy Fire Marshall, to Albert Castaneda, Alpha Community Development, dated January 31, 2006 Mr. Mc-Maen states "the proposed location for the fire hydrant is acceptable. Fire apparatus access looks good also as tong~ as parking is allowed in the spaces shown on the plan only. The roadways throughout the development will need to be posted as a fire lane. The above stated conditions are predicated on the installation of faire sprinklers in all buildings." In addition, in an April 5, 2006 letter to the City, John Dalby submitted the following general comments: 1) TUttNAKUUNDS: Access roads shall be within 15U feet of all portions of the exterior wall of the lust story o the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. An approved turnaround is required if the remaining distance to an' approved intersecting roadway, as measured along the fire apparatus access road, is greater than 150 feet. . NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF OONDOM M MS PAGE 35 OF 38 2) DEAD END ROADS: Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved turnaround. s) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD EXCEPTION FOR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER PROTECTION: When buildings are completely protectewith an approve automatic ire sp ' er systern, the requirements for fire apparatus access maybe modified as approved bythe fire code official. 4) ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROADS - COMMERCIAL: Where buildings exceed 30 feet in height or three stories in eig t sliall have at east three separate means of fire apparatus access. Buildings or facilities having a gross area of more than 62,000 square feet shall be provided with at least two separate means of fire apparatus access. Buildings up to 124,000 square feet provided with fire sprinklers may have a single access. s) ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROADS - ONE-OR TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: Where there are more an 30 one- or two-family dwelling units, not less than two separate approve means of access shall be provided. Where there are more than 30 dwelling units an d all are protected by approved residential sprinkler systems, a single access will be allowed. 6) ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROADS - MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: Where there are more than 100 m tip e- y we ' g units, not less than two separate approve means of access shall be provided Projects up to 200 dwelling units that are protected by approved residential sprinkler systems may have a single access. Projects a more than 200 dwelling units shall have two separate approved means of access regardless of whether they are equipped with fire sprinkler systems. 7) AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS: Buildings or portions of bindings or facilities exceeding 30 feet in height above lowest level o ire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet in the immediate vicinity of any building or po~ nion of building more than 30 feet in hei& At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. . 8) REMOTENESS: Where two access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less lmioneIialf of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. s) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire at) aratis access roads shall have an unobstructed o not less than 20 feet 12 feet or up to two dpelling units and accessory bindings), and an unobstructed vertical clearance 'o not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Where fire apparatus roadways are less than 26 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 shaIl 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. 1o) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS WITH FIRE HYDRANTS: Where a fire hydrarit is located on a ire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 fee-t. 11) TURNOUTS: When any fire ap aratus access road exceeds 400 feet in length, turnouts 10 feet wide and eet ong shall be pro videdpin addition to the required road width and shall be placed no more than 400 feet apart, unless otherwise approved by the fire code official. These distances maybe adjusted based on visibirrty and light distances. (OFC Chapter 5) 12) NO PARKING SIGNS: Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and 20 Feet of unobstructed driving surface "No Parking" signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Roadseet wide or less shall be posted on both sides as a fire lane. Roads more than 26 feet wide to 32 feet wide shall be posted on one side as a fire lane. Signs shall read "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" and shall be installed with a clear space above grade level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and shall have red letters on a white reflective background. NOTICE, OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF OONDONM IIL MS PAGE 36 OF 38 13) SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES. Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather surface at is easily . tingws a rom the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 Pounds point load (wheel load) and 75,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle we' ht). You may need to provide documentation from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of supporting such loading. . 14) BRIDGES: Where a bri dge or an elevated surface is ppa~r~t of a fire apparatus access road, the bridge shall be constructedand maintained in accordance with AASHTO Stardar~' 3 for H Bric C Bridges and elevated surfaces shall be designed for a live load sufficient to carry t unposed loads of f ire apparatus' Vehicle load limits shall be hostergency at both entrances to b ''dies when required bythe fire code offi Where elevated surfaces des~'gned for veh icle use are-- adjacent to surfaces which are not designed for such use, approved buriers, approved signs or both shall installed and maintained when required by the fire code official 15) TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall be not less than 28 feet and feet respectively, measure d from the same center point. 16) PAINTED CURBS: Where re d, fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted red and marked "NO PARKING FIRE IM" at approved intervals. Letterine shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide by six inches high Lettering shall be white on red background. 17) GRADE: Fire apparatus access roadway grades shall not exceed 10 percent. Intersections and turnarounds shall be level (maximum 5%) with the exception of crowning for water run-off. When fire sprinklers are installed, a maximum grade. of 15% may Be allowed. The approval of fire sprinklers as an alternate shall be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of ORS 45.610(5). 18) GATES: Gates securing fire apparatus roads shall complywith all of the following: • iniinum unobstructed width shall be 16 feet, or two 10 foot sections with a center post or island Gates serving one- or two-family dwellings shall be a minimum of 12 feet in width. Gates shall be set back at minimum of 3 feet from the intersecting roadway. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type • Manual operation shall be capable by one person • Electric gates shall be equipped with a means for operation by fire department personnel • Locking devices shall be approved. 19) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum available fire flow or s' e y we Bianup exes served by a municip water sup ly shall be .1000 gallons per minute. If the structure s) is (are) 3,600 square feet or larger, the requir If ire flow shad be determined according to IFC Appendix B. 20) FIRE HYDRAN'T'S - ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS & ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: ere a portion o a structure is more than 600 feet from a hydrant on a ire apparatus access road, as measured in an approved route around the exterior of the structure(s), on-site fire hydrants and maws shall be provided. 21) FIRE HYDRANT NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION: The minimum number and distribution of ire hydmts avaihble to a shall building not s than t in Appendix C, Table C 105.1. Existing hydrants in the area may a use to meet the required number, of hydrants as approved. Hydrants that are up to 600 feet away from the nearest point of a subject building that is protected with fire sprinklers may contribute to the required number of hydrants. Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by railroad tracks shall not contribute to the required number of hydrants unless approved by e ire code official. Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by divided highways or freeways shall not contribute to 'the required number of hydrants. HHeeavily traveled collector streets only as approved by the fire code official. Hydrants that are accessible only by a bride shall be acceptable to contribute to the required number of hydrants only if approved by the fire code of f iciar NOME OF TYPE II DEQSION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF a0ND01v rNrL M3 PAGE 37 OF 38 22) more than 15 teet trom an approved fire apparatus access • I Fire hydrants shall be located not 23) REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARI ERS: Fire hydrant locations. shall be identified bythe installation o reflective markers. 'Ihe mar rs s e lue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access road way that the fire hydrant is located on. In. case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly 24) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved ire apparatus access roadways and ~gg ting water supplies . shall _ be installed anoperational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible. materials on the site. SECTION X. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice was posted at Qty Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance X Affected government agencies Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON JUNE 21, 2006 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JULY 7, 2006 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Avi)eah 7Se decision of the Director (Type II Procedure) or Review Authority (Tye II Administrative Appeal or Type III Procedure) is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it rs maileed. Anypar ywith standing as provided in Section 18390.040.8.1. mua 4ppeal 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 the 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 appli cant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the specifnc issues ndentif i in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues pro perly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted by any party during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to time by the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS AT 5:00 PM ON JULY 6, 2006. Ouestions: If you have any Lions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, T'igarOregon at (503) 639-4171. Tune 20, 2006 PREP D BY &P*nstecher DATE, ciate Planner June 20, 2006 APPRO D BY: Richard B ersdorff DATE Planning Manager NOTICE OF TYPE H DEQSION SDR2005-00011/LONGSTAFF 00ND0M2ZLMS PAGE 38 OF 38 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM W VICINITY MAP SDR2005-0001 I SLR2005-00021 LONGSTAFF CONDOMINIUMS g Fe No RO' U RO Tigard Area Map N 0 100 200 300 400 Feet F.W 1'= 329 feet City of Tigard Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hag Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 6394171 http7/www.Ci.tigard.or.us Feb 7. 2006: CAMagiCWIAGIC03.APf 10,7 ° 24.0' 1za i LEGEND i z.a c T .a c TRATEL f PROPOSED RIGHT-DP-MAT - Y \ .R• D. E>OSING fwHT-OE-WAY E PRC'om CURB AND OWNER \ f PROPOSED CENIERLWE 7.02 02 t52 EMSTRD CENTOD. ~ PROPOSE PUBLIC UR11'! N EASEMENTD STREET B,C,D PROP- DmDNO "'DACR I 'LyNDT TD sCAL[ STREET A PROPOSED PROPERTY LW •~/l~ NOT TO SCALE EMSTWO PROPERTY lWE 1 I v PAOPOsro D-ARY L r EDSTWO BOU/IDMY LNE 11 i I PROPOSED HANDICAP RAMP PROPOSED A.C. PANNO PROPOSED SIDEWALK N N c/L .,..~,..0.. PROPOSED SIDEWALK By 1 I I EKISTNO sDEWALx ®PROPOSED ATpNNKT WALL WAY ' 6TREET A -~Z • ! ~ r 0S I- T w Ill VB /L /Tt C EY R S I 0.5- II 1 t~ 9W 95TH AVENUE 0.S• z I MALT sTACEi MO[N9 EIICM APPROL Ga• TO Ta.a STRIP m I 1 7.0• ROW DrOKADON RE ED NOT TO SCALE ! 1 or sIDFRAUI NTPK~! t~NA r/ I NA ar anRal" ! I SW 95TH AVENUE , 6i i , MALI STREET WDINS IRON APPROL ILI' TO 110 ' i 7.5' ROW OC REOUIRro $ w 1L__-_ , NOT T TO TO SCALE ' '1T ? i ~ WAG.! r~~ . alpha REVISIONS Mo. DATE DE9CRIPTON ABRAMS PROPERTY SITE PLAN aloha O SCALE m u m Im -50 m Ft Mmee.B BBT.720. An>a mN ]apnlTA 5 • ATTACHMENT 3 APPEAL FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DE CISION§VED PIN a.- City of Tzpd Pemit Center 13125 SWHaU Bhd, Tigv~ OR 97223 Phow 503.639.4171 Fax: 503.598.1960 JUL s 2006 CITY OF TIGARD The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's LW P, W, 4ts out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phone/fax listed at the top of this form. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Property Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the Application Being Appealed: 6" <S- - (imAdh_ i n tw....s' How Do You Qualify As A Party?: Appellant's Name: Appellant's Address: 113,T L- City/State: -Zip: Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached:( -3 s Scheduled Date Decision Is. To Be FinAL• Date Notice of Final Decision Was Given: Specific Grounds For Appeal or Review: ~6,,,,~ Gvt~.fr►na Ke_ Case No.(s): 61SPI WV5 -Dd 0 t1 Case Name(s): ,LQjA&SP~F CWW & Receipt No.: ;,,aD o 3"1 Application Accepted By: 25 Date: r& Approved As To Form By. Date: Denied As To Form By. Date: Rev. 7/5/06 c\curpln\masters\land use applications\appeal land use app.doc REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS ✓ Application Elements Submitted: Appeal Filing Form (completed) ❑ Filing Fee (based on criteria below) Directors Decision to Hearings Officer/Planning Commission $ 250.00 Expedited Review (deposit) E 300.00 ➢ Hearing Referee $ 500.00 D Planning Commission/Hearing'sOfficer toCity Council $2,461.00 Transcript) Si ture(s) of Appellant(s): CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Line Items: Case No d Receipt 27200600000000003401 . Dater 07/06/2006 7/6/2006 2:28:54PM Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid SDR2005-00011 [LANDUS] Appeal DD to HO 100-0000-438000 250.00 Line Item Total: $250.00 Payments: Method Payer User ID Acct./Check No. Approval No. How Received Amount Paid • Check SUSAN G BEILKE ST 7328 In Person 250.00 Payment Total: $250.00 cReceipt.rpt Page 1 of 1 • NOTICE OF APPEAL RE: LONGSTAFF CONDONIINIUMS SDR2005-00011 & SRL2005-00021 Appeal of Type H Decision Dated: July 6, 2006 Appellant: Sue Beilke Standing: I submitted timely written comments upon notice of pending decision. A copy of my comments demonstrate that the specific issues raised below were raised during the comment period, except for several issues which are. raised as a result of the lack of information in the Decision and/or by the failure of city staff to adequately address my comments. Specific Issues Raised on Appeal: A. 18.350 Planned Developments WD) As stated in my original comments, this section of the code states that PDs are done to preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities through this'procedure. Based on the existing site features (forests, significant wetlands, etc.,) this application should be submitted as a PD. Reference is made in the application which shows the words "Planned Devlop" and on page 8, under Procedure, it shows a check mark next to "Public hearing before the Planning Commission". We believe this is also proof that the applicant should be proposing their development as a planned development, as it was considered at some point but why it was not done as a PD is unclear. We therefore request of the Hearings Officer that the Decision of approval for this application be denied and the applicant resubmit an application under the Planned Development review process. B. Tigard's Comprehensive Plan 3.2.4 Again, we are requesting that the Hearings Officer reverse the approval of this.proposed development as it does not meet the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan. Under this section of the Comprehensive Plan, it states that the city shall prohibit development within areas designated as significant wetlands. A portion of the project site is currently "significant wetlands" on Tigard's wetlands map, and hence because of this, the Decision should not be approved be denied since it proposes to develop in a portion of one of the city's mapped significant wetland. The Plan also goes on to state that developments proposed adjacent to significant wetlands need to be done under the Planned Development section of the code. Again, since this application fails to adhere to this portion of the Comprehensive Plan, we request the application be denied. In the Pre-Application notes, on page 1 under Necessary Applications, it shows the words "Planned Devlop" and on page 8, under Procedure, it shows a check mark next to "Public hearing before the Planning Commission". We believe this is also proof that the applicant should be proposing their development as a planned development, as it was considered at some point but why it was not done as a PD is unclear C. 18.360.7 Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas As we stated in our original comments, all wetlands, buffer areas, etc. are to be protected according to CWS standards and regulations. The city's Decision to approve the use of these areas (17,763 sq. ft. of wetland buffer) for "useable outdoor recreation space" is not an acceptable use under CWS standards and regulations. The developer needs to find other suitable areas for outdoor recreation, and we suggest that some of the condominiums be eliminated to provide that required outdoor recreation space. Wetland buffers serve to "buffer" the negative effects of development, in this case the removal of vegetation, and construction of paved streets, condos, etc., from the wetland area. To allow recreation in the buffer area would eliminate the very purpose of the buffer area. Recreation, including a paved trail, creates impervious surfaces that reduce vegetation and prevent absorption of rainfall. There are numerous examples in Tigard of recreation that has been allowed in our public open spaces and forested areas in parks. We have photos and have talked to city park employees of the problems that have resulted from recreation occurring in open spaces. This includes complete removal of ALL vegetation due to children playing in an area, riding of bikes, dirt bikes, etc., to a point where the ground becomes as hard as concrete and nothing can grow in the area This then results in compacted soils that do not absorb rainfall, creates severe erosion problems, etc., and would result in negative impacts to water quality, which is the point of having "buffers" in the first place, that is, to protect "water quality". Allowing outdoor recreation in the buffer areas is not a compatible use when protecting water quality, as the CWS is required by law to do. The wetlands and buffer areas cannot be considered available for "usable outdoor recreation space" as they are sensitive areas that must be protected. The CWS letter states in the conditions section that "protection of the vegetated corridors and associated sensitive areas shall be provided by the installation of permanent fencing and signage between the development and the outer limits of the vegetated corridors". This requirement is a condition of the proposed project and is required in order to provide protection for the wetlands and buffers as well as to protect wildlife and water quality in this area. The applicant needs to provide other areas for outdoor recreation, and since they have failed to meet this part of the code, we therefore request that the Hearings Officer reverse the city's approval of this application. D. 18.390.040.e Impact Studv Again, as stated in our original comments, we did not see any evidence that the impact study included an analysis of the impact that the addition of the estimated 80+ cars from the . development would have on the surrounding streets/traffic including SW Greenburg road. Streets in this area are narrow and provide no sidewalks for pedestrians and having additional 80+ cars in the area would lead to a greater level of hazard which would negatively affect public safety. SW Greenburg road is already very congested at ALL times of the day due to the overdevelopment of Tigard. Adding more cars from this proposal would significantly increase number of vehicles and the number of trips made on these city streets, and we request a traffic impact study be done in order to evaluate the impacts of this project to the current traffic load on the streets in this part of Tigard. E. 18.745 Buffering As stated in our original comments, the applicant proposes to install an 8 foot pre-cast concrete or cast masonry unit screening wall along Hwy. 217 right-of-way for 650 feet from the NE corner of the site to the south. It appears that this wall may extend south into the buffer area based on our calculations done on the site plan map #5 which shows the wall along Hwy. 217. If one inch equals 40' as depicted, the southern end of the 650 foot wall. length would extend into the wetland buffer zone and this is not an allowed use under the. CWS regulations and conditions stated in the CWS Service Provider Letter, page 2 of 4. We therefore request the application be denied based on the failure of the application to adhere to the CWS conditions for allowed uses in the wetland buffer zone. F..18.385.040 As stated in our original comments, in addition, if the applicant proposes to construct the wall in a part of the wetland buffer zone, they are required to apply for a sensitive lands permit as required under 18.385.040 of the Tigard Development Code. We saw no evidence of this in the application file nor is this section of the Development Code listed as one of the Applicable Review Criteria. G. 18.775 Sensitive Lands Again, as stated in our original comments, the applicant's wetland delineation shows that no plots were done in the areas where development is proposed to occur. Plots were only done in tax lot 100, the area outside of the proposed development. Tigard's own wetlands inventory map shows the wetland area to be much larger, containing 3.02 acres of "significant" wetlands, labeled C-12 on the city's map. In order to accurately determine the exact wetland boundaries, the applicant's wetland delineation should have also included all of the other tax lots in order to determine whether any wetlands existed in these areas. No plots were done in these tax lots. We therefore request the application be denied based on the failure -to adequately inventory the entire site to determine the wetland boundaries. The wetland delineation was conducted on June 2nd and July 26th, 2005, a period of time when rainfall had been relatively low for the two weeks prior to the visits. The site visits at these times of the year missed the wet winter season when the possibility of standing or surface water would have been much greater and would have more accurately indicated what the wetland hydrology conditions were like on the site. For example, the site, including the portions of the northern portion of the site, had standing water in January of this year, 2006,when heavy winter rains occur in the area. We request the delineation be done in the northern portion of the site at a time of year when surface water may be visible in order for a more accurate delineation of the site be completed, especially in light of the fact that a large portion of the property is designated "significant wetlands" on Tigard's wetlands map. 0 Oregon ash, a wetland tree species, is present in these tax lots according to the tree inventory. Willamette Valley Ponderosa Pine, also.present in these tax lots, can occur in wetlands. The city of Tigard is planting WV Ponderosa Pine in its wetlands, for example in Fanno Creek Park south of City Hall; also, Fans of Fanno Creek has planted this tree species in the wetlands along Fanno Creek, north of SW North Dakota Street. Oregon white oak, also in these tax lots, can grow in wetlands; in the Willamette Valley, Oregon white oak is present in the wet prairie habitats, an example of this is at Bonita Park in Tigard or in the West Eugene wetlands at the Willow Creek Preserve. Since Oregon white oak and WV Ponderosa Pine are present on the site and can occur in wetlands, we request the -application be denied based on the failure to adequately sample the entire site. Page 9 of the tree inventory lists willow as occurring on the site (trees #9461 and 9462). These willows are obligate wetland species and are another indication that this northern portion of the site may contain wetlands. Again, the wetland delineation and plots should have included the entire site so that it would be more accurate. We request the application be denied based on the failure to adequately survey the entire site. The wetland delineation states that it must be reviewed and approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands in accordance with OAR 141-090-0005 through 141-090-0055. We saw no evidence of approval of the wetland delineation by DSL in the file. Further, the Decision to approve this application states that the wetland delineation has still not been approved by DSL. We therefore ask the Hearings Officer to reverse the approval of this application. "Sensitive Lands" include both wetlands and associated buffers. On page 20 of the Decision, it states that "a sensitive lands permit may be required" if a sewer line is required to cross the wetland and buffer to serve tax lot 8400 south of the wetland. Then it goes on to state that "a sensitive lands permit is not required for the proposed development". These are conflicting statements and need to be resolved before this application can be approved. Under 18.775.090, requirements of the Statewide Planning Goal 5 are addressed in order to protect Oregon's natural resources, in this case, the unique wetlands, vegetation, and wildlife located on the site. As we stated under 18.360, the city's approval of allowing for the "outdoor recreation areas" to be placed in the buffer areas, also known as "Sensitive lands", would be in direct violation of this part of the Code, and would negatively impact water quality, vegetation, wildlife, etc. and therefore should not be allowed. We therefore request the Hearings Officer reverse the city's approval of this application. Metro Regional Government has recently adopted the Ordinances No. 05-1077C and No. 05- 1097A. These ordinances include. Title 13, Nature in Neighborhoods, in order to comply with Statewide Land Use Planning Goals 5 and 6, in order to protect water quality and to ensure that fish and wildlife habitat is conserved and restored. We argue here that this development does not meet the provisions of these ordinances, as it fails to adequately protect water quality and to ensure that fish and wildlife habitat is conserved and restored. For example, as stated above, the approval of the use of the buffer areas as "outdoor recreation space" is in direct conflict and violation of these ordinances. In addition, allowing storm water runoff to be dumped directly into Ash Creek without an approved storm water facility is also in violation of these ordinances, as well as CWS standards and regulations. H. 18.775.070.E: As stated in my previous comments, on Tigard's Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetlands Map, the area of the entire western large lot is shown as"significant" wetlands. According to this section of the Code, a sensitive lands permit shall not be granted if the development is in a significant wetland. Even if it is determined that this part of the site is not in a significant wetland, the applicant would still need to apply for a map amendment which is done under a Type IV proceeding and we have not seen that proposed for-this application. We therefore ask that the application be denied based on this information. L 18.790.030 Tree Removal As stated previously, there are 470 trees on site, of which 106 trees are greater than 12". Page 3 of the Tree Inventory states 16 trees greater than 12" will be removed. Then in another part of the application, it states 20 trees greater than 12" will be removed. These are two conflicting statements and this needs to be addressed so citizens know what is correct in order to adequately comment on the tree removal part of the proposal. The tree removal/preservation map may also need to be revised based on what is correct. J. 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention As stated in our original comments, Willamette Valley Ponderosa Pine are genetically different from Ponderosa Pine on the east side of the Cascade Mountains, and as such are unique to the Willamette Valley. There are very few stands left in the Portland area, and the one on this site, mixed with other mature Oregon ash and oak, is a unique and outstanding feature of this area. As the applicant notes, some trees in this stand are over 40" d.b.h. The uniqueness and the size of some of the trees in this stand require that more trees be preserved in the northern and west sections of the site than is presently done in this application. This part of the code provides for incentives to retain existing trees on the site, for example, lot width and depth could be altered to save more trees in this area. Sidewalks and planter strips can be narrowed, curved, etc. in order to save some of these unique trees (see also provisions under 18.810.070 which states that planter strips do NOT have to be required if there are significant natural features such as large trees that would be destroyed if the sidewalk was located where required). An example of this is the development on North Dakota street just west of SW 115th, where two very large Ponderosa Pine trees were saved by narrowing or eliminating the planter strip and curving the sidewalk. This may have been an Alpha Engineering development? We believe a greater effort to save more trees in this area is warranted in this case because of the unique stand of pines and oaks. Tigard's tree code states that trees on a given site must be preserved to the greatest extent possible, and this has not been done. We therefore ask that the Hearings Officer reverse the approval of the city's Decision for failure to protect at least some of these unique and marvelous trees on the site. K 18.810 Street & Utility Improvement Standards The width of private streets in the application is 24 feet as stated on page 11 of the Decision. Page 36 of the Decision states that "roads 26 feet wide or less shall be posted on both sides as a fire lane." "Signs shall read "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE This condition is not enforceable and thus this Decision for approval should be reversed. As we stated in our comments dated 2/22/06, we have seen evidence of violations of the "No Parking" in several new developments in Tigard, and if cars are parked on both sides of the street, it would prevent fire trucks from accessing the area. For example, the Cascade subdivision off Tigard Street has "No Parking" posted on the west side of the street. Cars regularly (daily) park on the No Parking side. (We have pictures of cars parked on both sides of the street within the past two years.) In addition, cars also regularly park on the other side of the street, which creates a very serious health and safety risk, since it would prevent fire trucks from getting through. This condition is NOT enforceable by the city of Tigard and therefore cannot be met by this proposed development. I therefore request the Hearings Officer reverse the city's decision to approve this application. L. 18.810.100.C Storm Drainage As stated previously, there is a great deal of concern in the neighborhood over drainage in the area due to the proposed development. Neighbors already complain of water in subbasements and in their drainage ditches under current conditions. This project proposal may contribute to the problem since it appears their drainage calculations assume a 5.03 acre drainage area, when in fact, assessing the topography of the area, it appears that 10-15 acres drain downhill to the proposed development. The Tigard Development Code requires that a drainage facility "shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from the entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development." The application fails to comply with the current standards for storm drainage design and construction (Design and Construction Standards 04-09). Based on this information, we request the Hearings Officer reverse the city's approval of this application since it fails to adequately address the drainage issues on the site. XL Conditions of Approval & Code Requirements: We also request that the Hearings Officer reverse the city's Decision to approve this application based on the exorbitant number of conditions placed on the application, namely 43 by our account, and that some of these, as we described above, cannot be enforced and thus cannot be met by the applicant in order to ensure the safety and well being of the current citizens of this community. In addition, there are numerous code requirements that have not been met as stated in the Decision. Two examples are on pages 14 and 15, where it stated that the requirements for buffering and screening and service facilities have not been met. When this occurs, the application should be denied until the applicant shows they have met the requirements and so that citizens can also see the code requirements are being met. In this case they have not been met, and thus we request the Hearings Officer reverse the city's Decision to approve this application. r N. Failure to address citizen's comments: I and two other citizens of Tigard provided comments on this application. The city has failed to adequately address our comments in their Decision, and thus we request that the Hearings Officer reverse the city's approval of this application. The failure to address our comments denies citizens their right to be adequately informed about city issues and developments and to participate in these developments and issues in an equal and fair manner. The "Response" noted on page 7 of the Decision is not adequate in addressing our comments for it simply refers to a letter in the file date April 3, 2006. This information must be in the Decision and so that I and others can adequately review the Decision. The Decision goes on to state that staff has addressed these issues in the applicable sections of this decision, yet I find little to no evidence of that in this Decision. Filing Fee: Attached is my check for $ Z~. I am, however, requesting this fee be refunded to me as most of my comments submitted on February 22, 2006, were not addressed in the Decision issued by the City of Tigard, and it is unfair for citizens to be made to appeal a decision and pay a fee when their comments and concerns have not been adequately addressed by the city and the decision maker during the original comment period Signed: Sk._ Dated: 1- - 6Zo - CX10 ATTACHMENT 4 RESIDENTS, AGENCIES & OTHER STAFF COMMENTS Longstaff Condominiums SDR2005-00011/SLR2005-00021 .i ~j vwn ) ~ - 77 ' I-I t ~v l 5 10 F., -A., v its Prot 0 e How do permits (protect my home? • Permits ensure that a certified inspector inspects the construction project or installation. Inspections help make sure work is done safely and to code. When a city or county inspector approves work. you caul ask questions from all expert and kllow that the work has been checked for safeLF' Violations. This is of particular Vahte to tile trio-it-yourselfer who doesn't make installations every day. Incorrect installations can result in house fires, flood damage, and/'or structural problems. •permits help ensure that licensed contractors do the work if the homeowner doesn't handle the job. Only ConstrutctiOn Contactors Board (CCB} licensed contractors. and those who carry a trade license. such as plumbers and electricians, are allotted to legally work in Oregon. State and local building departments issue permits only to contractors who are properly licensed and bonded. I47hat about value? Getting a Permit can sate you rrrone. r • Inspections help ensure that work meets the building code. Inspections not only reveal minor problems that could lead to costly repairs. but also liability and Iife-safety concerns like structural wcaknesses, clangerotls V.-iiing or defective plumbing. •VVIlen it comes to selling a house. realtors and lenders play require that arty construction work is clone with permits to ensure that the house is safe for fucttre occupants. If -work is not permitted,-. instead of closing on your home, you'll have to scramble to catch up with permits and inspections - and additional repair .pork if the installations weren't made to code. Here's what homeoutuers can do to (protect themselves: • Insist on perlllits! It simply doesn't pay to cut corners when it comes to your biggsest financial asset. your home. *Check a contractor's CCB license to ensure that the contractor- is le!Zally licensed and bonded to Work in Oregon. Beware of a contactor willing to work without permits. *Use - or insist that the contractor uses - only licensed plumbers and electricians. Along with homeowners t+orkin., on their own homes, only licensed plumbers and electricians are legally alloti•ed to do plunlbirlg or electrical wort: in Oregon. Professional licenses reflect four years of intense training and annual cont.intting education- and ensure that Contractors are qualified t.. do the work- How do I get a hermit? *~Vhen using licensed contractors, they will take out the permits. Always retain copies for your records • If you are Join- the rrork yourself, you can call the local building, department or use the Internet: tvwt+•.permitsprC~tert.inlo. Getting a permit is as often as easy as dov,-i loadin; a form and sending the application and fee to the local jtu-isdictiou. ,County and city front desks are set ul> to help you through the permit process Protecting the Safety & Value of Your Home w w w perm its protect.info Base transit network oss Exisiting bus lines © PJ Additional bus lines (Financially Constrained) New Highway 217 express bus lines 6i ❑ Lake Oswego Express q97 Sherwood Express Rail -02 Existing Light Rail Proposed Commuter Rail (CR) Stations 0 Existing Light Rail ® Proposed. Commuter Rail (CR) PLANNING DEPARTMENT: CORRIDOR DIVISION TC Transit Centers The information on this map was derived from digital databases on Metro's GIS. Care was taken in the creation of this map. Metro cannot accept any responsibility for errors. omissions, or positional © Park and Ride accuracy. There are no warranties, expressed or implied, including the warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, accompanying this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. Centers type Regional] o o. 6.8 1.2 1.6 Town Miles 0 0.6 1 1.6 2 Kilometers METRO FC,Jj~VY\ t,2 26 w r 00 LO 3075 ~NS 130461- 3047 L RD 3074 m HART RD cr_ WhIR RD 6053 GOB 26 A 1 _ Type of corridor improvement PAC Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian 26 " Improvements Recommended Westside Bicycle Route .r KD 0 PAT rOP `L1 GP rIY Sea j' BEAVERTON Fanno Creek \\P lJ r Fnlr r vr' Trail S C . Regional . VERN L _ t DCNNEY Cdr c ,•a MULTNOMAH °C ~a\ C;APQ1- N r eek re9 o j . HOME RD BROCKRxAn,•,T, ~?9 1 Gi~ r9n Square 1.1 t ~ • ; • _ . ~ p ; IJ i C\J BLS. I i , ~ _ j Z . .Y..... Hunziker St e Bike and Pedestrian Project Name RTP Number 3075 Cedar Hills Blvd Improvements, Butner Rd to Walker Rd 3046 Hall Blvd Bikeway, Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy to Cedar Hills Blvd 3047 Watson Ave Bikeway, Beaveron-Hillsdale Hwy to Hall Blvd 3074 Hall Blvd Bikeway (gap at Allen Blvd) Not in RTP Fanno Creek Regional Trail 6053 Nimbus Ave extention Not in RTP Hunziker St, Hall Blvd to 72nd Ave Not in RTP Multi-use path, 1-5 to 72nd 1; FOSB 1-5 to 72nd o Multi-Use Path nR m ~~nEN ,lF_ AN Du A TUALATIN RD ~5 EXISTING ROUTES/PATHS/TRAILS Bike lane Multi-use path/trail (irnaudes rived inter-rujivrs+l, and grecnway trails iWo,1 PLANNED ROUTES/PATHS/TRAILS Bike lane Multi-use path/trail Location of [ Route Connectivity ,z~, o Improvement "?:z Recommended Overpass u~ Improvements Type of center Regional Town 0 ~ _ 0-5 1 Mile October 2005 ^s RirJ _ f. r i r, _ '9,'~",~'{" r,t~ : ao; ti - , , '`t , Y' t t"~ i.~ y4 v , e 1. 2'.~::":...,: ,1.; ~r~r'a;., -14 "o ' , .ns < 1: - r Y' ~ k, S r' a, ''f?'- " r s ; r ~ :t . s '.~~,.t _'!Po~ _ - - . ~ , , I . ~O , , r , " " d r"1 - r . (1 i Y : I ' t /t J:. 4-7 { ~r~ r 1` tr l ' ' „N. > r h t r - 4L •i j 'iq ' t ,a,,,,, ;"h r5 ' ^ , . tl < l\ , ` ,a,',, r'.I 1`^". I , T+ : •'t' . +,-Y 'Y. •t' ::1+:.? ' . r t ,1W N , ...i ' '•4'. x.12``•' ;w"~(.' - . A . - lJ 'Y '.\2^ 't . Zl'rs' . - i.'•'- .N.. tr `Y ^t: •:11"1',:. . I A 'RF V .,f r S.° a'•,F •4-' l .✓,1 3. .C,. . .t b 1tc _ ~Y5` n,x. :d' tiI- . , ,*,'I r?. `u-~~" ir •'t..; `~j, ,::r;,• ,v,, ,nt: , i'r. 11 a .._,~~'i;•; . t t , •":f~\ - '4} •4•h^ `P .'4`' .,",i V'•.{;~.7~y~g,',~ .l,i. 'Si, 'd_'~'~yj `.:.T .t-n:.~ s 4.~ ll' `t(. •.l,\ t i 71`x• P +%5 "M;-' f 'Y , :,5: 1''~•. - ~ N", , , , . 1 t cx, ,I O ,~l` !i .J-,.}'aaC•"1,'i" - St - ( AY, Y" fir., _ ;ko, t - '.i . z , v _ i : I I" C- r L n. .:yam C ✓ . • ~_;:b^ .;y:,' :9 . . - r. ;tit:.;.' - i - 1 l .'i' .gin`7,' t ~ V., . . I 11, 'r " C. I *:1, , . ~,,'-.~n::~ , , ~ , .1_t~. _rT__F.rA1 , . A.",'-~~;.,!" " t,,-_Z, - 4 - , - . . , S'r'i(..t-•1' PkI. ,A• f,~"c.'y 7 rL•• :i T , - v r y 5r °r ' • 1^ 1 1 E'•ti n,Y.,l, '.i c . "Y7 " ` - •e- 't' _t •A,-~' ,q~• :It.y { i 'f• r`rr(l 1 I I . - "I , ~'L- + ,~t lk, ,r.': t•'+ttr. .p:i,k 5. t r.:. . ; ~ . _ , .1 , ~ , , , i4'. -Y ;i.:,' ,.1.tr;i r-; ~~hl ::''rt .i,, 1r..v- 4 * le, -1,11""S11 IJ . I . ~ " - , lt ~ , - ~ . : T ~ i o ,,":'aif :`ia .n. 'L.: ,~,t qo o 5 ~Y* T!, . ~ . ;;e, ,4 , N I J T~'_,V 1. " , ~ f.'. Y~ s, i tsr, r fi w 1 + a ,;.':.''4n.;'r,~ t,~:'.;,,L 'f,.k.' t:1',"~,:!', _k", .'s_',:~,_,' r' ~y ~'`y 17 re. _ * 0; ' , r:• :'P• 'T•^ ~rt:,i - .4 1 99 ? 4 r r:,tr r `,,L. `a1a - ik> _Vo" x.' c` E 4': ~ - • ',~:~+:,i .'t aa„ } f \ Y'n '4 = ki fps 4 ro! 't r ' crt 11 ~:,4-k - , N " " ~ ~ _W`:~` 11, , _ - , I I `tc ' ~1 r t,~•- :N•', . ♦ ~l` _ F ' - 11 ' n •S 1?Vf-mot :f - . .'4 * . H = S. 1 't/~•' ~j, a'. '`l ,'k' a y :'u.. .'`711.:::x• YY w`: { x . c:.T y µ':r.,, a A S., ~ 11 ff'' S. ~ : ~ - ~ IT, "1 i r~ 3 +r ! t N.r. I r 'X . ,t1 r 1 a r' t '...t ~ ~l' - ':ter'>s>. •c~• 'fit. ''s 1,~ . . I ~ . - , , ".-I N~ lrl;'~ - 1. ~ I- " 11 1.;~:~~_'~ . 7 _ _j, _ , I - "tfU ` 1' e~ „i: , , , '111. 411 Y i. I I , I 11 I I i., 17'r,"', "N I , "W 5t i Y - It , ;fit ~ :ie A~t1ta \rt v - D et „ i' :1r . r - ~ u' 1 t! i V'- :F"r •v .,n' 1 - Z. ` k $ J, r4 . ' '~.l'• "'Y. _ '0' _ ' ll ':may . , r . , i r e `r r " . 7, - IN ~ .111, . - f .11 ~~.z_ ~ I - , . ~ . I : , WA.... w . ~ , , 1-1 . 1: - j v 1. p ~l,y' ref N . - ' 'n t - :,••g: ]W +t` . , y iy N i•. i 3 , l3~ to w :r5 , ;r::, ' 1. -l' , 1~ L , -:'-.-~,.'l I - ' ,.t,+ y ',"fi, Y, •'Y"', ` '.~AT'~ tr lo'. v t 1 IF :`r ,y . ~ : +''t - F+t 0 "I -'P- '"I:Ht' .•I:',•;',s -,rf s j .~z ~Ii", _ /.,art 1Y r e f.,~- : ' } - •/'t - ,'r 11 t. •~i'• .'1~.~ D "M,y , -+i 1, +i i :4 i a;. * l' ' ii ~ ! " . t~ ,I. is ^3 • ,•C ' ' ' ..t,y. - r ! - . '►I ~ I a•, 1-, .tFn . '•M h w , .,?r__ .";t •:'y. 14 l Y r~ y, ~r 11 f... .I I'll, :l' . 5' ~,rr b-.1 , -ply t, f" r'• ?•w~' _ c,., •'r• ti'1 ` a •.y. > `3 .e..- , l',t •'c ` ` •.:ai +11 , J', . I . - act- , - r PI }yew -1 ;^.,i, :e"r,' c, , k,r . . 1*~~, , , _111.111 , "N t - - I I ~ ,4.,.,,~ "'o, , ~ '-j. , I , " . .4t; ,J~i"',_~~,,~',i,/_ IP . - .:",,._.1 ' ` -t' ;t x i r' r Sf J , ' v,R `t '•wl. 4,' gyp. y liy I t,. 11 - r ,W_:~~ . , . 19 I-, l- t' o. l` l' i'+-? rje , , Y: 'r f",{`: ,.r:~•' >tl r-' - ' d+' 'h`' '-h;. ie. , y11G, ~ti: a Z p, , , , f F i..i t y. : 11 a :v , . . F r V.- - .1 ':i -iiiY , ~ v ~gw : - vl {a w: 'ter.' _ r ' ':y " . rf - : ;y,. "i,. d't ,i +yc:" .G . °j + aft ' . 1 - 4'`3:P Ir. ,,+tI 1W - r .'C -~,{y'Y f ~''1,•'.•:111,.,Jiytt ) . + v - rte 5 : .l - ^ 4 .1 ~ e 'j-, I . N, ~t,-,- , I ~ "L -.,N, „ 4 { 11 174 q I 1p - < F.41 S'*'•~ ,,:'=}?~'.-lif.-' i, l:'' + "t`"'F,.i;: "`rz : 'r Ti ,ago-' - ('i'h~ 'ti' _ 3.. ,,r,..r-t- "'L", } i 4:"•f' j. L 7 Y,~ « n'f~'.rh.': .Z.. v a ,Z. 1'.1, 1: i '.L: +'G'1',';. "cl: . a ' - , j';. yy~~ - r j r N l `'r . 5 ~a - - ' w ``1 .1 r `.,_'V .ti. s;>f.,i~I E' ;,ai ''ir I i_ 'e ;.:.:;x ;fit 9 '.7 .l:;: K!,' t," ' jk , .rt'r ` .,.t •1, .A\. •S} '1.'_•'Ni j•'a._-1 :i.l "~''r,{, . . , X . -1 . r . -u "v, 1'.. .i.~' . ` - „r'•, . rt,' ,.i, • ~J` 'r, . F1! , ! ~ ~ ""L " \ !~q , " ~ liq ~ . I t.,p r z:'• .tP dry 5 , - `t , fp`: k i'',, - • ti:'~ ~ -w ' h:..- ,y,':'" cl;,' 1 i ' ri,~.': ,Y. , . , , - 0, 16% . . ~ ~ , . ~ fo., - I ~ -c ``h SAL "S' .ex } r r rv,:v' Y. , , t'V 7 - ^'e- ^'i;d':: r K . ,,,,:'k ,t"'s r r. _ , 14 :..,;N,1. 'p ~ir.", 't.1"'~ :5 `sir 1r A•. t.. , ' r 1 ' ','8. . ` fix.. 'f ' :1i! Abrams Project Page 1 of 2 Albert Castaneda From: McMullen, Eric T. [Eric.McMullen@tvfr.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:25 PM 'To: Albert Castaneda Cc: kim@tigard-or.gov Subject: FW: Abrams Project Attachments: 328-028-COM P. pdf 'Albert, ,The proposed location of the fire hydrant is acceptable. Fire apparatus access looks good also as long as parking is allowed in the spaces shown on'the plan only. The roadway throughout the development will need to be posted as a. fire lane. 'The above stated conditions are predicated on the installation of fire sprinklers in all buildings. Eric T. McMullen Deputy Fire Marshal Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Ph. 503.612.7000 Fax 503.612.7003 eric. mcmullen(cD-tvfr www.tvfr.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. from: Albert Castaneda [mailto:afc@AlphaCommunity.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:15 PM To: McMullen, Eric T. Cc: Garry Truyens; Kirsten Van Loo Subject: Abrams Project Eric, I have another one for you. We looked at this a couple months ago when we met and now Kim McMillan is asking for something from you telling us that you are satisfied. She asks that you forward her and email with the attachments so that she knows that you are.agreeing to what is in this email. This is a townhome project that has a long drive going into the project. The radius are tight but they do meet your requirements. There is a proposed hydrant about 300 feet back from the public road and we are proposing to sprinkler the.buildings. We will have to post some of the areas with "no parking" signs to assure that your route is not obstructed. We can make some slight.adjustments to the circle at the end of the drive if we need to make a driveable apron. We talked about using some of the same ideas as we did at Villebois. Please let me know if you have any comments or if we are okay. I hope all is well. Thanks. «328-028-COMP.pdf>> 4/25/2006 Abrams Project Page 2 of 2 Albert Castaneda, PE Project Manager Alpha Community Development Phone: 503.452.8003 Fax: 503.452.8043 4/25/2006 A , LEGEND ' V EASEMENT LINES TI i I y/,r -SS>- PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER I (/ll / EX SANITARY SEWER EXIST SAN M66H.2? M ELEV. 1 I -50>= PROPOSED STORM DRAIN alpha R! ;N 157.72 (S) l EX STORM DRAIN OUT 1:7.52 (.:E) -w- PROPOSED WATER LINE 1,> -w- EX WATER LINE COMMUNITY -G- EX GAS LINE DEVELOPMENT l - WR- EX BURIED POWER LINE 'I -GH- EX OVERHEAD POWER LINE ---cATv- EX CABLE TV LINE - EX TELEPHONE LINE 9600 SW Oak, Suite 230 ! I WATER QUALITY 65' x i Q PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE Portland, OR 97223 MANHOLE CMP ARCH PIPE I E% SANITARY MANHOLE P) 503-452-8003 19503.452-BM t8. - - ~ ° • PROPOSED SANITARY CLEANOUT Lzi wv+w.alphacommuniry.com ! I ~ 'N E% SANITARY CLEANOUT • PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE ® IX STORM MANHOLE dhM i ■ PROPOSED CATCH BASIN METER REVISIONS O IX CATCH BASIN TYP, o PROPOSED STORM CLEANOUT NO. DATE DESCRIPTION I I I (r; 6 EX STORM CLEANOUT I I 1 5 PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT Ii EX FIRE HYDRANT 8! PROPOSED WATER METER I i r \ $ e EX WATER METER u 1 • PROPOSED WATER VALVE ' EX WATER VALVE w PROPOSED BLOW-OFF 1 1 EX BLOW-OFF j k .I I ® - e PROPOSED AIR RELEASE VALVE AP?P.CXiMATE LOCAT!ON E% AIR RELEASE VALVE OF FUTURE STORM I j = i I I % PROPOSED THRUST BLOCK DRAT?; LINE TO BE BUILT) r E% THRUST BLOCK O':HERS ( (ri - il i 1 I EX GAS VALVE EX CABLE RISER «I! I i 1 oS II V EX TELEPHONE RISER J I5O sv 55x 5S. ^ •YSS P. ' $ 160.80 (S) Y OUT 160.75 (N) a 1 ' I RIM ELEV. 172.75 FXSi SAN MH ' OUT 163.75 (W) ABRAMS Rik ELEV. 171.85 i i t ' IN 161.59 (S) 1 OUT ':61.49 (N) g PROPERTY 1 I x 1 • I A, 1 ~ COMPOSITE ' UTILITY CONCEPT PLAN EXIST SAN MH ' RIM ELEV. 171.50 IN 161.40 (5) a,..-...... IN 151.30 (E) CUT 1611.25 (I.) -29- alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . j l PROJECT NO.: 328-028 TYPE: PLANNING i _ DATE SCALE 40 .0 20 40 BO 1 IN = 40 FT C:\wort\BGP[ot_3240\3M4IDLOMP.dwg-SHER:?234 Jon 31, ZKM-10.20an aml t+• 'l 0 February 22, 2006 City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard Oregon 97223 ,`~_.'1.•.._._ is `~~%~_~,,'I_ i. uvlvld.-, Attn: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner File Name: Longstaff Condominiums File Numbers: (SDR) 2005-00011 and (SLR) 2005-00021 The following comments are regarding concerns from residents in the neighborhood affected by development of Longstaff Condominiums: ❖ Drainage Concern of the drainage plans in application. The rain and surface water runoff from the entire uphill neighborhood naturally drains into the property in question. The drainage ditch's that run along 95th avenue are already insufficient since the City changed the flow from both sides of 95th Ave. to only'one side of the street. Most of the residences in this neighborhood already have standing water in their properties that require sump pumps throughout the year. Concern that if the natural flow is disrupted and the already eidsting water problem is increased that the water will back up into other properties around the development. Also a proposed development, Livingston Estates directly across the street from the proposed site is also going to add to the surface water runoff possibly causing issues with Ash Creek that borders that property, S.W. 95`h and 217 and this project. ❖ Traffic and % Street Improvements The traffic from the proposed development would increase car usage by 43 units x probable 2 cars each with the minimum of several trips a day would create over 300 trips on the road through the neighborhood. Proposed development across 95'h also will bring in 11-13 more units with multitle cars. Also concerned with changes to 95th that would require eliminating old oak trees along 95 Ave. for any % street development that goes beyond the frontage of said properties. ❖ Buffer The proposed 8 foot wall to be in place along 217 would be insufficient with3 story buildings to stop the increased noise from 217 and from the development to the adjoining properties with the removal of the trees for building. Also concerned there does not seem to be plans for any screening from the neighbors adjoining the properties to the development. ❖ Wetland and Sensitive Lands The wetland study obtained by Alpha Engineering was completed in July 2005 after a very dry late winter and spring. Considering the month in which it was completed the concern is that it is not an ~JU a..k• d2~. iw.j` accurate representation of the water table and drainage in the development area. In the adjoining property to the development "out of the delineation area" there was standing water in several areas on February 21, 2006 after no rain and temperatures in the 20's for several days. There is also a large stand of Ash Trees in the development area and nesting Red Tail Hawk in the trees in the property adjacent. Concern with the loss of trees. Proposed in the plans is for a path for residences to go into the wetland area. Concern for the access to neighboring properties and destruction of the wetland areas that are protected. ❖ Hwy 217 In the projected plans for changes on Hwy 217 is for widening of 217 along the South side of the Highway. The access for the back of the property would be adjacent to 217 in the right of way. If the projected plans of widening went through how would they access back of the property? ❖ Density If the proposed development is using only 520/0 of the site that would increase the density from R12 zoning to 43 units on 2 % acres which would be approx. 17 units per acre. Concern with that many units on size of site. Thank you for you time and consideration on this matter. Darcy &e Erdman 11070 S.W. 95 h Ave. Tigard Oregon 97223 503-684-0789 P~Wo u-rt-i RU"-tL-tq , (0 2,5 Aue -Cic~cwr~ u~. a?223 5~3. ~ 25Z3 4- A lta c1. i'° 92-'Z 3 7 1-113- 1 (vim SO 3 ~ ~ ay ~ ,-qa-d on S. LV, 0. DOLk 0 ~ct C~ J rr . 503 ~aq~5 S,c,~a CQ RE~IVED LONGSTAFF INITIAL REVIEW NOTES FEB 2 3 2006 2/23/06 John Frewing files these comments on Tigard SDR 2005-00011 Q. These comments ask Tigard staff to exercise the discretion availabl design that meets the purposes of the Tigard development code and specifically Chapter 18.360 (see 18.360.010). For example, TCDC 18.360.090 A.11 regarding public transit states broadly that `provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit' without naming any specific provision. Criteria for requirements merely state that the requirements shall be `based on' location, size and type of proposal and then some examples (but not an exclusive list) are provided. Tigard citizens rely on staff to implement the purpose of the code. 1 I am concerned that the intent of the TCDC requirement to notify adjacent land owners has not been met. There appears to be no ODOT notification to Dist 2A (Sam Hunaldi, 6000 Raab Rd, Portland, OR 97221) although Region 1 got a copy (Grant Robinson, 123 N. Flanders, Portland). Dist 2A is more cognizant of the adjacent Highway 217 conditions and prospective impacts than the larger regional headquarters. In particular, ODOT should be notified through their representatives on the Highway 217 Corridor Study, which anticipates some changes which may impact the proposed Longstaff Condos. See attached cover sheet from the final Study Findings and Recommendations. Attachment A. 2 CWS (Clean Water Services) has provided SPL (Service Provider Letter) 05-4325 dated 12/20/05. Field work appears to have been done exclusively June, July 05, when standing water conditions during much of the year would not have been visible. Neighbors have reported to me that standing water appears during most months, staying in the low spots for more than seven days. Tigard should require more extensive wetland surveys - over different months and with a more detailed topography evaluation, since the land is relatively flat and even 18 inches of elevation difference directs water one way or another. See attached letter to me from CWS which reinforces the duty of Tigard to look at the substance of a service provider letter as well is its mere existence. Attachment B. 3 Entire southern tract is a wetland on Tigard map (referenced and part of comprehensive plan), with buffers extending out from it. Tigard map shows a stream draining through the middle of southeastern tax lot, proceeding under 217, heading NE to meet Ash Creek. Applicant's discussion of hydrology does not address this feature. See attached map from Tigard's `MAGIC' electronic mapping system. Attachment C. On a recent visit to adjacent properties, I observed water running on to the portion of the site, which is proposed to be developed from lots near the end of SW 93`d. 4 Even if a consultant finds that less than all of the southeastern tax lot is wetland, nevertheless, the Tigard map appears to have to be amended before development can be approved (sensitive lands permit) in order to comply with the wording of the code. Amending the map is a legislative action (Type IV) hearing. 5 In completeness review, Gary P mentions 12/15 lack of tree removal plan (it is yellow in the later file) (applies to trees on other property. where 15% of root mass is on the subject property). Review on 2/17 found that the tree plan doesn't list trees by species as required by the code - for example, Tree 9118 is simply listed as a 40" `deciduous' tree. There is no evidence of using proven construction practices such as bridge foundations in order to save major trees to the greatest extent possible, as committed in neighborhood meeting notes. 6 In completeness review, Gary P mentions 12/15 lack of storm drain details, which drains across SW 95 h to an open ditch which then drains to Ash Creek. Note that this flow is different from the Tigard map which shows some southern tract drainage under 217. ODOT map also shows a culvert under 217, but its catch basin is not clear. Storm drain plans should consider the entire uphill drainage on to the site. 7 Kim 1/30 doesn't see water quality and detention facility on Sheet 6, Utililties. I still do not see its location on any application drawings. Text indicates it will be placed in SW 95 h, but such placement impacts trees and street drainage. It should be illustrated in the application. Storm detention should be done on site. 8 Gary P 12/15, in completeness review checked the item which says that building footprints are provided. I didn't see it correlated with trees to be saved `to the maximum extent possible,' ie there is no drawing which shows both the building footprints and trees to be saved. Since this is one purpose of requiring building footprints, it is not possible to view in the application compliance with the tree retention standard. 9 Per Section 360 reqts, an 8 foot by 650 foot masonry wall is proposed along 217, with planting on the development side of the wall. Wall height limits are normally six feet maximum; no variance appears to be requested. But even with 8-foot wall, noise from 217 will still not be shielded from second and third story condos. 10 Application says 19 percent of gross site is landscaped. This appears to count the wetland and buffer area, which is to be fenced and not to be disturbed, hence it will not be landscaped. The application does not otherwise meet the TCDC standard. 11 Despite sharp corner and no sidewalks, no amenities for transit are proposed. A sidewalk to Greenburg Rd should be provided. Transit service is planned on adjacent Highway 217. 12 Impact statement is less than 2 pages - drainage, parks, water, noise, sanitary sewer and transportation - I don't believe it meets the code rules of Section 390 which require `quantifying' the effect of the development. The same rule requires the study to `propose improvements' to `minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems and affected private property users.' Neighborhood meeting identified other impacts, eg schools. 13 Natural resource assessment doesn't mention anadromous fish in Ash Creek, thereby giving the site a lower score. Other developments along Ash Creek do recognize this value in Ash Creek. The natural resource assessment should be revised accordingly. 14 The application indicates that sight distance requirements are not met because of corner of 95d' and Shady Lane, but `stopping distance' is apparently met. Preapp notes say sight distance must be met. Tigard staff should require compliance with its instructions. 15 Preapp notes call for PD and zone change, but not so on notice of complete application. Preapp form has checked the requirements for block size, specifically calling for a street plan to connect eventually via Longstaff to 93rd. No evidence of this appears to be in the application. 16 Soils map not readable. Readable version should be made available for public review 17 Storm drainage calculations seem to have problems. Total drainage is shown as 5.03 acres - does not include uphill drainage to south and west. See attached topographic map from Washington County GIS. Attachment D. Tigard sewer map shows maybe another ten acres of offside storm drainage coming to this site from the south and west, between 9& and 95 h. See attached map from Tigard's `MAGIC' electronic mapping system. Attachment E. Detailed evaluation of flow is necessary, but is not mentioned in application. Text says retention facility is a 5 foot by 215 foot pipe (not shown on drawings). Calculations use a liquid friction flow factor `n' of .15 and .11 for `sheet flow' and .15 for `channel' flow; these are are very low for flow over ground and are applicable only for smoothed surfaces like PVC piping. Comprehensive plan requires that 100 year flood not impact other facilities - drainage calculations show culvert under 95`' and ditch on its north side may not handle this flow. The 12" discharge line in 95th is stated to have capacity of 3.65cfs, but hydrograph #5 (100 year flood) shows a peak flow of 4.08 cfs. 18 Neighborhood meeting notes indicate several analyses will be performed although there is no evidence of such analyses or results. Without such documentation, the neighborhood meeting is useless. There should be conclusive responses to issues raised at neighborhood meeting, eg 95th street development, drainage, cumulative impact with Livingston Lane development across 95`h (eg for traffic impact), etc. 19 Tigard's comprehensive plan, at Policy 3.4.2b states that development proposals in designated timbered to tree areas be processed as planned developments. Longstaff Condos definitely are sited in designated tree areas, as indicated in the attached figure from the Tigard comprehensive plan (see circled area on page I-39, Attachment F), which is the only designation of tree areas for the city. As a result, this development proposal should be processed as a Type III planned development. John ewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 jfrewing@teleport.com Highway 217 Corridor Study Phase H Overview Report - Study Findings and Recommendation November 16, 2005 n O O O C EEO -i Beaverion-ffrllsdale ffigb .gay Scholls Ferry Road Allen flonlevard CleanWater Services Our commitment is clear. LEGAL DEPARTMENT August 11, 2005 John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Frewing: Dick Schouten, Washington County Commissioner and a member of the Board of Directors of Clean Water Services (District), has asked me to reply to your inquiries regarding opportunities for public input to a Service Provider Letter (SPL). The District believed it responded to your request for this information previously. Brian Wegener of the Tualatin Riverkeepers asked the District this question and we responded to Mr. Wegener by telephone on March 31, 2005. The District's understanding was that Mr. Wegener was asking the question on both his and your behalf. Our apologies for any role the District may have played in any misunderstanding. In any event, the response we gave to Mr. Wegener and now to you follows, paraphrased in essential part, below. An applicant needs an SPL before they apply to the local jurisdiction for land use approval. The land use approval always has some public input h a s e included. For simple land use applications, pu is lnvo -em-e-ff l may be a notice an 5-day comment period. For more significant projects, how--ver, the public involvement is a public hearing ::here thAe public can present testimony. Comments received from agencies, including an SPL, are always part of the record fora land use action. Therefore, this information is available for the public to review and comment on. The District's understanding is that you reviewed the SPL as part of the land use record and notified the District of a potential error. The system should work this way and it seems it did. Alternatively, you could have made comments at the public hearing or during the land use comment period. In most cases, the jurisdiction then would inquire to Clean Water Services to determine the validity of the comment. If valid and if it could impact the development proposal, the 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway • Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 Phone: (503) 681-3600 • Fax: (503) 681-3603 • www.CleanWaterServices.org Letter to John Frewil. • August 11, 2005 Page 2 of 2 jurisdiction would then deny the land use application, or more typically, suggest to the applicant that they ask for a continuance to work out the issue. The District believes that the comment period suggested by Brian Wegener is already built into the la~nd_use nr~~P~s_ I hope the above response clarifies opportunities for comment you had or will have in the land use process. Very truly yours, Gerald P. Linder General Counsel GPL:ceg cc: Dick Schouten J° -~D D f. f l i Lea, AI oz' 1 Pit 12 Ts' aaawaavaur nterm* Navigation: I New Search I Navigator I Home I Help 1 10890 SW 95TH AVE Active Tool: Zoom In Overview Ma Zoorr a it ~ 9 Sty SIT Selected Taxlot Jill =Overview Location Zoorr Maps: )out Zoning Contour Lines Pan 8 Recei Air Photo tth, 1 USGS Quads % Selec View Legend New Taxio y J Zoor To Selei Taxi( Jurisdiction: Tigard Plan Designation: Please Contact Tigard for zoning information. Within Urban Growth Boundary: Yes Water District: TVW Fire District: TVFR School District: TIGARD-TUALATIN Election Precinct: 400 Citizen Participation Org: CP04M Census Tract: 030900 Census Blockgroup: 0309001 Zipcode: 97223 Garbage Hauler: Pride Disposal (503) 625-6177 Garbage Dropbox: Pride Disposal (503) 625-6177 Overlay Information for: IS135AC02500 `V Assessment & Taxation Information Site Address: 110890 SW 95TH AVE Market Land Value: 1$142,240 http://washims.co.washington.or.us/gis/InterMap/InterDetails.cfm?GoNav=O&MapScale=19... 