The URL can be used to link to this page

Hearings Officer Packet - 09/19/2005HEARINGS OFFICER MONDAY - SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 - 7:00 PM Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Hearings Officer meetings by noon on the Friday prior to the meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, 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 ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2004-00024 ITEM ON APPEAL: On July 18, 2005 the Director issued a decision to approve a request for a forty-six (46) lot, detached single-family Subdivision of approximately 8.69 acres. The site consists of four parcels that will be combined which currently contain four houses and several sheds. All of the structures with the exception of one house will be removed and incorporated into the proposed subdivision. On August 1, 2005 an appeal was filed by a neighbor of the proposed development on issues timely raised in his comment letter concerning disposition of an access easement shared by property owners of the proposed development and other adjacent owners off of SW 133rd Terrace. LOCATION: 13255, 13267, 13275 and 13279 SW Bull Mountain Road; WCTM 2S109AB, Tax Lots 700, 800, 900 and 1000. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium-Density Residential District. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.705, 18.745 and 18.810. Page 1 of 2 • 2.2 "APPEAL" OF SIERRA PARK SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2005-00008 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2005-00010 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2005-00011 ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2005-00033 TREE REMOVAL (TRE) 2005-00001 TREE REMOVAL (TRE) 2005-00002 ITEM ON APPEAL: On July 27, 2005 the Director issued a decision to approve a request for Preliminary Plat approval to divide a 4.19-acre parcel into twenty-four (24) single-family lots; Sensitive Lands Review for development on slopes greater that 25 percent and within a drainage way; Tree Removal for two trees greater that 12 inches on sensitive lands, and an adjustment to the maximum public street grade from 15 percent to 18 percent for a 360-foot length of the southernmost section of SW 158th Terrace. On August 8, 2005 an appeal was filed by a neighbor based on an issue timely raised in their comment letter questioning the safety of the proposed extension of SW 158th Terrace and opposing its extension. A second appeal was filed by the applicant on August 10, 2005 based on the imposition of conditions of approval #4 and #16 which require a pedestrian/bicycle connection between SW Tuscany and SW Bristlecone Way, and improvement standards for a water quality facility access way. LOCATION: The Eastern terminus of SW Tuscany Street, northern terminus of SW 158th Avenue, and southern terminus of SW 156th Terrace; WCTM 2S105CD, Tax Lots 200 (proposed lots), 100 and 7600 (proposed utility easements). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium-Density Residential District. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7: Medium-Density. Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapter 18.810. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 2 0 a Depending on the number of people wishing to testify, the Tigard Hearing's Officer may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Hearing's Officer may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Hearing's Officer to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO.: 2.1 FILE NAME: "APPEAL" OF ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION CASE NOS.: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2004-00024 DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 PAGE 1 OF I IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY ON THE ITEM INDICATED ABOVE, PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS & INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE PROPONENT - (Speaking In Favor or Neutral) OPPONENT - (Speaking Against) Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. + Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 50 1 -IM4 T67AS5A-::~ d 2G 5 f l- 3 1 I 13 z 73 5 LJ 13 au -r- R-C-1 81223 -3 ct Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. II S~ 4y o~D3' a3~ Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 1 I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 1 Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 1 Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - -ame - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. N, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 1 I I--------------- • COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS 6605 SE Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 • PO Box 22109 • Portland, OR 97269 Phone: 503-684-0360 Fax: 503-620-3433 Email: legaladvertising@commnewspapers.com AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Accounting Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of general circulation, published at Beaverton, in the aforesaid county and state, as defined by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that City of Tigard -Public Hearing (SUB) 2004-00024 Alpine View CNI TT10651 a copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 1 successive and consecutive weeks in the following issues September 1, 2005 CIU~(04( bU,4-,,P Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Manager) Subscribed and sworn to before me this Septe 5 2;iaNOTARY PUBLIC FOR ORE~91V My commission expires Acct # 10093001 City of Tigard Attn: Accounts Payable 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Size ZX 9.s Amount Due $ 15w' lpS remit to address above • CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING ITEM The following will be considered by the ward Hearings Officer on Mondav Sentember 19.2005 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.390. Testimony may be submitted in writing prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on that issue. Failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Garv Pagenstecher) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 503-639-4171. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2004-00024 > APPEAL OF ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION < ITEM ON APPEAL: On July 18, 2005 the Director issued a decision to approve a request for a forty-six (46) lot, detached single- family Subdivision of approximately 8.69 acres. The site consists of four parcels that will be combined which currently contain four houses and several sheds. All, of the structures with the exception of one house will be removed and incorporated into the proposed subdivision. On August 1, 2005 an appeal was filed by a neighbor of the proposed development on issues timely raised in his comment letter concerning disposition of an access easement shared by property owners of the 8roposed development and other adjacent owners off of SW 133r Terrace. LOCATION: 13255, 13267, 13275 and 13279 SW Bull Mountain Road; WCTM 2S109AB, Tax Lots 700, 800, 900 and 1000. ZONE: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.705, 18.745 and 18.810. mcw"T n" TT10651 Publish 9/1/05 • • BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an appeal by Dan Pelissier of an administrative )FINAL ORDER decision approving an application for a 46-lot subdivision ) on an 8.69 acre parcel in the R-7 zone north of Bull Mountain) SUB2004-00024 Road at SW 133rd Avenue, in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Alpine View) A. SUMMARY 1. The applicant, ECF Alpine View, LLC, requests approval of a preliminary plan for a 46-lot subdivision of an 8.69-acre parcel located north of Bull Mountain Road at SW 133rd Avenue, known as 13255, 13267, 13275 and 13279 SW Bull Mountain Road; also known as Tax Lots 700, 800, 900 and 1000, WCTM 2S109AB (the "site"). The site is currently developed with four single-family residences. The applicant proposes to remove all of the existing structures and develop each of the 46 new lots with a single family detached dwelling. The applicant will extend a new north-south road, proposed Alpine Crest Way, through the middle of the site between the north boundary of tax lot 1100 and the north boundary of the site. The applicant will extend SW Alpine View Drive and SW Starview Drive into the site from their existing termini at the west and east boundaries of the site respectively. These street extensions will intersect proposed Alpine View Drive, creating separate "T" intersections. The applicant will also construct a portion of SW Foran Street between SW Starview Drive and the east boundary of the site. The applicant proposed to install a card-lock gate at the south end of proposed Alpine Crest Way to allow residents north of the site to continue to access Bull Mountain Road via the existing private road easement, SW 133rd Avenue. The card-lock gate will prohibit residents of the site from using the private road. They will access the site via Alpine View Drive to the west and Starview Drive to the east. The applicant will create a separate tract, proposed Tract D, for the portion of the private road between the south end of Alpine Crest Way and Bull Mountain Road. The applicant will dedicate Tract D to the City. The applicant proposes to collect storm water from imperious areas of the site and convey it to a storm water facility within proposed Tract B for treatment, detention and discharge to the existing drainage channel along the east boundary of the site at less than predevelopment rates. All proposed lots will be served by public water and sanitary sewer systems. 2. On July 18, 2005, the Tigard Planning Director (the "director") issued a Type II decision approving the application subject to conditions of approval. On August 1, 2005, the City received an appeal of the Director's decision filed by Dan Pelissier (the "appellant"). The appeal alleges that the application does not comply with the following requirements of the Tigard Development Code (the "TDC"): a. The access and egress requirements of TDC 18.705.030.C; b. The access creates an inadequate and hazardous access. TDC 18.705.030.G; c. The access management requirements of TDC 18.705.030.H(1); d. The driveway access management requirements of TDC 18.705.030.H(2); 9 • e. The street tree requirements of TDC 18.745; f. The not meet street standards requirements of TDC 18.810.030.E; g. The future street connection requirements of TDC 18.810.030.H(1); h. The sidewalk requirements of TDC 18.810.070.A; and i. The planter strip requirements of TDC 18.810.070.C; 3. On September 19, 2005, Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer Joe Turner (the "hearings officer") conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal. City staff recommended the hearings officer deny the appeal and affirm the director's decision. See the Memorandum to the Hearings Officer dated September 12, 2005 (the "Memorandum"). The appellant testified in support of the appeal. The applicant's attorney testified in support of the application and in opposition to the appeal. No one else testified orally or in writing in response to the appeal. The principal issues in the appeal include the following: a. Whether the issues raised in the appeal were raised in the written comments in response to the notice of application and therefore fall within the limited scope of appeal allowed by TDC 18.390.040.G(2)(b); b. Whether the hearings officer has authority to consider the applicant's request to modify condition 12 of the director's decision; c. Whether the hearings officer has authority to interpret the appellant's private easement agreement; d. Whether the development will create a "joint access" subject to TDC 18.705.030.C; e. Whether the development will create an inadequate or hazardous access. TDC 18.705.030.G. La; f. Whether the application complies with the access management requirements of TDC 18.705.030.H(1); g. Whether the development will create driveways subject to TDC 18.705.030.H(2); h. Whether the appellant's access easement will preclude construction of required improvements within the easement; and i. Whether the proposed development complies with the street spacing requirements of TDC 18.810.030.H(1). Hearings OJicer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00024 (Alpine View) Page 2 • • 4. Based on the findings and conclusions contained herein and the testimony and evidence in the public record, the hearings officer denies the appeal and affirms the administrative decision conditionally approving the application. B. HEARING AND RECORD HIGHLIGHTS 1. The hearings officer received testimony at the public hearing about the appeal on September 19, 2005. All exhibits and records of testimony are filed with the Tigard Department of Community Development. At the beginning of the hearing, the hearings officer made the declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected testimony and evidence offered at the hearing. 2. City planner Gary Pagenstecher summarized the appeal and his September 12, 2005 Memorandum in response to the appeal. He opined that the specific issues raised in the appeal were not raised during the initial comment period. Therefore those issues exceed the limited scope of appeal allowed by TDC 18.390.040.G(2)(b). He argued that the proposed development will reduce the hazard created by the reduced intersection spacing at the existing intersection of 133`d Avenue and Bull Mountain Road, because the proposed development will reduce the number of vehicles using that intersection. The applicant will remove the four existing homes on the site that currently use that intersection for access. The applicant will install a card-lock gate to prohibit residents of the site from using that intersection to access the site. 3. Attorney Phil Grillo testified on behalf of the applicant and submitted a written memorandum, Exhibit 1. He agreed with the findings and conclusions of the Staff Report and the Memorandum. a. He argued that the City cannot require the homeowners association to maintain the existing private road within proposed Tract D. The residents of the site cannot use the private road to access the site. Therefore there is no nexus between the impacts of the subdivision and the maintenance requirement. He requested the hearings officer modify condition 16 to eliminate the maintenance requirement. i. He opined that this issue falls within the scope of the appellant's appeal. Therefore the hearings officer can consider the issue if the hearings officer finds that he has authority to consider the appellant's appeal The hearings officer cannot consider the issue if he concludes that he lacks the authority to consider the appellant's appeal. b. He argued that TDC 18.705.030.C is inapplicable. The proposed development will not create a joint access. The private street may be an existing joint access, but the proposed development will not increase the use of the existing joint access. The existing recorded easement satisfies the legal evidence requirement of TDC 18.705.030.C(1) for the existing access. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00024 (Alpine View) Page 3 • • c. He argued that the application complies with the TDC 18.705.030.G(1)(a). The proposed development will not create an inadequate or hazardous access. The applicant is not required to remedy the existing hazard at the intersection of 133`d Avenue and Bull Mountain Road, because the proposed development will not increase the volume of traffic using that intersection. It will actually reduce the number of vehicles using the intersection. The applicant will remove the four existing homes that are currently served by the private road. Residents of the site will use Alpine View and Starview Drives to access the site. The proposed card-lock gate will prohibit residents of the site from using UP Avenue to access the site. d. He argued that 133`d Avenue is not a "driveway" as defined by TDC 18.120.030.A(61), because it serves more than two lots, parcels or tracts. Therefore the driveway requirements of TDC 18.705.030.H are inapplicable. The application complies with the street standards of this section. e. He argued that it is feasible to construct the required street improvements, including street trees, planter strips, curbs and sidewalks, in compliance with the Code. The applicant will construct sidewalks on both sides of the streets within the site as required by the Code. f. He argued that the applicant cannot realign 133`d Avenue to comply with the intersection spacing and sight distance requirements of the Code, because the applicant does not own the adjacent property to the east of the 133`d Avenue/Bull Mountain Road intersection. The City can require realignment of the intersection in the future when the adjacent property redevelops. g. He requested the hearings officer hold the record open for one week to respond to any new testimony and evidence submitted by the appellant. He agreed to toll the 120-day clock until October 17, 2005. 4. The appellant, Dan Pelissier, argued that he raised the specific issues in the appeal in his written comments. The City is attempting to avoid the appeal based on semantics. He argued that the Code requires that the owners of properties served by the existing private road easement agree to the proposed subdivision, because it will interfere with their existing easement rights. a. He argued that the proposed card-lock gate will not preclude the future residents of the site from using the private road easement to access Bull Mountain Road. Residents will block open or otherwise disable the gate, because 133`d Avenue provides the most direct and convenient access to the site. Additional traffic through the intersection of 133`d Avenue and Bull Mountain Road will increase the hazard caused by the inadequate intersection spacing. b. He argued that the proposed gate and road improvements will conflict with his easement rights. Without the gate and improvements the application will not comply with the Code and residents of the site will be able to access Bull Mountain Road via the unsafe 133rd Avenue intersection. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00024 (Alpine View) Page 4 • 0 c. He argued that the application does not comply with the specific approval criteria cited in his appeal. d. He requested the hearings officer hold the record open for 21 days to submit additional testimony and evidence. 5. City Planning Director Dick Bewersdorff argued that condition of approval 12 is outside the scope of the appeal. 6. At the end of the hearing, the hearings officer ordered the public record held open for one week for the appellant to introduce new evidence and testimony. The hearings officer ordered the record held open for a second week for the applicant to respond to the new evidence and submit a closing argument. The appellant did not submit any new testimony and evidence during the open record period. Therefore Mr. Grillo waived the applicant's right to submit a closing argument and requested that the hearings officer close the record on September 27, 2005. C. DISCUSSION 1. TDC 18.390.040.G authorizes the hearings officer to hear appeals of Type II decisions, such as the city's decision conditionally approving the subdivision application. TDC 18.390.040.G.2.b provides that appeals: [S]hall be limited to the specific issues raised during the written comment period, as provided under Section 18.390.040.C, unless the Hearings Officer, at his or her discretion, allows additional evidence or testimony concerning any other relevant issue. The Hearings Officer may allow such additional evidence if he or she determines that such evidence is necessary to resolve the case. The intent of this requirement is to limit the scope of Type II Administrative Appeals by encouraging persons with standing to submit their specific concerns in writing during the comment period. The written comments received during the comment period will usually limit the scope of issues on appeal. Only in extraordinary circumstances should new issues be considered by the Hearings Officer on appeal of a Type II Administrative Decision. 