Loading...
Hearings Officer Packet - 09/28/1998CITY OF TIGARD Community (Devekpment S&TingA Better Community CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER OCTOBER 7,1998 - 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARING (Continued from 9128198) 2.1 ELK HORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION (SUB) 98-0006 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 98-0004 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide approximately 12.38 acres for the creation of a 49 lot Subdivision. This application also involves a request for Sensitive Lands Review for steep slopes and drainageways. LOCATION: The subject properties are located on the north side of SW Bull Mountain Road, east of SW 129th Avenue. WCTM 2S109AD, Tax Lot 01100; 2S109AA, Tax Lot 03900; and 2S104DD, Tax Lot 07200. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential; 7 Dwelling Units Per Acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential, 7 Units Per Acre; R-7. 'APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.40, 18.52, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF TIGARD HEARING'S OFFICER PAGE 2 OF 2 1017/98 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA (Continued from 9128198) 0 6 CITY OF TIGARD HEARING'S OFFICER OCTOBER 7, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. TOWN HALL TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OR 97223 c4nyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-in sheet(s). PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Hearings Officer meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the meeting. Please call (503) 639-4171, Ext. 320 (voice) or (503) 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: ? Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and ? Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of Tigard of your need(s) by 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above if you are requesting such services. (OVER FOR HEARING AGENDA ITEM(S) CITY OF TIGARD HEARING'S OFFICER PAGE 1 OF 2 10/7/98 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA (Continued from 9128198) CITY OF TIGARD Community Oevehpment S&TingA Better Community CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER SEPTEMBER 28,1998 - 700 P.M. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 ELK HORN RIDGE SUBDIVISION Subdivision (SUB) 98-0006 Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 98-0004 LOCATION: The subject properties are located on the north side of SW Bull Mountain Road, east of SW 129th Avenue. WCTM 2S109AD, Tax Lot 01100; 2S109AA, Tax Lot 03900; and 2S104DD, Tax Lot 07200. PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide approximately 12.38 acres for the creation of a 49-lot subdivision. This application also . involves a request for Sensitive Lands Review for steep slopes and drainageways. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Medium Density Residential; 7 Dwelling Units Per Acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential, 7 Units Per Acre; R-7. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.40, 18.52, 18.84, 18.88 18.92, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. 2.2 LAUTT'S TERRACE SUBDIVISION Subdivision (SUB) 98-0005 LOCATION: 14140 SW 97th Avenue. WCTM 25111 BA, Tax Lot 08900. PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested subdivision approval to divide one (1) parcel of approximately 1.79 acres into eight (8) lots ranging in size from 7,500 to 9,766 square feet. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Low Density Residential; 1-5 Dwelling Units Per Acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential, 7,500 Square Foot Minimum Lot Size; R-4.5. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.88 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.160 and 18.164. CITY OF TIGARD HEARING's OFFICER PAGE 2 OF 3 9/28/98 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA • CITY OF TIGARD HEARING'S OFFICER SEPTEMBER 28, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. TOWN HALL TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OR 97223 ----_??? c4nyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-in sheet(s). PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Hearings Officer meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the meeting. Please call (503) 639-4171, Ext. 320 (voice) or (503) 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: ? Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and ? Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of Tigard of your need(s) by 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above if you are requesting such services. (OVER FOR HEARING AGENDA ITEM(S) CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 1 OF 3 9/28/98 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA 2.3 SUMMER CREEK WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 98-0008 LOCATION: The site is a portion of Summercreek, west of SW 121st Avenue, south of the Merestone Subdivision, northeast of Mary Woodward Elementary School and east of the Capstone Subdivision. WCTM 1S134CB, Tax Lot 03801; 1S134CC, Tax Lots 00900, 01000, 01100, 01200, 01300, 01400, 01500, 02000 and 05000. PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested Sensitive Lands Review approval for a water resources enhancement project. The project area is a lineal corridor of approximately 6.5 acres within a series of open space tracts of approximately 14 acres. Landform alterations involving 10,100 cubic yards is proposed with some 8,500 cubic yards of soil to be removed. The applicant proposes to construct a channel for Summercreek through the site with two (2) channel restrictions to force summer flows into newly created ponds and wetlands. Planting of native trees, shrubs, marsh and grass plantings are also proposed to establish wetlands and reduce water temperatures. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Low Density Residential; 1-5 Dwelling Units Per Acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential; 4.5. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.80, 18.84, 18.85 and 18.100. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF TIGARD HEARING's OFFICER PAGE 3 OF 3 9/28/98 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA AGENDA ITEM NO. ?, / :7 • Depending on the number of people wishing to testify, the Tigard Hearing's Officer may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Hearing's Officer may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Hearing's Officer to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO.: 2.1 DATE: OCTOBER 7, 1998 (Continued from 9128198) FILE NAME(S): ELK HORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION CASE NO.(S): SUBDIVISION (SUB] 98-0006 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW 131.111 98-0004 APPLICANT: Terry Booke and Mike Weast APPLICANT'S , Ed Christensen Booke/Weast Development REP.: Christensen Engineering 9020 SW Washington Sq. Dr. 7150 SW Hampton St. Suite 100 Suite 226 Portland, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97223 OWNER: Cascade Communities, Inc. OWNER: Julie Ann Strayer Brown 13535 SE 145th 920 Main Street Clackamas, OR 97045 Monmouth, OR 97361 OWNER: Sara Louise Page Eustis 1414 S. Director Street Seattle, WA 98108 LOCATION: The subject properties are located on the north side of SW Bull Mountain . Road, east of SW 129th Avenue. MAP & TAX LOT NO'S.: 2S109AD, Tax Lot 01100; 2S109AA, Tax Lot 03900; and 2S104DD, Tax Lot 07200. PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide approximately 12.38 acres for the creation of a 49 lot Subdivision. This application also involves a request for Sensitive Lands Review for steep slopes and drainageways. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR THE AGENDA ITEM INDICATED DIRECTLY ABOVE. AGENDA ITEM N0. 21 (PAGE •OF ) AE: OCTOBER 7, 1998 PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE Prononent - (Sneakina In Favor) Opponent - (Saeakinci Aciainst) Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No Z-o -7 Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and f -pone o. / 6 O? 2 Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address a d Phone No. Mk7-T- S7-, ??- /43 5-?, Sw 136-r+1 h-vjE -77GA`)5 02 97Z 2f 63f-51-31 Name, Address and Phone No. dress and Phone No. Nam A F o w ? a?A? (?39-3 93 3 S1 - ,- ?? Name, Address and Phone No. Name Ad re and on No. 1? el 6) Y 7 Z ? Name, Address and Phone No. N me, Ad and Phone No. i_ u ( Y I I ` . ) ? ' ? ? G 13 D ICI- (q yb S r z Name, Address and Phone No. Name ddress and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. AGENDA ITEM N0. 21 (PAGE •OF ) RE: SEPTEMBER 28.1998 PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE Prononent - (Sneakina In Favor) Opponent - (Speakinq Aqainst) Name, Addre and Ph ne No. Na , Address and Phone No. &? 101 ??3J ? -Z?s T'i7 ?i ?l o Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. L a-Avm ® " Name, Address and Phone No. Na a Jddress and none No. L??/ SGc i lv Zo 73! Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Addre and Phone No. f' cA (t Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Add s a d hone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Na ddressp P ?_13 m3; 4LO Name, Address and Phone No. Naddress and Phone No. "wow 4 5L ?a 1443 V1 q'r-9? LZ Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address an/d Phone No. 042 /3 l??Pd3 ?VJ <?> Name, Address and Phone No. -Nam, Addr and Phone No. 6*,OLq-7O? I jy C q f- 7?? c Name, Address and Phone No. N e, -and- Phone No. ?? ?GGg p AGENDA ITEM N0. 2.1 (PAGE •OF ) At E: SEPTEMBER 28,1998 PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE Prononent - (Sneaking In Favor) Oooonent - (Soeakina Against) Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address a_nd Ph o. ? ?" I - ( YL- iy33q, w 136 ) Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Andres and Phone No. 14 3c-j r3o71- q -3 F3 g Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 6,PY-72,O r AT A Tv? r ' S' i ? 3 2 Z rol D Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No.? Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Addres nd Phone No. 5W (150' C? ? 1 n ( 7 OV+A I -? OD Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. • • COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising • City of Tigard • ? Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard , Oregon 97223 • ? Duplicate Affidavit .Accounts Payable Legal Notice TT 9232 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. 1, Kathy Rnyapr being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theTigard-Tualatin T?imes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti ga r d in the aforeslid county and state; that the Pub is Hearing-SUB 9A-nnnA a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: September 17,1998 Q_fL kJAQA Subscribed and sworn to b e me this ember, 19 9 8 \ OFFICIAL SEAL Notary blic for Oregon ROSIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON My Commission Expires: COMMISSION NO. 062071 AFFIDAVIT MY COMMISSION 501148 MAY 16, 2001 The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Mon- day, September 28, 1998, at 7 P.M., at Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Both public, oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Hearings Officer. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter accompanied by statements or evidence suffi- cient to allow the hearings authority and all parties to respond precludes an appeal, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling (503) 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARINGS: SUBDIVISION [SUB] 98-0006/ SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW [SLR] 98-0004 > ELK HORN RIDGE SUBDIVISION < The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide ap- proximately 12.38 acres for the creation of a 49 lot Subdivision. This ap- plication also involves a request for Sensitive Lands Review for steep slopes and drainageways. LOCATION: 12792 SW Ridgefield Lane, WCTM 2S 104DD, Tax Lot 07200; WCTM 2S 109AD, Tax Lot 01 100; and WCTM 2S 109AA, Tax Lot 03900 (no address). The subject parcels are located on the north side of SW Bull Mountain Road, east of SW 129th Avenue. ZONE: Single-Family Medium Density Residential - 5,000 Square Feet Attached Per Unit, 7 Units Per Acre; R-7. The purpose of the .R-7 zoning district is to establish sites for single family detached and attached units for medium density residential developments. AP- PLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.40, 18.52, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. I I I I I I 7179232 - Publish September 17, 1998. CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY. SEPTEMBER 28. 1998 AT 7:00 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO(S): SUBDIVISION (SUB) 98-0006 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW [SLR) 98-0004 FILE TITLE: ELK HORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION APPLICANT: Terry Booke APPLICANT'S Ed Christensen Century 21 Columbia Realty REP. Christensen Engineering 9020 SW Washington Square Dr., S-100 7150 SW Hampton St., S-226 Portland, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97223 OWNER: Sara Louise Page Eustis OWNER: Julie Ann Strayer Brown 1414 S. Director Street 920 Main Street Seattle, WA 98108 Monmouth, OR 97361-1927 OWNER: Cascade Communities, Inc. 13535 SE 145th Clackamas, OR 97045 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide approximately 12.38 acres for the creation of a 49 lot Subdivision. This application also involves a request for Sensitive Lands Review for steep slopes and drainageways. LOCATION: 12792 SW Ridgefield Lane, WCTM 2S104DD, Tax Lot 07200; WCTM 2S109AD, Tax Lot 01100; and WCTM 2S109AA, Tax Lot 03900 (no address). The subject parcels are located on the north side of SW Bull Mountain Road, east of SW 129th Avenue. ZONE: Single-Family Medium Density Residential - 5,000 Square Feet Attached Per Unit, 7 Units Per Acre; R-7. The purpose of the R-7 zoning district is to establish sites for single-family detached and attached units for medium density residential developments. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.40, 18.52, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 320 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. SUB 98-0006/SLR 98-0004 ELK HORN RIDGE SUBDIVISION PROPOSAUREOUEST FOR COMMENTS ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT VYWEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPO ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEA G. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRE TED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE HEARINGS OFFICER MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER SEPTEMBER 4. 1998, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ORS 197.763(6). INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AND ALL PARTIES TO RESPOND PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25?) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25?) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT JULIA POWELL HAJDUK, ASSOCIATE PLANNER AT (503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. SW AERIE OR CJ?ARDE ST (3a SUBJEC ARC LS SUB 98-0006/SLR 98-0004 ELK HORN RIDGE SUBDIVISION • 0 BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by Booke/Weast Development ) FINAL O R D E R ) for sensitive lands review and approval of a preliminary plan to create 49 single family lots in the R-7 zone north ) SUB 98-0006/SLR 98-0004 of Bull Mountain Road in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) I. SUMMARY A. This final order concerns an application by Booke/Weast Development (the "applicant") to subdivide property located on the north side of Bull Mountain Road east of SW 129th Avenue (the "site"). The site contains 12.38 acres on three lots -- two large undeveloped tax lots and lot 30 of the Mountain Highlands subdivision. The site contains two identified drainageways and slopes in excess of 25-percent development of which requires sensitive lands review. B. The applicant proposes to divide the site into 49 lots including the existing Mountain Highlands lot. The applicant proposes to use the density transfer and tree retention options to increase the density permitted in the "non-sensitive" areas of the site. All proposed lots do or can comply with dimensional requirements of the R-7 zone. The applicant proposes to construct a single family detached dwelling on each of the proposed lots. C. The applicant will extend public sewer and water service to each lot and to the edge of the site for extension off-site in the future. The applicant will dedicate right of way and construct half-width improvements along the site's Bull Mountain Road frontage. The applicant proposes to dedicate right of way for and to construct 129th Avenue/SW Greenfield Drive as a minor collector from SW Bull Mountain Road to a point just north of the intersection with proposed SW Chirp Street. The applicant proposes to dedicate and improve SW Greenpark Street as a local street running north-south through the site. The applicant will construct two east-west local streets between proposed Greenpark Street and Greenfield Drive: SW Birdview Street on the south and Chirp Street on the north. The applicant also will construct two private streets intersecting with Greenpark Street: SW Treeview and Creekview Lanes. All but three of the proposed lots will front on the proposed local or private streets. The three lots at the north end of the site will access the existing cul-de-sac street in the Mountain Highlands subdivision north of the site. D. The applicant proposes to collect storm water runoff from impervious areas and to direct it to a detention pond in the northern portion of the site. The applicant proposes to discharge treated stormwater into the existing drainageway on the site. The applicant submitted a preliminary downstream analysis to show there is adequate capacity downstream to accommodate the increased stormwater runoff from this site. E. At the two public hearings in this matter, City staff recommended approval subject to conditions. See the Staff Report to the Hearings Officer dated September 28, 1998 (the "Staff Report") and the Memorandum to the Hearings Officer dated October 7, 1998 (the "Memorandum"). The applicant accepted the staff recommendations with minor exceptions. Fourteen area residents testified orally and/or in writing with objections and questions about the proposed development.. The principal issues in this case include: • Whether the development complies with sensitive lands standards, particularly as they relate to on- and off-site wetlands, drainageways, slopes and trees; • Whether the redivision of lot 30 of Mountain Highlands is permitted and under what conditions; • Whether the proposed development will provide adequate treatment of stormwater runoff; and • Where proposed streets should be situated and improved, particularly the extension of SW 129th Avenue/Greenfield Drive. F. For the reasons provided and referenced in this final order, the hearings officer approves the sensitive lands review and the preliminary plan for the subdivision substantially as proposed, subject to the conditions recommended by City staff with certain modifications described more herein. II. HEARING AND RECORD A. Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer Larry Epstein (the "hearings officer") held duly noticed public hearings on September 28 and October 7, 1998 to receive and consider public testimony in this matter. B. The following testimony was offered at the September 28, 1998 hearing. 1. City planner Julia Hajduk summarized the Staff Report and the proposed development. a. She noted the site is heavily wooded. The applicant proposed to retain 41-percent of the existing trees that are 12 inches in diameter or more. The applicant must provide a tree conservation easement to protect the trees that are retained. She testified that the site contains two drainages with slopes in excess of 25-percent. These areas are designated "sensitive lands". She noted that the applicant submitted a geotechnical analysis of the site. There are no wetlands on the site based on the delineation, but the drainageways are jurisdictional waters of the State. b. She noted that proposed condition of approval 13 requires the applicant to revise the plan to provide a pedestrian connection between SW 129th Avenue/Greenfield Drive and Greenpark Street. She testified that the applicant is required to construct this connection. c. She noted that proposed conditions of approval 2 and 6 require the applicant to "clearly mark" the boundaries of proposed tracts and tree retention areas. The applicant must mark these boundaries on the plans and on the ground. d. She noted that the City Code does not require trees to be retained per se. The Code only requires an applicant to provide mitigation for trees that are removed. e. She testified that the City ordinarily does not require an applicant to have an arborist on-site during construction. The applicant is required to identify trees that will be preserved and to protect them with construction fencing prior to any site work. 2. City engineer Brian Rager summarized certain engineering issues. a. He noted that the City's transportation plan calls for the connection of SW 129th Avenue/Greenfield Drive through this site. This street will provide a minor arterial connection between Bull Mountain Road and SW Walnut Street. There is a major Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) page 2 0 • drainageway on this site within a roughly 70-foot deep ravine. This drainageway creates a substantial obstacle to completion of this connection. The City cannot require the applicant to construct the crossing because the cost of extending the street across this ravine substantially exceeds the impacts of the proposed development. Instead the applicant will construct a full-width improvement to SW 129th Avenue/Greenfield Drive between Bull Mountain Road and the south side of the ravine. The City will construct the crossing and complete the connection in the future. The City will rename this street SW Greenfield Drive. Naming this street 129th Avenue may cause confusion, because the northern sections of this street meander out of the 129th Avenue alignment. b. He noted that the applicant will extend sewer service to the site from the existing sewer mains north of the site in the Mountain Highlands development. He testified that the sewer layout proposed by the applicant is workable. However he expressed concern that the City may be unable to access some of the proposed sewer manholes due to the topography of the site unless the applicant improves access routes to those manholes. c. He testified that there is adequate downstream capacity to accommodate increased runoff from this development, based on the applicant's downstream analysis. However the applicant needs to provide additional detail regarding the stormwater and water quality plans. This is required by the proposed conditions of approval. d. He testified that the applicant's geotechnical report demonstrates that this site is suitable for development, provided the development complies with recommendations in the geotechnical and soils reports. He recommended the hearings officer require the applicant to obtain approval of all construction drawings by the geotechnical engineer before they are submitted to the City for review. He recommended that a geotechnical engineer be on-site at all times during construction. He further recommended the geotechnical engineer file a final report certifying that cuts and fills on the site comply with the recommendations of the report. e. He noted that springs are frequently discovered during construction and excavation. When springs are detected, the applicant is required to collect the spring water and to pipe it to the storm drainage system. 3. Ed Christensen appeared as the representative for the applicant. He summarized the history of the project and the development constraints of the site. a. He argued that the applicant could develop 54 lots on the site assuming density transfers and tree retention density bonuses are allowed. The applicant proposes to construct only 49 lots. He argued that the applicant worked extensively with City staff in designing the project to preserve trees and limit the impacts of the proposed development. b. He testified that the applicant will extend public services to the north boundary of tax lot 1000 to provide for future extension when that property is further developed. c. He accepted the recommended conditions of approval in the Staff Report without objections or corrections. He stated that the applicant can comply with the conditions without modifying the conditions of approval. d. He testified that the City's topography maps are inaccurate. The ravine on the north end of the site is roughly 40 feet deeper than it appears from the City's maps. A bridge across the ravine would cost approximately $2.3 million. Constructing a roughly 50-foot high "ultra-block" retaining wall would save roughly $1 million. Either way the Hearings Officer Final Order o SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) Page 3 • • cost of extending Greenfield Drive across this ravine would substantially exceed the impact of the proposed development. e. He opined that the applicant's erosion control measures will address many of the concerns raised at the hearing. The applicant will install erosion control fencing along the proposed disturbance line. Grading near the disturbance line will damage the roots of nearby trees. Therefore the applicant must remove trees located near the disturbance line. The applicant will not perform any other grading or other development activity beyond this line. f. He noted that the applicant must obtain concurrence from the US Army Corps of Engineers (the "Corps") and the Division of State Lands ("DSL") regarding the location of and impacts to the drainages on this site. He testified that the applicant will provide a 25-foot buffer around the springs on this site. The applicant will not perform any clearing or other development activity within the buffer areas. g. He argued that the applicant cannot provide access to properties east of the site due to the steep slopes on and off this site. 4. Caroline Berry appeared as a representative for neighboring property owners. a. She argued that there are three drainages on this site. Both the Schott report and the geotechnical report note a third drainage in the southern portion of the site. She argued that the applicant must identify and protect this drainage. (In response, Ms. Hajduk testified that site inspections by City staff confirmed that the third drainage is located off-site to the east.) b. She questioned the completeness of the applicant's wetland report. The report states that it is limited to tax lot 1100. However the site also includes tax lots 3900 and 7200. She argued that the applicant must supplement the wetland delineation to address these other lots. c. She argued that the trees on the site are a valuable resource which the City needs to protect. She questioned the accuracy of the applicant's tree survey. She argued that the applicant could realign streets and alter the proposed building footprints to preserve additional trees on the site. d. She expressed concern that development on the site will cause erosion and landslides, impacting the existing development below the site. She stated that the geotechnical report noted soil movement on the site under existing conditions. Clearing on the site will exacerbate this problem. She argued that the applicant should not disturb vegetation in steeply sloped areas. e. She expressed general concerns about the proposed development's impacts on wildlife, school capacity and traffic. 5. Laura Brennan summarized her written testimony. She expressed concerns about the impacts of the proposed development including traffic, erosion, loss of trees and wildlife. She noted that the City considered acquiring this site for acquisition as a park. 6. Tim and Alice Perrine summarized their written testimony dated October 27, 1998. Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) Page 4 • • a. They expressed concerns about potential impacts to their property east of the site, tax lot 402. They testified that the spring on this site drains onto their property. The spring feeds a year-round creek. They expressed concern that the proposed development will impact trees on their property. They noted that the applicant marked trees that are located on their property. The applicant cut a tree on the site which fell onto their property. Clearing for development is likely to cause additional trees to fall on their property, damaging their trees. They argued that clearing on this site will expose the trees on their property to greater wind velocities and may cause them to fall. They expressed concern that residents of the proposed development may impact their property through trespass, littering, vandalism and increased risk of fire. They argued that development on this site will generate increased stormwater runoff onto their property causing erosion and other impacts. b. They noted that the applicant identified tree #210 as a 9-inch tree. They argued that this tree is actually 59-inches in diameter. This tree is located within the required setback and the applicant must preserve it. c. They argued that the applicant should mark the surveyed boundaries of the site prior to any clearing or construction. The applicant should install a cyclone fence along the boundary of the site to prevent trespass on their property during and after construction. d. They argued that the applicant should make a greater effort to preserve trees on this site. They argued that the applicant made no effort to retain groves of trees as recommended by the City's natural area inventory. Eliminating two of the proposed lots would save 41 trees in two significant groves. The applicant could preserve other large trees through minor alterations of the proposed plat. They argued that the applicant should mark all of the trees on the site to distinguish trees which will be preserved from those which will be removed. The City should enforce the tree preservation plan and should impose penalties if the applicant removes trees which are designated for preservation. e. They testified about their observations of failed erosion control measures on other development sites in the area. They argued that the City should monitor development on this site to ensure the erosion control measures are maintained. f. They introduced several photographs of the site and their property. g. The requested the hearings officer continue the hearing to allow an opportunity for additional review of the proposed development. 7. Shirley Jones testified on behalf of herself and neighbors who own properties east of the site. She argued that the applicant should extend streets to the east boundary of her property to allow access for future development. Their properties have no access to the west and only a narrow, one lane, easement access to the south. She argued that the applicant should provide a fence along the east boundary of the site to prevent trespass on their properties. 