2/16/06 ..b.. . GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS Washington County, Oregon a5 35D C 12103/2003 MAGIC PRT 06/16/2004 IS p Mk W Ater Quality Facility Private Water Quality Fadlty N -0 w r y DIAGRAM IV - W.1 L 47 ~f.lllllti.. ~~,.~It~~1:Illll,•• y ( ~ ~ ( I ( l lf.l►l4,ll.ll I 1 11,1 ;t!lunt iL;~ ~ 1. till 1 w.nmhL]meT1T'T' _ _ •t•A I•.. n)'\ _ ~ r _ l iS EXISTING VEGETATION p CONIFEROUS p DECIDUOUS ® MIXED-CONIFEROUS/DECIDUOUS © BRUSH Q MEADOW MARSH fal~ 4 'ii.' 2~•. . 1 CITE TIG;RO !~^y CIANNYXi 'W SCALE T'~I I 39 CITY OF T CARD RErflIVED FEB 2 3 2006 Mr Gary Pagenstecher Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 0 Pat Whiting, Chair CPO-4M c/o 8122 S.W. Spruce St. Tigard, Oregon 97223 February 23, 2006 Re: Application for Development: Longstaff Condominiums, Site Development Review SDR 2005- 00011 and Sensitive Lands Review SLR 2005-00021 Dear Mr. Pagenstecher: CPO-4M, Citizen Participation Organization, which has in its designated area the eastern-half of Tigard, part of Durham and the Metzger Community is submitting the following concerns and recommendations regarding the Longstaff'Condominiums proposal as we would like to participate early in the decision- making process. We ask that these observations be included in the record and evaluated-'as part of the initial staff decision. The development proposal site is within the boundaries of CPO-4M in a Tigard neighborhood south of HWy 217. CPO-4M has long had an interest in development in Tigard. Perhaps the most relevant experience was the multi-year effort to help plan the Washington Square Regional Center, not far from the Longstaff Condo proposal. We are concerned that develop- ment in our area is "commensurate with the physical characteristics of the land;" noted as Purpose 1. of the Tigard Development Code (18.110.020) and that in development, "pubic health, safety, convenience and welfare" be protected (same citation). DRAINAGE At the neighborhood meeting held in the applicant's offices, most neighbors,-expressed concern over drainage if the proposed ash forest area is developed. They noted that already, their drainage ditches and residential crawl spaces often fill with water. We are 66ncerned that the"proposal may fail to show how the development will avoid contributing to this problem. For one example, the drainage calculations assume a 5.03 acre drainage area, almost identical to the"4.98 acres of the development. Yet, the topography of the area, assuming that water runs downhill, dictates that some 10 to 15 acres drain to the proposed site, including the proposed "development area." The additional offsite area includes nearly all of the area south of the site to 95th and then additional areas uphill of 95th for several blocks. Tigard Development"Code 18.810:100.0 requires that a drainage facility "shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from the entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development." I Tigard Planning 2. xe: Application for Development"of Long=s staff Condominiums For another example, the application states that drainage, designs will comply with Resolution 91.147, whereas the current standards for storm drainage design and construction are CWS Design and Construct#n.-,Standards 04-09, a 2004 document rather than the 1991 document sited. STREET DEVELOPMENT At the neighborhood meeting several neighbors expressed concern regarding proposed street development. The application may have not been responsive to these concerns in a way which would make the development a positive addition to the neighbor- hood. Specifically,-there was concern that in constructing drainage and street improvements, the large trees lining S.W. 95th would be removed. Other developers in Tigard have been sensitive to such situations, proposing a meander:_in:the sidewalk where necessary to save important trees; such should be done here for both :sidewalks and drainage piping. Specifically, there was concern for pedestrian safety on existing narrow streets and the sharp curve in S.W. 95th as it turns to Shady Lane. The application may not have been responsive to this concern; a voluntary effort to connect the proposed development to sidewalks heading toward Greenburg Road would provide the necessary safety around the corner. Tigard Development Code (18'3360.090) requires that transit amenities be provided if the development is within 500 feet of existing or proposed transit route. In this case, transit service is proposed on Highway 217 as part of its improvement (Tigard has signed off on the recommendations and final report), which is withini 500 feet of the proposed development. The code says that transit amenities shall be based on location of transit facilities and on size and type of proposed development. With 43'-.hew housing units of 2 or 3 bedrooms each, it is reasonably expected that transit use will be important to potential residents and this number of new transit users should be afforded access to transit service. The code further indicates what are reasonable amenities to provide; they include items applicable in this case, "connecting paths" to transit facilities. BUFFERING At the neighborhood meeting, several nelghbors<:expressed concern about the lack of buffering between their residences and the proposed three story condos and between Hwy 217 and the proposed three story condos. The application may not have been responsive to this concern for livability (18.360.090 A.4); we feel that significant trees have unnecessarily been proposed for removal between the ;condos and neighbors along the southern and western propoerty lines (bridge foundations for buildings have been used elsewhere in Tigard to save such trees), no V'' , y, 0 0 Tigard Planning 3 Re: application for Development of Long- staff Condominiums screening is shown between the three-story condos and neighbors and the proposed 8-foot wall fronting Highway 217 will not be high enough to buffer the noise andlight of Highway 217 from the living quarters located exclusively on the second and third floors of the condos. We cannot find any consideration of the planned widening of Hwy 217 in designing apppropriate buffers and setbacks. Could you please look into this. WETLAND CONSIDERATION At the neighborhood meeting, several neighbors expressed their belief, based on years of adjacent residency, that the wetland area is larger than specified in the application. This concern is heightened when it is seen that all the field work for determination of the wetland was done in the summer month of July. While hydric soil types and species of vegetation can be evaluated in the summer, the existence of surface water for much of the year cannot be evaluated in July. Tigard should consider this shortcoming in the wetland determination, even though Clean Water Services has issued a Service Provider Letter. The Tigard proceeding is the land use decision and is the only forum for public notice and input regarding wetlands. The entire eastern large lot is shown on the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetlands Map as significant wetlands. The Tigard Development Code states (18.775.070.E) that a sensitive lands permit shall not be granted if "the development is in an area designated as "significant wetland" on such map. This is the obvious case.here. Even if a later consultant finds that some of the large lot is not wetland, the permit cannot be granted until the map is amended. The Tigard Development Code includes specific provisions for making map amendements (18,775.130). Such an amendment, which allows for additional input to the wetland determination (a Type:IV proceeding), is being skipped in the present case. Street developmemt, buffering, drainage and wetland considerations are areas within this proposal that will have major impacts. on the surrounding neighborhood, individual neighbor properties, streets, drainage management and the wetland determinations. CPO-4M is summiting our concerns to you and requests that our recommendations be reviewed for inclusion in your;-analysis and report. If at all possible we request that this proposal be considered under the rules of a Type III hearing so that neighbors can present their views and we can iron out these issues before development. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Respecfully, Pat Whiting, Chair r • RECEIVED PLANNING February 22, 2006 FEB 2 3 .2006 City of Tigard CITY OF TIGARD Attn: Gary Pagenstecher Re: Comments on Longstaff Condominiums /2005-00021 & 2005-00011 Below are our comments on the above project proposal: • 18.350 Planned Developments (PD) This section of the code states that PDs are done to preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities through this procedure. Based on the existing site features (forests, significant wetlands, etc.,) this application should be submitted as a PD. Reference is made in the application which shows the words "Planned Devlop" and on page 8, under Procedure, it shows a check mark next to "Public hearing before the Planning Commission". We believe this is also proof that the applicant should be proposing their development as a planned development, as it was considered at some point but why it was not done as a PD is unclear. We therefore request the application be denied and the applicant resubmit an application under the Planned Development review process. • Tigard's Comprehensive Plan 3.2.4 Under this section of the Comprehensive Plan, it states that the city shall prohibit development within areas designated as significant wetlands. A portion of the project site is currently "significant wetlands" on Tigard's wetlands map, and hence because of this, the application should be denied since it proposes to develop in a portion of one of the city's mapped significant wetland. The Plan also goes on to state that developments proposed adjacent to significant wetlands need to be done under the Planned Development section of the code. Again, since this application fails to adhere to this portion of the Comprehensive Plan, we request the application be denied. In the Pre-Application notes, on page 1 under Necessary Applications, it shows the words "Planned Devlop" and on page 8, under Procedure, it shows a check mark next to "Public hearing before the Planning Commission". We believe this is also proof that the applicant should be proposing their development as a planned development, as it was considered at some point but why it was not done as a PD is unclear • 18.360.7 Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas This part of the code requires that "usable outdoor recreation space shall be provided in residential developments for the shared or common use of all the residents..." In order to meet this requirement, the applicant is proposing to have the wetlands and buffer areas be available for outdoor recreational space. For example, on page 6 of the Land Use Application, the applicant states that "the wetland and buffer zone may be used for passive open space for the residents of this development"; and on page 7 it states that "the site's pedestrian path system will lead to the buffer area, The wetlands and buffer areas cannot be considered available for "usable outdoor recreation space" as they are sensitive areas that must be protected. The CWS letter states in the conditions section that "protection of the vegetated corridors and associated sensitive areas shall be provided by the installation of permanent fencing and si nage between the development and the outer limits of the vegetated corridors". This requirement is a condition of the proposed project and is required in order to provide protection for the wetlands and buffers as well as to protect wildlife and water quality in this area. The applicant needs to provide other areas for outdoor recreation, and since they have failed to meet this part of the code, we request the application be denied. • 18.390.040.e Imuact Studv We did not see any evidence that the impact study included an analysis of the impact that the addition of the estimated 80+ cars from the development would have on the surrounding streets/traffic including SW Greenburg road. Streets in this area are narrow and provide no sidewalks for pedestrians and having additional 80+ cars in the area would lead to a greater level of hazard which would negatively affect public safety. SW Greenburg road is already very congested at ALL times of the day due to the overdevelopment of Tigard. Adding more cars from this proposal would significantly increase number of vehicles and the number of trips made on these city streets, and we request a traffic impact study be done in order to evaluate the impacts of this project to the current traffic load on the streets in this part of Tigard. • 18.745 Buffering The applicant proposes to install an 8 foot pre-cast concrete or cast masonry unit screening wall along Hwy. 217 right-of-way for 650 feet from the NE corner of the site to the south. It appears that this wall may extend south into the buffer area based on our calculations done on the site plan map #5 which shows the wall along Hwy. 217. If one inch equals 40' as depicted, the southern end of the 650 foot wall length would extend into the wetland buffer zone and this is not an allowed use under the CWS regulations and conditions stated in the CWS Service Provider Letter, page 2 of 4. We therefore request the application be denied based on the failure of the application to adhere to the CWS conditions for allowed uses in the wetland buffer zone. • 18.385.040 In addition, if the applicant proposes to construct the wall in a part of the wetland buffer zone, they are required to apply for a sensitive lands permit as required under 18.385.040 of the Tigard Development Code. We saw no evidence of this in the application file nor is this section of the Development Code listed as one of the Applicable Review Criteria. • 18.775 Sensitive Lands The applicant's wetland delineation shows that no plots were done in the areas where development is proposed to occur. Plots were only done in tax lot 100, the area outside of the proposed development. Tigard's own wetlands inventory map shows the wetland area to be much larger, containing 3.02 acres of "significant" wetlands, labeled C-12 on the city's map. In order to accurately determine the exact wetland boundaries, the applicant's wetland delineation should have also included all of the other tax lots in order to determine whether any wetlands existed in these areas. No plots were done in these tax lots. We therefore request the application be denied based on the failure to adequately inventory the entire site to determine the wetland boundaries. The wetland delineation was conducted on June 2nd and July 26t', 2005, a period of time when rainfall had been relatively low for the two weeks prior to the visits. The site visits at these times of the year missed the wet winter season when the possibility of standing or surface water would have been much greater and would have more accurately indicated what the wetland hydrology conditions were like on the site. For example, the site, including the portions of the northern portion of the site, had standing water in January of this year, 2006,when heavy winter rains occur in the area. We request the delineation be done in the northern portion of the site at a time of year when surface water may be visible in order for a more accurate delineation of the site be completed, especially in light of the fact that a large portion of the property is designated "significant wetlands" on Tigard's wetlands map. Oregon ash, a wetland tree species, is present in these tax lots according to the tree inventory. Willamette Valley Ponderosa Pine, also present in these tax lots, can occur in wetlands. The city of Tigard is planting WV Ponderosa Pine in its wetlands, for example in Fanno Creek Park south of City Hall; also, Fans of Fanno Creek has planted this tree species in the wetlands along Fanno Creek, north of SW North Dakota Street. Oregon white oak, also in these tax lots, can grow in wetlands; in the Willamette Valley, Oregon white oak is present in the wet prairie habitats, an example of this is at Bonita Park in Tigard or in the West Eugene wetlands at the Willow Creek Preserve. Since Oregon white oak and WV Ponderosa Pine are present on the site and can occur in wetlands, we request the application be denied based on the failure to adequately sample the entire site. Page 9 of the tree inventory lists willow as occurring on the site (trees #9461 and 9462). These willows are obligate wetland species and are another indication that this northern portion of the site may contain wetlands. Again, the wetland delineation and plots should have included the entire site so that it would be more accurate. We request the application be denied based on the failure to adequately survey the entire site. The wetland delineation states that it must be reviewed and approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands in accordance with OAR 141-090-0005 through 141-090-0055. We saw no evidence of approval of the wetland delineation by DSL in the file. 18.775.070.E: On Tigard's Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetlands Map, the area of the entire western large lot is shown as "significant" wetlands. According to this section of the Code, a sensitive lands permit shall not be granted if the development is in a significant wetland. Even if it is determined that this part of the site is not in a significant wetland, the applicant would still need to apply for a map amendment which is done under a Type IV proceeding and we have not seen that proposed for this application. We therefore ask that the application be denied based on this information. • 18.790.030 Tree Removal There are 470 trees on site, of which 106 trees are greater than 12". Page 3 of the Tree Inventory states 16 trees greater than 12" will be removed. Then in another part of the application, it states 20 trees greater than 12" will be removed. These are two conflicting statements and this needs to be addressed so citizens know what is correct in order to adequately comment on the tree removal part of the proposal. The tree removal/preservation map may also need to be revised based on what is correct. • 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention Willamette Valley Ponderosa Pine are genetically different from Ponderosa Pine on the east side of the Cascade Mountains, and as such are unique to the Willamette Valley. There are very few stands left in the Portland area, and the one on this site, mixed with other mature Oregon ash and oak, is a unique and outstanding feature of this area. As the applicant notes, some trees in this stand are over 40" d.b.h. The uniqueness and the size of some of the trees in this stand require that more trees be preserved in the northern and west sections of the site than is presently done in this application. This part of the code provides for incentives to retain existing trees on the site, for example, lot width and depth could be altered to save more trees in this area. Sidewalks and planter strips can be narrowed, curved, etc. in order to save some of these unique trees (see also provisions under 18.810.070 which states that planter strips do NOT have to be required if there are significant natural features such as large trees that would be destroyed if the sidewalk was located where rewired). An example of this is the development on North Dakota street just west of SW 115 , where two very large Ponderosa Pine trees were saved by narrowing or eliminating the planter strip and curving the sidewalk. This may have been an Alpha Engineering development? We believe a greater effort to save more trees in this area is warranted in this case because of the unique stand of pines and oaks. We therefore ask that the application be denied for failure to protect at least some of these trees. • 18.810 Street & Utility Improvement Standards The width of private streets in the application is 24 feet. Nowhere in the application did we see mention of whether there would be parking on both or just one side of the private streets? If it is proposed for parking on only one side, this has the potential to be a cause of a public safety hazard, since the city of Tigard is not able to enforce the "No Parking" on one side. 0 0 We have seen evidence of violations of the "No Parking" in several new developments in Tigard, and if cars are parked on both sides of the street, it would prevent fire trucks from accessing the area. For example, the Cascade subdivision off Tigard Street has No Parking on the west side of the street. Cars regularly (daily) park on the No Parking side. (We have pictures of cars parked on both sides of the street within the past two years.) In addition, cars also regularly park on the other side of the street, which creates a very serious health and safety risk, since it would prevent fire trucks from getting through. We are hereby requesting that any proposed streets be wide enough so that vehicles can legally park on both sides of the street while at the same time allow for enough room so that fire trucks and other emergency vehicles can access the area. 0 18.810 Street & Utility Improvement Standards The width of private streets in the application is 24 feet. Nowhere in the application did we see mention of whether there would be parking on both or just one side of the private streets? If it is proposed for parking on only one side, this has the potential to be a cause of a public safety hazard, since the city of Tigard is not able to enforce the "No Parking" on one side. We have seen evidence of violations of the "No Parking" in several new developments in Tigard, and if cars are parked on both sides of the street, it would prevent fire trucks from accessing the area. For example, the Cascade subdivision off Tigard Street has No Parking on the west side of the street. Cars regularly (daily) park on the No Parking side. In addition, cars also regularly park on the other side of the street, which creates a very serious health and safety risk, since it would prevent fire trucks from getting through. We are hereby requesting that any proposed streets be wide enough so that vehicles can legally park on both sides of the street while at the same time allow for enough room so that fire trucks and other emergency vehicles can access the area. • 18.810.090 Sanitary Sewers Page 3 of the Land Use Application states that a "sanitary sewer will also be installed to the northerly side of the existing wetland buffer". According to the CWS Service Provider Letter/Conditions, it does not appear that this is an allowed use in the wetland buffer. The conditions section of the CWS Service Provider Letter state that "no structures, development, construction activities, shall be permitted within the sensitive area..." If this is the case that the applicant proposes to install the sewer line in the buffer area, we ask that the application be denied since it would not be following the CWS standards to protect water quality on the site. • 18.810.100.0 Storm Drainage There is a great deal of concern in the neighborhood over drainage in the area due to the proposed development. Neighbors already complain of water in subbasements and in their drainage ditches under current conditions. This project proposal may contribute to the problem since it appears their drainage calculations assume a 5.03 acre drainage area, when in fact, assessing the topography of the area, it appears that 10-15 acres drain downhill to the proposed development. The Tigard Development Code requires that a drainage facility "shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from the entire upstream drainage , whether inside or outside the development." The application fails to comply with the current standards for storm drainage design and construction (Design and Construction Standards 04-09). Based on this information, we request the application be denied since it fails to adequately address the drainage issues on the site. This entire site is a wonderful open space and should be purchased by the city of Tigard for the community. Open space helps to protect air and water quality and contributes to the quality of life in our city. It provides habitat for many wildlife species, many of which, such as the red-legged frog, are declining in our region due primarily to habitat loss. Tigard cannot afford to lose any more of the remaining open spaces that are left in the city. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Sincerely, Sue Beilke 11755 SW 114th Place, Tigard, OR 97223 Vice President, Friends of Summer Creek MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, . OREGON DATE: 6/15/06 TO: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner FROM: Kim McMillan, Development Review Engi RE: SDR2005-00011 Longstaff Condominiums Access Management (Section 18.705.030.H) Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO. The applicant's engineer has submitted the Preliminary sight distance certification for this development. The speed limit on 95 h Avenue is 25 mph which requires 250 feet of sight distance in both directions. Required stopping sight distance is 155 feet. The applicant's engineer states that sight distance to the south meets the required 250 feet. The sight distance to the north is approximately 205 feet; which does not meet this criterion. The engineer further states that sight distance can be improved to the north by removing trees in the creek corridor. The City Engineer requires that sight distance requirements be met for safety and that stopping sight distance is deferred to only in unusual circumstances. Therefore, the applicant shall remove the trees in the creek corridor, with proper approvals, to achieve the minimum sight distance. The engineer shall provide a plan showing which trees are to be removed and the achievable sight distance. Upon completion of the public improvements, the applicant's engineer shall provide the final sight distance certification. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2005-00011 Longstaff Condominiums PAGE 1 any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. 0 95th Avenue is classified as a Neighborhood Route; therefore this criterion does not apply. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. 95th Avenue is classified as a Neighborhood Route, which is a local street.. The applicant is not proposing to construct a street; therefore this criterion does not apply. 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 54 right-of-way width and 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 95th Avenue, which is classified as a Neighborhood Route on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 20 feet of ROW from centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's map.. The applicant should dedicate the additional ROW to provide 27 feet from centerline. ODOT is not requiring additional ROW along the Highway 217 frontage. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2005-00011 Longstaff Condominiums PAGE 2 0 SW 95th'Avenue is currently partially improved. In order to mitigate the impact from this development, the applicant should construct half-street improvements along their frontage. In addition, the applicant shall provide a minimum of 24 feet of paving on 95th Avenue to a point where the paving meets this minimum width. 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 circulation plan. Due to existing development, Highway 217 and the wetlands, there are no opportunities to provide for future streets or extensions. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.810.030.H.1 states that full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. Section 18.810.030.H.2 states that all local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign; or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15% for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2005-00011 Longstaff Condominiums PAGE 3 The applicant submitted a circulation plan. Due to existing development, Highway 217 and the wetlands, there are no opportunities to provide additional street connections. Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.N states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet). Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer. The grades on 95th Avenue are less than 12%, thereby meeting this criterion. 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. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2005-00011 Longstaff Condominiums PAGE 4 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. Private streets and industrial streets shall have sidewalks on at least one side. The, applicant's plans indicate they will be constructing a public sidewalk along their frontage. In addition, the applicant's plan indicates they will extend pedestrian access to the Tri-Met bus stop. The pedestrian access shall be a minimum of a 4 foot wide concrete sidewalk. 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. The applicant has proposed to extend the public sewer into the development in two locations. The applicant has provided maps showing how future connections from other properties might be made. Because of the wetlands the extension of the sewer along the southwest corner of the property is difficult. The applicant has shown how the remaining unserved, properties can connect to the public sewer in North Dakota Street. The plans also show that the applicant is willing to provide a 15 foot easement along the south westerly property boundary, in the event an extension of the public sewer through the wetlands becomes necessary. Therefore, the applicant will provide a 15 foot public sewer easement along their south westerly property boundary and the public sewer shall be extended to the north side of the wetland buffer, terminating with a manhole. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2005-00011 Longstaff Condominiums PAGE 5 I~ A Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make adequate' provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.C states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). The drainage pattern in this area is mainly flowing north towards Highway 217. The runoff is then directed to the northwest into Ash Creek. Some of the upstream drainage that enters the development will be collected and eventually discharged to Ash Creek. Much of the upstream runoff will enter the wetlands area. 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 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. plans indicate the installation of a detention pipe on-site. The stormwater will then be discharged to a public storm sewer that will be constructed by another development on the west side of 95th Avenue. The applicant has agreed to share in the cost to upsize this pipe to include runoff from their development. The applicant shall coordinate their design with the approved development's ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2005-00011 Longstaff Condominiums PAGE 6 engineer. If the approved development, known as Livingston Lane Subdivision, is not under construction prior to issuance of permits for this development, then this applicant shall construct the public storm sewer in 95th Avenue and the discharge into Ash Creek. 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. 95th Avenue is not classified as a bicycle facility. 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 ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2005-00011 Longstaff Condominiums PAGE 7 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 95th Avenue. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 118 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $ 4130.00. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Public Water System: Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) provides service in this'area. The applicant shall provide approved plans from TVWD prior to issuance of City permits. 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. The proposed manhole unit from Stormwater Management is not acceptable. The Stormwater Management vault is acceptable, provided the property owner agrees to hire the manufacturer (or approved equal) to provide the required maintenance of the unit. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management, or another company that demonstrates they can. meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2005-00011 Longstaff Condominiums PAGE 8 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 one or more acre 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. The applicant will be required to obtain an NPDES 1200-C permit. Site Permit Required: The applicant is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on-site private utility installations (water, sewer, storm, etc.) and driveway construction. This permit shall be obtained prior to approval of the final plat. 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 $ 50.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of the Site permit. For multi-tenant buildings, one address number is assigned to the building and then all tenant spaces are given suite numbers. The City is responsible for assigning the main address and suite numbers. This information is needed so that building permits for tenant improvements can be adequately tracked in the City's permit tracking system. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, this building will be a multi-tenant building. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall provide a suite layout map so suite numbers can be assigned. The addressing fee will then be calculated based upon the number of suites that must be addressed. In multi-level structures, ground level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "1", second level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "2", etc.. The developer will also be required to provide signage at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2005-00011 Longstaff Condominiums PAGE 9 0 i by the given driveway or street. This will assist emergency services personnel to more easily find a particular home. Recommendations: THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE PERMIT: Submit to the Engineering.Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover half-street improvements 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, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.tigard-or.gov). 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 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. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit a suite layout map to Shirley Treat, Engineering Department. If the applicant is not sure how many suites will be used, they must estimate a number. The City will then assign suite numbers and the address fee will then be calculated. The fee must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the site permit. (STAFF CONTACT: Bethany Stewart, Engineering). ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2005-00011 Longstaff Condominiums PAGE 10 0 0 The applicant shall provide signage at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served by the given driveway or street. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of 95th Avenue 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 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 95th Avenue. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a Neighborhood Route from curb to centerline equal to 16 feet, but in no case shall the total pavement width be less than 24 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 5 foot 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 95 h Avenue in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. A profile of 95th Avenue shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. The applicant's construction drawings shall show that the proposed public pedestrian access from the development frontage to the Tri-Met bus stop will be a minimum 4 foot concrete sidewalk. The applicant shall provide connection of proposed buildings to the public sanitary sewerage system. A connection permit is required to connect to the existing public sanitary sewer system. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2005-00011 Longstaff Condominiums PAGE 11 The applicant shall provide a 15 foot public sewer easement at the south westerly property boundary. The public sanitary sewer shall be extended to the north side of the wetland buffer, terminating with a manhole. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connection prior to issuance of the City's Public Facility Improvement permit. The applicant's engineer shall coordinate that design and construction of the public storm sewer in 95th Avenue and the discharge into Ash Creek with the engineers for the Livingston Lane Subdivision. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed private water quality facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) as a part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans. The plans shall be revised to provide a Stormwater Management vault, pond or swale. The Stormwater Management manhole will not be allowed. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, February 2003 edition." The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. The applicant's engineer shall submit a tree removal plan to meet sight distance requirements to the north. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. Prior to a final building 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, ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2005-00011 Longstaff Condominiums PAGE 12 0 0 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 95th Avenue underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $ 35.00 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $ 4130.00 and it shall be paid prior to prior to final building inspection. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management, or another company that demonstrates they can meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer, for the proposed onsite storm water treatment facility. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant's engineer shall submit a final sight distance certification for the access onto 95th Avenue. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2005-00011 Longstaff Condominiums PAGE 13 WASH CO LAND DEV. Fax:503-846-2908 s N , WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON Department of Land Use and Transportation, Land Development Services 165 North First Avenue, Sulte 350-13, Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 (503) 84"761, FAX. (503) 1146-2908 Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 FAX: (503) 684-7297 No. of pages: 7 Feb 27 2006 1019 40 February 23, 2006 RE: Longstaff Condominiums City File Number: (SDR) 2005-00011/(SLR) 2005-00021 Tax Map and Lot Number: 1S1 35AC 100, 2500, 4600, and 4700. Location: SW 9e Avenue Applicant: Palmer & Associates r Ji. 7L,- 01 P. Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has reviewed this development application and submits the following comments and required conditions for access to SW 95th Avenue, a County-maintained Neighborhood Route. NOTE: A pre-existing driveway which Is part of a redeveloping site is subject to County review and conditions for access approval. BACKGROUND/COMMENTS The applicant is requesting approval for a 43-unit attached condominium on a 4.98 acre site. Access to the project is proposed via a private street with access to SW 95th Avenue. The minimum access spacing standard for SW 95th Avenue is 50 feet, measured between access points on each side of the road as required by Resolution and Order 86-95 and Section 501-8.5,8 of the Community Development Code. Access to SW 95th Avenue must therefore be restricted to meet this spacing standard. WASH CO LAND DEV. Fax:503-846-2908 Feb 27 2006 10:19 P.02 T County Transportation Review February 27, 2006 Page 2 The proposed access to SW 95th Avenue appears to meet this spacing standard, 2. Resolution and Order 86-95 requires a minimum sight distance (measured in feet) equal to ten times the vehicular speed of the road(s) at proposed access location(s). This requirement applies to sight distance in both directions at each access. Before the County will permit access to SW 95th Avenue, the applicant will be required to provide certification from a registered professional engineer that adequate sight distance exists in both directions (or can be obtained pursuant to specific improvements). 3. Consistent with statewide pedestrian circulation/linkage goals of the Transportation Planning Rule and the.County's R&O 86-95 (road safety requirements), the County normally requires sidewalk installation as a minimum road safety improvement along site frontage of all County-maintained roads. Sidewalks further establish future street profiles, demarcate County or City right-of-way, and address drainage issues. Sidewalk requirements are not generally waived, even when sidewalk is not currently present on neighboring properties. Rather, even non- contiguous sidewalk is considered to provide some measure of pedestrian refuge and ideally, makes possible eventual connection of sidewalks (as surrounding development takes place and is likewise conditioned to provide sidewalk). Half-street improvement to a C-12 County standard along all SW 95th Avenue frontage is required. 4. Section 501-8.1.C. (of "Critical Services") of the Washington County Community Development Code requires provision of adequate drainage. 5- The statewide Transportation Planning Rule requires provision for adequate transportation facilities in order for development to occur. Accordingly, the County has classified roads and road segments within the County system based upon their function. The current Transportation Plan (regularly updated) contains adequate right-of-way, road width and lane provision standards based upon each roadway's classification. Subject right of way is considered deficient if half-width of the existing right of way does not meet that determined necessary within the County's current transportation plan. Sections 418-2.2 and 501-8.4 of the Washington County Community Development Code require dedication of additional right-of-way along site frontage of a County road when existing right-of- way is deficient. WHSH (;U LHND DEV. Fax:503-846-2908 i County Transportation Review February 27, 2006 Page 3 Feb 27 2006 1019 P.03 i Dedication-of additional right-of-way to provide 30 feet from centerline of SW 95th Avenue, including additional right-of-way to provide adequate corner radius at the intersection of SW 95th Avenue. 6. Washington County requires a traffic safety review when estimated daily trip generation of a project and existing traffic levels (see Tables 1 and 2, below) on the adjacent County road exceed given limits as determined by R&O 86-95. TABLE 1 Access Report and Review by County Traffic Engineer Required if: Vehicles per Da D on Calculated Average Dail Trips AD of Adjacent Frontage Road Proposed use t8ased on institute of Tranwortown (I77) cabs) 0 - 3,000 VPD and h-L 2,000 ADT or More 3001 - 6,000 VPD and 1,000 ADT or More 6,001 VPD or More and 500 ADT or More TABLE 2 Basic Traffic Safety Review (Conducted by County Traffic Engineer but no Access Report Submittal required of Applicant) if: Vehicles per Da PD on Calculated Avers a Dail Trips AD of Adjacent Frontage Road Proposed Use (Based on Institute of Transportation (ITQ Calm) VPD >1 and 00 ADT or More This development proposal is consistent with specifications of TABLE 2, above, therefore the application has been forwarded for a basic Traffic Safety Review by the County Traffic Engineer. (The applicant's engineer need not submit an Access Report, since Traffic generation along the subject frontage road(s) as compared to projected site traffic generation are not consistent with TABLE 1). Please note that additional requirements may be identified as a result of the Traffic Engineer's basic Traffic Safety Review. If the Traffic Engineer's review and resultant traffic/safety mitigation requirements have not been completed prior to issuance of the City's Decision, please require the following within the City's Approval document: "Compliance with conditions deemed necessary by the County Traffic Engineer via the required Traffic Safety Review." WASH CO LAND DEV. Fax:503-846-2908 Feb 27 2006 10:19 P.04 1 County Transportation Review February 27, 2006 Page 4 7. The County reserves the right to require additional conditions for access to SW 95th Avenue following the County Traffic Engineer's Traffic Safety Review. REgIJIRED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IMPORTANT: Road improvements required along site frontage shall apply to frontage of P1 land within the subject site that abuts the County roadway. The subject site shall be considered to include: any lot or parcel to be partitioned or otherwise subdivided (regardless of whether it contains existing structures or not); and any contiguous lots or parcels that constitute phases of the currently proposed development. If the applicant proposes to develop the project in phases, all County-required frontage improvements must be constructed with the first phase. In addition, off- site improvements warranted by the first phase must also be completed with the first phase. 1. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT BY THE CITY OF TIGARD: A. Submit to Washington County Land Development Services (Public Assurance Staff, Tracy Stone/ Joy Chang, 846-3843): Completed "Design Option" form. 2. $3,000.00 Administration Deposit. NOTE: Any portion of the Administration Deposit not used by Washington County for plan approval, field inspections, and contract administration will be returned to the applicant. If at any time during the project, the County's costs are higher than the amount deposited, Washington County will bill the applicant the amount needed to cover its costs. 3. A copy of the City's Land Use Approval with Conditions, signed and dated. 4. Preliminary certification of adequate sight distance for. each access point to SW 95th Avenue, in accordance with County Code, prepared and stamped by a registered professional engineer, as well as: WHSH UU LHND DEV. Fax:503-846-2908 County Transportation Review February 27, 2006 Page 5 Feb 27 2006 1019 0 1 P. 05 a. A detailed list of improvements necessary to produce adequate intersection sight distance. 5. Three (3) sets of complete engineering plans for construction of the following public improvements: a. Half-street improvement to a C-12 County standard along all SW 95th Avenue frontage. b. Access to SW 95th Avenue to County standards. C. improvements within the right-of-way as necessary to provide adequate intersection sight distance at SW 95th Avenue access point. d. Closure of all existing driveways to SW 95th Avenue, other than at access points approved by Washington County under the current land use application. B. Obtain a Washington County Fac_ Permit upon completion of the following: 1. Obtain Engineering Division approval and provide a financial assurance for the construction of the public improvements listed in conditions I.A.S. NOTE: The Public Assurance staff (Tracy Stone/Joy Chang 846- 3843) of Land Development Services will send the required forms to the applicant's representative after submittal and approval of items listed under I.A., above. differs from an "Access Permit". An Access Permit is far less comprehensive in nature than the Facility Permit and its associated submittal, review, and monitoring processes. Access Permits apply to non-complex land use cases in which the County requires limited or no improvements of the developer, (Access permits are commonly issued in cases requiring improvements as minimal as a single driveway cut to an existing house). This prolect Is not currently aWibl_e for an Access Permit WRSH CO LRND DEV Fax:503-846-2908 0 Feb 27 2006 1020 P.06 0 County Transportation Review February 27, 2006 Page 6 The Facility Permit allows construction work within County rights-of-way and permits site access only after the developer first submits plans and obtains Washington County Engineering approval, obtains required grading and erosion control permits, and satisfies various other requirements of Washington County's Assurances Department including but not limited to execution of financial and contractual agreements. This process ensures that the developer accepts responsibility for construction of public improvements, and that improvements are closely monitored, inspected, and built to standard in a timely manner. Access will only be permitted under the reauired Washin_oton County Facility Permit and only following submittal and County acceptance of all materials reauired under the facility hermit process. C. The following shall be represented on the plat and recorded with Washington County: 1. Dedication of additional right-of-way to provide 30 feet from centerline of SW 95th Avenue. 2. Dedication of additional right-of-way to provide adequate comer radius at the intersection of SW 95th Avenue. II.- PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY: A. The road improvements required in condition I.A.S. above shall be completed and accepted by Washington County. B. Upon completion of necessary improvements, provide final certification of adequate sight distance in accordance with County Code, prepared and stamped by a registered professional engineer. Requirements identified within this letter are considered by the County to be minimum warranted improvements (and/or analyses) that are necessitated by the proposed development, therefore it Is requested that they be conveyed to the applicant within the City's Approval document. Before the City issues its Final Notice of Decision, please allow the County to review and acknowledge a draft of the City's conditions regarding access to SW 95th Avenue. Additionally, please send a copy of the subsequent Final City Notice of Decision and any appeal information to the County. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. WHSH UU LHND iILV. Fax:503-846-2908 40 County Transportation Review February 27, 2006 Page 7 Feb 27 2006 10:20 • P. 07 Please contact Jinde Zhu (846-7957) of the County's Engineering Division with questions about any above noted road/safety improvements, Traffic Safety Analyses or about any recommendations or requirements included herein. Naomi oge ON I Associate PI or Ca Phil Healy, Senior Planner, Land Development Services Greg Miller, County Engineer Jlnde Zhu, P,E., Traffic Engineer Tom Tushner, Traffic Engineer Joy Chang, Associate Planner, Assurances Desk File 'transportation File Palmer $ ASSOC., 9600 SW Oak St., Ste. 230, Portland OR 97223 David Abrams, PO Box 19087, Portland OR 97280 MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Pagenstecher FROM: Matt Stine, City Forester RE: Longstaff Condominiums DATE: February 9, 2006 As you requested I have provided some comments on the "Longstaff Condominiums" project. If you have any questions or concerns regarding my comments please contact me anytime. 1. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.745.030.C. Installation Requirements The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures. 2. The plant material shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock (ANSI Z-60, 1-1986, and any other future revisions); and 3. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. The accepted planting procedures are.the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as the standards set forth in the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards, 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. • In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed: o No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite. o No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite. o No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite. e2. 18.745.030.E, Protection of Existing Landscaping. Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible: 1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and 2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.g., areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed around the individual trees). See comments under "Tree Removal". 18.745.030.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. See recommended conditions of approval at the end of this memorandum. 18.745.040, Street Trees A. Protection of existing vegetation. All development projects fronting on a public street, private street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040.C. The accepted planting procedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as the standards set forth in the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards, 10'h edition. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications. • In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed: o No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite. o No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite. o No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite. DOC Page 3 2. TREE REMOVAL 18.790.030, Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. B. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; 2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. • As required, the applicant submitted a tree plan that was conducted by a certified arborist, Walt Knapp. The report contains the four required 3aae 4 components, and is therefore acceptable. • The arborist report does show several trees taken from the mitigation calculations since they are in the future right-of-way. Two of those trees are larger than 12 inches so the applicant has to recalculate the mitigation numbers. • I suggest planting native species of trees as street trees such as bigleaf maple, cascara or Oregon white oak. Properly sized oaks can be found at River Oak Farm & Nursery. Call Diane at 503-357-2745. The species of street trees used in this development are not listed. The species must be approved before the trees can be planted. • The applicant has not submitted a final tree mitigation plan. In the event that the applicant chooses to plant trees in open areas within the project boundaries or in the back yards of the homes, I have attached a copy of my guidelines for planting mitigation trees on the development property as the applicant indicates he will be doing. Below are my suggestions for the applicant to follow for tree protection guidelines: Prior to construction, a Tree Protection Plan shall be included with the proposed construction drawings conforming to the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) guidelines for review and approval by the City Forester. All tree protection devices, along with their details and specifications, shall be shown on the Tree Protection Plan. This plan shall also include the building footprints shown in relation to the trees being preserved. 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 15% of its root system disturbed by construction activities shall also be protected. • A note shall ,be placed on the final set of plans indicating that equipment, vehicles, machinery, grading, dumping, storage, burial of debris, or any other construction-related activities shall not be located inside of any tree protection zone or outside of the limits of disturbance where other trees are being protected. All tree protection devices shall be: ■ Visible. ■ Constructed of 11 Gauge steel chain-link fencing supported on at least 2" O.D. steel posts. Each post shall be no less than four feet high from the top of grade. Each post shall be driven into the ground to a depth of no less than two and a half feet below grade. Each post shall be spaced no further apart than four feet. ■ Between each post, securely attached to the chain-link fencing, shall be a sign indicating that the area behind the fencing is protected and no construction activity, including material storage, may occur behind the fencing. Inspected and approved in the field by the project arborist and City Forester prior to clearing, grading, or the beginning of construction. Remain in place and maintained until all construction is completed and a final inspection is conducted. To determine the size of the tree protection zone. (TPZ) the project arborist should follow the guidelines listed below: ■ For individual trees follow the trunk diameter method. For every one-inch of diameter at breast height (DBH), or 4'h 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 15' of tree protection zone around the entire canopy of the tree. ■ For groups of trees the tree protection zone must be outside of the drip line of the trees on the edge of the stand. If there are conifers with narrow crowns on the edge of the stand follow the trunk diameter method or the drip line method, whichever is greater. ■ Calculate and follow the Optimal Tree Protection Zone calculation as shown in "Trees and Development. A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development" by Nelda Matheny and James R. Clark. ■ The project arborist may propose an alternate method for the establishment of the TPZ, provided the effort is coordinated with the City Forester. • If it is necessary to enter the tree protection zone at any time with equipment (trucks, bulldozers, etc.) the project arborist and City Forester must be notified before any entry occurs. Before entering the TPZ, the project arborist and City Forester shall determine the method by which entry can occur, along with any additional tree protection measures. • Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the Project Arborist shall submit a final certification indicating the elements of the Tree Protection Plan were followed and that all remaining trees on the site are healthy, stable and viable in their modified growing environment. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to commencing site work, the applicant shall submit a cash assurance for the equivalent value of mitigation required. If additional trees are preserved through the subdivision improvements and construction of houses, and are properly protected through these stages by the same measures afforded to other protected trees on site, the amount of the cash assurance may be correspondingly reduced. Any trees planted on the site or off site in accordance with 18.790.060 (D) will be credited against the cash assurance, for two years following final plat approval. After such time, the applicant shall pay the remaining value of the cash assurance as a fee in lieu of planting. 2. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant/owner shall record a deed restriction to the effect that any existing tree greater than 12" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. 3. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that include the approved Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The plans shall also include a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. Only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this decision. 4. Prior to to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the project arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City Forester for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 5. Prior to any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through site work, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports must be provided to the City Forester until the time of the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy. The reports shall include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plan drawings indicating the location of the trees that were preserved on the lot, Gary Pagenstecher - LongstaffCondos.2-9-66. DOC V~- Page 7 location of tree protection fencing, and a signature of approval from the project arborist regarding the placement and construction techniques to be employed in building the house. All proposed protection fencing shall be installed and inspected prior to commencing construction, and shall remain in place through the duration of home building. After approval from the City Forester, the tree protection measures may be removed. If you have any questions please call me anytime. Thank you for requesting my comments on this project. 1111" MMA~ &LATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESC 06 SOUTH DIVISION ® COMMUNITY SERVICES • OPERATIONS • FIRE PREVENTION Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue April 5, 2006 Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Longstaff Condominiums Dear Gary, I don't have a copy of the submitted plans for Longstaff Condos with me. I've attached a set of general comments and the applicant will need to determine which ones apply to the project. Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed site plan surrounding the above named development project. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue endorses this proposal predicated on the following criteria and conditions of approval: 1) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD DISTANCE FROM BUILDING AND TURNAROUNDS: Access roads shall be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. An approved turnaround is required if the remaining distance to an approved intersecting roadway, as measured along the fire apparatus access road, is greater than 150 feet. 2) DEAD END ROADS: Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved turnaround. 3) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD EXCEPTION FOR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER PROTECTION: When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the requirements for fire apparatus access may be modified as approved by the fire code official. 4) ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROADS - COMMERCIAL: Where buildings exceed 30 feet in height or three stories in height shall have at least three separate means of fire apparatus access. Buildings or facilities having a gross area of more than 62,000 square feet shall be provided with at least two separate means of fire apparatus access. Buildings up to 124,000 square feet provided with fire sprinklers may have a single access. 5) ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROADS - ONE-OR TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: Where there are more than 30 one- or two-family dwelling units, not less than two separate approved means of access shall be provided. Where there are more than 30 dwelling units and all are protected by approved residential sprinkler systems, a single access will be allowed. 6) ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROADS - MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: Where there are more than 100 multiple-family dwelling units, not less than two separate approved means of access shall be provided. Projects up to 200 dwelling units that are protected by approved residential sprinkler systems may have a single access. Projects having more than 200 dwelling units shall have two separate approved means of access regardless of whether they are equipped with fire sprinkler systems. 7) AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus.. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of 7401 SW Washo Court, Suite 101 • Tualatin, Oregon 97062 • Tel. (503) 612-7000 • Fax (503) 612-7003 • www.tvfr.com , wilding more than 30 fe ~ight. At least one of the required access *rneeting this condition shall be located within a minir, ,,.rof 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from ►,.j building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. 