2. The hearings officer finds that the specific issues raised in the appeal were not raised during the written comment period as required by CDC 18.390.040.G.2.b. The written comments submitted by the appellant and other area residents argued that the proposed gate and road improvements will conflict with their easement rights. The written comments did not address or relate to the specific Code standards cited in the appeal or allege that the proposed development would not comply with those standards. The appellant did not identify any "extraordinary circumstances" sufficient to warrant consideration of these new issues on appeal. Therefore the issues raised in the appeal exceed the limited scope of appeal and the hearings officer has no authority to consider this appeal. However the hearings officer will address those issues in this decision for the sake of efficiency, in the event this determination is reversed on appeal. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00024 (Alpine View) Page 5 • • 3. The hearings officer has no authority to modify condition 12 as requested by Mr. Grillo, because the applicant did not appeal the director's decision and this issue was not raised during the written comment period. Therefore the issue exceeds the scope of appeal allowed by TDC 18.390.040.G. 4. The hearings officer has no authority to enforce or interpret the appellant's private easement agreement. a. There is no dispute that the proposed development will alter the existing easement. The applicant will construct a curbs, sidewalks, street trees and other required improvements and install a card-lock gate within the easement. However the hearings officer cannot determine whether those changes violate the terms of the easement or that the easement will prevent the applicant from complying with the conditions of approval. The proposed improvements will not preclude continued ingress and egress via the easement. b. If the owners of properties benefited by the easement believe that the proposed improvements violate the terms of their easement, they can bring suit to enforce the easement in circuit court, which has the authority to interpret the easement. If the court finds that the development violates the easement it issue an injunction to prevent the applicant from constructing improvements within the easement. In the alternative, the court may find that the proposed improvements will not conflict with the easement, because the easement will continue to allow ingress to and egress from the properties served by the easement. The hearings officer cannot make that determination in this proceeding. 5. The hearings officer finds that TDC 18.705.030.C is inapplicable, because the applicant is not proposing to create a "joint access." SW 133rd Avenue may be an existing "joint access," the use of which is regulated by the existing recorded easement. The proposed development will not increase the use of the existing joint access. Access to the site will be provided by the existing and proposed public streets within and adjacent to the site. 6. The hearings officer finds that the proposed development will not create an inadequate or hazardous access. TDC 18.705.030.G. La. There is no dispute that the existing SW 133rd Avenue/Bull Mountain Road intersection does not comply with the City's intersection spacing requirements. However the applicant is not required to remedy all existing and perceived hazards in the area. The proposed development will actually reduce the volume of traffic on 133rd Avenue by eliminating the four homes that are currently served by this roadway. The applicant is required to install a gate or similar barrier to prevent residents of the site from using this roadway. There is no substantial evidence that the gate will not be effective in preventing residents of the site from using 133rd Avenue to access the site. The City has adequate enforcement authority to ensure that the gate serves its intended function. 7. The fact that 133rd Avenue currently connects with Bull Mountain Road is irrelevant to TDC 18.705.030.H(1). None of the proposed streets will connect with collector or arterial streets. The proposed development will merely maintain the existing access to Bull Mountain Road for residents north of the site that are currently served by the existing easement. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00024 (Alpine View) Page 6 • • 8. The hearings officer finds that TDC 18.705.030.H(2) is inapplicable to this application, because the applicant did not propose to create any new driveways within the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. In addition, this standards does not apply to the existing intersection of 133rd Avenue and Bull Mountain road, because 133rd Avenue is not a "driveway" as defined by TDC 18.120.030.A(61).l 133rd Avenue is a "street" as defined by TDC 18.120.030.A(131), because it serves more than three lots.2 9. The appellant argued that the application cannot comply with TDC 18.745.040.A, 18.810.030.E, 18.810.070.A and 18.810.070.C, because the terms of the easement preclude construction of the required improvements (street trees, curbs, sidewalks, planter strips etc.) within the easement. However there is no substantial evidence to that effect in the record. As discussed above, the proposed improvements will alter the easement. But there is no evidence that those alterations violate the terms of the easement. Therefore the hearings officer finds that it is feasible to construct the required improvements as required by the Code. The conditions of approval require that the applicant actually complete construction of the improvements prior to final plat approval. a. If the owners of properties served by the easement bring suit and the court concludes that these improvements conflict with the terms of the easement, it may issue an injunction prohibiting the applicant from constructing the improvements. Such an injunction would preclude the applicant from complying with the conditions of approval and recording a final plat. However the mere existence of an easement on the site does not per se preclude the applicant from constructing the required improvements. 10. The hearings officer finds that the proposed development maintains the opportunity for compliance with the minimum street spacing requirements of TDC 18.810.030.H.1, based on the applicant's future street plan. The applicant proposed to dedicate public rights of way for the north, south, east and west boundaries of the site to provide for street connectivity. The applicant will construct public street improvements within most of the rights of way. The applicant not construct street improvements within prodposed Tract D. The applicant will dedicate Tract D to the City to allow for realignment of 133r Avenue when the tax lot 1400 redevelops. The applicant cannot realign the street with this development, because the applicant does not own tax lot 1400. D. CONCLUSIONS 1. Based on the findings adopted and incorporated herein, the hearings officer finds that he has no authority to consider the issues raised by the appellant. The issues raised on appeal exceed the limited scope of appeal allowed by TDC 18.390.040.G(2)(b), because those specific issues were not raised during the written comment period. 1 TDC 18.120.030.A(61) defines "driveway" as: A private way providing ingress and egress from one or two lots, parcels or tracts to a public or private street. 2 TDC 18.120.030.A(131) defines "street" as: A public or private way that is created to provide ingress or egress for persons to three or more lots, parcels or tracts of land, excluding a private way that is created to provide ingress or egress to such land in conjunction with the use of such land for forestry, mining or agricultural purposes. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00024 (Alpine View) Page 7 • 2. If the hearings officer further finds that the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed subdivision does or will comply with the applicable approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code, subject to conditions adopted by the director, and the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence or evidence of equal or greater probative value to the contrary and/or failed to persuade the hearings officer that the application violates the applicable approval standards based on such evidence. 3. Therefore the hearings officer should affirm the director's decision. E. DECISION In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained and incorporated herein, the hearings officer hereby denies the appeal, affirms the decision of the planning director and approves SUB2004-00024 (Alpine View) subject to the conditions of approval in the director's decision dated July 18, 2005. DATED this 7`h day of October 2005. r Joe Turner, Esq., AICP City of Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00024 (Alpine View) Page 8 • "TAB A" • Testimony Received at the Public Hearing. • M a L LE'l-R- I NAS IHI LLP A T T O IR N E Y S A T L A W Phillip E. Grillo phil.grillo@mi I lernash. com (503) 205-2311 direct line September 19, 2005 HAND-DELIVERED Mr. Joe Turner City of Tigard Hearings Officer 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: Alpine View Subdivision Appeal (SUB 2004-00024) Dear Mr. Turner: 4400 Two Union Square 601 Union Street Seattle, WA 98101-2352 (206) 622-8484 (206) 622-7485 fax 500 E. Broadway, Suite 400 Post Office Box 694 Vancouver, WA 98666-0694 (360) 699-4771 (360) 694.6413 fax I am writing on behalf of the applicant, ECF Alpine View LLC, in response to the appeal filed by Mr. Daniel R. Pelissier. Pursuant to TMC 18.390.040(G)(2)(b) and ORS 197.195(3)(a) and (3)(c)(B), the applicant requests that Mr. Pelissier's appeal be denied, because none of the nine grounds for appeal were raised during the written comment period. As the City's development code points out, only in extraordinary circumstances should new issues be considered by the Hearings Officer on appeal of a Type II Administrative Decision. (See TMC 18.390.040(G)(2)(b).) Furthermore, with regard to Limited Land Use Decisions, an issue must have been raised in writing with sufficient specificity prior to the expiration of the comments period, in order to serve as a basis for an appeal to LUBA. (See ORS 197.195(3)(c)(B).) Therefore, even if these issues were considered by the hearings officer in this appeal, they could not serve as a basis for an appeal to LUBA. In summary, the applicant agrees with the City of Tigard's planning staff, that each of the nine grounds for appeal were not raised during the comment period, and that these issues are therefore outside the scope of this appeal. Respectfully s bmitted, Phillip E. rillo Miller Nash LLP www.millernash.com 3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204-3699 (503) 224-5858 (503) 224-0155 fax r 0 '(TAB Bi' Applicant's Materials & All Correspondence Filed with Hearings Officer Prior to the Public Hearing. CITY OF TI©ARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: Joe Turner, City of Tigard Hearings Officer FROM: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner DATE: September 12, 2005 SUBJECT: Alpine View Subdivision (SUB 2004-00024) Appeal The proposed development is to subdivide an 8.69-acre property into forty-six (46) single- family lots. The site consists of four parcels that will be combined. The subject parcels and others to the north are currently accessed by SW 133rd Terrace through an existing access easement from SW Bull Mountain Road. The appellant, Dan Pelissier, is an adjacent property owner to the north of the subject property, whose appeal concerns his right to continued use of the access easement over SW 133rd Terrace. The City has conditioned the proposed development to limit future use of the easement to the original easement holders. The condition acknowledges the easement rights where they exist, but prohibits use of the easement by future residents of the proposed development because the access does not meet street spacing standards on Bull Mountain Road. The appellant has standing because he commented on the proposed development by email on June 7, 2005. Staffs responses to these initial comments can be found on pages 10 and 11 of the Notice of Decision for Alpine View. In summary, the comments addressed the issue that the proposed gate, and required sidewalk and street tree improvements for the proposed SW Alpine Crest Way (replacing SW 133rd Terrace) would abridge existing easement rights. In addition, the comments addressed the issues of the health of the trees on adjacent parcels, the design of the neighborhood circulation plan, and effective traffic management through an alignment or Alpine View and Starview. The appellant's appeal statement cites nine specific code sections of the Tigard Development Code that he believes "are not met by the application". On page five of the statement he asserts that all issues raised in the appellant statement were raised during the comment period. Staff finds that none of the issues raised in the appellant statement relate directly to the issues in the original comment letter as described below. 9/19/2005 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 1 of 3 RE: SUB2004-00024/Alpine View Subdivision Appeal Does not meet access and egress requirements of the code (18.705.030.C) The "joint use of the easement" issue raised in this item was not raised in the initial comment letter. Therefore, pursuant to Section 18.390.040.G.2.b, item #1 is outside the scope of the appeal (subject to the Hearings Officer discretion). 2. Produces inadequate or, hazardous access (18.705.030.G.1.a) The "Inadequate or hazardous access" issue raised in this item was not raised in the initial comment letter. Therefore, pursuant to Section 18.390.040.G.2.b, item #2 is outside the scope of the appeal (subject to the Hearings Officer discretion). 3. Does not meet access management requirements of the code 918.705.030.H.1) The "access report" access management issue raised in this item was not raised in the initial comment letter. Therefore, pursuant to Section 18.390.040.G.2.b, item #3 is outside the scope of the appeal (subject to the Hearings Officer discretion). 4. Does not meet the access management requirements for driveways (18.705.030.H.2) The "influence area of a collector" access management issue raised in this item was not raised in the initial comment letter. Therefore, pursuant to Section 18.390.040.G.2.b, item #4 is outside the scope of the appeal (subject to the Hearings Officer discretion). 5. Does not meet requirement of street trees required by the code (18.745.040.A) The "street tree" issue raised in this item was not raised in the initial comment letter. The comment letter instead concerned an omission in the tree protection plan, which did not show the trees located on the adjacent property lines, as required. Therefore, pursuant to Section 18.390.040.G.2.b, item #5 is outside the scope of the appeal (subject to the Hearings Officer discretion). 6. Does not meet street standards requirements of the code (18.810.030. E) The minimum rights of way and street widths issue raised in this item was not raised in the initial comment letter. Therefore, pursuant to Section 18.390.040.G.2.b, item #6 is outside the scope of the appeal (subject to the Hearings Officer discretion). 7. Does not meet the requirement for future street connections (18.810.030.H.1) The "full street connection spacing" issue raised in this item was not raised in the initial comment letter, which simply stated the appellant's belief that effective traffic management would align Alpine View to Starview. Therefore, pursuant to Section 18.390.040.G.2.b, item #7 is outside the scope of the appeal (subject to the Hearings Officer discretion). 8. Does not meet sidewalk requirements of the code (18.810.070.A) The "sidewalk requirements" issue raised in this item was not raised in the initial comment letter, which simply stated that "the sidewalks and street trees shown on the applicant's drawings also are within my easement." The appellant statement is concerned with consistency of findings in the staff report. Therefore, pursuant to Section 18.390.040.G.2.b, item #8 is outside the scope of the appeal (subject to the Hearings Officer discretion). 9/19/2005 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 2 of 3 RE: SUB2004-00024/Alpine View Subdivision Appeal 0 • 9. Does not meet planter strip requirement of the code (18.810.070.C) The planter strip requirements" issue raised in this item was not raised in the initial comment letter. Therefore, pursuant to Section 18.390.040.G.2.b, item #9 is outside the scope of the appeal (subject to the Hearings Officer discretion). As demonstrated above, none of the nine items in the appellant's statement were raised in the initial comment letter. Therefore, staff recommends that the Hearings Officer deny the subject appeal.. Note: If the Hearings Officer chooses to review the above items, the staff report addresses the code requirements for the relevant sections. 9/19/2005 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 3 of 3 RE: SUB2004-00024/Alpine View Subdivision Appeal 120 DAYS = 9/20/2005 . SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY. FILE NAME: ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION CASE NO:: Subdivision (SUB)* SUB2004-00024 REQUEST: The appplicant is requesting approval to subdivide an 8.69-acre property into forty- six (46) single-family lots. The site consists of four parcels that will be combined which currently contain four houses and several sheds. All .of the structures will be removed with the exception of one house, which will be incorporated into the proposed subdivision. APPLICANT/ ECF Alpine View, LLC OWNER'S Harris McMonagle Associates, Inc. OWNER: Attn: Graharn.Colton REP: 12555 SW Hall Boulevard 1310 SW 17 Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97201 OWNER: Edward & Saundra Metzler OWNER: Edwin Elliott Murphy Trustee 13267 SW Bull Mountain Rd. 13255 SW Bull Mountain Road Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard; OR 97224 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:- RJ SI g/-e=Farriry; Medium-Density Resident al.- 7 ZONE: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is'designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size o 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional.uses are also permitted conditionally. LOCATION: North of Bull Mountain Road at SW 133rd Avenue. 13255, 13267, 13275 and .13279 SW Bull Mountain Road; WCTM 2S109AB, Tax Lots 700, 800, 900 and 1000. APPLICABLE. REVIEW. CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.390, 18.430, 18.510,. 