8. E.B. Ekren testified that the spring on this site drains through his property east of the site, downstream from the Perrine's property. He expressed concern that clearing on the steep slopes on this site would create a hazard. He testified that the stream on his property is eroding under existing conditions. The drainageway has incised 7 inches in the past 7 years. He testified that his property contains several 4-foot diameter fir trees. He expressed concern that clearing on this site will expose those trees to increased winds and may cause them to fall. Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) Page 5 0 • 9. Ken Olden expressed concern that construction of Greenfield Drive will block the natural drainage from his property west of the site within the Woodford Estates subdivision. He testified that a spring forms underneath his house every winter. He questioned whether the applicant will build retaining walls along Greenfield Drive. 10. Jim McWhirter testified that there is a spring beneath his house which was not discovered during construction. He argued that similar conditions exist on this site and will cause problems for future homeowners. He expressed concern that construction of Greenfield Drive will impact his property. He argued that portions of the site are not developable due to steep slopes. 11. Scott White testified that other developments in the area failed to comply with conditions of approval imposed by the City. Developers knocked down trees that were designated for preservation. He argued that the City should closely monitor this project to ensure the applicant complies with the Code and the conditions of approval. He argued that the conditions of approval defer necessary findings regarding the sensitive lands. 12. Julie St. Peter argued that the geotechnical analysis is inadequate. The geotechnical engineer should review the site during the rainy season. The geotechnical engineer also should dig additional test holes near the edges of the site to ensure a complete analysis of subsurface conditions on the site. She expressed concerns about the traffic impacts of the proposed development. She argued that the City should conduct additional analysis of traffic on Bull Mountain Road, especially near the sharp curve west of the site. 13. Matt St. Peter questioned the density calculations and the density bonuses. He argued that there is no assurance the applicant will retain all of the trees designated for preservation on the site. 114. Tom Jurhs questioned how the applicant will provide water to the site. He questioned whether the City will allow parking along 129th Avenue/Greenfield Drive. 15. John Murphy objected to the applicant's proposal to provide. access from the Mountain Highlands subdivision north of the site. The proposed accessway will abut the west boundary of his property, lot 29 of Mountain Highlands. He argued that the applicant should provide a landscaped buffer or fence between his property and the accessway. He testified that lot 30 of Mountain Highlands is steep. Construction of the accessway across this lot will create problems with erosion. 16. The hearings officer continued the hearing to October 7, 1998. C. The following testimony was offered at the October 7, 1998 hearing. 1. Ms. Hajduk summarized the Memorandum and responded to questions from the hearings officer. 2. Mr. Rager testified that the applicant's erosion control measures must comply with USA regulations. The applicant must obtain approval of the erosion control plans from the City and USA. USA and the City have the authority to issue stop work orders if an applicant fails to comply with USA regulations or to repair failures. USA can impose fines if the applicant fails to remedy violations in a timely manner. He noted that the intersection of 129th Avenue and Bull Mountain Road does not have a history of accidents based on staff review of accident statistics, and that the 129th Avenue/Bull Mountain Road intersection complies with sight distance standards based on posted speed limits. Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) Page 6 • • 3. Mr. Christensen concurred with the recommended conditions of approval in the Staff Report and the Memorandum. a. He testified that the applicant could build 54 lots on the site. However the applicant is only proposing 49 lots. b. He testified that the applicant will mark the boundaries of the tree preservation easements on the site. A professional arborist will review the boundaries prior to clearing on the site. The applicant will place erosion control fencing along the boundary of the disturbance area prior to clearing on the site. However the applicant will remove some smaller trees in that area in order to survey the site. c. He testified that representatives of the Corps, DSL and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ("DFW") have reviewed the site, and the Corps and DSL concurred generally with the wetland delineation. The applicant will obtain formal Corps and DSL approval of the wetland and drainage delineation prior to construction on the site. The Corps and DSL will provide notice and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's submittals. The applicant also will have to obtain permits from the Corps to cross drainageways. d. In response to questions from the hearings officer about reducing environmental impacts by clustering homes or using attached wall construction, he testified that developing the site with townhomes would have more impacts on the site than the proposed single family detached residences, because it would require more extensive grading due to the topography of the site. e. He noted that the applicant is required to plant additional trees as mitigation for clearing on this site. The applicant is willing to plant trees on adjacent properties if requested by the property owners. f. He testified that there is adequate sight distance on Bull Mountain Road at the 129th Avenue intersection, based on the posted speed limit. He suggested that-area residents request additional police enforcement to address speeding problems in the area. f. He testified that the applicant's survey will determine the actual location of the spring. The applicant will protect the stream with a 25-foot buffer as required by the Code. The applicant will not perform any clearing within this buffer area. g. He agreed to toll the 120 rule for 7 days. 4. Martin Schott, the applicant's wetland scientist, testified that there are no wetlands on this site. There is an area roughly 100 to 150 feet east of the site which may be developing wetland characteristics. The site contains two drainages. There is a third drainage located east of the southern portion of the site. This drainage does not extend onto the site. There is no channel or other sign of streamflow on the site. 5. Mr. and Ms. Perrine summarized their written testimony dated October 7, 1998. They testified that the spring in the central drainage on this site feeds a perennial stream which flows through their property. a. They argued that the drainages are "waters of the state". Therefore the applicant must obtain permits from the Corps and DSL for grading on proposed lots 33-37 and construction of roads across the drainages. They argued that the "third drainage" on Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) page 7 • 0 the southern portion of the site may meet the DSL's definition of a "drainage" and therefore require protection. b. They disputed the location of the spring as shown on the applicant's plans. They argued that the spring actually is situated 25 feet west of where it is shown on the preliminary plan. Therefore the applicant understated the required buffer on proposed lot 36. They argued that the applicant must provide a 25-foot setback above (west) of the spring. This buffer will eliminate proposed lot 36 and portions of lots 34 and 35. They argued that the City, the Corps and DSL should confirm the actual location of the spring prior to any grading or clearing on this site. c. They testified that tree #427 is located 6 feet east of the stream. The applicant designated this. tree for removal. They argued that removal of this tree will impact the wetlands on their property due to increased erosion and sedimentation. . d. The noted that the arborist's report does not include the arborist's number. They testified that Mr. Young (the applicant's arborist) is not listed as a certified arborist by the Society of Arborculturalists. e. They argued that the proposed tree removal plan does not comply with that CDC 18.150.040(B). This section requires the applicant to retain at least 75-percent of the canopy cover within 50 feet of the stream boundaries. Compliance with this section will further limit development on lots 35 and 36. f. They argued that the applicant could meander the public improvements to save additional large trees. 6. Mr. and Ms. St. Peter expressed frustration with the City's failure to impact development on Bull Mountain. They argued that the density transfer and tree preservation bonus allow excessive development. He questioned the accuracy and validity of the information submitted by the applicant due to the applicant's vested interest in the project. They requested the hearings officer hold the record open to allow the Corps an opportunity to inspect the site and surrounding properties to determine the impacts of the proposed development on wetlands and streams in the area. They testified that Bull Mountain Road is not designed to carry existing traffic volumes of 8000 vehicles per day. 7. Mr. White argued that the applicant should dedicate the drainage tracts and tree preservation easements to the City. 8. Ed Durgin questioned whether adequate sight distance is available at the intersection of 129th Avenue and Bull Mountain Road. He argued that the lack of accidents at this intersection is irrelevant. The City should consider what may happen in the future due to increased traffic volumes generated by this development. 10. The hearings officer held the record open for one week to allow the applicant to modify the preliminary subdivision and grading plans to be consistent with the tree survey and to submit the arborist's certification and to allow the City to consider whether it is interested in accepting dedication of the drainage tracts. The record in this case closed at 5:00 p.m. October 14, 1998. 11. After the public hearing and before the close of the public record, the hearings officer received the following additional written testimony and exhibits: Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) Page 8 • • tree removal; a. A "Mitigation Plan" dated June 23, 1998 showing proposed grading and b. A copy of the tree inventory signed by Mr. Young and including his contractor number; and c. A memorandum dated October 14, 1998 from Ms. Hajduk. III. DISCUSSION A. City staff recommended approval of the application based on findings and conclusions and subject to conditions of approval recommended in the Staff Report and the Memorandum. The applicant accepted those conditions without objections or corrections. The hearings officer agrees generally with those findings, conclusions and conditions, and adopts the affirmative findings in the Staff Report and the Memorandum as support for this Final Order except as expressly provided to the contrary in this Final Order. B. Development of the site as proposed will require removal of a substantial amount of the vegetation on this site, including roughly 59-percent of the trees. Clearing on this site is regulated by CDC 18.150, the tree removal regulations. Those regulations do not prohibit clearing. They only require an applicant to mitigate clearing that occurs. The applicant in this case will mitigate the impacts of this clearing by planting additional trees in the City as required by the Code. See CDC 18.150.025(B)(2). 1. This site and the surrounding area are zoned for single-family residential uses. Substantial clearing is necessary in order to economically develop the site consistent with the applicable zoning. The applicant will retain trees and other vegetation within the sensitive lands area of the drainage tracts and outside of the proposed building envelopes. However the applicant must remove vegetation on the remainder of the site to develop roads, utilities and building sites. The hearings officer acknowledges that substantial, mature vegetation on the site will be lost forever if the application is approved. However the tree removal regulations allow removal of even substantial, mature trees. 2. It was alleged that the applicant could modify the preliminary plat to retain additional trees on the site. The Code authorizes the Director to modify setbacks and lot dimensions in order to retain additional trees. CDC 18.150.045. However the Code does not require the applicant to take advantage of these incentives. 3. The steep slopes and drainageways in the eastern and northern portions of this site are designated sensitive lands. The Code prohibits site disturbance within these areas in excess of that "required for the use." See CDC 18.84.040(B) (slopes in excess of 25- percent) and (C) (drainageways). The applicant argued proposed clearing in the sensitive lands areas is limited to the minimum necessary to develop streets, utilities and building envelopes on the site. This conclusion was disputed by members of the public. a. A standard allowing tree removal and land form alteration that is "required for the use" is inherently vague and subjective. It provides relatively little guidance about how to apply the provision. Reasonable people will disagree on the application of such a standard. b. When read in the context of the Code as a whole, the hearings officer construes CDC 18.84.040 to allow considerable tree removal and land form alteration of sensitive lands, because such removal and alterations are reasonably necessary to allow economic development of the site with detached single family structures on individual lots, Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) Page 9 • • a use clearly permitted by the Code and proposed by the applicant in this case. The Code does not require a developer to use certain building forms to minimize tree removal and land form alteration. It does not require a developer to reduce front yard setbacks. It does not require the City engineer to alter road standards. Given the lack of such measures as examples of what the Code requires and of prior decisions by City Council construing the section as applied, the hearings officer is not in a position to create such requirements. c. However there is a limit to what is "required for the use". Although tree removal from and grading on lots should allow some flexibility regarding the location and form of homes to be placed on them, flexibility need not be extensive to allow the lots to be used for single familt detached structures. That is, a lot can be used for a single family detached dwelling even if the location and coverage of such a structure is more limited than would be the case simply due to standard setbacks. In this case, the hearings officer finds that the proposed building envelopes of lots in the sensitive lands area are larger than required for typical single family detached homes, because they would allow development beyond the limits of required setbacks. Therefore they are larger than required for the use under CDC 18.84.040, and should be reduced in order to comply with that section. In so doing, more of the sensitive lands area can be protected from development impacts. In particular the hearings officer finds that the proposed building envelopes on lots 18 - 20, 22, 24 and 27 are larger than required. The applicant should reduce the building envelopes and proposed clearing on these lots at least so that development does not occur outside required setbacks. A condition of approval is warranted to this effect. 4. USA regulations require the applicant to protect drainages on this site within separate tracts extending 25 feet around a stream. Condition of approval 1 requires the applicant to submit a revised plat creating these tracts. a. Grading and clearing within these tracts is limited to the narrow corridors required for placement of utilities. As proposed grading on lots 35 and 36 extends into the required tract for the central drainage on this site. The applicant must modify the grading plan to avoid impacts to this tract because it is not required for the use. A condition of approval is warranted to this effect. b. The examiner finds that the applicant should delete proposed lot 36, because the required drainage tract will make this lot unbuildable. The central drainageway extends halfway across the building envelope for this lot. The tract must extend 25 feet beyond the northern terminus of the drainageway. In addition, compliance with building setbacks from the boundaries of the tract will further reduce the developable area on this lot. Therefore the examiner finds that the applicant must delete lot 36, because it will not contain sufficient buildable area. A condition of approval is warranted to this effect. The area of lot 36 outside of any required tract can be merged with adjoining lots. 5. There is a dispute regarding the location of the spring within the central drainageway on this site. The applicant must protect the spring and drainageway with a 25- foot tract. The applicant is required to mark the boundaries of the tract prior to grading on this site. In order to mark the boundaries of the tract, the applicant must determine the exact location of the spring. Corps, DSL and/or City staff can confirm the location prior to grading or other development on the site. Provided this identification and protection occurs, the hearings officer finds that development on this site will not impact the spring in the central drainageway. 6. CDC 18.150.040(B) requires the applicant to retain at least a 75 percent canopy cover within stream corridors, defined as the area within 50 feet from the boundary of a stream or wetland. The examiner finds that the applicant will retain at least 75 percent of Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) Page 10 • • the trees within these corridors, based on the revised mitigation plan the applicant submitted on June 23. Only small areas of the stream corridors will be affected. Therefore the proposed development complies with CDC 18.150.040(B). 7. There is a dispute regarding the size of tree 210. The applicant's Tree Inventory lists this tree as a 9-inch diameter fir tree. The Perrines testified that this tree is actually 59- inches in diameter. The difference in measurements may be due to a typographical error in the arborist's report. However this is a significant difference. The applicant proposes to remove this tree. If it is only 9-inches in diameter, the applicant is not required to provide mitigation. If it is actually 59-inches in diameter, the applicant must revise the mitigation plan to compensate for its removal. The applicant's arborist can easily confirm the size of this tree. The hearings officer finds that the applicant should be required do so prior to clearing on this site. A condition of approval is warranted to this effect. 8. The Code requires the applicant. to submit a tree survey prepared by a certified arborist, CDC 18.150.025(A). There is no substantial evidence in the record that Mr. Young is a certified arborist. The only evidence in the record on this issue is the Perrine's testimony that the Society of Arborculturalists have no record of Mr. Young being certified. The applicant submitted a copy of the tree inventory with Mr. Young's signature and a number. However Mr. Young did not indicate what this number signifies. The applicant should submit evidence of Mr. Young's certification as a professional arborist or submit a tree inventory based on a site inspection by a certified professional arborist. A condition of approval is warranted to this effect. C. Several persons questioned how the City will ensure the proposed tree preservation areas are retained. 1. Condition of approval 2 requires the applicant to mark the tracts prior to construction. Condition of approval 6 requires the applicant to mark the tree preservation areas prior to any site work. Ms. Hajduk testified that these conditions require the applicant to mark these areas on the site. The hearings officer finds that the conditions of approval should be modified to this effect. a. The applicant proposed to install erosion control fencing along the boundaries of the disturbance area prior to clearing on the site. The hearings officer finds that such a continuous erosion control barrier will adequately delineate the boundaries of the disturbance area and prevent accidental intrusions into areas tree preservation area. This also will limit erosion impacts within the undisturbed areas. The hearings officer finds that the applicant should place erosion control fencing prior to clearing on this site. A condition of approval is warranted to this effect. i. Placement of erosion control fencing may require minor clearing on the site (i.e., clearing of understory shrubs and small trees). This should be permitted. However such clearing could impact the undisturbed areas. Therefore the applicant should mark the edge of the tree preservation area on site prior to any site work on the site. A condition of approval is warranted to this effect. 2. The hearings officer finds that the City has adequate enforcement authority in the event trees are removed illegally. CDC 18.150.070(B) authorizes the Director to revoke the applicant's tree removal permit, issue a stop work order or a citation and take any other action allowed by law. In addition, the Code imposes a civil penalty of up to $500 for violations of the tree preservation regulations. Violators must plant additional trees as mitigation. Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) Page 11 0 • a. The City is unwilling to accept dedication of the drainage tracts and tree preservation easements. See the memorandum dated October 14, 1998 from Ms. Hajduk. However the City does not need an ownership interest in the property in order to correct violations pursuant to CDC 18.150.070(B). 3. The hearings officer finds that the applicant should permanently mark the edge of the disturbance area after construction on the site is completed. This is necessary to ensure that future residents are aware of the existence and boundaries of the tree preservation easement and drainage tracts. The applicant should post small permanent signs along the edge of the disturbance area. The applicant should place one (1) sign on each lot or every 300 feet, whichever is less. The signs should be worded substantially as follows: "Tree preservation area. Please retain in a natural state. Removal of trees in this area is prohibited unless approved in advance by the City of Tigard." D. It was alleged that clearing on this site will expose trees on adjacent sites to greater wind impacts, increasing the possibility that trees will blow down during storms. The hearings officer acknowledges that the existing vegetation on this site may serve to buffer adjacent properties from strong winds. Clearing on this site will eliminate that buffer effect. However the Code does not prohibit such impacts. The Code also requires consideration of the proposed use of the site, in this case residential development consistent with the R-7 zoning. The hearings officer finds that, although clearing on this site may increase the potential for blowdown, the risk is not substantial in this case. In addition, subsequent development and landscaping on the site will mitigate this loss of buffer. E. There is a dispute regarding the number of drainages on this site. The site is bisected by a major drainage flowing west to east across the north end of the site. There is a second drainage located near the center of the site. It was alleged, based on comments in the geotechnical and wetland reports, that a third drainage exists near the south end of the site. 1. City staff and the applicant's wetland consultant testified that the southern drainage is not located on this site. There is no substantial evidence to the contrary. Although there is evidence of a small swale on this site, it does not meet the definition of a drainageway. An incised channel and other characteristics of a drainageway appear further east, on the adjacent property. 2. There is no substantial evidence that the swale on this site qualifies as a. drainageway as defined by DSL and the Corps. However these agencies will have an opportunity to review the site prior to grading on this site. Condition of approval 14 requires the applicant to provide verification from the Corps that no permits are necessary or that required permits have been obtained. F. It was alleged that the wetland delineation submitted by the applicant failed to include the entire site. The March 19, 1998 wetland determination states that Schott and Associates performed a wetland determination on tax lot 1100. Tax lot 1100 is only one of the three tax lots which make up this site. However it is clear from the report that the consultants reviewed the entire site. The text of the report notes the existence of three drainages on and near the site. Two of these drainages are located on tax lot 3900. The third drainage is located off-site, to the west of tax lot 1100. In addition, the maps attached to the report include the entire site, not just tax lot 1100. Finally, Dr. Schott testified that there are no wetlands on this site. There is no substantial evidence to the contrary. Therefore the hearings officer finds, based on the applicant's wetland determination and Dr. Schott's testimony, that there are no wetlands on this site. Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) Page 12 0 0 G. There is a dispute about the density of the proposed development. Several witnesses argued the applicant should reduce the proposed density to preserve additional trees and reduce the impacts of the development. City staff and the applicant point out that the proposed density is within the range permitted by the R-7 zone, and the proposed lots comply with the dimensional minimums in that zone, as modified by density transfer and tree preservation regulations. Therefore the hearings officer cannot deny the application based on the proposed density. 1. The tree preservation regulations allow the applicant to develop the site at a higher net density. CDC 18.150.045(1) gives the applicant a bonus for retaining trees regardless of their location. The Code does not distinguish tree preservation on steeply sloped areas which cannot be developed economically from tree preservation elsewhere. The applicant would probably retain trees in the steeply sloped areas and drainageways regardless of the density bonus. However the Code provides a bonus for preserving trees regardless of where they are located (i.e., even if they would have been preserved anyway). The hearings officer has no authority to change the Code. 2. The proposed density is based on number of trees preserved. As proposed, the applicant will retain 41-percent of the trees. This entitles the applicant to develop the site at more than the proposed density. However the applicant must revise the preliminary plat to create tracts and eliminate lot 36. This is likely to increase the number of trees preserved on this site. However trees are not evenly distributed on this site, and revisions to the plat may actually require removal of additional trees. Therefore the applicant should demonstrate that a sufficient tree canopy remains to qualify for the density bonus after the site has been cleared. This is required by condition of approval 10. H. Development on this site will eliminate habitat for wildlife. The CDC does not prohibit such an effect. On the contrary, it is an inevitable consequence of concentrating new development in the urban area. None of the animals observed on this site is listed as endangered or threatened. They are commonly observed in the urban area. In addition, the drainages and tree retention areas on this site will remain undisturbed, thus preserving some wildlife habitat within the urban area. I. It was alleged that the slopes on the site present a substantial erosion and slide hazard. 1. There are relatively steep slopes near the east boundary of the site and within the drainageways. Slopes in the northern drainage approach 50 percent. However the applicant will limit development in the drainageways to placement of water and sewer lines. The applicant's geotechnical consultant has performed substantial analysis of the slopes on this site and concluded that it is feasible to develop this site as proposed, provided the applicant complies with the recommendations of the geotechnical report. The City reviewed this analysis and concluded it is accurate. There is no substantial evidence to the contrary. 2. Condition of approval 3 requires the applicant to obtain City approval of a final erosion control plan. Condition of approval 43 requires the applicant to incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical report into the final grading plan. Mr. Rager testified that the applicant's geotechnical engineer should review all construction plans prior to submittal to the City, be on the site at all times during construction and certify that cuts and fills comply with the geotechnical engineer's recommendations. The hearings officer finds that these measures are necessary to ensure the proposed development complies with the Code, and they should be included as conditions of approval. Hearings Ofcer Final Order SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) Page 13 3. The hearings officer finds that the lack of substantial development in areas of substantial slopes, the erosion control plan, the existing geotechnical analysis and future geotechnical review of plans and monitoring of development on the site provide adequate assurance that slope failure and substantial erosion will not occur. J. It was alleged that there are numerous springs on this site. The geotechnical report also noted that springs are likely to appear during construction on this site. The geotechnical engineer will be on-site during construction and can identify potential springs. When springs are discovered, the applicant is required to collect water from the spring and discharge it to the stormwater system serving the development. A condition of approval is warranted to this effect. K. Several persons argued that the City is not enforcing its own standards and conditions of approval, particularly regarding drainage and erosion control. However the hearings officer finds that such testimony is not relevant to this application. There is no evidence that similar violations will or are reasonably likely to occur on this site. The hearings officer cannot assume people will violate the law or fail to comply with plans they have submitted for review and approval. The City and USA can enforce the requirements of the development ordinances effectively to prevent abuses and to penalize violations that occur. The enforcement process is largely complaint driven. People who observe violations can report them to the City and/or USA, and the City and/or USA can take actions to require compliance, including imposition of fines and liens. Also citizens have a right to file civil actions to force compliance with City decision and to require compliance with City law. Taken together, these measures and the interest of surrounding residents in assuring the project is developed as approved provide adequate assurance of compliance with the conditions of approval. K. The hearings officer finds that this development will not generate increased stormwater runoff in the central drainage. USA regulations require the applicant to collect and treat stormwater from 100-percent of the new impervious surface area on the site. The proposed stormwater pond will discharge to the large drainage located on the north end of the site. The applicant submitted a downstream analysis demonstrating this drainage can accommodate the additional runoff generated by the proposed development. The applicant will not discharge any stormwater into the central drainage. The applicant will not disturb the existing spring located within the central drainage. Therefore the hearings officer finds that the proposed development can comply with the storm drainage requirements of CDC 18.164.100. L. It was argued that the applicant should install a fence on the east boundary of the site to buffer existing residences and to prohibit trespass across adjacent properties. The hearings officer fords a condition of approval requiring the applicant to install a fence is not warranted. The applicant is proposing to develop lots for single family residences next to existing single family residences. There is no basis for concluding the applicant or residents of the proposed subdivision will pose a hazard to the use of abutting properties or that they are reasonably likely to trespass on abutting properties. The owners of abutting properties have adequate legal (civil) recourse to address any trespass problems that may arise. Also owners of most surrounding properties are free to install a fence along their property lines to reduce the potential for trespass. Other than its timing and somewhat greater density, there is nothing inherent in the subdivision proposal that results in impacts sufficient to warrant requiring the applicant to fence the property. M. Several persons cited the Bull Mountain Community plan as an applicable approval criteria. However the Bull Mountain Community plan is a Washington County planning document. It is not applicable to development within the City of Tigard. Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) Page 14 • • N. There is no evidence that traffic from this development will create a hazard. There is no history of accidents at the intersection of 129th Avenue and Bull Mountain Road. This development will increase the volume of traffic using this intersection. However there is no substantial evidence that this traffic will exceed the capacity of the intersection. 1. There was substantial testimony at the hearing regarding speeding on Bull Mountain Road. Reasonably prudent drivers will observe the posted speed limit of 45 mph on this roads. Unfortunately not all drivers are prudent. However there is no evidence that the development proposed in this application will contribute a disproportionate share of imprudent drivers. The hearings officer encourages area residents to contact Washington County to request enhanced enforcement of traffic laws in this area and/or the installation of traffic calming devices to reduce speeds on this street. 0. It was alleged that the applicant should extend stub streets to the east boundary of this site. Stub streets in this location would provide access for future development on adjacent properties. However the hearings officer finds that the topography of this site makes construction of such stub streets impractical. Such streets would exceed the maximum grade permitted by the Code. Therefore the applicant should not extend streets to the east boundary of the site. P. The hearings officer finds that construction of SW Greenfield Drive/129th Street will not impact existing drainage from adjacent properties. CDC 18.84.090(A)(4)(b) requires the applicant to demonstrate that proposed grading will not have any off-site impacts. Mr. Rager testified that the applicant is required to design improvements to accommodate existing drainage. The City must review and approve the applicant's plans prior to construction. As part of that review the City looks at existing drainage patterns. The applicant can comply with CDC 18.84.090(A)(4). A condition of approval requires such compliance. Q. It was alleged that schools in the area are currently at capacity. However there is no substantial evidence to support this statement. The school district did not offer any testimony about this development or its capacity to accommodate additional students. R. Mr. Murphy argued that the applicant should provide a buffer between his property, lot 49 of Mountain Highlands subdivision, and the proposed access drive serving the northern lots on this site. Condition of approval 53 requires the applicant to provide a vegetative buffer or screen along the portion of the access drive abutting Mr. Murphy's lot. The hearings officer finds the applicant must provide a substantially opaque screen at least 6- feet high in order to comply with the screening requirements of CDC 18.100.070. Condition of approval 53 should be modified to this effect. S. The hearings officer finds that development on this site cannot comply with the solar access standards due to slopes, significant natural features (drainageways), alignment of existing streets and the north-south alignment of the site. Therefore the hearings officer finds that the proposed development is exempt from compliance with the solar access standards pursuant to CDC 18.88.040(D) and (E). Condition of approval 5 (as originally proposed by City staff) should be deleted. (A new condition of approval 5 is adopted dealing with a different issue.) IV. CONCLUSION The hearings officer concludes that the subdivision application does or can comply with the relevant standards and criteria of the Tigard Community Development Code (CDC) as Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) Page 15 • • provided in this Final Order, provided the application is subject to conditions of approval that ensure the final subdivision plat and subsequent development will comply with applicable CDC standards and criteria. Therefore those applications should be approved subject to such conditions. V. DECISION Based on the findings and conclusions provided or referenced in this Final Order, the hearings officer hereby approves SUB 98-0006/SLR 98-004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) subject to the following conditions of approval CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2. Prior to any construction, the applicant must clearly identified the tracts on site so as to insure no grading or material is placed in this area. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 3. Prior to any on-site grading, submit and receive approval for an erosion control plan for alteration on slopes exceeding 25%. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639- 4171 x407. 4. The applicant shall obtain tree removal permits prior to the removal of any trees in the Sensitive Lands Area. 5. The applicant shall verify the size of tree #210. If this tree exceeds 12 inches in diameter and is removed, the applicant shall revise the tree mitigation plan to mitigate for removal of this tree. 6. Re-plant any area where vegetation has been removed as a result of grading work prior to obtaining building permits. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 7. The applicant shall delete proposed lot 36. The area of lot 36 outside of any required tract can be merged with adjoining lots. Prior to any site work including but not limited to tree removal, grading or construction, the applicant shall submit a revised building envelope plan that shows the building envelopes as close as possible to the front of the lot while meeting required setbacks. The applicant must also show the building envelopes in relation to the 50-foot stream buffer required by CDC 18.150.040(B) and setbacks from the drainageway tracts. The applicant must revise the tree removal and grading plans accordingly. 8. Prior to any site work including but not limited to tree removal, grading or construction, the applicant shall demonstrate that Mr. Young is a certified Hearings Oyicer Final Order SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) Page 16 1. Prior to final plat approval, submit a revised plan that identifies the drainageways and 25-foot buffers within separate tracts instead of as easements as shown on the preliminary plan. The applicant must revise the tree removal and grading plans accordingly. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. • professional arborist or submit a new tree preservation plan prepared by a certified professional arborist based on an inspection of the site. 9. Prior to any site work including but not limited to tree removal, grading or construction, the applicant must clearly mark the edge of the tree retention area on site. A professional arborist and City staff shall review and approve the marked area. Prior to clearing or grading on the site the applicant shall place erosion control fencing along the edge of the disturbance area. A professional arborist and City staff shall review and approve the location of the erosion control fencing. The applicant shall continuously maintain the erosion control fencing until construction is completed. After construction is complete the applicant shall post small permanent signs along the edge of the disturbance area. The applicant should place one (1) sign on each lot or every 300 feet, whichever is less. The signs shall should be worded substantially as follows: "Tree preservation area. Please retain in a natural state. Removal of trees in this area is prohibited unless approved in advance by the City of Tigard." Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 10. Within a tree preservation area, the applicant may remove only trees identified by a certified arborist as a hazardous tree. A certified arborist shall tag the hazardous trees to insure only hazardous trees are removed. The applicant shall submit a tree removal plan prepared by a certified arborist that indicates how the arborist will remove the hazardous tree without harming the remaining trees. 11. The applicant shall record a tree preservation easement prior to final plat approval to permanently preserve the tree retention area. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 12. Submit a revised plan that shows the type size and spacing of proposed street trees. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 13. Prior to final plat approval, submit a revised plan that provides emergency vehicle turn-arounds for access drives extending greater than 150 feet. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 14. Prior to final plat approval, provide the final number of trees over 12 inches and the caliper inches removed. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 15. Provide a tree mitigation plan meeting City standards for mitigation of the number of trees and caliper inches removed based on the final plan. If the mitigation plan involves planting trees on or off site, the applicant must plant the trees prior to final plat approval. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 16. Either revise the lots so that the lot sizelshape standards are met or provide evidence that the average lot width is in fact less than 2-1/2 times the lot depth. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 17. Revise the plan to provide a pedestrian connection through the block formed by 129th (SW Greenfield Avenue), SW Chirp Street, SW Greenpark Street, and SW Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) Page 17 0 0 Birdsview Street The applicant shall construct a pedestrian path to City standards prior to final plat approval. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 18. Provide verification from the US Army Corps of Engineers that either no permits are necessary for proposed grading or that permits have been obtained. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 19. A registered professional geotechnical engineer shall review and stamp all construction plans prior to submittal to the City. 20. A geotechnical engineer shall be on site at all times during construction. 21. Prior to final plat approval, the geotechnical engineer shall submit a report to the City certifying that all cuts and fills on the site were constructed in compliance with the engineer's recommendations. 22. If any springs are discovered on site during construction, the applicant shall propose a solution, approved by the geotechnical engineer, that will ensure that the spring is piped into the public storm drainage system. 23. Prior to approval of the final plat, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. The applicant shall submit six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings to the Engineering Department for preliminary review. (NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall.) 24. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the applicant shallprovide the Engineering Department with the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity responsible for executing the compliance agreement (if one is required) and providing 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. 25. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide all construction vehicle parking on-site. Construction vehicles or equipment prohibited from parking 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. 26. The final plat shall indicate that additional right-of-way will be dedicated, if necessary, for the following streets to provide for the following widths: SW Bull Mountain Road: SW 129th Avenue (SW Greenfield): SW Chirp Street: SW Greenpark Place: 33 feet from centerline; 60 feet total; 46 feet total; and 46 feet total. Hearings Ofcer Final Order SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) Page 18 0 0 27. The applicant shall construct standard half-street improvements along the frontage of SW Bull Mountain Road. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 21 feet; B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 5-foot concrete sidewalk; F. street trees behind the sidewalk spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; I. underground utilities; J. street signs; and K. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Bull Mountain Road in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 28. The applicant shall construct full-width street improvements along the frontage of SW 129th Avenue (SW Greenfield Drive), from SW Bull Mountain Road to a point just north of the proposed intersection with SW Chirp Street. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A City standard pavement section from curb to curb equal to 40 feet; B. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed on both sides of street; C. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; D. 5-foot concrete sidewalk on both sides of street; E. street trees behind the sidewalk spaced per TDC requirements (on both sides of street); F. street striping; G. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; H. underground utilities; I. street signs; and J. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 129th Avenue in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. K. retaining features and slope stabilization measures to provide lateral support for adjoining land where grades would exceed 2 (horizontal):1 (vertical) or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical engineer. 29. Full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the interior subdivision streets. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. SW Greenpark Place and SW Chirp Street are approved for a paved width of 28 feet, as shown on the preliminary plan. 30. The applicant shall post "No Parking" signs on one side each along SW Greenpark Place and SW Chirp Street. 31. The applicant shall complete the concrete sidewalk along SW Ridgefield Lane fronting on proposed Lot 49 (previously Lot 30 of Mountain Highlands No. 3). Hearings Oy1cer Final Order SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) Page 19 0 0 32. The applicant shall place a statement on the final plat to indicate that the private property owners who abut and take access from the proposed private streets will jointly own and maintained them. 33. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private streets. The CC&R's shall obligate the private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the streets. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) prior to approval of the final plat. 34. The pavement and rock section of the proposed private streets shall meet the City's public street standard for a local residential street. 35. The name for the north/south minor collector street shall be "SW Greenfield Drive". The City will submit a recommendation to the City Council to change the name of SW 129th Avenue to SW Greenfield Drive. 36. The name for the north/south cul-de-sac in this project shall be "SW Greenpark Place", not "SW Greenpark Street". 37. The names for the two east/west private streets serving Lots 37 through 48 shall be "SW Treeview Court" and "SW Creekview Court". 38. Names for the private streets Tracts A and B shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to approval of the final plat. Both streets shall be given a "Place" designation. 39. The private street, Tract B, shall have a fire truck turnaround at the end, since it is over 150 feet in length. The turnaround shall meet the dimensional requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue standards. 40. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed public improvement construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the public improvement plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 41. The applicant's water plan shall be revised to indicate that the existing 12-inch main line in SW 129th Avenue (SW Greenfield Drive) will be extended to the north end of the proposed full-width street improvements for the minor collector street. 42. Fire hydrants shall be spaced every 500 feet along SW 129th Avenue (SW Greenfield Drive), and they shall be placed at every street intersection. Hydrant placement shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. 43. The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer laterals to the adjacent undeveloped and unsewered properties. 44. The applicant's sanitary sewer plan shall be revised to show that adequate maintenance vehicular access will be provided to all downstream manholes within this project. The manhole of concern is the one shown between Lots 19 and 20. A Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) Page 20 0 0 maintenance access roadway shall be provided between Lots 19 and 20 from SW Greenpark Place and shall be constructed to meet City standards. The roadway shall be 12 feet wide and shall be placed within a tract with a minimum width of 12 feet. The tract shall be shown on the face of the final plat. 45. The applicant's engineer shall submit additional information to the Engineering Department with regard to the downstream analysis, specifically additional data to support the assumptions that were made. This information shall be submitted prior to construction plan approval. 46. The applicant shall provide public storm drainage line stubs to all adjacent undeveloped and/or unserved properties. 47. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) as a part of the public improvement plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract to the City of Tigard on the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 48. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994." 49. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots, and show that they will be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). 50. The recommendations of the geotechnical report by Carlson Testing, Inc., dated June 26, 1998, shall be incorporated into the final grading plan. A final construction supervision report shall be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. 51. 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 52. The design engineer shall indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have slopes in excess of 20%. This Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) Page 21 information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. 53. . The applicant shall not grade on or enter onto adjacent parcels without appropriate offshe easements or rights-of-entry, copies of which the applicant shall submit to the City prior to construction. 54. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Bull Mountain Road underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in- lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $1,375 and it shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat. 55. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A Submit for City review three paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative; B. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard; C. The right-of-way dedications for all adjacent and interior streets shall be made on the final plat; D. NOTE: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive a letter from the City Engineering Department indicating: 1) that the City has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor, and 2) that the applicant has either completed any public improvements associated with the project, or has at least obtained the necessary public improvement permit from the City to complete the work; and E. Once the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer's signature. 57. Prior to issuance of any building permits within the subdivision, the public improvements shall be deemed substantially complete by the City Engineer. Substantial completion shall be when: 1) all utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities, 2) all local residential streets have at least one lift of asphalt, 3) any off-site street and/or utility improvements are completely finished, and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. 58. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with as- built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) mylars, and 2) a diskette Hearings OrcerFinal Order SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) Page 22 56. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the subdivision/partition plat. of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable. Note: if the public improvement drawings were hand-drawn, then a diskette is not required.. 59. No variances will be permitted for setbacks on any of the proposed lots. The applicant shall permanently include a statement to this effect in the CC&R's for the subdivision. Staff Contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407 60. Prior to the issuance of building permits for lots 22, 23, 24 or 49, provide a substantially opaque vegetative or structural screen at least 6-feet high along the access drive running along lot 49. Staff Contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407 26th Larry Epstei , City of Tig d e n Officer Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-00061SLR 98-0004 (Elk Horn Ridge Estates) Page 23 61. All site improvements shall be installed as per the approved plans. "EXHIBIT A" -- PARTIES OF RECORD (Written Public Testimony received at the hearing) MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARO, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 6394171 Fax 684-7297 TO: Larry Epstein, Hearings Officer FROM: Julia Hajduk, Associate Planner DATE: October 14, 1998 City of Tigard Community Development Shaping A Better Community SUBJECT: Elk Horn Ridge Estates Subdivision (SUB 98-0006/ SLR 98-0004) Enclosed is the requested material from Ed Christensen showing the grading and tree removal plan on one sheet as well as the tree inventory signed by the arborist with the arborist number. I have not attempted to verify if this number is accurate or up to date. After going to the site, public works staff has determined that a hard surface path meeting ADA requirements would not be possible within the tract area along the drainage easement and a soft path is unrealistic as the drainage will likely wash it out on a regular basis. Based on this information and the fact that there is no detailed parks plan that shows a path in this location, the City would not have an interest in obtaining this -tract area. At the public hearing, you questioned whether the City should have an interest in the tree preservation easements. After discussions with others at the City, it was felt that the standards in the tree removal section for Illegal Tree Removal was sufficient to insure that the City could take action in the event trees were removed in violation of the tree removal standards. Staff feels the tree preservation easements on the plat and deed are sufficient. is curplany uiia\sub\elkmemo.doc V.HRISTENSEN L?NGINEERING, INC. PLANNERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND SURVEYORS TO: City of Tigard OCT 13 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSMITTAL 10/13/98 97-111.01 ATTENTION Julia Hadjuk Elk Horn Ridge Estates WE ARE TRANSMITTING THE FOLLOWING BY: Mail x Messenger Other :•i :•i:•: ................ 1 ,,.?WWyy?ii•• jam?}} ^:^:• .:: , .:::.:: ........................................ 1 :•::•:i::::.•::::i•:is4:4::•::4:?ifi:•i:•ii:•iitr:•ii: isiiii;{•ii:•:};}: }:4::?:4::titifi:::......:....:•::•::•:: •. •:4v.v}.\v .n ............................................... ......... • 4v :•: •n:4w :::::::::::::nw::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::•::.::...::::::::::::::::::•: .:::w:::::: •,,•}::::::::i•:i•:L:?L:ii•isiiii:•i:•isv:?•:i?i•.?::{:..?::.?::::.?:•::•.,.......................:....... •...\?v?v\vvv^:::::::::::::.:vvw::::::::::::::. ?:::::::::n:?:::}.:w::;: v:w:::::::::::. Reproducible Color Mitigation Plan ?? orb ?? , AS INDICATED BELOW: For approval x For your use As requested For review and comment REMARKS: CC: FILE SIGNED: ? FYiI- BY: Ed Christensen, PE 7150 SW Hampton Street, Suite 226 Portland, Oregon 97223 Phone (503) 598-1866 Fax (503) 598-1868 10/13/1998 14:57 6188478 R; YOUNGS TREE SERVICE i, NO. Sp"I" hamab ondMon . 1 Fir 18" Good 2 Fair 3 rch Poor 4 B irch - Poor 5 B l" T' 6 D ouoW Fir 12" 7 Doualm Fir 16" oot 8 B irch 7" oa j 9 B irch " 10 B irch 11 B itch " 12 D molm Fit 13 B irch .. 14 Fir 15 wCw 18 rch '. 17 (r+ch ' 18 Fir 12" 19 Fit Fair 20 Fir 8" 21 r+ch T' 22 mh ' 23 mh ' 24 B irch " 25 D oLdn_ Fir 11" 2$ B irch 27 B irch 28 B ach " 29 rich " 30 8 1rch Poor 31 T' Wood, 32 arch ' 33 rich '. 34 rch ,. 35 inch " 38 rch vor 37 r+ch 38 rich T' 39 r+Gh ' 40 Ith 41 rch " 42 roh " 43 rch oor 44 reh 45 roh " 48 Fir poor 47 rch Fair 48 rch Fair as 4" Deed 50 Fir 13" Good 51 Nosp Fir 12" 52 Mae Fir " 53 B frch 54 B irch ' 55 B itch. air 58 B lrrh air PAGE 02 10/13/1998 14:57 6188478 YOUNGS TREE SERVICE PAGE 03 57 as Fir T' 58 Birch T' 59 Birch " 60 B irch •' 61 B irch 7" Good 62 B lfch Good 03 " oor 64 " air 86 air 88 Fair 67 [ 68 ' 69 Irch 70 71 10" P oor 72 inch ' 73 B irch ' 74 B irch " 75 B irch 76 B irch 77 g irth OOr 78 Fir ' 79 D oualas Fir " 80 B irt21 ' 81 r+ch ' 82 ss Fir 11" 83 Fir 84 Fir ood 85 as Flt " 86 Fir " _ _..67 C kxjgW Flr 88 nnLmhn Fir 89 Doughm Fir 14" 90 B irch „ 91 Fir T' 92 Fir " 93 Fir " 94 Birch 95 Fir 10" 96 Fir 12" 97 rch oor 98 rc h 10" air 99 10" 100 rch Fair 101 ifGh Fair 102 Douglu Fir 1T' Fair 103 Birth 7" Fair 104 Birch Fair 105 Dougft Fir 7" Good 106 In Fir 10" air 107 rch air 108 Fir ood 109 Fir 7" ood 110 tch 111 Birds " 112 Birch " 113 Birch ?- 114 Douglas Fir ' 10/13/1998 14:57 6188478 YOUNGS TREE SERVICE PAGE 04 115 hn Fir " 118 Fir pod 117 In Fir Poor 118 Birch ' 119 in Fir 1 Z" 120 Birds air 121 Fir air 122 Flr 123 Fir ' 124 Doudw FM 791 Fair 125 B irch Poor 126 B irch Poor Poor 127 B irch Fair 128 Ilow " Dead 129 Fir " Good 130 Fir 18" ood 131 a air 132 air 133 r1 ZtOrt Wood " 134 irr•1r ' 135 B irch ' 136 Fir and 137 ' 138 " 139 rch " 140 air 141 [ " 142 143 145 " 148 •• 14 7 B irch Poor 148 B irch " 149 B irch 10" Poor 150 Fi'r Fair 151 ' 152 " r 153 air 154 155 DOLOM Fir 158 Dotan Fir 10" NAM - 157 B irds T' bEa i 158 as Fir Dou " 159 11" 160 B lrch 181 rich 82 12" 183 184 185 roh lFair 188 alnut 10" 187 rah 188 Fir - - 109 las Fir 1711 170 Cberry 15" 171 Do Alas Fir 13" 172 Do las Fir 10/13/1998 14:57 6188478 YOUNGS TREE SERVICE PAGE 05 173 as Fir 174 Fir " 175 as Fir 14-1 ood 178 as Fir " 177 Fir 178 Motdw Fir 51" Good 179 OWN 11" air 180 ast Fir 181 T' 182 Fir Good 183 Fir 38" 184 Fir Fair 185 D oualn Fir t9" 188 Kai " 187 aIrM ' 188 - IT ood 189 B irch 11" Poor 190 B irch 12" Poor 191 B irch " 182 D ougin Fir 193 D ou0n Fir 11" 194 inch 195 rch 7" Poor 196 Ilan " 197 Fit 198 Irch 199 itch " 200 B irch 7" 201 D ougla Fir " Dead 202 D owilm Fir 51- 203 D ougla Fir 10" 204 M avAharne Poor 208 B irch Poor 208 B irch Good D 207 ounho Fir 14" Poor 208 B itch Poor 208 n Fir Good 210 Fir Poor 211 " 212 ke Fir 5" 213 Fir 3" o0d 214 las Fir 12" Dead 215 Fir 10" 218 Fit 2to 217 slow 13" 218 15" air 219 air 220 In Fir air 221 ood 222 it 18" 223 How oor 224 rch air 225 227 Ise Fir 19" 228 Ise Fir ' 229 10" 230 Fair 10/13/1998 14:57 6186478 • YOUNGS TREE SERVICE • 231 oor 232 Fir 19" Good 233 Fir 8" Fair 234 10" Poor 235 Good 236 Fir Good Z37 Fir 0" Fair 238 l " Good 239 Fir 2" Fair 240 Fir Fair 241 Poor 242 Fit 15" Dead 243 Fir V. Good 244 Fir 14" Fair 2115 arrv he" " 248 Doualm Fir 32" Good 247 Doualas Fir oto Dead 248 Dotion Fir 31" cxood 248 Fir 18" Fair 250 Fir to Fair 251 How oor 252 How 10" 253 Fir Fair 254 ,. 255 hen 0" 258 D owlim Fir 31" 257 F D-MW Fir 18" Poor 258 Fir 259 Omdm Fir 15" 280 Fit 9" 261 Doualm Fir 26" 282 Dougla Fir 33" 283 Cherry 10" Poor 284 Douahm Fir 10" oot 265 DouWn Fir 18" 288 Fir 11" Fair 287 Fir Poor 268 Fir 8" 289 as Fir 3" 270 Fir 15" Poor 271 Douginfir 272 CkKgW Fir 273 DoLvW Fir 15" 274 as Fir 13" Fair 275 oulfry 12" air 278 i0 oor 277 Fir 1" Good 278 la: Fir T' Pow 278 4" 280 he" ' Good 281 Flr " Dead 282 Wry I ood 263 Fir j 7" 284 "2-1 , 285 " Fait 288 2" , Fair 287 Fir Dead 288 Douglas Fir 15" air PAGE 06 1.0/13/1998 14:57 6188478 • YOUNGS TREE SERVICE • 289 DouWa Fir 3" 280 Doug1m Fir 5" 281 Dotgon Fir 15" Fair 282 Dougin Fir 8" 283 Fir 11" air 284 Fir l3" 295 Fir T' ood 286 las Fir Dead - 2MV Ilow ow 2W Fir ' 289 as Fir 4" 300 10" air 301 Fir 15" 302 Fir 10" 303 Fir 8" 304 a? Fir . 305 las r 15" 306 air 307 Fir 12" 308 Fir 14" air 309 DotWas Fir Fair 310 Fir 9" Good 311 DougW Fir W. Fair 312 gm?m Fir 16" Dead 313 Birch Poor 314 Fir 12" 315 Fir 19" 316 as Fir 12" 317 Flr 15" oor 318 f Fir 'o 261 319 Douaka Fn 11" Fair 320 j DouMw Fir 13" Pour 321 as Fir 11" Fair 322 Miles Fir 21" 323 in Fir 324 cot 325 k WiGi Fir 12' Fafr 328 Douan Fir 18" 327 DoulOn Fir 10" Dead 328 as Fir ._....?._ _ ?..___...