8) REMOTENESS: Where two access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. 9) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (12 feet for up to two dwelling units and accessory buildings), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Where fire, apparatus roadways are less than 26 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. 10) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS WITH FIRE HYDRANTS: Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet. 11) TURNOUTS: When any fire apparatus access road exceeds 400 feet in length, turnouts 10 feet wide and 30 feet long shall be provided in addition to the required road width and shall be placed no more than 400 feet apart, unless otherwise approved by the fire code official. These distances may be adjusted based on visibility and light distances. (OFC Chapter 5) 12) NO PARKING SIGNS: Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and 20 feet of unobstructed driving surface, "No Parking" signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Roads 26 feet wide or less shall be posted on both sides as a fire lane. Roads more than 26 feet wide to 32 feet wide shall be posted on one side as a fire lane. Signs shall read "NO PARKING -FIRE LANE" and shall be installed with a clear space above grade level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and shall have red letters on a white reflective background. 13) SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather surface that is easily distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load (wheel load) and 75,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle weight). You may need to provide documentation from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of supporting such loading. 14) BRIDGES: Where a bridge or an elevated surface is part of a fire apparatus access road, the bridge shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with AASHTO Standard Specification for Highway Bridges. Bridges and elevated surfaces shall be designed for a live load sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire apparatus. Vehicle load limits shall be posted at both entrances to bridges when required by the fire code official. Where elevated surfaces designed for emergency vehicle use are adjacent to surfaces which are not designed for such use, approved barriers, approved signs or both shall be installed and maintained when required by the fire code official. 15) TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall be not less than 28 feet and 48 feet respectively, measured from the same center point. 16) PAINTED CURBS: Where required, fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted red and marked "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" at approved intervals. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide by six inches high. Lettering shall be white on red background. 17) GRADE: Fire apparatus access roadway grades shall not exceed 10 percent. Intersections and turnarounds shall be level (maximum 5%) with the exception of crowning for water run-off. When fire sprinklers are installed, a maximum grade of 15% may be allowed. The approval of fire sprinklers as an alternate shall be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of ORS 455.610(5). 18) GATES: Gates securing fire apparatus roads shall comply with all of the following: Minimum unobstructed width shall be 16 feet, or two 10 foot sections with a center post or island. Gates serving one- or two-family dwellings shall be a minimum of 12 feet in width. Page 2 of 2 Gates shall be set Ot minimum of 30 feet from the intersec eadway. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type Manual operation shall be capable by one person Electric gates shall be equipped with a means for operation by fire department personnel Locking devices shall be approved. 19) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum available fire flow for single family dwellings and duplexes served by a municipal water supply shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. If the structure(s) is (are) 3,600 square feet or larger, the required fire flow shall be determined according to IFC Appendix B. 20) FIRE HYDRANTS - ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS & ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: Where a.portion of a structure is more than 600 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured in an approved route around the exterior of the structure(s), on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided. 21) FIRE HYDRANT NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION: The minimum number and distribution of fire hydrants available to a building shall not be less than that listed in Appendix C, Table C 105.1. Considerations for placing fire hydrants may be as follows: • Existing hydrants in the area may be used to meet the required number of hydrants as approved. Hydrants that are up to 600 feet away from the nearest point of a subject building that is protected with fire sprinklers may contribute to the required number of hydrants. • Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by railroad tracks shall not contribute to the required number of hydrants unless approved by the fire code official. • Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by divided highways or freeways shall not contribute to the required number of hydrants. Heavily traveled collector streets only as approved by the fire code official. • Hydrants that are accessible only by a bridge shall be acceptable to contribute to the required number of hydrants only if approved by the fire code official. 22) FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be.located not more than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway. 23) REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access road way that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly 24) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. Please contact me at (503) 612-7010 with any additional questions. Sincerely, Eric T. McMullen Eric T. McMullen Deputy Fire Marshal Page 2 of 2 - . • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TG~ FROM STAFF CONTACT: Caty of Tigard Planning Division D 91 A Emaih garv 0fi~ gard-or.gov SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2005-00011/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR)2005-00021 ' ➢ LONGSTAFF CONDOMINIUMSQ tc~ fur- z!o t : 1ne appucan is re 43-unit attach d residenti cor pprroposal avoids the wetlands~ar 1'h(e r2lect fronts o SW 95 A SW ~5 Averr}~t1e and 9365 SW 4700. The subleet site is bound( Density Residential District. Tl housing types at a minim lot are also perrnitted condition; Development Code Chapters 18 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 1.795, aj :t. Uue to and inanact, venue aana ww be served b a Lo gstatf Street; WCTM 11: d _ SW 95, N,,e nu e nd ie K 12 zoning st ct is esij pe of 3A1'PL ASLE. RED .360 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 1 id 1$.810 approvat on a i.wi acre site for a sensitive resources on site, the approximateely 52% of the site. Lte street. LOCATION: 10890 Tax Lots 100, 2500, 4600 and 7217. ZON R-12: Medium to accommoct tea lull range of Fe of civTERIA.- itCo naIntesy i, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Ap licant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other uorination available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be pre aced and a decision will be rendered on the pproposal-in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: FEBRUARY 23 2006. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. I u are unable to res and b he above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and co irm your comments in writing as soon as possible. .[I 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 or email. Written comments provided below A/r DATE: February 8. 2006 TnnFfi 99TN99KT9N9 QMA.T, mean Tae onn vo.r I* REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: February 8, 2006; TO: Rob Murchison, Public Works Prolect Engineer FROM: Caty of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: '--GP Pa enstecher Associate Planner x243 Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503 6 97 Email: garyp Bard-ongov SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2005-00011/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2005-00021 . ➢ LONGSTAFF CONDOMINIUMSQ 43-unit is reqquesting Jite i-)evelopment n condomuuum projectan.d uno Dueac tot< ls, and drainaL areas preject tronts o J W. y5`" A 95 Avenue an. 936 SW ] The subject site is bounde sity Residential District. U ;ir g types at a n1inirnum lot Development Code Chapters 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 1E.795 venue agstaff Street; WCTM 1S 1 3'- SW 95, Avenue and 1Iigf f1 zoning dist ct *s esi K i 03,050 s uare eet. A wid( APPLICABLE REV 0 18.390) 18.510, 18.705, 18 1§.810 approval on a 4.1)s acre site for a sensitive resources on s te, the approxunateely 52~°o of tte site. xe street. LOCATION: 10890 y Tax Lots 100, 2500, 4600 and r217. ZOO: 1 • Medium to accommod to Ra ?ull ran e of i e of civic and institutionaFuses CRITERIA: Community 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 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.Hormation 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. FEBRUARY 23 .2006. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. I u are unable to res and b the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and co Arm 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 COCK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact _ Please refer to the enclosed letter or email. Written comments provided below: A119 M of our office. L~ Name & Number of Person Commenting: STMETS: O K 0 • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: February J,2006 TO: Jim Wolf, Tigard Police Department Crime Prevention officer FROM City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF OONTACT: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner (x2434) Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 Email: garv@ igard-or.gov SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2005-00011/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2005-00021 ➢ LONGSTAFF CONDOMINIUMS< T~ . e app can is requesting Site Development v ew approv on a 4.98 acre site o a 43-unit attach esider~tial con~omuuum project. Due to the sensitive resources on s te, e ploe posal avoids e wetlandsan drainaggvvill b and li pacts only approximatee1v 52o~o of the site. pproject fronts o SW 95' Avenue e servedd b a private street. LOCATION: 10890 SW 95 Averr}}ue an936 SW Lo gst Street; WCIIVI 11 AC, Tax Lots 100, 2500, 4600 and 4700. The subject site is bounded SW 95 Avenue and ~E hw 217. ZOO: R 1 L Medium pensity Residential District. The RY1 zoning dist *ct is desgned to to ommod tea ran e of hourugg types at.a n u . lot she ofz3,050 square eet. A wide ranee o civic and institutionaguses are also penmtted conditionally APPLICABLE REVIECRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 1S.795, and 1$.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 Mormation available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the pproposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: FEBRUARY 23 2006. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. I u 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 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 or email. Written comments provided below. of our office. Name & Number of Person Commenting: 6AO\~, sn ."1100 -vg REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: February 8, 2006 TO. Brian Blalock Commercial Plans Examiner FROM Cate of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner (x2434) , .Phone (503).639-4171 ;Fax: (5-03)..6$477297 Email: garypgarid-or.gov SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2005-00011/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2005-00021 ➢ LONGSTAFF CONDOMINIUMSQ 43 unit attach lc ex esdectm* co pp~rroposal avoids the wetlands a the pr~ject fronts on SW 95`h 1 SW 95 Avenue and 936 SW 4700. The subject site is bound Density Residential District. T housigg types at.a muumurp lot project. - Due to areas and impact` venue ana win be served b a agstatt Street; WCTM '1S E :)y SW 95. Avenue and 1 zoning distict is ehj 0 3APPLICABLE. RE` 0 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 1 1$.810 Development Code Chapters 18.3 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 1.795, anc dew approval on a 4.1)6 acre site for a e sensitive resources on s te, the )41y. approximately , 52% of the site. ►nvate street. LC CATION• 10890 iAQ Tax Lots 100, 2500, 4600 and Lw y 217. ZOO: R 1j: Medium ie to ac ommodte a ill ran e of ran e otcivic and institutiona uses [EW CRITERIA: Community .715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Ap licant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other ilormation available to.our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the pproposal in the near future. If 'you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: FEBRUARY 23, 2006. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. I u are unable to res and b the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and co irm ur comments in writing as soon as possible. IT you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. IPLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: I We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact Please refer to the enclosed letter or email. Written comments provided below: of our office. Name & Number of Person Commenting: 5 R 1,A1J 6 W j,0 C./* OTLAND LAND USE NOTIFICATIC 1&RM (this form is to be completed only by planning department staff for mapped wetlands/waterways) DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS WETLANDS PROGRAM 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100; Salem, OR 97301-1279; (503) 378-3865 1. County. W RSKlNYr7b/V Local Case File 5~~' 75~-ODo 1( City: 7"YGJ4R.D DSL File WN X006-tD"omaleted by DSL Staffl Responsible Jurisdiction: City ❑ County DSL Project 4 1&!!70~e (completed by DSL Staff) 2. APPLICANT: Pf~c.AtEt t'Socu9-TES LANDOWNER: 1~Adlo 4~a~eT 96 o.o Swmc-4 K S NNE 7 RECEIVED PLANNING e I fob mailing address mailing address FEB 16 2006 mailing address mailing address Pon-rcOrt-T OR. 972-Z-3 Q1IY QE TIGARag Im $ Zzst city, state zip city, state zip-' phone phone 3. LOCATION T ] 5 R IV S Tax Lot(s) /'do Z Kot, L Y600 VIM Address (street/city) _ NWI quad map name _ Attach all the following (with site marked) g F any) If applicable attach: ❑ Other 4. . Sri E INFORMATION W LV 1/NWI Wetland Classification Codes(sj Icy 6 - o, Adjacent Waterway (if any) 4oywft 1151 r- ems. ~ ~"e .5. PROPOSED ACTIVITY site plan approval ❑ subdivision; p4t~ 4t ❑.grading permit ❑ planned un 3 2 3 ❑ conditional use permit ❑ building pet ~g 3 8cc- ffiv ❑ Other _ Project Description I, Pk&4J ((v A- _ M.An C44,N5 Sty.., Completed by/ ontact Address S%fz~1111 ❑ A removal-fill permit is required from the DI (Y~ir~ ❑ A removal-fill permit will be required when S u` 21 A removal-fill permit may be required j 1r C a, A permit may be required by the Corps of E _ ❑ Information needed includes: A,, ❑ A wetland determination/delineation rep ja ❑ State Pefmit # ❑ wa ❑ No removal-fill permit is required for the de3, Comm nts: ❑ On-Site Visit By: Response completed by: * If the project is changed t olve fill or r c http://www.oregonstatelands.us/wetlanduse.htm from the wetlands area, a state removal-fill p rmit 11 be .required. August 2004 From: Kim Mcmillan To: Gary Pagenstecher Date: 4/17/2006 10:52:56 AM Subject: Longstaff Condos Hi Gary, I just spoke to Naomi @ WACO and was informed that 95th Avenue is no longer a WACO facility. We can disregard their comments of 2-23-06. A Minute Order to the Board 2-21-06. Public Hearing 4-4-06. Kim CC: Dick Bewersdorff; Gus Duenas; John Rained; Mike White; Paul Izatt c - ATTACHMENT 5 STAFF/APPLICANT CORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO THE APPLICATION Longstaff Condominiums SDR2005-00011/S1R3005.00031 4 4 J 6 C D Longstaff Appeal to HO - AuguW ct-)8th • Page 1 of 1 Gary Pagenstecher - Longstaff Appeal to HO - August 28th From: "Kirsten Van Loo" <kvl@A1phaCommunity.com> To: "Gary Pagenstecher" <Garyp(& ,tigard-or.gov> Date: 8/8/2006 8:43 AM Subject: Longstaff Appeal to HO - August 28th CC: "Carrie Richter" <crichter@gsblaw.com>, "Jeff Vanderdasson" <javP,AlphaCommunity.com>, "Jerry Palmer" <jmpa,AlphaCommunity.com> Gary: Carrie Richter and I have each reviewed the "appeal" document f rom Ms. Beilkes. We concur that items identifed in that document have been thoroughly addressed in our submittal documents to the City of Tigard, specif ically in the last two submittal packages, dated April 3, 2006 and May 10, 2006. Since the complete record will be forwarded to the Hearings Officer, we are confident that he will review those two final submittals, as well as all of the other documents that comprise the record for this application. Thank you for your time on this project. Kirsten Van Loo Alpha Community Development 503-452-8003 x 209 file://C:\Documents and Settings\garyp.000\Local Settings\Temp\GW)00002.HTM 8/8/2006 PORTLAND OFFICE 40 eleventh floor 121 sw morrison street portland, oregon 97204-3141 TEL 503 228 3939 FAx 503 226 0259 A PA R T N E R 5 N I P OF P R O F E 5S I ON A L CC) P , P O P A T I ON S May 10, 2006 Hand Delivered Mr. Gary Pagenstecher Associate Planner, City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Longstaff Site Development Review Dear Gary: OTHER OFFICES beijing, china new york, new york seattle, washington washington, d.c. GSBLAW.COM Please reply to CARRIE A. RICHTER crichter®gsblaw.com TEL EXT 3118 Enclosed are a number of supplemental materials that further establish the applicable review criteria are met. These include: 1) Sanitary sewer analysis identifying a single unserved property to the south and outlining options for providing such service. 2) Revised storm water analysis explaining in detail how water drains onto and off of the site including a basin map. 3) An email from ODOT explaining that Metro's Highway 217 Corridor Plan has not been adopted and even if it was in effect, it would not impose any dedication obligations. 4) Additional narrative and map addressing pedestrian connectivity standards. Please let me know if you have further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, GARVEY SCHUBERT BARER By Carrie A. Richter Enclosures cc: Jerry Palmer w/o enclosures PDX DOCS:373274.1 [36248-00200] 411; w• \ `?7 ~ II ? A TAX LOT II \ Al 1700 • -$-'~'•':•:•e:•: e..p:.:.;.:-' ...a"~:•;•;......•~..•.•.....•.x••.•••.•..•....1.1:' \ \ )LOT # 9 s. 8:• 4.. yr+m.° . .,@ r..... •'e a.. e...••• r.. i TAX LOT # 9800 - `I---; TAX LOT ~I #97010 TAX LOT # 9600 TAX LOT # 9500 180 TAX LOT #9JVV TAX LOT 1 # 8900 TAX LOT TAX LOT ~ # 8800 W I TAX LOT # 12500 . ~ TAX LOT # 8700 TAX LOT # 12400 _I - T LOT # 8400 8400 CONNECTS SEN~EIF~'0 EXISTING PUBLIC LINE IN SW NORTH DAKOTA STREET. SIMILAR TO ADJACENT PARCELS TAX LOT TAX LOT # 8500 #8306 i ~ g0 - - 1 TAX LOT T # 7800 / # 8200 50' PUFFER LINE TAX LOT I TAX LOT # 8100 # 7900 ASS i / TAX LOT #.800 190- r- - +--0- -fil-I---195- SW N DAKOTA STREETS i 205 f I / 2 10' 05' NO IMPACT TO RESOURCE = DIRECTION OF SANITARY CONNECTION SCALE 10o 0 50 100 200 alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9600 SW Oak, Suite 230 Portland. OR 97223 m lam www.alphacommuniiy.com REVISIONS NO. DATE DESCRIPTION ABRAMS PROPERTY SANITARY SEWER EXHIBIT OPTION 1 alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.: 828-021 TYPE: PLANNING 1 IN = 100 FT N:\aoN37B028\dwp\%a'unno\Exh!Mh\32A-0?P-54NR4R~•P;uipnc.M•,c•cHE:'f: 0°!ICY~~ .M•o;•^'. ?L'S. 1i0 mc•^~ L-~JAI TAX LOT # 1700 TAX LOT # 9800 - T TAX TLO # 9700 "15 TAX LOT # 9600 TAX LOT # 9500 • 180 ~ TAX LOT # 9300 . V. .'.B ®.i.'.'.'... ~p•_ t , "i '8 : a /Lo TAX LOT / TAX LOT TAX LOT # 8900 600 T LOT # 8400 T # 7800 / # 8200 50 BUFFER LINE TAX LOT DEVELOP.ME - TAX L aaoo coNNEC S S # 8800 POSTING PUBLIC LINE IN SW TAX LOT TAX LOT NORTH DAKOTA STREET. TAX LOT # 7900 SIMILAR TO ADJACENT # 8100 r ui I #2500 PARCELS - 7 + AX LOT TAX LO TAX LOT T t TAX LOT # 6 #.8000 190 M # 8700 TAX LOT # 8500 _ #12400 --195- " .185 DAKOTA STREETS SW Id _ = 20 205 . NO IMPACT TO RESOURCE ~ = DIRECTION OF SANITARY CONNECTION Oe SCALE 200 / \,lam 100 0 e0 100 200 --210 / 1 w = +ao Fr alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9600 SW Oak. Sutte 230 Portland. OR 97223 mMEDC ,ww.olphacommuNty- om RE\nsioNs N0. DATE DESCRIPTION pd;-, /)7(v,-T ta,2eob ABRAMS PROPERTY SANITARY SEWER EXHIBIT OPTION 1 alpha COMMUNrry DEVELOPMENT PItoJECT NO.: 928-021 TYPE PLANNING cryxur~.c`.•m-SN?~t; C+O1>'-w N:\aol\3?B47>!\dw9\PIO'+nmp\Ezhroft5132E4?~-54NRnR~' „ n \ \ \ Ali fzi - - S__66, t . M ! I. .tee' ~ ~ \ - ` • ~ I I u, V \ \ Jr I III \I \ \ \ ~7 PROVIDE A SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT ALONG THE TAX LOT SOUTHERN AND SOUTH # 1700 WESTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARIES PROVIDING A NON INVASIVE PASSAGE FOR A GRAVITY LINE TO CONNECT TO 95TH AVE THROUGH THE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY TO THE WEST. TAX LOT # 9600 TAX LOT # 9500 ri -80- TAX LOT # 9300 1 \ O fTAX LOT T # 9800 I # J TAX LOT # 9700 I ~1 1 TAX LOT 98900 g.'..'.ti..• ' .•.,.a...•.•.•. . • 8.1.'.'.. 'Ewe ..r' ° 9'.'.d'.'.'.'..'.'. .1'.........Q•~s.. :.i•.' •e....'.'.'. 104, X-C a \ TAX LOT ~ ~ ~ _ . ouu T LOT #8400 O Ln \ TAX LOT # 8800 / I TAX LOT W I ✓ # 12500 ,QI TAX LOT M # 8700 TAX LOT I TAX LOT TAX LOT # 12400 # 8500 - 306 N _ _1B5 - TAX LOT #7 00 # 8200 TAX LOT TAX LOT # 8100 # 7900 ~8S TAX LOT I- # 8000 - - 190- Y - I. I---195- SW N DAKOTA STREETS - ` - i 00 205 - 210 205'--~ / - I N:\wo}\32&078\dwa\Plannina\E Ibih\31B02BSAN8ARY_Xprdn.dwp-SHEET:OP00N2 MwO5.2W6-11Dlwnpm! i 50' BUFFER LINE MINIMAL IMPACT TO RESOURCE SCALE Ir G 5D 100 21O IIN=100 FT alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT W Oak Suite 230 9600S Portland, OR 97223 M SM-452.M I9 50 JM-8W www.alphacommunfty.com REVISIONS NO. DATE DESCRIPTION ABRAMS PROPERTY SANITARY SEWER EXHIBIT OPTION 2 alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.: 928.021 TYPE PLANNING DATE: i or_ '~r - N ~ 1i~.~ia mmaartu ro n u umaarca vm m cwm ~00~ . • nuo~x naa~va ~nxn or ,xa an u nwaa wax me - t am. + . 1I K' a. r rata unrua is sraav wun as ruu. urn aon ~E ' L,I.IL ! ` r. ia`1AtL'RWI[[I<Mla aMlra AT .IL CxrRU. (In On<IL ' ~ ~ ~TUwnvastrUCi rlnwu tq}AI<AD n .awauc[ Dtn un a 1 I ` - - r, romiiRawauDm ,eu wee rwmunw svu r.cssnssa ' a • Ir ' 1 N. J<~ /k ttr t I~S~ } . , . an uuuu wuamn rumor umu upnau. ~,:wr ra u_wur uaiT.n w mw aavu rt,a mua n as a - - - varar~ r ~p k r a ' r`a"._w-~_- sW Na,roTA se } °•~~"'~`r.-v c« se ro.r , . h~_~ rF}'~'~ a f ♦ fAOrf<f fUlf / • pp_ .Ytiti p'fy~ SW DSN M.• L? .IP .J,. SW NOA.rOTA Sr ~ • I -EL ACKF' STREET Af. 4UlfTS._ex~tl,«to-er A/C//ENEL L /NE'Ja rE z .tt. rir R•. _ _ 54NMARY SEWER a n~yb xeK mar D,{isrnac rs.wr e> ,wA.~7>AcENmAeeRTNa CLAGUAi1J oq Harr v u . - STORM /D➢r' - PLAN/PROFILE f",.. axYY D,a ws-nar - - I -e ~I...' - _ _ - o ronuANO, onGOOn. tis- SW NORTH DAKOTA' AVENflE .u . ano. sv. -o•s to:~o rnu Ci604 x x~ oai x0 nxntpx~ ¢y~JS--/ TIGAq,D O -;4 ' T1fi.APO OREGON' -yi-ofcc' 303 SScd MINIM, IM 11 1 ' ff Townhouse Project I 328-028 May 8, 2006 Storm Water System For the proposed project, surface (storm) water runoff will be collected via a system of catch basins and pipes under the newly constructed private drives. The storm water facilities will be constructed in compliance with Resolution 91= 47, whereby Clean Water Services and the City of Tigard have agreed to enforce Surface Water Management regulations requiring the construction of said facilities. To address questions regarding. the diversion of flow from the original drainage path, all-the runoff from this site eventually ends up in Ash Creek. The drainage from the SE side of the site flows into the wetland and then under Highway 217 through a 12 inch culvert, and eventually into Ash Creek as depicted on the Drainage Way Exhibit in Appendix 4 of the "Storm Water Management Report". The yellow arrows on this exhibit show the current path of waters through the area and in to Ash Creek. With this project, the water from "Drainage Area 3" (outlined in blue on the referenced exhibit) is re-routed through our on-site detention system and released at a "predevelopment" rate. We are not diverting the water from its ultimate destination. The storm waters from Drainage Area #1, located primarily to the south of SW North Dakota, will eventually be collected and discharged into a future system located in SW 95th Avenue. The first leg of that systeni.will be built with either our project or the Livingston Lane project. Livingston Lane has land use approval and will probably be constructed prior to our project. In either situation, the conveyance system being built now will require a 30" pipe to carry the combined current and future storm water runoff to Ash Creek. Storm Drainage Conveyance As required by CWS, our storm drainage conveyance system will be designed to convey a 25-year return frequency 24-hour event using the Rational Method. Proposed pipe material will be PVC. An 'n' value of 0.011 will be used as abasis for pipe sizing. (the`n' value is a friction co-efficient used to determined capacity of a pipe) The water quality and detention facilities proposed with the development are shown on Sheet 6 of the preliminary plan submittal set and are described in the "Storm Water Management Report". Tigard engineering staff and the applicant's engineer have discussed the ultimate storm water conveyance system sizing and construction necessary to accommodate proposed development. Livingston Lane subdivision, west of 95th, and adjacent to the proposed development, will install the conveyance system from the s-ubject property to Ash Creek as a part of their. infrastructure system upgrade. This project will be required to provide a storm system connection for future improvements on SW 95tH • ~ff Townhouse Project 1 328-028 May 8, 2006 Citizen comments are incorrect in stating that the system must convey the water from a 100 year storm event. An analysis is required to determine the impacts of the 100 year event; however, the storm conveyance system needs to carry only the 25 year event, as per CWS standards (quoted below). "The conveyance system shall be designed to convey and contain at least the peak runoff for the 25-year design storm. Structures for proposed pipe systems must be demonstrated to provide a minimum of 1.0 foot of freeboard between the hydraulic grade line and the top of the structure or finish grade above pipe for 25- year post development peak rate of runoff. Design surcharge in pipe systems shall not be allowed if it will cause flooding in portions of a habitable structure, including below-floor crawl spaces, or otherwise create a hazard or danger to the health and safety of the public. The 25-year design shall be supplemented with an overland conveyance component demonstrating. how a 100-year event will be accommodated. This overland component shall not be allowed to flow through or inundate an existing building. Flows in streets during the 25-year event shall not run deeper than 4 inches against the curb or extend more than two feet into the travel lane." The existing drainage basin "upstream" of our site will not be altered. The downstream storm water conveyance system will be improved so that storm water falling on the new impervious surfaces will be directed through pipes back to Ash Creek. The applicant has agreed to share the cost of upsizing the piping system from our site north to the creek in 95t" Avenue. . 100 Year Flood Plain Elevation Another concern expressed by neighbors,is the 1.00 year water surface elevation shown on the FEMA flood maps. The 100 year elevation is shown to be 161.00 feet. We measured a water surface elevation of approximately 158.00 feet after a small rain event last winter. Excerpt from Tigard Development Code relating to Storm water 18.810.100 Storm Drainage. A. General provisions. The Director and City Engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff have been made, and. 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and 3. Surface water drainage pattems shall be shown on every development proposal plan. B. Easements. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large-enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development, and. 1. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1.996 and including any future revisions or amendments). D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement-of-the potential-condition or until provisions have been made for- storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the. Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). RE: Highway 217 at Greenbura d • Carrie Richter from: EBERLE Frederick C [Frederick.C.EBERLE@odot.state. or.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 2:43 PM To: crichter@gsblaw.com Subject: RE: Highway 217 at Greenburg Road - --Original Message---- From: EBERLE Frederick C Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 6:10 PM To: 'crichter@gsblaw.com' Cc: WILSON Timothy 1; DANIELSON Marah B Subject: Highway 217 at Greenburg Road Ms. Richter: Page 1 of 1 As,we discussed on the phone, the proposed widening of Highway 217 adjacent to the proposed development you are representing at 1S1 35 AC TL 100, 2500, 4600 and 4700; Tigard case file SDR 2005 0011, does not appear to need to acquire any property from this site. 'Conceptual designs for widening appear to remain inside the existing ODOT right of way adjacent to this property. The final design and impacts will be determined during-the environmental assessment and preliminary engineering for construction of the widening. This is not funded or scheduled at this time. There could be temporary property impacts for construction easements necessary to widen the highway, grade slopes, install retaining walls, etc. There would possibly be temporary noise impacts during construction. Also, as we discussed., the additional highway travel lanes will be closer to the property than today. While some noise mitigation may be possible, it is often difficult to mitigate noise on multi-story buildings, and in areas where the terrain allows sound to carry further.. Your builder should take appropriate measures to mitigate the impacts during construction of the development. As we discussed, building orientation,. insulation, window placement and glazing can all affect sound levels inside the residences and are best planned for and installed during construction of the buildings. I hope this helps answer your questions. Fred Eberle, Major Projects Manager Oregon Department of Transportation Region 1 123 NW Flanders St. Portland OR 97209-4012 Phone 503 731-8284 Fax 503 731-8259 Frederick. C. E berle@odot. state. or. us 5/3/2006 18.705: ACCESS/EGRESS 8 CIRCULATION As required under section 18.705.030, all vehicular access and egress will have direct access to a public or private street. Curb cuts will be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N. At this time, one vehicular access way will be provided from SW 95th Avenue. It will provide ingress and egress for all residents of the Longstaff development and measure a minimum of 24 feet in width. 18705030 General Provisions F. Required walkway l ocation. On site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards' I. Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing ofstairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments 2 WIthin all attached housing (except two-family dwellings/ and multi-family developments, each residential dwelling shall be connected by walkway to the vehicular parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities,- 3 Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6- inch vertical separation Icurbedl or a minimum 3 -foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards,' 4. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes Soft-surfaced public use pathways maybe provided only ifsuch pathways are provided in addition to required pathways Response: As drawn on the attached site concept plan, all attached units are connected by concrete walkways to the vehicular parking area and circulating around the proposed development; the walkway is continuous and all pedestrian street crossings are designed for pedestrian safety using concrete to denote pedestrian crossing from the asphalt driveways and parking areas. As can be seen on the site concept plan, all walkways are proposed at 4 feet in width and ADA standards are met. 1. Minimum access requirements for residential use. J. 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. I and Table 18.705. Z' TABLE 187052 VEHICULARACCESS/EGRESS REGUIREMENTS.' C MUL TTFA MIL YRESIDENTIAL USE Dwelling Minimum Number of MinimumAccess Minimum PavementSidewalks, Units Driveways Required Required Etc. 1-2 I 15' I0' 3-19 ! 30' 24V two-way, I5'ifone-way." Curbs and 5' walkway required ' Sf one-vvay.`"Cr r s a' ' w~alkt~ ~ 50-100 2 30' 24' Curbs and 5' walkway required 2 Vehicular access to multifamily structures shall be brought to within 50 feet of the ground door entrance or the ground door landing of a stairway, ramp, or elevator leading to the dwelling units,, 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., a A circular, paved surface having a minimum turn radius measured from center point to outside edge of35feet,- 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 ofa required turnaround is 596. 5 Vehicle turnouts, ~providing a minimum total driveway width of 24 feet for a distance of at least 30 feet/, may be required so as to reduce the need for excessive vehicular backing motions in situations where two vehicles traveling in opposite directions meet on driveways in excess of 200 feet in length,, 6. Where permitted, minimum width for driveway approaches to arterials or collector streets shall be no less than 20 feet so as to avoid traffic turning from the street having to wait for traffic exiting the site. Response: As can be seen on the site concept plan, one driveway, with 24 feet of paving, is proposed into the development site. The 24 foot wide drive is consistent throughout the development. 18.810.070 Sidewalks A. Sidewalks /ill industrial streets and private streets shall have sidewalks meeting Clty standards along at least one side of the street. All other streets shall have sidewalks meeting City standards along both sides of the street. A development may be approved ifan a joining street has sidewalks on the side ad oining the development, even If no sidewalk exists on the other side of the street B. Requirement ofdevelopers 1. As part ofany development proposal, or change in use resulting in an additional I, 000 vehicle trips or more per day, an applicant shall be required to identify direct, safe ~ 1.25 x the straight line distance/ pedestrian routes within b r t• R" FNE TO w_rl~TT 01" -low \ t= I f \ \ '?7 ilA TAX LOT # 1700 PROMDE A 15 FOOT EASEMENT I ALONG THE SOUTH WESTERLY PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROVIDING 1 THE POlEN11AL FOR FUTURE CONNECTION THE THE PROPOSED - SANITARY SYSTEM TO BE STUBBED AT NORTHERN BUFFER a 1 \ LINE. THIN CREATES TWO 10 INTRUSIONS INTO THE RESOURCE. • II Ijl TAX LOT ~4 I i1 ( # 9800 _ # TAX LOT # 9700 o5 TAX LOT #9600 TAX LOT # 9500 t 1 TAX LOT # 9300 I ~ TAX LOT I # 8900 IN e. .d 4 e%.1..... 8..... ' a ,•.e-. 4~ ~ r-0 -TAX LOT / TAX LOT _ 600 O T LOT #8400 T # 7$00 # 8200 50' BUFFER LINE TAX LOT # 8800 / W u TAX LOT I I # 12500 QI I I TAX LOT TAX LOT # 8700 1 TAX LOT I # 8500 - Q~ # 12400 r}85 _ (7- SW N DAKOTA STREETI 1 TAX X LOT TAX LOT # L # 7900 78S~ 8100 !r~ I { I TAX LO I TAX LOT I, \ 06 # 8000 - 190- - GREATEST IMPACT TO RESOURCE 5 - 100 0 50 100 Y i ~ I 1 IN. 100 FT N:\ag13~-029\dwP\%annmB\F~tru'bih\3 -SANUARYJ(N181ISdw9-SNE7:0FT"'05'2DD6-1==M alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9600 S 230 Portland. OR 97223 M SM452-8= 19503.42-BW www.Dlphocommuroly.com REVISIONS~- N0. OATE DESCRIPTION ABRAMS PROPERTY SANITARY SEWER EXHIBITS OPTION 3 alpha COMMUNITY. DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.: 32&021 TYPE PLANNING PAYE. I12 mile of their site to all transit facilities and Neighborhood A ctivity Centers schools, parks, libraries, etc.). In addition, the developer may be required to participate in the removal ofanygaps in the pedestrian system off-site ifjustified by the development. 2 If there is an existing sidewalk, on the same side of the street as the development, within 300 feet ofa development site in either direction, the sidewalk shall be extended from the site to meet the existing sidewalk, subject to rough proportionality (even if the sidewalk does not serve a neighborhood activity center). Response to 18.810.070.B:: As a standard, attached single family units produce 6 trips per day. Proposed are 8 clusters of attached single family units resulting in 43 individual units for an average of 258 vehicle trips per day. Therefore this criterion does not need to be met by this proposal. However, as seen on the site concept plan, the applicant proposes street improvements on SW 95th Ave for pedestrian access to Tri-Met bus routes 76 (Beaverton- Tualatin) and 78 (Beaverton-Lake Oswego) operate nearby along SW Greenburg Road. The stops are located within roughly 1,400 feet and 1,900 feet of the site, respectively. The new internal private street system provides one access point to SW 95th Avenue. r Patty Lunsford - Re: Longstaff applic. From: Patty Lunsford To: Gary Pagenstecher Date: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 4:04:12 PM Subject: Re: Longstaff application Page 1 Gary, I currently show the 120 days as being 6/6/06.. With the addition of 30 days that would put the 120 days at 7/6/06, not 7/4/06. Patricia Lunsford, Planning Secretary City of Tigard, Oregon 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171, ext. 2438 patty@tigard-or.gov Gary Pagenstecher 5/3/06 10:06 AM Carrie: Thank you for following through with the extension request. Gary Carrie Richter <crichter(o)gsblaw.com> 05/02 4:19 PM Good Afternoon: This email is to inform you that the applicant wishes to waive the 120 day time limit on the Longstaff application extending the deadline an additional 30 days. My understanding is that this will push the last date from June 4, 2006 until July 4, 2006. Please let me know if I have misunderstood the deadlines or if you have further questions. We anticipate submitting our supplemental narrative in the next couple of days. Carrie Richter Attorney for Applicants Alpha Community Development Unless expressly stated otherwise, any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended to-be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties. This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It contains information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this information by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. CARRIE A. RICHTER crichter(& gsbla w. com GARVEY SCHUBERT BARER GSBLaw.com eleventh floor 121 sw morrison street portland, oregon 97204-3141 TEL 503 228 3939 x3118 FAX 503 226 0259 Page 1 of 2 t Gary Pagenstecher - Longstaff Site Development Review From: Gary Pagenstecher To: Palmer, Jerry Date: 4/19/2006 12:31 PM Subject: Longstaff Site Development Review CC: Bewersdorff, Dick; Lunsford, Patty; Mcmillan, Kim Dear Jerry, Dick, Kim, and I have reached a point in the site development review of your proposed Longtstaff Condominiums where we either must deny the application for lack of information sufficient to determine consistency with the standards or ask that you agree to an extension of the review period and to provide additional information. Below, I outline some of the problems we have encountered, so far. The application does not consider the extension of sanitary sewer service to adjacent properties to the south of the subject property. Analysis should include these properties to determine if utilities need to cross the wetland. If this crossing is warranted, it may require a sensitive lands review. Depending on the potential impacts to the resource, a Type IV review might be required. The Narrative and Stormwater report do not address upstream or downstream run-off per 18.810.100.C. and D, respectively. A good basin map should also be included in your report. The record does not include any comment from ODOT regarding the eventual expansion of the 217 r-o-w based on the recent METRO study, which indicates an additional lane in each direction. Please provide a letter from ODOT addressing this issue. TVFR's comments (see attached) are general in nature. Please provide a letter from TVFR that qualifies your proposal as consistent with the relevant standards. The narrative is generally insufficient. In addition to the problems we have had reviewing the application indicated above, there are other deficiencies. For example: The narrative erroneously concludes on page 11 that the design compatibility standards do not apply to the abutting property zoned R-12. Since the R-12 zone permits single-family residential development, the standards do apply, pursuant to TDC 18.720.020.B and Use Table 18.510.1. Therefore, your application should include information such as elevation drawings sufficient to determine consistency with the Design Compatibility standards. The implications for meeting these standards may be increased setbacks or an altered building design. TDC 18.720 also includes design guidelines for pedestrian circulation where the on-site pedestrian circulation system shall be continuous and connect the ground-level entrances of primary structures to various elements on site. The narrative asserts that this standard is met, yet the plan shows a more limited sidewalk system that is inconsistent with the standard. Please provide a revised plan that meets the standard and is consistent with the narrative. The narrative for Access/Egress & Circulation (18.705) does not satisfactorily address F. Required walkway locations or I. Minimum Access requirements for residential use, where the latter is related to TVFR standards. In addition, TDC 18.810.070.B.1 may require pedestrian connections off-site to remove gaps in the pedestrian system. The narrative does not address this standard. We are suspending our review of Longstaff until we hear from you on how you would like to proceed or until April 24, when we will proceed with a denial to meet the 120-day rule. Gary file://C:\Documents and Settings\garyp.000\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 4/19/2006 A alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RECEIVED April 3, 2006 APR a 2006 Dick Bewersdorf OfT City of Tigard, Planning Department A "emNG 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Longstaff Townhomes - Response to Public Comments SDR 2005-00011 -Alpha 328-028 Dick: Please include this letter in the record for the referenced project, Longstaff Townhomes, as a response to the issues identified by public comments submitted to your office during the comment period. Type of Review This application is not a subdivision application, and it is not a planned development application. While those land use approval options were suggested as possible methodologies for land use approval, they were not employed on this project. Citizen comments state that a Planned Development or subdivision review is required as part of this application. The application does not propose creation of any new lots, nor does is request development standard variations typically associated with a Planned Development. The procedures and development code standards for subdivisions and/or planned developments do not apply to this application. E Pre-Application Conference and Neighborhood Meeting Recommendations There were numerous issues identified at the pre-submittal neighborhood meeting. The application takes into consideration comments made at the neighborhood meeting and addresses those concerns over which the development has influence. There is no applicable development code criteria requiring that the applicant agree or comply with all of the comments and/or recommendations proposed by staff at the pre-app meeting, or by the participants in the neighborhood meeting. E Comprehensive Plan Policies Comprehensive Plan policies, while providing goals and policies - are implemented by the development code and the specific zoning districts applied to properties within the City. Comprehensive Plan Goals and policies are not "freestanding" application approval criteria.. They are not used as approval criteria in a Type II land use approval. Similarly, Plaza West, Suite 230, 9600 SW Oak, Portland, Oregon 97223 [T] 503-452-8003 [F] 503-452-8043 0 the Tigard Comprehensive Plan map does not designate specific treed areas for preservation. (Frewing #15, #18, #19, Beilke PD) ODOT Comments and Highway 217 Redesign While several studies and discussion sessions have taken place regarding the potential future improvements on Highway 217 - adjacent to the property - no policy or final plan has been adopted by any controlling jurisdiction - and thus - there are no additional design policies or requirements, available for consideration in conjunction with this application. Citizens comment that ODOT did not get proper notification; however, notification of affected agencies is a City of Tigard responsibility. ODOT did receive notice and is responsible for circulating the information to appropriate personnel.(Frewing #1, Whiting-street dev., buffering,) Wetland Boundaries and Natural Resource Assessment A Wetland Delineation and Natural Resource Assessment was completed in September 2005 by SWCA Environmental Consultants. This report is included in the package of submittal documents on file with the City of Tigard for the subject land use application. Citizens comment that the delineation was improperly conducted. They also postulate that the delineated wetland is not identical to that mapped on the City's Wetland and Stream Corridor Map. Enclosed with this letter is a memo from SWCA Environmental Consultants (Exhibit A- 1) updating their report dated September 2005, and restating confidence in the Wetland Delineation and Natural Resource Assessment completed by their professional staff. The Division of State Lands -DSL- has received copies of the identified report. Clean Water Services -CWS- reviewed the delineation and proposed buffer and issued a Service Provider letter supporting the project. Excerpted from the City of Tigard Development Code. 18.775.050 General Provisions for Wetlands A. Code compliance requirements. Wetland regulations apply to those areas classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetland and Streams Corridors Map", and to a vegetated corridor ranging from 25 to 200 feet 'vide, measured horizontally, from the defined boundaries of the wetland, per "Table 3.1 Vegetated Corridor Widths" and "Appendix C" Natural Resource Assessments" of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards Wetland locations may include but are not limited to those areas identified as wetlands in "Wetland Inventory and Assessment for the City of Tigard, Oregon, " Fishman Environmental Services, 1994. B. Delineation of wetland boundaries. Precise boundaries may varyfrom those shown on wetland maps; specific delineation of wetland boundaries may be necessary. Wetland delineation will be done by qualified professionals at the applicant's expense. The wetland on the subject property was evaluated using the professional methodology proscribed for same, and was then plotted in the field and on graphic base maps of the. property. As encouraged by state law, regional policy and City of Tigard Comprehensive plan and Development Code, the wetland has been delineated by a professional consultant using accepted methods, and has been set aside in a tract with a large Page 2 of 6 vegetated buffer to protect the integrity and inherent resource values. The total area encompassed by the wetland and the protective vegetated buffers is 101,542 sq. ft. or 2.33 acres. This protected resource is 45% of the total site included in the development proposal. (Frewing #2, #3, # 13, Whiting-wetland, Beilke-wetland, buffering, sensitive lands) The delineated wetland is "buffered" by a minimum fifty foot wide vegetative corridor along the northern edge - providing a large safeguard to the identified wetland. Along the southeastern reach of the wetland, there is a commensurate fifty foot buffer and small section of "developable upland". At the southwestern edge of the property the buffer narrows down to a negligible width onsito, with the remaining buffer. on the adjacent property. In this application there is no request for a Sensitive Lands Permit of any kind because no development or land disturbance is proposed in the wetland. This application does not seek to alter or remove the identified wetland - and in fact - separates it in a protective tract with vegetated buffers to protect the integrity and quality of same. (Frewing 44) The presence or absence of anadromous fish in Ash Creek is not relevant to this application, because the on-site wetland will remain undisturbed and any waters draining to the wetland will be cooled and filtered by traversing the 50 foot wide buffer to the wetland. The purpose of the buffer is to cool and filter water, as well as to protect the wetland. Storm Drainage and Detention of Storm Water The water quality and detention facilities proposed with the development are shown on Sheet 6 and are described in the preliminary storm drainage analysis. Tigard engineering staff and the applicant's engineer have discussed the ultimate storm water conveyance system sizing and construction necessary to accommodate proposed development. Livingston Lane subdivision, west of 95`h, and adjacent to the proposed development will install the conveyance system from our property to Ash Creek as a part of their infrastructure system upgrade. This project will be required to provide a storm system connection for future improvements on SW 95`h. (Exhibit A-3) Citizen comments are incorrect is stating that the system must convey the water from a 100 year storm event. An analysis is required to determine the impacts of the 100 year event; however, the storm conveyance system needs to carry only the 25 year event, as per CWS standards. "The conveyance system shall be designed to convey and contain at least the peak runoff for the 25 year design storm. Structures for proposed pipe systems must be demonstrated to provide a minimum of 1.0 foot of freeboard between the hydraulic grade line and the top of the structure or finish grade above pipe for 25- year post development peak rate of runoff. Design surcharge in pipe systems shall not be allowed if it will cause flooding in portions of a habitable structure, including below floor crawl spaces, or otherwise create `a hazard or danger to the health and safety of the public. The 25 year design shall be supplemented with an overland conveyance component demonstrating how a 100 year Page 3 of 6 event will be accommodated. This overland component shall not be allowed to flow through or inundate an existing building. Flows in streets during the 25 year event shall not run deeper than 4 inches against the curb or extend more than two feet into the travel lane. " The existing drainage basin upstream of-our site will not be altered. The downstream system will be improved so that the conveyance piping and street section will convey water to the creek. The applicant has agreed to share the cost of upsizing the piping system from our site north to the creek. (Frewing #3, #6, #7, #17, Whiting-drainage, Beilke-drainage) Building Footprints, Access and Existing Trees Included with this letter is a composite site plan (Exhibit A-2) with the proposed building footprints, the access and circulation system and the existing trees, as well as the boundaries of the wetlands and buffers identified. This composite site plan demonstrates the impact of the proposed development on the property, including the existing trees. Calculations also clarify the area of the wetland, the vegetated buffers, and the proposed landscaping for the project. (Frewing 48, #10, Whiting-buffering, Beilke-outdoor space) Tree Analysis The tree analysis performed by Walt Knapp included identification by species of all the trees potentially impacted by the development. Those trees within the wetland or wetland buffers were not identified by species because they are being protected as a component of the wetland ecosystem and species identification is not necessary, since they will be preserved. The tree analysis included with the application identifies 16 trees - over 12 inches DBH - that will be removed. This report is the most current and contains the correct data. Preliminary estimates of tree removal were made prior to the completion of the Knapp Tree Analysis, and were more conservative. Prior to construction, the City Arborist and Mr. Knapp will conduct an "on-site" evaluation of the tree removal techniques and tree preservation measures to ensure optimum care for all trees. References to "bridge foundations" for the buildings are premature because the structural design of the buildings is not complete, nor a part of the land use approval. (Frewing #5, Beilke-trees) Impact Statement The Impact Statement for this proposal assesses the existing public facilities and identifies necessary public facility improvements that can be accomplished by the development to alleviate impacts proportionate to the project. That document was included with the application package. Citizens comment on the potential "impact" of this project on the public school system. ORS 195.110(10) provides that potential inadequate public school capacity cannot be the sole reason for denial of a development application. IMPACT: Project Traffic and Transit Service The project will contribute approximately 400 daily vehicle trips (ADT) over a 24 hour period. There will be approximately 43 peak AM hour trips leaving the property and approximately the same number entering the project during the peak PM hours. The property is zoned for the type and density of development proposed and the traffic Page 4 of 6 volumes were anticipated as a part of the most recent Transportations System Plan adopted by the City of Tigard. The closest transit service is approximately t/4 mile away on Greenburg Road. There is no TRIMET plan for transit service along the project frontage, thus, there is no need to provide public bus-stop facilities on-site. IMPACT: Pedestrian Connectivity The "impacts" to the public transportation system will be mitigated with the installation of frontage improvements along the site frontage, including sidewalks. The proposed street improvements on 95th Avenue include a sidewalk along the project frontage - as well as asphalt widening five hundred feet south of the site frontage along the eastern edge of the road. Each successive development along SW 95th Avenue and SW Shady Lane will construct sidewalks as the property fronting those streets develops. Alternatively, the property owners along those streets could initiate an LID to acquire the necessary ROW and construct sidewalks. It is not within the scope of this project to acquire the necessary ROW to build a sidewalk at ultimate alignment and grade for the 1/4 mile distance to Greenburg Road. Further, the "impacts" of this development are not roughly proportional to the cost of acquiring the necessary ROW and building the identified public improvements. (Frewing #11, Whiting-street dev.) IMPACT: On-Site Circulation The on-site circulations system includes 24 foot wide streets and 30+ guest parking spaces in parking bays. The preliminary unit design includes a two car garage on the ground floor for resident parking. Many units also have room for one guest parking space in front of individual garage doors. The parking requirements for the zoning district and the proposed use have been met. IMPACT: Masonry Wall along Highway 217 The proposed eight foot tall masonry wall along the eastern property line will require structural engineering design and a building permit. It will not require a land use variance. It has been designed to provide noise mitigation and visual buffering to the project. The applicant acknowledges that the proposed wall will not completely ameliorate the noise impacts of the adjacent road, but, combined with current building insulation and construction techniques and high quality insulated windows, the noise impact from the adjacent highway will be reduced. (Frewing#9, Whiting-buffering, Beilke-buffering) Project Sight Distance at Access Point Vehicular access sight distance and stopping sight distance have been addressed with the preliminary site distance certification in the application package. The predominant traffic movement from the site will be north on SW 95th Avenue. Thus the sight distance looking south on SW 95th Avenue is excellent. If Tigard staff believe it necessary, additional signage will be installed. (Frewing#14) Open Space and Recreation 120,686 sq feet of the total.site is proposed for "development" with drives, parking, landscaping, paths and dwelling units. 38,000+ sq. feet of that "development" is Page 5 of 6 landscaped - with vegetation, paths and planting beds all included within the landscape plan. Pages 6 and 7 of the revised narrative included with the application package address the standards for required open space. The minimum "shared outdoor recreation area" required based on the Tigard Development Codes is 8600 square feet, and the "developed portion" of the project includes over 38,000 square feet. On a purely statistical basis, this provides over 800 square feet of "developed" landscaping per dwelling unit. In addition there is over 2 acres of wetland and buffer - albeit fenced to restrict human impacts - within the property boundaries that will provide opportunities for wildlife observation and quiet contemplation - necessary relaxation components of our urban lives. The buffers will be enhanced prior to fencing by removing invasive species and interspersing plantings of native vegetation to increase bio-diversity. (Beilke- open space, recreation) This concludes our responses to the citizen comments on the record. Please contact me if you need additional copies of this material Sincerely, Alpha Community Development Kirsten Van Loo Planner Page 6 of 6 V Mile." Sexvicbs A\DIIW$]lON,OF r 2l9B , r ! ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 1 r ;.1 f Portland Office 434 NW Sixth Avenue, Suite 304 Portland, Oregon 97209 Tel 503.224.0333 Fox 503.224.1851 www.swca.com Date: March 30, 2006 To: Jerry Palmer, Casa Terra LLC Cc: Jeff Vanderdasson and John Marquart, Alpha Community Development From: Stacey Reed, Wetland Scientist Subject: Abrams Property, Tax lots 100, 2500, 4600, and 4700, Tigard, Washington County, Oregon A field check was conducted on March 28, 2006 to confirm the extent of wetlands on tax lot 100. Although Upland Plots 2 and 4 contained saturation within the surface 12-inches on the March 28th field visit, both Plots were dominated by strong upland vegetation and non-hydric soils were present. Additional data was collected at two additional Plots located in areas of proposed development mapped as wetland on the City of Tigard's Local Wetland Inventory. Both additional Plots were dominated by upland vegetation, contained non-hydric soils within the surface 10-inches, and generally lacked wetland hydrology. Data sheets for the additional data collected and for the hydrology recheck Plots are available upon request. Therefore, we are confident with the mapped accuracy of the wetland delineation conducted in September 2005 and feel the extent of wetlands mapped on tax lot 100 on the City of Tigard's Wetland Inventory Map is inaccurate. `l\ s~. 1 I EcS _ SA^; i~H _ ii! I I I ~"II!I .1 i j III I'rr' I I 1 I!~s li i it A?PROxIM-TE -_ATICN PRA! !Nr 5UILTJ r 0- --A N I M' ; I 1 i , t f I, I I _T SAN ! ; z B1 y 4 i ~y 7 ~ W II , ~I I I I jii. E:;?ST SAN MH +1T 16'.25 . cy y WETLAND AREA WETLAND BUFFER AREA UNDEVELOPED HIGH GROUND = 61,767 SF. = 39,775 SF. = 2,233 SF. y y TOTAL DEVELOPED AREA = 120,686 SF. y TOTAL AREA FOR LANDSCAPING = 38,846 SF. 32.19% OF SITE DEDICATED TO LANDSCAPING a Ii ~L I I {C- I 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E-1-1 c, I r / y -Cn 5 • I I / <ss ICI t'% I I 1 ~ I I ~ , Ss I I ~ LEGEND EASEMENT LINES -ss>- PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER -=s- EX SANITARY SEWER -SD>- PROPOSED STORM DRAIN -E:L- EX STORM DRAIN ' -w- PROPOSED WATER LINE ~ -w- EX WATER LINE EX GAS LINE -`Mq_ EX BURIED POWER LINE { EX OVERHEAD POWER LINE -CAT>- EX CABLE TV LINE - ` - EX TELEPHONE LINE PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE EX SANITARY MANHOLE PROPOSED SANITARY CLEANOUT ffi EX SANITARY CLEANOUT • PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE i EX STORM MANHOLE j ■ PROPOSED CATCH BASIN 0 EX CATCH BASIN I o PROPOSED STORM CLEANOUT 3 EX STORM CLEANOUT PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT ti ri EX FIRE HYDRANT ® PROPOSED WATER METER E EX WATER METER PROPOSED WATER VALVE a EX WATER VALVE I, -4 PROPOSED BLOW-OFF w EX BLOW-OFF v PROPOSED AIR RELEASE VALVE _ EX AIR, RELEASE VALVE PROPOSED THRUST BLOCK i EX THRUST BLOCK i EX GAS VALVE t EX CABLE RISER EX TELEPHONE RISER } 3 l :'....'.'..~'..'O t: ar'-=.=-:.fit. ' egg''.:. g'.'y'i'.:.; ' u~cr°,•:': .45 6 06. a S m.'... e' e... , . e ' , . , , , _ , , . , . a e 2 SCALE 60 0 20 4D 80 i IN = 40 FT C:\wak\BGPIoI_1916\32dC28exhibil.dwg-SHEET:2Zra4 Ma!27,2006-9:4SamgMt alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9600 SW Oak Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 P] 503-452x003 jq 503452.6643 www.alphocommunity.com REVISIONS NO. DATE DESCRIPTION ABRAMS PROPERTY EXHIBIT ~~alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.: 328-028 TYPE PLANNING DATE: 6 t k w R 7 4S, DRAINAGE BASIN INFORMATION 70 f. , 4w s_ .sTJ , ';.A f ~ 'YS A r ' 'S ~ l aei s it X7'. ~ ~ - ~ ~ > rus *~`r T~~j~,~ A. s ~ is nr e~ r1~~~¢~ vr~i~ii Sy I: IfI 4. R a S 'ly z+3A -R, I k. 4 L ~ ti ~ l III l ~ ~ ~ r s M I 4'C . t h ~ . s . L ~ ~ k~ rQ I f in ' 7 ,4` - - - Tfa . . •l.t°J,7,er},Y,,. ,.rs. 4 :F~-- VOW- rjyf(~`~,~/~~, ilk {jam DRAINAGE AREA 1: AREA DRAINING TO ASH CREEK THROUGH 95TH AVE =28.8 AC. DRAINAGE AREA 2: EXISTIBNG AREA DRAINING =8.2 AC. TO THE WETLAND DRAINAGE AREA 3: EXISTIBNG AREA DRAINING 0.70 AC. TO BE REDIRECTED TO ASH CREEK e SCALE 100 a so 100 2DO 11N- 100 FT NAGEdwg• SHffT: 2234 A{r03.2M6.123Pm9m1 mmm-'-m-W-WW 4t~3- alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9600 SW Oak, Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 M 503.452.8003 In 503-452.8043 www.alphacommunity.com REVISIONS NO. DATE DESCRIPTION ABRAMS PROPERTY DRAINAGE WAY EXHIBIT -101-alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.: 948-028 TYPE: PLANNING DATE: 1 x A ATTACHMENT 7 APPLICANT'S APPLICATION MATERIALS Longstaff Condominiums SDR2005-00011/SLR2005-00021 • • Longsta- Iff 43-unit site development review applicant: representative: Palmer & Associates Alpha Community Development 9600 SW Oak St. #230 9600 SW Oak St. #230 Portland, OR 97223 tel: 503-452-8003 Portland, OR 97223 tel: 503-452-8003 ~Q U ll a contact: Al Jeck contact: Jeff Vanderdasson, PE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0) • Land Use Application contents: application narrative pre-app notes neighborhood meeting impact statement HmsyGD JAN 2 7 2006 CWV W long staff 43-unit site development review applicant: Palmer. & Associates 9600 SW Oak St. #230 Portland, OR 97223 tel:503-452-8003 contact: Al Jeck representative: Alpha Community Development 9600 SW Oak St. #230 Portland, OR 97223 tel:503-452-8003 contact: Jeff Vanderdasson, PE --aI pha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • • 0 • Land Use Application r Longstaff SDR November 14, 2005 0 0 PRE-APP. HELD BY CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OR 97223-8189 503.639.4171/503.684.7297 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION File # Other Case # Date By J_ ❑ Receipt # City ❑ Urb ❑ Date Complete E== TYPE OF PERMIT YOU ARE APPLYING FOR ❑ Adjustment/Variance (I or 11) ❑ Minor Land Partition (11) ❑ Zone Change (III) ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment (IV) ❑ Planned Development (111) ❑ Zone Change Annexation (IV) ❑ Conditional Use (III) ❑ Sensitive Lands Review (I, 11 or 111) ❑ Zone Ordinance Amendment (IV) ❑ Historic Overlay (II or III) Site Development Review (II) ❑ Home Occupation (11) ❑ Subdivision (11 or 111) ress it aval a e TAX MAH &I AX LU I NUS. MN 3IS Ac- oloo 2goo *ooo 4-7Do S-rl ~c -tZ clwo ZW C4r- 5"C. -1k Z33 Poea-wb C; p- Ck-7 2Z3 PHUNF= NU (os 457,- - a00 ~-AA NU. (503 45Z - c45 WER c list more an one U ~ ' P-0. 