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. DECISION NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 1 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and suomit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Page.nstecher 503-639-4171,' EXT 2434. The cover letter shall. clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: Submit a revised landscape plan specifying the required street trees from the approved street tree list. 2. Submit an erosion control plan that identifies areas for re-vegetation, topsoil storage areas, methods of replanting and topsoil restoration in accordance with Section 18.745.060. Prior to any site work, a tree protection plan, prepared by a certified. arborist shall be submitted to the City Forester for review and approval that shows how all existing trees six inches and greater on the subject property, not identified for removal; will, be protected. The plan, to be included with the construction documents, shall indicate the location of protection fencing and shall take into account off-site trees that overhang into the subject property. Consideration for utility trench alignments and grading shall also be a part of the protection plan. The plan 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. Once the protection plan is approved, tree protection measures must be installed for all trees to be retained. Once installed, the City Forester must inspect the tree protection measures. 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 remedlatlon measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 4. Prior to commencing site work, the applicant shall submit a cash assurance for the equivalent value of mitigation required ($62,250.00).. If additional trees are preserved througgh 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 bond may be correspondingly reduced. Any trees planted on the site or off site in accordance with 18.790.060D~ will be credited against the cash. assurance, for two years - -fioflowng M rprat approval -A er sucF time, tfie appficanf shall pay the remaining value of the bond as a fee in lieu of planting. The applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist submits 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 should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing.. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, 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.. The following text shall appear in the protection plan and be . included on the construction documents: The applicant acknowledges that the development code provides for the following penalties if the trees on site are damaged or removed. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation.. Such remediation NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 2 OF 36 SUB2004-00024-ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION • • shall include, but not be limited to, the following: A. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 18.790.060 (D) of the Tigard Development Code, and B. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most. current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ATTN: KIM MCMILLAN 503-639-4171, EXT. 2612. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 7... Prior to commencing onsite :improvements, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover street improvements and any other work in- the public ri ht-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.ci.tiaar6or.us). 8. 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. 9. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the pity. Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and . traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application; and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 10. 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. 11. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public-along the frontage of Bull Mountain Road to increase the. right-of-wato 35 feet from the centerline. The descn tion 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. 12. The applicant shall place the private driveway access to Bull Mountain Road in a Public Tract. This portion of the street shall be Private and shall be signed and gated prior to accessing the public portion of Alpine Crest War. A concrete apron shall be constructed in order to delineate hA Ri ill Mni intnin Rnntl ni ihiir, OW frnm tho nrivn+c rlrn,c TL,,. r•..u~ ~ Nm.a~ n si ian GaI.ISe a statement to be place on tRe plat that limits access to the current~pro"~ ~peraty owners with rights of access and that maintenance of the tract shall be by the Alpine View Homeowners Association. The gate shall be in. place prior to final plat approval. 13. The applicant's Public. Facility Improvement permit construction drawings shall indicate that full width street improvements, including tragic control devices, mailbox. clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement; sanitary sewers, storm drainage, street trees, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the interior subdivision streets. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. 14. The applicant shall revise the plan and profile for Foran Street to comply with the maximum grade standard. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 3 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION • • 15. A profile of Alpine Crest Way, Starview Drive, Foran Street and Alpine View Drive shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 16. The applicant shall execute a Restrictive Covenant whereby the agree to complete or participate in the future improvements of SW Bull Mountain Road adjacent o the subject property, when any of the following events occur: A. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for by the formation of a Local Improvement District, 6. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for in whole or in part by the City or other public agency; C. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be constructed by a third party and involves the sharing of design and/or construction expenses by the third party owner(s) of property in addition to the su-bject property, or D. When construction of the improvements is deemed to be appropriate by the City Engineer in conjunction with construction of improvements by -others adjacent to the subject. site. 17. The appllicant shall obtain. ROW at the intersections of Bull Mountain Road at Greenfield Drive and 133 Avenue in order to-construct westbound right-turn lanes. The City Engineer will assist, at the developer's expense, in obtaining ROW from impacted property owners.. 18. The applicant's plans shall include the design of tPe right-turn lanes at the intersections of Bull Mountain Road (BMR) at Greenfield Drive and 133 Avenue. 19. The applicant's plans shall indicate concrete driveway aprons at all private streets and driveways. 20. The applicant's construction d=he s shall show that the pavement and rock section for the proposed private street(s) shall City's public street standard for a local residential street. 21. The applicant shall provide sanitary and storm sewer laterals to the adjacent. undeveloped properties. 22. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed Public Facility Improvement PFI) permit construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water - - -eparfrrient; as -pat-of thengineenng Department ptan review. TiQTE:n estlmafed 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the PFI permit plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 23. The applicant's plans shall be revised to indicate the replacement of the 4 inch public water line to an 8 inch line from Bull Mountain Road to Wilmington Lane. 24. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality/detention facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) as. a part of the Public Facility Improvement plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscappe plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract to the City of Tigard on the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an Operations; and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for ap roval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance. shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the. three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping. is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 25. The applicant •shall provide a maintenance access road to the facility and any drainage structures within the facility to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. The access road shall be paved and have a structural section. capable of accommodating a 50,000-pound vehicle. The paved NOTICE OF DECISION • OPAGE 4 OF 36 SUB2004-00024-ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION' r . • .width shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide, and there shall be-two-foot rock shoulders provided on each side. If the maintenance roadway is over 150 feet in length, a turnaround shall be provided. 26. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PPFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, February 2003 edition." 27.. A final. grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of .all lots, and. show that they will be graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot. 28. The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations from the submitted geotechnical report by GeoPacific Engineering, Inc., dated 12-22-04, into the final grading plan. The geotechnical engineer shall be emp, toyed by the applicant throughout the entire construction period to ensure that all grading, including cuts and fills, are constructed in accordance with the approved plan and Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC. A final construction supervision report shall be filed with. the Engineering Department. prior to issuance of building permits. 29. The design engineer shall indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will- have natural slopes in excess of. 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. 30. The final construction plans shall be signed by the geotechnical engineer to ensure that they have reviewed and approved the plans. The geotechnical engineer shall also sign the as-built grading plan at the end of the project. 31. 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. . Y~ r c THE FOLE;OWING CQNDIIIONSSHAt BE,SATISFIED ~ Sw- ~.4:.... ~.i.ir li yry _ ;..h: h `i - V any The applicant s prepare a cover letter and suomit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT 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: 32. Prior to final plat approval, 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 accordin to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid. Pa tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. 33. Prior to final plat approval, dedicated public street access to the site shall be available in-the general alignment as shown on the preliminary plat. Furthermore, public and required private improvements shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved plans. (Note: nothin in this approval shall be considered authority to violate any existing easement rights.Y 34. Prior to final plat approval,' the applicant shall submit a letter from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue indicating that the conditions of their comment letter have been satisfied. The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it,. along with any supporting' documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ATTN: KIM MCMILLAN 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 5 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION 35. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall pay the addressing fee. (STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat, Engineering). 36. A joint use and maintenance agreement shall be executed and recorded on City standard forms for all common driveways. The agreement shall be referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel Deeds. The agreement shall be approved by the Engineering. Department prior to recording. 37. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private street(s) will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from it (them). 38. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private street(s). The CC&R's.shall obligate the private =n7enance owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation for the_ street(s). The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) prior to approval of the final plat. 39. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that they 'have formed and incorporated a homeowner's association. 40. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Bull .Mountain Road underground as a art 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 $2,100.00 and it shall be paid prior to final plat approval. 41. The applicant's final plat shall contain State Plane.Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to the City's global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control network (GC 22). These monuments shall be on, the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north.' These coordinates can be established by: _ GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey. - - By Yandomavefse using convenonal surveying methods.- 42. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Submit for City review four '(4) paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. B. Attach a check in the amount of the current final plat review fee (Contact Planning/Engineering Permit Tech nicians,'at (503) 639-4171, ext. 2421). C. The final) platt and data or narrative, shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05); Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. D. The. ri ht-of-way dedication for Bull Mountain Road, Alpine Crest Way, Starview Drive, Foran Street and Alpine View Drive shall be made on the final plat. E. NOTE:. Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive notice from the Engineering Department indicating that the City has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyyor. F. After the' City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final lat for City Engineer signature (for partitions), or City Engineer and Community Development Director signatures (for subdivisions). 43. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant's engineer shall provide final sight distance certification. a. .a te v y ` L. k 3`r y+ m,,: ` 4n y'TH EQx.I~O1M.,G [~I~I.O~ISSH:ALL;•B..,S~~SFIED i,•~ , PRIOJT©I,SSU 1~ f01§iU tINGE;RI~IITS` }r:~ vE".... ..._..t , s ..-V ',l;..... ' R s... ..a.sax N.. r :4, -~c:.A GcF't".:,:'Y+i~...xb..f ..a':. •t n a- -pp shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 6 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION •1 • ATTN: Gary =nstecher 503-639-4171, EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the ittal the required information is found: 44. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall sign a copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. 45.. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant. shall apply for a sign permit. 46. Prior to construction, the applicant shall apply for an adjustment to the street spacing standard for the existing driveway on Bull Mountain Road. 47.' . Prior to issuance of building .permits, the Project Arborist shall submit a final certification indicating the elements of the Tree Protection Plan were followed and that all remaining trees on the site are healthy, stable and viable in their modified growing environment. 48: 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, location of tree protection fencing, and a signature of approval from the project arborist regarding the placement and. construction techniques to a 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. The applicant shall prepare a cover.letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ATTN: KIM MCMIL,LAN 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 49. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with .a uphotomylar" copy,of the recorded final plat. 50. The City.Engineer may determine the necessity for, and require submittal and approval of, a construction access and parking plan for the home building phase. If the City Engineer deems such a plan necessary, the applicant shall provide the plan prior to issuance of building permits. - 5'I - -h66r- to- issuance 6 buTding piWiits wlfhin the subdivision, the City. Engineer shall deem the public improvements substantially complete. Substantial completion shall be when: 1) all utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities, 2) all local residential streets have at least one lift of asphalt, 3) any off-site street and/or utlllfy improvements are substantially completed, and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. (NOTE: the Cify apart from this condition, and in accordance with the City's model home policy may issue model home permits). 52: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features)) In the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). 18.430.080 Improvement Aqreement: Before City.a proval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans .are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 7 OF 36 SUB2064-00024 -ALPINE VIEW. SUBDIVISION 1. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and 2.. Include in the agreement provisions that if.such.work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees'and deposits as may be required to be paid and may .also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract. 18.430.090 Bond: As required. by Section 18.430.080, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: 1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; 2. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it maybe terminated; or . 3. Cash. The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement 'estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 18.430.100 Filing and Recordinq: Within 60 days of the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92: Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. 18.430.070 Final Plat Application Submission Reauirements: Three copies of the subdivision plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. The subdivision plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to.the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. .STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: Centerline Monumentation In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. The following centerline monuments shall be set:. 1. All centerline-centerline intersection points; 2. All cul-de-sac center points; and .3. Curve points,. beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). All centerline monuments shall be set during :the first lift of pavement. Monument Boxes Required NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 8 OF 36 SUB2004-00024-ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished. pavement grade. 18.810 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: 18.810.120 Utilities All uti i lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and. cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers,, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.810.130 Cash or..Bon~d Required All improvements installed by the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City. Such guarantee shall be secured' by cash deposit or. bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.810.180. 