__._ sit 329 ... _ Fir__ 12" atr 330 Fir 1" 331 Fir 32 332 Fir " 333 Fir T' 334 Douglas Fir 6" 335 Ilow " 336 Iffow ?r 337 flow 10" 339 les Fir 1711 338 as Fir 14" air 340 In Fir IT 341 N 342 as Fir 13" -- - 343 lab Fir Dead 344 inch ' Oood 345 las Fir 16" oor 346 Blow air PAGE 07 10/13/1998 14:57 6188478 0 YOUNGS TREE SERVICE • 347 Douglas Fir 15" Good 348 Cho" 6#0 Poor 349 Doualm Fir 38" Good 350 Douglas Fir 34" Goad 351 Douglas Fir 10" Fair 352 Douglas Fir 22" Good 353 as Fir lye Dead 354 Douglas Fir 13" Poor 355 Douglas Fir 7" Fair 356 Fir 8" Good 357 Fir We Good 358 as Fir It Good 359 as Fir W. Fair 380 as Fir Good 361 Douglas Fir 7" 382 Douglas Fir t" 383 Douglas Fir 3" 38a Douglas Fir Dead 365 Birch Fair 388 Fair 367 las Fir 38 8 in Fir 31" ood -- 389 ins Fir 13" ood 370 1Z" air 371 Douglas Fir 1" 372 Fir 17" 373 Douglas Fir 35" 374 Birch Poor 375 as Fir Dead 376 No Fir 18" ood 377 In Fir 36" 378 Fir " 378 Birch .' 380 In Fir 381 Fir 0" 382 Fir 16" air 383 inch Poor 384 T' 385 r+ch ood 386 Fir 18" 387 DouWn . Fir_..__ 3t 388 Douglas Fir 3" 389 DouWas Fir 16" 390 Fir Fair 391 In Fir its ood 392 In Fir ood 393 as Fir 33" 394 Fir 30" 393 How 398 Ilow " _ 397 llow 398 Birch Fair 389 - Birth 400 How " - 401 Birch Poor 02 l Fir Fair 3 r Douglas Fir 40 4 Douglas Fir 12" ood PAGE 08 10/13/1998 14:57 6188478 0 YOUNGS TREE SERVICE • 405 las Fir 18" 408 Birch Poor 407 Dotd" Fir OOd 408 las Fir " 409 ON air 410 Fir 10*, 411 9-1 Poor 412 F " 413 Fir 18" ood 414 Irch it 415 Douglas Fir 16" 00d 418 ElIrch oor 417 Douglas Fir 01, ood 418 Dougles Fir Fair a19 as Fi 13'' 420 In Fir Good 421 I8s Fir Fair 422 Dou les Fir Dead 423 15" Poor 424 Fir 9" 425 10" Poor 426 Fir 7" 427 Fir 4" 426 rch Poor 429 ouala* Fir lilt _ 430 Douglas Fir 91 431 Alm Fir 12" ood 432 Ies Fir 4" air 433 Birch air 434 Fir Good 435 a 14" Fair 439 Birch 10" Fair 437 all Poor 438 as Fir 10" Good 439 cherrv 14" 440 Birch 10" oor 441 PRyg!pl Fir 16" air 442 Fir 18" Fair 443 Mmoe 8" Poor 444 Douglas Fir 33" Good 445 Douglas Fir 18" Fair 446 Maple 12" Poor 447 Douglas Fir 2190 Fair 448 Douglas Fir 10" biiiii 449 as Fir 15" Good 450 as Fir 33" Good 451 a 16" Poor 452 Fir 19" Fair 453 Fir 0" Fair 454 Douglas Fir If 455 DowW Fir 16" Fair 458 Doualn Fir 19" 457 DoucOm Fir 2" 458 Dm4m Fir Fetr 459 Douglas Fir 3" air 4eO Douglas Fir 461- Douglas Fir 462 Douglas Fir 391 PAGE 09 10/13/1998 14:57 6188478 • YOUNGS TREE SERVICE • 483 as Fir ood 484 In Fir 18" air 485 las Fir 8" Dead 488 Fir 1" 467 Fir 7" 488 Fir 7" Poor 489 Fir 19" Dead 470 Fir 1" Falr 471 In Fir 1 T' air 472 Doualas Fir 8.0 Poor 473 DouWas Fir " Dead 474 Fir " Dead 475 las Fir - 14" Poor 478 r Fir d;lm 13" Fair 477 18" Poor 478 Dougln Fir 13" Fair 479 les Fir 6' Good 480 Dougin Fir 11•' Fair 48t Douglas Fir 2211 Fair 482 as Fir 4" Good 483 Douglas Fir 6" Good 484 Dotan Fir Dead 485 Dounin Fir Dead 488 Dougln Fir Fair 487 IT air 488 Dougin Fir 13" Fair 489 DouWas Fir 18" Fair 490 Douglas Fir Is" Fair 491 las Fir po 10" Dead 492 Dotalm Fir 11" Fair 493 Votx*m Fir " 494 Fir 17", ood 495 Fir 11" Poor 498 Fir 1511 air 497 Fir ood 498 Fir 13" Poor 499 a.. 500 Dounlas Fir 9" Dead 501 Douon Fir 14" Fair 502 Dou0n Fir 12" Poor 503 Doucilas Fir 19" Fair 504 Douglas Fir 19" Fair 505 Dougin Fir 12" Poor 506 Douciles Fir 10" air 507 povu If 19" 508 Dqugt= Fir 5" 509 DouWas Fir 12" air 510 Dou0n Fir 19" air 511 Douglas Fir " 512 Dousilas Fir 12" Fair 513 Douglas Fir 17" ood 514 Fir 18" Fair 515 Fir 1" 518 las Fir 517 las Fir 15" air 518 In Fir 12" air 519 ass Fir air 620 I Douglas Fir alr PAGE 10 10/13/1998 14:57 6168478 • YOUNGS TREE SERVICE .• 521 Fir 11" Dead 522 Fir 12" Poor 523 J as Fir IT ood 524 Fir air S25 0ouglas Fir 11" Poor 528 Doualas Fir 101, 527 Douala Fir 19" 528 Doualas Fir 7" 529 las fir 10" air 530 Douala Fir 18" Fair 531 PqMM Fir 1901 air 532 Dotal= Fir air 533 Douala, Fir 13" 534 Willow IT, 535 Dotain Fir 14" air 538 Fir air 537 Dounlas Fir Is.. Fair 538 Douglas Fir Fair 539 Douglas Fir Fair 540 Douglas Fir 161 Good 541 - Dou Fir gin 14" Good 542 Fir 18" Fair 543 Douglas Fir Deed $44 Douala Fir 18" Fair 545 DouqW Fir 11" Dead 548 las Fir 0" air 547 2LxMlas Fir 1" air U8 Douglas Fir 14" 549 Dotalm Flr and 550 Do2M Fir 11" oor 551 Fir 14" Fair 552 DougW Fir 0" 553 Doualn Fir Dead 554 DouWas Fir 15" Fair 555 Dw as Fir 0" Fair 558 1 Fir " 557 as Fir 17" air 558 Douglas Fir 559 as Fir " 580 ias Fir 19" 581 Fir T' 5'62 Fir 12" 583 Fir r Dead 584 Fir 12" Dead 585 Fir Fair 588 Fair 567 Fir --__ . L 588 as Fir 1 Fair 589 as Fir 3" 570 Doug las{ Fir 3" 571 Douclas Fir 18" air 572 RMuft 13" air 573 Doucdas Fir 14r, air 574 Rmgln Fir 10" 575 {as Fir air 578 Douala& Fir 14" Fair 577 Dot4ft Fir 12" Poor 578 [Douglas_Flr 18" Fair PAGE 11 k0/13/1998 14:57 6188478 • YOUNGS TREE SERVICE 0 579 las Fir 4" Fair 580 [as Fir 14" Poor 561 In Fir " Dead 582 In Fir Z" air 583 ias Fir 19" oor 584 Do las Fir 21#1 ood 585 DouWas Fir 22, Fair 588 DouoW Fir 587 Dot4as Fir 14" Fair 588 Dou0n Fir 3" Good 589 Douglas Fir 1" Good 590 Douglas Fir I 0" Poor 591 Douglas Fir it, Fair 592 Fir 3" Fair 593 FCk)uWn Fir V' Clow 594 5;Wlas Fir IV, Good 595 FDo-ugim Fir t8" Fair 588 WG-me- 7" Dead 597 las Fir 14" Fair 598 las Fir 11" F!? 599 las Fir 8" 800 Uim-lae Ffr 18" t 801 Fir Z' 002 Douglas Fir 0" Fair 803 Fir Fair 804 Douglas Fir 2" Good WS Douglas Fir Fair 808 Dowilm Fir 12" Fair 80T Douglas Fir 18" 808 Dougin Fir 14" Fair 808 Douglas Fir 10" Fair 610 7" Douglas Fir 611 , Fir 14" Fait 612 Fir 1" Fair 813 as Fit 0" Fair 614 Fir IT, oor 815 Fir IT Dead 816 Douglas Fir 38" 817 Fir 17" Fair 818 Dougln Fir ' 619 In Fir 3" 620 uglas Fir 0" Fair 821 Fir 17" Fair 622 Douglas Fir 16" Fair 823 in Fir ' 824 as Fir IT Fair 825 Fir 3" 828 DoLWas Fir 14" Fair 827 Douglm Fir 7" NO 828 las r 18" air 629 Douglas Fire 4" 630 Dou" Fir 5" ood 631 Dounlas Fir 16" Fair 632 Douglas. Fir_ 0"- Fair -- 633 Do laa Fir 1" air 834 3" Doucles Fir 1 Dead 635 Dogies Fir 4" Fair 636 8to Douglas Fir Dead PAGE 12 19/13/1998 14:57 6188478 • YOUNGS TREE SERVICE 0 837 ax Fir 9" Fair 838 Fir 1r' Fair 838 lag Fir 16" Fair 640 las Fir 17" Good 641 Do las Fir 15" Good 642 Fir 15" Good 843 Fir 810 Fair 844 Fir 1r, _ air 645 Fir IV, Fair 848 as Fir 0" Four 847 In Fir 3" 848 Fir 12" Poor 849 In Fir 18" 850 Ws Fir 1V' r 651 let Fir al 052 las Fir Good 853 In Fir Fair 854 as Fir 15" Fair 855 lax Fir 14 Fair 656 as Fir 9" Dead 857 Fir 0" Fair 858 Fir 10" Poor 859 Fir 0" Fair 860 Fir 1000 Poor 881 Fit 3" Fair 882 Fir 8" Good 883 17, Poor 684 Fir 140' Fair 885 Fir 15" Fair 888 Fir 18" Fair 887 as Fir 13" Fair 688 4plas Fir Dead 869 Fir 12" Poor 670 Fir Fair 871 as Fir Dead 672 Doualm Fir 10" Fair 673 Douglas Fir 13" Fair 674 Dou" Fir 4" Good 875 Doualss Flr 3" Good 676 der 12" Poor 677 Doualas Fir 8" Poo 878 Doualm Fir 3" Fair 679 las Flr 15" 880 goWM Fir 8" Dead 881 Fit 17" 882 Douales Fir 13" aor 883 Fir 30" 884 Douglas Fir 8" Dead 685 Fir 1" 688 Fir 8" 687 Fir Dead 688 Fir 10" oor 890 Is* Fir 10" Fair 691 las Fir 12" Poor 892 in Fir 41#' Fair 693 las Fir 0" 894 a 12" air PAGE 13 10/13/1998 14:57 6188478 • YOUNGS TREE SERVICE 0 895 e t 1" 898 as Fir 1 8" Fair 897 a 1 6, Poor 898 Fir e ll Dead 899 Fir Dead 700 Fir Poor 701 D ougla Fir 1 2" Fair 702 D oualso Fir 1 4" Poor 703 MOOS - 7" Poor 704 Doualm Fir 1 1" Fair 705 D oto" Fir 1 7" 708 D otolas Fir 1 0" Fair 707 In Fir Fair 708 D ouglas Fir 13" 709 a 12" oor 710 Fir 32" Fair 711 Fir on 712 10" 713 Flr 17' 714 Dougln Fir 15" 715 DoLdas Fir 19" 718 pouglu Fir 7' air 717 N • 810 oor 718 Fir 13" air 718 Fir " air - 720 Doualm Fir Dead 721 Fir Dead 722 Fir 15" Good 723 Douglas Fir 12" air 724 of Fir 10" Dead 725 as Fir 15" 728 Fir Y' 727 Fir 10" Dead 728 10" Fair 728 In Fir 18" Fair 730 Fit 81, 731 Fir icy' air 732 15" Fair 733 DotxM Fir 18" Fair 734 Doigilas Fir 2" 735 Doualm Fir 3" 738 MaWe 14" Fair 737 Fir air 738 In Fir 1,2" air 739 as Fir 14" air 740 10" - 741 air 742 Fir 0" 743 Fir Dead 744 Fir 745 Fir 0 748 Doug?u Fir 15" 747 Fir Dead 748 10" -- 749 as Fir oor 750 a 13" air 751 Do Fir 15" air 752 Douglas Fir PAGE 14 10/13/1998 14:57 6188478 0 YOUNGS TREE SERVICE • 753 sa3 Fir 15" 754 las Fir " 755 10" 758 as Fir 10" 757 as Fir 0" 758 as Fir 759 as Fir l 760 as Fir FaFlr 781 0" 782 710 783 8" 764 10" 785 Fir 1 768 Fir 12" 767 10" oor 788 Maple 13" Poor 788 8" Poor 770 12" Poor 771 IT Fair 772 10" Fair 773 774 775 Fir 3" Dead 778 Maple 12" Fair 777 778 lad Fir 38" Good 779 Fir 5' 0 Good Goo Mayie 80 Fair 781 Douglas Fir Z' Poor 782 Fir all Dead 783 Fif Good 784 785 herTy 12" Falr 788 787 Fir Fair 788 a 8" Poor 789 790 791 Maple 8" Fair 792 Demmim Fir 4" air 793 Douglas Fir 4" Good 794 Douglas Fir 18" Dead 795 798 Maple 11" Fair 797 798 799 aw 801 802 803 804 a 11" Good 805 a 10" 808 807 e pie 1101 808 809 In Fir 13" 810 PAGE 15 10/13/1998 14:57 6188478 0 YOUNGS TREE SERVICE 0 811 e " Fair 812 moo 9" Fair 813 a T' Poor 81< sple 8" Poor 813 818 10" Poor 817 10" Poor 818 le 13" Poor 819 as Fir 38" 620 900 Qof 821 Poor 822 4" Poor 823 Poor 824 as Fir 13" Poor 825 10" 828 as Fir We I P 827 Fir " Fair 828 14" Poor 829 Douglas Fir 830 Douglas Fir 831 Douales Fir fair 832 Douglas Fir 3211 833 Doualne Fir 1" ood 634 Dougin Fir " 835 Fir 39" 836 Ma0e 9. Poor 837 838 a 14" 839 pie 1311 840 _ 641 Fir 14" Poor 842 moos 10" Poor 843 844 as Fir 24" Good 845 Fir 846 a 7" Poor 847 10" 848 Poor 848 Fir " 850 851 e 8" Fair 852 853 854 855 858 maple " Poor 857 Ma 14" Good 858 14!' Poor 859 las Fir 18" Poor 880 _ ir, Poor 881 862 a 13" Dead 963 __ _ 884 in Pir 0 . Poor 885 . 8? 867 M e 12" air 868 PAGE 16 1.0/13/1998 14:57 c r; F 6188478 • YOUNGS TREE SERVICE • 889 87a 871 Fir 10" Poor 872 873 as Fir ,. Dead 874 12" air 875 876 877 878 879 14" Poor 880 IT Poor 881 as Fir 1011 Fair 882 883 10" Poor 884 885 888 887 1311 Poor BOB 11" 889 " . 890 Fir 16" Fair 891 Fit r' 892 as Fir 18" Good 893 894 895 Bee moos Good 897 Doualas Fir 18" Good 898 _ 899 Doualn Fir 16' Good 900 901 902 e DOW 903 oor 904 " 905 Fir 19" 908 Maple air 907 I F; Fir 19" 908 as Fir 9ps Good 909 Fir " Good 910 si?K poor 911 WWI* 7" Fair 912 913 Douglas Fir 8" Poor 914 Douslas Fir 19" Poor 915 AkMw 151. Poor 18 Fir 18" Dead 917 61 oor 918 Fir - 30" 919 oiwse 1(y, air 920 Fir " 921 air 922 14" air 923 as Fir 924 n Fir 9 4" 925 n Fir l 14" air 926 Fir ias 0oug r. PAGE 17 10/13/1998 14:57 6188478 YOUNGS TREE SERVICE i 927 a 14" Good 928 e 16' Fair 929 le -711 Poor 930 931 Bit Fair 932 a IT 933 12" Fair 934 Fir 32" 935 938 Fair 937 838 Fair 939 as Fir 38" Poor 940 10" Poor 941 942 las Fir 19" Good 943 a 14" Good 944 In Fir 3" Good 945 15" Poor 946 947 948 a 8" Poor 949 DoAlm Fir 160, Good 950 951 I msoe 10" Fair 852 953 11" Fair 954 ' Dead 955 Fir sit ow 958 Poor 967 o0s 8" Poor 958 968 1 980 gel Fir 11" Fair 962 963 Fir Fair 964 12" Poor 955 9 12" air 968 a 12" air 967 9e8 Fir 0" Dead 989 as Fir 14" Poor 970 a Fir 10" air 971 as Fir oor M2 Fir 1401 oor 973 Fir 31" 974 lee Fir 15" 976 13" Poor 976 m Fir " Dead 977 ae Fit 24- 978 as Fir 11" oor 979 Fir 0" 960 a 10" _ Poor 981 a 10" Fair 98Z las Fir 10" Poor 963 V 954 a 12" Poor PAGE 18 10/13/1998 14:57 6188478 YOUNGS TREE SERVICE PAGE 19 985 las Fir 986 a 18" 987 in Fir " 988 in Fir 6„ 989 13" 3 r 890 las Fir 12" 991 r DoW- as Fir 12" 982 Fir 12" Falr 993 Fir 994 a 995 Douglas Fir Fair 996 Douglas Fir 1" Good 997 MepLe " Poor 998 DouWas Fir Dead 999 as Fir alr 1000 les Fir 3" l Good ?- /0 9s3 To: The Hearings Officer October 7, 1998 Re: Elk Horn Ridge Estates Plat Review From: Tim and Alice Perrine 14441 SW 125` Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Basis for Interest, Concern, and TesUmony o We own 210' (3.2 acres) of adjoining property to the east of this subdivision. o The identified Central Drainage feeds a spring which flows as a stream directly into our property into an area marked "Wetlands". o The spring (and drainage) continues along our property as a year round creek and feeds landowners to our North who have an additional 1000 feet of common property line with this development. o The entire subdivision slopes down to our properties and into our creek causing significant erosion concerns. o There are many large trees on all our properties which may be affected by removal of trees in the proposed subdivision.. o We have a vested interest in the outcome of this hearing. ISSUE #1 - The DrAnage Issue: ]Lots 36 and 35 ]Ells Horn Ridge ]Estates o Lots 36 and 35 (as well as portions of 37,34 and 33) drain directly into our property. This area has been identified by the Ecologist and Wetland Specialists as being a drainage with "perennial flow" in the central portion of the development. Per their report: "the drainages are jurisdictional waters of the state". o The US Army Corps of Engineers have reviewed this proposal, as per page 35 of The Staff Report to The Hearings Officer, and have stated "A DA permit will be required for roads crossing and potential grading impacts in lots 35,36........a wetlands concurrence will be required before a permit can be issued". The City staff dismisses the road crossing as not occurring, however the term Drainage appears in this instance to be defined by the State, not the City, and may affect the location/construction of SW Greenpark if so interpreted by the State. o Per 18.84-8 C. 6 "The necessary US Army Corps of Engineers and the State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands permits shall be obtained." when 18.84.015 B and D apply. o The Staff Review also supports that this plan does not properly address this drainageway. Condition # 1 states "Prior to plat approval, submit a revised plan that identifies the drainageways and 25' buffers with separate tracts instead of easements as shown". o The 25' setback has not been applied West (Uphill)of the spring /stream entrance where there is a slope exceeding 25%. Proper identification of this buffer would essentially eliminate Lot 36 as buildable as well as similarly affect additional portions of Lot 35. Portions of Lot 34 are idse a lffbutud to the North and East aas they would clearly be paint of the tract. o The spring location as marked on page 3 of the submitted drainage plan does not match actual location of the Spring as validated from the Tree Plot relative to the position of tree #427 - the closest tree to the spring. If tree #427 location is marked correctly, the spring initiates approximately 25' to the West (Uphill). If this is correct, buffers are significantly understated in Lot 36. 0 If you move further West (above the spring), there is a clearly identifiable channel in excess of 2-3' deep caused by drainage at least 50' above the spring. This should also be considered part of the drainage and further impacts Lot 36. 0 Trees inside the 25' setback are identified for removal. Tree #427 essentially marks the spring entrance as it becomes an above ground stream. This tree is 6' to the Southeast of the spring - yet, this 24" Douglas Fir in good condition is shown as being removed. How can a tree this large inside the 25' buffer not affect this drainageway or not have adverse effect on my wetlands and stream? 1 8.84.8 states "The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site or off- site effects or hazards to life or property." ISSUE #t - Requested Actions 1. Lots 36 and 35 need to be removed from the plot as buildable lots. 2. The exact position of the spring/stream, and drainageway needs to be agreed upon by the City, the Army Corps of Engineers and the State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands before tree removal, grading, or plot approval. 3. This subdivision should not be approved, even conditionally, given the issues and jurisdictions involved. No approvals should be authorized until all jurisdictions can study and resolve these issues. 4. I ask any responsible person - why would you deliberately plan to build a house on top of a spring as is requested in Lot 36? ISSUE # 2 Thee ]Plan Req u cement and Mitigation 10.150 o The tree plan report to City of Tigard was submitted by Keith Young of Young Tree Services. The report states "I am a certified arborist and I am registered with the Construction Contractors Board." There is no Arborist # shown on the document even though it is requested. A telephone call to the contractors board referenced us to the Pacific Northwest International Society of Arborculuralists as the certifying body for arborists in the Northwest. They do not show 1&. Young as a certified arborist. 0 18.150.40 Section B states "Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of a stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than 75 percent of canopy cover". This is not addressed in the Tree Plan whatsoever and has significant effect on the grove of Douglas Fir on Lot 35 which falls within this boundary. Additional trees on Lot 36 are also affected. 0 "The removal of a tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, or water quality.... "how can a tree such as 427 which is at the source of the spring not have this effect? 0 9 o 1 8.150.045 Section D states "The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of public improvements to accommodate tree retention where possible....". There are clearly a number of public improvements occurring with this proposed development. As stated in my request 9/27/98; why can't a significant number of additional large trees be saved by minor adjustments in this design? ISSUE #2 - Requested Actions 1. Validate the credentials of the arborist of record and if found unqualified, deny the application and request a new Tree Plan be taken prior to any reapplication. 2. Address the 75% canopy requirement within 50' of the boundary of a stream as a condition to approval. 3. Eliminate removal plans for any trees in the 25' buffer from the stream, including tree #427 4. As a condition to any approval, require the City Engineer specifically evaluate design changes which can save additional trees and produce a written report for public review and input. 5. A condition of approval should be added whereby erosion control must be in place and approved by the USA prior to tree removal. Damage to my property from tree removal activities can be just as significant as from construction activities. 6. Inaccuracies between the tree plot and the drainageway/spring/stream and associated buffers need to be corrected prior to any tree removal. 4 4' RETAINING W E?tENj ?- E PROJ • • . PE - EAS . SLOPE BOUNDARY , .?-•...... „ ....= , . •' ? PRE .• _^- - ' 4 0 ... ,.....n-- .. - ?•?'? 5+00 •• _.,. ?? _ .. ..... ........ _...... _...... ........ < ..... < 4c + .. - '` _..... 49 a L ....... ^\ , (rl ?t +Qa l ' r'•,.• CJs •n,.lY 494% .. ........._.........,.•.«? ?"'_.....-c.r",......... -...._..:::; .... ^ .. N? r .-.??? , .. .. ... . ?? tea. ? ..;..., ,> - ?. _- .... •• - .._ ..._.._...... ?. ..., :: .. In .49 01, r, 1' • I i ` ?' i ? i I %"`yiii ?? f 1 ' 1E R K i TAIN i iD ! Ibi - - ------ I "1 i H • { , Q . .?f wIiiII I 'r • 1 I N ;' I+ir :+. •? ,,, .., ..?"..,,...,-,i:.- ,6:: N I.a 07 r! Y Q1 ? D i In ! ? .{ ? rr''• It r'...;::,? ............ ' IyJY.. I 1 r' r'• /. ,?:? ........ .?,__?, rr._....=-?•--.....:_....-, .,,+2::.........•-:....w , r. Q. .. _ w ?+E3f? This is the true location of the spring wh.ic-h-is next to tree #427.' f4y'? ?_ + 1 fi v i r+ .. ? 1' ? O ?' 1 `' I I D Cb 1 t 1 :' i r .? ? I ? ?; f ? 1, . M ?1.? ,-L. \ r ? ?? '• r° r rv_ . O-:' i ECIr , In . ;R • ... _..,c. - .... 0..0 E??EWEMT ICA \ '? I N D ?. / /? t? t'o ' ` .?'•^^"? ..? ? /: ? / D ice. GRADING NOTES. 2:1 TO INSIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EAStvIENT THEN .'s+?±?• ,...... „ ..._....._.. / 0 SLOPES RATIOS ?ENG,GRa?N . •. - ...-... .•-•- YLI HT WITH EU _....._... - " 275.521 SO.FT t SLOPES ,.- - G ER . , ; . _ ......... - - - ?. ?? R R T TOTAL AREA Of 25x 77? lisp ` ! ! WOODFORD ESTATES { PII0JECr IMP • 211D5 \' ~'4?? \ ~,\ YOIY• w-9? jT ,? ' ti ` r ...r.. ?. rs .?\?? ?s?. ` '7 \ ..`` T' ?\ • \ \, \ 10•.v+ 1 .? ° \ 1, . vv ?r? ; \ Uef \v vt • H \ \ { \\ \\. } v \ v i UT°' 3 ` • • . • n \ ,?T ` \ \ 1 \r \ an n \ \ ? \\ f \ ? . filet '`: \ • .. T °•? .. a1T \. ,\ ° ° \ \\? ? , -,\? `..\ n1? ?? .\'\• ? \ ? \ • T\ N. 11 1 Al !Ni \ OeF ° Tt5 n \ \ ` . \\ \ \ \ 43 tb ) • b \ Jim N N.. ? ? _-... ° 31 • °11T\ • . n10 \ ?h! ? 1?,. '? `•. ` \ _ \? \ •\ =` \ \ • .PRT 11 \` \,. 1YJE?" / ° ?.1.. J«.,, r 'r*r?7. ,.1,.. \ •\ \, \' !^ '\'[•-?-'t- .. .7lTj- `i i,l:.y,_.?.a •g°..?.> \ II % 2013 \ , t T \ 1 f\ _ _ Y w1r ` \ : SIT • • v ; •? t,ti \ " \ >/ • .... ?._._ 1y \ \ alt. t1?t \ t? 1 ..?,..1' ).• .,..? ' i Siff* ^" \ 119T v pr. \ leei \ j6o .. \ v' : . \ ,i. .? •. ,\ ')r.? t7 \ 1S\T \: `\\ 70T \\ ?ftl, .TTM,' : `t L?ltC? ^.tT ' t., r1 1• v. Z T Y ST• \ AT\_? T \ *•t161 . °\ i ? ? v \. ° ?13j 10 1ST' Si7T J?\ \ 1p40 ` \ aL - • 'J \ `\? \.. •\ I fllt? • \ \ \\ S n 17 n yeT !!'! !!It K •'?\ t ?) \ `P? \y i _\ va°,_?Ij'.?3.\iC ?.. /2li' iT' ? .. .: ` IIIF t. jv ? 1. \ i f °xw \ \ ••. ....1 i- 4 Nl? •S . \ { \ • --1DIQ,....?. 7\ ...2 ,? Z11T ::f'.l•cn rtrx:• • ;v?l ? . '-;C \? = ? ? \ { t \ ? '`'irk 3- 4 . -\:PROJECr rl E BOUNDARY Aar I -f la tnJ t 1410 ?r VII ???? TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER MINUTES DATE: 0q - aF? - :?S 1 Oct -,!:D- 9 - q 9 -rte c-? v • • September 29, 1998 Hearings Officer City of Tigard Tigard, OR SUBJECT: Application for Subdivision Approval Elk Horn Ridge Estates Dear City Hearings Officer: This letter is written to voice our concerns regarding the Application for Subdivision Approval of Elk Horn Ridge Estates. Our family resides in Woodford Estates Subdivision which is located next to the proposed development. After considerable review of the developer's application and upon consultation with a private development planner, we feel strongly that this application should not be approved by the City of Tigard without significant improvements to the manner in which the development will be built and without more consideration given to the impact that it will make upon our community. The Application seems incomplete in key areas and insensitive to the topography and natural resources. We also have strong traffic and safety concerns which we plan to raise at this hearing. We believe that the City of Tigard is a wonderful place to live. Good schools, caring and safe neighborhoods, and those qualities which ascribe to a good "quality of life" are the reasons we choose to live here. We were glad to see a city government which cared about these values too. We were pleased to see the adoption of mandates like the Bull Mountain Community Plan. We believe that it is the plans and codes of the City which will ensure the reasoned, careful growth of our community without the destruction of those things which drew us to this area. The removal of the last few remaining natural resources on this Mountain are shocking. We cannot believe the view of the homesites just on the other side of Bull Mountain Road. We are very, very concerned that if this development is not carefully done, the same disregard for the wildlife, trees and vegetation will occur. In addition, we are fearful of the erosion of the land and the loss of the old growth trees. Just a short time ago, this subject parcel of land was considered as a proposed public park. It would have been a wonderful area for all citizens to use and be proud of and it would have helped to preserve one of the last remaining forest areas in Tigard. Our family urges you to consider our concerns when reviewing the proposed development. Thank you. 1\ Sincerely, Mark and Laura Breni 14378 SW 130th Tigard, OR 97224 503-624-6835 Memo • TO: City of Tigard Planning Commission/City of Tigard Hearings Officer From. Scott White 14423 SW 13&, Tigard Date: 09/27/98 Re: Elk Horn Ridge Estates Proposed Subdivision I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed subdivision Elk Horn Ridge Estates. I am very concerned about the preservation of trees, wetlands, adequate drainage, and the overall livability of the Bull Mountain area of Tigard. As I review the Staff recommendations regarding this subdivision, I see similar concerns from the City of Tigard planning staff. Due to the large number of conditions placed on the plans of this development, 1 respectfully request that another public hearing be held to review the changes to the plans as required by the planning office. Without this additional hearing, it will be impossible for interested citizens such as me to be able to participate in the planning process as required by City of Tigard regulations. Additionally, I am concerned about the monitoring process during the actual development of the subdivision once the conditions have been resolved. There are a number of decisions that will be made that have significant impact on the way the subdivision is developed. Having heard promises to save trees in the Foran Estates development, I watched as all trees on the property be removed during development. I do not wish to see this happen again, and expect that the City of Tigard be diligent to ensure that the conditions for development of Elk Horn Ridge Estates are met. Regards, i Scott White 0 Page 1 • • Memo To: City of Tigard Planning Commission/City of Tigard Hearings Officer From Laurie White 14423 SW 1301', Tigard Dabs: 09/27/98 Re: Elk Horn Ridge Estates Planned Subdivision I am writing this note to express my concern over the proposed development listed above. 1 am a mother of two small children. My concern is over the impact of my vehicles and drivers on the adjoining street, 129"' as well as the impact on our street. My children ride their bikes in the street Traffic has already increased due to the additions of homes on Starview, an adjoining street to 13e. My second concern is to the environment that will have to be removed in order to complete this project. As an example, we, Woodford Estates, as a development were told some of the trees would come down for the new development on Starview but most would be saved. We were promised this by the developer himself. We were also told, the developer would replace the trees with new ones after the development was completed. Needles to say, ALL the trees were removed and the beauty of our surroundings have dramatically changed and no new trees have been planted by the developer. Therefore, I am concerned about the destruction of the existing trees for this new projected development. Thank you for you concern in this matter. Laurie White • Page 1 • • September 27, 1998 To Whom It May Concern: I would like to take this opportunity to express my concerns involving the over development and deforestation of Bull Mountain, Specifically the Elk Horn Ridge Estates Subdivision. My concern is that trees (that have been here for up to 100 years and more) and wetlands that feed and house wildlife, (deer, quail, hawks, owls, frogs, raccoons, etc... ) are going to be mowed down, paved over and sadly never replaced. One day about a month ago I was sitting on my deck reading when a shadow flashed over me. I looked up and saw a huge bird with a wingspan of 4 or 5 feet. Another quickly joined it. They dove in and out of the trees searching for food. I called a friend over to see these amazing creatures and was told that they were hawks. The very next morning I went back out and saw a family of Quail walking right through my yard. Looking out at the tops of the trees, I remembered why I moved to Oregon in the first place. The stately Douglas Firs, the greenery, the quality of life and the appreciation Oregonians have for nature and wildlife. If we keep developing land like we are and pushing out the animals that share this place with us, what quality of life will we be left with? Too many trees have already been removed. Perhaps it's time to ask the city to re-name it BALD MOUNTAIN. Siuerely, ry W. organ 1/,4 SW 130' Avenue Tigard, OR 97724 • September 27, 1998 To Whom It May Concern: 0 I would like to take this opportunity to address the development of "Elk Horn Ridge Estates". I have learned in the past that the words TRUST and DEVELOPERS do not necessarily go together. Recently, Woodford Estates was extended, the Developers assured everyone that a certain grove of trees was going to stay. One day when we all came home from work, that certain grove of trees was completely mowed down. We were told by the developers, "Oops, well it's too late now. How do we monitor or regulate the Developers to insure they do what they promise and do what is right for the Land, Animals, Environment & Community? I am keeping this short and hope that you fully understand its meaning. Thanks you for your time Jkiarrington 441 30th Avenue Tigard, OR 97724 f TRAFFIC COUNT 9/29/98-10/2/98 BULL MOUNTAIN RD. markers placed juste of 129'. eaS1 RESULTS: West Bound- average daily cars = 4252 average speed 40.87 MPH 85% speed 45 MPH 1% in excess of 55 MPH - 12 @ 70 MPH, 18 @ 65 MPH, 26@ 60MPH, 65 @ 55MPH.96% Passenger vehicles 4% trucks over 19 feet. East Bound- average daily cars = 4118 average speed 45.1 MPH 45 % exceeding the 40 MPH speed limit not as many cars exceeding 55 MPH General Comments by Mike Mills- City of Tigard 639-4171 ex. 370 Road not designed for this kind of volume, and has had few improvements. I.e. the margins striped a few years ago. Traffic is not going to stop the development. And hard to put conditions on the builder to ease traffic issues. A traffic signal not needed yet and would have to meet "warrants." The 49 new homes going into Elk Horn Ridge Estates will add 500 more trips per day onto Bull Mountain Rd. The city uses the figures of 10 trips per day per household. Total average cars or truck per day = 8370. By comparison Bonita Rd. from Hall to 72"d has over 8000 and Durham Rd. by Tigard High School is over 12000. SPEED LIMIT ON BULL MOUNTAIN RD. COULD BE STUDIES AGAIN. Speed limit of 40 MPH was set 4/30/87, and re-affirmed in 1989. A lot of building has happened in 10 years. Example: Hall Boulevard was reduced from 45 MPH to 40 MPH recently. Speed limits are set by the State Speed Control Board not by the city. They would need to run their own studies at a request from residences. • 11 To: The Tigard City Planner September 27,1998 Re: Elkhorn Estates Plat Review From: Tim and Alice Perrin 14441 SW 125'h Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 o We own 210' (3.2 acres) of adjoining property to the east of this subdivision (Tax Lot 402). © The spring feeds directly into our property into an area marked "wetlands" by one of the contractors hired by the developer. ® The spring continues along our property as a year round creek and feeds 4 landowners to our North who have an additional 1000 feet of common property line with this development. © The entire subdivision slopes (sometimes severely) down our properties and toward our creek. o There are many large trees on all our properties - this is beautiful wooded area with the creek, large Douglas fir, flora, fauna, and abundant animal and bird life. Issues: 1. Damage don to our trees and vegetation during clearing for construction. We already have had a 12" Douglas fir tree knocked down into our trees by the machine used by one of the contractors. We have had green paint sprayed on our trees - some of which were up to 48' inside our property line. This were not green dots - but large painted circles - many times a foot or larger. 2. Blowdown of our trees after removal of trees to the South and West. Tigard's code for tree removal 18.150 requires that this issue be addressed and satisfied. The removal of a grove of large, mature Douglas fir at the spring is directly West of significant tree stands on our property. 3. Increased access to our private property from the houses being built to the West. The prospect of fires, vandalism, littering etc. have been brought to our doorstep by this development. 