1~o c z, q7Z. PHUNt NO. ~-AA NU. CSo ~t2 = ~3 `When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be essee in purchaser of record or a l fhic saace orovided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. • nc r Now i~~i~,, Ai 1_"i\111 tc J X 1tio .i h,.{~~.'TI~,Z'\ I APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT ALL OF THE REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE "BASIC SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS" INFORMATION SHEET. THE APPLICANT SHALL CERTIFY THAT: If the application is granted, the applicant shall exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. ♦ All 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, map 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(s). SIGNATURES OF EACH OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE REQUIRED. Owner's Signature Date owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Applica~it/Agent/Re~resentative's Signature Applicant/Agent/Representative's Signature Date Date Date 0 • i Revised Narrative • • Longstaff SDR November 14, 2005 Revised January 2006 J0,wary 2606 0 FACT SHEET Project Name: Longstaff Proposed Action: 43-Unit Site Development Review, Sensitive Lands Review Fee Schedule: based on estimated total project cost: $4,971,000.00: SLR fee $1,143.00 (half of $2,286.00) SDR fee: $5,492.00 + 1,985.50 ($3,971,000 overage / $10,000.00 x $5.00) $8,620.50 Tax Map: 1 S 1 35AC, Lots 0100, 2500, 4600, 4700 Site Size: 5.17 acres Site Address: 10890 SW 95th Ave. Tigard, OR 97223 Zoning: R-12 (City of Tigard) Owner: David Abrams P.O. Box 19087 Portland, OR 97280 Applicant:. Palmer & Associates 9600 SW Oak Street #230 Portland, OR 97223 tel: 503-452-8003 contact: Jerry Palmer Representative: Alpha Community Development 9600 SW Oak Street #230 Portland, OR 97223 tel: 503-452-8003 contact: Jeff Vanderdasson, P.E. Longstaff - Site Development Review SDR 2005-00011 Page 1 of 20 Alpha Community Development 328-028 i • Cr,>;;lf>Ie e; R'aSUbMittal i0,MJ ,y 2005 GENERAL INFORMATION: The applicant is requesting approval for a 43-unit attached residential development. The subject site, specifically identified as Tax Lots 0100, 2401, 2500, 4600 and 4700 on Tax Map 1S1 35AC, is approximately 4.98 acres and is currently zoned R-12 (Residential, 3,050 square foot minimum lot size) by the City of Tigard. There are trees of varying species scattered throughout the property with the majority located in and around d the wetland area which will be discussed throughout this document. The site currently contains 2 small sheds, both of which will be removed upon redevelopment of the site. The site slopes very gradually from 174 feet in the extreme southern portions of the site to 168 feet in the extreme northwestern portion of the site near SW 95th Avenue. A low 1.43 acre wetland area has been surveyed/delineated in the southern portion of the site, the existence of which will be addressed in this narrative document and supporting materials. Overall, average slopes range from less than 5% near the wetland boundary to less than 1 % to across the irregularly-shaped site. VICINITY & SITE INFORMATION Site Location The site is located on the east side of SW 95th Avenue, just south of Shady Lane and north of Longstaff Street. The vast majority of the site's northeasterly boundary abuts the Highway 217 right-of-way. The site address is 10890 SW 95th Avenue. • Existing Uses The property currently contains two small sheds on TL 2500 and 4600 relatively near SW 95th Avenue, both of which will be removed upon development. Topography The site slopes downhill from an elevation of 174 feet along the southern boundary to the wetland area, which ranges from 171 to 168 feet near Highway 217. The site then crests at approximately 171 feet in the center of the site, before sloping very gradually downhill toward SW 95th Avenue and an elevation of 168 feet. Average slopes range from less than 5% near the south side of the wetland to less than 1 % elsewhere. Vegetation Various types of trees are scattered throughout the property, predominantly in and around d the wetland area. The predominant species type is Ash, with various other deciduous and evergreen species. The existing conditions plan and table listed below under 18.790 illustrate the type and diameter of the trees on the site exceeding 6 inches in diameter. Transportation Currently, Tri-Met bus routes 76 (Beaverton-Tualatin) and 78 (Beaverton-Lake Oswego) operate nearby along SW Greenburg Road with transfer opportunities at the Washington Square Transit Center. Bus stops exist near the intersections of Shady Lane/Greenburg and North Dakota/Greenburg. The stops are located within roughly • 1,400 feet and 1,900 feet of the site, respectively. longstaff - Site Development Review SDR 2005-00011 Page 2 of 20 Alpha Community Development 328-028 C:c>rr;l,>I;te !2,esu~~mittcal ;anuary 2005 • Surrounding Land Uses The subject site is located in a mix of commercially and residentially developed areas. The areas to the south and west of the site are characterized predominantly by single family detached residences in areas zoned R-12 and R-4.5. Lot/parcel sizes range from approximately 6,000 square feet to nearly 3 acres. Several apartment complexes, such as Tamaryn, Bismarck Court and Dakota Knoll are just southwest of the site. Medical and commercial uses exist just northwest of the site in areas zoned MUC. Highway 217 abuts the site's northeastern boundary. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Longstaff site development will be a 43-unit attached residential development recognizing the site's natural features and siting the dwelling units away from the wetland area. Development will only impact approximately 52% of the property, leaving the remaining 48% of the site in a natural or enhanced condition. The applicant is proposing to construct 8 buildings, consisting of four, five or six residential units. A private street system will connect the buildings with a single access point at SW 95th Avenue. An internal pedestrian path system will connect buildings and vehicle areas, providing access to the wetland area in the southern portion of the site. SW 95th Avenue will be upgraded with a half-street improvement along the site's • frontage and provide a 7.5-foot right-of-way dedication along 117.48 feet of frontage for a total of 27 feet from centerline. The proposed half-street improvement will include a 16-foot paved surface from centerline, concrete curb, 5-foot concrete sidewalk and a 5-foot planter strip. The new internal private street system provides one access point to SW 95th Avenue. Sanitary sewer service is currently available from an existing line within SW 95th Avenue and at the southwest corner of the project site via existing manhole. As shown on the Utility Plan, a new 8" line will be extended into the site via the private drive in order to serve all of the buildings within the development. Sanitary sewer will also be installed to the northerly side of the existing wetland buffer. This will provide the ability for extension southward upon future development to the south. Surface / storm water runoff will be collected via a system of pipes and catch basins within the newly constructed private drive system. The proposed storm facilities will be constructed in compliance with Resolution 91-47, whereby Clean Water Services and the City of Tigard have agreed to enforce Surface Water Management regulations requiring the construction of said facilities. Adequate domestic water will be provided to the site by installing a new 6- to 4-inch water line within private street "A" which connects with existing TV Water District line in SW 95th Avenue. The new line will be within the private drive to serve all of the buildings within the development via lateral connections. A new hydrant will be installed on • street "A" at roughly station 3+04 to provide adequate fire suppression to all buildings within the development. Longstaff - Site Development Review SDR 2005-0001 1 Page 3 of 20 Alpha Community Development 328-028 APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE CRITERIA 18.360: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW • Complete Resubmittal January 2006 Section 18.360.020 states that site development review shall apply to all new developments except for certain exceptions. This proposal is subject to site development review as it is a proposal for attached residential dwelling units. This application for new development will be processed by means of a Type II procedure, as set forth in section 18.360.030, and will be subject to the following applicable approval criteria set forth in section 18.360.090: 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title including Chapter 18.810, Street and Utility Standards; RESPONSE: This proposal will comply with all of the applicable requirements of the Site Development Review chapter, including Chapter 18.810, as later discussed in this narrative. 2. Relationship to the natural and physical environment: a. Buildings shall be: 1. Located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where possible based upon existing site conditions; 2. Located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding: 3. Located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light, air circulation, and fire-fighting; and • 4. Oriented with consideration for sun and wind. RESPONSE: The Longstaff site development has been designed to preserve the site's natural features to the greatest extent possible. The wetland area and existing trees are the most valuable resources on the site and will be substantially protected: 81 % of the trees on the site will be preserved and protected. None of the buildings will be located in areas subject to ground slumping or sliding as existing and proposed grade changes are minimal. All buildings will have appropriate separation for fire protection with a minimum distance of 10 feet between buildings, which occurs at only one location. This minimum distance will also provide for adequate light and air circulation, and most buildings feature much greater separation, ranging from 15 to as much as 58 feet. Buildings are generally oriented to the south or southwest, thereby providing the greatest opportunity for solar access. 24 second level decks face south, 11 face southwest and 4 face west. b. Trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. RESPONSE: The existing trees on the site will be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Large, contiguous portions of the existing tree forest will be preserved. Specific tree preservation plan elements are described in Chapter 18.790 and are addressed later in this narrative. • Longstaff - Site Development Review SDR 2005-00011 Page 4 of 20 Alpha Community Development 328-028 Complete Resubmittal January 2006 3. Exterior elevations: a. Along the vertical face of single-family attached and multiple-family structures, offsets shall occur at a minimum of every 30 feet by providing any two of the following: 1. Recesses, e.g., decks, patios, entrances, floor area, of a minimum depth of eight feet; 2. Extensions, e.g., decks, patios, entrances, floor area, of a minimum depth of eight feet a maximum length of an overhang shall be 25 feet, and 3. Offsets or breaks in roof elevations of three or more feet in height. RESPONSE: Offsets on the primary elevations of buildings will occur at a minimum of every 30 feet through various combinations of the 3 required elements: extensions of floor area, recessed entrances, offsets in roofs and setbacks of unit pairs. Offsets on the rear elevations will occur via projecting second level decks and the aforementioned extensions of floor area, roof offsets and unit pair setbacks. Offsets on the side elevations will occur via extensions of floor area and roof gables. The minimum depth for all decks, patios and entrances as either recesses or extensions is 8 feet. 4. • • Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses: a. Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses, for example, between single- family and multiple-family residential, and residential and commercial uses, and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the buffer: 1. The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier,• 2. The size of the buffer required to achieve the purpose in terms of width and height; 3. The direction(s) from which buffering is needed, 4. The required density of the buffering; and 5. Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. RESPONSE: As illustrated by the Tigard zoning map excerpt at right, properties to the south of the site are zoned R-12 and R-4.5, therefore either no buffer or buffer type C would be required along those property lines per Table 18.745.1, depending on location. Where the site abuts the R-4.5 zone, the proposal is to maintain existing wetland and mature forest, as well as add a 50 foot vegetated corridor / buffer between residential buildings and neighboring R-n%VZTA 4.5 property. The result is a spatial difference measuring between 93 and 212 feet, with existing/ preserved vegetation far heavier than is called for by the Landscape and Screening code. This condition will serve to limit, or even eliminate, any visual, sound or light impacts generated by this condominium development when considered from properties to the south. Properties located north and west of the site are zoned R-12, or are reserved for transportation (Highway 217). Therefore, no buffer of any intensity would be required here. However, the applicant does propose an 8 foot pre-cast concrete or cast masonry unit screening wall along the interior of Highway 217 right-of- way for the benefit of residents of the project. Longstaff - Site Development Review SDR 2005-00011 Page 5 of 20 Alpha Community Development 328-028 0 • Complete Resubmittal January 2006 b. On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such things as service areas, storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops, i.e., air cooling and heating systems, shall be provided and the following factors will be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: 1. What needs to be screened; 2. The direction from which it is needed, 3. How dense the screen needs to be; 4. Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile; and 5. Whether the screening needs to be year around. RESPONSE: In an effort to increase privacy and reduce or eliminate adverse noise or visual impacts between adjacent developments, a buffer area the applicant proposes at least 10, and in most cases 15, feet along all boundaries of the site even where not required. There will be no rooftop mechanical equipment on the residential units. Rubbish/recycling cans will be individualized, with storage out of view inside respective garages, and weekly service to occur in front of each unit, out of view from neighboring properties or public right-of-way. 5. Privacy and noise: multi-family or group living uses: a. Structures which include residential dwelling units shall provide private outdoor areas for each ground floor unit which is screened from view by adjoining units as provided in Sub-section 6.a below; b. The buildings shall be oriented in a manner which protects private spaces on adjoining properties from view and noise; c. On-site uses which create noise, light, or glare shall be buffered from adjoining residential uses; and d. Buffers shall be placed on the site as necessary to mitigate noise, light or glare from off-site sources. RESPONSE: The trees proposed for retention along the boundaries of the site will provide substantial screening and buffering from adjacent properties, and the wetland / mature forest area and wetland buffer zone may be used as passive open space for the residents of this development. Each dwelling unit shall have an individual balcony / deck measuring 5' x 11' (55 square feet) projecting from the rear of the second story. Additionally, each unit will have a walk-out door on the ground floor beneath the deck for accessing rear yard space. As discussed above, a minimum of 10 feet, and in most cases 15, shall be maintained between units / decks and shared property lines. No harsh or unusual levels of nuisance are anticipated to be generated by this residential- only development. An 8 foot tall concrete panel wall (or similar material) (see drawings - sheet 4) is proposed along the east boundary of the site extending approximately 650 feet from the NE corner of the site abutting the Highway 217 ROW. This wall will buffer the development from the glare and noise impacts of the adjacent highway. Landscaping planted on the west (project) side of the wall will soften the concrete facade and provide visual relief. • longstaff - Site Development Review SDR 2005-00011 Page 6 of 20 Alpha Community Development 328-028 • Complete Resubmittal January 2006 6. Private outdoor area: multi-family use: a. Private outdoor space such as patio or balcony shall be provided and shall be designed for the exclusive use of individual units and shall be at least 48 square feet in size with a minimum width dimension of four feet, and 1. Balconies used for entrances or exits shall not be considered as open space except where such exits or entrances are for the sole use of the unit, and 2. Required open space may include roofed or enclosed structures such as a recreation center or covered picnic area. b. Wherever possible, private outdoor open spaces should be oriented toward the sun; and c. Private outdoor spaces shall be screened or designed to provide privacy for the users of the space. RESPONSE: Private outdoor space will be provided for each dwelling unit in compliance with the requirements of this section. As discussed above, each unit shall have a projecting rear deck measuring 5 feet x 11 feet, in addition to the front entries used for egress. As previously mentioned, 24 of the decks face south, 11 face southwest, and 4 face west; 39 of 43 units (89%) achieve good sun orientation. 7. Shared outdoor recreation areas: multi-family use: a. In addition to the requirements of subsections 5 and 6 above, usable outdoor recreation space shall be provided in residential developments for the shared or common use of all the residents in the following amounts: 1. Studio up to and including two-bedroom units, 200 square feet per unit; 2. Three or more bedroom units, 300 square feet per unit. b. The required recreation space may be provided as follows: 1. It may be all outdoor space; or 2. It may be part outdoor space and part indoor space; for example, an outdoor tennis court, an indoor recreation room; or 3. It may be all public or common space; or 4. It may be part common space and part private; for example, it could be an outdoor tennis court indoor recreation room and balconies on each unit; and 5. Where balconies are added to units, the balconies shall not be less than 48 square feet. c. Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable to promote crime prevention and safety; RESPONSE: Substantial portions of the site will be retained in a natural state, consisting of the large stand of mature trees and wetland to be retained and protected. An additional 50 foot wide wetland buffer will be maintained, and not impacted, along the north side of the wetland area (south side of the units). The site's pedestrian path system will lead to the buffer area, offering wetland/wildlife viewing opportunities. Of the 43 residential dwelling units, 27 will be 2-bedroom units and 16 will be 3-bedroom units. Thus, 5,400 square feet of space is required for 2-bedroom units, and 4,800 square feet is required for 3-bedroom units: 10,200 square feet total. 17,763 square feet of common open space is provided in the wetland buffer zone, exceeding this requirement. In addition, the larger wetland and forested areas total 1.4 acres (62,000+ sq. ft.). Individual outdoor balconies each measure greater than 48 square feet, and 12 of these balconies overlook the buffer and wetlands The site design provides outdoor recreational opportunities for the residents of the development in compliance with this section. 8. Where landfill and/or development is allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City • shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a LongstafP - Site Development Review SDR 2005-00011 Page 7 of 20 Alpha Community Development 328-028 0 • Complete Resubmittal January 2006 pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. RESPONSE: There is no 100-year floodplain with the property lines of this site. The site is outside of the Ash Creek floodplain. Therefore, this section is not applicable. 9. Demarcation of public, semi-public and private spaces for crime prevention: a. The structures and site improvements shall be designated so that public areas, such as streets or public gathering places, semi-public areas and private outdoor areas are clearly defined to establish persons having a right to be in the space, to provide for crime prevention and to establish maintenance responsibility; and b. These areas may be defined by, but not limited to: 1. A deck, patio, low wall, hedge, or draping vine; 2. A trellis or arbor; 3. A change in elevation or grade; 4. A change in the texture of the path material, 5. Sign; or 6. Landscaping. RESPONSE: The design of the Longstaff development will incorporate clearly defined public, semi- public, and private spaces to assist in crime prevention in accordance with the requirements of this section. Passive outdoor areas will not be paved in any fashion, where other areas are paved with curb delineating the surfaces. 10. Crime prevention and safety: a. Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; b. Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; c. Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian access; d. The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and e. Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially dangerous areas such as parking lots, stairs, ramps, and abrupt grade changes. RESPONSE: The design of the project will incorporate the techniques described in this section, where applicable, to assist in crime prevention and safety. The area most susceptible to potentially harmful activity is likely the wetland and forested area, which is clearly observable from the second and third levels of 12 of the residential units. 11. Public transit: a. Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to existing or proposed transit route; b. The requirements for transit facilities shall be based on: 1. The location of other transit facilities in the area; and 2. The size and type of the proposal. c. The following facilities may be required after City and Tri-Met review: 1. Bus stop shelters; 2. Turnouts for buses, and 3. Connecting paths to the shelters. RESPONSE: There is no public transit available adjacent to this. site. The nearest access is along Greenburg Road. Therefore, the criteria are not applicable. • Longstaff - Site Development Review SDR 2005-00011 Page 8 of 20 Alpha Community Development 328-028 • Complete Resubmittal January 2006 12. Landscaping: a. All landscaping shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.745; b. In addition to the open space and recreation area requirements of subsections 5 and 6 above, a minimum of 20 percent of the gross area including parking loading and service areas shall be landscaped; and c. A minimum of 15 percent of the gross site area shall be landscaped. RESPONSE: Street trees will be installed along the site's SW 95th Avenue frontage per the Director's specifications with regard to species, size and spacing. 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. As illustrated on Sheet 9: Preliminary Planting Plan, the applicant also proposes to install landscaping in all interior spaces of the site where physical space permits; in areas such as between private street "A" and the barrier wall along Highway 217, the island near the terminus of private street "A," between residential buildings, etc. The existing mature forested area in the southern portion of the site will be preserved in its present condition. The areas above, as well as all other unimproved areas, will be landscaped, resulting in a total of 19% of the gross site where a minimum of 15% is required. 13. Drainage: All drainage plans shall be designed in accordance with the criteria in the adopted 1981 Master drainage plan. RESPONSE: All drainage plans for the development will be designed in accordance with the criteria in the adopted Master drainage plan. 18.390: DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES/IMPACT STUDY The applicant is submitting a proposal in compliance with all relevant code and Comprehensive Plan requirements, and acknowledges that Site Development Review shall be processed by means of a Type II action. Included in the application is all the information requested on the application form, along with this narrative document addressing the appropriate criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; the required fee; a list of all surrounding property owners, as well as other potentially affected parties. The Site Development Review is consistent with the underlying zoning requirements and all relevant City ordinances and standards. An Impact Study has been performed by Jeff Vanderdasson P.E., a professional engineer licensed by the State of Oregon. A copy of the study attached. 18.510: R-12 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL The property is currently zoned R-12 by the City of Tigard. The purpose of the R-12 zoning district is to accommodate 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 permitted conditionally. The proposed attached residential units are permitted outright per Table • 18.510.1. Longstaff - Site Development Review SDR 2005-00011 Page 9 of 20 Alpha Community Development 328-028 • C:ompleie Resubrniiical January 2006 • • • 18.510.2: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES The proposed development site, one large "parent lot" containing for-sale condominium units, will comply with the dimensional requirements as laid out in Table 18.510.2. Required Setbacks Front Yard: 20 feet Side Yard: 10 feet Street Side: 20 feet Rear Yard: 20 feet Garage: 20 feet Other Requirements Lot Size: 3,050 square feet (none created) Lot Width: none required Height: 35 feet (per fig. 18.120.1) Max. Lot Coverage: 80% Min. Landscaping: 20% 18.705: ACCESS/EGRESS & CIRCULATION As required under section 18.705.030, all vehicular access and egress will have direct access to a public or private street. Curb cuts will be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N. At this time, one vehicular access way will be provided from SW 95th Avenue. It will provide ingress and egress for all residents of the Longstaff development and measure a minimum of 24 feet in width. 18.705: WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS As required under section 18.705.030F, each residential dwelling will be connected to the vehicular parking areas and common open spaces by an internal concrete walkway at least four feet in width. Each segment of the walkway will meet the design requirements set forth in this section. Longstaff - Site Development Review SDR 2005-00011 Page 10 of 20 Alpha Community Development 328-028 Complete Resubmittal January 2006 18.715: DENSITY COMPUTATIONS Based on the Residential Density Calculation provisions in the code, the net residential units permitted on this site can be calculated by dividing the net area of the developable land by the minimum number of square feet required per dwelling unit, which in this case is 3,050 square feet. The net area in this development is derived by subtracting the sensitive lands, public right-of-way dedication, and street area from the gross acreage. The density computations for the site are as follows: Net Area Calculation Gross Site Area Minus Sensitive Lands Minus Right-of-way dedication Minus Private Street Area Equals Net Area subtotal 225,405 square feet (5.17 acres) 62,463 square feet 881 square feet (actual) 26,949 square feet (actual) 135,112 square feet/3,050 square feet = 44.3 dwelling units (maximum) Minimum Dwelling Units Required: 44.3 x.80 = 35.4 dwelling units (minimum) Total Units Proposed: 43 units • 18.720: DESIGN COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS Design compatibility standards apply to attached residential housing proposals in the R- 12 zoning district when the site abuts property zoned for single-family residential development. The land to the south of the site is zoned R-4.5, low-density residential. All of the portions of the subject site that are adjacent to R-4.5 properties also contain substantial tree protection areas. No buildings are within 50 feet of the property lines within this area, therefore, the standards in this section are met. In addition, this proposal will comply with the development requirements of the R-12 zone, the site design review standards and provisions of Site Development Review. 18.720.030: DESIGN COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS A. Density transition. When a multi-family or attached single-family project abuts property zoned for detached single-family, the following design standards shall apply: 1. Building height shall not exceed two stories or 25 feet within 30 feet of the property RESPONSE: While building heights are proposed to measure 34'-3" in accordance with the underlying standards of the R-12 district, this condition does not occur within 50 feet of any property line shared with an R-4.5 zone. Therefore, no building planes are proposed within 50 feet of the R-4.5 district, and the criteria are not applicable. • longstaff - Site Development Review SDR 2005-00011 Page 11 of 20 Alpha Community Development 328-028 • • Complete Resubmittal January 2006 B. Front facades. All primary ground-floor common entries or individual unit entries of street frontage units shall be oriented to the street, not to the interior or to a parking lot. The front elevation of large structures must be divided into smaller areas or planes of 500 square feet or less. Projecting features such as porches, balconies, bays and dormer windows and roof pediments are encouraged for structures facing a street to create visual interest. RESPONSE: The project consists of individual attached units. All of these units have orientation to the private street system. All of the individual buildings with private street frontage are designed with projections, gable or roof articulations. No single plane of the residential buildings measures greater than 302.8 square feet, which is considerably less than the 500 maximum. This is achieved via paired unit setbacks, recessed entrances and upper floor area projections. C. Main entrance. Primary structures must be oriented with their main entrance facing the street upon which the project fronts. If the site is on a corner, it may have its main entrance oriented to either street or at the comer. RESPONSE: Entrances for ALL individual units are oriented to the private street system. D. Unit definition. Each dwelling unit shall be emphasized by including a roof dormer or bay windows on the street-facing elevation, or by providing a roof gable or porch that faces the street. Ground level dwelling units shall include porches that shall be at least 48 square feet in area with no dimension less than six feet. RESPONSE: Individual dwelling units are defined through the use of roof dormers or gables, recessed entrances, upper-floor supporting columns, varied window detail and paired unit setbacks. All of the units also include decks greater than 48 square feet for private use. E. Roof lines. Roof-line offsets shall be provided at intervals of 40 feet or less to create variety in the massing of structures and to relieve the effect of a single, long roof. Roof line offsets shall be a minimum 4-foot variation either vertically from the gutter line or horizontally. RESPONSE: Roof line offsets are incorporated into the design of all buildings every 33 feet-4 inches in conjunction with unit pair setbacks, where no more than 2 units share the same front or rear plane. The intent of the off-sets is to provide definition and variety, as well as to relieve the effect of a single, long roof line. End units feature an additional break in roofline, where upper floor area projections cause a 90 degree turn in gable. F. Trim detail. Trim shall be used to mark all building roof lines, porches, windows and doors that are on a primary structure's street-facing elevation (s). RESPONSE: Trim detail is incorporated into the design of all buildings proposed for this project. The trim is used to mark roof lines, unit corners, entrances, decks, windows and occupied floor separations as well as gable infill on elevations facing the private street system. G. Mechanical equipment. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment other than vents or ventilators, shall be located and constructed so as to be screened from ground-level view. Screening shall be integrated with exterior building design. RESPONSE: There is no roof-mounted mechanical equipment associated with these buildings. • Therefore, no screening measures are required. longstaff - Site Development Review SDR 2005-00011 Page 12 of 20 Alpha Community Development 328-028 • Complete Resubmittal January 2006 H. Parking. Parking and loading areas may not be located between the primary structure(s) and the street upon which the structure fronts. It there is no alley and motor vehicle access is from the street, parking must be provided: 1. In a garage that is attached to the primary structure; 2. In a detached accessory structure located at least 50 feet from the front property line; 3. In a parking area at the side or rear of the site. RESPONSE: The proposal consists of individual townhome-type residential units with entrances oriented to the private street system. Individual parking spaces for each unit are contained within tandem garages occupying the ground floor of each unit. Some units also feature an opportunity for guest parking adjacent to the garages (this condition occurs at units abutting private street "B" and those at the terminus of private street "A." Visitor parking courts are also located throughout the site, primarily along private street "A," but not between buildings and the private street system. 1. Pedestrian circulation. 1. The on-site pedestrian circulation system shall be continuous and connect the ground-level entrances of primary structure(s) to the following: a. Streets abutting the site; b. Common buildings such as laundry and recreation facilities, c. Parking areas; d. Shared open space and play areas; e. Abutting transit stops; and f. Any pedestrian amenity such as plazas, resting areas and viewpoints. RESPONSE: The proposal includes an extensive internal pedestrian circulation system measuring at least 4 feet in width, which connects all primary buildings, private streets parking areas and shared open space. The internal pedestrian route connects with the public sidewalk along the east side of SW 95th Avenue, which will be improved as part of the applicant's half-street improvements. No transit stops exist nearby with which the pedestrian system may connect. 2. There shall be at least one pedestrian connection to an abutting street frontage for each 200 linear feet of street frontage. RESPONSE: The proposal features only 117.48 feet of frontage along a public street, in this case SW 95th Avenue. Therefore, the criterion is not applicable. 18.745: BUFFERING AND SCREENING In an effort to increase privacy and reduce or eliminate adverse noise or visual impacts between adjacent developments, a buffer area at least 10 feet in width, and in most instances 15, will be placed along the boundaries of the site. The buffer area will meet the requirements of section 18.745.050B. Additionally, sight-obscuring fencing measuring 8 feet in height will be placed along the site's shared boundary with Highway 217. • longstaff - Site Development Review SDR 2005-00011 Page 13 of 20 Alpha Community Development 328-028 0 • Complete ReSUtx iVol January 2006 18.745.040: LANDSCAPING Street trees will be installed along the site's SW 95th Avenue frontage per the Director's specifications with regard to species, size and spacing. 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. As illustrated on Sheet 9: Preliminary Planting Plan, the applicant also proposes to install trees within the interior of the site where physical space permits; in areas such as between private street "A" and the barrier wall along Highway 217, the island near the terminus of private street "A," between residential buildings, etc. The existing mature forested area in the southern portion of the site will be preserved in its present condition. 18.755 MIXED SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE STORAGE Each unit is proposed to have individual trash and recycling bins similar to those used in single-family detached developments. Each unit's tandem garage offers sufficient space to store the containers out of view. Residents will be responsible for placing the containers outside their units on the private street system weekly, similar to typical single family residences, where they may be serviced out of view of the public right-of-way. There will not be centralized / common enclosures or dumpsters. 18.765: OFF-STREET PARKING • Pursuant to the criteria set forth in section 18.765, the following minimum number of The parking stalls will be dimensioned as follows: Standard: 8 feet 6 inches X 18 feet 6 inches Compact: 7 feet 6 inches X 16 feet 6 inches parking spaces will be provided for each dwelling type: Two-bedroom unit: 1.50 parking spaces Three-bedroom unit: 1.75 parking spaces The entire proposal will contain 16 three-bedroom units and 27 two-bedroom units. Therefore, a minimum of 69 parking spaces are required (three-bedroom: 28 +two- bedroom: 40.5) as part of the off-street parking requirement. Each individual unit's garage will accommodate two cars, which equals 86 spaces. The 8 units on private street "B" and 6 units at the terminus of private street "A" can accommodate an additional 1 space outside the garage (safely out of the private street), for an additional 14 spaces. An additional 33 spaces will be created for visitor parking in parking courts and a private street bump-out (at station 2+24.59), bringing the total possible number of parking spaces to 133, which exceeds the code requirements, even if tandem garages are considered to house only 1 vehicle. All of the parking areas and driveways will be paved. No more than 50% of the parking spaces will be designated as compact, nor will they have the dimensions of a compact space. All handicapped parking spaces will comply with ADA design standards and will be clearly marked and posted. • Longstafi - Site Development Review SDR 2005-00011 Page 14 of 20 Alpha Community Development 328-028 • Complete Resubmittal January 2006 18.775: SENSITIVE LANDS Section 18.775.070 provides that sensitive lands permits may be required for proposed activity within sensitive areas such as the 100-year floodplain, natural drainageways, wetland areas, on slopes in excess of 25% or on unstable ground. The site is not within the 100-year floodplain, but does contain a wetland area as identified in the Natural Resources Assessment document accompanying this application. A Sensitive Area Pre- Screening Site Assessment is also included, as is the required Sensitive Areas Certification Form (applicant will furnish to the City of Tigard upon completion by CWS). The applicant does not propose any development activity, disturbance or encroachment into the wetland area or the 50 foot wide vegetated corridor / buffer zone adjacent to the wetland area. By definition under 18.775.010.G, sensitive areas may be defined as "lands potentially unsuitable for development because of their location within: 1.) The 100-year floodplain or 1996 flood inundation line, whichever is greater; 2.) Natural drainageways; 3.) Wetland areas which are regulated by the other agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands, or are designated as significant wetland on the City of Tigard "Wetland and Stream Corridors Map." This site contains wetland areas which are a portion of Wetland C-12, City of Tigard Wetlands Inventory. The applicant's natural resources assessment / wetland delineation, accompanying this application; confirms that the wetland is limited to 1.434 acres on-site, located wholly within the southern portion of TL 0100. As such, the applicant seeks the Director's • approval under 18.775.020.F.1 involving wetland areas designated as significant by the City of Tigard. Per the terms of Section 18.775.020, all proposed "development" must obtain a Stormwater Connection Permit from Clean Water Services (CWS). This proposal falls within the scope of "development" as defined in the Clean Water Services "Design and Construction Standards," as it involves the construction of structures requiring building permits, grading, and paving. The applicant will obtain a Stormwater Connection Permit from Clean Water Services prior to on-site construction. 18.775.070.E: WETLANDS 1. The proposed land form alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map nor is within the vegetative corridor established per "Table 3.1 Vegetative Corridor Widths" and Appendix C: Natural Resources Assessments" of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards", for such a wetland; RESPONSE All development activity, including the limits of grading, is limited to areas outside the wetland and its "good condition" vegetated corridors / buffers as set forth in the delineation report and by CWS standards. 0 Longstaff - Site Development Review SDR 2005-00011 Page 15 of 20 Alpha Community Development 328-028 • Complete Resubmittal January 2006 . 2. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use; RESPONSE The proposed land alteration is the minimum required to accommodate site utilities, improvements and structures proposed for residential use. No unnecessary grading activity will be undertaken in order to minimize site disturbance. 3. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated, RESPONSE The proposed Longstaff site development does not propose to encroach into, or alter, on-site or off-site drainageways that may impact wetland characteristics. The applicant is proposing instead to simply avoid the wetland area and its vegetated corridors altogether. 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; RESPONSE This application includes both a grading / erosion control plan and a landscape plan which includes re-planting of trees in areas not covered by building mass or other impervious surface. All erosion control measures will meet applicable standards. • 5. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met, RESPONSE There are no other types of sensitive lands present on the site, and the applicant proposes to meet all applicable requirements of the Section relative to wetland areas. 6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals shall be obtained, RESPONSE As described above, the applicant in the process of obtaining the necessary Sensitive Areas Certification Form from Clean Water Services, and will furnish the City with a copy when it becomes available. The applicant's environmental science consultant, SWCA Environmental Consultants, has indicated that no approval is necessary from the Department of State Lands as no encroachment, disturbance or alteration to the wetland is proposed. 7. The provisions of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal, shall be met, RESPONSE As discussed below, the proposed Longstaff site development does not propose to remove more than 25% trees greater than 12 inches or greater from site. As such, no mitigation is required, and the proposal is therefore in compliance with the Section. Still, as illustrated on Sheet 9, the applicant proposes significant new plantings. • Longstaff - Site Development Review SDR 2005-00011 Page 16 of 20 Alpha Community Development 328-028 • Complete Resubmittal January 2006 8. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks, Recreation and Open Space policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 3.1: PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS. NATURAL HAZARDS AND WETLANDS • The physical features which form the make-up of any piece of land have a direct relationship to the type and density of development which can be accommodated on that property (carrying capacity). Combinations such as steep slopes and unstable soils create severe development constraints. Excessive development in such physically limited areas greatly increases the potential severity of landslide, earthquake damage, flooding, etc. RESPONSE The site does not contain steep slopes or unstable land; and since the proposed 43 units fall within density parameters, the proposal can be considered to not to propose excessive amounts of development. Therefore, the criterion is not applicable. • Many portions of the floodplain area contain natural aspects such as significant vegetation, wildlife, and scenic areas, and are valuable for open space and recreation. RESPONSE As indicated in the applicant's natural resource assessment / delineation, the site does not include floodplain area. Therefore, the criterion is not applicable. • Vegetation serves an essential element in runoff and erosion control, as well as for the protection and natural habitation of wildlife. Nonetheless, it is too often removed and replaced by buildings or impervious surfaces. RESPONSE • As described above, this application includes both a grading / erosion control plan and a landscape plan which includes re-planting of trees in areas not covered by building mass or other impervious surface. All erosion control measures will meet applicable standards, and vegetation will not be removed in an excessive or unnecessary manner. • Due to the general nature of soils and geologic mapping, site specific analysis is often necessary to determine the presence of geologic hazards and the severity of soil problems which are constraints to development. Such geologic hazards exist when certain combinations of slope, soil, [and] bedrock and moisture render land unstable. RESPONSE The applicant's environmental consultant, SWCA, has identified the soils present on-site based on USDA mapping. If it is later determined that additional investigation is required to determine geologic hazards, such a study will be performed. • Earthflow and slump areas exist in hilly sections of the planning area and are associated with poor drainage, shallow subsurface flow on ground water and springs, and high susceptibility to erosion. Earthflow and slump occurrences can destroy roads and buildings, and adversely affect water quality. Mass movement has not resulted in any major loss of life or property thus far, because little in the way of urban development exists on land with serious problems. RESPONSE The site, particularly the areas designated for private street and building construction, is not located in an area susceptible to earth movement or slumping. Therefore, the criterion is not applicable. If it is later determined that additional investigation is required to determine geologic hazards, such a study will be performed. • longstait - Site Development Review SDR 2005-00011 Page 17 of 20 Alpha Community Development 328-028 Complete Resubmittal January 2006 • Increased runoff and sedimentation from poorly developed hillsides can require increased public Vol. 11, Policy 3-2 expenditures for flood and erosion control and storm water management. RESPONSE As previously discussed, the site does not contain hillsides, and the proposal includes storm sewers to effectively collect surface water. Therefore, the proposal should not require expenditure for flood / erosion control beyond the private investment. • The City of Tigard had adopted a'Hillside Development Provision" within the Sensitive Lands ordinance which requires additional review of those developments. RESPONSE As previously discussed, the site does not contain hillsides. Therefore, the criterion is not applicable. • The City of Tigard requires new developments to have a storm water runoff plan to ensure against adverse effects such as erosion and sediment. RESPONSE The preliminary engineering design includes provisions to collect and manage stormwater runoff in a manner which shall meet all applicable standards, thereby preventing adverse effect of erosion and sediment. 18.790: TREE REMOVAL A tree preservation plan has been developed including the location, size and species of all existing trees (see Sheet 2: Existing Conditions & Tree Preservation Plan). The plan • identifies individual trees for removal or retention, as does the table below. Trees located within the areas of impact due to structures, grading, or roadways are designated for removal. The tree removal plan indicates that 87% of the 106 on-site trees measuring greater than 12 inches will be retained on the property, and that only 20 such trees will be removed. As the project is retaining more than 75% of the trees greater than 12-inches in diameter (81 % actual), no mitigation is required. (Tree report produced by Walt Knapp follows) 18.795: VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS The proposed site development features an intersection of one private street, proposed street ' A," and one public street, SW 951h Avenue, identified as a neighborhood route in the City of Tigard TSP. Vision clearance triangles, formed by the above rights-of-way and a straight line joining the 2 at respective points 30' from their intersection, shall be maintained without obstructions of 36" or higher as required by Section 18.795.040. Any future landscape installation shall respect these VCT's. 18.810: STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS Streets: The internal private drive system will be constructed to City standards as shown on the plans. The private drives will be constructed to a 24-foot width. The 24-foot section will facilitate 2-way traffic with curbs on both sides. The proposed layout will provide access to all of the buildings on the site. Half-street improvements on SW 95th Longstaff - Site Development Review SDR 2005-00011 Page 18 of 20 Alpha Community Development 328-028 i • (.O!'?.lie E' i2eSUbmi;laI ic:7nuary 2006 Avenue shall be performed to City specifications for a typical 54 foot section as illustrated on the plans. Sanitary Sewer: Sanitary sewer service is currently available from an existing line within SW 951h Avenue and at the southwest corner of the project site via existing manhole. As shown on the Utility Plan, a new 8" line will be extended into the site via the private drive in order to serve all of the buildings within the development. Surface Water Run-off: Storm water runoff will be collected via a system of pipes and catch basins within the newly constructed private drive system. The proposed storm facilities will be constructed in compliance with Resolution 91-47, whereby Clean Water Services 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 installing a new 6- to 4-inch water line within private street "A" which connects with existing TV Water District line in SW 95th Avenue. The new line will be within the private drive to serve all of the buildings within the development via lateral connections. A new hydrant will be installed on street "A" at roughly station 3+04 to provide adequate fire suppression to all buildings within the development. 18.810.030: STREETS • A. Improvements. The proposed development has frontage on SW 95th Avenue. Half-street dedication of 7.5 feet and improvements to specification for the eastern half of a typical Tigard 54 foot section is proposed. The proposed private street system meets all of the applicable requirements for improvements under this section. B. Creation of rights-of-way for streets and related purposes. There is no creation of new right-of-way associated with this development. C. Creation of access easements. An access easement will be recorded over the internal private street system to facilitate vehicular/bicycle and pedestrian circulation for residents within the development. D. Street location, width and grade. All proposed street locations, widths and grades comply with the requirements of this section with final grades to be approved by the City Engineer. E. Minimum rights-of-way and street widths. The proposed SW 95th Avenue right-of-way is 27 feet in width from centerline. This includes 16 feet of paving with curb, 5 foot planter strip and 5 foot sidewalk. The proposed internal private street system is of sufficient width to accommodate improvements necessary for a development generating Longstaff - Site Development Review SDR 2005-00011 Page 19 of 20 Alpha Community Development 328-028 • • C: ompleie ReSUbmi!tal January 2005 approximately 430 ADT (43 units x 10 trips/day). This includes 24-feet of paving with curbs on both sides for the throughout the entirety of the length. F. Future street plan and extension of streets. A circulation plan has been submitted with this application showing the pattern of existing and proposed future streets surrounding and adjacent to the proposed project. Due to pre-existing street and development patterns, as well as the presence of Highway 217 to the north and wetland area to the south; there is no possibility of providing future connectivity to adjacent properties. All required items have been placed on the aerial plan. Existing ghis-of-way. At this time, SW 95th Avenue is the only existing Tigard right-of-way adjacent to the project site. Highway 217 abuts the site to the northeast, but no access to the ROW of any kind is proposed. S. Private Streets. The design of the proposed internal private drive system is approvable by the City Engineer and legal assurances for the continued maintenance such as a maintenance agreement will be recorded. Z. Street cross-sections Cross-sections of the half-street and private drive have been provided on Sheet • 4 of the plan set for review. 18.810.120: UTILITIES 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 to be determined b7y City Engineer per lineal foot of street frontage. The site contains approximately 117.48 feet of frontage along SW 95th Avenue. Utilities will be undergrounded upon development of the site, or if determined to be more appropriate, the developer will pay fee in lieu of per the Engineer's determination. SUMMARY The proposed Longstaff site 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 of Tigard R-12 zoning. The design and number of units fall within the minimum and maximum density requirements of the site. Adequate public facilities and services exist, or are proposed as part of this site development, to serve the new residences, and all such improvements will be constructed to City and other applicable standards. The proposed site development will create housing in a manner consistent with, and complementary to, the surrounding residential developments and in compliance with 0 zoning parameters. The applicant therefore respectfully requests that this application for site development be approved. longstaff - Site Development Review SDR 2005-00011 Page 20 of 20 Alpha Community Development 328-028 i • Walter H. Knapp Silviculture & Urban Forestry January 25, 2006 0 Abrams Property Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan Background and Purpose This arborist report for the Abrams Property describes the site, discusses the characteristics of the trees planned for preservation, and recommends measures for tree protection. It is written to conform to requirements of the Development Code of the City of Tigard. The report is based on personal observations and tree inventory data (enclosed). • Site Description The Abrams Property is located on a relatively flat between Hwy. 217 and SW 950i Ave. in Tigard. A total of 470 trees were inventoried, including 13 identified species (table 1). Aluminum tree tags bearing the survey point number were attached to each tree for identification. The southern part of the site is a moist-to-wet environment forested with Oregon ash and red alder as the predominant species. Many of these trees are multi-stemmed, typical of species that originate from stump or root sprouts. The northern part of the property has a variety of native and introduced species. Some of these trees are very large, with trunk diameters of 40- inches or greater. The ponderosa pines on this site and the bordering property are the Willamette Valley race of the species also known as "valley pine." These trees frequently grow best on clay and clay-loam soils on the edge of wetlands or seasonally-saturated areas. 0 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Tigard, OR 97007 Phone. (503) 646-4349 Fax. (503) 265-8117 • Page 2 1/25/2006 0587 Abrams TPP.doc Walter H. Knapp • • Table 1. Tree species inventoried at the Abrams Property. Common Name Botanical Name Total apple Malus s p. 3 - bi leaf maple Acer macro h llum 3 birch Betula endula 1 cherry Prunus s p. 3 - cottonwood Po ulus trichocar a 1 Deciduous Not identified 51 Douglas-fir Pseudotsu a menziesii 4 hawthorn Crataegus s p. 3 oak uercus s p. 1 Oregon ash Fraxinus lati olia 306 Oregon white oak Quercus ar ana 35 ponderosa pine Pinus onderosa 12 - red alder Alnus rubra 39 sequoia Se uoiadendron i anteum 1 spruce Picea s p. 1 walnut Ju lans ni a 4 willow Salix scouleriana 3 Grand Total 470 Tree Retention A total of 106 trees larger than 12-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) will be retained on the site (table 2).1 This is 87% of the trees in this size category, excluding trees in rights-of-way and those that are diseased or hazardous. Equivalent DBH is the calculated diameter at breast height, based on the sum of the cross-sectional areas of all trunks in a multi-trunked tree. This is the approach recommended in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, a publication of the International Society of Arboriculture. 1 Because of the multi-trunk growth of many of the trees, I used an "Equivalent Diameter (DBH) to express the size of the tree. Equivalent DBH is the calculated diameter at breast height, based on the sum of the cross-sectional areas of all trunks in a multi-trunked tree. This is the approach recommended in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, a publication of the International Society of Arboriculture. • 761 S SW Dunsmuir Lane, Tigard, OR 97007 Phone: (503) 646-4349 Fax. (503) 265-8117 Page 3 1/25/2006 0587 Abrams TPP.doc Walter H. Knapp • Construction of roads, utilities, housing structures, and other infrastructure will result in removal of 16 trees, representing 13% of the tree population potentially subject to mitigation. Table 2. Treatment prescription summary for Abrams Property - all trees larger than 12-inches in diameter. Prescription Total Percent - Construction 16 13% Retain 106 87% Subtotal 122 100% Hazard, Disease 11 Right-of-Way 3 Grand Total 136 Tree Mitigation Since more than 75% of the trees larger than 12-inches in diameter are being preserved on this site, no mitigation will be required for this development. Tree Protection Recommendations Roles of the Arborists and Foresters. Both the project arborist and the City Forester have responsibilities for assuring tree protection, as well as reasonable accommodation of development. It should be the objective of each to reach an agreed strategy for tree preservation; or if that is not feasible, to recommend alternatives that could include tree removal and mitigation, or modification of site development. Protection During Construction. The following protection measures shall be followed during construction: Project Coordination. • The project arborist shall meet with contractors prior to start of work to assure that tree protection measures are understood and followed. • 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Tigard, OR 97007 Phone: (503) 646-4349 Faz: (503) 265-8117 • Page 4 1/25/2006 0587 Abrams TPP.doc Walter H. Knapp • Tree protection requirements and locations of tree protection fencing shall be included on construction drawings furnished to contractors and others working on the site. 2. Designation of Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). For this site, the default Tree Protection Zone is one foot of radius for each inch of tree diameter. Thus, for a 20-inch DBH tree, the default TPZ is 20 feet from the tree. However, if construction activities must intrude within the default TPZ, the project arborist will determine if the activity can be accommodated without jeopardizing the long-term viability of the tree. Considerations include: • Species and inherent construction tolerance, disease susceptibility • Age of the tree Condition and viability • Rooting pattern on the site - affected by soil depth, texture, and species root development characteristics 2. Fencing. The TPZ of designated trees shall be protected by installation of chain link fencing in locations determined by a certified arborist. The fenced area can be either the default TPZ or the adjusted TPZ as described above. 3. Project Initiation. Site construction shall not take place until tree protection fencing is installed and approved by the project arbonst and City Forester. 4. Root Protection - Mulching. Vehicles and construction equipment shall be excluded from the TPZ. If entry cannot be avoided, a layer of gravel or other suitable mulch at least 6 inches deep shall be placed in the path of the equipment as protection for the root system of the tree. Any such fill placed during construction shall be removed at the end of construction. Tree protection fencing shall be immediately replaced after such operations are completed. 5. Storage of Equipment. Construction equipment shall be stored in suitable locations away from trees and groves. 6. Soil Protection. The stripping of topsoil in the vicinity of retained trees and groves shall be restricted. No fill shall be placed on the areas within the TPZ. In the event that grade changes within the TP,Z are unavoidable, alternative structures such as tree wells or retaining walls may be installed. 7. Excavation and Root Protection. Excavation immediately adjacent to roots larger than 1'/2 inch in diameter within the tree root protection zone shall be by hand or other non-invasive means to ensure that they are not damaged. Where feasible, major • 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Tigard, OR 97007 Phone: (503) 646-4349 Fax. (503) 265-8117 • • Page 5 1/25/2006 0587Abrams TPP.doc Walter H. Knapp roots shall be protected by tunneling or other techniques to avoid destruction or damage. Where soil grade changes affect the TPZ, the grade line shall be meandered where feasible. This will require on-site coordination to ensure a reasonable balance between engineering, construction, and the need for tree protection. 