18.810.150 Installation Prerequisite N-6 land-aivision improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefore have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. . 18.810.180 Notice to City Reguired or s a not begin until the City Fas been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed- until the City is notified. 1.8.810.200 En ineer's Certification The an ivi e s engineer sha-provide written certification of a form-provided b _the City., that all - - "improvements-wor = ansTiip-and ma_fenals are in accord-wth-cuFrent and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to the City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. ` THIS APP~2QVA4SHALL:B~,YAL~D ~OR't811110L~IT#iS~. ?~r~h ,~~1° , , x _ . FROM THE EFFECTIVE :DATE' OF THIS SDECISIQN ; ~1 SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History The Alpine View site consists of four parcels, which were recently annexed into the City of Tigard, and given the zoning designation of R-7: Medium Density Residential. The existing four dwellings were built from the 1930s to the 1980s. Site Information and Proposal Description: The 8.69-acre site generally slopes from tie west to the east at a ten percent grade overall. A variety of trees are scattered across the site. The applicant is requesting subdivision approval to divide the 8.69-acre property into forty-six (46) single-family lots. All of the existing structures, with the exception of one house, will be removed and incorporated into the proposed subdivision. The remaining single-family home will be located on the proposed Lot #20 in compliance with applicable setback requirements. There are two public street extensions proposed, for SW Starview Drive on the east and SW Alpine View Drive on the west. NOTICE OF DECISION ' PAGE 9 OF 36 SUB2004-00024-ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION Vicinitv Information: The proposed-aevelopment is located north of Bull Mountain Road at SW 133rd Avenue. The northern boundaryof the site abuts two parcels that are in unincorporated Washington County. The western boundary abuts the Three Mountain Estates. subdivision. The eastern boundary abuts the Foran and Raven Ridge subdivisions. SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET The City sent notice to property owners within 500 feet of the subject proposal. The following property owners commented on the proposed subdivision and expressed the following concerns: John Casale, Three Mountains Home Owners Association property owner, commented on the ssu lect-Zieve5pment proposal by email on May 26, 2005. 1 received your notice with regard to this new development which backs up to our development - Three Mountains Estates, and would like to suggest that a stop sign be incorporated into the plan where Alpine View meets SW 1333'"' Ave. There are numerous children that play on SW 133rd and there will need to be a way to slow down traffic coming out of Alpine View and into Three Mountains Estates. Response: According to the City's Engineer, intersections of local streets are typically not signed. However, a stop sign at the proposed location _ could be installed, if. warranted. A study should address the issue after completion of the subdivision when traffic patterns are evident. Dan Peiissier, 'adjacent property owner, commented on the subject development proposal by email on June5: 1. The Fire Gate appears to be restricting my easement to Bull Mountain Road. I view any restriction from the 50 foot easement as a property taking subject to the laws governing such activities. Any hindrance from the full width that restricts my family, friends, or others is not acceptable to me. I will pursue this matter to the full extent of the law. Response: The City does not intend to restrict any valid easement rights. However, because the street spacing standards cannot be met on Bull Mountain Road with the existing easement alignment, _ _ the ~ity~nust restrictuse-of -the- easer ent-to_.those-existing p.rio E --owners-that-have- easement rights and not allow use of the easement by future owners of Alpine View lots. Therefore, the City has suggested that the Developer work with the easement holders to propose a mutually acceptable arrangement that addresses the City's concern. A key/card lock gate for exclusive use by easement holders has been. tentatively proposed by the.Developer. 2. The sidewalks and street trees shown on. the applicant's drawings also are within m easement and equate to the same issue as number 1 above.* This was reviewed with the developers engineers and he said the City had ,a right to take away the easement. The developer was not at the first public meeting which l attended and has never contacted me in any way.. Response: Please see response to #1 above. 3. The tree protection plan does not. show the adjacent trees on the property lines as you stated is required. l am very concerned over the health of the trees on adjacent properties. Response: Although not required by the Tigard Development Code, the City has in practice required that trees on adjacent properties that overhang the subject property be included on tree inventories so that appropriate tree preservation methods can be employed to ensure their protection. Some off- site trees have been shown on.the applicant's Tree. Preservation and. Mitigation plan. However, no trees have been shown on either abutting property line of Mr. Pelissier's parcel (TL .300). According to aerial photos, trees do exist on Mr. Pe issier's arcel that should be accounted for in the applicant's preservation plan. This will be required as a condition of approval. 4: The neighborhood circulation plan is not acceptable to me. 1 hope City Engineers are receptive to looking at this plan on a case by case basis. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 10 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION 9, Response: In several pre-application meetings with the Developer's Engineer, the City voiced concern that the proposed street layout seemed awkward and should be revised to provide more connectivity with fewer private streets. The final proposal submitted for review may meet the standards for street design but is certainly not the only configuration possible. 5. 1 believe effective traffic management would align Alpine View to Starview. Response: Please see. response to # 4 above. Thomas.J. Murphy, attorney for James and Shirley Rippey, property owners north of the site, commentee on the- subject development proposal in a letter dated June 3 2005. Mr. Murphy is concerned that his client's easement rights are being compromised by the ?ire gate shown on the applicant's site plan that would prevent the Rippeys from accessing Bull Mountain Road over the easement they have had for over 40 years. Mr. Murphy also raised this issue in a letter to the City in November of 2004. Response: The fire gate is the applicant's response to the City's concern that access to Bull Mountain be restricted because the street spacing standard could not be meta The City. has encouraged the applicant and the Rippeys to discuss the issue and come to a mutually acceptable agreement prior to development review. Brent and Kim Aue, adjacent property owners on SW Starview Drive at SW Foran Street, commented on the subject development proposal in a. letter dated May 29, 2005.- The Aues are concerned that SW Foran be developed to maintain acceptable living conditions for the existing residents of the area. In particular, they would like to see the firs retained west. of Foran Street at Starview Drives route the development's construction traffic over the existing private drive connection to Bull Mountain Road, and consider traffic calming measures to discourage non-resident traffic when congestion from Alberta Rider results in bypass traffic. Response: A slope- easement exists adjacent to Parcel 1 of the Foran subdivision. This easement anticipates the need to grade down to accommodate the steep slope at that location. However, the applicant's grading plan shows that grades in the easement will remain unchanged. An trees located in the easements may have to be removed to accomplish the grade. Any trees located-outside of the public right-of-way on private property should not be. adversely affected by construction of Foran Street. The city engineer requires the developer t9 provide for tempora construction parking and -access so ~~af atltacen~ property access is n t impeded.-Traffic calming measures could be implemented provided it could be shown that they are warranted. Traffic calming should be discussed apart from the subject development at.a time when the extent of the problem is evident. Brent Mesher The new subdivision will border our house (13387 SW Alpine View) and will unquestionably affect my property value not to mention our quality of life. At the current time there is very little traffic and is a very quiet neighborhood-that will change will the addition of 46 more houses. I obviously oppose the. addition of 46 - new houses. If - this subdivision goes in I see no reason why the houses directly bordering the new subdivision shouldn't be compensated for the diminished value and the affect on the quah"ty of life. Response: Mr. Mesher's comment is an opinion that asserts a reduction in property values and quality of life. However, he does not support this contention with any substantial evidence. This development review of the pro osed development finds that the applicable provisions of the Tigard Development' .Code are met OT Can be met if conditioned. The purpose of the Tigard Development Code is to promote and protect the general health, safety and welfare of the public. There are no criteria or standards that provide for diminished value for development that meets 'code provisions and provides property rights for use of. property similar to that of previously subdivided property. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA A summary of the applicable criteria in this case in the Chapter order in which they are addressed in this decision are as follows: NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 11 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION A. Land Division T U (5u 3ivision) B. A licabl:s S ecific Development Standards l ed ntial zoning distracts) 18.705 (Access, Egress and Circulation) 18.715 Density) 18.725 Environmental Performance) 18.745 lLandscaping and screening) 18.765 Off-street parking and loading requirements) 18.775 Sensitive Lands) 18.780 Signs) 18-.790 Tree removal) - 18.795 kVision clearance) C. Street and Utility Improvement 'f$ STUTMree an Utility . Improvement Standards) D. Decision Makin Procedures TnUU (impact Study) The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following Specific Development Standard Code Chapters: 18.710 (Accessory Residential Units), 18.720.(Design Compatibility), 18.730 (Exceptions to Development Standards), 18.740 (Historic Overlay), 18.742 (Home Occupations), 18.750 (Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations), 18.755 (Mixed Solid Waste & Recyclable Storage) 18.760 (Nonconforming situations), 18.785 (Temporary Uses), and 18.798 (Wireless Communication Facilities).. These chapters are, therefore, found to - be inapplicable as approval standards. SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. SUBDIVISION GENERAL PROVISIONS (18.430): Future Re-Division. When subdividing tracts into large lots, the Approval Authority shall require that the lots be of such size and shape as to facilitate future re-division in accordance with the requirements of the-zoniingsiistri-ct and th.s~itle.----- Lot 20, with 21,898 square feet is proposed to accommodate an existing dwelling. The location of the dwelling would leave enough area (62 x 137 = 8,494 square feet) on the subject parcel to subdivide into an additional lot with the existing, dwelling meeting all setback requirements. In the event the existing dwelling was to be removed, the remaining 13,404 could be further subdivided into two additional. lots. Access to these additional lots could be accomplished from the adjacent SW Foran Street. Therefore, this standard is met. Lot Averaging Section 18.430.020.D states. Lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed in the underlying zoning district as long as the average lot area for all lots is not less than allowed by the underlying zoning district No lot created under this provision shall ha loac than Rn%: of the minimum Int ci7a ailnwad in the iindarivinn ve%ninn Aiet~ir-+ w.v .vv ..w.. 30 •v -..e -.11-11111-111 ...w he -...v.v..y...0 v• M.VL..VM The applicant has proposed to use the lot averaging option. The average of all lots is 5,402 square feet without including lot 20 for the existing dwelling. The smallest lot is 4,632 square feet, which exceeds 80% of the 5,000 square foot minimum lot size. This standard is met. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 12 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION I Floodplain dedications. Where land filling and/or development is allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain outside the zero-foot rise floodway, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway ad)oining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. The not proposed development is not adjacent to the. 10&-year floodplain. Therefore; this standard does apply. Need for adequate utilities. All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage. According to the preliminary. utility plan, all proposed utilities are located well outside the floodplain. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Need for adequate drainage. All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage. The proposed development application includes a preliminary utilities plan and drainage report. According to_ the Kim McMillan, engineer with the City of Tigard, these documents provide for adequate drainage through a storm water collection system to reduce exposure to flood damage. Therefore, this standard is met. . Determination of base flood elevation. Where base flood elevation has not been provided or is not available from another authoritative source, it shall be. generated for subdivision. proposals and other proposed developments which contain at least 50 lots or five acres (whichever is less). Thesubj1ect site is located on Bull Mountain and is not near the Fanno Creek or any.tributary's flood plane. Therefore,, this, standard does not apply. ---A rova-tCrifeFrre imina P1-at:-------- The proposed preliminad. plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances an regulations: Compliance with the specific regulations and standards of the zoning ordinance will be addressed further within this decision. The proposed at name must not. be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS.Chapter 9E, , The.plat name "Alpine View" has been approved Iby the Washington County Surveyor's office and is reserved for this property: See Application for Subdivision Plat Naming dated 8/17/04 by Denette KeeriOn at the Vvas Iington County Surveyw s Office. Therefore, this standard is met. The Streets and roads are -laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions or subdivisions already approved for. adjoining :property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify. the street or road pattern. Two public streets, SW Starview Drive and SW Alpine View Drive are roposed, which are laid out so as to conform to the plats of Three Mountain Estates on the west aURaven Ridge on the east. SW Alpine Way is proposed to coincide with an existing access drive (SW 133rd Terrace) over which existing property owners hold access easements to Bull Mountain Road. This standard is met. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 13 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. The common improvements proposed include three public streets (SW Starview Drive, . SW AI ine Way and SW Alpine View Drive) and the water quality facility in Tract B. Specific details 7t'he proposed improvements are discussed later in this ddecision under the Street and Utility Improvement tandards section. The applicant has provided an explanation for all common improvements as required. Therefore, this standard Is met. FINDING:. Based on the above analysis, the proposal meets the preliminary plat approval standards for subdivisions. B. APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE' SECTIONS Residential Zoning Districts (18.510 is a ciescriptlon offliilresl ential Zoning District. Uses The site is located in the R-7: Medium-Density residential zoning district. The proposed household living is a permitted use. in the R-7 zone. Minimum and Maximum Densities The minimum and maximum density calculations are 38 and 48 lots, respectively (see Density Calculations below) The R-7 zoning district has the following dimensional requirements: M. 5TAt~17.7R2 x.., r. t a r V.~ I_;. P~oposedv- 1 h'..:.. 7 Minimum Lot Size 4,632 sf - 6,817 sf Detached unit Average Lot size 5,406 sf 5,000 sq. ft.. Duplexes - 10,000 sq:ft. Attached.unit [1] 5,000 sq.ft. Average Minimum Lot Width Detached unit lots 50 ft. - 59 ft. 50 ft. Duplex lots - 50 ft. Attached unit lots 40 ft. Maximum Lot Coverage _ 1 58%- 68%0______ _I 80%(2)_ Minimum Setbacks Front yard 15 ft. 15 ft. Side facing street on corner & through lots 10 ft. 10 ft. . Side yard. 5 ft. 5 ft. . . Rear yard. 15 ft. 15 ft. Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning 30 30 district 20 ft. 20 ft. Distance between .property line and front of garage Maximum Height NA 35ft. Minimum Landscape Requirement 132%-42% 120% [1], Single-family attached residential units permitted'at one dwelling per lot with no more that five attached units In one grouping. [2] Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. Based on the lot averaging standards of Section 18.430.020.D, lot sizes can be reduced to a minimum of 4,000 square feet as long as the average lot size for the entire subdivision is at least 5,000 square feet The proposed lots range in size from 4,632 square feet to 6,817 square feet. The average lot size for the 46 lots proposed for this subdivision is 5,405 square feet (excepting proposed Lot 20 for the existing dwelling, which is 21,898 square feet in size and is not included in the lot average calculation). The averse minimum lot widths exceed 50 feet. The proposed lot coverage for all proposed lots range from 58% lo 68%, well. below the 80% allowed. Consequently, the landscape portion of the proposed lots (32% to 42%) exceeds the 20% minimum required. The applicant provided. building envelopes on the Lot Coverage and Setbacks plan (sheet 4 of 10) that demonstrates that the required setback criteria are met. Future homebuilders will be required to comply with the setbacks, height and lot coverage/landscape requirements during the building permit review process for the homes on individual lots. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 14 OF 36 SUB2004-00024-ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION • I Accessory Structures • i The applicant is not proposing any accessory structures as part of the proposed development. Therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: Based on. the analysis above, the residential zoning district standards are met. Access, Egress and Circulation 1( 8.7And' Uhapter. 