4. Water/erosion and other damage from construction moving down slope onto our property. There is significant water runoff down these slopes. These properties will be adversely affected in terms of soil erosion, soil retention, and stability of earth after removal of significant trees and vegetation. 5. Improperly marked tree #210 as 9" Douglas fir versus 59" Douglas fir. Because it was marked as 9", it hasn't been marked as saved even though it is inside the 65' setback - this tree is very close to our property line and on the edge of the creek. RemedOes Requested: 1. A surveyed and well marked boundary line every 10' along the eastern property line prior to any tree or vegetation removal. Trees being saved versus trees being removed need to be clearly distinguished - severe penalties for trees cut in error need to be established in advance. 2. Independently supervised tree and vegetation removal to reduce potential damage (preferably by an arborist ). • • 3. A cyclone fence should be built to limit accessibility down the entire eastern property line and installed prior to tree or vegetation removal. 4. Significant erosion control at the 65' setback. This must be monitored throughout the life of the project. 5. Retaining groves trees. The City of Tigard's Inventory and Assessment of Forested Natural Areas on Bull Mountain recognized this area (G2) as a natural resource. It recommends retaining groves of trees when constructing around them. There seems to be no effort on the part of the developer to follow those guidelines - the plat appears to be laid out to maximize housing density. Preserving several lots where there are groves of trees would ensure their survival while still allowing 45 or so home sites. 6. Retaining additional large trees. A number of large trees could be saved with very minor changes in the plot. Trees on the edge of the removal line (and sometimes outside the removal line) are being removed. For example, tree # 282 is shown on the map as not removed but on the list is removed - this is a 27" fir. Other Douglas fir trees on the removal line include 2029 (24"), 2030 (48") , 2064 (27"), 2032 (12"), 273 (15"), 172 (29"); this is just a sampling - not an entire list. 7. Addressing tree #210 and saving it. This area is one of the last remaining natural resources on Bull Mountain that hasn't been impacted by development. We have seen total forests cut down, the land moved around by large equipment, and high density housing put in it's place. If we don't retain as much of our natural habitat as possible now, there will be very few - if any - similar opportunities in the future. A=chmeunts: Appendix C Data Sheet of G2 Natural Area from City of Tigard's Inventory and Assessment of Forested Natural Areas on Bull Mountain Page 3 of Summary from City of Tigard's Inventory and Assessment of Forested Natural Areas on Bull Mountain Section 18.150.030 Criteria for Issuance of ..(Tree Cutting)... Permits .Tigard 1 NATURAL Ow AREA 2 nershi DATE of evaluation ION TYPE riparian rs Y ix. or shrub 6 CANOPY CLOSURE closed, open, scattered 7 SPECIES 8 Estimated number of trees per acre Estimated average size of 9 major tree species 10 Estimated age of major tree species FOREST TYPE, abundant, 11 common, uncommon SUCCESSION 12 very early, early mature, late or old growth Approx. Number of Acres 13 14 PRESENT USE Forest Areas Inventory , Page ::U • Data Sheet 4/29/95 the size of the Douglas-fir varies from 14" to 40 plus inches 60 to over 100 uncommon in SITE V ALUES 15 wildlife, trail, corridor protection etc. OTHER COIVUVLENTS 16 RAND NATURAL 1 EQUALITY 1 to 5 RAND LINIL?,GES 3 0 to 1 (none, low & high) RANK FEATURES, 0 to 3 4I? 1 5 !TOTAL RANK Prepared by Mike Reichenbach wildlife. all-" mature A streambed starts in the Southern portion of the property and flows north creating a ravine along the Eastern boundary. The Northern end of the property slopes steeply to the floor of a Iarapr drainaee. Red ring rot was observed on in this area. This area would provide linkage to other areas in plan developments to the north that have been proposed for dedica to the Cit There are several Douglas-fir in excess of Ton this property. These are estimated at over 100 vears in age. 1 Appendix C TIGDATA2..US 1995 , Trees of the Pacific Nort*est and Their Adaptability too Development. continued Common What to Keep name western This species is not tolerant of even minor damage to the trunk, root hemlock crown or major roots. Damage usually leads to decay and future Tauga heterophylla failure. western red Western red cedar has the potential to remain viable as a landscape cedar tree following clearing and development. However, it should be Thuja plicata evaluated for its ability to withstand increased winds. This species generally has a shallow root system and windthrow is more common than breakage. Trees on well drained sites will generally survive construction better than trees on poorly drained sites. SUMMARY SPACE. Plan to leave and protect the root area around each tree or grove during construction and plan to maintain the trees and the area around the trees after construction. Mature trees often decline and die from changes in drainage and excess irrigation after construction. 0 FOCUS ON GROVES. Trees that have developed as part of a forest should be retained as groves. Preserving individual coniferous trees that were a part of a forest often leads to breakage or windthrow. YOUNG, HEALTHY TREES. Tree preservation projects are often more successful if young, healthy trees can be targeted for retention. Mature trees are not able to respond to changes in their environment as quickly as young trees. Page 3 Michael R. Reichenbach. Arboreal Enterprises August It. 1994 E. For the purpose o1shis chapter, tree removal-perm shall be required for all trees having a trunk six inches or more in diameter, four feet above the ground level. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-29; Ord. 83-52) 18.150.030 Criteria for Issuance of Permits A. The following criteria shall be used by the Director or designee for the issuance or nonissuance of a tree cutting permit. To issue a permit, the following criteria must be satisfied: 1. The trees are diseased and there is a danger the trees may fall on existing or proposed structures or interfere with utility services or traffic safety; 2. There is a necessity 'to remove certain trees in order to construct proposed improvements or to otherwise utilize the applicant's property in a reasonable manner; jf 3.;: There is not a need to retain the tree(s) due to the topography of the land because there will be no effect from the-tree removal on erosion, soil retention, stability of earth, flow of surface waters; 4. There is not a need to retain the tree(s) to protect nearby trees as windbreaks, and as a desirable balance between shade and open space; 5. The aesthetic character in the area will not be visually adversely affected by the tree removal; and 6. The applicant's proposals, if any, to plant new trees or vegetation as a substitute for the tree(s) to be cut, will restore the aesthetic value of the removed trees. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.150.035 Expiration of Approval - Extension of Time - Revocation A. Approval of a Tree Removal Permit by the Director shall be effective for a one and one-half year period. H. The Director shall renew the permit for a maximum period up to one year upon finding that: 1. All of the conditions of approval have been satisfied; 2. There has been no change in the original application approved by the Director; 3. There have been no changes to the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies on which the approval was based; Revised 1/17/91 Page 386 ? ? <??-,m-s TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER MINUTES DATE: (30? - a-S -98- v 0 - o --) -1?k8 - ( I I? _ ._._..._ _ ...._ I Pi!oJECT r . 1A „ ? .r?m"'? '°r""?'® °1P? +r o.?. \. \ S , ? \ r xf` . •, . ,i\ti .fin 4, ® \ \ 0 2 ``t ..;tip :.,. :201p• --* - T?\-''?--?t•.,. .••?' \ \3 :y. ° iyr \ t? I \\ '\ '\ \ \ \'<°"\a?erv® ?„>e. \IPA 1 Ti \\` ti 11{jf' \,h \\ ?i. \\ \ Ile !`\ bolr\ ba \\ \ t 014\ 2 \\ \\\ 7' tAFF7 \ Imo 1 a ?\ s \ j';S x?T r _ oTt + ` E..?s? tti os \ • \ ?\ o o \ \\\ X116' SIT. J ' Y B\?T 0 1foo q e « p? a Ti \Jei o J \ I \? 9i 0 \ "":J p 4i]1 • . \ ®:\? \ \ \, (. 0 r0?\\ (B\\..\ ; `; \ \ D7T T ?••\ `' j \ ?"(`r \ ``\ \ ` \ \ 4 `\\ I \\.nB1/ I?. \ OQr \ \,\ \\ `\.` 04 g \ ``?\ \ •\? \ 0121\?\ \ \ o \\a a pI\\\\ 0 \ell' \\\ a TI ..\ \ \ ..\ 'I J \1 ', ® \. Ali 1 \ \ aye '\•. \ p. \\ ; \\ •'\ v? \ 771 2011\ t\ \ '\.o \' ?, •`\`, \ \ 1471 Ti \ \ d\ • f101\ ?\ \ I\ \ \ T0 \ 1eTi jq-a jar ett ae>' \ tot alder I nse\ns \ t .` \ n ° 1e7t?`l\ { I .?\ h. r \ I \ \ .tl?i \ p \\` \ \\/ ! \ \ \ S e \. J 1 t 2y?.. \` ?92?0T\o®t A ?. \a I, \ \\ \f\ SFr,?: \? \?\ a 0211 7e ?;? \ ' \\\ \ \`\ \o ..... \ 0. \ »» ?? ?BY, o? h}3Pap \ \? \tit1??ej'M? \\ \ p1j '? \ \\• \ \` \\`. 14 7 \ 3t ?........._.:..... \ r ... \ , of , -\ ?, ,. 4c \ '---«-' ?.... . 0..... `e•..`.:w..? • _" ^S^ m .....?_............ ', ? ? \az•r ``. a \? \ .h?J'`0 0 \0 ? . \ \ ? ?d+' +T` ,•? \ • ? Y?\, a....? . -...._ .,..\ 5A, Z17Q? ---` `'1,,_, ,N?? ?.,.....[.,...`?.•1,.' .. m-? Il. .......... \ \ \ \ T...?. 1 t x T' N' 244r 1 edit \ ?LL 58.1'[ '.. '\ ? `??.,\ ,...,. ; .w,,..», ?- - ..p,..-,. a\ ? .....t@11• 1 4"Qx..... In ... ..... a o.?=. \ '`.. \ t +?'?',$i.,\ 1; r \ \ I . T T • , (7 4 ,("'- •\.. .\ \ --'\ ^- - A" 1t' ` ..tidY,,.; .. 4•-_... ° tip„ I 1. '? ` \ . 1 p \ r rXI 201) \ p AT e \ s 1. . T. 241 ' 12 . \ \ (3} o ? \\\ Or ? \? I .'i ?`? ,\ ''\ ? i\ 't\ \ \ \ -. \' t \ `\? F 3y1 ??e ?? lT ,,TTJ .\ .01357) \ \., .,her-. \ .\ \ p, 34J O'IIB??l?p8'-,. \ T\\ 2132 T 1 .\ if i\,\ \ \ \ , t :. 1a71aT\'1• `f TTt I + 4 \ aI Q •.. '!?T t ' \ a .. \ 211 £ Ta A -So 21 T J/2 j75?7I? ?qqq: \3?t/II?\ T' --? •\. I c \ IUOT f211t • • 151 fi21 ]2 i?00 ?% ?: \. \ 1 i \ p \ 4tx, ' 2eet ? i ® - n. - ti61'• 02 \ AlI o.ifA :;MT 3 4 `. d` at ?. w.?. : z o 1 4 1 Ar1 \\ `\ \i i • \ i „? ' 275 \\ i \\ L 7: \ \ I ! 7tt1 . A 2ttM '09= X21 o 3-AT 210T°- o. u i l\ \ 2 t 27[ , p I s} 4111 0 217 ..r $1 SATO i 2 `w?v''.? ., 0 718T ! 5 r 'r aJ4 I ?? , •? .? i \ !' \ \??\ \ •? \ 20n I?'1 i •\? t \ IDl/ I Wg \?:QY1?® ;C!. \ \ .\ 1? 7? ; J „y. j s2Jr ' i `? 20p1 '^,,IOA2 \ \\2?a71 \ ? '? \\ I i I ?l,L F? p S 1 2111 -07*3r - - -?_.... ..? L`.....? a. ?.t ® mew m..?. MT J? m 2070 i lowf\ w Is, '", - '` ` '` ? ?y\ . 7 2041•' •,, \ ' I , h? ?,,;7pf7 ??,:1 % j `? ??? . ?.KK ?,\ l - -? \ ? ?? I '1011\. \f ??\ ?.?? 0a.,0. t1. `I' . , R.O*vS f _ - 's x f PROJECT BOUNDARY "No SANIM 0 '1'rtL S SA A s c. ^I ?. _ 0 0 To Whom It Play Concern. 9/27/98 F regret that I will not be able to be at the meeting on Monday (9/28) meeting, but I wish to provide my support for the fellow cmmunity members which are present. Ply primary focus in this brief letter is to request that efforts be made to preserve the nature of our community. In this regard it is my hope that as many trees as is possible to keep be maintained during the planned upcoming development. The reason I moved to this community was because of its rural nature, and I totally support efforts to continue to make this environment where I live one where trees are considered as a valuable resource to be preserved (and which obviously takes a lifetime to replace). . . .Don't turn our community into another Beaverton where the planning of living environments appears to have been an after thought!! Sincerely, V D Gregory A. Cole 13083 SW Starview Drive Tigard, OR 97224 • • Project Description The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide approximately 12 acres for the creation of a 49 lot residential subdivision. The application also involves a request for Sensitive Lands Review for steep slopes and drainage ways. The site is located in the western portion of Tigard, on the north edge of SW Bull Mountain Road, east of SW 129th Avenue. Review Comments This project is located either directly adjacent to the eastern boundary of our homes or very near the western side of our homes. We strongly feel that the proposed project will have significant impact on the quality of life, as we know it, on Bull Mountain. The following are our key review comments for the Elk Horn Ridge Estates Proposed Subdivision. Our main areas of concern are drainage, wetlands, trees, grading and erosion, wildlife, traffic, and schools. Drainage Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.84, USA Resolution and Order No. 96-44 The June 26, 1998 geotechnical investigation performed for this site by Carlson Testing, Inc. report on page 1 identifies three drainage areas: Three incised drainates flow northeast across portions of the site as shown on Figure 2. In addition, Schoot and Associates state in the project Wetland Determination report that there are three drainages crossing the site: Topography maps indicate three drainages crossing the property in a northeasterly direction.2 Why are only two drainage areas identified on the applicant's site map? Carlson Testing, Inc., Geotechnical Investigation, June 26, 1998, Page 1 2 Schott & Associates, Wetland Determination for SW 129th, March 19, 1998 Page 1 • • 2 Necessary action: The southern drainage area must be identified and protected with a 25-foot buffer tract. This area should be considered to be a sensitive land area. The drainage and buffer area need to be calculated and subtracted from the total land area available for development. Wetlands Tigard Community Development Code 18.26 and 18.84 The wetland determination was performed solely for Tax Lot 1100. The proposed development site is larger in area than just Tax Lot 1100. It also includes Tax Lots 3900 and 7200 (Lot 30 Mt. Highlands #3). It appears that the wetland determination is incomplete. Necessary Action: A wetland determination must be performed for the entire project site. Wetlands are considered to be a sensitive land area and must be protected. Trees Tigard Development Code 18.150, Bull Mountain Community Plan, and Inventory and Assessment of Forested Natural Areas on Bull Mountain The community has assessed and inventoried this site as a valuable forested natural resource area. The Bull Mountain Community Plan and the Inventory and Assessment of Forested Natural Areas on Bull Mountain identify forested natural areas as areas of importance. Between 1994 and 1995, the number of acres of forest on Bull Mountain has decreased from 156 acres to 64 acres3. Approximately 60 percent of the trees have disappeared in only one year. This decrease is the direct result of timber harvest and development. Douglas fir is the forest type that is most rapidly disappearing. This loss has significantly altered the mix of forest types remaining on Bull Mountain.4 The City must protect this valuable resource. According to the report, coniferous (Douglas-fir) forest is more important than mixed or deciduous forest due to the loss of this forest type. In addition the report identifies several Douglas fir in excess of three feet diameter and are estimated to be over 100 years in age.5 The City's report states that wooded land provides important linkages as corridors and habitats for wildlife. The report recommends protection of these important resources. 3 City of Tigard, Inventory and Assessment of Forested Natural Areas on Bull Mountain September 1995, Page ii 4 Ibid., page 2 5 Ibid., page 19 and 20 Appendix C • • 3 The report suggests acquisition of higher ranked properties as a means for protecting these forested natural areas. As a matter of fact, the City of Tigard has spent time and effort attempting to purchase this site due to its importance as a forested natural resource. Unfortunately, at the last moment, the property owner declined the sell. According to Building with Trees in the Pacific Northwest report prepared by Michael Reichenbach, the best site developments which preserve trees depends on good planning, coordinating construction and providing on-going maintenance which: 1) Avoids damage to the tree and its roots; 2) reduces dramatic and sudden changes in light intensity, and moisture, and 3) avoids exposing trees to increased winds.6 The report also suggests groves and healthy trees be targeted for retention. The June 25, 1998 application for subdivision approval claims: To facilitate building construction on the remainder of lots, a typical 45- foot by 65-foot building envelope will be cleared. Trees will be maintained along the rear property lines and within the rear and side setbacks. Clearing will occur only within the 45-foot by 65-foot building envelope, where a structure will be placed. The associated sensitive land area map indicates clearing of trees in areas other than suggested. Will all proposed trees for clearing be clearly marked on the final plat mitigation plan? What assurances will be given that this will happen? Necessary Action: A certified arborist should closely review and approve the site mitigation report proposed by the developer and identify trees that could be preserved based upon the above information. Grading and Erosion Control Tigard Community Development Code 18.164 and Uniform Building Code Appendix Ch. 33 The site's topography is a major concern. The site has some very steep slopes. Portions of the site have a maximum grade of approximately 50 percent. Elevations across the property range between about 320 and 510 feet. Topography is moderate to steep with grades averaging between 20 and 35 percent. Maximum grades range between extremes of less than 10 and near 50 percent in some locations8. 6 Reichenbach, Michael, Building with Trees in the Pacific Northwest, August 11, 1994, Page 1 7 Elk Horn Ridge Estates Application for Subdivision Approval, June 25, 1998, Page 8 8 Carlson Testing, Geotechnical Investigation for Greenfield Estates, June 26, 1998, Page 1 0 0 Concerns regarding steep slopes include erosion and land movement are real. According to the Carlson Testing, Inc. the site has experienced soil movement. On these slopes most of the trees display some trunk bowing as a result of rapid creep. Some irregular changes in grade are present in local area as a result of small-scale slumping. However, no significant landslide features were observed. Earth movement is confined to the upper 5 to 10 feet of the loessal and colluvial soil layers, with the underlying residual soils apparently remaining relatively stable.9 What assurances are there that the proposed development won't impact surrounding homes? Necessary Action: Careful consideration should be given to these areas, especially where the existing vegetation and trees are altered. The natural vegetation on these steep slopes should not be disturbed. What assurances are there that a geotechnical review will be provided for any construction on the steeper properties (Lots 16 through 23) as suggested by the June 1998 Geotechnical Report?'° An approved erosion control plan must be reviewed and approved prior to any grading on the site. Wildlife Bull Mountain Community Plan, City of Tigard's Inventory and Assessment of forested Natural Areas on Bull Mountain There is significant amount of wildlife in the site development area. Wildlife often observed include deer, raccoon, coyotes, fox, and birds. According to the Bull Mountain Community Plan, large wooded areas such as this site provide important wildlife habitat. The City of Tigard's Inventory and Assessment of Forested Natural Areas on Bull Mountain identifies the proposed site to be valued for wildlife and trails. It suggests this area provide important linkage to other areas to the north that have been proposed for dedication to the City. Necessary Action: Uphold the Bull Mountain Community Plan and the recent City's reports. The City has an obligation to implement the Community's policy to protect natural resources. Is the City of Tigard really willing to sacrifice this important habitat in order to clear the site for a few families to live? 9 Ibid., Page 1 'Olbid., Page 1 E 5 J Traffic Tigard Community Development Codel8.32 and 18.164 Traffic on Bull Mountain road has dramatically changed in the past couple of years. The road's character has significantly changed from rural to that of a main thoroughfare. The speed limit near the proposed development is 25 miles per hour. More often than not traffic is estimated to speeds of 40 plus miles per hour. Traffic safety is affected with each increase of the amount of traffic due to new development. Recently, the Tigard Times newspaper interviewed the City of Tigard police department and reported the department's major concern for traffic safety. Pedestrian and automobile safety are significant community issues. The preferred name of the minor collector street is SW 129th Avenue. Necessary Action: A traffic safety and capacity analysis and recommendation report should be required prior to any plat approvals. Schools: Classrooms within the local schools are at capacity. Where do the students who will move into the proposed subdivision plan to attend school? Necessary Action: A school analysis and recommendation report should be required prior to any plat approvals. Conclusion: The Bull Mountain community places high value on its quality of life. This is evident by the time and effort spent preparing studies and plans such as the Bull Mountain Community Plan and the Inventory and Assessment of Forested Natural Areas on Bull Mountain. The number of citizens who participate in the land development process is an indication of community's values. At the same time, it is understood that the manner in which the subdivision is planned can have significant impact on the results. Necessary Action: Tigard is strongly urged to carefully evaluate and place stringent development conditions on the site. Focus should be emphasis on drainage, wetlands, trees, grading and erosion control, wildlife, traffic, and public facilities and services such as schools. Require the developer to work with the land and its natural amenities. The subdivision should then be highly marketable and very desirable to prospective buyers, as well as a desirable place for the entire community to enjoy. p ?a?-,-oS TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER MINUTES DATE: ©c? - a58 qg 12's y oox- oxtrz?ll -- • "EXHIBIT B" -- TAPED PROCEEDINGS (Verbal recording of hearing including public, staff and Hearings Officer communications.) NOTE: Tapes are located in the Records Vault, Planning Section. , "EXHIBIT C" -- WRITTEN TESTIMONY (Applicant's materials and pertinent correspondence filed with Hearings officer prior to Public Hearing.) • • Agenda Item: 2.1 Hearing Date: September 28.1998 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER OF TIGARD FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON CommuT nity (Devekpment Shaping A Better Community 120 DAYS = 12/10/98 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: ELK HORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION Subdivision SUB 98-0006 Sensitive Lands Review SLR 98-0004 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide approximately 12.38 acres for the creation of a 49 lot Subdivision. This application also involves a request for Sensitive Lands Review for steep slopes and drainageways. APPLICANT/ Terry Booke and Mike Weast APPLICANT'S Ed Christensen OWNER: BookeMeast Development REP.: Christensen Engineering 9020 SW Washington Sq. Dr. 7150 SW Hampton St. Suite 100 Suite 226 Portland, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97223 ADDITIONAL Sara Louise Page Eustis Julie Ann Strayer Brown OWNERS: 1414 S. Director Street 920 Main Street Seattle, WA 98108 Monmouth, OR 97361 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential; 7 Dwelling Units Per Acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential, 7 Units Per Acre; R-7. LOCATION: The subject properties are located on the north side of SW Bull Mountain Road, east of SW 129th Avenue. WCTM 2S109AD, Tax Lot 01100; 2S109AA, Tax Lot 03900; and 2S104DD, Tax Lot 07200. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.40, 18.52, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearings Officer find that the proposed Subdivision will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL, subject to the following recommended conditions of approval: 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION PAGE 1 OF 35 1. Prior to final plat approval, submit a revised plan that identifies the drainageways and 25-foot buffers within separate tracts instead of as easements as shown. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 2. Prior to any construction, the tract must be clearly identified so as to insure no grading or material is placed in this area. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 3. Prior to final plat approval submit and receive approval for an erosion control plan for alteration on slopes exceeding 25%. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 4. Re-plant any area where vegetation has been removed as a result of grading work prior to obtaining building permits. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 5. Prior to final plat approval provide a narrative that states how a least 80% of the lots either can meet another Solar Access standard (Protected Solar Building Line Option or Performance Option) or states how the lots are exempt from the Solar Access standards or modify the lots so that at least 80% meet the basic design standard. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 6. Prior to any site work including but not limited to tree removal, grading or construction, the tree retention area must be clearly marked. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 7. Prior to final plat approval, the tree retention area must be permanently preserved by recording of a tree preservation easement. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639- 4171 x407. 8. Submit a revised plan that shows the type size and spacing of proposed street trees. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 9. Prior to Final Plat approval, submit a revised plan that provides emergency vehicle turn-arounds for access drives extending greater than 150 feet. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 10. Prior to Final Plat approval, provide the final number of trees over 12 inches and the caliper inches removed. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 2 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 11. Provide a tree mitigation plan meeting City standards for mitigation of 4,591 caliper inches or the final number based on final plan. If mitigation plan involves planting trees on or off site, the trees must be planted prior to final plat approval. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 12. Either revise the lots so that the lot size/shape standards are met or provide evidence that the average lot width is in fact less than 2 1/2 times the lot depth. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 13. Revise the plan to provide a pedestrian connection through the block formed by 129th (SW Greenfield Avenue), SW Chirp Street, SW Greenpark Street, and SW Birdsview Street). Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 14. Provide verification from the US Army Corps of Engineers that either no permits are necessary for proposed grading or that permits have been obtained. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407. 15. Prior to approval of the final plat, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. (NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall. 16. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement (if one is required) and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, 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. 17. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. 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. 18. The final plat shall indicate that additional right-of-way will be dedicated, if necessary, for the following streets to provide for the following widths: SW Bull Mountain Road: 33 feet from centerline; SW 129th Avenue (SW Greenfield): 60 feet total; 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 3 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION SW Chirp Street: 46 feet total; and SW Greenpark Place: 46 feet total. 19. The applicant shall construct standard half-street improvements along the frontage of SW Bull Mountain Road. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 21 feet; B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 5-foot concrete sidewalk; F. street trees behind the sidewalk spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; 1. underground utilities; J. street signs; and K. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Bull Mountain Road in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 20. The applicant shall construct full-width street improvements along the frontage of SW 129th Avenue (SW Greenfield Drive), from SW Bull Mountain Road to a point just north of the proposed intersection with SW Chirp Street. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A City standard pavement section from curb to curb equal to 40 feet; B. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed on both sides of street; C. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; D. 5-foot concrete sidewalk on both sides of street; E. street trees behind the sidewalk spaced per TDC requirements (on both sides of street); F. street striping; G. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; H. underground utilities; 1. street signs; and J. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 129th Avenue in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 21. Full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the interior subdivision streets. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. SW Greenpark Place and SW Chirp Street are approved for a paved width of 28 feet, as shown on the preliminary plan. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 4 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION • • 22. The applicant shall post "No Parking" signs on one side each along SW Greenpark Place and SW Chirp Street. 23. The applicant shall complete the concrete sidewalk along SW Ridgefield Lane fronting on proposed Lot 49 (previously Lot 30 of Mountain Highlands No. 3). 24. Proposed street names for Tracts A and B shall be provided to the City for approval prior to approval of the final plat. 25. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private streets will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from them. 26. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private streets. The CC&R's shall obligate the private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the streets. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) prior to approval of the final plat. 27. The pavement and rock section of the proposed private streets shall meet the City's public street standard for a local residential street. 28. The name for the north/south minor collector street shall be "SW Greenfield Drive". The City will submit a recommendation to the City Council to change the name of SW 129th Avenue to SW Greenfield Drive. 29. The name for the north/south cul-de-sac in this project shall be "SW Greenpark Place", not "SW Greenpark Street". 30. The names for the two east/west private streets serving Lots 37 through 48 shall be "SW Treeview Court" and "SW Creekview Court". 