8. Quality Assurance. A qualified professional shall supervise proper execution of this plan during construction activities that could encroach on retained trees. This shall include periodic inspections to assure that protection fencing and other protection measures are being followed. Biweekly inspection reports shall be furnished directly to the City Forester. /MA~. Walter H. Knapp Certified Forester, SAF 406 Certified Arborist, ISA PN-0497 0 Enclosure: Tree inventory, Abrams Property • 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Tigard, OR 97007 Phone: (503) 646-4349 Fax: (503) 265-8117 Tree Inventory • Page 1 of 9 0587 Abrams.xls 1/25/2006 Walter H. Knapp X SPECIES DI AM ET ER = Equiv. DBH Comments/Condition Prescription 9000 ponderosa pine 40 40 Construction 9001 oak 24 24 Construction 9002 onderosa pine 40 40 Broken to Construction 9003 ponderosa pine 40 40 Construction 9004 ponderosa pine 36 36 Construction 9005 Oregon white oak 24 24 Construction 9006 Oregon white oak 36 36 Retain 9007 bi leaf maple 12 12 Retain 9008 Oregon white oak 18 18 Retain 9009 Oregon white oak 16 16 Retain 9010 Oregon white oak 24 24 Retain 9011 Oregon white oak 14 14 Retain 9012 Oregon white oak 15 15 Retain 9013 Oregon white oak 8 8 Retain 9014 Oregon white oak IS 15 Retain 9015 Ore on white oak 15 15 Retain 9016 red alder 12 12, Retain 9017 red alder 18 18 Retain 9018 red alder 12 12 Retain 9019 red alder 12 12 Retain 9020 red alder 15 15 Retain 9021 red alder 18 18 Retain 9022 red alder 17 17 Retain 9023 red alder 14 14 Retain 9024 willow 36 36 Construction 9025 red alder 12 12 Retain 9026 red alder 12 12 Retain 9027 red alder 12 12 Retain 9028 red alder 24 24 Retain 9029 red alder 15 15 Retain 9030 Oregon white oak 51 51 Retain 9031 red alder 12 12 Retain 9032 red alder 14 14 Retain 9033 red alder 15 1 1 15 Retain 9034 red alder 15 1 1 15 Retain 9035 red alder 18 18 Retain 9036 red alder 12 12 Retain 9037 red alder 13 13 Retain 9038 red alder 14 14 Retain 9039 red alder 14 14 Retain 9040 red alder 14 14 Retain 9041 red alder 14 14 Retain 9042 red alder 15 15 Retain 9043 red alder 24 24 Retain 9044 red alder 12 12 Retain 9045 red alder 12 12 Retain 9046 red alder 14 14 Retain 9047 red alder 24 24 Retain 9048 red alder 16 16 Retain 9049 red alder 12 12 Retain 9050 red alder 12 12 Retain 9051 red alder 36 36 Retain 9052 red alder 12 12 Retain 9053 , red alder 26 26 Retain 4 Tree Inventory • • Page 2 of 9 0587 AbramsAs 1/25/2006 Walter H. Knapp Sv SPECIES DI AM ET ER = Equiv. DBH Comments/Condition Prescription 9054 red alder 27 27 Retain 9055 red alder 16 16 Retain 9056 red alder 12 12, Construction 9057 Oregon white oak 22 22 Retain 9058 Oregon white oak 19, 19 Retain 9059 Oregon white oak 27 27 Retain 9060 Oregon white oak 22 22 Retain 9061 DECIDUOUS 12 12 17 Retain 9062 hawthorn 12 12 Right-of-Way 9063 apple 10 10 Right-of-Way 9064 Douglas-fir 10 10 Retain 9065 hawthorn 9 9 9 8 8 19 Right-of-Way 9066 DECIDUOUS 12 22 25 Right-of-Way 9067 Douglas-fir 11 11 Retain 9068 ponderosa pine 14 14 Right-of-Way 9069 cottonwood 24 24 Retain 9070 walnut 22 22 Deca Hazard, Disease 9071 ponderosa pine 14, 14 HD > 50 Hazard, Disease 9072 ponderosa pine 36 36 Retain 9073 sequoia 40 40 Retain 9074 Oregon white oak 14 14 Excessive lean Hazard, Disease 9075 ponderosa pine 39 39 Retain 9076 ponderosa pine 38 38 Construction 9077 cherry 12 12, Decay Hazard, Disease 9078 ponderosa pine 38 38 Retain 9079 ponderosa pine 36 36 Construction 9080 ponderosa pine 46 46 , Retain 9081 Oregon white oak 32 32 Co-dominant stems Retain 9082 Oregon white oak 14 14 Decay, suppressed Hazard, Disease 9083 Oregon white oak 21 21 Retain 9084 walnut 17 17 Decay, co-dominant stems, basal stress s Hazard, Disease 9085 walnut 26 26 Deca , co-dominant stems Hazard, Disease 9086 Dou las-fir 22 22 Construction 9087 Douglas-fir 30 30 Construction 9088 Oregon white oak 36 36 Construction 9089 Oregon white oak 12 12 17 Construction 9090 Oregon white oak 24 24 Construction 9091 Oregon white oak 24 24 Construction 9092 DECIDUOUS 13 13 Retain 9093 Oregon white oak 29 29 Construction 9094 DECIDUOUS 12 12 Retain 9095 DECIDUOUS 13 13 , Retain 9096 DECIDUOUS 12 12 Retain 9097 Oregon white oak 15 15 21 Retain 9098 Oregon white oak 12 12 Retain 9099 Oregon white oak 12 12 Retain 9100 DECIDUOUS 12 12 Retain 9101 DECIDUOUS 12 12 Retain 9102 DECIDUOUS 15 , 15 Retain 9103 DECIDUOUS 12 12 Retain 9104 DECIDUOUS 12 12 Retain 9105 DECIDUOUS 12 14 18 Retain 9106 DECIDUOUS 13 Retain 9107 DECIDUOUS 12 HI Retain Tree Inventory Page 3 of 9 • 0587 Abrams.xls 1/25/2006 Walter H. Knapp v X SPECIES DI AM ET ER = Equiv. DBH Comments/Condition Prescription 9108 DECIDUOUS 14 14 Retain 9109 DECIDUOUS 14 14 Retain 9110 DECIDUOUS 12 12 Retain 9111 DECIDUOUS 18 18 Retain 9112 DECIDUOUS 20 20 Retain 9113 DECIDUOUS 17 17 Retain 9114 DECIDUOUS 12 12 Retain 9115 DECIDUOUS 12 12 Retain 9116 DECIDUOUS 12 20 23 Retain 9117 DECIDUOUS 14 14 Retain 9118 DECIDUOUS 40 40 Retain 9119 DECIDUOUS 12 12 Retain 9120 DECIDUOUS 16 12 20 Retain 9121 DECIDUOUS 15 15 Retain 9122 DECIDUOUS 12 12 Retain 9123 DECIDUOUS 15 15, Retain 9124 DECIDUOUS 12 12 Retain 9125 DECIDUOUS 12 12 Retain 9126 DECIDUOUS 12 12 Retain 9127 DECIDUOUS 12 12 Retain 9128 DECIDUOUS 13 13, Retain 9129 DECIDUOUS 12 12 Retain 9130 DECIDUOUS 12 12 Retain 9131 DECIDUOUS 15 15 Retain 9132 DECIDUOUS 15 15 Retain 9133 DECIDUOUS 16 16 Retain 9134 DECIDUOUS 14 14 , Retain 9135 DECIDUOUS 15 15 Retain 9136 DECIDUOUS 24 24 Retain 9137 DECIDUOUS 18 18 Retain 9138 DECIDUOUS 30 30 Retain 9139 DECIDUOUS 15 15 Retain 9140 DECIDUOUS 12 12 , Retain 9141 DECIDUOUS 12 12 Retain 9142 DECIDUOUS 12 12 Retain 9143 DECIDUOUS 12 12 Retain 9144 DECIDUOUS 12 12 Retain 9146 Oregon white oak 26 26 37 Retain 9147 Oregon white oak 15 24 28 Retain 9148 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 9149 Oregon ash 15 15 Retain 9150 Oregon ash 14 14 Retain 9151 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 9152 Oregon ash 13 13 , Retain 9153 Oregon white oak 12 12 Retain 9154 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 9155 Oregon ash 14 15 21 Retain 9156 Oregon ash 18 18 Retain 9157, Oregon ash 16 16 Retain 9158 Ore on ash 13 13 , Retain 9159 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 9160 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 9161 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 9162 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 14 Tree Inventory • • Page 4 of 9 0587 Abrams.xls 1/25/2006 Walter H. Knapp SPECIES DI AM ET ER = Equiv. DBH Comments/Condition Prescri tion F Ore on ash 121 1 12 Retain ~1~64 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 9165 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 9166 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 9167 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 9168 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 9169 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 9170 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 9171 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 9172 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 9173 Oregon ash 12 12 6 8 20 Retain 9174 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 9175 Oregon ash 13 13 Retain 9176 Oregon ash 14 14 Retain 9177 Oregon ash 12, 12 Retain 9178 Ore on ash 12 12 Retain 9179 Ore on white oak 15 15 • Retain 9180 Oregon white oak 36 15 39 Retain 9181 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9182 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9183 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9184 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9185 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9186 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9187 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9188 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9189 Ore on ash 9 9 Retain 9190 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9191 Ore on ash 9 9 Retain 9192 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9193 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9194 Oregon ash 6 7 9 Retain 9195 Oregon ash 7 8 11 Retain 9196 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9197 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9198 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9199 Oregon ash 6 8 10 Retain 9200 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9201 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9202 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9203 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9204 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9205 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9206 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9207 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9208 Ore on ash 10 , 10 , Retain 9209 Ore on ash 8 8 8 8 16 Retain 9210 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9211 Ore on ash 10 10 Retain 9212 Oregon ash 6 8 10 Retain 9213 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9214 Oregon ash 6 7 8 12 Retain 9215 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9216 Oregon as h 7 9 1 1 11 Retain Tree Inventory • Page 5 of 9 0587 Abrams.xis 1/25/2006 Walter H. Knapp v SPECIES DI AM ET ER = Equiv DBH . Comments/Condition Prescription 9217 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 9218 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9219 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9220 Oregon ash 13 13 Retain 9221 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9222 Oregon ash 6 8 10 Retain 9223 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9224 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9225 Ore on ash 6 6 Retain 9226 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9227 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9228 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9229 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9230 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9231 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9232 Ore on ash 6 6 Retain 9233 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9234 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9235 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9236 Oregon ash 6 6 8 Retain 9237 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9238 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9239 Ore on ash 8 8 Retain 9240 Ore on ash 13 13 Retain 9241 Oregon ash 13 13 , Retain 9242 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9243 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9244 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9245 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 9246 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 9247 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9248 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9249 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9250 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9251 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9252 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9253 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9254 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9255 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9256 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9257 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9258 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9259 Oregon ash 91 1 9 Retain 9260 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9261 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9262 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9263 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9264 Oregon ash 8 8 11 Retain 9265 Oregon ash 11 11, Retain 9266 Oregon ash 6 81 1 10 Retain 9267 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9268 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9269 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9270 Ore on ash 8 8 Retain 4 4 Tree Inventory • • Page 6 of 9 0587 Abrams.xls 1125/2006 Walter H. Knapp SPECIES DI AM ET ER = Equiv. DBH Comments/Condition Prescription 9271 E Ore on ash 10 10 Retain 9272 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9273 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9274 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9275 Oregon ash 10 0 10 Retain 9276 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9277 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9278 Oregon ash 11 11, Retain 9279 Oregon ash 11 11 Retain 9280 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9281 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9282 Ore on ash 13 13 Retain 9283 Oregon ash 8 9 12, Retain 9284 Ore on ash 9 9 Retain 9285 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9286 Oregon ash 11 11 Retain 9287 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9288 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9289 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9290 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9291 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9292 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9293 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9294 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9295 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9296 Ore on ash 8 8 Retain 9297 Oregon ash 11 11 Retain 9298 Oregon ash 10 8 13 Retain 9299 Ore on ash 10 , 7 12 Retain 9300 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9301 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9302 Oregon ash I I I 11 Retain 9303 Oregon ash 12 1 1 12 Retain 9304 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9305 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9306 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9307 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9308 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 9309 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9310 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9311 Oregon ash 9 9 13 , Retain 9312 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9313 Oregon ash 9 9 13 Retain 9314 Oregon ash 8 9 12 Retain 9315 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9316 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9317 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9318 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9319 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9320 Ore on ash 9 9 Retain 9321 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9322 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9323 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9324 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain Tree Inventory • • Page 7 of 9 0587 Abrams.xls 1/25/2006 Walter H. Knapp Sv SPECIES DI AM ET ER = Equiv. DBH Comments/Condition Prescription 9325 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9326 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9327 Oregon ash 8 8 11 Retain 9328 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9329 Oregon ash 10, 10 Retain 9330 Oregon ash 91 1 9 Retain 9331 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9332 Oregon ash 6 6 8 Retain 9333 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9334 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9335 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9336 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9337 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9338 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9339 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9340 Oregon ash 7 6 9 Retain 9341 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9342 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9343 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9344 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9345 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9346 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9347 Oregon ash 10, 10 Retain 9348 Oregon ash 1 ] 11 Retain 9349 Oregon ash 12 12 Retain 9350 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9351 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9352 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9353 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9354 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9355 Ore on ash 14 14 Retain 9356 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9357 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9358 Oregon ash 12 12 , Retain 9359 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9360 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9361 Oregon ash 6 6 6 10 Retain 9362 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9363 Oregon ash 7 6 9 Retain 9364 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9365 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9366 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9367 Oregon ash 9 7 11 Retain 9368 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9369 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9370 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9371 Oregon ash 7 7 7 6 14 Retain 9372 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9373 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9374 Ore on ash 6 6 Retain 9375 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9376 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9377 Ore on ash 6 6 Retain 9378 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain Tree Inventory • Page 8 of 9 0587 Abrams.xls 1/25/2006 Walter H. Knapp is v y.O ~ SPECIES DI AM ET ER = Equiv DBH . Comments/Condition Prescription 9379 Oregon ash 6 1 1 6 Retain 9380 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9381 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9382 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9383 Oregon ash 6 6 8 Retain 9384 Oregon ash 10 , 10 Retain 9385 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9386 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9387 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9388 Oregon ash 11 11 Retain 9389 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9390 Oregon ash 10 7 8 15 Retain 9391 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9392 Oregon ash 11 11 , Retain 9393 Oregon ash 11 11 Retain 9394 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9395 Oregon ash 9 9 13 Retain 9396 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9397 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9398 Oregon ash 6 6 6 10 , Retain 9399 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9400 Ore on ash 6 9 11 Retain 9401 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9402 Oregon ash 8 8 10 15 Retain 9403 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9404 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9405 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9406 Oregon ash 7 9 11 Retain 9407 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9408 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9409 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9410 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9411 Oregon ash 12 10 16 Retain 9412 Ore on ash 12 7 14 Retain 9413 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9414 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9415 Oregon ash 10 10, Retain 9416 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9417 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9418 - Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 94T9 Oregon on ash 9 9 Retain 9420 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9421 Oregon ash 8 7 11 Retain 9422 Oregon ash 61 1 6 Retain 9423 Oregon ash 71 1 7 Retain 9424 Oregon ash 81 1 8 Retain 9425 Oregon ash 61 1 6 Retain 9426 Oregon ash 81 1 8 Retain 9427 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9428 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9429 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9430 Oregon ash 7 7 Retain 9431 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9432, Oregon ash 6 6 Retain Tree Inventory • 0587 Abrams.xls P1 25 2 06 Walter H. Knapp SPECIES DI AM ET ER = Equiv. DBH Comments/Condition Prescription E 94 Ore on ash 6 6 Retain 9434 Oregon ash 8 7 11 Retain 9435 5 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9436 Ore on ash 10 8 13 Retain 9437 birch 8 8 Construction 9438 Oregon ash 81 1 8 Retain 9439 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9440 Oregon ash 10 10 Retain 9441 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9442 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9443 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9444 Oregon ash 9 9 Retain 9445 Oregon ash 8 8 Retain 9446 Oregon ash 8 8 11 Retain 9447 Oregon ash 6 6 8 Retain 9448 Oregon ash 6 6 Construction 9449 Oregon ash 8 8 Construction 9450 Oregon ash 6 6 Retain 9451 hawthorn 8 8 Construction 9452 Oregon ash 6 6 Construction 9453 Oregon ash 7 7 Construction 9454 cherry 7 6 9 Retain 9455 apple 11 , 8 14 Decay Hazard, Disease 9456 Oregon ash 8 1 1 8 Construction 9457 Oregon ash 7 1 1 7 Construction 9458 cherry 8 8 Construction 9459 apple 7 7 7 12 Decay Hazard, Disease 9460 walnut 10 10 Construction 9461 willow 8 8 9 14 Deca Hazard, Disease 9462 willow 6 7 7 9 15 Deca Hazard, Disease 9463 Oregon ash 9 9 Construction 9464 spruce 8 8 Retain 9465 Oregon ash 8 6 10 Construction 9466 Oregon ash 8 8 8 8 6 17 Decay Hazard, Disease 9467 bi leaf maple 10 10 , Construction 9468 bi leaf maple 7 7 Construction 9469 Oregon white oak 10 10 Construction 9470 Oregon white oak 7 6 9 Construction Trees larger than 12-inches in diameter are shown in bold type. • • • , alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Kim McMillan, City of Tigard • 0 FROM: Jeff Vanderdasson, P.E. PROJECT: Abrams Property DATE: January 26, 2006 Proiect Overview • QED PROfF V\5~ t~,N~ ~ NfF,Q `f~0 16.723 OREGON r~~ Y 20. 1°~''SCi VA Not Renews 6/30/06 The proposed Abrams Property Subdivision is located on SW 95th between Highway 217 and SW Dakota Street. The storm drainage system will be collected, treated and discharged into the proposed storm system located in SW 95th Ave. Water Quality Design Water quality treatment will be provided with a Stormwater Management Filter. The water quality facility was designed to treat the entire flow delivered to it during a design storm of 0.36" of rainfall within a 4-hour period. The resulting flow is 0.17 cfs during this event. Five filter cartridges will be required in order to meet treatment requirements. Underground Piped Detention Facility Storm water detention has been mandated for this project. We developed two hydrographs for the project: one for pre-development conditions and one for the post-development conditions for the entire site based upon a 2, 10 and 25-year, 24-hour return storm as required in Appendix A Section 1.2-C of the Clean water services Manual. The post-development 2, 10 and 25-year hydrographs were routed through the piped detention facilities using "Hydraflow Hydrograph" a computer routing program. Detention storage was accomplished using a combination of orifices to achieve the pre-developed release rates. Using the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph with a 24-hour duration, the following is a summary of pre- and post developed run off rates. PRE-DEV. POST-DEV. DETENTION EVENT RUN-OFF RUN-OFF ORIFICE DIS. BYPASS TOTAL* 2-Year 1.11 cfs 1.57 cfs 10-Year 1.97 cfs 2.65 cfs 25-Year 2.40 cfs 3.18 cfs 1.05 cfs 0.06 cfs 1.09 cfs 1.87 cfs 0.09 cfs 1.94 cfs 2.30 cfs 0.10 cfs 2.37 cfs i 0 The Bypass and detention release are not added in a direct relation due to the lag effect of the 0 * detention system. The control structure for the underground piping system will consist of a 60" precast, sumped manhole with detention orifices installed in a polyvinyl chloride cross. The top of the cross assembly riser will provide an overflow for events larger than the 25-year event. Storm Drainage Conveyance Sizing As required, our system will be designed to convey a 25-year return frequency 24-hour event using the Rational Method. Proposed pipe material will be PVC. An 'n' value of 0.011 will be used as a basis for pipe sizing. Stormwater runoff will be collected, detained, treated, and discharged to the existing system West of the site in SW 95'" AVE. The proposed system is a 12 " line @ 0.50%. The capacity of this line will be 3.65 cfs. is 0 AKAN5 feOP6!`'f y vjwet Qul+LITY ~f~w"~f'U ~P(TIDNS. • • W 4t/ = 0.36X I WPCfy10u5 12- 9,z u0b Iz 2460 c~ W 6?F = 24eo 144,00 0.1-4 cfs. tV - 0 • I't x ( ¢99/ 5- ) X66 s CAZTEIcr'65 . PROJECT: Agi?AMS PR..aPcgR -j / d alpha CLIENT: _ GAcA ^1~-g.gP. JOB#: ~29 .02 e COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DESIGNER: GMT DATE: t-Ib_pS PAGE: I Plaza West, Suite 230 9600 SW Oak Portland, Oregon 97223 T 503.452.8003 F S03.4S2.8043 www.alphacommunity.com BALLAST • is INLET PI (5EE NOTE5 5 30" 0 FRAME AND CONCRETE COVER (5TD) GRADE RING (5EE NOTE 4) 5TEP (TYP) ; . INLET PIPE HDPE OUTLET (5EE NOTE5 5 t G) R15ER WIT SCUM BAFFLE f• 4'-6" MIN (5EE NOTE 7) k 6) BALLA5T (5EE NOTE 8) r WIDTH 5EE DETAIL 2/2 UNDERDRAIN 5TORMFILTER CARTRIDGE MANIFOLD (5EE NOTE 2) MANHOLE STORMFILTER - SECTION VIEW A 1 • THE 5TORMWATER MANAGEMENT 5tormFdter® U.5. PATENT No. 5,322,629, No. 5,707,527, No. 6,027,639 No. 6,649,048, No. 5,624,576, AND OTHER U.5. AND FOREIGN ®2005 Storinwater360 PATENT5 PENDING PRECAST 72" MANHOLE STORMFILTER PLAN AND SECTION VIEWS STANDARD DETAIL 112 DATE: 09/28/05 SCALE: NONE FILE NAME: MHSF7.72PC-DTL DRAWN: MJW CHECKED: ARG MANHULE STURMFILTER - PLAN VIEW 1 1 GENERAL NOTES • • • 1) 5TORMFILTER BY 5TORMWATER3GO (5360), PORTLAND, OREGON 800-548-4GG7. 2) FILTER CARTRIDGE(S) TO BE 51PHON-ACTUATED AND SELF-CLEANING. 5TANDARD DETAIL 5HOW5 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CARTRIDGES. ACTUAL NUMBER REQUIRED TO BE 5PECIFIED ON 51TE PLAN5 OR IN DATA TABLE BELOW. 3) PRECA5T MANHOLE 5TRUCTURE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A5TM C478. DETAIL REFLECTS DE51GN INTENT ONLY. ACTUAL DIMENSIONS AND CONFIGURATION OF 5TRUCTURE WILL BE 5HOWN ON PRODUCTION SHOP DRAWING. 4) 5TRUCTURE AND ACCESS COVER5 TO MEET AA5HTO H-20 LOAD RATING. 5) 5TORMFILTER REQUIRE5 2.3 FEET OF DROP FROM INLET TO OUTLET. IF LE55 DROP 15 AVAILABLE, CONTACT 5360. MINIMUM ANGLE BETWEEN INLET AND OUTLET 15 450. G) INLET PIPING TO BE 5PECIFIED BY ENGINEER AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. PRECAST MANHOLE 5TORMFILTER EQUIPPED WITH A DUAL DIAMETER HDPE OUTLET 5TU13 AND SAND COLLAR. EIGHT INCH DIAMETER OUTLET 5ECTION MAY BE SEPARATED FROM OUTLET STUB AT MOLDED-IN CUT LINE TO ACCOMMODATE A 12 INCH OUTLET PIPE. CONNECTION TO DOWN5TREAM PIPING TO BE MADE U51NG A FLEXIBLE COUPLING OR ECCENTRIC REDUCER, A5 REQUIRED. COUPLING BY FERNCO OR EQUAL AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. 7) PROVIDE MINIMUM CLEARANCE FOR MAINTENANCE ACCESS. IF A 5HALLOWER 5Y5TEM 15 REQUIRED, CONTACT 53GO FOR OTHER OPTION5. 8) ANTI-FLOTATION BALLAST TO BE 5PECIFIED BY ENGINEER AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR, IF REQUIRED. BALLAST TO BE 5ET AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE 5TRUCTURE. 9). ALL 5TORMFILTER5 REQUIRE REGULAR MAINTENANCE. REFER TO OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES FOR MORE INFORMATION. 30"0 FRAME AND COVER (5TD) ••X t:: .~'r: Vol i MANHOLE STORMFILTER - TOP VIEW rl ~2J OUTLET SAND COLLAR R15ER 1 2"0 OUTLET STUB pa MOLDED-IN CUT LINE 8"0 OUTLET 5TU13 a OUTLET PIPE (BY CONTRACTOR) ° COUPLING (BY CONTRACTOR) (5EE NOTE G) BALLA5T GROUT (5EE NOTE 8) (BY CONTRACTOR) MANHOLE STORMFILTER - OUTLET DETAIL 02005 Stormwater360 Stormwater36GI '%cmmcHc "p" www.stormwater360.com THE 5TORMWATER MANAGEMENT 5tormFdter® U.5. PATENT No. 5,322,629, No. 5,707,527, No. 6,027,639 No. 6,649,048, No. 5,624,576, AND OTHER U.5. AND FOREIGN PATENT5 PENDING PRECAST 72" MANHOLE STORMFILTER TOP AND SECTION VIEWS, NOTES AND DATA 2 STANDARD DETAIL zrz DATE:0912SM5 SCALE: NONE FILE NAME: MHSF7-72PC-DTL DRAWN: MJW CHECKED: ARG 0 • PLAN NOTES: 1. ALL MANHOLE SECTIONS SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM C-478 AND APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF STD. MANHOLE DRAWING NO. 010 2. INLET AND OUTLET PIPE NOT TO EXCEED 18"DIA. 3. PROVIDE SPECIAL DETAIL FOR OUTLET FLOW T CONTROL EXCEEDING 18" DIA. SUMP VOLUME AVAILABLE MINIMUM MAXIMUM 60" M.H.= 58.9 CF 98.1 CF 72" M.H.= 84.8 CF 141.3 CF Be M.H.= 115.4 CF 192.3 CF PROVIDE SPECIAL DETAIL FOR VOLUME REQUIREMENTS EXCEEDING 192.3 CF SUMP VOLUME REQUIREMENTS 20 CF/1.0 CFS OF INFLOW 58.9 CF MINIMUM REQUIRED OUTLET FLOW CONTROL PLASTIC OR DUCTILE IRON PIPE "T" OR APPROVED EQUAL. • VARIABLE SUMP DEPTH 60" MAXIMUM 36" MINIMUM ~o• :p R SECTION B-B O:a v :o d ANCHOR TO WALL WITH STAINLESS STEEL RISER CLAMP OR STAINLESS STEEL BAND AND STAINLESS STEEL EXPANSION ANCHORS MIN. 2 PLACES. STEEL BAND TO BE MIN. OF 2" WADE SELF TAPPING CONCRETE ANi .UPS 5-12 OR EQUAL 1 Jr STAINLESS STEEL BOLT. MANHOLE DIAMETER TO BE DETER BY SUMP VOLUME REQUIREMENTS. SECTION A- A CLAMP DETAIL (SECTION A-A) N.T.S. WATER QUALITY MANHOLE DRAWING NO. 515 aeanWaber Services REVISED 09-03 Our commitment is clear. Table of Contents ABRAMS-I-5-06 SWM.gpw Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intellsolve Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM 0 Hydrograph Return Period Recap 1 2 - Year Summary Report 2 Hydrograph Reports 3 Hydrograph No. 1, SBUH Runoff, PRE DEVELOPMENT 3 TR-55 Tc Worksheet Hydrograph No. 2, SBUH Runoff, POST DEVELOPMENT 5 Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, PIPE DETENTION 6 Pond Report 7 Hydrograph No. 4, SBUH Runoff, Bypass 8 TR-55 Tc Worksheet 9 Hydrograph No. 5, Combine, <no description> 10 10 - Year Summary- Report 11 Hydrograph Reports 12 Hydrograph No. 1, SBUH Runoff, PRE DEVELOPMENT 12 TR-55 Tc Worksheet 13 Hydrograph No. 2, SBUH Runoff, POST DEVELOPMENT 14 Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, PIPE DETENTION 15 Pond Report 16 Hydrograph No. 4, SBUH Runoff, Bypass 17 TR-55 Tc Worksheet 18 Hydrograph No. 5, Combine, <no description> 19 25 - Year Summary Report 20 Hydrograph Reports 21 Hydrograph No. 1, SBUH Runoff, PRE DEVELOPMENT 21 TR-55 Tc Worksheet 22 Hydrograph No. 2, SBUH Runoff, POST DEVELOPMENT 23 Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, PIPE DETENTION 24 Pond Report 25 Hydrograph No. 4, SBUH Runoff, Bypass 26 TR-55 Tc Worksheet 27 Hydrograph No. 5, Combine, <no description> 28 100 - Year Summary Report Hydrograph Reports 30 Hydrograph No. 1, SBUH Runoff, PRE DEVELOPMENT 30 TR-55 Tc Worksheet 31 Hydrograph No. 2, SBUH Runoff, POST DEVELOPMENT 32 Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, PIPE DETENTION 33 Pond Report 34 Hydrograph No. 4, SBUH Runoff, Bypass 35 TR-55 Tc Worksheet 36 Contents is ABRAMS-1-5-06 SWM.gpw Hydrograph No. 5, Combine, <no description> 37 49 • 0 Hydrograph Return PeAd Recap ~ Hydrograph Inflow Peak Outflow (cfs) Hydrograph type Hyd(s) description (origin) 1-Yr 2-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1 SBUH Runoff - 1.11 1.97 2.40 - 2.99 PRE DEVELOPMENT 2 SBUH Runoff - - 1.57 - - 2.65 3.18 - 3.89 POST DEVELOPMENT 3 Reservoir 2 1.05 - - 1.87 2.30 - 3.97 PIPE DETENTION 4 SBUH Runoff - - 0.06 0.09 0.10 - 0.12 Bypass 5 Combine 3,4 - 1.09 - - 1.94 2.37 4.08 <no description> Proj. file: ABRAMS-1-5-06 SWM.gpw Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:07 AM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Summary teport 0 Hydrograph type (origin) Peak flow (cfs) Time interval (min) Time to peak (min) Volume (cult) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) Maximum storage (cult) Hydrograph description 1 SBUH Runoff 1.11 6 486 23,336 - - PRE DEVELOPMENT 2 SBUH Runoff 1.57 6 480 25,224 - - POST DEVELOPMENT 3 Reservoir 1.05 6 498 25,224 2 102.24 1,187 PIPE DETENTION 4 SBUH Runoff 0.06 6 480 860 - - - Bypass 5 Combine 1.09 6 498 26,084 3.4 - - <no description> ABRAMS-1-5-06 SWM.9PW Return Period: 2 Year Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:07 AM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Plot 0 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve .lyd. No. 1 PRE DEVELOPM ENT Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 2 yrs Drainage area = 5.17 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 2.50 in Storm duration = 24 hrs Hydrograph Volume = 23,336 cult Q (cfs) 2.00 • • 3 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 1.11 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 86 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 24 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A PRE DEVELOPMENT Hyd. No. 1 - 2 Yr 1.00 Q (cfs) 2.00 1.00 0.00 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I ' 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 0 - Hyd No. 1 Time (hrs) TR55 Tc Workshee* 0 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve • Hyd. No. 1 PRE DEVELOPMENT Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.150 0.400 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 138.0 108.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.50 2.50 0.00 Land slope = 1.45 108.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 16.31 + 5.24 + . 0.00 = 21.55 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 218.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope = 0.85 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 1.49 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 2.44 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 2.44 Channel Flow . X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc 24.00 min 4 0 Hydrograph Plot 0 Hydraflow Hydrogrifphs by Intellsolve Oyd. No. 2 POST DEVELOPMENT Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 2 yrs Drainage area = 5.03 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = USER Total precip. = 2.50 in Storm duration = 24 hrs Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 1.57 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 88 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 10 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 25,224 tuft Q (cfs) 2.00 • POST DEVELOPMENT Hyd. No. 2 2 Yr 1.00 Q (cfs) 2.00 1.00 L/ I I I I I I i I i x- ' 0.00 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time (hrs) Hyd No. 2 5 Hydrograph Plot 9 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Inteiisolve Wyd. No. 3 PIPE DETENTION Hydrograph type = Reservoir Storm frequency = 2 yrs inflow hyd. No. = 2 Reservoir name = PIPE DETENTION Storage Indication method used. Q (cfs) 2.00 0 0 6 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 1.05 cfs Time interval = 6 min Max. Elevation = 102.24 ft Max. Storage = 1,187 cuft Hydrograph Volume = 25,224 cuff PIPE DETENTION Hyd. No. 3 2 Yr 1.00 Q (cfs) 2.00 1.00 0.00 I I L/ I I I I I I I ' 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time (hrs) Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2 M~. Pond Report Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Pond No. 1 - PIPE DETENTION Pond Data Pipe dia. = 4.50 ft Pipe length = 215.0 ft. No. Barrels = 1.0 Slope = 0.50 % Invert elev. = 100.00 ft Stage / Storage Table Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sgft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cult) 0.00 100.00 00 0 0 0.28 100.28 00 15 15 0.56 100.56 - 00 27 42 0.84 100.84 00 96 138 1.12 101.12 00 144 282 1.39 101.39 00 189 471 1.67 101.67 00 219 689 1.95 101.95 00 239 929 2.23 102.23 00 253 1,182 2.51 102.51 00 263 1,444 2.79 102.79 00 266 1,711 3.07 103.07 00 267 1,977 3.35 103.35 00 262 2,239 3.62 103.62 00 253 2,492 3.90 103.90 00 239 2,731 4.18 104.18 00 219 2,950 4.46 104.46 00 189 3,138 4.74 104.74 00 144 3,282 5.02 105.02 00 96 3,378 5.30 105.30 00 27 3,406 5.57 105.58 00 15 3,420 Culvert / Orifice Structures [A] II3] [C] [D] `Rise (in) = 5.30 4.40 0.00 0.00 Span (in) = 5.30 4.40 0.00 0.00 No. Barrels = 1 1 0 0 Invent El. (ft) = 100.00 102.30 0.00 0.00 Length (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Slope = 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 N-Value = .013 .013 .013 .000 Orif. Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 Multi-Stage = n/a No No No Stage (ft) 6.00 Weir Structures [A] [B] [C] [D] Crest Len (ft) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest El. (ft) = 104.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Type = Rect - - Multi-Stage = No No No No Exfiltration = 0.000 in/hr (Wet area) Tailwater Elev. = 0.00 ft Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control. Stage / Discharge 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 • 1.00 0 00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Total Q 7.00 Stage (ft) 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 _1 0.00 8.00 Discharge (cfs) 7 i 8 Hydrograph Plot • Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Oyd. No. 4 Bypass Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 2 yrs Drainage area = 0.14 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 2.50 in Storm duration = 24 hrs Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 0.06 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 92 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 11.1 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 860 cuft Bypass Q (ofs) Hyd. No. 4 - 2 Yr Q (cfs) 0.10 0.09 40.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0 2 4 0 - Hyd No. 4 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time (hrs) • TR55 Tc Workshee* 9 OHyd. No. 4 Bypass Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.150 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 86.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.50 0.00 0.00 Land slope = 1.50 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 11.02 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 11.02 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 24.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope = 2.50 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Paved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 3.21 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 0.12 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.12 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc 11.10 min 0 Hydrograph Plot 10 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve ,lyd. No. 5 <no description> Hydrograph type = Combine Storm frequency = 2 yrs Inflow hyds. = 3, 4 • 10 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 1.09 cfs Time interval = 6 min Hydrograph Volume = 26,084 cult Q (cfs) 2.00 • 1.00 <no description> Hyd. No. 5 - 2 Yr Q (cfs) 2.00 1.00 0.00 I I I ~ 1 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 • (hrs) Hyd No. 5 Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 4 Time 0 Hydrograph Summaryteport 11 Hydrograph type (origin) Peak flow (cfs) Time interval (min) Time to peak (min) Volume (cult) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) Maximum storage (cult) Hydrograph description 1 SBUH Runoff 1.97 6 486 38,550 - PRE DEVELOPMENT 2 SBUH Runoff 2.65 6 480 40,592 - - POST DEVELOPMENT 3 Reservoir 1.87 6 498 40,592 2 103.56 2,433 PIPE DETENTION 4 SBUH Runoff 0.09 6 480 1,316 - - Bypass 5 Combine 1.94 6 498 41,907 3.4 - <no description> ABRAMS-1-5-06 SWM.9PW Return Period: 10 Year Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:07 AM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Plot 0 r 12 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve llyd. No. 1 PRE DEVELOPM ENT Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 10 yrs Drainage area = 5.17 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 3.45 in Storm duration = 24 hrs Monday, Jan 16 2006,9:7 AM Peak discharge = 1.97 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 86 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 24 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 38,550 cult Q (cfs) 2.00 • 1.00 Q (cfs) 2.00 1.00 0.00 ~ I I I I I I I I i i ' 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 0 Hyd No. 1 Time (hrs) PRE DEVELOPMENT Hyd. No. 1 -10 Yr • TR55 Tc Worksheet 13 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 1 PRE DEVELOPMENT Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.150 0.400 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 138.0 108.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.50 2.50 0.00 Land slope = 1.45 108.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 16.31 + 5.24 + 0.00 = 21.55 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 218.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope = 0.85 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity fts) = 1.49 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 2.44 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 2.44 Channel Flow • X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc 24.00 min is Hydrograph Plot 10 • 14 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve llyd. No. 2 POST DEVELOPMENT Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 10 yrs Drainage area = 5.03 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = USER Total precip. = 3.45 in Storm duration = 24 hrs Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 2.65 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 88 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 10 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 40,592 cuff POST DEVELOPMENT Q (cam) Hyd. No. 2 -10 Yr 3.00 _ • 2.00 1.00 0 00 Q (cfs) 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 • Hyd No. 2 Time (hrs) Hydrograph Plot 0 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Oyd. No. 3 PIPE DETENTION Hydrograph type = Reservoir Storm frequency = 10 yrs Inflow hyd. No. = 2 Reservoir name = PIPE DETENTION Storage Indication method used. Q (cfs) 3.00 • 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 / I I 1 I I I I I I . I I `1 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 0 Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2 Time (hrs) PIPE DETENTION Hyd. No. 3 -10 Yr • 15 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 1.87 cfs Time interval = 6 min Max. Elevation = 103.56 ft Max. Storage = 2,433 cuft Hydrograph Volume = 40,592 cuR Q (C%) 3.00 2.00 Pond Report a r Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Pond No. 1 - PIPE DETENTION ~ond Data Pipe dia. = 4.50 ft Pipe length = 215.0 ft No . Barrels = 1.0 Slope = 0.50 % Invert elev. = 100.00 ft Stage / Storage Table Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sgft) Incr. Storage (cult) Total storage (cult) 0.00 100.00 00 0 0 0.28 100.28 00 15 15 0.56 100.56 00 27 42 0.84 100.84 00 96 138 1.12 101.12 00 144 282 1.39 101.39 00 .189 - 471 1.67 101.67 00 219 689 1.95 101.95 00 239 929 2.23 102.23 00 253 1,182 2.51 102.51 00 263 1,444 2.79 102.79 00 266 1,711 3.07 103.07 00 267 1,977 3.35 103.35 00 262 2,239 3.62 103.62 00 253 2,492 3.90 103.90 00 239 2,731 4.18 104.18 00 219 2,950 4.46 104.46 00 189 3,138 4.74 104.74 00 144 - 3,282 5.02 105.02 00 96 3,378 5.30 105.30 00 27 3,406 5.57 105.58 00 15 3,420 Culvert / Orifice Structures [A] [B] [C] [D] is Ise (In) = 5.30 4.40 0.00 0.00 Span (in) = 5.30 4.40 0.00 0.00 No. Barrels = 1 1 0 0 Invert El. (ft) = 100.00 102.30 0.00 0.00 Length (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Slope = 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 N-Value = .013 .013 .013 .000 Orif. Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 Multi-Stage = n/a No No No Weir Structures [A] Crest Len (ft) = 1.00 Crest El. (ft) = 104.30 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 Weir Type = Rect Multi-Stage = No IB] [C] [D] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No No No Exfiltration = 0.000 in/hr (Wet area) Tailwater Elev. = 0.00 R Note: Culvert/Orifice outnows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control. Stage (ft) 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 .00 0 00 Stage / Discharge 0.00 1.00 2.00 Total Q 3.00 4.00 Stage (ft) 6.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 8.00 Discharge (cfs) 16 Hydrograph Plot 0 r 17 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Oyd. No. 4 Bypass Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 10 yrs Drainage area = 0.14 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 3.45 in Storm duration = 24 hrs Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 0.09 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 92 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 11.1 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume =1,316 cult Bypass Q WS) Hyd. No. 4 -10 Yr Q (Cfs) 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 . 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0 2 4 Hyd No. 4 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 00 0.01 0.00 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time (hrs) TR55 Tc Workshee* 0 Hyd. No. 4 Bypass Description A B C Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.150 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 86.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.50 0.00 0.00 Land slope = 1.50 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 11.02 + 0.00 + 0.00 = Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 24.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope = 2.50 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Paved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 3.21 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 0.12 + 0.00 + 0.00 = Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sgft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = Total Travel Time, Tc Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Totals 11.02 0.12 0.00 11.10 min 18 0 Hydrograph Plot r Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve ~yd. No. 5 <no description> Hydrograph type = Combine Storm frequency = 10 yrs Inflow hyds. = 3, 4 0 19 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 1.94 cfs Time interval = 6 min Hydrograph Volume = 41,907 cult Q (dr.) 2.00 is <no description> Hyd. No. 5 - 10 Yr 1.00 Q (cfs) 2.00 1.00 0.00 ' - ' 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 0 - Hyd No. 5 Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 4 Time (hrs) III Hydrograph Summary port S 20 Hydrograph type (origin) Peak flow (cis) Time interval (min) Time to peak (min) Volume (cuft) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) Maximum storage (cult) Hydrograph description 1 SBUH Runoff 2.40 6 486 46,090 - - - PRE DEVELOPMENT 2 SBUH Runoff 3.18 6 480 48,134 - - POST DEVELOPMENT 3 Reservoir 2.30 6 498 48,134 2 104.39 3,092 PIPE DETENTION 4 SBUH Runoff 0.10 6 480 1,535 - Bypass 5 Combine 2.37 6 498 49,669 3,4 - <no description> ABRAMS-1-5-06 SWM.gpw Return Period: 25 Year Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:07 AM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Plot r Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Wyd. No. 1 PRE DEVELOPM ENT Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 25 yrs Drainage area = 5.17 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 3.90 in Storm duration = 24 hrs • 21 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Hydrograph Volume = 46,090 cuR Q (cfs) 3.00 • PRE DEVELOPMENT Hyd. No. 1 25 Yr 2.00 1.00 0 00 Peak discharge = 2.40 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 86 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 24 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor, = N/A . L... Q (cfs) 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Hyd No. 1 Time (hrs) • 22 TR55 Tc Workshee* Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Oyd. No. 1 PRE DEVELOPMENT Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.150 0.400 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 138.0 108.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.50 2.50 0.00 Land slope = 1.45 108.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 16.31 + 5.24 + 0.00 = 21.55 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 218.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope = 0.85 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 1.49 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 2.44 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 2.44 hannel Flow ~ x sectional flow area (sgft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc 24.00 min 0 Hydrograph Plot 0 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Oyd. No. 2 POST DEVELOPMENT Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 25 yrs Drainage area = 5.03 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = USER Total precip. = 3.90 in Storm duration = 24 hrs • 23 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 3.18 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 88 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 10 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 48,134 cult POST DEVELOPMENT Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 2 - 25 Yr 4.00 10 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 00 Q (cfs) 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Hyd No. 2 Time (hrs) • Hydrograph Plot 24 r Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Oyd. No. 3 PIPE DETENTION Hydrograph type = Reservoir Storm frequency = 25 yrs Inflow hyd. No. = 2 Reservoir name = PIPE DETENTION Storage Indication method used. PIPE DETENTION Q (Cfs) Hyd. No. 3 - 25 Yr 4.00 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 2.30 cfs Time interval = 6 min Max. Elevation = 104.39 ft Max. Storage = 3,092 cuft Hydrograph Volume = 48,134 cuft 3.00 2.00 1.00 Q (CN) 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 l_,I- I i i I i 1 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time (hrs) Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2 Pond Report Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Pond No. 1 - PIPE DETENTION *Pond Data Pipe dia. = 4.50 ft Pipe length = 215.0 ft No . Barrels = 1.0 Slope = 0.50 % Invert elev. = 100.00 ft Stage / Storage Table Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sgft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cuft) 0.00 100.00 00 0 0 0.28 100.28 00 15 15 0.56 100.56 00 27 42 0.84 100.84 00 96 138 1.12 101.12 00 144 282 1.39 101.39 00 189 471 1.67 101.67 00 219 689 1.95 101.95 00 239 929 2.23 102.23 00 253 1,182 2.51 102.51 00 263 1,444 2.79 102.79 00 266 1,711 3.07 103.07 00 267 1,977 3.35 103.35 00 262 2,239 3.62 103.62 00 253 2,492 3.90 103.90 00 239 2,731 4.18 104.18 00 219 2,950 4.46 104.46 00 189 3,138 4.74 104.74 00 144 3,282 5.02 105.02 00 96 3,378 5.30 105.30 00 27 3,406 5.57 105.58 00 15 3,420 Culvert I Orifice Structures Weir Structu res [A] [B] [C] [D] [A] IB] [C] [D] &Ise (in) = 5.30 4.40 0.00 0.00 Crest Len (ft) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Span (in) = 5.30 4.40 0.00 0.00 Crest El. (ft) = 104.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. Barrels = 1 1 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 Invert El. (ft) = 100.00 102.30 0.00 0.00 Weir Type = Rect - - - Length (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multistage = No No No No Slope = 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 N-Value = .013 .013 .013 .000 Orif. Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 Multistage = n/a No No No Exfiltration.= 0. 000 in/hr (Wet area) Tailwater Elev. = 0.00 ft Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control. Stage (ft) 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 01.00 0 00 Stage / Discharge 0.00 1.00 2.00 Total Q 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Stage (ft) 6.00 5.00 7.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 --1 0.00 8.00 Discharge (cis) 25 • Hydrograph Plot 26 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve llyd. No. 4 Bypass Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 25 yrs Drainage area = 0.14 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 3.90 in Storm duration = 24 hrs Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 0.10 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 92 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 11.1 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume =1,535 cuft Q (cfs) 0.50 0.45 • 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0 00 Bypass Hyd. No. 4 - 25 Yr Q (S) 0 2 4 • Hyd No. 4 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time (hrs) TR55 Tc Worksheet 0 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve OHyd. No. 4 Bypass Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.150 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 86.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.50 0.00 0.00 Land slope = 1.50 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 11.02 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 11.02 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 24.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope = 2.50 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Paved Paved Paved Average velocity fts) = 3.21 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 0.12 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.12 Channel Flow i X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc 11.10 min 27 0 Hydrograph Plot* 28 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Oyd. No. 5 <no description> Hydrograph type = Combine Storm frequency = 25 yrs Inflow hyds. = 3, 4 Q (cfs) 3.00 • 2.00 <no description> Hyd. No. 5 - 25 Yr Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 2.37 cfs Time interval = 6 min Hydrograph Volume = 49,669 cult 1.00 0 00 Q (cfs) 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 • (hrs) Hyd No. 5 Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 4 Time Hydrograph Summaryteport 9 29 Hydrograph type (origin) Peak flow (cis) Time Interval (min) Time to peak (min) Volume (cult) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (R) Maximum storage (cult) Hydrograph description 1 SBUH Runoff 2.99 6 486 56,362 - - PRE DEVELOPMENT 2 SBUH Runoff 3.89 6 480 58,360 - - POST DEVELOPMENT 3 Reservoir 3.97 6 486 58,359 2 104.91 3,341 PIPE DETENTION 4 SBUH Runoff 0.12 6 480 1,831 - - - Bypass 5 Combine 4.08 6 486 60,190 3.4 - <no description> ABRAMS-1-5-06 SWM.9Pw Return Period: 100 Year Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:07 AM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Plot PRE DEVELOPMENT Hyd. No. 1 -100 Yr Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve $Hyd. No. 1 PRE DEVELOPM ENT Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 100 yrs Drainage area = 5.17 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 4.50 in Storm duration = 24 hrs Hydrograph Volume = 56,362 cult Q (cfs) 3.00 0 2.00 • 30 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 2.99 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 86 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 24 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A I~ Q (cfs) 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0 00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 is - Hyd No. 1 Time (hrs) • TR55 Tc Worksheet 31 'Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 1 PRE DEVELOPMENT Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.150 0.400 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 138.0 108.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.50 2.50 0.00 Land slope = 1.45 108.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 16.31 + 5.24 + 0.00 = 21.55 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 218.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope = 0.85 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 1.49 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 2.44 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 2.44 Channel Flow * X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc 24.00 min is Hydrograph Plot r Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Oyd. No. 2 POST DEVELOPMENT Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 100 yrs Drainage area = 5.03 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = USER Total precip. = 4.50 in Storm duration = 24 hrs . 32 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 3.89 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 88 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 10 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 58,360 cult POST DEVELOPMENT Q WS) Hyd.. No. 2 -100 Yr 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Q (cfs) 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 • Hyd No. 2 Time (hrs) Hydrograph Plot 0 PIPE DETENTION Hyd. No. 3 - 100 Yr Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM lloyd. No. 3 PIPE DETENTION Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 3.97 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 2 Max. Elevation = 104.91 ft Reservoir name = PIPE DETENTION Max. Storage = 3,341 cuft Storage Indication method used. . Q (cfs) 4.00 • 3.00 • 33 Hydrograph Volume = 58,359 cuft 1- Q (cfs) 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 00 2.00 1.00 0 00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time (hrs) Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2 Pond Report a 0 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Pond No. 7 - PIPE DETENTION ~ond Data Pipe dia. = 4.50 ft Pipe length = 215.0 ft No. Barrels = 1.0 Slope = 0.50 % Invert elev. = 100.00 ft Stage / Storage Table Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (cult) Total storage (cuft) 0.00 100.00 00 0 0 0.28 100.28 00 15 15 0.56 100.56 00 27 42 0.84 100.84 00 96 138 1.12 101.12 00 144 282 1.39 101.39 00 189 471 1.67 101.67 00 219 689 1.95 101.95 00 239 929 2.23 102.23 00 253 1,182 2.51 102.51 00 263 1,444 2.79 102.79 00 266 1,711 3.07 103.07 00 267 1,977 3.35 103.35 00 262 2,239 3.62 103.62 00 253 2,492 3.90 103.90 00 239 2,731 4.18 104.18 00 219 2,950 4.46 104.46 00 189 3,138 4.74 104.74 00 144 3,282 5.02 105.02 00 96 3,378 5.30 105.30 00 27 3,406 5.57 105.58 00 15 3,420 Culvert / Orifice Structures [A] [B] [C] [D] ~ise (in) = 5.30 4.40 0.00 0.00 Span (in) = 5.30 4.40 0.00 0.00 No. Barrels = 1 1 0 0 Invert El. (ft) = 100.00 102.30 0.00 0.00 Length (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Slope = 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 N-Value = .013 .013 .013 .000 Orif. Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 Multi-Stage = n/a No No No Weir Structures [A] [B] [C] [D] Crest Len (ft) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest El. (ft) = 104.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Type = Rect - - - Multi-Stage = No No No No Exfiltration = 0.000 in/hr (Wet area) Tailwater Elev. = 0.00 ft Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control. Stage (ft) 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 9.00 0 00 Stage / Discharge Stage (ft) 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 00 34 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 Total 0 Discharge (cfs) Hydrograph Plot 0 0 35 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM llyd. No. 4 Bypass Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Peak discharge = 0.12 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 6 min Drainage area = 0.14 ac Curve number = 92 Basin Slope = 0.0% Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 11.1 min Total precip. = 4.50 in Distribution = Type IA Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 1,831 cult Bypass Q (C) Hyd. No. 4 -100 Yr Q (off) 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 2 4 0 - Hyd No. 4 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time (hrs) TR55 Tc Worksheee r 36 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve •Hyd. No. 4 Bypass Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.150 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 86.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.50 0.00 0.00 Land slope = 1.50 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 11.02 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 11.02 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 24.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope = 2.50 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Paved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 3.21 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 0.12 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.12 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc 11.10 min 0 Hydrograph Plot Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Wyd. No. 5 <no description> Hydrograph type = Combine Storm frequency = 100 yrs Inflow hyds. = 3, 4 . 37 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 4.08 cfs Time interval = 6 min Hydrograph Volume = 60,190 cuft Q (cfs) 5.00 4.00 3.00 <no description> Hyd. No. 5 -100 Yr 2.00 1.00 Q (cfs) 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 1 , 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 • The (hrs) Hyd No. 5 Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 4 T • • • 0 \ E%75T SAN MH R59 ELE, 75R 2? IN i5^"2 j5) f olv L`'.6F (NE) 0 I i mr r I f I ARPROXIMATE LOCATION ~ v °`b FUTURE :TGRM MAN UIIE 76 BE MILT I By OTHERS I. EM. !J.N MN /,.1 11 El, 7'7.51 OUT 1Ev. 1660. `Sl- - (N;- EXIST SAN MH / QM Eay. 1-n.5 81 161.55 (S) OUT 161.45 (N 11 EXIST S4:" kIM ELEV. •.7S IN Iel40 I$% GUT 1A:.25 ;N? I I 1 y'~y \r II ~ I ~ , I to k yi ff w-G`'-------------~7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 RIM 163.1 I':.%5 @~ ' I T 763.1: (k; I rte' m i y ,p J ~WW SCALE 108 D 50 10D 200 IN= 100 FT C:\wa),.\BGPb1_I68\3ffi028-SWM-TC.dwg-SHEET: PRE Jon 17.2006.8:I6mm gmt 9600 SW Oak, Suite 230 mmPortland, OR 97223 1'! M3452-SM in M3.454~013 www.alphocommunity.com REVISIONS NO. CAME DESC TION ABRAMS PROPERTY PRE DEVELOPMENT TIME OF. CONCENTRATION alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 9=-* 82&4W TYPE: PLANNING DATIE. 1 • • • III i 0 j r I r r_ ~ r r 1 III ,I I I I 1 ti'cti i \ H L 1 r r \ • f' \ 0 a A \ h?a ~ A 1! t ~ 1 1 9•. . . .E.O 7 ' ~;.Well . : r 8S ' ' a . ,.......e . . e SCALE 100 0 50 T00 200 11N= t00FT C:\wark\BGPIo I681329429&SWM-TC.dwg-SNffr:PCAT lanl7.2006.8:11am pmt alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9600 SW Oak Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 m W14S M [i M3 4524M www.alphocormnunity.com REVISIONS NO. DATE DEBCRIPTION ABRAMS PROPERTY POST DEVELOPMENT TIME OF CONCENTRATION alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.: 328-M TYPE. PLAMAIM DATE • • alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9600 SW Oak, Suite 230 Portland. OR 97223 m5031526000 MSM452600 www.alphacommuNly.com REVISIONS NO. DATE 1068CWwflON AMBRAMS PROPERTYU SOILS MAP • 0raIpha COMMUNRy DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO- 32114W TYPE- PLANNDM DATE: r • • Pre-Application Notes • • Longstaff SDR November 14, 2005 ORE-APP. MTG. DATE: STAFF AT PRE-APP.: RESIDENTIAL APPLICANT: t~'H~a-C~~•G% r-~ c~-'r2d~ta~9` AGENT: . o•~r Phone: ( 1 ~5Z- Phone: PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION: S yo 5 w g r--8L TAX MAP(S)/LOT #(S): NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: 1 5 ( l~+G "7 s oolc . o2$cl 02-5b~ 0 csY fi~ ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: R- /Z ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18..3* MINIMUM LOT SIZE: sq. ft. Average Min. lot width: ft. Max. building height: 35' ft. Setbacks Front ft. Side v ft.~~ Rear G ft 'I~ Comer_ 5 ft. from street. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: Minimum IandsEap or natural vegetation area: 20 GARAGES: ft. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. [Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout] THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, INTERESTED PARTIES, AND THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION 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 Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 9 Residential Application/Planning Division Section ~ c~mz ~ c~tj /-9 h : i f3 -ac42F Sr r&- 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. j IMPACT STUDY [Refer to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.390.0501 As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to INCLUDE AN 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 stud 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 18.7651 Minimum number of accesses: Minimum access width: Minimum pavement width: WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7051 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. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7151- SEE EXAMPLE BELOW. The NET RESIDENTIAL UNITS ALLOWED on a particular site may be calculated by dividing the net area of the developable land by the minimum number of square feet required per dwelling unit as specified by the applicable zoning designation. Net development area is calculated by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross site area: All sensitive lands areas including: ➢ Land within the 100-year floodplain; ➢ Slopes exceeding 25%; 3 ' 8 ➢ Drainageways; and Y3 M o s 1 c q8 prsb ➢ Wetlands for the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 zoning di I s~. Public right-of-way dedication: ' . ➢ Single-family allocate 20% of gross acres for public facilities; or 4W 4Y ➢ Multi-family allocate 15% of gross acres for public facilities; or _ -RIV ➢ If available, the actual public facility square footage can be used for deduction. 3-S- y EXAMPLE 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 sq. ft. (20%) for Public right-of-wav NET: 34,848 square feet 3.050 (mini 1 Units Per cre Mold-Family 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 6,534 sq. ft. (15%) for Public right-of-way NET: 37,026 square feet - 3.05Q (minimum I area) 12. nits Per Acre *The Development Code requires that the net site area existfor the modwhole dwelling unit NO BOUNDING UP IS PERMITTED. *minimum Project Densigl Is 00% of the nuodmum allowed density. TO DETERMINE THIS STANDARD, MULTIPLY THE MAXIMUM NUMBER Of UNITS BY.B. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 9 Residential ApplicationlPlanning Division Section SPECIAL SETBACKS [Refer to Codlection 18.7301 ➢ 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.] ❑ FLAB LOT BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS [Refer to Code Chapter 187301 MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 1% STORIES or 25 feet, whichever is less in most zones; 2'/ stories, or 35 feet in R-7, R-12, R-25 or R-40 zones provided that the standards of Section 18.730.010.C.2 are satisfied. BUFFERING 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 onIV 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 BUFFERS applicable to your proposal area is: Buffer Level along north boundary. Buffer Level along east, boundary. Buffer Level along north boundary. Buffer Level along east boundary. IN ADDITION, SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: LANDSCAPING [Refer to Code Chapters 18.745,18.765 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 183551 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 1 1 1:._ : tL _ -l. 1 11\1V h%IS'I V.~~AI V~ri Ylvv x.11 vim.. ~rllll~ I Illly 16 ►1A:. vV11~.IVI ~.I V.ISVII ~AIIV +All A/L'r 16 CA +ll~rVA ~dl ~VVV~ 625-6177. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 9 Residential Application/Planning Division Section TR PARKING (Refer to Code ChapteA.765 a 18.705) 0 ALL PARKING AREAS AND DRIVEWAYS MUST BE PAVED. ➢ Single-family............ Requires: One 1 off-street parking space per dwelling unit; and One ~1; space per unit less than 500 square feet. ➢ Multiple-family......... Requires: 1.25 spaces per unit for 1 bedroom; 1.5 spaces per unit for 2 bedrooms; and 1.75 spaces per unit for 3 bedrooms. Multi-family dwelling units with more than ten (10) required spaces shall. provide parking for the use of guests and shall consist of 15% of the total required parking. NO MORE THAN 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 mmimum.number of disabled person parking spaces to be provi ed,.as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with Disabil~tles 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 183651 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 18.7751 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 boundarie§, 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 18.775.070.01 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 (CWSI BUFFER STANDARDS (Refer to R a 0 96-44/USA Regimatlons - Chapter Sl LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a vegetated corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive area. • Design Criteria: The VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTH is dependent on the sensitive area. The following table identifies the required widths: CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 9 Residential Appgcation/manning Division Section AE 31 VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTHS 0 SOURCE: CWS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUAL/RESOLUTION a DREIER 96411 SENSITIVE: AREA''I)EFINITION.. SLOPE ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREA WIDTH OF VEGETATED CbRkIDOR'P SIDE' Streams with intermittent flow draining: <25% t 10 to <50 acres 15 feet t > 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 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. 2vegetated corridor averaging or reduction- is allowed only when the vegetated corridor is certified to be in a marginal or degraded condition. 3The 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. 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. SIGNS (Rifer 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 18.790.030.CJ A TREE PLAN FOR THE PLANTING, REMOVAL AND PROTECTION OF TREES prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot,.F~..r. parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a t evil:::..::~ .y. v:r. :,~u:e:_.~:.: :c:.: ~.t.. i.:.w.'C::. ' i::G....G.. ..0.:...: rJ:w`i ~.....y or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal where possible. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 9 Residential Applicafion/Planning Division Section THE TREE PLAN SHALL IN&DE the following: ➢ Identification of the location, size, species, inch caliper. • and condition of all existing trees greater than 6- ➢ 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: Retain age 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.; Retain age 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 Section 18.790.060.EJ REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to the following guidelines: ➢ A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. ➢ If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damages is not reasonably • available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. ➢ If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably , located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property. ➢ The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. IN LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. T, CLEAR VISION AREA [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7951 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 i YiSivil Ciicq, i IIG Q'l~JllVAlll JIIQ11 JIIVVV 111C 1rICG1 VIJ~VII aFeaS Vtl the site plan, and identify any obstructions in these areas. CITY OF TIGARD Pre=Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 9 Residential ApplicaBon/Planning Divislon Section FUTURE STREET PLAN AND EXTENS&F STREETS [Beier to Code Section 18.0 030J 7 A FUTURE STREET PLAN shall: ➢ Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other parcels within 200 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. ➢ Identify existing or proposed.bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 500 feet of the site. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed. ❑ ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18.810.0601 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 25 feet unless lot. is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15-foot wide access easement. The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2'/2 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 center 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) tf 18.350 (Planned Development) -jef 18.360 (Siite Development Review) _ 18.370 (VaiiancoAdjustments) ✓18.380 (Zoning Maprrext Amendments) 18.385 (Miscellaneous Permits) 18.390 (Decision Making Pmceduresflmpact Study) _ 18.410 (Lot Line Adjustments) 18.420 (land Partitions) _ 18.430 (subdivisions) L-o- 18.510 (Residential Zoning Districts) 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts) - 18.530 (lndushial zoning Districts) 18.620 (Tigard Triangle Design standards) 18.630 (Washington Square Regional Centel 18.705 (AccesslEgressiciroulation) 18.710 (Accessory Residential Units) _iZ 18.715 (Density computations) 18.720 (Design Compatibility Standards) 18.725 (Environmental Performance Standards) X18.730 (Exceptions To Development standards) 18.740 (Historic Overlay) 18.742 (Home Occupation Permits) 8.745 (Landscaping & Screening Standards) - 18.750 (Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) - 18.755 (Mixed solid waste/Recycding storage) 18.760 (Nonconforming Situations) 8.765 (OffStnaet Paridng/Loading Requirements) X18.775 (Sensiim Lands Review) 8.780 (signs) 785 (Temporary Use Permits) 18.790 (Tree Removal) 18.795 (visual Clearance Areas) 18.798 (wireless Communication Facilities) 18.810 (street & Utility Improvement Standards) 0 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Residential Application/Planning Division Section Page 7 of 9 ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: L la-ri1,9 SC'/2 L~i,~i~f~i~l~tra7 Lritr ~~`G>s~(!~f~YJ~~P~IL~l~ai f ,G-- PROCEDURE Administrative Staff Review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. held by the City Council. with the Commission making a An additional public hearing shall be 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 Mans s CE to 8'/2'x11" of or 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 ciihrni+Fol C+off will nntifv +hc onnlirgn+ if t3r4rlitinnol infnrMO+inn nr oYlYli+inn~l rnrieq of +kn ciihmi++or) materials are required. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 8 of 9 Residential Application/Planning Division section The administrative decision o0blic hearing will typically occur appornately 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 follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard C T jG . A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process i vai able 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 [Counpl Surveyor's Office: 503-648-88841 PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A SUBDIVISION LAND USE APPLICATION with the City of Tigard, applicants are re uir~ed to complete and file a subdivision plat naming request with the Washington County Surveyor's office in order to obtain approva[/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 PEBMITS 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 IT IS OBTAINED). PLEASE NOTE: The conference an noes cannot cover a Code requirements an aspects relate to site planning that should a pl to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required by the r oc~e shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended that a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or . ask an 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 IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). PREPARED BY. CITY OF TIGARD OLAWNGAVISION - STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP. MEETING PHONE: 503-639-4171 ' FAX: 503-684-7297 EMAIL j=rs rot name) @ 6.6gard.orms TITLEI8(CITY Of TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) INTERNET ADDRESS: WWW.Cl.tigard.Or.uS Oatty1mas-terMPre-Aoo Notes Residential.doc Undated: 15-Dec-04 (Engineering section: preapp.eng) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 9 of 9 Residential Application/Planning Division Section PRf=APP1:: ATION 'NFEREN' ENO 5 of NW °'°g ENGINEERING :SECTION d e - ik 'UBLIC FACILITIES Tax Map[s]: 1S135AC Tax Lolls): 104 2401, 2500,4600,4700 Win Towodomes The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a proiection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. Right-of-way dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public: (1.) To increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification right-of-way width as specified by the Community Development Code; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. W pproval of a development application for this site will require right-of,way dedication for: ® SW 95th Avenue to 27 feet from centerline (Neighborhood Route, no bike lanes) ❑ SW to feet ❑ SW to feet ❑ SW to feet Street improvements: ® Half street improvements will be necessary along SW 95th Avenue, to include: ® 16 feet of pavement from centerline plus provide a minimum of 24 feet of pavement from project to North Dakota (or where there is 24 feet available) ® concrete curb ® storm sewers and other underground utilities ® 5-foot concrete sidewalk with 5 foot planter strip ® street trees sized and spaced per TDC ® street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: rY OFTIGARD Pre-APPICa60n Conference NOW PRUB 106 oneering DepartmentSecdoo • • ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement • ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ Other. ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk n OrPPt t~P_P_C ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ;ITY OF TIGARD Pre-App CBIIOD Conference NOW Page Y M 6 ngmeedne Depument Section ❑ Other: Agreement for Future Street Improvements: In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently * practical, the improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approval may be specked which requires the property owner(s) to provide a future improvement guarantee. The City Engineer will determine the form of this guarantee. The following street improvements may be eligible for such a future improvement guarantee: (1.) (2.) Overhead Utility Lines: ® Section 18.810.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. This requirement is valid even if the utility lines are on the opposite side of the street from the site. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. There are existing overhead utility lines which run adjacent to this site along SW 95th Avenue. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall either place these utilities underground, or pay the fee in-lieu described above. .Sanitary Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) 8 inch line which is located within a private driveway easement (known as Longstaff Street). The proposed development must be connected to a public sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to extend the public sewer line as need to serve this development. The applicant is also required to extend the public sewer line to adjacent upstream boundaries of the site to allow for future service to unsewened adjacent parcels. The applicant will need to provide estimate of the costs to extend the sewer through the site and the wetlands to reach the southern boundary. If the costs exceed the unmitigated impact of the development, the applicant may only be required to extend the sewer to the edge of the wetlands and provide an easement the rest of the way to allow for the future extension. Water Supply: The Tualatin Valley Water District (Phone:(503) 642-1511 provides public water service in the area of this site. This service provider should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your proposed development. Fire Protection: .Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (South Division) [Contact: Eric McMullen, (503) 612-70101 provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for ffY Of TIUBO Pre PRIDatlOn COMMON Notes Page 8 of 6 !Blneerlno nepertmeotseaden information regarding the ado acy of circulation systems, the d for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protect' Storm Sewer Improvements: *All proposed development within the City shall be designed such that storm water runoff is conveyed to an approved public drainage system. The applicant will be required to submit a proposed storm drainage plan for the site, and may be required to prepare a sub-basin drainage analysis to ensure that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed. Detention is required. Submit plans and calculations with Land Use application. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which requires the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from impervious surfaces. The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing an on- site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determining whether or not the fee in-lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of impervious surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall be $210. Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. It is anticipated that this project will require: ® Construction of an on-site water quality facility. 05 Payment of the fee in-lieu. Other Comments: All proposed sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems shall be designed such that City maintenance vehicles will have unobstructed access to critical manholes in the systems. Maintenance access roadways may be required if existing or proposed facilities are not otherwise readily accessible. 1) Storm discharge to creek at 9elShady Lane or to ODOT. 2) Provide a future streets plan to show how the access and layout for this development can work with future development to the south. Take into consideration how SW 93rd Avenue to the south can be extended northerly and connect back in SW 95"' Avenue. The plan must be realistic and may require that a preserve easement be dedicated on this property to allow for future ROW for the east-west connection. 3) Contact TVFR regarding need for secondary access. A IMPACT FEES TY OFTIGARD P"111101100 Conference Notes Pege4 of 6 vloeming 8608 eeot secden In 1990, Washington County a ted a county-wide Traffic Impact (TIF) ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee program collects IM from new development based Wthe development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation of the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based fee ~;ategory. The TIF shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances, payment of the TIF may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of the payment until occupancy is permissible oo when the TIF is greater than $5,000.00. Pay the TIF 'ERMITS Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit: Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a PFI permit from the Engineering Department. A PFI permit application is available at the Planning/Engineering counter in City Hall. For more extensive work such as street widening improvements, main utility line extensions or subdivision infrastructure, plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted for review and approval. The Engineering Department fee structure for this permit is considered a cost recovery system. A deposit is collected with the application, and the City will track its costs throughout the life of the • permit, and will either refund any remaining portion of the deposit, or invoice the Permittee in cases rohere City costs exceeds the deposit amount. NOTE: Engineering Staff time will also be tracked for any final design-related assistance provided to a Permittee or their engineer prior to submittal of a PFI permit application. This time will be considered part of the administration of the eventual PFI permit. The Permittee will also be required to post a performance bond, or other such suitable security. Where professional engineered plans are required, the Permittee must execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement, which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. The PFI permit fee structure is as follows: NOTE If an-PH. Permit Is required, the applicant must obtain that permit prior to release of any permits from the Buildinu Division. Building Division Permits: The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Division. For a more detailed explanation of these permits, please contact the Development Services Counter at 503-639-4171, ext. 304. Site Improvement Permit (SIT). This permit is generally issued for all new commercial, industrial and multi-family projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where lot • grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation, grading and utilitv work. Home builders will also be reauired to obtain a SIT permit for grading work in ITY OF TIURD Pre Plication Conference Motes Page 5 of 6 Atneering BepartmentSeottoe cases where the lot th are working on' has slopes in ess of 20% and foundation excavation material is nA be hauled from the site. Building Permit (BLIP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued • after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multi-family buildings. It covers all work necessary for building construction, including sub-trades (excludes grading, etc.). This permit can not be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantially complete and a mylar copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the City. For a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required, and return a mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit. Other Permits. There are other special permits, such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for more information. TRADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBOMSIONS All subdivision projects shall require a proposed grading plan prepared by the design engineer. The engineer will also be required to indicate which lots have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections will be required when the lots develop. The design engineer will also be required to shade all structural fill areas on the construction plans. In addition, each ~homebuilder will be required to submit a specific site and floor plan for each lot. The site plan shall include topographical contours and indicate the elevations of the comers of the lot. The builder shall also indicate the proposed elevations at the four comers of the building. PREPARED BY: e:;~ yKk,YV Lam---- MIRINEERINVUEPARTMENT STAFF DATE Phone: [503) 639-4fn- Fax: 15031624-0152 arw=Q wised: September 2, 2003 • fY OFTIGED Pre-APPROUon Conference NOW Page 6 of 6 Ileserteg Deputmeot Section • • • Longstaff SDR • • Neighborhood Meeting November 14, 2005 • alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . Longstaff Neighborhood Meeting Notes September 9, 2005 Location: Plaza West Building, 9600 SW Oak Street Meeting called to order at 6:30 p.m. Presenters - Al Jeck (AJ), Alpha Community Development Jeff Vanderdasson (JV), Alpha Community Development John Marquart (JM), Alpha Community Development JM, JV and AJ introduced themselves and welcomed participants. JM read the City of Tigard prepared statement required for neighborhood meetings. He then gave a brief presentation of the 47-unit site development plan. This presentation included a discussion of: site location and vicinity, existing conditions, site zoning/ density requirements, private street, unit count and layout, proposed "cluster" -type unit size, characteristics, wetland location and buffer, tree inventory, street improvements, and other general site and project characteristics. JM then gave a similar presentation for an alternate 43-unit site development plan featuring "townhome"- type units for the same site. Similar discussion was given to private street, unit count and layout, proposed unit size, characteristics, wetland location and buffer, tree inventory, street improvements, and other general project characteristics. • The meeting was then opened for questions from the audience. question: When did wetland delineation occur? (JM): Delineation was performed this month. (JV): Although delineation was performed in summer, DSL must concur with the results. question: One of the Highway 217 options may be to widen along the south side of the ROW, which appears to affect the site. (JV): The project team will check with ODOT as to the status and alignment. question: Drainage is a big issue in this neighborhood. How will stormwater/ runoff be managed? (JV): Detention will be piped and treated before release into public system. We will be required to perform a comprehensive storm analysis as per of submittal. question: How will resident and guest parking be handled? (JM): Each unit will have an enclosed 2-car garage. Guests may park in the driveway of each unit. In times of high demand, the private street is wide enough to accommodate some parking. Code requirements are exceeded. • Plaza Wes" - Suite 230 - 9600 SW Oak - Portland - Creaon 97223 Office 5,03 432-3003 - =ax 303 452-8043 www.alphccon,mun ty.con') r1 -s 4-alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT question: Pre-app report indicates that half-street improvements for 95th Ave. will be carried all the way to North Dakota. Is this true? (JV): We will confirm with City engineering. question: Shouldn't wetland delineation occur in wetter months, such as January or February? (JV): DSL must concur with the delineation, and a comprehensive drainage plan/analysis must be performed. question: CPO 4M is concerned with water quality, stormwater management and tree removal. (JV): CWS standards will be followed. Preliminary indications are that 79% of caliper inches will be retained/preserved. Trees in the wetland area will not be disturbed. question: There is no traffic light at intersection of Shady Ln. and Greenburg. This development, combined with the proposed development across 951h, will add traffic to the system. Will a traffic analysis be performed? (JV): If City engineering requires an analysis, one will be performed. TIF fees are typically pooled to improve items such as signaling intersections. Concerns should be voiced to City of Tigard. question: Will half-street improvements on 951h require tree removal? (JV): It is very likely that trees will need removed. Our tree removal and preservation calculations, however, are strictly for our site only. Trees down 95th from the project site should not be tagged, unless it was strictly for reference. question: Will a privacy fence be installed along southern and southwestern project boundaries? (JV): Yes. question: If half-street improvements are carried all the way south to North Dakota, will trees be removed? (JV): Again, these trees will likely be lost under this circumstance, but we will confirm with City. question: Another development is proposed across 95th. Will the traffic countfimpact be cumulative when determining the need for traffic analysis? (JV): City engineer and case planners for the project(s) will make the determination. comment: Greenburg Road is already overburdened. • Plaza West - Sure 23C - 9600 SW Oak - Portland - Oregon 97223 Office 503 452-8003 - Fax 503 452-8043 V Y~v w.alphacommuniiy.com • 4-, t ``al p h a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT question: Will these units be owner-occupied or rental? (JM): Units will be for-sale. question: At what price level will the units be sold? (AJ): We are doing land development only. No architect or builder has been selected at this point, so exact pricing is unknown as of today. In all likelihood, they will sell for mid- to upper-$100's. question: Will the wetlands be fenced? (JV): It is likely that wetlands will be fenced and signed to CWS specifications. Fencing will likely by PVC 2- or 3-rail. question: Similar units in Sherwood sell for roughly $185,000. Will this bring an undesirable element to the area? Will renters move in? (AJ): The units are expected to be entry-level type housing, and we can not control who purchases them. A similar project in Tigard, Fanno Point, has done well to help improve the area, and they were sold for considerably less than the expected price of these units. question: We do not desire such high density in this area. Why such density? (JM): The site is zoned R-12, which requires a unit every 3,050 net square feet. . question: We do not desire such building height in this area. Why 3 stories? (JM): Garages will occupy the ground floor, with 2 levels of living space above. R-12 zoning allows up to 35 feet, which will be met. comment: There is probably nothing you can build here that would meet with our approval. comment: We would prefer 3 bedroom units to encourage families as younger . buyers often speed through the neighborhood and rent out rooms. question: Can you study single family detached homes as an alternate? (JM): The density requirement of the R-12 zone prohibits a typical SFR detached design. question: Homeowners often make many trips per day beyond commuting. How will the need for traffic analysis be determined? (JV): City engineer will make the determination. We will comply as necessary. question: CPO 4M is concerned with light spilling over into neighboring areas and wetland areas. (JV): We will work to ensure that lighting meets all applicable standards. • Plaza `WeS i - Sul; e 230 - 9500 S1N Oak - Paiiand - Oreaon 97223 Office 303 452-3003 - =ax 503 452-8043 v www.alphaco : muni-y.com • alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . question: Where will construction traffic enter & exit? (JV): The only frontage we have available is 95th Ave. comment: The medical clinic on Shady Ln. often has emergency traffic arriving. question: Will provisions for bike and pedestrians be made on half-street improvements? (JM): We will perform half-street improvements to City of Tigard specifications. Initial indications are that the street will be improved to the standard of Neighborhood Route w/o bike lanes. comment: An Ash Creek trail is proposed to cross over highway 217. question: If half-street improvements are carried all the way to North Dakota, will the developer or existing homeowner be responsible for cost & . maintenance? (JV): We would be responsible for construction, and as with any other public street, you would be responsible for maintaining sidewalk and street trees. question: Will the growth of street trees damage concrete sidewalk? (JV): Species of street tree will be determined by City of Tigard, and like all • public streets, homeowners are responsible for sidewalks. question: Will. new trees be planted on-site? (JV): Trees are an amenity desirable to buyers, so it benefits us to preserve and plant as many as feasible. question: Will these units be owner-occupied or rental? (J V): Units will be for-sale. question: What is the price range? (AJ): As-.mentioned before, it is not possible at this point in time to determine the price. The units will be entry-level type housing, and we simply can not be more specific than mid- to upper-$100's at this time. comment: The site as some of the best Oregon Ash on the west side. question: Hawks are believed to nest in the site? Will they be maintained? (JV): Every effort will be made to preserve trees to the greatest extent possible. question: Will these units be owner-occupied or rental? (JV): Units.will be for-sale. • Plaza West - Sidle 230 - 9500 SW Oak - Pori land - Oregon 97223 Office 503 452-8003 - -ax 303 452-8043 www.aIphacCrnmui iity.com •'-alpha • question: Has an architect been selected yet? (JV): No. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • • question: What is the timeline for development? (A J): We are hoping for land use approval within 5 months, but it is difficult to guarantee such timing. question: Will your storm runoff damage the wetland area? (JV): No. The paved surfaces will be curbed, and storm will be collected by a piped system which will not impact the wetland area. question: Will there be a detention pond? (JV): No. Detention will occur in a piped system, and must achieve the required capacity as determined in the comprehensive storm analysis to be performed. question: What will the impact be on the schools? (JV): The City of Tigard will notify the school district of the application. question: Why didn't we receive notice of this meeting? (JV): We apologize. Mailing lists are provided by City of Tigard. Please be sure to sign in, and you should be kept apprised. question: Will drawings and meeting minutes be available? (JM): Please be sure to sign the sheet provided, and we will be happy to distribute them next week. question: It seems as though the price level of these homes will attract an undesirable element to the area, as well as rentals. (AJ): Again the units will be for-sale. We can not control who buys them or whether or not they rent them. question: What is the depth of the wetland area north-to-south? (JV): It varies, but is roughly 160 feet. question: Will these units be owner-occupied or rental? (JV): Units will be for-sale. comment: CPO 4M's chief concerns are quality of life and wildlife protection. comment: Surveyors appear to have nicked the bark on a tree and damaged the underbrush. (JV): Thank you for alerting us to the situation. We will look into it, and wish to assure you that is not indicative of how Alpha does business. Plaza Wes- - Suite 230, - 9000 SW Oak - Portland - Oregon 97223 Office 503 452-8003 - Fax 503 452-8043 w~v~.alpr,ccommun~;y.com • 0 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SIGN-IN SHEEN' l A M Y r _ . AS . 7- ~~A 5T. A 3o ab otz Q'72Z3 Axb-d u r r.~a. u / ~~Jb'F n e LS [y. .I q 4 2u-) P-taa TC~u~~~ 1~2cQo sw otz 9223 - tba s a azmgA~ 21a4 15~03 AJAMZ+ t t 00 _ g z _1~1_11 t c<< C) Z/'a sec) _ _ o f _ ` , C..~Cv~ V w / a4 _A ~&4 5Aa ai~. 257 sw A~yy r o. o, q z z 3 - , OOf N G ) TA 11 o SM' Lfl Nf-- -0m;'a 1 i~ o o S_w . - J r g -7 a a.3 ~-{I ' l ~l ~ Q P V l q co co - - C`ov` F _ L9 Z) s ~J Ti ek ~x - - of 9 ~ DAN S c H N K _ D; 7 ;z!36z7 116P5 Q _ W? -3 /v fL L' .(J GILS"C % u J //V L7l i / - a - 3 Al, Ilo72) dc.~ `7~ r~•r~ O't 972z~ - 1o09- s u-/ Moe- aa3 - DATE: September 9, 05 PROJECT: Longstaff 328-0:4 0 7` n 12.2_ ' ~ ~ ~r ~ 21/7' DATE: September 9, 2005 PROJECT: Lon staff 328-0''.8 AFFIDAVIT OF MAIL[ MAILING: STING NEIGHBORHOOSMEETING NOTICE 1, N~~0A(Z:7k_ , being duly sworn, depose and say that on the 7 day of uS , 20 1 caused to have mailed to each of the persons on ~thgattached list, a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (or near) t S 3S Ar- . 01Co G40k 2rj00 An z0bo 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 clGo0 SW CW, 11T. llzdp n)C with postage prepaid thereon. POSTING: address(s) and/or ti and did on the &osed for a StC ss the proposal. The sign was posted at Signature of a Notary Public) 14<_~ 1-k do affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed ?r(1 . 2'\) f~1) affecting the land located at (state the approximate location(s) IF no lot(s) currently registered) 1 S 1 35AC 0100 Z40k N 4&00 4700, day of AUQ07r . 20 _Cr4i_ personally post notice indicating that the site may be iS7PIYt8v'T 'P ylEWbpplication, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to p q' (state location you posted notice on property) Signature (In (THIS SECTION FORA STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) STATE OF VKN D h ) County of Il aLhi n j vY).) ss. Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the-21 day of 2009 OFFICIAL SEAL ELIZABETH F. RIBERA NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. A392588 M1' COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 9, 2009 TARY WE3LI OF OREGON My Commission Expires: I ant, please complete-the information below: NAME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: \(k J' T t~ = TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Address or General Location of Subject Property: 1652 O -O A Subject Property Tax Map(s) and Lot #(s): 1 C 1 5 Ar- OICt- of mailing-posting neighborhood meeting.doc ~ f -alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT August 25, 2005 RE: PROPOSED 45-unit SITE DEVELOPMENT (ATTACHED TOWNHOME-TYPE DWELLINGS) TAX MAP 1 S 1 35AC, 0100, 2401, 2500, 4600, 4700 Dear Resident: Alpha Community Development is representing the developer of the property described above. A 45-unit attached single-family residential development is proposed for this location. This property is currently zoned R-12 (range of housing types, 3,050 sq. ff. minimum lot size). Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary approvals, we would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. The purpose of this meeting is to provide a forum for the applicant and surrounding property owners / residents to review the proposal and to identify issues so that such . issues may be considered before the formal application is turned in to the City. You are invited to attend a meeting on: September 9,2005,6:30 p.m. Plaza West Building Suite 230 9600 SW Oak Street Portland, OR 97223 E Please note that this will be an informal meeting on preliminary development plans. ° These plans may..be-.altered _prior to the. application, to-the City. Depending on the type U of land use action required, you may also receive future notice from the City of Tigard for you to either participate with written comments and/or an opportunity to attend a public hearing. E Should you have any questions regarding this proposal, please call me at 503-452-8003. E o Sincerely, a. Jeff Vanderdasson, P.E. • Project Manager enclosures Plaza West, Suite 230, 9600 SW Oak, Portland, Oregon 97223 [T] 503-452-8003 [Fl 503-452-8043 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM AREA NOWRED (504') u07161111a1 0110Ua11o0 U1301000:80 llusnaaoo 1511501100100 1313511186419 nnsuonn unsu6o1o1 wnuu166 111753010101 1sOS011n11 FOR: John Marquart RE: I S 135AC; 100/2500/. 4600/4700 Property owner inforrnation is valid for 3 months from the date printed on this map. Soo A N 0 100 200 300 Peet 1'= 251 feet v I L City of Tigard Informallon on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Developmeal Services Division 13125 SW c Tigard, O (503) 03 Community Development oI + + . • a.._ 0 0000 0o lit SOS 00 01100111106 "IMBI00o0 nt 0000 Do UUIN04108 onsum 0000001101 SUS0804300 tS00011/00o 000000060 750tott 701180100 uiaean 001ua1ot ontOt100o 120totnaao 5610o16 L1J 0010/11100 uu50mlloo n10501600a0 • 0 FREQUENTLY ASKED - - NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING QUESTIONS City of Tigard CO-Viity Oeveropmmt SFrap*A settercom=mity 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 Happens 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. For all types of applications, property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcels receive notice of ublic hearing (if applicable), notice of the decision, and are given the opportunity to appeal the eips i o n. 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 recision, is reviewed .based on compliance with the Tigard Development Code. Review the. development code to. familiarise 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. is\curpl n\juli a\cifinfo2. doc 70.ollowing is a list of questions developed by a subgroup of the Citizen Involvement Team. These questions are intended to aid you in 'formulating your own questions for proposed development in your area. Feel free to ask more or alter the questions to address your own unique concerns and interests. PROCESS What applications are you (the developer) appiying for? When. do you expect to submit the application(s) so that neighbors can review it? What changes or additions are expected prior to submittal? Will the decision on the application be made by City Staff, Hearings Officer; Planning Commission or City Council? How long is the process? (timing)/ At what point in the process are citizens given notice and the opportunity to provide input? Has a pre-application conference been held with City of Tigard Staff? ✓ Have any preliminary requirements been addressed or have any critical issues been identified? ✓ What City Planner did you speak with regarding this project? (This person is generally the Planner assigned to the land use case and-the one to contact for additional information). STREETS Will there be a traffic study done? What are the preliminary traffic impacts anticipated as a result of the development and how -do you propose to mitigate the impacts if necessary? Wat street improvements (including sidewalks) are proposed? What connections to existing streets are proposed? Are streets proposed to be public or private? What are the proposed street and sidewalk widths? What are the emergency access requirements and what is proposed to meet those requirements? ',ONING AND DENSITY ► What is the current zoning? What uses are allowed under this zoning? Will there be a re-zone requested by the developer'? if yes, to what zone? How many units are proposed for the development and what is the minimum and maximum density allowed in the zone? 1RAINAGE AND WATER QUALU What is your erosion control and drainage plan What is the natural slope of the property? What are the grading plans? Is there a water quality facility planned within the development and where will it be located? Who will own and .maintain the facility? REES AND LANDSCAPING' Oat are the tree removal plans and what is proposed to mitigate for trees removed? What are the landscaping plans? What buffering or fencing is required and/or proposed? 1S135AC-00100 . 1S135DB-06500 • ABRAMS DAVID CHRISTOPHER BASIL R AND PO BOX 19087 BELINDA L PORTLAND, OR 97280 9460 SW NORTH DAKOTA TIGARD, OR 97223 35AC-025 1S135DB-08700 ABR AVID CLUNIE PAUL G & KARLA Y PO X 087 9325 SW NORTH DAKOTA P RTLAND, OR 97280 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 135AC-0470 1 S135DB-04101 AB M AVID A COOPER KIMBERLEY A PO 19087 11300 SW 92ND AVE PORTLA , OR 97280 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 35AC-04600 1 S135AC-02700 AVID A DAVIES ELIZABETH A E87 52 10840 SW 95TH AVE , , OR 97280 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S135AC-01700 1S135DB-10000 ANDERSEN VIRGINIA S DAVIS BARBARA J REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 9405 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST 10970 SW 95TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 4 35DA-04400 A 1 S135AD-01401 RNETT DONALD R & NINA DAVIS EUGENE L & VIVIAN M 9055 SW NORTH DAKOTA 10875 SW 89TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S135CA-00307 1 135AC-0010 BEACON HILL PARTNERS LLC V ENE L & VIVIAN M 7831 SE LAKE RD #200 ~A 8 W H AVE PORTLAND, OR 97267 ARD, OR 9 23 1S135DB-07800 -0140 BRYAN TROY R & BRENDA D NE L & VIVIAN >AE 9115 SW NORTH DAKOTA 9TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 , OR 223 1S135BD-00500 1S135AC-04800 CANDA MARY E DAVIS GENE L & VIVIAN M 10865 SW 95TH AVE 10875 SW 89TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S135DB-10800 1S135CA-00102 ONG BENTON L DEAN JOHN W & LUAUNA M 0 SW 91ST CT 11115 SW 95TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND. C)R 57223 IS135DB-08500 • 1S135DB-07900 EBBERT NANCY M & GRAHAM JASON ALAN & JOYCE M EBBERT ERNEST E 9125 SW NORTH DAKOTA 9205 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST TIGARD, OR 97223 ARD, OR 97223 1 S135DB-07300 1 S135DB-10300 EMORY JESSE B & GRIMES DEBRA E LEIGH A 11094 SW 95TH AVE 11280 SW 94TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97223 1S1351313-10700 1S135136-09700 ERDMAN LEE A & DARCY D GUTIERREZ JOEL PENA 11070 SW 95TH AVE 11125 SW.93RD AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S135DB-06600 1S135DB-10200 ESTES ALICE L HAHN DAVID GERALD 9430 SW NORTH DAKOTA 11140 SW 95TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 135 DB-12500 1 S135DB-04400 ESTRADA KAREN GAY HANSON PAUL C 9269 SW NORTH DAKOTA ' 11315 SW 92ND AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 35AC-04901 1 S135BD-00700 00REIGN MISSION FOUNDATION HARING JACK 10875 SW 89TH AVE PO BOX 65387 TIGARD, OR 97223 VANCOUVER, WA 98665 1 135AC-0490 1 S135D6 04300 FO ISSION FOUNDATION HELLWEGE GARY A & PATRICIA J 1087 89TH AVE 11285 SW 92ND AVE T ARD, O 7223 TIGARD, OR 97223 . 1 135AC-03801 1 S135DB-07600 FO IG SSION FOUNDATION HERGERT AARON & AMY 1087 89TH AVE 9330 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST T - ARD, 0 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 135AC-028 1 S 135DB-08300 FO !G ISSION FOUNDATION HOFFMAN DIANNA C 108 89TH AVE 9165 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST T ARD, O 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S135DA-02603 1S135OB-08900 0ULARTE JEAN E HUNTER NORMAN G JR 5 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST 6785 SW 175TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 BEAvEF i Oiv, C)R ;-vG7 1S135CA-00201 • 1S135DS-08000 HUNTLEY RUTH LEO VICTOR & EILEEN AND 11025 SW 95TH AVE LEO JOHNSON & ELLA PORTLAND, OR 97223 1325 SE 9TH AVE • PORTLAND, OR 97214 1 S135CA-00202 1 S135DB-00200 HUTH TIMOTHY D LOFTUS LAURA & 10995 SW 95TH AVE WILHELM CLARE TIGARD, OR 97223 11275 SW 90TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S135DB-10500 1S13013-07500 JOHNSON CHRISTOPHER W LUND CHERI A 11090 SW 95TH AVE 11240 SW 94TH CT TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S135CA-00200 1S135DB-08200 JOHNSON MONIQUE MCFADDEN GEORGIA J 11055 SW 95TH AVE 7595 SW SPRUCE ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S135AD-01600 1 S135CA-00203 KAULUWAI CORPORATION MEYER JEREMY S & CARRIE R 2445-A MAKIKI HEIGHTS DRIVE 10965 SW 95TH AVE HONOLULU, HI 96822 TIGARD, OR 97223 35DA-0390 1S135DB-11700 W CORPORATION MEZENTSEV ALEKSANDR M & 244 KIKI HEIGHTS DRIVE OTROKHOVA MIRA M NOLULU, 1 96822 11285 SW 91ST CT PORTLAND, OR 97223 1S135DB-04200 1S135DB-10600 KILLION JACK T JR & MICHAELIS CLAYTON W SR AND BEVERLY ARLENE L 11270 SW 92ND AVE 11076 SW 95TH PORTLAND, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S135DB-09500 1S135DB-09900 LACAN MANUEL MOBLEY RICHARD L BERTHA 11175 SW 93RD AVE 9385 SW NORTH DAKOTA TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S135DB-06800 1S135DB-08100 LACY JON R AND JANELLE A MONCHEK PETER & KARIN 11265 SW 94TH 2241 PORTSMITH WAY TIGARD, OR 97223 SAN MATEO, CA 94403 1S135BD-00400 1S135DA-02600 ROBERT M & NADARAJAH DEVAYANI qSO SANDIE 8623 SW HAMLET ST 12555 SW NORTH DAKOTA I iGr1RD, (rk 6722:j PORTLAND, OR 97223 1 S135DB-11600 IS 135DB-10900 • NELSON LINDSAY R RENFRO-GREENFIELD RENEE 11301 SW 91ST CT 11266 SW 91ST CT TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 • 1 S135DB-10400 1 S135DB-08800 OLLISON RANDY L & ROAKE MARIE E & CINDY A ROAKE JEFF S 11100 SW 95TH AVE 11160 SW 93RD AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S135AC-04200 1S135DB-10100 ORLAND LTD - SALQUENETTII BONNIE & JEREMY BY KENTON R BARNES 11160 SW 95TH AVE 222 SW COLUMBIA ST #1625 TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97201 1S135AC-02600 1S135DA-02702 OSBORN•'JOYCE M SCANNELLA NORMA A & THOMAS M 10860 SW 95TH AVE 11230 SW 90TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S135DA-02602 1 S135DB-00100 PALACIOS DIONICIO MELCHOR SCHAFFER HARRY E & 9025 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST LILLIAN E TRS TIGARD, OR 97223 11245 SW 90TH TIGARD, OR 97223 5DB-11000 0 1 S135DB-11800 LAS DIANE E L SCHENDEL WILLIAM M JR. 11280 SW 91ST CT 11277 SW 91 ST AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 16,1Q3 5 D B - 1 270 1S135DB-08400 PAR PLAT 1995-084 OWNERS SCHENK DANIEL LIVING TRUST OF S BY SCHENK DANIEL J TR 7115 SW VIRGINIA PORTLAND, OR 97219 1S135DB-11100 1S135BD-00300 PETERSON MICHAEL B & SHADY LANE PROPERTIES LLC LOUIE TINA L ATTN: BENJAMIN SCHWARTZ MD 11292 SW 91ST CT 9735 SW SHADY LANE #100 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S135DB-06700 1S13013-12600 PRICE JURREL L & SHERRY M SHANNON RICHARD 0 & DUSTY D 11245 SW 94TH AVE 9237 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST PORTLAND. OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S135AC-05000 1 S135DB-09000 ICK CLIFFORD RAY SPRINGSTEAD WADE A AND I40 SW 95TH AVE LINDA S TIGARD, OR 97229 i JVY 8J vvv-- TIGARD, OR 97223 1S135DB-09300 • 1S135AC-05100 STONEKING RAYMOND D AND WINDSOR PROPERTIES LTD GERALDINE J PO BOX 647 1040 CEDAR ST HILLSBORO, OR 97123 0 KE OSWEGO, OR 97034 1S135DB-09800 1S135CA-00103 SULLIVAN SHELLEY WOOLSEY MARK D AND PATRICIA E 11095 SW 93RD AVE 11085 SW 95TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S135BD-00600 1S135DB-11900 TERPENING PAULINE T ZHOU SU & 37826 M J CHASE RD' MCFARLAND DAVID SPRINGFIELD, OR 97478 11263 SW 91ST CT TIGARD, OR 97223 1S135AC-02400 THOMASTON ARLIS 9425 SW LONGSTAFF ST TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S135DB-07400 TRUAIR RYAN R & TONYA G 11260 SW 94TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 35DB-09600 ASQUEZ SERGIO MARTINEZ 11155 SW 93RD CT TIGARD, OR 97223 1S135DB-09400 WASHINGTON COUNTY LUT CPM DIV R/W SECTION 1400 SW WALNUT ST MS 18 HILLSBORO, OR 97123 1S135DB-12400 WHIPP CHAD J 9293 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST TIGARD, OR 97223 1S135DA-04500 WILLSON KERRY T & VICKIE A 19640 SW SOUTHVIEW ALOHA, OR 97007 1S135DA-04000 DSOR PROPERTIES LTD I5 NE CORNELL RD HILLSBORO, OR 97124 Nathan and Ann Murdock PO Box 231265 *ard, OR 97281 Sue Rorman 11250 SW 82nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci 11285 SW 78th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Michael Trigoboff 7072 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Brad Spring 7555 SW Spruce Street .Tigard, OR 97223 .---Alexander_Craghead 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6210 David Chapman 9840 SW Landau Place Tigard, OR 97223 John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 CPO 4B 16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242 Tigard, OR 97224 M 44M /hitinn 8122 SW Spruce Tigard; OR 97223 Gretchen Buehner 13249 SW 136111 Place Tigard, OR 97224 Mildren Design Group Attn: Gene Mildren 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 rrrv Ar: Tir.QRn - FACT INTFRPUM PARTIPC ~i \riirnln~cotim\laha!¢\('IT E3st.doc\ UPDATED: 2-Jun-05 uo-LL- Wj -LVJ,. ZlJ rrSut'1- CITY OF TIGARQ • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD SITIGARD, OREGON 97223 PHONE: 503-639-4171 Rk 503.694-7247 (Attw Patty/Planning) 0 CITY OF TIGARD Commurdty Deveropmettt .9he piv.9 oettcr("Ommunity EMU pffiffiff@W N@W@wm mum gff__j Property owner information is valid for 3 months from the date of your request INDICATE ALL PROJECT MAP & TAX LOT NUMBERS (i.e,1S134AB, Tax Lot 00100) OR THE ADDRESSES FOR ALL PROJECT PARCELS BELOW: IS 1 AC IC's MCA Z,'._ 10 qqa zo?~ ~1-~:~Oc7 "lCr.~ PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ONLY 1 SET OF LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED AT THIS TIME FOR HOLDING YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. After submitting your land use application to the City, and the pro ect planner has reviewed your application for completeness, you will be notified by means of an incompleteness letter to obtain your 2 final sets of labels. The 2 final sets of labels need to be placed on envelopes with, first class letter-rate postage on the envelopes in the form of postage stamps (nq metered envelopes and no return address) and resubmitted to the City for'the purpose of providing notice to property owners of the proposed land use application and the decision. The 2 sets of envelopes n'iust be kept separate. The person listed below will ~e called to pick up and pay for the labels when they are ready. NAME OF CONTACT PERSON: -304M IY1LPc-)-o P-" PHONE: 1~s2 - ate.: This request may be mailed, faxed or hand delivered to the City of Tigard. Please allow a 2-day minimum for processing requests. Upon completion of your request, the contact person will be called to pick up their request that will be placed in Will Call' by their last name, at the Community Development Reception Desk. Thec lest of processing your request must be paid at the time of pick up, as exact cost can not be pie dc rmined. PLEASE NOTE: FOR REASONS OF ACCURACY, ONLY ORIGINAL MAILING LABELS PROVIDED BY THE CITY VS. RE-TYPED MAILING LABELS WILL BE ACCEPTED. Cali Qescri tion: $11 to generate the inailing list, plus $2 per Sheet for printing the list onto labels (20 addresses per sheet). Then, multiply the cost to print one sot of labels by the number of sets requested. '*EXAMPLE* COST FOR THIS REQUEST .4_ sheets of NN-Is x $2/sheet = K -L0 x 2 sets = $16,00 ,6shcot(s) of labels x $Vsheot &X _ sets - sheets of labcis x $21sheet for interested parties x 1 s(?ts= $ 4.00 shoot(s) of labels x $2/sheet for interested pat lies - $ L-:It ,x-, sets _ , ,Gd1j - GENERAI~ LIS1 GENERATE UST = $11..Q0 TOTAL. _ $31.00 /,1~/ f01AL $ I • • 0 Longstaff SDR • Impact Statement 0 November 14, 2005 al p h a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT STATEMENT for: Longstaff Site Development Purpose The purpose of this Impact Study is to review existing public facilities and address any proposed modifications that will help mitigate the proportionate project impacts that will likely occur as a result of development. Some of the necessary facilities to serve this site are currently in place in SW 95th Avenue. Additional needed services will be provided by new construction within the site. The transportation, storm water, sanitary, water and private utility systems are or will be made available and adequate upon development in the immediate site vicinity. Transoortafion System One private street, with a paved width measuring 24 feet, will serve as the site development's means of auto access. Internally, three additional private streets also measuring 24 feet will provide access to all residential units. When completed, this private street system will provide direct access from the Longstaff site development to SW 95th Avenue, a neighborhood route, to the west and link to the existing transportation network. The site does not currently enjoy direct transit access with the nearest bus service running along Greenburg Road roughly 0.25 mile west of the site. Tri-Met routes 76 (Beaverton-Tualatin) and 78 (Beaverton-Lake Oswego) stop at North Dakota Street and Cascade Avenue. The Washington Square Transit Center is located at the north side of the Washington Square mall nearby. Routes 43, 45, 56 and 62 also serve the TC. Existing SW 95th / Shady Lane right-of-way varies, measuring between 40 and 50 feet in E width. Half-street dedication to 27 feet from centerline will occur and improvements will be constructed to City of Tigard standards throughout the length of the planned development, roughly 1.17.48 feet. Pavement will be widened to 16 feet from centerline, 6 inch curb will be installed, 5 foot planter strip will be created adjacent to curb, and five 5 foot sidewalk will be installed. Vehicle parking is expected to be permitted on one side of the public street. E E o Sanitary Sewer System ro Sanitary sewer service will be provided to each residential unit via installation of a new 8 inch sewer fine within the site which ties into existing sewer within SW 95th Avenue. ° Individual lateral connections to the sewer will be provided to all residential buildings. Sanitary sewer mainline will be installed to the northerly side of the existing wetland buffer. This will provide the ability for extension southward upon future development to the south. Plaza West, Suite 230, 9600 SW Oak, Portland, Oregon 97223 [T] 503-452-8003 [F] 503-452-8043 Drainage Systems Storm / surface water drainage facilities will be provided via installation of new a catch basin and 12 inch piped system within the site which ties into existing sewer within SW 95th Avenue. The applican't's proposal to direct storm flow to the north and west into the improved sewer in SW 951h is being done in an effort to avoid the sensitive area in the southern end of the site. The proposed storm facilities will be constructed in compliance with Resolution 91-47 whereby; Clean Water Services and the City of Tigard have agreed to enforce Surface Water Management regulations requiring the construction of said facilities. Water Systems Domestic water service to each residential unit in the Longstaff site development will be provided by installing new 6 and 4 inch water line within the site which ties into existing TV Water District line within SW 95th Avenue. Individual lateral connections to the water line will be provided to all residential buildings. Installation of a new hydrant is proposed on the south side of private street "A" at stn 3+04 to provide fire suppression services. Noise Impacts No negative noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this planned. Noise levels, and other potential nuisances, generated would be typical of a small residential district. Parks System The Longstaff site development does not call for dedicated neighborhood parks. However, a large wetland and forested area measuring 62,463 square feet will be preserved in its natural state on-site, and a 50 foot vegetated corridor / buffer zone will also be created adjacent to the wetland area. This natural open space measures well over 80,000 square feet, and may be enjoyed as passive recreation area for the residents. The proposed site development includes an internal pedestrian path system which terminates at the entry to the vegetated corridor % buffer zone, providing easy access to the passive recreation area. While passive recreational opportunity exists within the site, as described above, additional recreation opportunities exist within roughly 1.5 miles at Woodard Park and Englewood Park. The Fanno Creek Trail may also be accessed nearby at SW North Dakota Street, roughly 0.75 mile west of the site. Jeff Vanderdasson, P.E. Alpha Community Development, Project Manager 0 9 • • Sight Distance Certification • 9 Longstaff SDR November 14, 2005 alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE CERTIFICATION Date: November 15, 2005 TIGARD, OREGON Engineering Division 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Proposed Abrams Development - Preliminary Sight Distance Certificate The access for this roposal is located 10 feet south of the site's northerly property line intersecting SW 95 Avenue. The speed limit along SW 95th Avenue is 25 M.P.H., based upon the posted speed limit, requiring 250 feet of sight distance in both directions. Required stopping sight distance would be 155'. As required by code, sight distance from the proposed access was measured to be 205 feet to the north of the intersection and 250+ feet to the south of the access. These Code Sections respectively require that measurements be based on an eye height of 3.5 feet and an object height of 4.25 feet above the road; and be assumed to be 10 feet from the near edge of pavement to the front of a stopped vehicle. (Actual measurement is taken 15 feet from pavement edge). Sight distance to the north is limited by a 90-degree bend in the road. The only way to improve sight distance would be to remove trees in the creek corridor. Stopping sight distance would be met in the northerly direction. E 0 U E E 0 U rII a ra In conclusion, I hereby certify that the preliminaryintersection sight distance to the south of the proposed access for Abrams Development conforms to requirements and that northerly sight distance meets the criteria for stopping sight distance. Alpha Community Development • Renews 6-30-05 3. Plaza West, Suite 230, 9600 SW Oak, Portland, Oregon 97223 [T] 503-452-8003 [f] 503-452-8043 • • • Longstaff SDR • Clean Water Services • November l4, 2005 - File Number s : ,►71 - -.--33ir;carriiutiuz~E's cl~eerr} r<<R 054)04325 Clean Water Services • Service Provider Letter o-, Jurisdiction Washington County Date December 20, 2005 Map $ Tax Lot 1S135AC-00100, 02500, 04600, Owner David Abrams ° z Site Address 04700 10890 SW 95th Av Applicant ALPHA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Turd, OR 97223-6510 Address 9600 SW Oak St Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 Proposed Activity 43 unit condominiums Phone (503) 452-8003 This form and the attached conditions will serve as your Service Provider Letter in accordance with Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (R80 04-9). . . YES NO YES NO . . - Natural Resources Assessment (NRA) - F _x] F - - Altematives Analysis Required ❑ Eil u Submitted (Section 3.02.6) District Site Visit Date: F-1 Tier 1 Alternatives Analysis D a Concur with NRA/or submitted Information F-1 5~1 Tier 2 Alternatives Analysts 1:1 Eil • Sensitive Area Present On-Site FX] Tier 3 Alternatives Analysis ❑ EK - Sensitive Area Present Off-Site - - X ~ El _ _ - Vegetated Corridor a Avera in ❑ X g g Vegetated Corridor Present On-Site X ~ El Vegetated Corridor ~ Miti ation Re d i ❑ X g qu re 0o Width of Vegetated Corridor (feet) so feet - On-Site Mitigation ❑ EK M Lr> _ Condition of Vegetated Corridor . Good Off-Site Mitigation Ej il LL_j w Enhancement Required Invasive species removal a a - - - - - - Planting Plan Attached -El - - - ,Lu 3 Encroachment into Vegetated Corridor 7 [K E nhancemenUrestoration Con current with letion date site com (Section 3.02.4) p develop ment. z u.., Type and Square Footage None authorized under of Encroachment this SPL Geotechnlcal Report required FX a - Allowed Use (Section 3.02.4) 7 ~X Condltlons Attached a El - - - 0 0 N N Page 1 of 4 C CO • File Number \ 05004325 M This Service Provider Letter does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect • water quality sensitive areas If they are subsequently discovered on your property, CX> 00 o . 0 z In order to comply with Clean Water Services (the District) water quality protection requirements the project must comply with the following conditions: 1. No structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, uncontalned areas of hazardous materials as defined by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, pet wastes, dumping of materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted within the sensitive area which may negatively impact water quality, except those allowed by Section 3.023. No structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, uncontained areas of hazardous materials as defined by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, pet wastes, dumping of materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted within the vegetated corridor which may negatively impact water quality, except those allowed by Section 3.02.4. 3. Prior to any site clearing, grading or construction the vegetated corridor and water quality sensitive areas shall be surveyed, staked, and temporarily fenced per approved plan. During construction the vegetated corridor shall remain fenced and undisturbed except as allowed by Section 3.02.5 and per approved plans. 4. Prior to any activity within the sensitive area, the applicant shall gain authorization for the project from • the Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) and US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). The applicant shall provide the District or its designee (appropriate city) with copies of all DSL and USACE project authorization permits, None proposed at this time. 5. An approved Oregon Department of Forestry Notification is required for one or more trees harvested for sale, trade, or barter, on any non-federal lands within the State of Oregon. O7 6. Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's) for Erosion Control, In accordance with the CWS Erosion Control Technical Guidance Manual shall be used prior to, during, and following earth disturbing activities. M 7. Prior to construction, a Stormwater Connection Permit from the District or its designee is required pursuant to Ordinance 27, Section 4.B. LLJ U 8. The District or City/County may require an easement over the vegetated corridor conveying storm, w surface water management, and/or sanitary sewer rights to the District or City that would prevent the owner of the vegetated corridor from activities and uses inconsistent with the purpose of the corridor w and any easements therein. d 3 9. Activities located within the 100-year floodplain shall comply with Section 3.13 of R80 04-9. z Q 10. Removal of native, woody vegetation shall be limited to the greatest extent practicable. U 11. Removal of invasive non-native species by hand is required in all vegetated corridors rated "good". Replantina is required in any cleared areas larger than 25 square feet. a M • 12. Should final development plans differ significantly from those submitted for review by the District, the applicant shall provide updated drawings, and if necessary, obtain a revised Service Provider Letter. 0 0 N N Page 2 of 4 • File Number 05-004325 SPECIAL CONDITIONS 00 00 0 13. The vegetated corridor width for sensitive areas within the project site shall be a minimum of 50 Beet z wide, as measured horizontally from the delineated boundary of the sensitive area. 14. For vegetated corridors 50 feet wide or greater, the first 50 feet closest to the sensitive area shall be equal to or better than a "good" corridor condition as defined in Section 3.02.7, Table 3.2. 15. Clean Water Services shall be notified 72 hours prior to the start and completion of enhancement/restoration activities. Enhancement/restoration activities shall comply with the guidelines provided in landscape Requirements (R&0 04-9: Appendix D). 16. Prior to installation of plant materials, all invasive vegetation within the vegetated corridor shall be removed. During removal of invasive vegetation care shall be taken to minimize impacts to existing native trees and shrub species. 17. Prior to any site clearing, grading or construction, the applicant shall provide the District with the required vegetated corridor enhancement/restoration plan in compliance with R&O 04-9. 18. Maintenance and monitoring requirements shall comply with Section 2.11.2 of R&O 04-9. If at any time during the warranty period the landscaping fails below the 80% survival level, the Owner shall reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity and the two year maintenance period shall begin again from the date of replanting. 019. Performance assurances for the vegetated corridor shall comply with Section 2.06.2, Table 2-1 and Section 2.10, Table 2-2. 20. For any developments, which create multiple parcels or lots Intended for separate ownership, the District may require that the sensitive area and vegetated corridor be contained in a separate tract and subject to a "STORM SEWER, SURFACE WATER, DRAINAGE AND DETENTION EASEMENT Cz> OVER ITS ENTIRETY" to be granted to the city or Clean Water Services. M 21. The water quality swale and detention pond shall be planted with District approved native species, 00 and designed to blend into the natural surroundings. M O Lf7 C/D W V W C/O Ck= W Q Z Q W J V C1 M is CONDITIONS TO BE INCLUDED ON CONSTRUCTION PLANS Ca 0 0 CV N Page 3 of 4 CjO d0 O 00 ao 0 0 z • File Number 05-004325 22. Final construction plans shall include landscape plans. Plans shall include in the details a description of the methods for removal and control of exotic species, location, distribution, condition and size of plantings, existing plants and trees to be preserved, and installation methods for plant materials. Plantings shall be tagged for dormant season identification. Tags to remain on plant material after planting for monitoring purposes. 