8 05 establishes standarregulations for safe and efficient vehicle access and egress on a site and for general circulation within the site. Table 18.705.1 states that the minimum vehicular access and egress for single-family dwelling units on individual lots shall be one 10-foot paved driveway within a 15-foot-wide accessway. The minimum access width for 3-6 dwelling units is 20 feet with 20 feet of pavement. According to the Preliminary Plat and Lot Coverage plan, each dwelling unit is accessed by a 20-foot driveway. In addition, each of the private streets, serving 4 to 6 lots, is 20 feet wide and 20 feet paved. Therefore, this standard is-met. Access plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and. circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant-shall submit a site plan.: The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement.. Scaled site plans have been submitted that indicate how the requirements of access, egress, and circulation are met, consistent with this standard. Joint access. Owners of two. or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of moth uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds,. easements, leases or contracts to establish the Joint use; and Copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City.___ Joint access has not been requested in the proposed development. Public street access. All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections. 18.705.030H and 18.705.0301 shall connectdirectlyy with.a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. All lots will directly access a public or private street. CC&R's or plat notes'will require that the private streets be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. Therefore, this standard is met. Curb cuts shall be in accoraance with erection 18.810.030N. Curb cuts will be addressed under Chapter 18.810. Street and Utility Improvements Standards later in this decision. Inadequate or hazardous access. Applications for. building permits shall be referred to the Commission for review when, in the opinion of the Director, the access proposed would cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or would provide inadequate.access for emergency .vehicles; or would in any other way cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a ..clear and present danger to the public health, safety and general.welfare. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 15 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION • r • Based on review of the preliminary plat submitted by the applicant. (as revised 6/17/05), the design of SW Alpine View Drive, SW Starview Drive, SW Alpine Crest Way satisfactorily addressed TVF&Rs concerns for street dimension and radius requirements of the fire code and do not appear to have any hazardous attributes remaining. Direct individual access to arterial or collector streets from single-family dwellings and duplex lots shall be discouraged. Direct access to- major collector or arterial streets shall be considered only if there is no practical alternative way to access the site. All lots are proposed to take access from local residential streets including SW Alpine View Drive, SW Starview Drive, and SW Alpine Crest Way. Therefore, this standard does not apply. In no case shall the design of the service drive or drives require or facilitate the backward movement or other maneuvering of a vehicle within a street, other than an alley. Single-family and duplex dwellings are exempt from this requirement. This criterion does not apply to the proposed single-family dwellings. 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 meetingg adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards -as set by CIDOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO. Kitt 6IS011 Associates, Inc. re ared--a Trans ortation Im act Analysis report for this development, dated Ap rg 2005. Sight distance. was observed in the field for the interections of Bull Mountain Road/133 Avenue and Bull Mountain Road/Greenfield Drive. The 85'" percentile speeds they observed were 48 mph and 45 mph for the eastbound and westbound directions, respectively. These speeds require sight distances of 480 feet for the eastbound direction and 450 feet for the westbound direction. Available 1ht'distancelor the intersection of Bull Mountain Road/133rd Avenue is 470 feet. in the eastbound rection and 500 feet in the westbound direction. The limiting factor at this location is.a low speed horizontal curve on Bull Mountain Road just west of the intersection. There is a curve 'Warning sign with a 25 mph reduced speed posted as the traveler approaches this curve. - -Availaab-iie. sight distance fog the 1-nfe~section of-Bulrwount-ain--R ad~een If eff Dnve is 4-5D-feet in the eastbound direction and 500 feet in the westbound direction. The limiting factor at this location is a low speed horizontal curve on Bull Mountain Road just west of the intersection. There is a curve warning sign with a 25 mph reduced speed posted as the traveler approaches this curve. With the posted reduced speed signs, the sight distance criterion is met for these two intersections. The applicant's engineer shall provide final sight distance certification prior to final plat approval. Sight distance certification must be provided for all intersections within the development,. including private streets and the private driveway onto Bull Mountain Road. The applicant's engineer shall. provide final sight distance certification prior to final plat approval. " 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 drMere The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from Cieer review of a traffc'impact report submitted by the applicant's. traffic engineer. In a a project. has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. There is an existing private driveway that. accesses Bull Mountain Road. Bull Mountain Road is classified as a pollector. This driveway is located approximately 120 feet east of the Bull Mountain Road/SW 133' Avenue intersection, which does not comply with this standard. However, as an NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 16 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION existing driveway, the applicant,is not proposing to place the driveway. This. standard does not apply to the existing driveway. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum. spacing of driveways and streets. along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing. of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. The private driveway that accesses Bull Mountain Road is located within 200 feet of one street and at least four driveways. Typically, with provision of alternative access, the City would require that the driveway be closed to comply with this standard. However, because the easement rights over the proposed Tract D cannot be abrogated, the applicant must apply for an adjustment to this spacing standard for a collector (Bull Mountain Road). Approval of this adjustment must be granted prior to construction. Minimum access requirements for residential use. Vehicular access and egress for. single-family, duplex or attached single-family dwelling units on individual lots and multi-family residential uses shall. not be less than as provided in Table 18.705.1 and Table 18.705.2; According to the applicant's plan set, no access will be less than 15 feet in. width, consistent with Table 18.705.1. Vehicular. access to multi-family. structures shall be brought to within 50 feet of the ground floor entrance or the ground floor landing of a stairway, ramp, or elevator leading to the dwelling units; No multi-family structures are proposed with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Private residential access drives shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform fire Code; The driveways anticipated for future development of the subject lots are. typically 25 feet wide by 20 feet deep All driveways shall be provided. and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Oregon Fire Code as adopted by City Council on January 25,. 2005. This standard will be addressed -by the building department when permits for individual lots are repuested._ Section 18.705.030.H.4 states. that Access drives in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning. around of fire apparatus by one of the following: a circular, paved surface having a minimum turn radius measured from center point to outside edge of 35 feet or a hammerhead-configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead havin a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet The maximum cross slope of a required turnaround is.5%. The applicant proposes hammerhead-configured turnarounds for Tracts A, E,,and F. According to the comments (revised June 22, 2005) provided by Eric McMullen, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Deputy Fire Marshall, the.proposed turn around configurations located in Tracts A, E &.F meet the dimension and radii requirements of the Fire District's. adopted fire code ordinance. Therefore, this c+~n.J,irA mc+ .Jaa1iva1u 1,7 Inca. FINDING: Based on the analysis above; all of the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have not been met. The street spacing standard for the existing driveway is not met. Provided the applicant applies for an adjustment to the street spacing standard., the proposed development would be consistent with the. applicable standards of the access and. egress chapter. Condition:. Prior to construction, the applicant shall apply for an adjustment to the street spacing standard for the existing driveway on Bull Mountain Road. Density omputations and Limitations:: Maptr 18.715 Computations Comprehensive Plan by establishing the criteria for determining the number of dwelling units permitted. The number of allowable dwelling units is based on the NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 17 OF 36', SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION • r net development area. The net area is. the remaining parcel area after exclusion of sensitive lands and land dedicated for public roads or parks. The net area is then divided by the minimum lot size permitted by the zoning district to determine the number. of dwelling units that may be developed on a site. Based on the formulas in Chapter 18.715 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code, the maximum and minimum, number of units permitted on the site is based on the net developable area, subtracting sensitive, land. areas, land dedicated to public parks, land dedicated-for public right-of-way, and land for private streets from the total site area. Of the total site area (8.69 acres), 1.52 acres for public street right-of-way and 1.09 acres for.private street right-of-way are deducted, resulting in a net buildable area of 5.58 acres (243,567 square feet). The maximum number of lots permitted on this site, therefore, is 48 (243,567 sf divided by 5,000 sf/lot = 48.71 lots) and the minimum number of lots is 38 (48.71 x .80 = 38.97). , The applicant's proposal to create 46 lots meets the maximum density requirements of the R-7 zone. FINDING: Because the applicant has proposed 46 lots and 38 to 48 lots are permitted based on the net acreage of the site, this standard has been met. Environmental aerformance standards (18.725): These standards require that federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 (Performance Standards) regulates: noise, visible emissions, vibration and odors. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through 7.40.210 ooTI a Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Visible Emissions. Within the commercial zoning districts and the industrial park (IP) zoning district; there. sofa 1 be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or. the emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a property line. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-015 and 340-28-070) apply. 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 ne7o-f-the usetoni±errie - - Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such, quantities as to be readily Ue ec-Table at any point bey 0.nd the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (S40-028-090.) apply. Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line. shall be permitted, and; 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2) these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the - time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. This is a detached single-family project, which is permitted within. the R-7 zone. There is nothing to indicate that these standards will not be. met. However, ongoing maintenance to meet these standards shall be maintained and any violation of these standards will be addressed by the City of Tigard's' Code Enforcement Officer. FINDING: The Environmental Performance standards are met. Landsca in and Screening 18.745 section std e __7 I s. t at existing vegetation on 'a site shall be protected as' much as NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 18 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION • I • I possible. The developer shall provide 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 will be required, pursuant to the condition of approval contained later in this decision under the Tree Removal section, to submit a tree preservation plan showing how all existing trees six inches and greater on the subject property, not identified for removal, will be protected. With imposition of this condition, this standard is met. Section 18.745.040 requires that street .trees be planted in conjunction with all development that fronts a street or driveway more than 100 feet long. A proposed planting list must be submitted for review by the Director since certain trees can damage, utilities, streets and sidewalks or cause personal injury. This section also contains specific standards for spacing of street trees as follows: Small or narrow stature trees (under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart; s Medium sized trees (25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; and Large trees (over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart; The applicant has provided a street tree plan that meets the spacing standards along the proposed streets. However, the City Forester commented in a memorandum dated June 8, 2005 that street trees should be native species of trees such as bigleaf maple, cascara or Oregon white oak. The species of street tree used in this development is not listed. The species must be approved before the trees can be planted. [ProperI sized oaks can be found at River Oak Farm & Nursery. Call Diane at 503-357-2745.. Selection of the tree species will be in accordance with the City Street Tree list and the City Forester's recommendations. Therefore, this standard is not meta Section 18.745.050 contains the provisions and requirements for buffering and screenin . It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for privacy and protection and reduce or .eliminate the adverse impacts of visual _or noise pollution at a development site, without unduly interfering with the view from neighboring properties or jeopardizing the safety of _pedestrians• anavehicles; -J--------- - T Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter (Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). The owner of each proposed development is responsible for the installation. and effective maintenance of buffering and screening. When different uses would be abutting one another except for separation by a right-of-way, buffering, but not screening, shall be required as specified' in the matrix; The Buffering and Screening Matrix (Section 18.745.1) requires buffering or screening when a single- family detached residential use is proposed adjacent to. different uses. The proposed development is - zoned R-7 and is surrounded by property zoned R-7. Therefore, no buffering is required. Section 18.745.060 contains the provisions for re-vegetation where natural vegetation has been removed through grading. Such areas are to be replanted as set forth in this section to prevent erosion after construction activities are completed. The applicant will be required by these standards and CWS' standards to replant disturbed areas. A condition will. be imposed to ensure that this occurs. FINDING: Based on the comments of the City Forester and the analysis above, these standards have not been met. However, if the applicant implements the following conditions, these standards could be met. Conditions: + Submit a .revised landscape plan specifying that the required street trees from the NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 19 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION approved street tree list. • Submit an erosion control 'plan that identifies areas for re-vegetation, topsoil storage areas, methods of replanting and topsoil restoration in accordance with Section 18.745.060. Off-Street Parkin and Loadin Requirements (18.765): Chapter 18. Table 18.7 regwires tnat single-family residences be provided with one (1) off-street parking space for each dwelling unit. The applicant's Lot Coverage and Setbacks plan shows driveways for each proposed lot, 20 feet in width and a minimum of 20 feet in length. Compliance with this standard will be enforced during the building permit review process. Since the Code requires 20 feet from the property line to the face of a garage, this will,insure that at least one car can park, off of the street, outside of any garage. FINDING: Because each individual home will be. reviewed for compliance with this standard during the building permit phase and it is feasible that this standard will be met by providing driveways and garages, this standard has been satisfied for all proposed lots. Sensitive Lands 118.7751. 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. The. regulations also implement the comprehensive plan and floodplain management program, Clean Water Service (CWS) 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 drainsggeways; 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 Cittyy of Tigard Wetland .and Stream Corridors Ma9L and steeo slopes o 25%, or greater and unstakile ground. Sensitive lands permits shall be required for the areas in Section 18.775.020.F.1 above when any of the following circumstances apply: Around 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. Pursuant to Section 18.775.020, the applicant obtaineda Clean Water Services service provider letter for the proposed development. The provider letter, File Number 4598, dated February 15, 2005, finds that the proposed development will have no significant impact on existing. sensitive areas. As shown, in the application. materials, location of the pproposed development does not include the 100-year floodplain or wetlands. Slopes greater than 25% have resulted from manmade fills for the existing single=family dwellings and will be graded out to. less than 25% with site development for the proposed subdivision. The two intermittent drainages. within the subject site drain less than 10 acres and are, therefore, not subject to CWS standards for protection or enhancement. Therefore, a sensitive lands permit is not required for the proposed development. Signs (18.780): Chapter regulates the placement, number and design criteria for signage. The applicant is proposing to place two wall signs on monuments located on the property line at the NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 20 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION • I. • ' entries into the site on SW Alpine View Drive and SW Starview Drive. The desi n'of the signs has not been submitted with the application. Any future signage will be subject to the sign permit requirements in Chapter 18.780. There has been' a proliferation of sign violations from new subdivisions. In accordance with a new policy adopted by the Director's Designee, all new subdivisions must enter into a sign' compliance agreement to facilitate a more expeditious court process for citations. FINDING: To expedite enforcement of sign violations, a sign compliance agreement will be required. CONDITIONS: • Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall sign a copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. • Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall apply for a sign permit. Tree Removal (~18.7901: 'Yree pian reqquir' e . 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. 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 a er construction. As. required, the applicant submitted a tree" plan conducted by Raymond Myer, a certified arborist, which meets the standards. The tree inventory (Sheet 9 of 10) included all trees greater than 6 inches in diameter and indicates that there are 41 healthy trees on site. 12". in diameter or greater. 29 (71 of theses trees will be cut to accommodate development and 12 (29%) will be retained. When 25% to 50% of trees greater than 12 inches in diameter. are proposed to be retained, 213rds of the caliper inches of those trees to be removed must be mitigated (755 x 2/3 498 caliper inches to be mitigated). The total mitigation required for the proposed development is $62,250 (498 x $125./caliper inch). The trees that are. to be saved are shown on the inventory and will be protected using methods recommended and listed below by the City's Forrester. The City Forester has reviewed the applicant's protection plan and provided the following comments: NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 21 OF 36 SUB200"0024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION As required, the applicant submitted a tree plan that was conducted by Raymond' Myer of Tree Care and Landscapes Unlimited. The plan contains all four of the required components of a tree plan, and, is therefore, acceptable. Below are the City Forester's tree protection plan requirements: TREE PROTECTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS The full text of these following requirements shall be placed on the tree protection plan: Any tree that will not be removed onsite that is within the limits of disturbance of this project must be protected. Any tree that is located on property adjacent to the construction project that will have more than 15% of its root system disturbed by construction activities shall also be protected. 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 than will have more than 15% of its root system disturbed by construction activities shall also be protected. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit a detailed construction schedule to the City Forester with notations as to when tree protection devices will be either. installed or removed throughout construction of the project. 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 ofany 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 Est shall be no less than four feet high from the top of grade. Each ost shall be driven - - - - info the ground fo a-depth ofi no Less than rwo and half tee e►ow.grade. _Eacffposfshall 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 1DBH), or 4 % 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. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 22 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION • k ~ i 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 protect 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. The Project Arborist shall submit written reports to the City Forester, at least,. once ever y two weeks, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the. condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that. the construction activities to the trees did :not adversely impact the overall and Iongg- term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the Clty 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 will stop work on. the project until an inspection can be .done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection wf71 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 -If a violation has occurred, one or more of the following penalties will be pursued through the infraction process: - . Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 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 98.790.060 (D) of the Ti and Developpment Code; and B. Payme wof 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. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Arborist shall submit a final certification indicating the elements of the Tree Protection Plan were followed and that all remaining trees on the site are healthy, stable and viable in their modified growing environment. Section 18.790.040 states that 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 ofthis chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. The applicant will be required as a condition of approval to record a deed restriction limiting the removal of trees that are retained on the. project site following completion of the subdivision improvements, in accordance with this standard. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Tree Removal standards are not presently met, but can be met, provided the applicant complies with the conditions listed below: NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 23 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION Conditions: Prior to any site work, a tree protection plan, prepared by a certified arborist shall be submitted to the City Forester for review, and approval that shows how all existing trees six inches and greater on the subject property, not identified for removal, will be protected. A plan to be included with the construction documents shall indicate the location of protection fencing and shall take into account off-site trees that overhang into the. subject property. Consideration for utility trench alignments and grading shall also be a part of the protection plan. The plan 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. Once the protection plan is approved, tree protection measures must be installed for all trees, to be retained. Once installed, the City Forester must inspect the tree protection measures. 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. t Prior to commencing site work, the ''applicant shall submit a bond for the equivalent.. value of mitigation required ($62,250.00). If additional trees are preserved through the subdivision improvements. and construction of. houses, and are properly protected throwg~h_these stages by the. same. measures-afforded to-other pro ected trees on site, the amount of the bond 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 bond, for two years following final plat. approval. Affer such time, the applicant shall pay the remaining value of the bond as a fee in lieu of planting. • 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 should include any changes that. occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree _ protection fencin If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist - - - - - - - sha~f ustity w yy fencing was moved, a- sfiall certl "heFth& 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. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant/ownor 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. • Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Arborist certification indicating the elements of the Tree Protection and that all remaining trees on the-site are healthy, stable modified growing environment. NOTICE OF DECISION SUB2004-00024-ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION shall submit a final Plan were followed and viable in their PAGE 24 OF 36 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, 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. , . . Vision Clearance: napter applies to all development and regwires that clear vision areas shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways and at the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A visual clearance area shall contain no vehicles hedge;.planting, fence, wall structure, signs, or temporary or.permanent obstruction exceeding three feet in height. The applicant has shown vision clearance areas on the Lot Coverage and Setbacks plan (Sheet 4 of 10). The applicant has not proposed any structures or vegetation in the vision. clearance areas. Construction plans for the streets will need to be reviewed and approved that satisfy the visual clearance requirements. Subsequent grading and vegetative removal may be imposed during infrastructure construction to assure that this standard is met. FINDING: - - Because- no-structures are currently proposed in the vision clearance area and all future buildings will be reviewed for compliance during the building permit phase, this standard has been satisfied. C - STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS (18.810): Street And Utilittyy Improvements StandardsLSecti~on 18.810): LhaQter 'r$:$~prov es construction stan- aarrd~or ffe-implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: ec ion 1T.8fi0: 20-. .1-s`t tes tb-a-Fs-free-is withi=n 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 Rgghts-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030(E) requires a local street to have a 54-foot ri t-of-way width and a' 32-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. This site lies adjacent to SW Starview Drive and SW Alpine View, which are classified as local streets on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 44 feet of ROW on Starview Drive and 50 feet of ROW on Alpine View, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. The applicant has proposed to dedicate a 50 foot ROW for the public. streets within the development. The applicant has proposed a 50 foot ROW, with parking on both sides, which meets the skinny street standard with less than 1000 vpd. The applicant's engineer indicates that the estimated daily trips will be approximately 520, which meets this criterion. The applicant has not submitted a traffic flow plan and will be required to do so prior to issuance of the PFI permit. The proposed ppublic streets are not constructed. In order to mitigate. the impact from this development, the applicant sF~ould construct the full street improvements in accordance with the skinny street standard for a local street serving less than 1000 vehicles per day. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 25 OF 36 SUB2004-00024-ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION There is a private driveway access to Bull Mountain Road from this development. 'There are property owners, not included in the proposed subdivision, who will continue to access Bull Mountain Road via this driveway. The applicant shall place this access in a Public Tract. The Tract can then be converted to ROW in the future. This portion of the street shall be Private and shall be signed and gated prior to accessing the public portion of Alpine, Crest Way. A concrete apron will be required to be constructed in order to delineate the Bull Mountain Road public ROW from the private drive. The applicant shall cause a statement to be place on the plat that limits access to the current property owners with rights of access and that maintenance of the tract shall be by the Alpine View Homeowners Association. The gate shall be in place prior to final plat approval. The private access drive abuts Bull Mountain Road. The. applicant shall dedicate ROW along the frontage of this access point in order to provide 35 feet of ROW from centerline. - The applicant shall also enter into a restrictive covenant for future street improvements along the frontage of Bull Mountain Road. Future Street Plan -and Extension. of Streets: Section 18.810.03 pIan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and oro boundaries of the proposed land division. This section give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adj( the. boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barr the street These street stubs to adjoining properties are they are intended . to continue as through streets at s developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the em which shall not be removed until authorized by the Citfi included in_ the street construction cost. Temporary ham sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub streets in excess states that a future street sed future streets from the :hat where it is necessary to streets shall be extended to be constructed at the end of it considered to be cul-de-sacs since h time as the adjoining property is )f the street by the property owners -n ineer, the cost oT which shall be erffead.:turnouts.or temporary cut-de- 150 feet in length. The applicant has submitted a future street plan, which includes two streets connecting to Bull Mountain Road and several other connections to existing and future development adjacent to this project. 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-existingg 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-.81"30:14:2-stales that all focal, neigh -borhooa Fou-tes and col ector 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. The local streets abutting this project have been extended within the site providing adequate circulation, thereby meeting this criterion. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.810.030(H)(3) requires proposed street or street extensions to provide direct access to existing or planned transit stops, commercial services, and other neig pborhood facilities, such as schools, shopping areas, an p~parks. The Alberta Rider elementary school is located southeast across Bull Mountain Road. The proposed extension of SW Starview Drive will provide direct access to this neighborhood facility. In addition, commercial services and shopping areas on Pacific Highway will be accessed by the SW Starview Drive extension. Therefore, this standard is Met.. Cul-de-sacs: 18.810.030X 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: NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 26 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION • I • 1 All cul-de-sacs shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other than circular, shall be approved by the City Engineer; and The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured along the centerline of the roadway from the near side of the intersecting street to the farthest point of the cul-de-sac. If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the City. As this standard refers to public streets, there are no proposed cul-de-sacs.in this proposal. However, three private streets are proposed from 220 to 350 feet in length in a hammer head configuration. Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.M states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any. other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet), and: 1. Centerline radii of curves shall not be less than 700 feet..on arterials, 500 feet on major collectors, 350 feet on minor collectors; or 100 feet on other streets; and 2. Streets intersecting with a minor collector or greater functional classification street, or streets intended to be. posted with a stop sign or signalization, shall provide a landing averaging five percent or less. Landings are that. portion of the street within 20 feet of the edge of the intersecting street at full improvement. The applicant indicates that the street grades, as designed, meet this standard. There are grades exceeding 12%, but none of which are greater than 250 feet in length, thereby meeting this criterion. The grade of Foran Street appears to be approximately 16% from Starview Drive for a distance of 70 feet. This exceeds the recently adopted Ire Code requirements of grades no steeper than 15%. The applicant shall revise the plan and profile for Foran Street to comply with this standard. Access to Arterials and Major Collectors:. Section 18.810.030.P states that where a development abuts or is traversed by an existing or proposed arterial or major collector street, the development design shall provide adequate protection for residential properties and shall separate residential access and through traffic, or if separation is not.feasible, the design _ -shall minimize. the traffic conflicts. The design shall include any of the following: _ • A parallel access street along the'arterial or major collector; • Lots of suitable depth abutting the arterial or major collector to provide adequate buffering with frontage along another street; • Screen planting at the rear or . side property line to be. contained in a nonaccess reservation along the arterial or major collector; or • Other treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this subsection; If a lot has access- to two streets with different classifications, primary access should be from the lower classification street. Bull Mountain Road, a collector is accessed by an existing driveway that will continue to serve.those parcels not a partof the proposed development. The proposed development does not contain any lots that abut a collector or arterial street. I nerefore this standard 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. The applicant has proposed three private streets within this development. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 27 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION The applicant shall place a statement. on the face of the final plat indicating the private street(s) will be owned and maintained by the properties that will be served by it/them. In addition, the applicant shall record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) alon with the final plat that wllf clarify how the private property owners are to maintain the private street s). These CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of the final plat. he City's public improvement design standards require private streets to have a pavement section equal to a public local street. The applicant will need to provide this type of pavement section. . FINDING: The provisions for streets have not been met. The grade of Foran Street exceeds the recently adopted Fire Code requirements of grades no steeper than 15%. Condition; Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall revise the plan and profile for Foran Street to.comply with the maximum street grade standard. Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be. designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation;. control and safety. of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.B.