23. A Maintenance Plan shall be included on final plans including methods, responsible party contact information, and dates (minimum two times per year, by June 1 and September 30). 24. Final construction plans shall clearly depict the location and dimensions of the sensitive area and the vegetated conrldor (indicating good, marginal, or degraded condition). Sensitive area boundaries shall be marked In the field. 25. Protection of the vegetated corridors and associated sensitive areas shall be provided by the installation of permanent fencing and signage between the development and the outer limits of the vegetated corridors. Fencing details to be included on final construction plans. This Service Provider Letter is not valid unless CWS-approved site plan 1s attached. call X503) 6813613 with any questions. sey ` Environmental an Attachments (1) 07 M d- d- 00 CO M O ~[7 CA W V l' W C/J W d 3 Z Q W J V d M CO O O N N Page 4 of 4 Oct • 12. 2 0050 2' 26PMPM CLEAN 10 11 WATE~RU SERVICES 5 3 6814439 No y5651 V. P. ,2 t ° OCT 0 7 2005 %i File Number 5_00q Clean%ker\ LO Our commitment is clear Sensve Area Pre,Screening Site Assessment Jurisdiction Date _ 0/1 /05 Map b Tax Lot Owners Applicant v Site Address Company _I Ra Address Proposed Activity AA_ AP, AM2L CtW City State 21p SRS ~JEI~ P Phone ~3) O - - Fair i!5o3) 452 - By submitting this form the Owner, or Owner's authorized agent or representative, acknowledges and agrees that employees.of Clean Water Services have authority to enter the project she at all reasonable tines for the purpose of inspecting project site cond-pions and gathering information related to the project site. owl Use brier 11W line OllikdaFw en below" fine OE use enlp be,&-- oft NM Y N NA Y N NA Sensitiv a Co posits map Storm ater Infrastructure maps 2"1 ❑ ❑ Map ~ "I❑ ❑ Q as >x 20 Locally adopted studies or maps ~~~~~y/'~,~ Other ❑ ❑ [Z specify W40 ❑ ❑ specify aa'~I o t ! Based on a review of the above informlation and the requirements of Clean Wafer Services Design and Construction Standards Resolution and Order No. 049: Sensitive areas potentially exist on site or within 200' of the site. THE APPLICANT MUST PERFORM A SITE CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SERVICE PROVIDER. If Sensitive Areas exist on the oft 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 orans if they am subsequently discovered. This document will serve as your Service Provider letter as required by Resolution and Order 0449, Section 3.02.1. All required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable focal, state, and federal law. ❑ The proposed actlvlly does not meet the definition of development NO SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS REQUIRED. Reviewer Comments: Reviewed By: Oats: , O• OS 0--ir Fox Note 7671 tae ► Official use only „ rem J r i~'a►rt Moil F= Counter _ ceJOs co, CWT Lute Phaft r 1151-~l~l~ P001/016 i tFrTTVED 10-12-` 05 14:46 FROM- 5038463525 TO- 0 • -a I h a p • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT November 8, 2005 Alexis Casey Clean Water Services 2550 SW Hillsboro Hwy. Hillsboro, OR 97123 RE: 'Pre-Screening. Assessment 05-004325 Dear Ms. Casey: Pursuant to the above mentioned Pre-Screen, please find enclosed for consideration the following materials: • Sensitive Areas Certification Form and exhibit (full-size and reduced) • Natural Resource Assessment/Wetland Delineation Report • plan set as submitted to Tigard for land use review (full-size and reduced) You will note that,the proposed 43-unit condominium site development does not propose to encroach into either the wetland area or north vegetated corridor. Similarly, no activity is proposed in, or south of, the south vegetated corridor. Runoff from the internal private street system will be shed northward away from the sensitive areas and collected via catch basin and piped system. Thank you for your assistance in reviewing this case - we look forward to the issuance of a Provider letter. If you should have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (503) 452-8003 or E jem@alphacommunity.com. a Sincerely, `r ALPHA COMMUNITY D V ENT E E John Marquart 0 Staff 11 Planner a M i Plaza West, Suite 230, 9600 SW Uak, Portland, Oregon 97223 M 503-452-8003 [F] 503-4S2-8043 L , I CleanWater~ Serm* es File Number Our commitment is clear. Sensitive Areas Certification Form Property Owner Name n~q t-mau Applicant Name ALM CQMVJtJ Ctrl ISIELJRNI 1T ~Q_N MA nU4Zr eaa.e..e City/Stateop • Project Location Street, road, or other desc d ' II~ocation X4n SW g5pA A\F r=T AL T~kf2Di 012 Legal Description: Quarter Section 'r Township ' S Rang In or near(dty_or town) ,County 7 _ r±t Tax Lot # Waterway River Mile Latl* Lon itude t ~rl o 4V tie w Adjacent Property Information: Street, road, or other descriptive location Legal Description: Quarter DB Section 35 Township Range t In or no TrA&V w . or town) County Tax S Map D `Tax Lot 0M SA. MOD ~CX~ l Waterway River Mile Latitude l a Longitude ,y:,-o 7_c 12T VJ 25550 SW Hillsboro Highway 9 Hillsboro. Oregon 97123 t-mall rv~uanM •cotM ieM~CA( LbOUCp9V1 He Number An on-site, water-quality-sensitive area reconnaissance was completed on: Doe By lm 'Q66D I Title Company vaef 71A0105 C.- nn~t WM-aM Lk~tAMD !a--IE►snst SW-CA SW tQo>,1M CAt~~)LT~JLS A. Existence of Water-Quality-Sensitive Areas As efined in the District's Design and Construction Standards, water-quality-sensitive areas: do ❑ do not exist on site (check appropriate box). do ❑ do not exist within 200' on adjacent properties, or unable to evaluate adjacent property (check appropriate box). • If water-quality-sensitive areas exist, complete Section B below. • If water-quality-sensitive areas do not exist, skip Section B, sign this form and submit to the District with plan approval package. • B. Types of Water-Quality-Sensitive Areas The type(s) of water-quality-sensitive area(s) that occur on site or within 200 ft on adjacent properties are (check all that apply): eland(s) ❑ spring(s) ❑ intermittent stream(s) ❑ perennial stream(s) ❑ ponds Sign this form and submit to the District with plan approval package and one (1) copy of the Natural Resources Assessment Report (information available through the District). • The Natural Resources Assessment Report includes: • Wetland Delineation Report per DSL / Corps reporting requirements (If wetlands present). • Vegetated corridor documentation meeting the requirements of CWS Design and Construction Standards, Chapter 3 and Appendix C. • C. Area of Vegetated Corridor nkzcu comDoQ 3t°l a~ . Outer length of Vegetated Corridor on-site 5x7Tm CAQRIDoI? $43.7 Average width of Vegetated Corridor on-site t oy G e t 17,703-5.F Total square feet of Vegetated Corridor on-site =Wa ' ZZ A2.1 S,F By signing this form the Owner, or Owners authorized agent or representative, acknowledges and agrees that employees of Clean Water Services have authority t0 enter the project site at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting project site conditions and gathering information related to the project site. I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this document, and to the pest of my knowledge and belief, this lnformaOon is true, complete, and accurate. Applicant: Print/Type Name Pdnt/Type Title HCKN- KLM 1k17/oN Signature Date' 2550 SW Hiftbom Highway • Hiftbom, Oregon 97123 Phone: (503) 681-5100 9 Fax (503) 661-4139 • www.6=awguoyuig".o.R i r qy alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9600 SW Oak, Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 M M3452-SOM M SM-452-M www.alphocommuNly.com REVISIONS NO. DATE DESCRIPTION ABRAMS PROPERTY SCALE 40 20 40 so 7 N o GO FT H:~arm CwS echw.dwB• SHEEIT22LN Novas. 2W5. 4:24Pe lem SITE PLAN/ SENSITIVE AREAS CERTIFICATION EXHIBIT alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.: 326-8 TYPE: PLANNING DATE: 1 /1 • • • Natural Resource Assessment 0 0 Longstaff SDR November 14, 2005 sw(c:lp . • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS is "RAMS PROPERTY WETLAND DELINEATION AND NATURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT T1S, R1W, SECTION 35, TAX LOTS 1009 2500, 4600 and 4700 . TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON • Prepared for: Casa Terra LLC 9600 SW Oak, Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 Prepared by: SWCA Environmental Consultants Portland Office 434 NW 6th Avenue, Suite 304 Portland, Oregon 97209-3652 September 2005 SWCA Project 9810-203 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1 1.1 Study Area Boundary 2 1.2 Local Wetlands Inventory 2 1.3 National Wetlands Inventory 2 1.4 Soil Survey 2 1.5 Site Elevation and Topography 2 1.6 Floodplain .......................:........................................:..............................................2 1.7 Precipitation ...........................................................................................................2 1.8 Previous Wetland Delineations 3 2 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................3 3 WETLANDS 4 4 UPLANDS ..........................................................................................................................4 5 VEGETATED CORRIDOR 5 6 CONCLUSION 5 7 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................6 8 LIST OF PREPARERS 6 9 REFERENCES 6 APPENDICES 13 Appendix A: Local Wetlands Inventory Map and Summary Sheet i i h nat on Data S eets Appendix B: Wetland Determ Appendix C: Site Photographs Appendix D: Vegetation Table Appendix E: Vegetated Corridor Data Sheets and CWS Table TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1. Site Location Map 8 Figure 2. Tax Lot Map 9 Figure 3. National Wetlands Inventory Map ..............................................................................10 Figure 4. Soil Survey Map .........................................................................................................11 Figure 5. Existing Conditions Map ............................................................................................12 • SWCA Environmental Consultants Project 9810-203 Page i • Abs Property Wetland Delineation September 30, 2005 • • WETLAND DELINEATION AND NATURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY SITE NAME: SITE LOCATION: LAND OWNER: DATE OF SITE VISITS: PROJECT STAFF: SWCA PROJECT: SUMMARY Abrams Property The site is located north of SW Dakota Street, east of SW 95t' Avenue, and bordered on the northeast by State Highway 217 in Tigard, Washington County, Oregon. Township IS, Range 1 W, SE %4 of Section 35 Tax map 1 S 135AC; tax lots 100, 2500, 4600 and 4700 Lat:45°26'29"N Long: 122°46'18"W David Abrams Prestige Management Corporation June 2na and July 26t, 2005 Stacey Reed, Wetland Scientist C. Mirth Walker, PWS, CWD, Senior Wetland Scientist 9810-203 The Portland Office of SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA)1, was contracted by Jerry Palmer of Casa Terra, LLC to conduct a wetland delineation for site development to meet Clean Water Services (CWS) development requirements on the approximately 4.98 acre site compromised of four tax lots. This report has also been prepared to meet the Oregon Department of State Lands wetland delineation report requirements. The on-site boundaries of one forested wetland swale, totaling approximately 1.4 acres (62,463 square feet) was delineated on tax lot 100 and professionally surveyed by Alpha Community Development (Figure 5). The wetland extends off-site to the west. No wetlands were observed on tax lots 2500, 4600, or 4700. 1 - INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION Proposed. development for the site consists of residential development. Tax lots are undeveloped and surrounded by residential development with State Highway 217 along the eastern property border. Ash Creek is located to the northwest of the site. The Portland, Oregon office of SWCA was acquired from Fishman Environmental Services in 2004. • SWCA Environmental Consultants Project 9810-203 Page 1 • AbikProperty Wetland Delineation September 30, 2005 1.1 Study Area Boundary The study area consists of tax lots 100, 2500, 4700 and 4600. on tax map 1S135AC in Washington County, Oregon (Figure 2). 1.2 Local Wetlands Inventory The site was identified as containing a 3.02 acre palustrine forest wetland, labeled Wetland C-12, in the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory Offsite Option and Wetlands Assessment, conducted by Fishman Environmental Services in 1995. The Local Wetlands Inventory Map and summary sheets are included in Appendix A. 1.3 National Wetlands Inventory No wetlands are mapped within the study area on the Beaverton, Oregon National Wetlands Inventory Map (NWI) (Figure 3). 1.4 Soil Survey Soils were mapped on the site and- the surrounding area in the Soil Survey of Washington County Area, Oregon (USDA SCS 1982; Figure 4). The poorly drained Cove silty clay loam (map unit 13) and the poorly drained Huberly silt loam (map unit 22) are mapped on tax lot 100. The somewhat poorly drained Aloha silt loam (map unit 1) is mapped over tax lots 2500, 4600 and 4700. Cove silty clay loam and Huberly soils are listed as hydric in the Hydric Soils of Washington County Area, Oregon list (USDA SCS 1989). Aloha soils may have inclusions of hydric • Huberly silt loam. 1.5 Site Elevation and Topography Elevation of the site ranges from approximately 170 to 180 feet above sea level (Figure 5). 1.6 Fooodplain The site is mapped outside of the floodplain of Ash Creek on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for Washington County, Oregon (Community Panel Map No. 410238 0509B, Effective September 30,1982). 1.7 Precipitation Rainfall for the two weeks prior to the June 2nd site visit was approximately 1 inch according to the Portland Station of the National Weather Service. Rainfall for the month of May was 4.34 inches, which is 1.96 inches above normal according to the National Weather Service's average. The precipitation received during the month of May was also above average according to the WETS Portland WB City station data historic average of 2.58 inches. Rainfall for the two weeks prior to the July 200, 2005 site visit was approximately 0.12 inches according to the National Weather Service Portland Station. Rainfall for the month of June was 2.21 inches, which is 0.62 inches above normal. Precipitation received during the month of June was also above average according to the WETS Portland WB City station data historic average of • 1.59 inches. SWCA Environmental Consultants Project 9810-203 Page 2 • Ab* Property Wetland Delineation September 30, 2005 1.8 Previous Wetland Delineations SRI/Shapiro conducted a wetland delineation on the site in September of 1994. Fishman Environmental Services conducted a wetland delineation on the site in April of 1997. Neither wetland delineations conducted on-site were submitted to agencies for review. 2 METHODOLOGY The methodology for determining the presence. of wetlands and delineating wetland boundaries follows the routine wetland determination methodology and plant community approach of the Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) used by both the Cor s and the Oregon Department of State Lands. Fieldwork was conducted on June 2"a and July 26 , 2005. Soils, vegetation and indicators of hydrology were recorded at 6 sample plot locations on tax lot 100 to document site conditions. Wetland determination data sheets are included in Appendix B. The wetland boundary and Wetland Determination Plots 1 through 6 were professionally surveyed by Alpha Community Development (Figure 5). Site photographs and a map of their location are included in Appendix C. A list of vegetation noted on the site is included in Appendix D. Reference material used in this study included Reed's National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9) and the 1993 Supplement to the list, where the indicator status of wetland plants are listed. These indicators include: OBL Obligate Wetland - Plants that occur almost always in wetlands (estimate probability >99%) under natural conditions, but which may also rarely occur in non etlands <I% probability). Examples: broadleaf cattail, skunk cabbage ACW Facultative Wetland - Plants that usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 7%-99%), but also occur in non-wetlands an estimated 1%-33% of the time. Examples: Oregon ash, red-osier dogwood AC Facultative - Plants that are equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetland estimated robabili 34%-66% .Examples: red alder, salmonberry ACU Facultative Upland - Plants that usually occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability 7-99%), but occasionally are found in wetlands (estimated probability 1%-33%). Examples.- big-leaf maple, Himalayan blackberry PL. Upland- Plants. that almost always occur in non-wetlands (<I% probability o ccurring in wetlands). I Lo Indicator insufficient information available or plant is widely tolerant). Plant taxonomy follows Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973) and synonymy follows Reed (1988); synonymy is shown in [single square brackets]. Taxonomy of some species has been updated (Kartesz 1994) and the new nomenclature is shown in [[double square brackets]]. is SWCA Environmental Consultants Project 9810-203 Page 3 • Ab* Property Wetland Delineation September 30, 2005 Soils were described with standardized color chips (Munsell Soil Color Charts, Kollmorgen • Corporation, 1998 revised washable edition) of hue, value, and chroma and by texture (sand, silt, clay, loam, muck, and peat). Other materials used in this study are included in the Reference section. 3 WETLANDS A 1.4 acre forested palustrine wetland with a seasonal water regime was delineated on tax lot 100 and extends off-site to the west. A shallowly defined intermittent drainage was observed adjacent to Plot 3 extending from the east. Water from the wetland was reported in the 1997. Fishman Wetland Determination Report to flow to the northeast through a culvert under State Highway 217 to a large palustrine emergent NWI mapped wetland and then to Ash Creek. Plots 1, 3, and 5 documented the wetland conditions. Old pink wetland boundary flagging from Fishman's 1997 field work and blue and white striped wetland flagging (mostly likely from SRI/Shapiro's 1994 field work) were observed during our field investigation. Based on our field investigations on June 2nd and July 26`x', 2005, it appears that the wetland has expanded slightly. Vegetation was dominated by an Oregon ash overstory with an understory dominated by black twinberry and red-osier dogwood in the scrub-shrub layer with slough sedge and common scouring-rush as emergent dominants along with lesser amounts of. Douglas' spiraea, reed canarygrass,. bittersweet nightshade, catchweed bedstraw, and snowberry (Photo 1). Himalayan blackberry was also dominant at Plot 3. Soils at Plots 1 and 3 were generally a very dark gray • (lOYR 3/1) muck underlain by a silty clay loam with dark brown (7.5YR 3/4 and 3/3) redox concentrations 6 inches below the surface. Soils were saturated to the surface at Plot 3, with seeps and free water at 16 inches at Plot 1. Soils at Plot 5 were a very dark gray (IOYR 3/1) silt clay loam with bare, dry, cracked soils positioned in a low lying area with water stained leaves indicating hydrology is present during the growing season (Photo 2). These plots were determined to be wetland based on the prevalence of hydrophytic vegetative species, low chroma soils with surface mottling, along with. wetland hydrology indicators of saturation and drainage patterns. The wetland boundary was defined by a slight topographic increase to the adjacent uplands along with a change in dominant vegetation from hydrophytic dominated vegetative species (generally red-osier dogwood and slough sedge) to non-hydrophytic dominated vegetative species (generally Himalayan blackberry). 4 UPLANDS Tax lots 4600 and 4700 consist of undeveloped upland forest dominated by Ponderosa Pine, Oregon ash, Oregon white oak, and sword fem. Tax lot 2500 consists of an undeveloped upland field dominated by deciduous trees, grasses, and Himalayan blackberry. is SWCA Environmental Consultants Project 9810-203 Page 4 • Abrfs Property Wetland Delineation September 30, 2005 Plots 2, 4, and 6 documents the upland conditions on tax lot 100. Dominant vegetation at all three upland Plots consisted of Oregon ash and Oregon white oak trees along with an understory dominated by Himalayan blackberry, ornamental hawthorn, black twinberry, beaked hazelnut, snowberry, sword. fern and English ivy with lesser amounts of a currant species, English holly, and a bluegrass species (Photo 3). Soils at Plots 2 and 4 contained low chroma soils with redox concentrations in the surface 10 inches, but were however only slightly moist and contained no seeps or free water. Although soils met the wetland criteria, Plots 2 and 4 were determined to be non-wetland based on a lack of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology indicators. Soils at Plot 6 were a dry, very dark grayish brown (1 OYR 3/2) silt loam with no redox concentrations present in the surface 10 inches. Plot 6 was determined to be upland based upon having a lack of predominance of hydrophytic vegetative species, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology indicators. 5 VEGETATED CORRIDOR 5.1 Vegetated Corridor Size The buffer adjacent to wetlands greater than 0.5 acre, with a less than 25% adjacent slope, is 50 feet from the wetland boundary. 5.2 Vegetated Corridor Condition Assessment The condition of the vegetated corridor was determined according to Clean Water Services' vegetated corridor standards (Table 3.2; Appendix E), and is based upon the presence of tree canopy and percent cover of native trees, shrubs and groundcover. Three vegetated corridor communities were documented on the project site associated with the wetland boundary. The vegetated corridor (VECO 1 - Plot 4) located adjacent to the northern wetland boundary and between State Highway 217, was determined to be in "good" condition due to having 70% tree canopy dominated by Oregon ash and Oregon white oak, 180% cover by native species including black twinberry and sword fern, along with less than 50% overall cover by invasive species (Photo 5). The vegetated corridor (VECO 2 and VECO 3) located along the southern wetland boundary were also determined to be in "good" condition due to having a 90- 100% tree canopy (mostly Oregon ash with vine maple as dominate at VECO 3) along with 100% cover by native species (Photo 6). Vegetated Corridor data sheets are included in Appendix E. Vegetated Corridor enhancement is not required for site development adjacent to Vegetated Corridors determined to be in "good" condition. 6 CONCLUSION The on-site boundaries of a 1.4 acre forested wetland was delineated on tax lot 100 and was surveyed by Alpha Community Development. The 504oot wide Vegetated Corridor associated with the wetland were. determined to be in "good" condition. SWCA Environmental Consultants Project 9810-203 Page 5 • Abrams Property Wetland Delineation September 30, 2005 • 7 LIMITATIONS This report documents the investigation, best professional judgment and conclusions of the investigators. It is correct and complete to the best of our knowledge. It should be considered a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination of wetlands and other waters and used at your own risk unless it has been reviewed and approved in writing by the Oregon Department of State Lands in accordance with OAR 141-090-0005 through 141-090-0055. 8 LIST OF PREPARERS 01. Stacey Reed, Wetland Scientist; Field Work and Report Preparation C. Mirth Walker, PWS, CWD, Senior Wetland Scientist; Field Work and Report R' F~ Uri 033415 c 9 REFERENCES Clean Water Services. 2004. Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management. March 2004. Department of State Lands. 2004. Administrative Rules for Wetland Delineation Report Requirements and for Jurisdictional Determinations for the Purpose of Regulating Fill and Removal Within Waters of the State. Adopted July 1, 2001 and amended May 21, 2004. hgp://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS 100/OAR- 141/141 090.html Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Effective date September 30, 1982. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Washington County, Oregon, Map Number 410238 0509B. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Kartesz, J.T.1994. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume 1-Checklist and Volume 2-Thesaurus. Second Edition. In association with Biota of North American Program of the North Carolina Botanical Garden. Timber Press, Portland. Kollmorgen Instrument Corporation. 1998 revised washable edition. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Baltimore. National Weather Service, Portland office, http;//www.wrh.noaa.gov/pqr/ SWCA Environmental Consultants Project 9810-203 Page 6 MR Property Wetland Delineation September 30, 2005 Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region • 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report No. 88 (26.9). Reed, P.B., Jr., et al. 1993. Supplement to List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USDA SCS. 1989. Hydric Soils in Washington County Area, Oregon. USDA SCS. 1982. Soil Survey of Washington County Area, Oregon. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, Sheet 21. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Beaverton, Oregon National Wetlands Inventory map. Aerial photography 8/81 at 1:58,000, CIR. U.S. Geological Service. 1961, photorevised 1984. Beaverton, Oregon 7.5' topographic quadrangle. PA9000\9810-203 Abrams Prop\wet report-9810-203 Abrams Prop.doc • • SWCA Environmental Consultants Project 9810-203 Page 7 • n inch 2,000 feet i 1 = N ! M fl~v,s,oN-o~ clk Beaverton, Oregon 7.6 Source. uSGS• 1961 toMgraphic quadrang1e• photorevised 19 pordandMce Avenue, Suite 304 434 NW Sixth pardand, Oregon 97209-3652 1851 Tel %3.224.0333 Fax 503.224. UgG$ SITE LDOATIOW MpP ,g310-203 October2005 F~9u ~j I,71K i'/~ 4 i }TK ~I •~yV' 16 nAC I cn„ 9991 i ~ 2800 117 "Ac , ' 1 e_ 1 kil 23 8 ,Q9 AC , ftw~ 77 I 'MAC 1 ~ I 1000 I 8AZAC I ~ ~ ,rte. raj ~ I _ ~ I~,, 1S 631 I 20 ay 1909 I r A 00 A70, STUDYA 5+~--- BOUNDS 19 „99 I ST 9000 190P~~ 2 IpeK qT~y~ ~ct.)~ 'b 67 799 H~, JOAC t s r 6 I mo l 22 23 . t I sY '9 . «YI ~ 85 24 .,a4a' s p r-.~-'°°°°. ,•;.+ao~;~. ~ . as~4 ~ ~,:~,o • I .ire. w'a'if :,wle+'•.~ ~ ,.a, A' Legend Not to Scale A 01l '4s})10"e'`► ppp,Wd,N ~O!LIL,M01 . Portland Office or9imapsl 434 NW Sixth Avenue, Suite 304 Source: OrMap, http:llvuww.ormap. portland, Oregon 972090652 Tel 503.224.0333 Fax 503.224.1851 1 i I I 74at00ic I S ! Ile 15 1 J I I 25 ,yi.. : 37. i Abrams Property Wetiand Delineation TAX LOT MAP 1S 135AC 9810-203' October 2005 I Figure 2 I I i ~ a`te' . ! ~ . ~•1 ~ ~ .1'a „ '-;yid < • ~ - • ' ll•1ji ~~91 rr'' r ' ~I ~ ' L.M~: ~ i ~\'4:i 1 ~ I f Iri11~I1L3,t1~; i,. ~;,J . i~ ~r~ itl Its ii i. RR. Pmtyx J 6 ~AIY POW tit (I ' PCIY P 1 1: t, 4 "KZx t...t `1 M .1114 % 1... i , 1 fil . t I 4, i i P. { r P r!rh.,, 1, WKZh t•• A rr •j' rl j' J,~O „ s,+~~ •~l ii ' ; r pWK i1 .'I'. .1 I;ru',~I 1,,,. .,~rja~ tY,', DE IY _ ;t ~ FeMiw P, OF: COON j;' PAM Y • y V P~ tW r..• ~A 1`r di rr' POW. K .I'.:. M . r• / CiA,~ • ' ~~_:rr.` yew 4 P ~r a. pcrih, r,l r1 :..C, r : IAiI. • 1• y t I! r i1 MIY" ~'•L~' 1`` 1 ' rr 11 ; r QwK;0 6 IY ,t! ~ yep • K+ ~ JI'~p,.,, ~t•1,- ~ rT ~ ""~..Y wnGf 1~.,1 ! Y ,li r~ ♦T.1•.....~. ~ , 1 L K.6 , ird....n11b~•" hU l i ,1: • ~ g 'P~ lY ~~'1J ~ I~Yx-~7..,~y"~-~~',,. - ~ • t ~ 1 ~ f'i ~ ~ ,,.a . II 1 I 1 ~ 1 _ ,•i• jf •4i~) ~ • rv' : •7".y:+( ~ ,7 i . t~7 ' ~'S: { . I~I,Y 4 ~(o 'e + ~'g , i t}) '"i!t'Y' h • • • i F t~ MJ•` 'd r 1 ~ i w ti• ~i r ~ r . %C~ ~fc~Vr,~, •i Y~~ 9~~ l ~1 I •'1.1 :1lar"r,°~ { ,'1•~rl~'` ~I,rr - ' ,1 r~ ,i,.' r1 •r";rl•'' t'rii jiy '•j`~ ~~'"t•.r :•Y-: •{1 "1 i 1 l~{1~'l {1111' i.''. / •m•nR`( L.~;I ,I r ••i,'T'.. ''1 ~.bF2dJ+ldFl ~ 1 r~~i~ da' ~.r,•'~~•...~_ I rl. C , .,IS 'r{ ~ ~ . i'• y ~ • 'Y 9~1 1./I f, ~ • it .1. ~ i • . , ~ _ , , "'~i''l~ t . ' , ~ l tip; ' . ; 'r• - f" : tx... A, f II 1' .i 'l,•_'\I'1~ ~•:r~/ T, l~ ~ ~f" '.~l.a~ ;~'iullt'll~, - ti Oil 1' i~. r i"y c~r~/ .i. 1 • t ?F Y W H7lNrfb~ 9. •ry• I+1 1„rrh .t 'll.h. ~ ~ _'f..... A..F t nUly•►r. r. it A r►i` tI ~ 'j r~- y'k '~t•1li'? J"''i I•'•I~'',J 1: i/)'1"~r ~ .i ~f 1N 1,•~•,'t'a'~'}'(~'~T`1 P~ r ~i ~11 Ii. ~~i~Il. r~ C •'~.1 •.u~.l+ Legend N ~1tY11 Abrams Property nnnnow! Wetland Delineation 1 inch = 2,000 feet CIV/SIGN :o► NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY Portland Office MAP 434 NW Sixth Avenue, Suite 304 Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service, no date. Portland, Oregon 97209-3652 Project 9810-203 October 2005 Figure 3 Beaverton, Oregon NM quadrangle. Tel 503.224.0333 Fax 503.224.1851 • • N 1 inch =1,667feet Legend Fisbman Abrams Property ErMronn=W Services 1- Aloha silt loam (hydric Huberly inclusion) OIV1510N OF Wetland Delineation ~ 13- Cove silty clay loam (hydric) ^ 22 - Huberly silt loam (hydric) Wv '.-A Portland Office S01L SURVEY MAP 434 NW Sixth Avenue, Suite 304 Source: USDA SCS. 1982. Soil Survey of Portland, Oregon 97209-3652 Project 9810-203 October 2005 Figure 4 Washington County, Oregon. Sheet 44. Tel 503.224.0333 Fax 503.224.1851 • • • II ~ i I f II 4 I N' ~ I n i \ ♦ Il \ I r ~ I I II I I I ~ I I ( I , I I I . I I i w / lacO 7a~: WePL = INe~land deminaha►~ pIoi:S VEcO : kjQ5ciTk.-Ftc( covnoto✓ pto+S I I N \ I (r P,o~U.Kk So IoLc Ve9e-+a Corridor (50.&~&) ~s i'vN Gott Cond,A-h on SCALE sd 0 40 8D (fY- ~ 1 IN a 80 FT SHEEI:IDW Sep26.20m5.3:57pmWm 9600 SW Oak, Suite 230 Portlond, OR 97223 M 503-452.80M IM 503452.8M www.ojphacommurdty.com REVISIONS NO. DATE DESCRIPTION 11 ABRAMS PROPERTY SITE CONCEPT PLAN alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.: 5284)28 TYPE PLANNING DATE: • Ams Property Wetland Delineation September 30, 2005 • • • Appendix A: Local Wetlands Inventory Map and Summary Sheet Appendix B: Wetland Determination Data Sheets Appendix C: Site Photographs Appendix D: Vegetation Table Appendix E: Vegetated Corridor Data Sheets and CWS Table APPENDICES SWCA Environmental Consultants Project 9810-203 Page 13 ProPem wet S ptD~nlbe 2005 • ~pE~DIX A: I1~~~~RY AND LOCAL WETL~ S,~EET ~604,kRv - prof 9ct 810203 • • -IFIR. CORAL LT[ff!~fIJII~_~I~~~i1 i f Ja I I I ~I TI 1 L o L. _ ~ , - LARCH 1 R2 5 C1T~=I 5 LOCUST L • l _`)`~J L~11I1~fJ f_~1~i I L MAPLELEAF TER E_ Iil-~ LIILIJJ Rid ~4 y ~Pr~ • ~ r,~u x't ' ~r l oaKOTa E - -----TAN ELA ARc- CITY 07 TIGARD ' Wetlands Inventory cityofTigard~ Unit 2 Identified Wetlands Streams Public Land survey 33134 Section IDs 413 Resource Unit Boundary Sample Plot Location SOURCES: Scientific Resources Inc. and Fishman Environmental Services. Aerial photography from 4194 at a nominal scale of V = 400'. Information on this map is of a generalized nature. In all cases, actual field conditions determine welland boundaries. All pudic land survey sections depicted on this map are either T1SR1W or T2SR1W. INDEX MAP N 08/20197 1" = 500' A Tigardfical Wetland Inventory - Offsite Optis WETLAND SUMMARY SHEET UNIT: 2 WETLAND: C-12 Wetland Acreage: 3.02 (PFO) Field Date: 8/29/94 Location: S of Hwy 217 & N of North Dakota St. Beaverton Quadrangle T1S R1W Sec. 35 Tax Map:. Zoning: C-P Aerial: NE NWI Classification: PFO WWHA Score: 54 Mapped Soils: 13 Cove SiCL Hydrologic Basin: Fanno Creek Sub-basin: Ash Creek Hydrologic Source/Comments: precipitation. Dominant Vegetation: Trees Shrubs Herbs/Emergents Fraxinus latifolia Salix sp. Carex obnupta Rosa sp Equisetum sp. Boundary Information: to the North: Highway 217;_ west: the vegetation changes to ponderosa pine Buffer Information: Standard 25 ft. min. Comments: C-12 is a seasonal Oregon ash wetland with a slough sedge and horsetail understory. It is located adjacent to noisy Highway 217 which reduces its wildlife habitat value. • Fishman Environmental Services • • Oregon Method Summary Sheet 10 Unit 2 Lower Ash Creek • Function fvaluatton Descnption: Rationale Wildlife habitat B Permanent water for wildlife is the most significant feature. Detractors include lack of vegetation diversity & structure, and Hwy 217 Fish habitat B Ash Creek offers potential fish habitat; ODFW notes red-sided shiners, large scale sucker, 3 spine stickleback, bluegill,•pumpkinseed, & mosquito fish Water quality A Stream corridor with EM (57%), FO (209Q, OW (23%); contiguous wetlands trap sediment & nutrients Hydrologic control A Stream corridor provides runoff & flood storage opportunities Sensitivity to impact B Potentially sensitive Enhancement potential B Soil compacted due to grazing practices & fill Education C No schools in the vicinity; unlikely to be used for education Recreation C Highway 217-too noisy (pond (B11) appreciated by adjacent business) Aesthetic quality B Highway 217-too noisy; B10 & C12 provide a noise buffer and aesthetic view for Highway 217. Physical characteristics of gently sloping topography with channeled stream corridor including 10 to 200 ft watershed or basin wide contiguous wetlands; major culverts at Hwy. 217 and Greenburg Rd.; includes 14.5 acres EM, 5.7 acres OW, & 5 acres FO. Biological information most disturbed unit due to development related to fills and Hwy 217 Water quality Ash Creek has.been rated moderate WQ condition by DEQ (1988); degraded due to runoff from agricultural lands and commercial and residential stormwater Land use existing land uses within 500 ft. of wetland edge include approximately 28% agricultural, 43% residential, and 28% commercial; the complex of wetlands north of Highway 217 have recently been altered. Fishman Environmental Services page 18 TIGARD L*L WETLANDS INVENTORY - 'OFFSITE OPTION" A SSMENT t Unit Wetland PFO PSS PEM PEMx PEMf POW POWx POWh POWb R WILD FISH LINK UNIQ WQ HYDR REC ED AES 1 1 C-1,2 C-3 1.70 1.0 H H M M H M L L M M H H L L L L H M 1 1 1 C-4,5 C-6,7 C-8 3.4 1.7 0.2 M H H L M M M M M L L L L M M H H H M M L L L L H H H 1 C-13 R H M H L L H H M H 1 C-14 R M M M L L H L L M 1 C-16 R H M H L L H L L H M 2 B-6,7 8.0 1.5 M M M L M M L L L 2 B-8 1.9 M L L L L L L L L 2 B-10 1.0 M L M L L H L L M .2 B-11 0.2 M L L L L H M L M 2 B-1 2 0.6 0.6 M L L L M H L L L 2 B-13 0.3 M L L L L L L L L 2 B-14 5.0 1.0 H M M L M H l_ L M 2 B-15 0.3 M L M L L M L L L 2 B-16 0.2 M M M L L H L L L 2 C-9 0.5 0.5 M M L L L M L L M 2 C-10,11 0.5 M L L L L M L L L 2 C-12 3.0 M L L 'L L M L L M PFO = Palustrine Forest POW = Palustrine Open Water WILD = Wildlife Habitat HYDR = Hydrologic &ntr PSS = Palustrine Scrub-Shrub POWx = Palustrine Open Water, excavated • FISH = Fish Habitat REC = Recreation PEM = Palustrine Emergent POWh = Palustrine Open Water, diked / impounde LINK = Linkage ED = Education EMx = Palustrine Emergent, excavated POWb = Palustrine Open Water, beaver UNIQ = Uniqueness AES = Aesthetic Quality EMf = Palustrine..Emergent, farmed _ . R = Riverine WQ = Water Quality 1 Fishman Environmental Services 1995 pb* prove fil Wetl$epte~mber 2005 A•pPEND~ ~ETS ATION DATA SjIE TLA~ DLTE~1Vi~ WE • project 9810-203 ental Consultant ironm gWCA, En4 WETSD DETERMINATION DATA SHEET -1987 &UAL • • • Project 9810-203 Site: Abrams Property Date: June 2, 2005 Applicant/Owner: Casa Terra LLC County: Washington Investigators: State Reed and Mirth Walker State: OR Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? TIRIS: Yes T1S R1W S35 Are soils, veg., or hydrol. significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? J No If yes, describe: Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Cowardin Class: PFO Plot Location: near center of wetland, approx. 150 ft west of H 217 WetDet Plot # 1 Topographic Location: De ressional area Remarks: VEGETATION: ' Dominant Plant Species Herb Stratum Ind. status %Cover Shrub/Sapling Stratum Ind. status %Cover % Total Cover 100% % Total Cover 20% ' Carex obnu to OBL 90% ' Fraxinus lathblia FACW 20% So/anum dulcamara FAC+ 5% Galium a patine FACU 5% Rubus ursinus FACU trace Tree Stratum Ind. 8 Cover % Total Cover 60% ' Fraxinus /atlfolia FACW 60% Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC (excluding FAC-): 3 of 3 = 100% H dro h c Vegetation? Yes Remarks: Abundance of Lonicera invo/ucrata, nearby but out of plot SOILS: Mapped Unit Name: Cove silty clay loam - Matches Profile? Close Taxonom : Vertic Ha la uolls Drainage Class: poorly drained Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Redox Abundance, Size, Color Texture Structure, etc. 10YR 3/1 no redox muck 8-16" 10YR 3/1 common, fine-med. 7.5YR 314 clayey muck Reducing Conditions Histosol _ High Organic Content Surface Layer _ Histic Epipedon X Gleyed or low-chroma soils _Organic Streaking Sulfidic Odor X Mottled (wrt 10") _Organic Pan Prob. Aquic Moisture Regime Concretions (wri 3", >2mm) On Hydric Soils List (and matches profile) Other (explain in remarks) Major portion of the root zone (inches): H dric Soils Present? Yes Remarks: HYDROLOGY: Recorded Data Available? Depth of Inundation7 none Depth to Free Water? 16" Depth to Saturation surface Prima Indicators Secondary Indicators Inundated _Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" with Live Root X Saturated in Upper 12" T water-stained leaves Water Marks -Local Soil Survey Data Drift Lines _ FAC-Neutral Test Sediment Deposits _Other Drainage Patterns Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Remarks: Seeps at 9' WETLAND DETERMINATION: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Is This Sam lin Point Within A Wetland? Yes Remarks: Entered b : SAR OC check by: Fshman / SWCA EnvhmmenW Consuft ts, 2005 WETIW DETERMINATION DATA SHEET -1987 ISUAL • 9 • Project 9810-203 Site: Abrams Property Date: June 2, 2005 Applicant/Owner: Casa Terra LLC County: Washington Investigators: Stacey Reed and Mirth Walker State: OR Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes TIRIS: T1 S R1 W S35 Are soils, veg., or hydrol. significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No If yes, describe: Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Cowardin Class: Upland Plot Location: approx. 20ft north of wetland bound; near east side on north WetDet Plot # 2 Topographic Location: Remarks: VEGETATION: ' Dominant Plant Species Herb Stratum Ind. status %Cover - Shrub/Sapling Stratum Ind. status %Cover % Total Cover 900R.] % Total Cover 25% ' Pol stichum munitum FACU 60% ' Crataegus monogyna FACU+ 25% Hedera helix UPL 20% Prunus /auroceras UPL trace Rubus discolor FACU 20% Prunus species FAC-/FAC trace Tree Stratum Ind. status % Cover % Total Cover 80°h • Fraxinus latifolia FACW 80% Quercus garryana UPL trace Percent of Dominant Species that are OR-, FACW, and/or FAC (excluding FAC-): 1 of 3 = 33% H dro h is Vegetation? No Remarks: Oregon ash and Oregon white oak rooted outside of wetland SOILS: Mapped Unit Name: Cove silty clay loam Matches Profile? No Taxonom : Vertic Ha la uolls Drainage Class poorly drained Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Redox Abundance Size Color Texture Structure etc. 0-6" 10YR 4/1 no redox silty clay loam, moist. 6-16" 10YR 4/1 common, med.-coarse 7.5YR 4/6 and common, silty clay loam w/concretions, moist fine 10YR 5/3 Histosol _ Reducing Conditions _ High Organic Content Surface Layer Histic Epipedon X Gleyed or low-chroma soils -Organic Streaking Sulfidic Odor T Mottled (wfi 10") -Organic Pan Prob. Aquic Moisture Regime -Concretions (wfi 3", >2mm) _On Hydric Soils List (and matches profile) Other (explain in remarks) Major portion of the root zone (inches): H dric Soils Present? Yes Remarks: HYDROLOGY: Recorded Data Available? Depth of Inundation? none Depth to Free Water? >16" Depth to Saturation >16" Prima Indicators Secondary Indicators Inundated -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" with Live Root Saturated in Upper 12" Water-stained leaves - Water Marks _ Local Soil Survey Data Drift Lines FAC-Neutral Test _ Sediment Deposits Other Drainage Patterns Wetland Hydrology Present? No Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No Hydric Soils Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? No Is This Sampling Point Within A Wetland? No Remarks: Entered by: SAR QC check by: Fishman / SWCA Envimmnental Consdants, 2005 WETLS DETERMINATION DATA SHEET -1987 &AL • 0 • Project 9810-203 Site: Abrams Property Date: June 2, 2005 ApplicantlOwner: Casa Terra LLC County: Washin ton Investigators: State Reed and Mirth Walker State: OR Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes T/R/S: T1S R1W S35 Are soils, veg., or hydrol. significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No If yes, describe: Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Cowardin Class: PFO Plot Location: approx. 50ft S of Plot 2 & approx. 20ft SE of wetland bound. & 2ft N of drainage WetDet Plot # 3 Topographic Location: 2 inches higher in elevation than drainage Remarks: VEGETATION: • Dominant Plant Species Herb Stratum Ind. status %Cover Shrub/Sapling Stratum - - - Ind. status %Cover % Total Cover 60% 7 0- 1/61 % Total Cover F • Carex obnu to OBL 30% ' Rubus discolor FACU 50% • E uisetum h male FACW 20% ' Lonicers involucrata FAC+ 20% Phateds arundinacea FACW 10% Pol stichum munitum FACU trace Tree Stratum Ind. status % Cover % Total Cover 60% ' Fraxinus latifolia FACW 60% Percent of Dominant Species that are OR, FACW, and/or FAC (excludi ng FAC-): 4 of 5 = 80% H dro h 'c Ve etation? ryes771 Remarks: no bare ground SOILS: Mapped Unit Name: Cove silty cla y loam Matches Profile? Close Taxonom : Vertic Ha la uolls Drainage Class: poorly drained Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Redox Abundance Size Color Texture Structure etc. 0-6" 10YR 3/1 no redox muck 6-16" 10YR 3/1 common, fine-med. 7.5YR 313 silty clay loam Histosol Reducing Conditions -High Organic Content Surface Layer Histic Epipedon - X Gleyed or low-chroma soils -Organic Streaking Sulfidic Odor T Mottled (wri 10") -Organic Pan Prob. Aquic Moisture Regime -Concretions (w( 3", >2mm) _On Hydric Soils List (and matches profile) Other (explain in remarks) Major portion of the root zone (inches): H dric Soils Present? Yes Remarks: HYDROLOGY: Recorded Data Available? Depth of Inundation? none Depth to Free Water? >16" Depth to Saturation surface Prima Indicators Secondary Indicators Inundated -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" with Live Root X Saturated in Upper 12" T water-stained leaves Water Marks _ Local Soil Survey Data Drift Lines _ FAC-Neutral Test Sediment Deposits -Other Drainage Patterns Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Remarks: Seeps at 8"; Drainage is 1' wide by 3" deep, not well-defined WETLAND DETERMINATION: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Is This Sampling Point Within A Wetl and? Yes Remarks: Entered by: SAR QC check by: Fishman / SWCA Emkonmental Consullarms, 2005 WETL0 DETERMINATION DATA SHEET -1987 MISJAL • • • Project 9810-203 Site: Abrams Property Date: June 2, 2005 Applicant/Owner: Casa Terra LLC County: Washington Investigators: Stacey Reed and Mirth Walker State: OR Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes T/R/S: T1 S R1 W S35 Are soils, veg., or hydrol. significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No If yes, describe: Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Cowardin Class: Upland Plot Location: approx. 70ft north of wetland bound. WetDet Plot # 4 Topographic Location: Remarks: VEGETATION: ' Dominant Plant Species Herb Stratum Ind. status %Cover Shrub/Sapling Stratum Ind. status %Cover % Total Cover 9070/1, % Total Cover 80% ' Pol stichum munitum FACU 80% ' Rubus discolor FACU 40% Poa species 10% ' Lonicera involucrata FAC+ 20% Ribes species 10% Fraxinus /abfolia FACW 5% Corylus comuta FACU 5% Tree Stratum Ind. status % Cover % Total Cover 70% ' Fraxinus latifolie FACW 50% • Quercus ganyana UPL 20% Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC (excluding FAC-): 2 of 5 = 40% H dro h is Vegetation? No Remarks: trace amounts of Carex deweyana and Ilex aquifolium, 10016 bare ground SOILS: Mapped Unit Name: Aloha silt loam Matches Profile? Close Taxonom : A uic Xerochre is Drainage Class: somewhat poorly drained Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Redox AbundanceSize Color Texture Structure etc. 0-8" 10YR 3/2 no redox sil cla loam, very roo , slightly moist 8-16" 10YR 4/2 many, med. 7.5YR 4/6 silty clay loam, 1cm dia. concretions, slightly moist Histosol -Reducing Conditions -High Organic Content Surface Layer Histic Epipedon _ Gleyed or low-chroma soils _Organic Streaking Sulfidic Odor X Mottled (wri 10") -Organic Pan Prob. Aquic Moisture Regime -Concretions Wi 3", >2mm) _On Hydric Soils List (and matches profile) Other (explain in remarks) Major portion of the root zone (inches): H dric Soils Present? Yes Remarks: HYDROLOGY: Recorded Data Available? Depth of Inundation? none Depth to Free Water? >16" Depth to Saturation >16" Primary Indicators Secondary Indicators Inundated _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" with Live Root Saturated in Upper 12" Water-stained leaves Water Marks -Local Soil Survey Data Drift Lines FAC-Neutral Test _ Sediment Deposits _ Other Drainage Patterns Wetland Hydrology Present? No Remarks: No seeps WETLAND DETERMINATION: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No Hydric Soils Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? No Is This Sampling Point Within A Wetland? No Remarks: Entered by: SAR QC check by: Fishman / SWCA Enviromnental Consultants. 2005 WETL* DETERMINATION DATA SHEET -1987 M&AL • • • Project 9810-203 Site: Abrams Property Wetland Delineation Date: July 26, 2005 Applicant/Owner: Casa Terra LLC County: Washin ton Investigators: C.Mirth Walker and Stacey Reed State: OR Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes TIRIS: T1 S R1 W S35 Are soils, veg., or hydrol. significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No If yes, describe: J Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Cowardin Class: PFO Plot Location: Approx. 25ft N of S property line & approx. 60ft E of W property line WetDet Plot # 5 Topographic Location: Remarks: VEGETATION: ' Dominant Plant Species Herb Stratum Ind. status %Cover Shrub/Sapling Stratum Ind. status %Cover % Total Cover 70% % Total Cover 50% ' Carex obnu to OBL 50% " Comus stolonifera Q'sericeaB FACW 20% Rubus ursinus FACU 10% Fraxinus /atifolia FACW 15% S m horica os albus FACU 10% Spiraea doug/asii FACW 5% Solanum dulcamars FAC+ trace Rubus discolor FACU 5% Crateegus monogyna FACU+ 5% Tree Stratum Ind. status % Cover % Total Cover 90% ' Fraxinus latifolia FACW 90% Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC (excluding FAC-): 3 of 3 = 100% H dro h is Vegetation? Yes Remarks: SOILS: Mapped Unit Name: Huberly silt loam Matches Profile? Close Taxonom : T is Fra is ue is Draina a Class: poorly drained Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Redox Abundance, Size, Color Texture Structure etc. 0-10" 10YR 3/1 no redox silty clay loam, crumbly, d 10-16" 10YR 3/1 common medium-coarse 7.5YR 3/4 silty clay loam, blocky, d Histosol -Reducing Conditions _ High Organic Content Surface Layer Histic Epipedon X Gleyed or low-chroma soils -Organic Streaking Sulfidic Odor T Mottled (w! 10") -Organic Pan Prob. Aquic Moisture Regime -Concretions (w! 3", >2mm) _On Hydric Soils List (and matches profile) Other (explain in remarks) Major portion of the root zone (inches): H dric Soils Present? Yes Remarks: Rooty throughout HYDROLOGY: Recorded Data Available? Depth of Inundation? none Depth to Free Water? >16" Depth to Saturation >16" Prima Indicators Secondary Indicators Inundated -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" with Live Root Saturated in Upper 12" T water-stained leaves Water Marks _ Local Soil Survey Data Drift Lines X FAC-Neutral Test Sediment Deposits Other - X Drainage Patterns Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Remarks: broad drainage patterns, bare cracked soils, FAC-Neutral of dominants = 3:3 WETLAND DETERMINATION: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Is This Sampling Point Within A Wetland? Yes Remarks: Entered b : SAR QC check by: Fishman / SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2005 WETLO DETERMINATION DATA SHEET -1987 MOAL • • • Project 9810-203 Site: Abrams Property Wetland Delineation Date: July 26, 2005 Applicant/Owner: Casa Terra LLC County: Washington Investigators: C.Mirth Walker and State Reed State: OR Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes TIRIS: TI S R1 W S35 Are soils, veg., or hydrol. significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No N yes, describe: Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Cowardin Class: Upland Plot Location: South of wetland bounds S12 WetDet Plot # 6 Topographic Location: Remarks: VEGETATION: ' Dominant Plant Species Herb Stratum Ind. status %Cover Shrub/Sapling Stratum Ind. status %Cover % Total Cover 65% % Total Cover 115% ' Po/ stichum munitum FACU 40% ' Rubus discolor FACU 80% ' S horica os a/bus FACU 20% Corylus comuta FACU 15% E uisetumh male FACW 5% Amelanchieralnifolia FACU 10% E/ us species trace Ho/odiscus discolor UPL 5% Ilex aquifolium UPL 5% Tree Stratum Ind. status % Cover % Total Cover 80°h ' Fraxinus /atifolia FACW 80% Percent of Dominant Species that are OK, FACW, and/or FAC (excluding FAG): 1 of 4 = 25% H dro h c Vegetation? No Remarks: Also 5% Crataegus monogyny in shurb stratum SOILS: Mapped Unit Name: Huberly silt loam Matches Profile? No Taxonom : T is Fra is ue is Drainage Class: poorly drained Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Redox Abundance Size Color Texture Structure etc. 0-12" 10YR 3/2 no redox silt loam, dry, crumb) Histosol -Reducing Conditions -High Organic Content Surface Layer Histic Epipedon Gleyed or low-chroma soils _Organic Streaking Sulfidic Odor -Mottled (wfi 10") -Organic Pan Prob. Aquic Moisture Regime -Concretions (w! 3", >2mm) _On Hydric Soils List (and matches profile) Other (explain in remarks) Major portion of the root zone (inches): H dric Soils Present? No Remarks: Shovel and probe refusal at 12" due to very rooty and compact soils HYDROLOGY: Recorded Data Available? Depth of Inundation? none Depth to Free Water? >12" Depth to Saturation >12" Prima Indicators Secondary Indicators Inundated _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" with Live Root Saturated in Upper 12" Water-stained leaves - Water Marks _ Local Soil Survey Data Drift Lines FAC-Neutral Test _ Sediment Deposits Other - Drainage Patterns Wetland Hydrology Present? No Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No Hydric Soils Present? No Wetland Hydrology Present? No Is This Sampling Point Within A Wetland? No Remarks: Entered b : SAR QC check by: Fishman / SWCA Environmental consultants, 2005 Sproperv wet S ptcmbe 22005 Abrams 0 AppE~~ C pHoTOGRAY"S S;TE • ~ project 9810-203 ental Consul`" is SwCA Fnvironm I~ I I~ i i ' I { ~ t I r LOT 18 • alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9600 SW OWL $Una 270 PCI"-O, OR 97223 m 50424 " (q m 4s"Dd P"stoms Ro. wee oexwn~a+ • ABRAMS PROPERTY :-:WPEL 3- ' I tip....::: 0:':'e:. . A.... 'i.'.'. '.O Y.•.•.-.•.,'+7.j'u`il:-'`.' . •:41~: i'Id'.. b - • . ~ _ - . I . flea. I ~ _ • • - • : • . WETLAND AREA 62.463 SOFT. 1.434 AC • ' 1. ~b~. .`G3%✓'' :....e. m,~-• WEPL (VECO 03) T.`- ~ ..a L 6, / ' j . \ _ _ WEPL (VECO 02).6 1 5 IFAF.NM - - a ?-n a.= a o-n cmu* 11\ W4AG sna.a. • ® D ORS o pu fix a om m w rcrota SCALE: 1"=40' I•t' . WEPL 2 \ `ASHBROOK FARM" I 1 1 ~ 1Q . . - \ ' ,ui 0 1 • • 4 COT. 19 } x` AAR .I - _ - COIL y~cy LONGSTAFF ST fl ~'9 I> Ir I ' I ,WETLAND BOUNDARY AS SUR,VE1'ED BY ALPHA LOT 22 LOT 23 COWIUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6305 -9/05 ^ \ WETLAND BUFFER EXHI* =i11P 1ri COMMUNlTM oavna.konn 9woeet wo : wawa ryK: ocwRgno wre PHOTO UC AT i oil H NP • 0 WVVETLOD SWCA1Fisbman PROPER TIC)N DELINEA wet- o" northeast. ` photos by C.M• Walker, Iuly 26, 2005 i project 9810-203 • ABRAMS PROPERTY WETLAND DELINEATION • • • SWCA/Fishman Project 9810-203 Photos by C.M. Walker, July 26, 2005 Photo 3. View of Plot 5 in southwestern portion of wetland. Photo 4. View looking north of drainage patterns in northern portion of wetland. • 0 . IM-0 Ams PROPERTY- 0 Project 9810-203 Photos by C.M. Walker, July 2b, 2005 J SWCA[Fishman • Rams Property Wetland Delineation September 2005 40 APPENDIX D: VEGETATION TABLE • • SWCA Environmental Consultants Project 9810-203 • • • ams Property Wetland Delineat June 2nd and Jul 26th, 2005 Common Name Scientific Name Indicator Status Native/Noxious Status WETLAND Dewe 's sedge Carex dewe ana FACU native camas Camassia species FACW/- native slough sedge Carex obnu to OBL native red-osier dogwood Comus stolonifera sericea FACW native ornamental hawthorn Cratae us mono na FACU+ non-native common scouring-rush E uisetum h emale FACW native Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia FACW native catchweed bedstraw Galium a panne FACU native Oregon avens Geum macroh llum FACW- native black twinber Lonicera involucrata FAC+ native reed cans rass Phalaris arundinacea FACW invasive fowl bluegrass Ph soca us ca itatus FACW- native creeping buttercup Poa alustris FAC native sword fern Pol stichum munitum FACU native Oregon white oak Quercus a ana UPL native creeping buttercup Ranunculus re ens FACW non-native hooked buttercup Ranunculus uncinatus FAC- native currant or gooseberry Ribes species - native ea-fruit rose Rosa isoca a FAC native cress Ron' a species FACtwetter Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor FACU noxious dock Rumex species - - Pacific blackberry Rubus ursinus FACU native bittersweet nightshade Solanum dulcamara FAC+ invasive Dou las' s irea S iraea dou lasii FACW native hed enettle Stach s species FACW/+/- native snowberry S m horica os albus FACU native frin ecu Tellima randiflora UPL native UPLAND Saskatoon serviceber Amelanchier alnifolia FACU native Dewe 's sedge Carex dewe ana FACU native beaked hazelnut Co /us comuta FACU native ornamental hawthorn Cratae us mono na FACU+ non-native wild e species El muss species common scouring-rush E uisetum h emale FACW native tall fescue Festuca arundinacea FAC- non-native Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia FACW native English ivy Hedera helix UPL noxious oceanspray Holodiscus discolor UPL native English holly flex a uifolium . UPL non-native black twinber Lonicera involucrata FAC+ native little-leaf miner's lettuce Montia aavifolia FACW- native Indian plum Oemleria cerasiformis FACU native SWCA/Fishman Project 9810-203 • • ams Property Wetland Delineat June 2nd and Jul 26th, 2005 Common Name Scientific Name Indicator Status Native/Noxious Status ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa FACU- native bluegrass Poa species - - sword fern Pol stichum munitum FACU native English laurel Prunus laurocerasus UPL non-native cherry or plum Prunus species FAC- or drier - bracken fern Pteridium a uilinum FACU native Oregon white oak Quercus a ana UPL native Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor FACU noxious Pacific blackberry Rubus ursinus FACU native snowber S m horica os albus FACU native fringecu Tellima randiflora UPL native • SWCA/Fishman Project 9810-203 rroperty Wetlpc 2405 Ab i • • Ap~,E~DIX EADD' URDATA SHEETS ETATED Co~T~LE. VEG C g~NCA gnvwo~enoi CQrysultan p.203 project 9 Vegetated Corridor Co is ion Assessment (VCCA) for CWS NatLoResource Assessment 0 • • Site: Abrams Property Wetland Delineation Investigators: Stacey Reed and C.Mirth Walker Date: June 2nd. 2005 Community # Forest adjacent to northern wetland boundary Plot # VECO 1 (Wetland Plot 4) % of Corridor 100% Tree species, % Cover, Native, Invasive or Noxious - 30 foot radius: 70% • Oregon ash Fraxinus /atifolia native 50% • Oregon white oak Quercus garryana native 20% Shrub species, % Cover, Native, Invasive or Noxious - 30 foot radius: 70% * Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor noxious 40% * black twinberry Lonicera involucrata native 20% currant or gooseberry Ribes species Oregon ash Fraxinus /atifolia native 5% beaked hazelnut Corylus comuta native 5% Herb-Species, % Cover, Native, Invasive or Noxious - 10 foot radius: 90% • sword fern Polystichum munitum native 80% bluegrass Poa species 10% " Dominant % Cover by natives: 180% % Tree canopy: .70% % Invasive/Noxious: 40% Corridor Condition: Good SWCA Environmental Consultants VCCA Page 1 of 3 Vegetated Corridor CoWn Assessment (VCCA) for CWS Natuoesource Assessment • • Site:. Abrams Property Wetland Delineation Investiciators: C.Mirth Walker and Stacey Reed Date: July 216, 2005 Community # Forest adjacent to southern wetland boundary Plot # VECO 2 % of Corridor 50% Tree species, % Cover, Native, Invasive or Noxious - 30 foot radius: .90% Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia native 90% Shrub species, % Cover, Native, Invasive or Noxious - 30 foot radius: 65% * Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor noxious 60% red-osier dogwood Comus stolonifera ffsericea]] native 5% * snowberry. Symphoricarpos albus native trace Herb Species, % Cover, Native, Invasive or Noxious - 10 foot radius: 35% * reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea invasive 30% little-leaf miner's lettuo Montia parvifolia native 5% " bittersweet nightshade Solanum dulcamara invasive trace * Dominant Cover by natives: 100% Tree canopy: 90% Invasive/Noxious: 90% Corridor Condition: Good 0 SWCA Environmental Consultants VCCA Page 2pf 3 Vegetated Corridor Coon Assessment (VCCA) for CWS Natuoesource Assessment • • • Site: Abrams Property Wetland Delineation Investigators: C.Mirth Walker and Stacey Reed Date: July 26, 2005 Community # Forest w/blackberry adjacent to southern wetland boundary Plot # VECO 3 % of Corridor 50% Tree species, % Cover, Native, Invasive or Noxious - 30 foot radius: 100% * Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia native 50% * vine maple Acer circinatum native 50% Shrub species, % Cover, Native, Invasive or Noxious - 30 foot radius: 60% • beaked hazelnut Corylus comuta native 20% * E=nglish holly flex aquifolium non-native 20% snowberry Symphoricarpos albus native 10% English laurel Prunus laurocerasus non-native 10% Herb Species, % Cover, Native, Invasive or Noxious - 10 foot radius: 25% * sword fern Polystichum munitum native 20% * English ivy Hedera helix noxious 5% " Dominant Cover by natives: 150% Tree canopy: 100% Invasive/Noxious: 5% Corridor Condition: Good SWCA Environmental Consultants VCCA Page 3 of 3 • * See Chapter 1: Definitions for.Sensitive Area, Intermittent and Perennial Flow.. Measured in 25-foot increments from the edge of the Sensitive Area to the break in slope (i.e. Q5%). Add 35 ` . feet past the break in slope to determine the Vegetated Corridor width, not to exceed 200 feet. For land divisions', the entire Vegetated Corridor must be contained in a tact. . Measured in 25-foot increments from the edge of the Sensitive Area to the break in slope (i.e. <25%). Add 35 feet past the break in slope to determine the Vegetated Corridor width, not to exceed 200 feet. For land divisions, the first 50 feet closest to Sensitive Area must be placed in a tract; remaining area maybe contained in easement. . Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 15 'Sensitive Area Definition* Land Slope Width of Vegetated Perpendicular to Corridor per Side Sensitive Area Figure 3.1- Graphic 1 • Streams with intermittent flow draining: • 10 to <50 acres < 25% 15 feet • 250 to 100 acres 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands < 0.5 acre Q5% 25 feet Figure 3.1- Graphic 2 • Existing or created wetlands > 0.5 acre • . Streams with perennial flow <25% 50 feet • Springs with perennial flow • Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres • Natural lakes, ponds, and in-stream impoundments Figure 3.1- Graphic 3 • Tualatin River X25% 125 feet Figure 3.1- Graphic 4 • Springs with intermittent flow ? 25% 15 feet • Existing or created wetlands >-25% Variable 4 Tualatin River from 50-200 ft** • Streams with perennial flow . • Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 . . acres • Springs with perennial flow • Natural lakes, ponds, and in-stream impoundments Figure 3.1- Graphic 5 Streams with intermittent flow draining 10-100 >25% Variable acres from 50-200 ft*** Figure 3.1- Graphic 6 • Redevelopment sites adjacent to Water Quality Sensitive Areas other than the Tualatin River <25% 25 feet ~ Redevelopment sites adjacent to the Tualatin <25% 50 feet River . • Plat Name Reservation 9 is Longstaff SDR November 14, 2005 FROM :WASHINGTON-COUNTY SURVEY FAX NO. :5038462909p. 12 2005 08:22AM P1 @9-08-185 17:54 FROM- • WASHINGTON COUNTY LAJVD TISB ANn SURVEYOR'S 01TWE SLIf3 1Y,l, lf;~N I11.f~'•1' N~AMI,i .Q • I request that the Washington County Surveyor's Office reserve the following subdivision name: PROPOSED NAME OF SUBDIVISION: MAP AND TAX LOT NUMBER: l ;s 1 C;>k'x) CITY JURISDICTION (Which Cfiy?) T4494') OR COUNTY JURISDICTION: SURVE'YOR'S NAME: ~1~~{l~L• COMPANY NAME; C~'jMMvNC\'~{ ~~'1~,L.•p OWNER'S NAME: DAN) 0 l~ V./C-1 I A. I understand that if the name is not used within five years, it will be automatically canceled. Name of person reserving name:_; 9 1V1 P.(-A t,•„IffelQ1T ? - LiNb2 Com an name: L yN ` Address: q.kC.Q- -:;U) c~A Telephone number: 3 • Fax number:, fg Q ~~C'7x Signature: Gl.(.. Date: Name approved Washington County Surveyor's office 0 155 North First Avonue, Suite 350-15 Hillsboro, OR 97123 Fax: 503 8462909 \KI!S I'lll(,:',1•►,3L1\SI/K VI;YU)nTAl:llfclwl!Nln(U~:\SUIINAMF:.I~+~L'11A-Il'1-i1+11r1k ]RECEIVED 09-12-'05 08:15 FROM- 5038462909 TO- P001/002 • • Preliminary Unit Architecture 9 0 Longstaff SDR November 14, 2005 • 0 • I II ~ II ~ II II II II II II I I I I ~ I I I I ~ I II II II II II II II II I I I I I I II II II II II II II II I ~ I I I II II II ~T II I I II ~ II II II I I II II II II II II I I I I li u u u u u u u u u I I II II II II II II II 11 I I I I I ~ I ~ F II II II II II II II II I I I I ~ I ao an TYPICAL ROOF PLAN (6-UNIT BUILDING) ecALe ur.r•m~ ABOVE R.OM Lm I I I i TYPICAL GARAGE LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (6-UNIT BUILDING) SCALE u -l'-V TYPICAL FIRST FLOOR PLAN (6-UNIT BUILDING) SCALE lw.r-W ama IN " tjov 0 5 7015 iswaam x w m d A O O 3 z m r m I> O z • N ti m' anrn ipu O n3 ~N m r O W ZI A z 9o ~ •M ~ A r•- p ~ A A r D z V~ Z 0 c 0 i i , I15 ,15 ~m r m D 0 fig,b N W-31 IU IM, wa MEOW 0 0 • Revised Reduced Plan Set • • Longstaff SDR November 14, 2005 Revised January 2006 • • • MMS PROPERTY S1 TAX MAP: IS 1 35 AC 0100, 2500, 4600, 4700 • 43 UNIT SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROJECT TEAM: OWNER CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON I t I tiny DAVID X ABRAMS 1 19087 I i P.O.BOX 9087 I I PORTLAND, OR - 97280 - - - STREET A APPLICANT/ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS • PALMER AND ASSOCIATES Y 9600 SW OAK, SUITE 230 = PORTLAND, OR. 97223 PH:(503)452-8003 i ~ l~ CONTACT: JERRY PALMER I1 ~ APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE ALPHA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 9600 SW OAK, SUITE 230 I~I------------- PORTLAND, OR. 97223 I~__-__-__~------------- PH:(503(452-8003 FAX:(503(452-8043 CONTACT: JEFF VANDERDASSON UTILITIES & SERVICES WATER: TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT STORM: CITY OF TIGARD SEWER: CITY OF TIGARD POWER: PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC FIRE: TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE POLICE: CITY OF TIGARD POLICE DEPT. SCHOOL: TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT PARKS: CITY OF TIGARD GAS: NORTHWEST NATURAL NOTES: SITE AREA: 5.17 ACRES EXISTING ZONING: R-12 TAX MAP: 1Sl 35 AC TAX LOT: 0100,2500,4600,4700 NUMBER OF LOTS: 43 UNITS BENCHMARK: B.M. 167 19 FEET WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC R.R TRACKS, 2 FEET SOUTH OF THE CENTERLINE OF NORTH DAKOTA STREET GRAPHIC SCALE 1D 0 b ~ID I ( IN FEET ) 1 inch - 00 Il ~I , rz i VICINITY MAP N.T.S. SHEET INDEX: 1 TITLE SHEET 2 EX. CONDITIONS PLAN 3 AERIAL PHOTO 4 CONECTIVITY PLAN 5 SITE CONCEPT PLAN 6 COMPOSITE UTILITY PLAN 7 STREET PLAN 8 95TH AVE HALF STREET IMPROVEMENTS 9 EROSION CONTROL AND GRADING PLAN 10 PLANTING PLAN N:\pq\32S-12B\dw9\PIanningUHEEfS\718428•TIfLE.dw9-SHEET:7d34 1an17, 2006.9:39am lgn} ' t II - r J I I b alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9600 SW Oak, Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 M 503.452.8DM I9 M345241043 www.alphacommunity.com REVISIONS- NO. DATE DESCRIPTION ABRAMS PROPERTY TITLE SHEET -2V~I-alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.: 328-OM TYPE PLANNING DATE: 1 e I/ r ?I I l7 ~ i I 1 I , ?FRO:UuA. TE i~CATiu^; I~ /i --t1T:.!?E STORM 01 t,IHC"~ :Ei SAti MN l ~/~I N I cBC: / I 'J -AN MH OUT 161.4 'tt;- .