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2,000 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development or; For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. The proposed subdivision creates one block with a perimeter of approximately 2,100 feet. No other blocks are created. The future street plan shows that several other blocks can be formedwith the proposed street design that meets the block perimeter standard. Therefore, this standard has been met. Section 18.810.040.B.2 states that bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-ot-ways shall be provided when full street connexion 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. Full street connections are provided within the proposed development and between adjacent developments to the south, east, and west. The adjoining parcels to the north are developed in large lot single family homes. When these properties are developed to minimum densities, steep grades will restrict full street connections. Future development should ensure pedestrian and bicycle access is provided for. This standard is met for the proposed .development. Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.810.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district None of the proposed lots exceed 2.5 times their width. All the proposed lots are less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the k-7 zoning district. Therefore, this standard is met by all lots in.the proposed subdivision. Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley. In the case of a land partition, 18.420.050.A.4.c applies, which requires'a parcel to either have a minimum 15-foot frontage or.a minimum 15-foot wide recorded access easement In cases where the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit, the frontage shall be at least 15 feet. NOTICE'OF DECISION. PAGE 28 OF 36 SUB2004-00024-ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION All lots in the proposed subdivision have at least 25 feet of frontage on a public street. This standard is met. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located. on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. The applicant's plans indicate construction of sidewalks on both sides of the proposed public streets and on one side of each of the private streets, thereby meeting this criterion. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments. to existing mains in. accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section .18.810.090.C. states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There is an existing 8 inch sewer line in Starview Drive. The applicant's plans indicate they will be extending the public sewer line. in the public streets and two of the private streets. The plans show the sewer extended to the limits. of development to the north and south. This criterion is met. 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 18.810.100.0 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 Managementt (as. adopted by. the -Unified Sewerage - Agency in MO and including any future revisions or amendmen-fs~. - - T- - There are no upstream drainage ways. that impact this development. The applicant shall provide public storm sewer stubs to the limits of their development for unserved, upstream properties. This includes, but is not limited to, -a stub to the end, of improvements in Foran Street and the north end of Alpine Crest Way. Effect on Downstream Drainage:. Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff- resulting from .the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the. Unified Sewerage agency in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). 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. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 29 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION The applicant has submitted plans that show an underground detention pipe that will serve this development. The storm water will then be discharged to a swale for water quality treatment prior to entering the existing drainage channel located along the east property line. The applicant's engineer indicates that the capacity of this natural drainage course, for over one-half mile, is adequate to handle the detained runoff from this project. This criterion is met. 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. 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 improvements. Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.C states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. There are. no bike lanes indicated. on the Bicycle Master Plan that will be required within. this development. The applicant is required to enter into a restrictive covenant for im rovements, including. bikeway striping, for the frontage along Bull Mountain Road where the private driveway has its access.. 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; ----JMf-under-ground-atilfties,-incAudmg-sanitary~ sewers and-storm dr-ains-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 conjunctionwith the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. -The most common, but not the only, such situation is. a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW Bull Mountain Road. If the fee in- lieu is proposed, it is equal to $35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is approximately 60 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $2,100.00. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 30 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT biANuAkus: Traffic Study Findincc sue~: T'l ransportation impact Analysis was prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc., dated April 2005, for this proposed development. Operational analysis were performed for the ollowing intersections: Bull mountain Road/133 Avenue North), Bull Mountain Road/lVd Avenue (South) and Bull Mountain Road/Greenfield Drive. The report also provided trip data in order to support the applicant's request for a skinny street design.. The three study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service. during both the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour periods. The engineer indicates that the Year 2006 Total Traffic Conditions show all study. intersections are forecast to. function within acceptable operating standards during both .tlie weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour periods. The left-turn warrants analyses conducted at Bull Mountain Road/133rd Avenue and Bull Mountain Road/Greenfield Drive. showed that none of the left-turn warrants are met under full build-out conditions.. Left turn lanes are currently under construction at Bull Mountain Road/Greenfield Drive as part of the Arbor Summit.Subdivision project. Westbound.'right-turn warrants are met at both the Bull Mountain. Road/133`d Avenue and Bull Mountain Road/Greenfield Drive intersections. The engineer did not recommend the construction of these right turn lanes due to insufficient ROW along Bulf Mountain Road. The. insufficiency of ROW is not an adequate reason for not implementing safety improvements. The applicant will be required to construct these right-turn lanes. The City Engineer has offered 'to help obtain ROW from property owners along Bull Mountain Road. The cost of ROW will be borne by the developer. Public Water System: There is an Inc public water line in Starview Drive and a 4 inch public water line in the access easement, a portion of which will become Alpine Crest Way. The applicants plans indicate they will be connecting to the existing 8 inch line in. Starview Lane and replacing the 4.Irich line in Alpine Crest Way with an $ inch line. The City's Water Department is requiring that the applicant upsize the 4 Inch line with an 8 inch line from Bull Mountain Road to Wilmington. Lane. The applicant shall coordinate this work with. the Water Department with regards to the complete design and installation. ----StorrrrWater-Qualit - The i as agree to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM' regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards -adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00:7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 66 .percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated frrom newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used, in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the CWS Design Standards. In addition,. the applicant shall. submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. Prior to the City accepting this facility as a public facility, the developer shall maintain it for a minimum of three years after construction is completed. The pond shall be placed in a tract and conveyed to the City on the final plat. - The developer will be required to submit annual reports to the City which show what maintenance operations were conducted on the facility for that year. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City wilvtake over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting. opportunity. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 31 OF 36 SUB2004-00024-ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION Grading and Erosion Control: 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 and. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction.. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. A final grading..plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, -and show that they will be graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to.the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot. The applicant will also be required to provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report will need to _be incorporated into the final grading plan and. a final. construction supervision report must be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits.. A Geotechnical Engineering Report was prepared by.Geopacific Engineering, Inc., dated 12-22-04. The design engineer shall also indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. An NPDES. 1200-C permit is required as more than one acre will be disturbed through the construction process. Address Asssignnn ents: -The (;ity o "Tiga is responsibre fog assigning addresses fog parcels within the City of-Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee In .the amount of $50.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to final plat approval. The developer will also be required to provide signage at the entrance of each . shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served by the given driveway or street. This will assist emergency services personnel to more easily find a particular home. Surve~~Re uirements The applican s Ina p at shall contain State Plane. Coordinates [NAD 83 (91))] on two monuments with a tie to :he .City's global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control network (GC.22). These monuments shall be on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. 'Along with the coordinates. the plat shall contain the srnlP fartnr to nnnvarf nrni inrl measurements to grid. measurements and the. angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be established by: • GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey. • By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. In addition, the applicant's as-built drawings shall be tied to the 'GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features . in the development, and their respective X and Y. State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 32 OF 36 SUB2064-00024 -ALPINE VIEW. SUBDIVISION t D. - IMPACT STUDY 'Section. 18.390.040 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public. facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public ri ht-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports the. conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.390.040 states that when a condition of appproval 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's application includes an impact study which addresses impacts of the proposed development on public facilities and services. In the applicant's narrative, the applicant proposes 50- foot right-of-ways for all public streets and 22 foot tracts for private streets. Storm water runoff will be directed to an on-site storm water quality facility show on the applicant's preliminary plat, which will release storm water at pre-development rates. The development will extend existing water main lines located within the rights=of-way of SW Alpine View Drive, SW Starview Drive and the easement that connect the sits with SW Bull Mountain Road. Service laterals will be extended from the new 8-inch line to serve the new residential structures. A sanitary service line will serve all proposed parcels and connect them to an existing trunk line in SW Starview Drive. Any required street improvements to certain collector or hi her volume streets and the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures tha are required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson.for the A-Bo Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIFs are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development. on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Presently, the TIF for a detached, single-family dwelling is $2,690. - - -upon comple-ti'on o-f-this ~developmen-t,-the-fuTure builders of a fesicTences wiltbe ~equlred to pay TIF's totaling approximately $123,740 ($2,690 x 46 new dwelling units). Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this project's traffic impact is $386,875 ($123;740 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact, is considered as unmitigated. impact. Since the TIF paid is $123,740, the unmitigated impact can be valued at $262,947 ($386,875 - 123,740). All of the proposed pubic street dedications are necessary improvements for the functionality of the proposed . subdivision, providing access. and egress for future land owners in the Alpine View subdivision. Therefore, any dedications will be proportional. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City Forester provided comments and. recommendations in a Memorandum. dated June 8, 2005. The comments on street trees and tree removal have been included above in sections on landscaping and screening and tree removal. The City Forester's recommended conditions of approval have been included in. this decision's conditions of approval. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Washington. County Department of Land use and Transportation received notice of the proposed application and. stated they will not be submitting any requirements/conditions. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 33 OF 36 SUB2004-00024-ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION 0. 0 Clean Water Services has reviewed the proposal and has issued a. service provider letter (File #4598 Revised, dated February 15 2005), which concludes that the.project would not significantly impact .the existing Sensitive Areas 1?ound on or near the site. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the subject proposal and submitted a comment letter dated June 6, 2005, and a .revised letter dated June 22, 2005, with the following conditions: 1) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD DISTANCE.FROM BUILDING AND TURNAROUNDS: Access roads snafrbe within ZFfe-et o all, portions ofThe exterior wail o the Irs 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 provlderwiTh an approved turnaround. The proposed revised turn around configurations (Per Revised Preliminary Plat, 6/17105, by Harris-McMonagle Associates) located in Tracts A, E & F meet the dimension and radii requirements of the Fire District's adopted fire code ordinance. s) FIRE APPARATUS. ACCESS ROAD EXCEPTION . FOR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER PROTECTI When buifdings are comp refe~y protectee with .an approved automatic'fire sprinkler system, the requirements for fire apparatus access may be modified as approved by the fire code official. 4) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS. ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access roads sFaa r have an unoestructe"- wid[FoR not-7less than 2 teet (1 eet for up to two dwelling units and accessory buildings), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 iriches.. 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. As noted on the submitted plans, Tracts A, C, E & F shall be posted. as fire lanes on both sides. Use of the Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines, as published by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development in November. 2000 shall be considered an acceptable alternative to these requirements. s) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS WITH FIRE HYDRANTS: Where a fire hydrant is located on a the apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet. 6) NO PARKING SIGNS: Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to - accommodate par ee -vvehicles 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. Sians shall be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and shall have red letters on a white reflective background. 7) SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather suer ace t -Fat is ease yy..TRinguisna6FT.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. s) TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall be not less than 28 eet an eet respectively, measured from the same center point. The radii at the entrances to Tracts C, E & F meet this requirement. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 34 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION I • s s) 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). io) GATES: Gates securing fire apparatus roads shall. comply with all of the following: • Minimum unobstructed wi. tth 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 30 feet from the intersecting roadway.. • Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type • . Manual:Aoperation 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. 1~) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum available fire flow for single tamely awenings ana aupiexes servea 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. 12) FIRE HYDRANTS - ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS & ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: where a portion of a structure is more tnan bUU Teel trom a nyarant on a the apparatus access road, as measured. in an approved route around the exterior of the structures), on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided. 13) FIRE HYDRANT NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION: The minimum number and distribution of.fire hyy' rants avatla6Te to a ul mg sn57-56 be7ess than tl-iat listed in Appendix C, Table C 105.1. Considerations for placin~ fire hydrants ma be as follows: • Existing rydrants in tie area may be us 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 buildin by railroad tracks shall not contribute to the-required-number of hvdrants_un.less.approvied-be 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. 14) FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire. hydrants shall be located not more than 1 b teet trom an approved the apparatus access roadway. is) REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire. hydrant locations shall be identified by the. installation o re ectlve marKers. Ne marKers sFall 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 16) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways and-tire tIg"g ting water supplies snaiT•be Instal eT-d ana operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 35 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION SECTION IX. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice was posted at City 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 JULY 18, 2005 AND EFFECTIVE ON AUGUST 2, 2005 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal- The Director's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. Any pa with standin as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.39da'040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written ap eal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within. ten (10) business days of the date the Notice of Decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the: Director's Decision shall be confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period: Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted b any .party during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time o .time by the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON AUGUST 1, 2005. Questions: Tt slave any -questions: please call the Ci#~o sl_Pinnnjng-Divisio3.Tigar_d_C ity Hall,. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-417 . Julv 18, 2005 PRE RED B eary enstecher DATE Planner July 18. 2005 APPROVED M(: Dick Bewers DATE Planning Ma r e is\curpln\gary\subdivision\sub2004-00024 (alpine view)\sub2004-00024 decision.doc NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 36 OF 36 SUB2004-00024 -ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION O~ tyq ~F ALPINE VIEVI -T F3B--~~ ;Community Development G tP~ r I T 01Q",9ME4-N--- ;u 3 M VTAIN-RADOE G~ lAP9ES~N Z 1 I I I~ LA / 0 X M aElY-Qg^ z m r v W v CITY of TIGARD OEOORAPHICANFORMATION SYSTEM vicimilymm D SUB2004-00024 ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION 0 100 200 300 400 Feet 1'= 312 feet N O X Gitybf..Tigard, B R 1'1 C\ / E1 A / L'` ~I Information on this map is for general location only and +~''-~"~-'C Y-~' should be verged with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd i Tigard. OR 97223 (503) 639.4171 httpJtwww.ci.ggard.or.us .Plot date: May 24, 2005; CAmagic\MAGIC03APR I si;~ac a.co.cc.ac s ~ ~ I I ~ p ZlLlo-~LMiufl~ ' - 'w~'~10V~p yl yy . , b tint iN;• r b ' wf. ~ NS ~ t''v b w b P3 5 IS' d,r w~-s - ~:?nT• . 1, ~7~~~ ~~~~;a, ~ ; ~ . ~ " k-~ f"' oo~ ~I a w I ~ - ssyy~-~ ~I~..g_,e~.yy9~.._~,y. .ate., ,~:r I_ f 1 "'~'--.c,. ~ +e-. B!; 1 AN rv I ~1 +,-Hn.~. N ..~•crc m.do.ro.ea K . . I ~,t' a c ~ \ t I ut~l .er. \ \ 1 h I I a I ;i I 1 w I ~"~-'I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 • r. I_ ~ I I I I I OF TIGARD t i SUB2004-00024 C' ff - cm of nonnn - I - - Srm PI ALPINE VIEW SUBDIVISION (Map is not to scale) f APPEAL FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX: The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate In local government. Tigard's Land Use Code, therefore, sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phone/fax listed at the top of this form. GENERAL INFORMATION Property Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the Application Being Appealed: J i vllros VIonj SvGuaii -e"4 ~OiltiN o• e*s~ r+~oalur►w ai 1311 i$sxr, I's *141 How Do You Qualify As A Party?: Aoallw'wr I( auewa1 s 6L%Jcm D,%mida. . 1Z fR L&t*lll Appellant's Address: 13 Z73 4%& Out& r4svwrytuti) Rdo.a City/State: 174~ .09 Zip: 772%q Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached:(03) CJ9. 4&#23 Scheduled Date Decision Is To Be Final: Ava 2. ?nt~S Date Notice of Final Decision Was Given: Josa ~$r zoos* Specific Grounds For Appeal or Review: Std /,nAGNW FOR STAFF USE ONLY Case No.(s): 54j-6 2-m41 -.0,3o 2--1/ Case Name(s): Receipt No.: 2-0o r -3(.3.a Application Acceoted By: Date: Approved As To Form By: Date: Denied As To Form By: Date: g 1 vs . r-V' Rev. 7/11/05 is\curpln\masters\revised\appeal.doc REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS ✓ Application Elements Submitted: ❑ Appeal Filing Form (completed) ❑ Filing Fee (based on criteria below) D Director's Decision to Planning Commission $ 250.00 Expedited Review (deposit) $ 300.00 D Hearing Referee $ 500.00 Planning Commission/Hearing's Officer to City Council $ 2.387.00 Transcript) Signatures o ant(s): 0;4-4~- 12X16 4 APPEAL FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS (OVER FOR ADDITIONAL WRITING SPACE) TYPE H DECISION APPEAL Alpine View Subdivision SUB2004-00024 Applicant: ECF Alpine View, LLC 1310 SW 17d` Avenue Portland, OR 97201 Appellant: Daniel R Pelissier 13273 SW Bull Mountain Road Tigard, OR 97224 Standing: 18.390.40 G 1 b - Party who was mailed written notice of pending Type II administrative decision. Adjacent property owner immediately north of subject property. Party who provided written comments during the comment period. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL The decision of approval of the Alpine View Subdivision is hereby appealed based on the application not meeting the following requirements of the Development Code for the City of Tigard: ' 1. Does not meet access and egress requirements of the code (18.705.030 Q. 2. Produces inadequate and hazardous access (18.705.030 G). 3. Does not meet access management requirements of the code (18.705.030 H 1). 4. Does not meet access management requirements for driveways (18.705.030 H 2). 5. Does not meet street trees requirements of the code (18.745). 6. Does not meet street standards requirements of the coded (18.810.030 E). 7. Does not meet requirement for future street connections (18.810.030 H 1). 8. Does not meet sidewalk requirements of the code (18.810.070 A). 9. Does not meet planter strip requirements of the code (18.810.070 Q. DETAILED RESPONSE 1. Does not meet access and egress requirements of the code (18.705.030 C) Joint Access. Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize. jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfied the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; and The property owners of the Alpine View site have established a joint access via 133rd Terrace with adjacent property owners including the appellant. The joint access has been documented and recorded (see exhibit A). The proposed design restricts the joint access easement by placing sidewalks, trees, planting strips and vehicle barriers within this joint access. The applicant has no legal rights to violate the terms of this easement and therefore not legal right to make the improvements. The applicant has failed to provide satisfactory legal evidence to establish the new restricted joint use as required by 18.705.030. 2. Produces Inadequate and hazardous access (18.705.030 G 1 a). Inadequate or hazardous access. Applications for building permits shall be referred to the Commission for review when, in the opinion of the director, the access proposed a. Would cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or Access is currently provided to the Alpine View site and many other parcels via a roadway (SW 133`d Terrace). This access is through an easement that extends from SW Bull Mountain Road through the Alpine View site. The intersection of SW 133rd Terrace and SW Bull Mountain Road does not meet the intersection standards of the City of Tigard and Washington County. Therefore the traffic generated from the Alpine Subdivision produces an inadequate and hazardous access. The safety at this intersection is of special interest due to improvements being made for Alberta Rider School and other subdivision' immediately south of Bull Mountain Road at approximately the same location. The approved Type H decision states: "The City does not intend to restrict any valid easement rights. However, because the street spacing standards cannot be met on Bull Mountain Road with the existing easement alignment the City must restrict use of the easement by future owners of Alpine View lots. Therefore, the city has suggested that the developer work with the easement holders to propose a mutually acceptable arrangement that addresses the city's concern. A key/card lock gate for the exclusive use by easement holders has been tentatively proposed by the Developer" The property owner has no legal right to restrict the easement right of adjacent landowners. Any restrictions of these easement rights will be removed via court order if needed. This creates a condition where new lot owners will use the current access at 133a Terrace to access Bull Mountain Road This added load will create and inadequate and hazardous access. This condition is in direct violation of section 10.705.030 of the code. To date the developer has failed to make any attempt to comply with the approved decision to come up with a mutually acceptable arrangement. The key/card lock gate does not allow reasonable access to family, guest, visitors, and service personnel and is not acceptable. A more appropriate solution is to realign the intersection of U Terrace and Bull Mountain Road as shown on the applicants own neighborhood circulation plan. The approved decision from the City of Tigard specifically states "nothing in this approval shall be considered authority to violate any existing easement rights (of adjacent property owners). The developer clearly does not have right to install the traffic gate within the easement of adjacent property owners. 3. Does not meet access management requirements of the code (18.705.030 H 1). Access Management 1. An access report shall be submitted with all development proposals which verifies design of driveway and streets are safe by meeting, adequate stacking needs, sight distances and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO. Contrary to the findings of the proposed subdivision application, the 133`d Terrace does connect directly to the collector, Bull Mountain Road The application fails to include the required access report. 0` 4. Does not meet access management requirements for driveways (18.705.030 H 2) Access Management Driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of the collector or arterial street intersections. The approved decision states: "there is an existing private driveway that accesses Bull Mountain Road. Bull Mountain Road is classified as a collector. This driveway is located approximately 120 feet east of Bull Mountain Road/SW 133`d Avenue intersection, which does not comply with this standard." The approved decision produced by the City, further states that because this driveway is existing, it does not have to meet the standard. This is contrary to the code, and prior precedence of the City. Most recently the existing driveway at the Baptist Church was challenge for not meeting standards. 5. Does not meet requirement of street trees required by the code (18.745 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 street tree plan, contained in the subdivision application, places trees along the future SW Alpine Crest Way within the access easement of adjacent property owners. The developers do not have legal right to place obstructions within the easement of the adjacent property owners. Any obstructions will be removed via court order, thus, leaving the development without street trees. The approved decision from the City of Tigard specifically states `nothing in this approval shall be considered authority to violate any existing easement rights (of adjacent property owners). The developer clearly does not have right to build within the easement of adjacent property owners. 6. Does not meet street standards requirements of the coded (18.810.030 E). Minimum rights-of-wav and street widths. Unless otherwise indicated on an approved street plan, or as needed to continue and existing improved street. Street right-of-way and roadway widths shall not be less than the minimum width described below. The street plan included with the subdivision application, shown the required improvements for street trees and sidewalks to be constructed within the easement of adjacent property owners. The developer has no legal right to construct these improvements within these easements. Any obstructions constructed within the said easement will be removed via court order and thus will leave improvements not in conformance with the code. The approved decision from the City of Tigard specifically states "nothing in this approval shall be considered authority to violate any existing easement rights (of adjacent property owners)" The developer clearly does not have right to build within the easement of adjacent property owners. 7. Does not meet requirement for future street connections (18.810.030 H 1). Street Alignment and connections 1. Full street connections with spacing for 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 or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995. Does not meet requirement for future street connections (18.810.030 H 1). The neighborhood circulation plan found in the subdivision application, show a realignment of the existing intersection of 133'a Terrace and Bull Mountain Road (see exhibit B). This is the City's and appellants desired solution to the compliant intersection. If this improvement is not completed within the scope of this development, it will never be done. The proposed restriction of traffic via a gate is not within the legal rights of the applicants, and is not needed if their own neighborhood circulation plan is followed. This section of the code clearly acknowledges the rights of easement owners. The multiple violation of the easement rights of adjacent landowners will end up with a development that does not meet code unless addressed at this time. 8. Does not meet sidewalk requirements of the code (18.810.070 A). Sidewalks. All industrial streets and private streets shall have sidewalks meeting City standards along at least one side of the street. All other streets shall have sidewalks meeting City standards along both sides of the streets. See number 6 above. In addition, the City's approved decision state "the applicants plans indicate construction of sidewalks on both sides of the proposed public streets and on one side of private streets, thereby meeting this criterion.' In direct conflict to this statement, the applicant's plans clearly show sidewalks on only one side of the public street Alpine Crest Way. The current plan violates section 18.810.070 of the code. 9. Does not meet planter strip requirements of the code (18.810.070 Q. Planter stria requirements. A planter strip of at least five feet between curb and the sidewalk shall be required in the design of streets, except where the following conditions exist.... See number 6 above. APPEALS RELATION TO COOMMENTS All issues above were raised during the comment period. Please reference Section IV. "Continents from property owners within 500 feet" of the approved decision for comments provided. 1. Does not meet access and egress requirements of the code. 2. Produces inadequate and hazardous access. 3. Does not meet access management requirements of the code. 4. Does not meet access management requirements for driveways. 5. Does not meet street trees requirements of the code. 6. Does not meet street standards requirements of the coded. 7. Does not meet requirement for future street connections. 8. Does not meet sidewalk requirements of the code. 9. Does not meet planter strip requirements of the code. Comment Number 1 Comment Number 1 Comment Number 1 Comment Number 1 Comment Number 2 Comment Number 2 Comment Number 1 Comment Number 2 Comment Number 2 5 gW MO UNT, t RIDGE alto ;•f • ~ isao a~ • r. !1► ♦ A i ` u 4740 3 To I 6 1 a ' r 343 - .0 to aW IN a~ao . . 0400 "Do h man k n ~ $ T y u C l ~~1~1 97100 4400 977 L 4qp l4 O aloo R/V j u ~ Au301'o r 23-7 wu art 1700 AO - ~ 1000 . N- x THIS MAP IS FURNISHED AS A CONVENIENCE BY PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE This map Is not a survey and does not show the location of any improvements. The company assumes no liability for errors therein. MAP # 28108AB 00360 - -----,tea-- WILIIAINOT N LN SW 3000 3300 , AND Q / 0100 3000 ~•J•'~1 700 USAA v 10100 _ ~o0 9700 ` - I•it to i ao 1 , Q. + i i I&r uu 3408 ~ e'.ya uww o00 3U33 ,4 Imm 71;Y♦ L x $too 30 0700 27 to 11700 ~ ~ 106 A0 R .3 70p 3000 010 I r+ 4 Ir ~ . U l ip0 . Q 5~ P+~V IEW DRIVE t r f~II~~ t {~0p 3300 97300 7 to ~R ~ 0300 s • •L•.1. ar . ti f0 1000 , t po fSJ~ sd~o 4 n ' Vx- too WAO ~u 7LM WASHINLalk NW1140114 f X. ✓ 'A 't~;I 7t r ; x r e A. i •if S 41- rrX Mfa ion },r~ t•7t"t % bt+ +IK ~ .1;111. x ~ s?►• •i u QOtbWdTuO' ' ' ' 1700,1!<f41f04t0 u',r It ♦ Q ' r ~1 • PI.oT p ~ F0, pir,lnw X4.0 ew • ) 1 171 EASEMENT P • Dollars (.$10.00•), and other good and valuable consideration, do here- : by, grant, bargain, sell and convey unto Paul Sam an easement for road purposes'-to': the •EasE;,fi ty's(5Q) feet of the following described tract of.`.zland` i :PTashirigtim .CountyOregon: '~~ri a .)',d`. • .~,4:, Y a't`•'.i~'' • - ; • ' '-tbuth one-half of the East one-half of the owing parcel of land: Beginning at a stone ma'rking.the.quarter section corner on the North lirie:'a~',Section'9, Township 2 South, Range 1 Wes.t;: -W1] ame"t'te..Meridian, and running thence South -35,. ;'Eas.E 'along the quarter section line _ 2381:5: b,-Ai} iron in the center of the County •It0 Atl ;nce;'along the County Road South 61°27' t,-;: 7a7:,f7.• feet::.td an iron pipe in the center of the k County ,'ROad"; ;which' iron marks the Southwest corner . b:f.`<theMoler.>:TraGt..;.'•thence North 35' West along the :West' line •of>::the Mq'ler Tract 1581 feet to an iron oii;:tfie:Noith:.line:,-o£: said Section 9; thence on the ectgn;`1Sng,soiit36' 'West 618.1 feet to the placw;pf -beginft g... 7 .1. Z`t is''understood th4t'•the grantee of this easement has S•':.t:::,:7i.t a,:atwQl;{~;e=.foo': easemeiit`totte„;Eas.ta+elve (12) feet of the above des- i . . C ribeci;;tr~e.'t'o instrument is executed for the r ti't' ;.:pur Rose-,.o f 'iricreasin' ;ttie.'..:easeinent : from twelve feet to ~t • ' Tits';easement:.;is'lto.:~be:.used-in conjunction with others ':who; ;tave:heretofore::been::;:grantec easeiae'nt over the same property r,;::': ='r'te'>at5.:1.; `=.'•i,: , ;%~i:=i yti:.:a;.o+'..:.;~• " ;.:dr': ieay: Iheieea.ft'dt .,be,. gr.acited-' an` easement .over said property, as well as with the owner 'of .said :property.: furth'er.' .uaderi tood..'and; agreed ' that Paul Sam as p rt oftihe, consideration for this; :easement :hereb a tees that in rovin this;=:easement. ifot: road" ur as is.:~ hat such improvement wili •'•;;'"~r{'s:: ,o-':j-.~.•'.. ~ , ;a's"begone-;tn ~a e,way so as to not damage';ahe;;=eitiaini'ng. property of. grantors, A f ,wit y..~:i' rts F'i.,..r. 1 Earnd--'Berth's Brown: J f: C f Y ~i1r ~ ,fir a,ti Y71y` ~+r~ "+~~o ~„¢KV,V'~'~a.~ O ~ _ , • 1. -"9'~T~•'.- r l,-M-R.r,' a~°,}''aC1"Qi. w % + •0 4~ I ~4:,'•v L~:, i' (SEAL) r~Iy1 S; yF"l, f x i~r"Ss rwA" P'~^. [ ~ ,~n i 4. } 2 ~ y ~•~1~ ~ ~ `,.r i•~ • • l~a Q~n°~ teat}±Fy'? fib nr1 ^a / ✓~~I /i Z 7/ (SEhL) se, qtS '~r~ 41F 4. ~t~ \~J al ~~~r ~ Y,teooK.:49~. PacF JU~S" ~ ~'ji :i~ ~-,'~,~~,~Eas•einen~~ t 1'~tzd ~ } x ~ ; ~..;.,:~r.... : r--, y ~ tyg~.r .m-•tf 7, ~p., •y 7t;r51 >r' s Y S x ~ ~ i s ~ ' ' i2 _d, 7..r :-~.L:".`'Y`.. s _ ✓ k r'''a... ~ .."~:-~.7.~.rti ~ . _z s ` ~ J `E. t.... _r . r~ ~ a. i + ~i KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we,rl W.: Btowri'.: and Bertha Brown.`; husband and wife, in consideration of Ten and No/100