`I I JI I I I I ! \ I = w EXISTING \ J BUILDING TO BE REMOVED - - EXISTING \\"C' BUILDING ~ BE REMOVED w ED ~ql II`/ \ \ -F65 III ''I~ ssx -7;;g E/ ST AN 11 I RIM EL.",! ~I I OUT !III 1 -IyJ 1 q IIII v~J ~ \ IWE7LANj~ BOUNXY AS SURVEYED BY ALPHA I\ COITY DEVELOPMENT 6/05 -9/05 x I >la~ LEGEND EX 2-FT CONTOUR ' - EX 10-FT CONTOUR X DRAINAGE DIRECTION EX SANITARY SEWER EX STORM DRAIN -'A'-- EX WATER LINE EX GAS LINE EX BURIED POWER EX OVERHEAD POWER T- EX TELEPHONE LINE EX CABLE TV LINE EX FENCE 1 EX SANITARY MANHOLE 'S EX SANITARY CLEANOUT D EX STORM MANHOLE G EX CATCH BASIN S EX STORM CLEANOUT EX FIRE HYDRANT EX WATER METER EX WATER VALVE EX GATE VALVE EX TELEPHONE RISER 63 EX CABLE RISER EX LIGHT POLE ® EX TREES TO REMAIN EX TREES TO BE REMOVED SEE ARBORIST REPORT FOR TREE INVENTORY III J / w/ /®r" •~~n®r~~,rr~y~l" tip.'. I I E~:!ST SAN' I I I 11 I+H 44 It: -I MJ fUT :n ,+.F11. 251c -I L.S I I fi I ~1 i I IIiI I I II I I a Y~ _ tpm;,; .Yx.°L\~°''.•., °Rn=.•.. aBew arm y... .'.'4ro w a alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9600 SW Oak, Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 M 503452-1 [9 503-452-8043 www.alphacommuNty.com REVISIONS NO. DATE DESCRIPTION ABRAMS PROPERTY EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TREE PRESERVATION PLAN alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.: 918-028 TYPE PLANNING OATS 2 SCALE A 0 20 40 Bo : I 184 = 40 PT C:\work\BGPIOL 3948\32S.V8 &ting.dwg-SHEEr:22x34 J=27.2006-9:49amgmt • 3 m 3 g i o O C D 1x o o H < m~ C ) IA 9 < 0 Z S m X (A 8 Z -u C K z tg4 3 T A N 1y i - Z' 3 VN fD W m~ Z 0 6 z 1 --i - • • 0 0 SCALE fi0 0 30 60 120 1IN=60 FT N:\proIU28-M\dwg\Planning\SHEEIS\328-028-CONNECTNIfY.dwg-SHEET: 72x34 3an27.2006-9:41amgmt alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9600 SW oak Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 @ 503.452-BDM M 503-052 043 www.alphacommunity.com REVISIONS NO. DATE DESCRIPTION ABRAMS PROPERTY CONNECTIVITY PLAN alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.: 728-028 TYPE: PLANNING DATE 4 • • • I I i I Ii T- td Ilr` = I Z m I ' i i IP T° ~h i? I T i 1 y% 6~ I ~ ! Y 12.0' CA 12.0' I I 2.OR 2.01 I ~ J - - - STREET B,C,D s u0rf a , ; y2+,oa s NOT TO SCALE -a '7 STREET A W CONCRETE WALK U WAY NAY C/L 1 _ $ d SCE LUCN7 F SCREENING 27 ww am 3 \ I I ¢ " 0. 5' 5 zs' ;y 1 u MAX. b ° jm VARIES S TRBET SW 95TH AVENUE STREET C T STA XXXX - XXXXX HALF STREET WIDENS FROM APPROX. 8.4' TO 16.0' 1.5' ROW DEDICATION REQUIRED NOT TO SCALE 1 I ~~I /~/yip I I 9 I 8 - 1 ` 1 SANITARY SEWER EASMENT 15,001 1s; < STREET A C/L 27 R/ ' W 1 27 5 5.0' . PLANTER 7.5' STRIP w; MAX. `.D' jai VARIES 2.0R SIDEWALK SW 95TH AVENUE STA XXXX - XXXXX HALF STREET WIDENS FROM APPROX. 6.4' TO 16.0 7.5' ROW DEDICATION REQUIRED NOT TO SCALE OJ ~ Qua` alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9600 SW Oak, Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 M 503-452-80M R 503.452-8043 www.olphocommunity.com REVISIONS NO. DATE DESCRIPTION V Q~et e%e`4, ~~Q a~a aa aR °k,~o I ~ - / A j / / I` /X 0 SCALE 40 0 20 40 ao 1 IN - 40 FT N:\PIo1i\328-M\dwg\Planning\SHEETS\32k726-SRE.dwg-SHEET: 22x34 Jan27,2006-9Alamgmf ABRAMS PROPERTY SITE PLAN --Mlalpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.: 328-028 TYPE: PLANNING DATE: 5 • • • l i ~ I / , Iy FAA _Lit. 35'• ?Z ;S f I / I I i I' I -0" METER TYP. APPRO+;IM.'TE LOCATION i i FU URE STORM DRAT" LINE ID BE BUILTl BY OTHERS ii ~ i ~ S I ~i i SAN MH F-71- Cllr ;dRh pai / ~ J EXIST SAN MH IN !0?.5° 1at OUT ?5i 49 k.' ~Ilor EXIST SAN MH 1 ~ I I I i 1 J-----------J- 0 LEGEND • EASEMENT LINES -ss>- PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER -1>- EX SANITARY SEWER -SD>- PROPOSED STORM DRAIN -S- EX STORM DRAIN -w- PROPOSED WATER LINE -w- EX WATER LINE EX GAS LINE -4WR- EX BURIED POWER LINE -^H- EX OVERHEAD POWER LINE EX CABLE TV LINE - - EX TELEPHONE LINE Q PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE EX SANITARY MANHOLE PROPOSED SANITARY CLEANOUT S EX SANITARY CLEANOUT 0 PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE U.J EX STORM MANHOLE ■ PROPOSED CATCH BASIN EX CATCH BASIN o PROPOSED STORM CLEANOUT 0 EX STORM CLEANOUT PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT a EX FIRE HYDRANT ® PROPOSED WATER METER EX WATER METER m PROPOSED WATER VALVE EX WATER VALVE w PROPOSED BLOW-OFF w EX BLOW-OFF o PROPOSED AIR RELEASE VALVE EX AIR RELEASE VALVE PROPOSED THRUST BLOCK EX THRUST BLOCK EX GAS VALVE EX CABLE RISER EX TELEPHONE RISER • . . . . . . . . . X T ;:S;D- maxs------------ o:ss ---__ss EYIC smi F?.-i R:.%A ELEi '2.75 Ou- alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9600 SW Oak Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 M 503.45203 (9 503-452-8043 www.ciphocommunity.com REVISIONS NO. DATE DESCRIPTION ABRAMS PROPERTY COMPOSITE UTILITY CONCEPT PLAN -25~6alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.: 3284M TYPE: PLANNING DATE: 6 • • • 170 161 16C 11 A I loll I O =6 Q ' STREET A CL I ~l t t m; I - 1 x: rt O° µf0 I I STREET A a \ I 1 J - 6 I 69'311 _ 9 I nt'.' I ' ~ P l ~ ' a+oa jJ f i H.P. ELEV = 169.29 L.P. ELEV = 167.99 H.P. STA = 1+40.78 H.P. ELEV = 170.83 H.P. STA = 4+71.03 L.P. ELEV = 168.48 pVl STA = 4+50 L.P. STA = 2+94.95 PVT ELEV = 171.16 aln cTd = U75 . x nu 2>> H.P. ELEV = 172.29 H.P. STA = 7+61 L.P. ELEV = 169.86 PVT STA = 7+25 L.P. STA = 5+99.06 PVT ELEV = 172.50 PVI STA = 6+25 A .D = 3.49 PVT ELEV = 169.50 K = 28.67 A.D. = 3.95 ,,,,,,,n .rr O SCALE 40 0 20 40 80 11N=40 FT alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9600 SW Oak Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 M 503-452-BO03 [7 5a"U-8043 www.alphocommunity.com REVISIONS NO. DATE DESCRIPTION ABRAMS PROPERTY STREET PLAN AND PROFILE CONCEPT PLAN alpha COMMUNRY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.: 338-M TYPE: PLANNING DATE: )0' 8+00 8+50 9+00 50 N:\proj\328-028\dwg\Planning\SHEETS\328-028--STREETS.dwg-SHEET: 22934 Jan 27. 2DD6-9.'4icrngmf 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+uu ~rw o-vv - - - - STREET A - PROFILE HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1' = 40' VERTICAL SCALE: 1' = 8' • alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9600 SW Oak, Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 M -80M 19 ,W www.alphocommunity.com • • REVISIONS NO. GATE DESCRIPTION ABRAMS PROPERTY 95TH AVE HALF STREET IMPROVEMENTS alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.: WW-on TYPE; PLANNING DATE: 8 • 'J I' J; J I i I ti ` ~r~~ `soy= •J ~ I ~ tq 0 Sfi9 \ l~ C g 10 1` ~ A A y BLS \ `Q\~ I~ fiss ~I. ut, I I 1111 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'CIL N 1 LEGEND EX 2-FT CONTOUR -32 EX 10-FT CONTOUR -324- FG 2-FT CONTOUR -320- FG 10-FT CONTOUR WATER QUALITY FENCE -o-o- ORANGE CONSTRUCTION FENCE oococoooo- SEDIMENT FENCE 0 BIOBAG BARRIER GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE ` EX TREES TO REMAIN e,Cy, EX TREES TO BE REMOVED /i CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE PARKING AREA i„ % e . . ..g.'..'g.' ' - / ~ Vim:. • m.•~.':•:';•.a'.:~.:.p 1. . • : ~.'..m.'. .'s. a T~ .'~.•.•.'.m'.'.•~.'.•.'.'. g . . a .%S'• e Q~Lo- b isl•'® Ea. •:.:';rLtfn.~'.'. I J I ! t • I pp.f f > SCALE b 0 20 40 80 1 IN-40 FT N:\Poj\328028\dwg\Plcnning\SHEETS\328020-EROS.dwg-SHEET:2234 Jon27.2006-9:41amgmf alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9600 SW Oak, Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 In 5M 452.80M [9 503452-8043 www.alphocommunity.com REVISIONS NO. DATE DESCRIPTION ABRAMS PROPERTY EROSION CONTROL AND GRADING CONCEPT PLAN alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.: 528-M TYPE: PLANN840 DATE: 9 • • • • I I ~ I 1 l 1 1 s I~ I I I LOT 22 ,J D n ASHBROO Swordrern Snowberry 5taghorn 5umac acuttrlora I Karl Forester Feather Reed I I I \ \ I I 0 20 40 BO ~i t IN = 40 FT ~ -02&PLANTING.dwg - SHEET: ZW4 Jan 27.2006 - 9:41am gmt alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9600 SW Oak Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 M 503-452-M [9 503.452-0043 www.a I p hocommunity.com - REVISIONS NO. DATE DESCRIPTION ABRAMS PROPERTY PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.: 328-048 TYPE: PLANNING DATE: 1 0 • ``-alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Kim McMillan, City of Tigard FROM: Jeff Vanderdasson, P.E. PROJECT: Abrams Property DATE: May 2, 2006 Proiect Overview The proposed Abrams Property Subdivision is located on SW 95th between Highway 217 and SW Dakota Street. The storm drainage system will be collected, treated and discharged into the proposed storm system located in SW 95th Ave. Water Quality Design Water quality treatment will be provided with a Stormwater Management Filter. The water quality facility was designed to treat the entire flow delivered to it during a design storm of 0.36" of rainfall within a 4-hour period. The resulting flow is 0.17 cfs during this event. Five filter cartridges will be required in order to meet treatment requirements. Underground Piped Detention Facility Storm water detention has been mandated for this project. We developed two hydrographs for the project: one for pre-development conditions and one for the post-development conditions for the entire site based upon a 2, 10 and 25-year, 24-hour return storm as required in Appendix A Section 1.2-C of the Clean water services Manual. The post-development 2, 10 and 25-year hydrographs were routed through the piped detention facilities using "Hydraflow Hydrograph" a computer routing program. Detention storage was accomplished using a combination of orifices to achieve the pre-developed release rates. Using the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph with a 24-hour duration, the following is a summary of pre- and post developed run off rates. PRE-DEV. POST-DEV. DETENTION EVENT RUN-OFF RUN-OFF . ORIFICE DIS. BYPASS TOTAL* 2-Year 1.11 cfs 1.57 cfs 1.05 cfs 0.06 cfs 1.09 cfs 10-Year 1.97 cfs 2.65 cfs 1.87 cfs 0.09 cfs 1.94 cfs 25-Year 2.40 cfs 3.18 cfs 2.30 cfs 0.10 cfs 2.37 cfs Renews 6/30/06 • • * The Bypass and detention release are not added in a direct relation due to the lag effect of the detention system. The control structure for the underground piping system will consist of a 60" precast, sumped manhole with detention orifices installed in a polyvinyl chloride cross. The top of the cross assembly riser will provide an overflow for events larger than the 25-year event. Storm Drainage Conveyance Sizing As required,.our system will be designed to convey a 25-year return frequency 24-hour event using the Rational Method. Proposed pipe material will be PVC. An 'n' value of 0.011 will be used as a basis for pipe sizing. Stormwater runoff will be collected, detained, treated, and discharged to the proposed system West of the site in SW 95th Avenue. That system has been sized to accommodate the potential upstream drainage basin outside the development. The drainage basin serving the outfall into Ash Creek is made up of approximately 26 acres. Using a time of concentration of 26 minutes, the approximate discharge during the 25-year event is 15 cfs. To effectively convey this flow a 30 inch line laid at least 1.2% slope will be required. The effect on the downstream drainage will be minimal. On-site flows will be detained and discharged at pre-developed rates thus having no impact on the downstream system during the 25-year event. During a 100-year event flows will surcharge out of the proposed system and be channeled by the proposed street system, ultimately flowing to Ash Creek. • • - CONTENTS Page i,ii Project overview ad narrative Page 1-37 Storm Routing Appendix 1 Water Quality Calculations Water Quality Details Appendix 2 Time of concentration plans Mannings "n" values and SCS curves Appendix 3 Soils Map and soil features Appendix 4 Drainage basin map Drainage basin flow routing Pipe sizing calculations Table of Contents ABRAMS-1-5-06 SWM.gpw Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Hydrograph Return Period Recap 1 2 - Year Summary Report 2 Hydrograph Reports 3 Hydrograph No. 1, SBUH Runoff, PRE DEVELOPMENT 3 TR-55 Tc Worksheet 4 Hydrograph No. 2, SBUH Runoff, POST DEVELOPMENT 5 Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, PIPE DETENTION 6 Pond Report 7 Hydrograph No. 4, SBUH Runoff, Bypass 8 TR-55 Tc Worksheet 9 Hydrograph No. 5, Combine, <no description> 10 10 - Year Summary- Report 11 Hydrograph Reports 12 Hydrograph No. 1, SBUH Runoff, PRE DEVELOPMENT 12 TR-55 Tc Worksheet 13 Hydrograph No. 2, SBUH Runoff, POST DEVELOPMENT 14 Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, PIPE DETENTION 15 Pond Report 16 Hydrograph No. 4, SBUH Runoff, Bypass 17 TR-55 Tc Worksheet 18 Hydrograph No. 5, Combine, <no description> 19 25 - Year Summary Report 20 Hydrograph Reports 21 Hydrograph No. 1, SBUH Runoff, PRE DEVELOPMENT 21 TR-55 Tc Worksheet 22 Hydrograph No. 2, SBUH Runoff, POST DEVELOPMENT 23 Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, PIPE DETENTION 24 Pond Report 25 Hydrograph No. 4, SBUH Runoff, Bypass 26 TR-55 Tc Worksheet 27 Hydrograph No. 5, Combine, <no description> 28 100 - Year Summary Report Hydrograph Reports 30 Hydrograph No. 1, SBUH Runoff, PRE DEVELOPMENT 30 TR-55 Tc Worksheet 31 Hydrograph No. 2, SBUH Runoff, POST DEVELOPMENT 32 Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, PIPE DETENTION 33 Pond Report 34 Hydrograph No. 4, SBUH Runoff, Bypass 35 TR-55 Tc Worksheet 36 . Contents 0 • ABRAMS-1-5-06 SWM.gpw Hydrograph No. 5, Combine, <no description> 37 Hydrograph Return Period Recap Hyd: Hydrograph Inflow Peak Outflow (cfs) Hydrograph No. type Hyd(s) description (origin) 1-Yr 2-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1 SBUH Runoff - 1.11 1.97 2.40 2.99 PRE DEVELOPMENT 2 SBUH Runoff - 1.57 - - 2.65 3.18 3.89 POST DEVELOPMENT 3 Reservoir 2 1.05 - 1.87 2.30 3.97 PIPE DETENTION 4 SBUH Runoff - 0.06 - 0.09 0.10 0.12 Bypass 5 Combine 3,4 1.09 1.94 2.37 4.08 <no description> Proj. file: ABRAMS-1-5-06 SWM.gpw Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:07 AM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Summary Report 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 1.11 6 486 23,336 PRE DEVELOPMENT 2 SBUH Runoff 1.57 6 480 25,224 POST DEVELOPMENT 3 Reservoir 1.05 6 498 25,224 2 102.24 1,187 PIPE DETENTION 4 SBUH Runoff 0.06 6 480 860 - - Bypass 5 Combine 1.09 6 498 26,084 3,4 <no description> ABRAMS-1-5-06 SWM.gpW Return Period: 2 Year Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:07 AM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve HYd ro9raph Plot Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 1 PRE DEVELOPMENT Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 2 yrs Drainage area = 5.17 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 2.50 in Storm duration = 24 hrs • ,3 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 1.11 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 86 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 24 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 23,336 cult f Q (cfs) 2.00 L. _ 1.00 Q (cfs) 2.00 1.00 0.00 1 1 i I i i i I i i i 1 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Hyd No. 1 Time (hrs) PRE DEVELOPMENT Hyd. No. 1 2 Yr TR55 Tc Worksheele 0 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 1 PRE DEVELOPMENT Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.150 0.400 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 138.0 108.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.50 2.50 0.00 Land slope = 1.45 108.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 16.31 + 5.24 + 0.00 = 21.55 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 218.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope = 0.85 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 1.49 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 2.44 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 2.44 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc 24.00 min 4 Hydrograph Plot 0 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 2 POST DEVELOPMENT Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 2 yrs Drainage area = 5.03 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = USER Total precip. = 2.50 in Storm duration = 24 hrs • 5 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 1.57 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 88 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 10 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 25,224 cuft Q (cfs) 2.00 POST DEVELOPMENT Hyd. No. 2 2 Yr 1.00 Q (cfs) 2.00 1.00 0.00 ` 1~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Hyd No. 2 Time (hrs) -Hydrograph Plot 0 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 3 1 PIPE DETENTION Hydrograph type = Reservoir Storm frequency = 2 yrs Inflow hyd. No. = 2 Reservoir name = I PIPE DETENTION PIPE DETENTION Hyd. No. 3 2 Yr I Storage Indication method used. Q (cfs) 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 1 Y 1 I I i i I I I' I I I- I 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time (hrs) Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2 9 6 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 1.05 cfs Time interval = 6 min Max. Elevation = 102.24 ft Max. Storage = 1,187 cuft Hydrograph Volume = 25,224 cult Q (cfs) 2.00 Pond Report 9 0 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Pond No. 1 - PIPE DETENTION Pond Data Pipe dia. = 4.50 ft Pipe length = 215.0 ft_ No . Barrels = 1.0 Slope = 0.50 % Invert elev. = 100.00 ft Stage / Storage Table Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sgft) Incr. Storage (cult) Total storage (cult) 0.00 100.00 00 0 0 0.28 100.28 00 15 15 0.56 100.56 00 27 42 0.84 100.84 00 96 138 1.12 101.12 00 144 282 1.39 101.39 00 189 471 1.67 101.67 00 219 689 1.95 101.95 00 239 929 2.23 102.23 00 253 1,182 2.51 102.51 00 263 1,444 2.79 102.79 00 266 1,711 3.07 103.07 00 267 1,977 3.35 103.35 00 262 2,239 3.62 103.62 00 253 2,492 3.90 103.90 00 239 2,731 4.18 104.18 00 219 2,950 4.46 104.46 00 189 3,138 4.74 104.74 00 144 3,282 5.02 105.02 00 96 3,378 5.30 105.30 00 27 3,406 5.57 105.58 00 15 3,420 Culvert / Orifice Structures [A] [B] [C] [D] Rise (in) = 5.30 4.40 0.00 0.00 Span (in) = 5.30 4.40 0.00 0.00 No. Barrels = 1 1 0 0 Invert El. (ft) = 100.00 102.30 0.00 0.00 Length (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Slope = 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 N-Value = .013 .013 .013 .000 Orif. Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 Multi-Stage = n/a No No No Stage (ft) 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Structures [A] [B] [C] [D] Crest Len (ft) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest El. (ft) = 104.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Type = Rect - - - Multi-Stage = No No No No Exfiltration = 0.000 in/hr (Wet area) Tailwater Elev. = 0.00 It Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control. Stage / Discharge 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 Total Q Stage (ft) 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 8.00 Discharge (cfs) -7 'Hydrograph Plot 0 9 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 4 Bypass Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 2 yrs Drainage area = 0.14 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% . Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 2.50 in Storm duration = 24 hrs Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 0.06 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 92 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 11.1 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 860 cuft Q (cfs) 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 00 Bypass Hyd. No. 4 2 Yr Q (cfs) 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 00 s 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Hyd No. 4 Time (hrs) TR55 Tc Worksheft . 9 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 4 Bypass Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.150 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 86.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.50 0.00 0.00 Land slope = 1.50 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 11.02 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 11.02 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 24.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope = 2.50 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Paved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 3.21 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 0.12 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.12 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc 11.10 min - Hydrograph Plot Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 5 <no description> Hydrograph type = Combine Storm frequency = 2 yrs Inflow hyds. = 3,4 • Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 1.09 cfs Time interval = 6 min Hydrograph Volume = 26,084 cult Q (cfs) 2.00 1.00 Q (cfs) 2.00 1.00 0.00 .1 ' - , 1 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time (hrs) Hyd No. 5 Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 4 <no description> Hyd. No. 5 2 Yr 10 • Hydrograph Summary Report 11 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 1:97 6 486 38,550 PRE DEVELOPMENT 2 SBUH Runoff 2.65 6 480 40,592 POST DEVELOPMENT 3 Reservoir 1.87 6 498 40,592 2 103.56 2,433 PIPE DETENTION 4 SBUH Runoff 0.09 6 480 1,316 Bypass 5 Combine 1.94 6 498 41,907 3,4 <no description> ABRAMS-1-5-06 SWM.gpw Return Period: 10 Year Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:07 AM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve -Hydrograph Plot 12 . Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Hyd. No. 1 PRE DEVELOPMENT Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Peak discharge = 1.97 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time interval = 6 min Drainage area = 5.17 ac Curve number = 86 Basin Slope = 0.0% Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 24 min Total precip. = 3.45 in Distribution = Type IA Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 38,550 cult Q (cfs) 2.00 1.00 PRE DEVELOPMENT Hyd. No. 1 10 Yr Q (cfs) 2.00 1.00 0.00 ' 'K ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 0.00 . 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Hyd No. 1 Time (hrs) TR55 Tc Workshet 13 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 1 PRE DEVELOPMENT Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.150 0.400 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 138.0 108.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.50 2.50 0.00 Land slope = 1.45 108.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 16.31 + 5.24 + 0.00 = 21.55 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 218.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope = 0.85 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (fUs) = 1.49 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 2.44 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 2.44 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc 24.00 min Hydrograph Plot Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 2 POST DEVELOPMENT Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 10 yrs Drainage area = 5.03 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = USER Total precip. = 3.45 in Storm duration = 24 hrs Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 2.65 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 88 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 10 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 40,592 cult Q (cfs) 3.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 , I I f I I I I I 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Hyd No. 2 Time (hrs) POST DEVELOPMENT Hyd. No. 2 --10 Yr Q (cfs) 3.00 14 HYd rograph Plot PIPE DETENTION Hyd. No. 3 - 10 Yr Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve I Hyd. No. 3 PIPE DETENTION Hydrograph type = Reservoir Storm frequency = 10 yrs Inflow hyd. No. = 2 Reservoir name = PIPE DETENTION 0 Peak discharge = 1.87 cfs Time interval = 6 min Max. Elevation = 103.56 ft Max. Storage = 2,433 cuft Storage Indication method used. Q (cfs) 3.00 Hydrograph Volume = 40,592 cult Q (cfs) 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 00 2.00 1.00 0 00 15 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time (hrs) Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2 Pond Report 0 16 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM • Pond No. 1 - PIPE DETENTION Pond Data Pipe dia. = 4.50 ft Pipe length = 215.0 ft No. Barrels = 1.0 Slope = 0.50 % Invert elev. = 100.00 ft Stage / Storage Table Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sgft) Incr. Storage (cult) Total storage (cult) 0.00 100.00 00 0 0 0.28 100.28 00 15 15 0.56 100.56 00 27 42 0.84 100.84 00 96 138 1.12 101.12 00 144 282 1.39 101.39 00 189 471 1.67 101.67 00 219 689 1.95 101.95 00 239 929 2.23 102.23 00 253 1,182 2.51 102.51 00 263 1,444 2.79 102.79 00 266 1,711 3.07 103.07 00 267 1,977 3.35 103.35 00 262 2,239 3.62 103.62 00 253 2,492 3.90 103.90 00 239 2,731 4.18 104.18 00 219 2,950 4.46 104.46 00 189 3,138 4.74 104.74 00 144 3,282 5.02 105.02 00 96 3,378 5.30 105.30 00 27 3,406 5.57 105.58 00 15 3,420 Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures [A] [B] [C] [D] [A] [B] [C] [D] Rise (in) = 5.30 4.40 0.00 0.00 Crest Len (ft) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Span (in) = 5.30 4.40 0.00 0.00 Crest El. (ft) = 104.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. Barrels = 1 1 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 Invert El. (ft) = 100.00 102.30 0.00 0.00 Weir Type = Rect - - Length (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multi-Stage = No No No No Slope = 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 N-Value = .013 .013 .013 .000 Orif. Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 Multi-Stage = n/a No No No Exfiltration = 0 .000 in/hr (Wet area) Tailwater Elev. = 0.00 ft Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control. Stage (ft) 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 00 Stage / Discharge Stage (ft) 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 Total Q Discharge (cfs) 9 40 Hydrograph Plot Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Hyd. No. 4 Bypass Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Peak discharge = 0.09 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time interval = 6 min Drainage area = 0.14 ac Curve number = 92 Basin Slope = 0.0% Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 11.1 min Total precip. = 3.45 in Distribution = Type IA Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 1,316 cuft Bypass Hyd. No. 4 - 10 Yr Q (cfs) 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 00 17 -.vv 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Hyd No. 4 Time (hrs) TR55 Tc Worksheets f Hyd. No. 4 Bypass Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Description A B C Totals ' Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.150 0.011 0.011 i Flow length (ft) = 86.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.50 0.00 0.00 Land slope = 1.50 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 11.02 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 11.02 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 24.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope = 2.50 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Paved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 3.21 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 0.12 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.12 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 18 Total Travel Time, Tc 11.10 min Hydrograph Plot 0 0 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 5 <no description> Hydrograph type = Combine Storm frequency = 10 yrs Inflow hyds. = 3, 4 Q (cfs) 2.00 1.00 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 1.94 cfs Time interval = 6 min Hydrograph Volume = 41,907 cuft <no description> Hyd. No. 5 10 Yr Q (cfs) 2.00 1.00 0.00 i 1 - ' 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time (hrs) Hyd No. 5 Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 4 19 0. • 20 Nydrograph Summary Report Hyd. No. Nydrograph type (origin) Peak flow (cfs) Time interval (min) Time to peak (min) Volume (cuft) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) Maximum storage (cuft) Nydrograph description 1 SBUH Runoff 2.40 6 486 46,090 PRE DEVELOPMENT 2 SBUH Runoff 3.18 6 480 48,134 - POST DEVELOPMENT 3 Reservoir 2.30 6 498 48,134 2 104.39 3,092 PIPE DETENTION 4 SBUH Runoff 0.10 6 480 1,535 - Bypass 5 Combine 2.37 6 498 49,669 3,4 <no description> ABRAMS-1-5-06 SWM.gpw Return Period: 25 Year Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:07 AM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Plot Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 1 PRE DEVELOPMENT Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 25 yrs Drainage area = 5.17 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 3.90 in Storm duration t = 24 hrs 21 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 2.40 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 86 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 24 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 46,090 cult Q (cfs) 3.00 PRE DEVELOPMENT Hyd. No. 1 25 Yr 2.00 1.00 Q (cfs) 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 i 1 /n I I I i i I I 1 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Hyd No. 1 Time (hrs) 1 1 0 22 - TR55 Tc Worksheef Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 1 PRE DEVELOPMENT Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.150 0.400 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 138.0 108.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.50 2.50 0.00 Land slope = 1.45 108.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 16.31 + 5.24 + 0.00 = 21.55 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 218.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope = 0.85 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 1.49 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 2.44 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 2.44 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 ° Total Travel Time, Tc 24.00 min Hydrograph Plot • 0 23 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 2 POST DEVELOPMENT Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 25 yrs Drainage area = 5.03 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = USER Total precip. = 3.90 in Storm duration = 24 hrs Peak discharge = 3.18 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 88 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 10 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 48,134 cuft Q (cfs) 4.00 3.00 w 2.00 00 3.00 0.00 1-~ I i i i i i 1 1 1 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Hyd No. 2 Time (hrs) POST DEVELOPMENT Hyd. No. 2 - 25 Yr Q (cfs) 4.00 Hydrograph Plot 0 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 3 PIPE DETENTION I Hydrograph type = Reservoir Storm frequency = 25 yrs Inflow hyd. No. = 2 Reservoir name = PIPE DETENTION PIPE DETENTION Hyd. No. 3 25 Yr Storage Indication method used. Q (cfs) 4.00 24 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 2.30 cfs Time interval = 6 min Max. Elevation = 104.39 ft Max. Storage = 3,092 cuft Hydrograph Volume = 48,134 cult Q (cfs) 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2 Time (hrs) Pond Report Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Pond No. 1 - PIPE DETENTIO N Pond Data Pipe dia. = 4.50 ft Pipe length = 215.0 ft No. Barrels = 1.0 Slope = 0.50 % Invert elev. = 100.00 ft Stage / Storage Table Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sgft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cult) 0.00 100.00 00 0 0 0.28 100.28 00 15 15 0.56 100.56 00 27 42 0.84 100.84 00 96 138 1.12 101.12 00 144 282 1.39 101.39 00 189 471 1.67 101.67 00 219 689 1.95 101.95 00 239. 929 2.23 102.23 00 253 1,182 2.51 102.51 00 263 1,444 2.79 102.79 00 266 1,711 3.07 103.07 00 267 1,977 3.35 103.35 00 262 2,239 3.62 103.62 00 253 2,492 3.90 103.90 00 239 2,731 4.18 104.18 00 219 2,950 4.46 104.46 00 189 3,138 4.74 104.74 00 144 3,282 5.02 105.02 00 96 3,378 5.30 105.30 00 27 3,406 5.57 105.58 00 15 3,420 Culvert / O rifice Structures Weir Structures [A] [B] [C] [D] [A] [B] [C] [D] Rise (in) = 5.30 4.40 0.00 0.00 Crest Len (ft) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Span (in) = 5.30 4.40 0.00 0.00 Crest El. (ft) = 104.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. Barrels = 1 1 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 Invert El. (ft) = 100.00 102.3 0 0.00 0.00 Weir Type = Rect - Length (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multi-Stage = No No No No Slope = 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 N-Value = .013 .013 .013 .000 Orif. Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 Multi-Stage = n/a No No No Exfiltration = 0 .000 in/hr (Wet area) Tailwater Elev. = 0.00 ft Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control. Stage (ft) 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 00 Stage / Discharge 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 Total Q Stage (ft) 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 Discharge (cfs) 25 HYdrograph Plot f Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 4 Bypass Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 25 yrs Drainage area = 0.14 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% j Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 3.90 in Storm duration = 24 hrs • Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 0.10 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 92 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 11.1 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 1,535 cuft Q (cfs) 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0 00 Bypass Hyd. No. 4 - 25 Yr Q (cfs) 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0 00 26 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Hyd No. 4 Time (hrs) TR55 Tc Workshep 27 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 4 Bypass Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.150 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 86.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.50 0.00 0.00 Land slope = 1.50 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 11.02 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 11.02 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 24.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope = 2.50 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Paved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 3.21 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 0.12 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.12 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc 11.10 min Hydrograph Plot 28 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 5 <no description> Hydrograph type = Combine Storm frequency = 25 yrs Inflow hyds. = 3, 4 I I I Q (cfs) 3.00 i 2.00 1.00 <no description> Hyd. No. 5 25 Yr Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 2.37 cfs Time interval. = 6 min Hydrograph Volume = 49,669 cuft Q (cfs) 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 ' - - i , 1 1- ' 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time (hrs) Hyd No. 5 Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 4 • 0 Hydrograph Summary Report 129 Hyd. No. Hydrograph type (origin) Peak flow (cfs) Time interval (min) Time to peak (min) Volume (cuft) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) Maximum storage (cult) Hydrograph description 1 SBUH Runoff 2.99 6 486 56,362 - PRE DEVELOPMENT 2 SBUH Runoff 3.89 6 480 58,360 POST DEVELOPMENT 3 Reservoir 3.97 6 486 58,359 2 104.91 3,341 PIPE DETENTION 4 SBUH Runoff 0.12 6 480 1,831 Bypass 5 Combine 4.08 6 486 60,190 3,4 - <no description> ABRAMS-1-5-06 SWM.gpw Return Period: 100 Year Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:07 AM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Plot Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Hyd. No. 1 PRE DEVELOPMENT Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Peak discharge = 2.99 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 6 min Drainage area = 5.17 ac Curve number = 86 Basin Slope = 0.0% Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 24 min Total precip. = 4.50 in Distribution = Type IA Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 56,362 cult Q (cfs) 3.00 PRE DEVELOPMENT Hyd. No. 1 -100 Yr 2.00 1.00 0.00 1 0 2 4 Hyd No. 1 6 Q (cfs) 3.00 2.00 .1.00 1 0.00 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time (hrs) 30 • • TR55 Tc Worksheet 'Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 1 PRE DEVELOPMENT Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.150 0.400 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 138.0 108.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.50 2.50 0.00 Land slope = 1.45 108.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 16.31 + 5.24 + 0.00 = 21.55 Shallow Concentrated Flow ' Flow length (ft) = 218.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope = 0.85 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 1.49 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 2.44 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 2.44 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 ` Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc 24.00 min 31 -Hydrograph Plot Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 2 POST DEVELOPMENT Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 100 yrs Drainage area = 5.03 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = USER Total precip. = 4.50 in Storm duration I = 24 hrs 0 32 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 3.89 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 88 Hydraulic length = 0 ft Time of conc. (Tc) = 10 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 58,360 cuft Q (cfs) 4.00 POST DEVELOPMENT Hyd. No. 2 -100 Yr 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 00 Q (cfs) 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Hyd No. 2 Time (hrs) • I Hydrograph Plot Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 3 PIPE DETENTION Hydrograph type = Reservoir Storm frequency = 100 yrs Inflow hyd. No. = 2 Reservoir name = PIPE DETENTION PIPE DETENTION Hyd. No. 3 --100 Yr Storage Indication method used. Q (cfs) 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 00 . 33 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 3.97 cfs Time interval = 6 min Max. Elevation = 104.91 ft Max. Storage = 3,341 cuft Hydrograph Volume = 58,359 cuft Q (cfs) 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time (hrs) Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2 Pond Report 0 0 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Pond No. 1 - PIPE DETENTION Pond Data Pipe dia. = 4.50 ft Pipe length = 215.0 ft No. Barrels = 1.0 Slope= 0.50 % Invert elev. = 100.00 ft Stage I Storage Table Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sgft) I Incr. Storage (cult) Total storage (cuft) 0.00 100.00 00 0 0 ' 0.28 100.28 00 15 15 0.56 100.56 00 27 42 0.84 100.84 00 96 138 ' 1.12 101.12 00 144 282 1.39 101.39 00 189 471 1.67 101.67 00 219 689 1.95 101.95 00 239 929 2.23 102.23 00 253 1,182 2.51 102.51 00 263 1,444 2.79 102.79 00 266 1,711 3.07 103.07 00 267 1,977 3.35 103.35 00 262 2,239 3.62 103.62 00 253 2,492 3.90 103.90 00 239 2,731 4.18 104.18 00 219 2,950 4.46 104.46 00 189 3,138 4.74 104.74 00 144 3,282 5.02 105.02 00 96 3,378 5.30 105.30 00 27 3,406 5:57 105.58 00 15 3,420 Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures [A] [B] [C] [D] [A] [e] [C] [D] Rise (in) = 5.30 4.40 0.00 0.00 Crest Len (ft) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Span (in) = 5.30 4.40 0.00 0.00 Crest El. (ft) = 104.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. Barrels = 1 1 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 Invert El. (ft) = 100.00 102.30 0.00 0.00 Weir Type = Rect - - Length (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multi-Stage = No No No No Slope = 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 N-Value = .013 .013 .013 .000 Orif. Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 Multi-Stage = n/a No No No Exfiltration = 0 .000 in/hr (Wet area) Tailwater Elev. = 0.00 ft Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control. Stage (ft) 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 00 Stage / Discharge Stage (ft) 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 00 34 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 Total Q Discharge (cfs) 1 Hydrograph Plot • 0 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 4 Bypass Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 100 yrs Drainage area = 0.14 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 4.50 in Storm duration = 24 hrs 35 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Peak discharge = 0.12 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 92 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 11.1 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 1,831 cuft . Bypass Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 4 100 Yr Q (cfs) 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0 00 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0 00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Hyd No. 4 Time (hrs) ~ TR55 Tc Worksheef ~ Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 4 Bypass Description A B C Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.150 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 86.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.50 0.00 0.00 Land slope = 1.50 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 11.02 + 0.00 + 0.00 = Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 24.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope = 2.50 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Paved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 3.21 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 0.12 + 0.00 + 0.00 = Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = Total Travel Time, Tc Totals 11.02 0.12 0.00 11.10 min 36 Hydrograph Plot 46 37 Monday, Jan 16 2006, 9:7 AM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 5 <no description> Hydrograph type . = Combine Storm frequency = 100 yrs Inflow hyds. = 3, 4 Peak discharge = 4.08 cfs Time interval = 6 min Hydrograph Volume = 60,190 cuft Q (cfs) 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 1 i - i i 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Hyd No. 5 Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 4 Time (hrs) <no description> Hyd. No. 5 - 100 Yr Q (cfs) 5.00 /I -o 1 _ -o 1 Z (n $ ~m 1 0 :n I.i 1 r.. C' ...fie ~C. •±~6 ` ~ • {y ;r - C e s 4- . o / (PI -1 No- ~71iE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 41 bl. W gip mmQ n 0 3 O z p m -D y o o o a m 0 ~O 0 00 00 A Z m 0~ my a o o~~ - s 0 3 m 0 zz rn c 'o 9 u z a O M. U) i 3 N~N m w m _ M Aj Z -1 -1 Z F zNs o z o d -w co / w S IL M z~ Sa E Z o ~ lLo ~W a fi. ff CL > CL 0 0 a N o a p w Z d Lo N ® ~w 30"o w~ m 0 wHv z O Z WW.• > 8t Q > U~ LLI o a. E _ C LLJ V o 0 a o li ~r 41(b .a ~ TP ~P C~ T 57 I I t~ \ J^ ;y ''Ay r\1~ P~ S 8 t ® U n ` U) ? E o.. i ....:•;.•:•:.:...;:::e.: m a::;::.e.a:...1:: rs. a I I I I C1 i•ll \ o 0 ~,PPENDIX 1 Table of Contents r 328-028-total da.gpw Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Thursday, May 4 2006, 12:37 PM Hydrograph Return Period Recap 1 2 - Year Summary Report 2 Hydrograph Reports 3 Hydrograph No. 1, SBUH Runoff, total da 3 TR-55 Tc Worksheet 4 10 - Year Summary Report 5 Hydrograph Reports 6 Hydrograph No. 1, SBUH Runoff, total da 6 TR-55 Tc Worksheet 7 25 - Year Summary Report 8 Hydrograph Reports 9 Hydrograph No. 1, SBUH Runoff, total da 9 TR-55 Tc Worksheet 10 0 0 Hydrograph Return Period Recap Hyd. N Hydrograph Inflow Peak Outflow (cfs) Hydrograph o. type (origin) Hyd(s) 1-Yr 2-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr description 1 SBUH Runoff 8.16 - 12.77 14.97 17.89 total da Proj. file: 328-028-total da.gpw Thursday, May 4 2006, 12:37 PM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Nydrograph Summaryteport Hid. No. Nydrograph type (origin) Peak flow (cfs) Time interval (min) Time to peak (min) Volume (cult) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) Maximum storage (cult) Hydrograph description 1 SBUH Runoff 8.16 6 486 158,569 total da 328-028-total da.gpw Return Period: 2 Year Thursday, May 4 2006, 12:37 PM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve I Hydrograph Plot 3 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve I Hyd. No. 1 total da Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 2 yrs Drainage area = 25.80 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 2.50 in Storm duration = 24 hrs Thursday, May 4 2006, 12:37 PM Peak discharge = 8.16 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 92 Hydraulic length = 0 ft Time of conc. (Tc) = 26.7 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 158,569 cuft Q (cfs) 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 total da Hyd. No. 1 - 2 Yr Q (cfs) 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0 00 0 2 4 6 8 10 .12 14 16 18. 20 22 24 .26 Hyd No. 1 Time (hrs) TR55 Tc WorksheeO ~ 4 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 1 total da Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.150 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 300.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.50 0.00 0.00 Land slope = 2.00 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 26.70 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 26.70 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Paved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc 26.70 min Hydrograph Summary Report Hyd. No. Hydrograph type (origin) Peak flow (cfs) Time interval (min) Time to peak (min) Volume (cuft) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) Maximum storage (cult) Hydrograph description 1 SBUH Runoff 12.77 6 486 242,462 total da 328-028-total da.gpw Return Period: 10 Year Thursday, May 4 2006, 12:37 PM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve --Hydrograph Plot 6 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 1 total da Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 10 yrs Drainage area = 25.80 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 3.45 in Storm duration = 24 hrs Thursday, May 4 2006, 12:37 PM Peak discharge = 12.77 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 92 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 26.7 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 242,462 cult total da Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 1 10 Yr Q (cfs) 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0 00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0 00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time (hrs) Hyd No. 1 TR55 Tc Workshee 0 7 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 1 total da Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.150 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 300.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.50 0.00 0.00 Land slope = 2.00 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 26.70 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 26.70 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Paved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc 26.70 min Nydrograph Summaryckeport Hyd. No. Nydrograph 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 14.97 6 486 282,934 total da 328-028-total da.gpw Return Period: 25 Year Thursday, May 4 2006, 12:37 PM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve • ► Hydrograph Plot Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 1 total da Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Storm frequency = 25 yrs Drainage area = 25.80 ac Basin Slope = 0.0%. Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 3.90 in Storm duration = 24 hrs 9 Thursday, May 4 2006, 12:37 PM Peak discharge = 14.97 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curare number = 92 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 26.7 min Distribution = Type IA Shape factor = N/A Hydrograph Volume = 282,934 cult Q (cfs) 15.00 total da Hyd. No. 1 25 Yr 12.00 9.00 6.00 3.00 o as Q (cfs) 15.00 0 2 .4 6 8 10. 12 14 16 18 20 22 24. 26 Time (hrs) Hyd No. 1 f - TR55 Tc WorkshedO ~ Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 1 total da Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.150 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 300.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.50 0.00 0.00 Land slope = 2.00 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 26.70 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 26.70 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Paved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 10 Total Travel Time, Tc 26.70 min pipe comps.txt manning Pipe calculator Given Input Data: Shape circular Solving for Depth of Flow Diameter 2.5000 ft Flowrate 14.9700 cfs Slope 0.0010 ft/ft Manning's n 0.0120 computed Results: Depth Area wetted Area wetted Perimeter . Perimeter velocity Hydraulic Radius . Percent Full Full flow Flowrate Full flow velocity 2.2477 ft 4.9087 ft2 4.6499 ft2 6.2377 ft 7.8540 ft 3.2195 fps 0.7454 ft 89.9094 % 14.0517 cfs 2.8626 fps critical information critical depth 1.3050 ft critical slope 0.0039 ft/ft critical velocity 5.7756 fps critical area 2.5919 ft2 critical perimeter 4.0371 ft critical hydraulic radius 0.6420 ft critical top width 2.5000 ft specific energy 2.2151 ft minimum energy 1.9575 ft Froude n umber 0.4488 Flow con dition Subcritical Page 1 0 V-P-E-SIA)(2 ABF-As S Y -oP6tz-r y LJ PTer, Q~ 1-ly Cd mPLA i P\Tlt7w3 I W4v = 036x I~}t~~UtouS 12 d a (c x lp,2Cc b II 2-460 r- ~ W G?c = 2gi,o I c{4oo o-l-4 c-'s. NJ 0.1--t y- ( +19/s) '5-.01 I PROJECT: AgeAMs P2aPc-2~Y -a h a CLIENT: CAS -rFg.RA JOBS: 328 •o2g COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DESIGNER: GF.tj- DATE: i-1,~ _os PAGE#: I Plaza West, Suite 230 9600 SW Oak Portland, Oregon 97223 T 503.452.8003 F 503.452.6043 www.alphacommunity.com BALLAST INLET PII (SEE NOTES 5 # CONCRETE GRADE RING STEP (TYP) INLET PIPE (SEE NOTES 5 t. G) 30" 0 FRAME AND COVER (5TD) (SEE NOTE 4) HDPE OUTLET RI5EP WITH SCUM BAFFLE 4'-G" MIN (SEE NOTE 7) BALLAST / (SEE NOTE 8) / HEIH .da WIDTH SEE DETAIL 2/2 UNDERDRAIN 5TORMFILTER CARTRIDGE MANIFOLD (TYP) (SEE NOTE 2) MANHOLE STORMFILTER - SECTION VIEW A 1 102005 Stormwater360 f ~ G) THE 5TORMWATER MANAGEMENT 5to-FilterO U.5. PATENT No. 5,322,629, No. 5,707,527, No. 6,027,639 No. G,G49.048, No. 5.G24,57G. AND OTHER U.5. AND FOREIGN PATENT5 PENDING PRECAST 72" MANHOLE STORMFILTER Stormwater360 PLAN AND SECTION VIEWS AWNTEC"`""°"" STANDARD DETAIL ,/2 www.stormwater360.com DATE: 09/26105 SCALE: NONE FILE NAME: MHSF7-72PC-DTL DRAWN: MJW CHECKED: ARG MANIIULL 51 UKMt-IL I LK - FLAN VIEW 1 1 GENERAL NOTES 1) 5TORMFILTER BY 5TORMWATER3G0 (53G0), PORTLAND, OREGON 800-548-4667. 2) FILTER CARTRIDGE(S) TO BE SIPHON-ACTUATED AND SELF-CLEANING. STANDARD DETAIL 5HOW5 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CARTRIDGE5. ACTUAL NUMBER REQUIRED TO BE SPECIFIED ON 51TE PLAN5 OR IN DATA TABLE BELOW. 3) PRECA5T MANHOLE 5TRUCTURE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A5TM C478. DETAIL REFLECTS DE51GN INTENT ONLY. ACTUAL DIMENSIONS AND CONFIGURATION OF 5TRUCTURE WILL BE SHOWN ON PRODUCTION 5HOP DRAWING. 4) 5TRUCTURE AND ACCE55 COVERS TO MEET AA5HTO H-20 LOAD RATING. 5) 5TORMFILTER REQUIRE5 2.3 FEET OF DROP FROM INLET TO OUTLET. IF LE55 DROP 15 AVAILABLE, CONTACT 5360. MINIMUM ANGLE BETWEEN INLET AND OUTLET 15 45°. G) INLET PIPING TO BE 5PECIFIED BY ENGINEER AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. PRECAST MANHOLE 5TORMFILTER EQUIPPED WITH A DUAL DIAMETER HDPE OUTLET STUB AND SAND COLLAR. EIGHT INCH DIAMETER OUTLET 5ECTION MAY BE 5EPARATED FROM OUTLET 5TU15 AT MOLDED-IN CUT LINE TO ACCOMMODATE A 12 INCH OUTLET PIPE. CONNECTION TO DOWN5TREAM PIPING TO BE MADE U51NG A FLEXIBLE COUPLING OR ECCENTRIC REDUCER, A5 REQUIRED. COUPLING BY FERNCO OR EQUAL AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. 7) PROVIDE MINIMUM CLEARANCE FOR MAINTENANCE ACCESS. IF A SHALLOWER SYSTEM 15 REQUIRED, CONTACT 5360 FOR OTHER OPTION5. 8) ANTI-FLOTATION BALLAST TO BE SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR, IF REQUIRED. BALLAST TO BE 5ET AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE 5TRUCTURE. 9) ALL 5TORMFILTER5 REQUIRE REGULAR MAINTENANCE. REFER TO OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES FOR MORE INFORMATION. 30"0 FRAME AND COVER (5TD) j MANHOLE STORMFILTER - TOP VIEW 1 2 OUTLET R15ER SAND COLLAR 12"0 OUTLET STUB ca MOLDED-IN CUT LINE 8"0 OUTLET STUB PRECAST MANHOLE STOKMFILTER DATA 5TRUCTURE ID XXX WATER QUALITY FLOW RATE (cf5) X.XX PEAK FLOW RATE 1.8 cf5) X.XX RETURN PERIOD OF PEAK FLOW (r5) XXX # OF CARTRIDGE5 REQUIRED XX CARTRIDGE FLOW RATE (15 or 7.5 ci pm) XX MEDIA TYPE (C5F, PERLITE, ZPG) XXXXX RIM ELEVATION XXX.XX' PIPE DATA: I.E. ORIENTATION MATERIAL DIAMETER INLET PIPE #I XXX.XX' XX° XXX XX" INLET PIPE #2 XXX.XX' XX° XXX XX" OUTLET 5TUB XXX.XX' 0° XXX 8" / 12" ECCENTRIC REDUCER YE5\NO 51ZE (BY CONTRACTOR) XXX XX" x XX" ANTI-FLOTATION BALLAST WIDTH HEIGHT XX„ XX, . NOTE5/5PECIAL REQUIREMENT5: PIPE ORIENTATION KEY: 90° 1 1 80° - 0 -0° I 270- A OUTLET PIPE (BY CONTRACTOR) COUPLING (BY CONTRACTOR) (5EE NOTE G) BALLAST GROUT (5EE NOTE 8) (BY CONTRACTOR) MANHOLE STORMFILTER - OUTLET DETAIL 02005 Stormwater360 Stormwater A CONIEW Com " www.stoffnwater360.com THE 5TORMWATER MANAGEMENT 5tormFdter® U.5. PATENT No. 5,322,629, No. 5,707,527, No. 6,027,539 No. 6,649,048, No. 5.G24.57G, AND OTHER U.5. AND FOREIGN PATENT5 PENDING PRECAST 72" MANHOLE STORMFILTER TOP AND SECTION VIEWS, NOTES AND DATA 2 STANDARD DETAIL 2/2 DATE:09/26/05 SCALE: NONE FILE NAME: MHSF7-72PC-DTL DRAWN: MJW CHECKED: ARG • 0 NOTES: 1. ALL MANHOLE SECTIONS SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM C-478 AND APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF STD. MANHOLE DRAWING NO. 010 2. INLET AND OUTLET PIPE NOT TO EXCEED 18"DIA. 3. PROVIDE SPECIAL DETAIL FOR OUTLET FLOW T CONTROL EXCEEDING 18" DIA. SUMP VOLUME AVAILABLE PLAN MINIMUM MAXIMUM 60" M.H.= 58.9 CF 98.1 CF 72" M.H.= 84.8 CF 141.3 CF 84" M.H.= 115.4 CF 192.3 CF PROVIDE SPECIAL DETAIL FOR VOLUME REQUIREMENTS EXCEEDING 192.3 CF SUMP VOLUME REQUIREMENTS 20 CF/1.0 CFS OF INFLOW 58.9 CF MINIMUM REQUIRED INLET ~ FLOW 12" STD f VARIABLE SUMP DEPTH 60" MAXIMUM 36" MINIMUM 60" MINIMUM MANHOLE DIAMETER TO BE DETERMINED BY SUMP VOLUME REQUIREMENTS. - SECTION A- A REMOVABLE WATERTIGHT CAP OUTLET FLOW CONTROL PLASTIC OR DUCTILE IRON PIPE "T" OR APPROVED EQUAL. FLOW OUTLET •'6 a SECTION B-B O.•a :v 4• ANCHOR TO WALL WITH STAINLESS STEEL RISER CLAMP OR STAINLESS STEEL BAND AND STAINLESS STEEL EXPANSION ANCHORS MIN. 2 PLACES. STEEL BAND TO BE MIN. OF 2" WIDE 74" SELF TAPPING CONCRETE ANI PHILLIPS 5-12 OR EQUAL ° X-X1 Yi' STAINLESS STEEL BOLT. .o ..p .o 0.4; I e CLAMP DETAIL (SECTION A-A) N.T.S. WATER QUALITY MANHOLE C1eanWaterr Services Our commitment is clear. DRAWING NO. 515 REVISED 09-03 04ANNING'S "n" VALUES • SHEET FLOW EQUATION MANNING'S VALUES ns Smooth Surfaces (concrete, asp au , gravel, or are an pace soil) 0.011 Fallow Fields or loose soil surface (no residue) 0.05 Cultivated soil with residue cover < 20% 0.06 Cultivated soil with residue cover > 20% 0,17 Short prairie grass and lawns 0.15 Dense grasses 0.24 Bermuda grasses 0.41 Range (natural) 0.13 Woods or forrest with light underbrush 0.40 Woods or forrest with dense underbrush 0.80 SHALLVw UUNUtnIKAIW rLUW (aver inlrlal juu rr Or sneer rIOW, K =U.1) ks Forrest with heavy ground litter an meadows n = 3 Brushy ground with some trees (n = 0.060) 5 Fallow or minimum tillage cultivation (n = 0.040) 8 High grass (n = 0.035) 9 Short grass, pasture and lawns (n = 0.030) 11 Nearly bare ground (n = 0.25) 13 Paved and gravel areas (n = 0.012) 27 C:MANNtL rLVW (lnrermlrrenr) (AT me Deglnning or all vismie cnannels, K = . kc Forested swale with heavy ground cover (n = 0.10) 5 Forested drainage course/ravine with defined channel bed (n = 0.050) 10 Rock-lined waterway ( n = 0.035) 15 Grassed waterway (n = 0.030) 17 Earth-lined waterway (n = 0.025) 20 CMP pipe (n = 0.024) 21 Concrete pipe (n = 0.012) 42 Other waterways and pipe 0.508/n CHANNEL FLOW (continuous stream, R = 0.4) k. Meandering stream (n = 0.040) 20 Rock-lined stream (n = 0.035) 23 Grass-lined stream (n = 0.030) 27 Other streams, man-made channels and pipe (n = 0.807/n) Bookll MANNING'S COEFFICIENTS 5/2/2006 7:54 AM 0 i APPENDIX 3 I r4 i ~1. . Q ~ 4. DRAIN* BASIN INFORMATION DRAINAGE AREA 1: AREA DRAINING TO ASH CREEK THROUGH 95TH A\JE =25.8 AC. DRAINAGE AREA 2: EXISTING AREA DRAINING =11.8 AC. TO THE VVETLAND DRAINAGE AREA 3: DRAINAGE AREA =0.70 AC. REDIRECTED TO ASH CREEK THROUGH PROJECT 4t'- alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9600 SW Oak, Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 @ 503452.8003 117 503.452-8043 www.alphacornmunity.com REVISIONS NO. DATE DESCRIPTION ABRAMS PROPERTY DRAINAGE WAY EXHIBIT alpha qqv COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCALE 'Op 0 50 100 200 r I IN= 100 FT IA.GE.dwg-SHEEr:2D34 May04,2006-222pmg PROJECT NO.: 328-028 TYPE: PLANNING DATE: 1 0 0 APPENDIX 4 * SCS CURVE NUMBERS CURVE NUMBERS BY LAND USE DESCRIPTION HYDROLOGIC SOIL GRO UP A B C D Cultivated land (1): winter condition 86 91 94 95 Mountain open areas: low growing brush & grasslands 74 82 89 92 Meadow or pasture: 65 78 85 89 Wood or forest land: undisturbed 42 64 76 81 Wood or forest land: young second growth or brush 55 72 81 86 Orchard: with crop cover 81 88 92 94 Open spaces, lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, landscaping Good condition: grass cover on > 75% of the area 68 80 86 90 Fair condition: grass cover on 50-75% of the area 77 85 90 92 Gravel roads and parking lo ts: 76 85 89 91 Dirt roads and parking lots: 72 82 87 89 Impervious surfaces, pavement, roofs etc. 98 98 98 98 Open water bodies: lakes, wetlands, ponds, etc. 100 100 100 100 Single family residential (2): Dwelling units/Gross Acre %Impervious (3) 1.0 DU/GA 15 Separ ate curve number shall 1.5 DU/GA 20 be sel ected for pervious & 2.0 DU/GA 25 impervious porti ons of the site 2.5 DU/GA 30 or basin 3.0 DU/GA 34 3.5 DU/GA 38 4.0 DU/GA 42 4.5 DU/GA 46 5.0 DU/GA 48 5.5 DU/GA 50 6.0 DU/GA 52 6.5 DU/GA 54 7.0 DU/GA 56 PUD's, condos, apartments, %impervious must be computed commercial businesses 8, industrial areas (1) For a more detailed description of agricultural land use curve numbers refer to National Engineering Handbook, Sec. 4, Hydrology, Chapter 9, August 1972. (2) Assumes roof and driveway runoff is directed into street/storm system. (3) The remaining pervious areas (lawn) are considered to be in good condition for these curve numbers. C:\Documents and Settings\gmt\My Documents\Bookl - SCS CURVE NUMBERS 5/2/2006 7:54 AM SOIL FEATURES FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY Soil name and map symbol Hydro- logic Flooding group Frequency Duration Months Aloha: 1 C NONE NONE NONE Amity: 2 C NONE NONE NONE Astoria: 3E, 3F B NONE NONE NONE Briedwell: 4B, 5B, 5C, 5D B NONE NONE NONE Carlton: 6B, 6C B NONE NONE NONE Cascade: 7B, 7C, 7D, 7E, 7F C NONE NONE NONE Chehalem: 8C C NONE NONE NONE Chehalis: 9,10 B COMMON BRIEF NOV-MAR Cornelius: 11 B, 1 1C, 1 ID, 1 I E, 1 IF: Cornelius part C NONE NONE NONE Kinton part C NONE NONE NONE Cornelius Varient: 12A, 12B, 12C C NONE NONE NONE Cove: 13,14 D COMMON BRIEF DEC-APR Dayton: 15 D NONE NONE NONE Delena: 16C D NONE NONE NONE Goble: 17B, 17C, 17D, 17E, 18E, 18F C NONE NONE NONE Helvetia: 19B, 19C, 19D, 19E C NONE NONE NONE Hembre: 20E, 20F, 20G B NONE NONE NONE Hillsboro: 21A, 21R, 21C, 21D B NONF NONF NONF Hubberly: 22 D NONE NONE NONE Jory: 23B, 23C, 23D, 23E, 23F C NONE NONE NONE Kilchis: 24G Kilchis part C NONE NONE NONE Klickitat part B NONE NONE NONE Bookl \ SOIL FEATURES PRINTED: 512/2006 7:54 AM SOIL FEATURES FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY Soil name and map symbo Hydro- logic Flooding rou Frequency Duration Months Klickitat: 25E, 25F, 25G B NONE NONE NONE Knappa: 26 B NONE NONE NONE Lablish: 27 D FREQUENT VERY LONG DEC - APR Laurelwood: 28B, 28C, 28D, 28E, 29E, 29F B NONE NONE NONE McBee: 30 B FREQUENT BRIEF NOV - MAY Melborne: 31 B. 31 C, 31 D, 31 E, 31F B NONE NONE NONE Melby: 32C, 32D, 32E, 33E, 33F, 33G C NONE NONE NONE Olyic: 34C, 34D, 34E, 35E, 35F, 35G B NONE NONE NONE Pervina: 36C, 36D, 36E, 36F C NONE NONE NONE Quatama: 37A, 37B, 37C, 37D C NONE NONE NONE Saum: 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F C NONE NONE NONE Tolke: 39E, 39F B NONE NONE NONE Udifluvents: 40 B FREQUENT VERY LONG NOV - APR Verboot: 42 D FREQUENT BRIEF DEC - APR Wapato: 43 D FREQUENT BRIEF DEC - APR Willamette: 44A, 44B, 44C, 44D B NONE NONE NONE Woodburn: 45A, 45B, 45C, 45D C NONE NONE NONE Xerchrepts: 46F Xerochrepts part B NONE NONE NONE Haploxerolls part C NONE NONE NONE 47D Xerochrepts part D NONE NONE NONE Rock outcrop par t Bookl 1 SOIL FEATURES PRINTED: 512/2006 7:54 AM d er.+~ If , v 'F# %kmmk.. 16 IL V + i % 1 ..I. a r % y'°' , + y. I 1 ,y ~ ~ ~ 1 4 t y +F it 4 1. ~ • ~ f 7 r~ ; v+ f j + 1! C p v t f 1, Ao* s~ r ~Fr~y W op 1(e;r } 11 ' Fy ` 11~V r r ,,,111 a iP ~1 _ 4 ~ ~r• vu ~ F .C ~ , v IJNIT'y C1~ ELOPt'4ENT Suite 230 4600 SW OCI 97223 ports OR P o muuoty-ccoom R~(ISIONS N ND p~yTE DESC~UPT10 AMB~MS PROPER~u sQlLs MAP 100 s 1 I - ~ R + I + F IN a 100 FT .8:+,9am 9mt r y e r i ~ y 50115.0++9-yIEET.~ ~ I t r• F r d C'Nw \BGPb1 V~~920 ~ b { , IF ' ~ a1 ~ ■ d ' 11,5N-alpi COMV,AUNffy DEVFLOI PNOJECfe10s P iype° DATE: I I CONTRACTOR r0 CONNECT TO 3' WIDE ASPHAL' ~ l WALK ~ ~ k''I ,=,r~ ~ LEGEND r ~ EXISTING 5' coNCSErE wAU~ 12 0' r 1 G ~I r ~ 2 C/~ i20' - - ~ k 2 12 0' - PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY TRAVEi i o+oa _ I --I--_ ,~ofl ~ i i` - EXISTING RIGHT-~~F-WAY I 0 5' - PROPOSED CURB AND G~JTTER ~ 4.0' - PROPOSED CENTERLINE 2,0~ 2.0~ 20~ 2>;~ - EXISTING CENTERLINE C (J M M U N I TY - ~~0 _ PROPOSED PUBLIC uTlurr D EV E LO M E NT c~~E'w;~~ , CUR CURB AND EASEMENT GUTTER - PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACK I GUT ~ I TREET B C d S ~ r _ PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE 1. I / nlnr Tn crni ~ CTRGGT a IVVI IV Jl. i1LL V 11\46.1 r ~ ~I ~ NOT TO SCALE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE 9600 SW Oak, Suite 230 T TO SCALE - PROPOSED BOUNDARY LINE Portland, UR 97223 1 I I U - EXISTING BOUNDARY LINE [T~ 503-452-8003 ~F) 503-452-8043 0 0 i~ PROPOSED HANDICAP RAh~iP www.alphacommunlty,com ~ I C ~ PROPOSED A C PAbING I , ~ PROPOSED SIDEWALK REVISIONS ~ CjL PROPOSED SIDEWALK BY OTHERS N0. DATE DESCRIPTION I i 16 0' 4' WlOE t EXISTING SIDEWALK I CONCRETE + WAlX _ ~ 1~~1 Ta . - + N ~ N 2+~ 3*QG ~ STREET A ~ ~ 7.5 I 4 ~v~caE ~ v M A X l \ AA~1, fAAY W ~j 1~ I # I z Q s~~~r _~,r y ~ ~ rn VARIES T ~ ` rrnlcA~ _ g c ' ~ n A W Isoa' i ❑ i \ ~0 27 u'I 1: o # -i ~ r i ❑ i ~ ~ i _ ~ ~ t v Io` 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5T1 + SW 9 o t j8 04 / 0 0 m o Z ~ ~ HALr STREET '~IIDENS FRI C m o - 5 - _ 7 5' ROW DEDIC I I NOT T( l ilWi ~ ~ I ETA I i s+oa S- THE s 0 5'- I ~ %~o STREET ~ ~ 7.5' ~ I ~ ~ r ~ MAX ~ I ~ J l I n VARIES C/L R/W ~ _ I I _ 27~ I I I , m o I >x To : 16 0' 0 5'-- I I U - ,y ~ a i - ----------------o - I ~ r SW 95TH AVENUE 05,_ So' ~ 9 / - c x~o Ili PLANTER I I, I I I ~ STRIP T '~JIDENS FROM APPROX. 8 4' TO 16,0' I ~ r~ 9~~,~,~n~n ~~~~n ~ MAX ►t~-~-~ , I I 1 ,o 1 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I t I ~ A I ~ II ~ # I ~ S', r ° I ~ ~ a+oG 0 1' L I ~ ~ / a~ ~ SANITARY SEWER ~ II EASMENT I +5 00' I I / • 1 ~ ~ ~ I ~ ' I^ ~ I T R ~ 4 I ~ 4 C I T ,~-i-` I ~ F-~~ _ ~ti _ - i I ~ ~ . I ~ u I~ I ~ r~ y x~,~ . II ~1 /II .T T~~/n' \ r l I \ {i ~y k . k F / X I ° '1 ~ X/ j/ ~ ~ '~k~ y, KKK { ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ x K * ~ , X yi / . I ~ n . ~ . . . . I x =-s1 . . . . . . .I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . ~ F~. . . . . + lY . . . . .`.`...1.V.....`.+. Tg I~ . . . . . . ~X~li~ . . I><~~....~ SANITARY SEWER ` CA CIIGI,IT ~ ~IK b~' . . . . . II . , I lu x I ~Yx _ _ . . I~. ~~°k. I r . ~ o ~~_..u..~' t-~ s i T  nonAmdr7~mNii ~o I IM = r%O FT N;Aprot\328-028\dwg\Planning\3HEETS\328-028-SITE,dwg -SHEET; 22x34 May 02, 2006 - I J 5pm grnt I ATTACHMENT 6