31. Names for the private streets Tracts A and B shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to approval of the final plat. Both streets shall be given a "Place" designation. 32. The private street, Tract B, shall have a fire truck turnaround at the end, since it is over 150 feet in length. The turnaround shall meet the dimensional requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue standards. 33. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed public improvement construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 5 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION I" , , r • Water Department prior to approval of the public improvement plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 34. The applicant's water plan shall be revised to indicate that the existing 12-inch main line in SW 129th Avenue (SW Greenfield Drive) will be extended to the north end of the proposed full-width street improvements for the minor collector street. 35. Fire hydrants shall be spaced every 500 feet along SW 129th Avenue (SW Greenfield Drive), and they shall be placed at every street intersection. Hydrant placement shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. 36. The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer laterals to the adjacent undeveloped and unsewered properties. 37. The applicant's sanitary sewer plan shall be revised to show that adequate maintenance vehicular access will be provided to all downstream manholes within this project. The manhole of concern is the one shown between Lots 19 and 20. A maintenance access roadway shall be provided between Lots 19 and 20 from SW Greenpark Place and shall be constructed to meet City standards. The roadway shall be 12 feet wide and shall be placed within a tract with a minimum width of 12 feet. The tract shall be shown on the face of the final plat. 38. The applicant's engineer shall submit additional information to the Engineering Department with regard to the downstream analysis, specifically additional data to support the assumptions that were made. This information shall be submitted prior to construction plan approval. 39. The applicant shall provide public storm drainage line stubs to all adjacent undeveloped and/or unserved properties. 40. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) as a part of the public improvement plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract to the City of Tigard on the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 6 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION i • percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 41. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994." 42. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots, and show that they will be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). 43. The recommendations of the geotechnical report by Carlson Testing, Inc., dated June 26, 1998, shall be incorporated into the final grading plan. A final construction supervision report shall be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. 44. 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. 45. 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. 46. No grading shall take place on adjacent parcels without appropriate offsite easements or rights-of-entry, copies of which shall be submitted to the City prior to construction. 47. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Bull Mountain Road underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in- lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $1,375 and it shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat. 48. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Submit for City review three paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative; B. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard; 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 7 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION C. The right-of-way dedications for all adjacent and interior streets shall be made on the final plat; D. NOTE: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive a letter from the City Engineering Department indicating: 1) that the City has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor, and 2) that the applicant has either completed any public improvements associated with the project, or has at least obtained the necessary public improvement permit from the City to complete the work; and E. Once the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer's signature. 49. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the subdivision/partition plat. 50. Prior to issuance of any building permits within the subdivision, the public improvements shall be deemed substantially complete by the City Engineer. Substantial completion shall be when: 1) all utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities, 2) all local residential streets have at least one lift of asphalt, 3) any off-site street and/or utility improvements are completely finished, and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. 51. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with as- built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) mylars, and 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable. Note: if the public improvement drawings were hand-drawn, then a diskette is not required.. 52. No variances will be permitted for setbacks on any of the proposed lots. Staff Contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407 53. Prior to the issuance of building permits for lots 22, 23, 24 or 49, provide a vegetative or structural screen along the access drive running along lot 49. Staff Contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 x407 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 8 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION 54. All site improvements shall be installed as per the approved plans. I1 i • IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT' SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST: 18.160.170 Improvement Agreement: Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: 1. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and 2. Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract. 18.160.180 Bond: As required by Section 18.160.170, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: 1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; 2. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it may be terminated; or 3. Cash. The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 9 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION 18.160.190 Filing and Recording: Within 60 days of the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. 18.162.080 Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: Three copies of the subdivision plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. The subdivision plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: Centerline Monumentation In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. The following centerline monuments shall be set: 1. All centerline-centerline intersection points; 2. All cul-de-sac center points; and 3. Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. Monument Boxes Required Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 18.164 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: 18.164.120 Utilities All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 10 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION • 0 cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.164.130 Cash or Bond Required All improvements installed by the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.160.180. 18.164.150 Installation: Prerequisite/Permit Fee No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefor have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.164.180 Notice to City Required Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 18.164.200 Engineer's Certification Required The land divider's engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to the City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: Other than a Zone Change Annexation (ZCA 93-0004) for tax lot 01100, no development applications were found to be on file with the City for these properties. Tax Lot 07200 is lot 30 of the Mountain Highlands #3 subdivision which was approved by the City of Tigard in 1991 (SUB 91-0009). 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 11 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION Vicinity Information: The site is bordered on the north by the Mountain Highlands Subdivision, zoned R-4.5. To the west and south is property zoned R-7. The western property is a developed subdivision, the Woodford Estates Subdivision. The property to the south is currently undeveloped. To the east, is property zoned both R-7 and R-4.5. There are several lots adjacent to the eastern portion of this property that are outside the City limits, but all other adjacent lots are inside the Tigard City limits. All adjacent property is inside the Tigard City Limits with the exception of tax lot 800 on WCTM 2S109AA and tax lots 600, 700, and 900 on WCTM 2S109AD which are outside the City limits but within the Urban Services area. Site Information and Proposal Description: The subject site includes 3 lots. Two large undeveloped lots and one lot that is part of the Mountain Highlands subdivision. The latter is proposed to provide access to 3 of the northern most subdivision lots. The proposal is to create 49 lots (including the existing lot in the Mountain Highlands #3 Subdivision) from a total site area of 539,708 square feet. There are two areas identified as drainageways on the property and steep slopes (greater than 25%) which requires sensitive lands review. The subject site is currently undeveloped. The applicant has proposed utilizing both the density transfer option and tree retention incentive option to increase the density permitted in the "non- sensitive" areas. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Impact Study: Section 18.32.050 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.32.250 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. Any required street improvements to certain collector or higher volume streets and the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures that are required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan Il/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32% of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 12 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION Street system. Presently, the TIF for each trip that is generated is $189. The total TIF for an attached, single-family dwelling is $1,899. The site has frontage on SW Bull Mountain Road, a major collector and SW 129th (SW Greenfield Drive), a minor collector. The applicant is being required to construct half street improvements on Bull Mountain and full street improvements on 129th (SW Greenfield Drive). Additional right-of-way is being dedicated, however, that is for the sole purpose of serving the proposed development and is therefore not reviewed in this proportionality analysis. The approximate square feet of the half street improvements on SW Bull Mountain Road is 1,165 square feet. The approximate square feet of SW 129th (SW Greenfield Drive) being improved as 1/4 street improvements is 5,130 and the approximate square feet of SW 129th being improved to a full width standard is 33,000 (550 x 60) square feet. The Engineering Department has estimated the cost of full street improvements to be approximately $300 per lineal foot. Assuming a cost of $300 per linear foot, it is estimated that the total cost of the full street improvement portion of SW 129th (Greenfield) is $165,000 (550 feet x $300). The Engineering Department has estimated that the cost of half street improvements is approximately $200 per linear foot. Assuming the cost of improvements on SW Bull Mountain and the portion of SW 129th already partially improved will be similar, the costs of these improvements is estimated at $63,000 (315 x $200). Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $93,051 ($1,899 x 49 dwelling units). Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32% of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100% of this projects traffic impact is $290,784 ($93,051 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact, is considered an unmitigated impact. Since the TIF paid is $93,051, the unmitigated impact can be valued at $197,733. The rough proportionality test means that the conditions imposed must be "roughly proportional" to the impacts associated with a development. The test does not require a precise mathematical calculation. The test does not require a "dollar for dollar" exchange of conditions for impacts, nor does it require that the impacts outweigh or have a higher estimated value than the conditions imposed. The estimated costs (in this case, the street improvements) required of the applicant may be greater in estimated value than the value of the unmitigated impact. Furthermore, Section 18.164.030.A.1 states that no development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street and that streets within and adjacent shall be improved in accordance with ordinance standards. In order for the street system to function to serve all properties at buildout, streets meeting minimum standards must be provided. With the improvements, the applicant will be providing services that will be adequate to serve the needs of the proposed use. Although the requirements imposed have a slightly higher estimated value than the unmitigated impact, the City finds that the conditions meet the rough proportionality test. In addition, the applicant has concurred with the construction street improvements as the streets intended to serve the development. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 13 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION • • PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL STANDARDS Subdivision Design: Section 18.160.060(A) contains standards for subdivision of parcels into four or more lots. To be approved, a preliminary plat must comply with the following criteria: The proposal must comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations. As will be discussed further in this decision under APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS, the proposed subdivision complies with the Comprehensive Plan Map's Medium Density Residential opportunity for the site, as well as, with the applicable policies and regulations of the R-7 zone and other applicable ordinances and regulations of the Tigard Development Code. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92. The applicant has provided evidence of the subdivision name reservation from Washington County. Streets and roads must be laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of partitions or subdivisions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern. Street and connectivity standards are discussed in more detail further in this decision, and conditions applied, if necessary. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements The applicant has provided an explanation for all common improvements including the provision for public services such as sewer, water, drainage and street improvements. The improvements are discussed in detail and conditions applied, if necessary, further in this decision. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, staff finds that the subdivision plat approval standards have either been met outright, do not apply or are discussed and conditioned in further sections of this decision. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 14 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION • • APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS Dimensional Requirements and Development Standards (Section 18.52): Section 18.52 states that the minimum lot area for each single-family lot in the R-7 zoning district is 5,000 square feet and the minimum lot width requirement is 50 feet for detached units and 40 feet for attached units. The following dimensional requirements must be met: Minimum lot size Average lot width Front setback Garage setback Interior side yard setback Corner side yard setback Rear setback Maximum building height Maximum site coverage Minimum landscaping 5,000 Square Feet 50 Feet/40 feet 15 Feet 20 Feet 5 Feet/ 0 feet for attached 10 Feet 15 Feet 35 Feet 80% 20% The lots range in size from 5,005 to 17,592 square feet. The lot dimensions may change slightly due to other requirements discussed further in this decision, however the lot size standards can continue to be met. The lots widths average 55-60 feet along the western lots and 75-80 feet along the eastern lots. The setbacks for individual homes including site coverage and landscaping requirements will be reviewed at time of building permits for individual homes. The applicant has provided typical building footprints that indicate the setbacks can be met in all but a few situations. The lots with steep slopes and/or drainageway requirements are questionable as to whether the indicated building envelopes are realistic. Of particular concern is lot 21, and lots 34-37. Lot 21 has a typical building footprint that is cut off by the drainageway easement area. Because the drainageway and required 25 foot buffer may not be disturbed in any way by grading, the final building plans will likely need to be relocated to accommodate for the setbacks, grading, etc. The same issue arises for lots 35 and 336 which are proposed to have extensive grading and will retain the existing drainageway. The drainageway will be conditioned further in this.decision to be separated into tracts, therefore setbacks will be required from these property lines. A condition will not be applied to revise the plan to insure that the lots mentioned will meet the required setbacks because creative building could be done which will allow the required setbacks to be met given the proposed lot sizes and shapes. The applicant may chose the reduce the number of lots and/or revise the lot sizes and shapes slightly to provide for more traditional building footprints. If the applicant does not revise the plan, however, NO VARIANCES WILL BE PERMITTED for future building on these lots as the issue has been raised and the plat can be altered at this time to accommodate more traditional building footprints. FINDING: Because the dimensional requirements are met and will be reviewed for full compliance with setback standards at time of building permit review, the dimensional requirements and development standards have been met. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 15 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION • • Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies Citizen Input: Policy 2.1.1 provides the City will assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning and development review process. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because a neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant on April 24, 1998. Notice of the public hearing was provided to owners of property within 250 feet and was published in a newspaper of general circulation. Housing Needs: Policy 6.1.1 states that the City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because it continues to allow for medium density residential development. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards and Wetlands: Policy 3.1.1 provides that the City shall not allow development in areas meeting the definition of wetlands under chapter 18.26 or areas having slopes in excess of 25% except where it can be shown that established and proven engineering techniques related to a specific site plan will make the area suitable for the proposed development. (Note: This policy does not apply to lands designated as significant wetlands on the floodplain and wetlands map.) This policy is met as the applicant has applied for Sensitive Lands Review (SLR). The SLR criteria will insure that this policy is adequately addressed. FINDING: The proposal has satisfied the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. Sensitive Lands: Section 18.84 defines sensitive lands and provides standards for review of properties with sensitive lands. The site has 2 drainageways and slopes in excess of 25%. The site is identified as having a natural resource designation on Washington County's Bull Mountain Community Plan. While this area is now inside the Tigard City limits, and therefore regulated by the city of Tigard Comprehensive plan and development code, this designation by Washington County is a flag that there are resources on the property. A Wetlands study was done which revealed there were no wetlands on the property. There are two jurisdictional drainageways on the property. The drainageways will not be altered and, therefore Sensitive Lands Review is not required for the drainages. In accordance with USA standards, drainageways must be separated out as separate tracts. The proposal does not show this will be done, therefore, a condition requiring separate tracts will be applied to this approval. In addition, staff is recommending that a condition be required that states that the tracts be clearly identified during the construction and grading staged to insure that grading does not occur within the required tract areas. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 16 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 984 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION • • Section 18.84.040(8) states that the Director shall approve an application for sensitive lands permit on slopes of 25% or greater based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use. The proposal is to do grading to provide for required streets within the subdivision. The site disturbance is not greater than that required to provide for required streets. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property. A geotechnical report has been done. An erosion control plan will be required as part of the engineering approval process to insure there are no impacts to the drainageways in addition to the drainageways or 25 foot buffer. Furthermore, the City will require the applicant's engineer to submit the proposed construction plans to the geotechnical engineer for review and approval prior to City approval of the construction plans. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper drainage of foundation and crawl space areas for development with any of the following soil conditions: wet/high water table; high shrink-swell capability; compressible/organic; and shallow depth-to-bedrock. A geotechnical report has been done. A condition is required further in this decision to have the geotechnical engineer review the proposed grading and building placements prior to final plat approval. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening. The applicant will be required to submit an erosion control plan prior to any grading. The applicant has not indicated that areas affected by landform alterations will be re-planted if not covered by structures or impervious surfaces, however, this will be insured by the erosion control plan and a condition requiring areas to be re-planted prior to final building permits will be required as part of this approval. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, staff can not find that the SLR criteria has been met. If the applicant meets the conditions listed below, staff can determine that the criteria have been satisfied. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 17 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION 0 • CONDITIONS: 1. Prior to final plat approval, submit a revised plan that identifies the drainageways and 25-foot buffers within separate tracts instead of as easements as shown. 2. Prior to any construction, the tract must be clearly identifies so as to insure no grading or material is placed in this area 3. Prior to final plat submit and receive approval for an erosion control plan for alteration on slopes exceeding 25%. 4. Re-plant any area where vegetation has been removed as a result of grading work prior to obtaining building permits. Solar Access - Section 18.88.040 states that the solar access design standard shall apply to applications for a development to create lots in R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5, and R-7 zones and to create lots for single-family detached and duplex dwellings in all other residential zones. Section 18.88.040(C)(1) contains solar access standards for new residential development. A lot meets the basic solar access lot standard if it has a north-south dimension of 90 feet or more and has a front lot line that is oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis. A subdivision complies with the basic requirement if 80% or more of the newly created parcels meet this standard. The applicant has not provided information on how the development complies with the Solar Access standards. As depicted on the plan, it appears that only 7 of the lots satisfy the basic criteria. No narrative discussing how lots meet the exceptions or alternatives to the basic criteria has been provided. FINDING: Because only 7 lots appear to meet the basic design standard and the applicant has not indicated how the Solar Access standards are met or exempt, this standard has not been met. If the applicant provides a narrative that states how at least 80% of the lots either can meet another Solar Access standard (Protected Solar Building Line Option or Performance Option), states how the lots are exempt from 'the Solar Access standards, or modifies the plan to meet the basic design standard, this standard will be met. CONDITION: Prior to final plat approval provide a narrative that states how a least 80% of the lots either can meet another Solar Access standard (Protected Solar Building Line Option or Performance Option) or states how the lots are exempt from the Solar Access standards or modifies the lots so that at least 80% meet the basic design standard. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 18 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION 0 • Densi : Section 18.92.020 contains standards for determining the permitted project density. The number of allowable dwelling units is based on the net development area. The net area is the remaining area, excluding sensitive lands, land dedicated for public roads or parks, or for private roadways. The net area is then divided by the minimum parcel size permitted by the zoning district to determine the number of lots which may be created on a site. The gross area of the site is 12.38 acres (539,708 square feet). The net developable area of the site, after deduction of 20% (107,941 square feet) for public right-of-way and 6.3 acres (275,521 square feet) for Sensitive Lands is 3.5 acres (156,246 square feet). Based on the density calculations, with a minimum of 5,000 square feet per lot, this site yields an opportunity for up to 31.24 lots. The applicant has requested the density transfer option be applied to allow for some of the density lost due to sensitive lands to be transferred to the buildable portion of the site. The Tigard Development Code (TDC) permits transfer of 25% of land defined as sensitive due to floodplain, steep slopes and Drainageways. The total amount of sensitive lands is 275,521 square feet. Based on this number, the transfer amount is 13.77 lots (275,521 divided by 5,000 x .25 = 13.77). The maximum number of lots with the density transfer option, therefore, is 45 (31.24 + 13.77). The applicant has also requested the tree retention incentive bonus be applied. This provision is used as an incentive for retaining a certain percent of the tree canopy. In this case, the applicant has indicated that more than 40% of the existing tree canopy will be retained. Sheet 7 of 7 of the plan identifies the areas of canopy retention. Staff recommends a condition be applied that requires the developer to clearly identify the retention area with construction fencing prior to any construction to insure that these trees are not harmed. Because more than 40% of the tree canopy will be retained, an additional 20% bonus may be applied. In this case, the proposal will result in an additional 9 lots (45 lots x .25) for a total of 54 lots. The proposal request is for a 49 lot subdivision. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, with the tree retention incentive density bonus and density transfer option, the plan does not exceed the permitted density of the site. Because the maximum density is based on the fact that the applicant proposes using the tree retention incentive bonus, a condition must be applied that requires clearly marking the tree retention area prior to construction and/or tree removal. For further assurance that the tree canopy is preserved in the future, a tree preservation easement shall be required to be recorded with the final plat. CONDITIONS: 1. Prior to any site work including, but not limited to, tree removal, grading or construction, the tree retention area must be clearly marked. 2. Prior to final plat approval, the tree retention area must be permanently preserved by recording of a tree preservation easement. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 19 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION 0 Landscaping and screening (Section 18.100) Landscaping: Section 18.100 contains landscaping standards for new development. The applicant must comply with the standards set forth in Section 18.100.035 which requires that all development projects fronting on a public or private street, or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length plant street trees. Section 18.100.035(B) states the specific spacing of street trees by size of tree shall be as follows: 1. 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; 2. 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; 3. Large trees (over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart. The plan does not show street trees, however the narrative states "Street trees will be required and will be provided as part of this project." Because the trees are not shown, however, this standard has not been met. Buffer Matrix: Section 18.100.130 contains the buffer matrix to be used in calculating widths of buffering and screening to be installed between proposed uses. The Matrix indicates that where detached single-family abuts detached single-family structures, there is no required buffer and screening. This criteria is satisfied as buffering and screening is not required where single-family residential development abuts single-family residential development. Buffering and Screening- General Provisions: Section 18.100.070 states that it is the intent of this section to provide for privacy and protection and reduce the adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution at a development site. The access drive serving lots 22, 23 and 24 will run between two single family residential lots. The applicant has not proposed any screening of this drive from the adjacent lots. Staff believes that in order to preserve the intent of the landscaping and screening section, either vegetative of structural screening should be installed along the proposed access drive. FINDING: Because the applicant has not provided a plan that shows required street trees and screening along the proposed access drive, staff can not determine that the criteria has been met. It the applicant submits a revised plan showing landscaping that meets the street tree standards listed above and provides screening along the access drive serving lots 22, 23 and 24, this standard will be met. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 20 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION CONDITION: Submit a revised plan that shows the type size and spacing of proposed street trees. Prior to issuance of building permits on lots 22, 23, 24 or 49, provide either vegetative or structural screening along the access drive running along lot 49. Visual Clearance Areas (Section 18.106): Section 18.102 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30- foot distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway and then connecting these two 30-foot distance points with a straight line. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, signs, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three feet in height. The height is measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. This standard will be reviewed at time of development for individual lots and at time of submittal of the proposed street tree plan. FINDING: Because the vision clearance triangle will be reviewed as part of the approval of proposed street tree plan and at time of development for individual lots, this standard has been satisfied. Off Street Parking (Section 18.106): Section 18.106.030.(A) states that each lot is required to provide 2 off-street parking spaces. Review for compliance with parking standards will be reviewed during building permit review for the individual lots. Access, Egress and Circulation (Section 18.108.070.A): This Section states that the minimum driveway required for each lot shall be 15 feet with 10 feet of pavement width. Section 18.108.070.A states that the minimum access width shall be 25 feet and the minimum pavement width shall be 20 feet for private streets serving between 3-6 lots. Review for compliance with individual lot driveway widths shall be reviewed at the time of building permits. The plan shows the private drive serving lots 22, 23, 24 and 49 will provide the required 25-foot access width. The private drive will be discussed in more detail further in this report. Emergency vehicle turnaround: Section 18.108.070.0. 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 a hammerhead configured, paved surface with 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 21 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION • • each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet. The proposed design of the Tract B exceeds 150 feet in length. The applicant has not shown a proposed turn-around on the plans. FINDING: Because no emergency vehicle turn-around has been proposed for Tract B, this standard has not been met. If the applicant submits a revised plan that shows a turn-around will be provided, this standard will be met. CONDITION: Prior to Final Plat approval, submit a revised plan that provides emergency vehicle turn-arounds for access drives extending greater than 150 feet. Tree Removal (Section 18.150): Section 18.150.025 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a subdivision application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. An existing conditions plan has been submitted with this application which identifies the trees on the property. There are 606 trees over 12" caliper on the site. Of these trees, 75 are listed as poor or dead, leaving 532 healthy trees over 12" caliper. The applicant has indicated that 313 non-hazardous trees will be removed as part of this development. The applicant will retain approximately 41 % of the existing trees on the site thus 2/3 of the caliper inches must be mitigated. The total caliper inches to be removed is 6,887, therefore, 4591 caliper inches must be mitigated. The applicant has proposed to mitigate for trees removed by payment in-lieu to the Oregon Trout Organization. This payment option is currently not an alternative. All mitigation must be accomplished either on-site, off-site or by payment to the city into a tree mitigation fund. On or off site mitigation can occur by purchasing trees and planting prior to final plat approval. Section 18.150.045.13 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 according to Section 18.150.025 or 18.130.B., and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit impacted by this section to the effect that such tree(s) may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The applicant has not proposed a deed restriction for trees to be retained. As conditioned previously in this report, however, all trees to be retained must be included within the tree preservation easement. FINDING: Because staff does not have a final tree removal plan or an acceptable proposal for tree mitigation, this standard has not been met. If the applicant 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 22 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION complies with the conditions listed below, the tree removal standards will be satisfied. CONDITIONS: 1. Prior to Final Plat, provide the final number of trees over 12 inches and the caliper inches removed; and 2. Provide a mitigation plan meeting City standards for mitigation of 4,591 caliper inches or the number based on the final plan. If mitigation plan involves planting trees on or off site, the trees must be planted prior to final plat approval. Street and Utility Improvements Standards: Section 18.164 contains standards for streets and utilities serving a subdivision. Improvements: Section 18.164.030(A) states that no development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access on a public street and requires streets within and adjoining a development to be dedicated and improved based on the classification of the street. The dedication and improvement standards are discussed and conditioned, if necessary, further in this decision under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.164.030(F) states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street. These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. The applicant has submitted a future street plan which shows that due to steep slopes, the east-west running streets can not be extended further to the east and can not be extended to the west due to existing development. The street extension issues are discussed further in this decision under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. ' Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.164.030(G) requires all local streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 23 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION • • SW 129th (SW Greenfield Dr.) will be extended north as part of this development. Due to existing topography, however, the road will not be extended across the drainage near the northern portion of this site. The street alignment and extension will be discussed in detail under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Existing Rights-of-way: Whenever existing right-of-way adjacent to or within a tract are of less than standard width, additional right-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision or development. Right-of-way dedication for the extension of SW 129th (SW Greenfield Drive) is discussed in more detail further in this decision under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. No other existing right-of-way runs through or are adjacent to this site. Cul-de-sacs: Section 18.164.030(K) requires that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 400 feet long nor provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units. The cul-de-sac is approximately 220 feet in length and will have only 10 lots take access from the cul-de-sac. Private Street: Section 18.164.030(S) states that design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer and that private streets serving more than 6 dwelling units are only permitted within planned developments. This section also requires a bonded maintenance agreement or the creation of a homeowners association to provide for the continued maintenance of the street in perpetuity. The applicant is proposing several private streets (Tract A, Tract B, SW Creekview Way and SW Treeview Way) however none of the private drives have more than 6 lots taking access from them. The issue of the private drives will be discussed in more detail further in this report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Block Design: Section 18.164.040(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 18.164.040(B)(1) states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: 1. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development or; 2. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads; or 3. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 24 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION The block formed by SW 129th (SW Greenfield Drive), SW Chirp Street, SW Greenpark Street, and SW Birdsview Street is approximately 1,760 feet. This is the only block in the development that can meet this standard as streets going east can not be extended due to existing topography and Greenpark can not be extended further north without tremendous expense, due to an existing drainageway and topography. Block Lengths: Section 18.164.040(B)(2) states that when block lengths greater than 600 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. The block described above exceeds 600 feet, therefore requires pedestrian/bikeways be provided midblock. The applicant has not proposed this. All other potential pedestrian connections are prohibited due to existing topography and drainageways. Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.164.060(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. All lots appear to meet this requirements with the exception of proposed lot 20. the applicant must either revise the lot so that it meets the lot size/shape standard or provide evidence that the average lot width is in fact less than 2 1/2 times the lot depth. Lot Frontage: Section 18.164.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley, unless the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit, in which case the lot frontage shall be at least 15 feet. Each lot has more than 25 feet of frontage on a public or private street or a private access drive. Sidewalks: Section 18.164.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all residential streets. The applicant must construct full street improvements for the new street. Standard street improvements include sidewalks. City standards do not require sidewalks on private streets. Refer to the PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS section for additional information on sidewalks. FINDING: Because the lot width/depth standard for lot 20 and block length standard for pedestrian connections has not been met, the Street and Utility Improvement Standards have not been fully met. If the applicant either revises lot 20 so that it meets the lot size/shape standard or provides evidence that the average lot width is in fact less than 2 1 /2 times the lot depth and revises the plan to show a pedestrian connection through the block fronting SW 129th (SW Greenfield Drive), this standard will be met. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 25 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Either revise lot 20 that it meets the lot size/shape standard or provide evidence that the average lot width is in fact less than 2 1/2 times the lot depth. 2. Revise the plan to provide a pedestrian connection through the block formed by SW 129th (SW Greenfield Avenue), SW Chirp Street, SW Greenpark Street, and SW Birdsview Street). PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: Streets: This site fronts on two collector streets: SW Bull Mountain Road to the south, a major collector, and SW 129th Avenue to the west, a minor collector. SW Bull Mountain Road: SW Bull Mountain Road is classified as a major collector street on the Washington County and City of Tigard transportation plan maps. The County's classification for this road is "C-1 ", which requires a 66-foot right-of-way (ROW) to accommodate three lanes and sidewalks. In accordance with an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the County and the City, the City will make all planning and engineering decisions with regard to the future improvements of Bull Mountain Road. The applicant's plan indicates that they will dedicate additional ROW on the final plat to provide a total of 33 feet north of the ROW centerline, which will meet City standards. Bull Mountain Road is paved in this area, but not fully improved to meet City standards. The applicant's plan indicates that they will construct a half-street improvement along this roadway adjacent to this site as a part of the development. No permits will be necessary from Washington County, but this work will be covered under the City's public improvement permit process in accordance with the IGA. SW 129th Avenue/Greenfield: SW 129th Avenue intersects with Bull Mountain Road along the eastern edge of this site. The roadway is partially improved as far north as the intersection with SW Birdsview Street, which provides access into the Woodford Estates subdivision. ROW was partially dedicated for SW 129th Avenue adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Woodford Estates project, but the paved improvements terminate just north of Birdsview Street. The developer of the Woodford Estates project signed a Non- Remonstrance Agreement that binds all property owners within the subdivision to not remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district (LID) to cover the future improvements of the roadway adjacent to that site. The City's Transportation Plan Map indicates that SW 129th Avenue is classified as a minor collector street and is to provide a continuous connection between SW Bull Mountain Road and SW Gaarde Street. SW Gaarde Street, a major collector street, is planned to be improved as a part of the Quail Hollow-West subdivision improvements within the year. Public improvement construction plans are currently being reviewed by City Staff for the Quail Hollow-West project. When Quail Hollow-West is completed, a 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 26 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION • • portion of SW 132nd Avenue will be realigned in accordance with the Transportation Plan Map to provide for a section of the minor collector (presently called "SW Greenfield Drive") south of Gaarde Street. There are existing improvements for SW Greenfield Drive which were built to minor collector street standards as a part of the Mountain Highlands subdivisions; these improvements terminated at the southern edge of that development and north of a large natural drainage ravine that runs west-to-east across the north end of the subject site. The Quail Hollow-West project will result in a completed portion of the minor collector from Gaarde Street to the ravine. Staff has met with the applicant and their engineer several times to discuss the subject project, but primarily to discuss the disposition of the minor collector street and what would be required of the developer should they opt to develop this site. Staff required the applicant to submit preliminary plans and profile options for the northern extension of SW 129th Avenue to meet with the southern terminus of SW Greenfield Drive. The most significant and challenging part of that eventual connection is the crossing of the ravine. Actual topographic information was collected by the applicant and indicates that the ravine is approximately 70 feet deep. The applicant's preliminary plan and profile provided in this application is a result of the applicant's engineer meeting with Staff and working through the City's design requirements for a minor collector street, which include restrictions on the vertical grade of the street (maximum of 12%). Staff believes the profile given on Sheet 5/7 of the applicant's plan will meet current City standards. Staff must show that the impact of this development warrants the level of improvements required as conditions of approval. In looking and preliminary cost estimates for extending the minor collector street across the ravine, it does not appear reasonable to require this developer to construct the crossing. The applicant is willing to construct a full-width improvement of SW 129th Avenue (shown as SW Greenfield Drive on plan) from Bull Mountain Road to a point just north of the proposed intersection with SW Chirp Street. At this point, the topography begins to sharply drop into the ravine. Staff believes that this level of improvement, which will include curbs, sidewalks, streetlights and street trees, is reasonable to require and the actual crossing of the ravine would need to be constructed under some other funding mechanism. The applicant's engineer prepared preliminary cost estimates for the ravine crossing of the minor collector street using two alternatives: 1) a bridge, and 2) a wall structure with a culvert in the bottom for the drainage. The bridge option was estimated to cost approximately $2.3 million dollars and would require extensive grading work within the ravine. The engineer also proposed a retaining wall system, shown on the preliminary plan, that would cost approximately $1 million dollars less than the bridge option. Staff has reviewed material from the manufacturer of the retaining wall block and it does appear to be a system that could be used at the time the crossing is made. The retaining wall system would also likely require less overall grading within the ravine area and the work could essentially be confined within the ROW for the roadway. When the ravine crossing is designed at a later date, the City Engineer will need to analyze all options to determine a final structural crossing mechanism. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 27 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION New Public Streets: There are two new public local residential streets proposed with this plan, SW Greenpark Street (to be renamed "SW Greenpark Place") and SW Chirp Street. The TDC allows narrower widths of ROW and pavement sections when the expected average daily traffic (ADT) falls below a certain level. SW Greenpark Place is a north/south cul-de-sac and will only serve approximately 40 lots. The expected ADT for this street might be 400 trips per day. SW Chirp Street is a short east/west street that would only serve two houses directly, but also would carry traffic from SW Greenpark Place. It may also have an expected ADT of about 400 trips per day. If a local residential street has an expected ADT of less than 500 trips per day, the City could allow the ROW width to be reduced to 46 feet and the paved width to be reduced to 28 feet. Staff recommends that this plan be approved to allow the narrower widths on these two streets. SW Ridgefield Lane: Proposed Lot 49, previously Lot 30 of Mountain Highlands No. 3, abuts an existing local residential street, SW Ridgefield Lane. At this time, there are no housing improvements built on this lot, and the sidewalk that would front the lot has not been constructed. Now that this lot will be a part of this project, the applicant will be responsible for completing the sidewalk improvements adjacent to the lot. Proposed Private Streets: The plan proposes that Lots 37 through 48 be served from two private streets: SW Treeview Way and SW Creekview Way. In addition, Lots 21 and 25 appear to be served from Tract A, which would also be considered a private street. Lots 22, 23 and 24 also would be served by a private street, Tract B, which would be extended southerly from SW Ridgefield Lane. TMC 18.164.030(S) limits the number of lots to be served from a private street to a total of six (6). None of the four streets mentioned above would serve over six lots, so they would be acceptable. The applicant will need to provide proposed street names for Tracts A and B prior to recording of the final plat. 18.164.030(S) also indicates that the applicant shall ensure the continued maintenance of private streets by establishing a homeowners association. It is recommended that the applicant place a statement on the face of the final plat indicating the private street will be owned and maintained by the properties that will be served by it. In addition, the applicant should record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) along with the final plat that will clarify how the private property owners are to maintain the private streets. These CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of the final plat. The City's public improvement design standards require private streets to have a pavement section equal to a public local street. The applicant will need to provide this type of pavement section for both streets. Street Name Issues: The name of the minor collector street must be resolved prior to recording of the final plat. As was mentioned above, the collector is named and signed as "SW 129th Avenue" from Bull Mountain Road to the end of the improvements adjacent to Woodford Estates. However, the opposite end of the collector north of this site is 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 28 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION • • named "SW Greenfield Drive". Since the intent of the Transportation Plan Map is that these two segments be joined to form one minor collector street, it seems appropriate to make sure the name is consistent. There are no houses presently addressed from either SW Greenfield Drive or SW 129th Avenue. After checking with 911 dispatch, it is Staffs opinion that the roadway should be called "SW Greenfield Drive" throughout. The City Staff will need to make a recommendation to the City Council to change the "129th Avenue" segment to the new street name. Another street naming issue is with "SW Greenpark Street". This roadway is a north/south roadway and the designation "street" is not appropriate. The proper designation for a north/south cul-de-sac is "Place". Therefore, the final plat shall indicate this roadway as "SW Greenpark Place". The proposed names for "SW Treeview Way" and "SW Creekview Way" are also a problem. A "Way" designation is only for loop streets. The two private streets in this project are east/west cul-de-sacs and should be designated as "Court"s. Therefore, the final plat shall indicate these two streets as "SW Treeview Court" and "SW Creekview Court". Once names for Tracts A and B are chosen, they shall be designated as "Place", since they are both north/south cul-de-sacs. Since Tract B is over 150 feet in length, a turnaround shall be provided that will meet Uniform Fire Code turning standards. Water: This site will be served from the City's public water system. The Public Works Department submitted comments relating to the application and had concerns with the proposed water line plan. Specifically, the existing 12-inch public water line in SW 129th Avenue shall be extended northerly with the street improvements to the north end of the proposed full-width street improvements. Fire hydrants are to be provided at each street intersection and every 500 feet along the minor collector street. The plan is also confusing in Greenpark Place, from Chirp Street to the north end of the site. There are gaps in-the water line layout and it is not clear as to how the applicant will serve the north portion of the site. Staff spoke with the applicant's engineer and it appears the engineer is still working to develop a final solution. Water could be extended from the north from SW Ridgefield along with the sanitary sewer, but it also could be extended from the south along with the improvements for SW Greenpark Place. Prior to construction, the City must approve of the final water line layout. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing public sanitary sewer line that was constructed as a part of the Woodford Estates project. However, this sewer line is not deep enough to serve the northernmost lots in this development. The applicant's engineer has proposed an extension of a public sanitary sewer line from the Mountain Highlands No. 3 development to the north. As was mentioned previously, the applicant has acquired Lot 30 of the Mountain Highlands No. 3 development and is proposing to extend the public sewer within Tract B up into the site to serve the entire project. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 29 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION • i The preliminary sanitary sewer line layout shows some portions of the sewer to be located in back and side yards of a few of the new lots at the north end of the project. This type of location presents problems for City maintenance crews, who must clean the sewer lines every one or two years and repair any future problems with those lines. Unless the cleaning truck can access the downstream sewer manhole on a given length of line, that line can not be adequately cleaned. The City's policy in approving sanitary sewer line designs is to ensure that adequate maintenance access is provided. Adequate maintenance access can either be: 1) place the main lines within a paved public or private street, such that manholes are accessible in the street, or 2) where main lines must be located in the back or side yards of lots, provide a paved access road from the street back to the downstream manhole. The applicant's plan would result in one downstream manhole, and therefore one length of public sewer line, that would be impossible to clean properly. The manhole in question is located between Lots 19 and 20, near the proposed ROW of SW 129th Avenue. The remaining downstream manholes can be accessed via SW Ridgefield Lane and Tract B. Staff believes that the proposed sewer line alignment is likely the best alternative, given the constraints of the topography in this section of the site. However, Staff believes the applicant can and should provide adequate access to the manhole between Lots 19 and 20. A maintenance access roadway, built to City standards, should be constructed from SW Greenpark Street back to the manhole. The roadway should be placed within a tract and conveyed to this City on the final plat. This will ensure that no fences, gates or other structures will be placed within the access road. The width of the access road shall be 12 feet wide minimum, and the tract width shall also be 12 feet wide minimum. The applicant's narrative indicates that their sewer layout will enable service to be provided to adjacent properties, specifically Tax Lot 1000 to the south. The City's policy with regard to sanitary and storm sewer line layouts is that developers should extend public main lines to the upstream property boundaries to allow for logical extensions of these systems. The applicant's plan does not show extension of the sanitary sewer line to Tax Lot 1000. The plan shall be revised to show that a stubs will be extended to the adjacent property(ies). Storm Drainage: The topography of this site falls to the north and west. There is a ravine just to the east of this site and a large, 70-foot deep ravine that crosses the northern end of the site. The applicant's engineer proposes to direct the majority of the storm water runoff from this site toward the large ravine to the north. New public storm drainage lines are to be located within the new streets and a water quality facility is proposed to be located at the end of SW Greenpark between Lots 26 and 27. In accordance with USA's Resolution and Order No. 96-44, the applicant is required to submit a downstream analysis with this application to show whether or not the additional runoff from this site will cause adverse impacts to the downstream storm drainage system. The applicant's engineer submitted a downstream analysis, but Staff has concerns with what was submitted and recommends that additional information be submitted as a condition of development approval and prior to construction on the site. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 30 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION • The engineer's information indicates that the additional runoff from this site will not negatively impact the downstream system, but Staff has questions concerning a few of the assumptions and calculations provided in the analysis. These questions will need to be answered prior to construction plan approval. The applicant has not shown that public storm drainage line stubs will be provided to the adjacent upstream properties. The plan shall be revised to reflect that stubs will be provided. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 96-44) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan is required to be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to issuance of a building permit construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. As was stated in the previous section, the applicant's engineer is proposing one pond facility to be located at the north end of SW Greenpark Place between Lots 26 and 27. The engineer submitted preliminary sizing calculations for this pond and suggests the area provided will adequately treat the additional storm water generated from this site. Staff has concerns with the applicant's calculations because they did not take into account the impervious areas that will be created by the new streets. Prior to construction, the applicant's engineer shall submit formal design calculations that show an adequately sized facility will be provided. One other concern with the applicant's plan is that there are several lots that will not benefit from the treatment facility. It appears that Lots 19 through 26 will be too low to enable runoff into the pond. The water quality regulations require that 100 percent of the new impervious areas be treated in the water quality facility. Prior to construction, the design engineer shall submit a plan that will ensure adequate treatment for the entire project. Prior to the City accepting this facility as a public facility, the developer shall maintain it for a minimum of three years after construction is completed. The pond shall be placed in a tract and conveyed to the City on the final plat. The developer will be required to submit annual reports to the City which show what maintenance operations were conducted on the facility for that year. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 31 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 984 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION • percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. Grading and Erosion Control: USA Design and Construction Standards also regulates erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per USA regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. The applicant's design engineer will be required to prepare a final grading plan for review and approval. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots that are to be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The applicant is also required to provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report will need to be incorporated into the final grading plan and a final construction supervision report must be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. A report was submitted from Carlson Testing, Inc., dated June 26, 1998, which indicates this site should be suitable for the proposed development provided the applicant follow the geotechnical engineer's recommendations for cuts and fills. The City will require the applicant's engineer to submit the proposed construction plans to the geotechnical engineer for review and approval prior to City approval of the plans. The City will also require that the geotechnical engineer be involved with the inspections on the site to ensure that cuts and fills are constructed per their specifications. A final report from the geotechnical engineer shall be required once the construction of the grading and public improvements are completed and prior to issuance of any building permits. The design engineer shall also indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. There are a couple of areas of concern on the proposed grading plan. One area is at Tract B. The plan does not show proposed grades for this private street. Uniform Fire 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 32 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION • Code standards state that the maximum grade for this type of street is 12 percent, but allowance is made for short sections of less than 200 feet to have a grade of up to 15 percent. The other concern with the grading plan is at the south property line adjacent to Tax Lot 1000. The plan indicates potential grading to take place on that parcel. No grading will be allowed on any adjacent parcel without the property owner's permission by way of an easement or right-of-entry. Existing Overhead Utility Lines: There are existing overhead utility lines along SW Bull Mountain Road adjacent to this site. Section 18.164.120 of the TMC requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The total frontage along this site is 50 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $ 1,375.00. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS have not been met. The standards can be met, however, if the applicant complies with the conditions of approval summarized at the beginning of this decision. If the conditions are met, staff can determine that the standards have been met and approval can be granted. SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Criteria for steep slopes require that we receive the geotechnical report referred to on page 5 of their submittal. Once that report is received, route to building for comment (BEFORE SUB and SLR final order) Provide cul-de-sacs with turning radius as required by UFC 902.2.2.3 tract A and B. Fire access road shall be within 150 feet of most remote part of structure; as drawn Tract A must be extended to insure that this requirement is met. No parking signs and curb markings along one side of street less than 36 feet wide and no parking either side of streets less than 28 feet wide. Fire truck turn around is required in Tract B. Fire hydrant is required within 500 feet of house on lot 49. Lynch type catch basin is required in all private streets, Engineering geo review and final report is required for retaining structures. Staff response: A geotechnical report has been provided and routed to the building and engineering department for review. The other issues have either been incorporated into the body of this decision or will be required as part of the building permit review. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 33 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION • • The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this proposal and has the following comments: Consistency for street names is desirable to reduce any delay in providing emergency services. I bring concern regarding SW 129th Ave. It appears that Greenfield abruptly continues from a point where is appears SW 129th may be more logical. Recommendation is to maintain street name SW 129th entirely to end of Elkhorn Subdivision. this is further supported by statements in application which state SW 129th may at some future time be continued as a north-south collector for this area. Staff response: The issue of the street names is discussed in this decision. Refer to page 28. The City of Tigard Water/Operations Department has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Water design is not acceptable. the existing 12-inch water main within SW 129th (SW Greenfield Drive) shall be extended to the north end of the project. Fire Hydrant placements shall be at intersecting streets with fire hydrant placement (separation) of not more than 500 feet apart. There is a section of water main in Tract "A" that goes nowhere. Meaning no connection to a supply. A water main located under the curb on SW Treeview Way - our minimum standard is 6'-0" from face of curb in the street. Please submit plans to Engineering for complete review. Tree mitigation fees should be paid to City of Tigard not directly to Oregon Trout. Their suggestion is interesting, but no applicable at this time. There are indications of water quality facility but they are not indicated on the drawings. Also, what is purpose of Tracts "A" and "B" ? Staff response: The issues and concerns raised have been addressed in the body of this report under Public Facility Concerns. SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS The Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed this proposal and has the offered comments which have been incorporated into this decision under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS GTE has had an opportunity to review this proposal and provided the following comments: Developer to provide conduits and trenches to GTE specifications. Washington County has had an opportunity to review this proposal and indicated that they would not be commenting and defers authority to the City of Tigard to determine necessary improvements. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 34 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION a 0 US Army Corps of Engineers has had an opportunity to review the proposal and provided the following comments: Preliminary review of enclosed material suggests that a DA permit will be required for roads crossing and potentially for grading impacts in lots 35, 36, 21, storm water outfalls and sanitary sewer line construction. A wetland delineation concurrence from the Corps will be required before a permit can be issued. Staff response: The road crossing of the drainageway will not occur as part of this development. Staff will require a condition of approval be verification from the US Army Corps of Engineers that either no permits are necessary for proposed grading or that permits have been obtained. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Division of State Lands, Columbia Cable, Metro Area Communications, US West, Portland General Electric (PGE), TCI Cable, and NW Natural Gas have also had the opportunity to review this application and have offered no comments or objections. 4 - )?4;4A PREPA D BY: lia Hajduk Associate Planner APPROVED BY: Richard Bewersdo Planning Manager September 21, 1998 DATE September 21, 1998 DATE is\curpin\ ulia\sub\elkhorn.doc 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 35 OF 35 SUB 98-6/SLR 98-4 - ELKHORN RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION c COW Z a o a 3 ? ?I V1 C Loon C 1= rrrn co C rri ?C 0 C rn S o? Z L/1 \Q W 0 0 I; SW 130TH AVENUE - - - - i ? WOODFORD ESTATES _ 1 T 1 (VENUE - ::,__ .?• -? - - - - - -----. -_ ? i ? ??+vWw.vP?'d. 4:.?. ? t fC r + i t 1 - 1 '? rs errs: i YL Y9D ? 71 dOD II •,,I 1 lil . ' SW 129TH AVENUE r:..... ......... x, .:=SW GREEK IELD DRIVE -'? _.....: SW GREENPARK STREETw- -... ........... -: i .. -::T::T T r T T v•-r--W. ? WII1?tGTON \ HFlGMS [MIA, Ep YL 8CD i+ I ,I W ? EE y YL 7DDD - ` +, y I ' X17 __-_? I __.? I , I?\ y CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION MOUNMIN IWH AND6 NO. 2 El's MOUNTAJN tIMBLO S NO. 3 m -- m m CITY of TIGARD n AZ m m M NI A GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM o SW WOODS IRE LN 0 r - WS VICINITY MAP z SW AERIE DR SW GAARDE ST SW G SUB 98-0006 (3 SUB ECT AMESLANE SLR 98'0004 ?ARC?LS w E? N SW CHANDLER DRIVE 3 ELK HORN rn ALP RIDGE ESTATES DU SUBDIVISION SW SrA.RVIEW DR. D J ? D CO CT M w F- BIRDSVIE w w w > ix J w B VIEW DR 0 200 400 600 Feet 1'= 465 feet I sc City of Tigard Information on this, map is for general location only and f should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard. OR 97223 (503) 6394171 http:/Avww.ci.tigard.or.us Community Development Plot date: Sep I, 1998; C:jmagicjMAGIC02.APR MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: Larry Epstein, Hearings Officer FROM: Julia Hajduk, Associate Planner r'?!t DATE: October 7, 1998 City of Tigard Community Development Shaping A Better Community SUBJECT: Elk Horn Ridge Estates Subdivision (SUB 98-0006/ SLR 98-0004), Public Hearing continued from September 28, 1998 This is an attempt to address in more detail some of the concerns and issues that were raised at the original public hearing on September 28, 1998. Staff has identified the main issues raised by neighbors of the development and responded to their concerns in a little more detail. In some instances, staff is recommending a modification or addition to the conditions of approval. Wildlife While many people raised concerns about the removal of wildlife, there are no development code standards which would allow staff to require the applicant to preserve wildlife habitat. The Sensitive Lands criteria Section 18.84.040.B.4 does require area where natural vegetation is removed and not covered by structures or impervious surfaces, to be re-planted, and this is already listed as a condition of approval. Also, many people raised the issue that this area is identified on the Bull Mountain Community Plan as having a Significant Natural Resource Designation. As stated previously, the Bull Mountain Community Plan is a County Plan and is not a regulatory document inside the City. The City does not have a similar designation or review mechanism for such a designation. In any event, the Bull Mountain Community Plan does not prohibit the removal of trees in Significant Natural Resource Areas, it only requires permit approval. Sensitive Lands Many issues were raised regarding the alteration of steep slopes and removal of trees on these steep slope areas. The following are the Sensitive Lands Review criteria for development on slopes exceeding 25% slope and staffs comments on how these criteria are met: • The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use. This standard requires that the impact be the minimum necessary. Originally, staff felt that this was satisfied, however, upon further review of the proposed plan, staff feels there are some areas proposed for grading and tree removal that are not the minimum necessary. These include lots 18- 20, 22, 24, and 27 which show building pads much further back on the lot than is required to meet setbacks. Staff recommends the applicant review these building pads and bring them as close as possible to the front of the lot while still meeting required setbacks and adjust the grading plan and tree removal plan accordingly. Of course, based on the revised tree removal plan, additional trees may be saved and the required mitigation will be less. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property. A geotechnical report has been done. An erosion control plan will be required as part of the engineering approval process to insure there are no impacts to the drainageways. The City will require the applicant's engineer to submit the proposed construction plans to the geotechnical engineer for review and approval prior to City approval of the construction plans. Also, streams will be required to be contained within tracts which have a 25-foot buffer on either side. Absolutely no grading is permitted within these areas and, because these areas are not held in easements, the building setbacks will be from the from the tract property lines. Review by the City of the construction plans will insure that no grading occurs within these tract areas. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper drainage of foundation and crawl space areas for development with any of the following soil conditions: wet/high water table; high shrink-swell capability; compressible/organic; and shallow depth-to-bedrock. The geotechnical report submitted indicates the site is suitable for the proposed development. The geotechnical and engineering review will insure this is accomplished. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening. This condition will be satisfied when the applicant complies with the conditions of approval. Removal of trees on steep slopes. In reviewing the Tree Removal Section in more detail, it appears a tree removal permit will be required for the removal of all trees in the Sensitive Lands areas (18.150.040.A). As part of this permit approval, the applicant will be required to provide an Erosion Control plan that indicates the following will not result: Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets, adjacent property, or into the storm and surface • • water system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action of erosion; and Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment laden flows; or evidence of on site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of Washington County USA Environmental Protection and Erosion Control Rules. Furthermore, within stream corridors (as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream), tree removal must maintain no less than 75% canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75% (18.150.040.6). Staff recommends a condition of approval be attached that requires the applicant to obtain Tree Removal permits for removal of trees within any Sensitive area. Staff does not feel that the requirement to retain 75% canopy cover will drastically affect this development as most of the 50 foot area is within the identified tree preservation area. It appears that lots 19-21 are most directly affected and will result in revisions to the proposed building pad sites. A condition of approval may be necessary that requires the applicant to identify the proposed building pad sites in relation to the 50-foot buffer from the stream. The grading and tree removal plan will need to be revised accordingly. Removing the trees in -general As stated at the original meeting, the Development code allows the removal of trees in non- sensitive areas provided the applicant mitigates the trees being removed. Tree mitigation can either be on-site, off-site, or by payment into a tree fund to allow the City to plant trees in the future. While no "tree removal" permit is required for removing trees in non-sensitive areas as part of this subdivision development, the Tree Removal Section (18.150.070) provides procedures in the event trees are removed in violation of the conditions of development approval. In this case, the applicant has indicated a tree preservation area will be retained. Staff has recommended a condition of approval be the identification of this preservation area on the ground, prior to any construction activities. If this is adhered to, the City, developer and any interested neighbors, would know immediately whether trees were being removed within this area. An issue was raised regarding who will mark this area and what assurance was being made that the area marked complied with the plans. This is a good point and staff recommends requiring the arborist to review the location of the tree preservation fencing to, insure it is accurately identified and have planning staff approve the location (based on the tree plan provided) prior to removal of any trees or the issuance of any building permits. Another issue was raised by a citizen about the accuracy of the tree inventory. It was pointed out that some trees within this preservation area are indicated to be removed. Confirmation from the applicant is needed. If the hazardous trees within the tree preservation area are proposed to be removed, staff would recommend a condition of approval be added which requires the arborist to tag hazardous trees within this preservation area to be removed to insure that only hazardous trees are removed. Staff also recommends that the applicant provide a detailed plan indicating how the hazardous trees are proposed to be removed without harming the trees to remain. If the applicant indicates NO trees within the preservation area will be removed, no additional conditions need to be added. • 0 Erosion Control A concern was raised by a few citizens about how erosion prevention would be monitored. As was stated in the hearing, an erosion control plan will be required to be reviewed and approved by the City and USA prior to any construction commencing on the site. The erosion control plan shall meet the requirements of the USA Erosion Control Manual. Enforcement for erosion prevention measures is primarily handled by USA, by contract with the City. If a City inspector, however, discovers an erosion control problem, they will take action with the developer and/or contractor to get the problem remedied. The City and USA have the ability to issue Stop Work Orders when necessary if an erosion problem is not addressed. USA also has the ability to levy fines against the contractor. Drainaqe and Underground Springs As was stated in the September 28, 1998 hearing, the applicant has submitted a downstream analysis which appears to indicate that there should not be adverse impacts to the downstream drainage channel from the additional runoff from this project. Concerns were raised at the September 28 hearing regarding the presence of springs in this area. A few citizens who live in the Woodford Estates development indicated that springs had surfaced under their homes. They asked how the City and/or the developer would deal with any springs that are encountered. The geotechnical report, issued by Carlson Testing, dated June 26, 1998, states that there were no underground springs encountered when the field test pits were excavated. However, Carlson did point out that springs could be encountered during construction, and they recommend that the applicant consult with them throughout the construction process to ensure that their recommendations are followed. If springs are encountered, the City will require the applicant to propose a solution, approved by the geotechnical engineer, that will ensure that the spring water is piped into the public storm drainage system. Staff is confident that this particular issue can be adequately dealt with in the field during construction. It is very difficult to pinpoint the location of any spring until actual construction on the site begins. Traffic Issues on Bull Mountain Road A concern was raised in the public hearing concerning potential safety problems at the intersection of SW Bull Mountain Road and SW 129th Avenue. Staff has looked at accident records filed with the City's police department and found that there is no history of accidents reported at this location. Another concern was raised concerning the sight distance available at the same intersection. The applicant's engineer has since looked into this issue and will provide a report to the hearings officer at the October 7, 1998 hearing. Alignment of SW Greenfield Avenue Minor Collector Mr. and Mrs. Jon Gum, who live in the Wilmington Heights development northwest of this site, raised a question regarding the proposed alignment of the minor collector extension of SW Greenfield Avenue. Specifically, they had been given a preliminary layout of Greenfield by the developer/engineer of the Wilmington Heights (Oakley Engineering) project which shows the future alignment abutting the eastern boundary of the subject site and intersecting with Bull Mountain Road east of SW 129th Avenue. Mr. and Mrs. Gum were given the impression that r? u Oakley had chosen this alignment because it would result in an easier and less-expensive crossing of the ravine. Staff met with Mr. and Mrs. Gum on October 6, 1998, and explained that Oakley had estimated several alignments for Greenfield, most of which showed the future alignment adjacent to the western boundary of the subject site and connecting to SW 129th Avenue. In addition, the topographic information utilized by Oakley was provided by the City, which is not accurate. The City's topographic maps are estimates of the actual land contours, especially in areas where the land is covered by trees, such as the subject site. Since the time Oakley estimated future alignments, actual surveyed topographic information has been collected which shows the ravine is much deeper than Oakley had originally estimated. In addition, the ravine is less deep near the western end of the subject site than toward the eastern end. This makes sense because the ravine flows downstream to the northeast. Staff explained to Mr. and Mrs. Gum that the proposed alignment by Christensen Engineering and the applicant will be more feasible than trying to slide the roadway to the eastern boundary of the site. One reason is the ravine crossing; the change in grade from the present terminus of Greenfield Drive to the bottom of the ravine, as measured along the proposed alignment, is approximately 50 feet. However, the change in grade from the present terminus to the bottom of the ravine, as measured along an assumed alignment that would put the roadway adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site, is approximately 80 feet. Clearly, the ravine crossing would be more difficult if the City moved it further east. One other reason that Staff would oppose the other alignment is that the subject site slopes to the east and becomes steeper at the eastern boundary. The cuts and fills would be much more severe if the roadway were pushed to that site. A citizen at the hearing asked about the need for retaining walls adjacent to Woodford Estates to support the collector street. According to the applicant's preliminary grading plan, a 4-foot to 6- foot high retaining wall will likely be needed along the western ROW line of Greenfield Drive. Any retaining wall proposed that exceeds 4 feet in height will require structural calculations from the geotechnical engineer, if a rock wall is proposed, or a structural engineer, if a masonry or reinforced concrete wall is proposed. Staff would support the use of a retaining wall. Concern of Developer not complying with conditions Some concerns were raised at the meeting, and discussions with people on the phone centered on this concern. The neighbors are quite concerned that the development will not be built in accordance with the conditions and approved plans. While this is not a review criteria, it may help to address the process and mechanism of insuring compliance. Prior to obtaining any permits, many of the conditions will be required to be met. Engineering staff will go out to the site periodically to do site inspections of the public improvements and grading. If at any time, staff receives a call regarding a condition of approval being violated, staff will go out and inspect and, if necessary, stop work until the issue has been resolved. Prior to any phase of the project being signed off, the conditions relating to that phase must be satisfied. The issue of compliance with tree removal violations has been addressed previously in this memo. 0 0 In summary In summary, Staff believes that applicant's materials adequately meet City standards and find that the application should be approved with the recommended conditions of approval noted in the original staff report and the following modifications and additions: Staff recommends Condition of approval #6 be modified to read "Prior to any site work, including but not limited to tree removal, grading or construction, the tree retention area must be clearly marked. The marked area must be reviewed by the arborist and approved by Planning Staff. Staff recommends adding the following conditions: Prior to the removal of any trees in the Sensitive Lands Area, the applicant must obtain tree removal permits. Prior to any site work including but not limited to tree removal, grading or construction, the applicant must submit a revised building pad plan that shows the building pad as close as possible to the front of the lot while still meeting required setbacks. The applicant must also show the building pads in relation to the 50-foot stream "buffer" required by the tree removal requirements for sensitive lands. The tree removal and grading plan must be revised accordingly. If trees are to be removed within the tree preservation area, the hazardous trees must be tagged to insure only hazardous trees are removed. The applicant must also submit a tree removal plan that indicates how hazardous trees will be removed in this area without harming the trees to remain. i:curplan\ ulia\sub\elkcont.doc RECEIVED PLANNING • Ms. Julia Hajduk SEP 17 1998 9/14/98 City Planner - Tigard CITY OF TIGARD Ms. Hajduk, I write today to convey my grave concern over the potential development of the property located adjacent to 129`x' Avenue and Bull Mountain Road (next to the Woodford Estates subdivision). This property, to be potentially known as Elkhorn Ridge has some serious potential flaws (as planned) in my opinion. Whether legal challenges exist, I honestly do not know. I do know that many neighbors have voiced concern and hope to attend the upcoming hearing meetings at Tigard City Hall. Some of our major concerns are three-fold: 1) Environmental impact: . Although legal challenges may not come from simply "uprooting" the many deer, squirrels, birds and other wildlife that live in the area, certainly some consideration must be given to the impact. There simply is not a remaining livable area for these creatures left on this side of Bull Mountain. More importantly, a wetlands area (has been designated) and spring run right through the proposed property. Assuming that all the impact studies have been done (?) what precautions are being taken to keep the natural beauty. According to the plat map and proposed lot sites - virtually none. Obviously we feel this is not right, if it is legal. 2) Density/traffic impact: Without major improvements to the 129th street intersection of Bull Mountain road, the traffic flow will be unbearable, With a proposal to basically DOUBLE the amount of congestion the road will be a hazard. In addition, with a current design of a closed end street (130') many young children play in the area. Has any thought gone into the fact that the pressure on the roads will be twice what it is today? What are the plans for the handling of this additional burden? 3) Economic impact: As you may know, Bull Mountain is for the most part home to many "upscale" and larger residences. It caters to many young families who enjoy the "more natural" surroundings than a city. It also has been growing rapidly for some time with each new development catering to more higher income residents. Given this fact, and coupled with the fact that a new middle school is proposed for an area directly across Bull Mountain Road, it would seem logical that this type of development would continue. Certainly that was the feeling of the homeowners in Woodford Estates! Needless to say, it is with GRAVE concern that we here a subdivision of small homes on VERY small lots will be sharing the same neighborhood/roads with us. The fact is these lots are designed to hold homes in the 2,000 sq. ft range. Most of the homes in Woodford have lots 8,000 or more sq. feet and average 3,000 sq. feet (especially the ones facing Elkhorn) in size. This seems to be a very poor fit for the area to say the least. While we may not have any "say" in this matter, we strongly URGE the city and the developer to think again about the type of lots and homes proposed. Fewer, larger lots and homes would help reduce traffic pressure, help ensure that the new dwellers are more consistent with what else the area caters to, and help the economic impact by offsetting some of the potentially DRAMATIC negative property valuation of current residents! We can appreciate the need for diversity in housing, and the needs of all types of residents. It seems more logical however to PLAN for this in areas where there are NOT large homes already in existence. We very much appreciate your support in this matter. We will address our concerns on the 28 h. Thank you, Scott F. Short SCOTT F. SHORT 14494 S.W. 130th N.vm. Tigard, OR 97224 0 0 APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF ELK HORN RIDGE ESTATES TIGARD, OREGON Applicant: Terry Booke 9020 SW Washington Square Dr., Suite 100 Portland, OR 97223 Ph: (503) 671=0221; Fx: (503) 671-0121 Applicant's Representative: Ed Christensen, P.E. Christensen Engineering, Inc. 7150 SW Hampton St., Ste. 226 Portland, Oregon 97223 Ph: (503) 598-1866; Fx: (503) 598-1868 Comprehensive Plan Designation: R-7, Single-Family Residential Zoning Designation: R-7, Single-Family Residential Location: Tax Map 2S1 9 AA & AD; Tax Lot 1100, 3900, & 7200 (Lot 30 Mt. Highlands #3). The site is located in the western portion of Tigard on the north edge of SW Bull Mountain Road, east of SW 129`h Avenue. Submittal Dates: June 25, 1998 May 20, 1998 Exhibits: Site Plan Copy of Pre-Application Conference Notes Arborist Report Tree Inventory Tree Mitigation Riparian Enhancement Proposal Bid for Re-forestation by Map, Inc. Subdivision Plat Name Reservation Downstream Conditions Analysis Calculations for Water Quality DSL Wetland Determination Neighborhood Meeting Affidavits and Rosters Retainment of Soil Consultant Services Tree Canopy Depiction Plan Future Streets Plan Ultrablock, Inc. Exhibit 0 • INTRODUCTION 0 This application is for subdivision approval for a 49-lot subdivision (including Lot 30 of Mt. Highlands #3) in the R-7 district toward the western portions of the City of Tigard. The main development will occur on an existing lot of record: tax lot #1100 & 3900, tax map 2S 19 AA & AD. This parcel is currently zoned R-7: the residential subdivision is an allowed use. The site slopes to the east and north with a prominent drainageway bisecting the northern portion of the property. The subdivision plan has been configured around this drainageway, to remain in its natural state. In addition, the layout has been adjusted around retention of more than forty (40%) percent of trees 12" and greater in diameter, which will make this subdivision highly marketable and very desirable to prospective buyers. The project will be an asset to the community, and will be shown to meet the criteria of the Community Development Code. The site is bordered on the north by the recently constructed subdivision Mountain Highlands. Within the Mountain Highlands subdivision there is sanitary sewer available to serve this development, although it was not adequately extended to do so when this subdivision was created. It is assumed and requested that the extension and continuation of sanitary sewer through Mountain Highlands be 100% SDC creditable, because of the additional cost to extend the sewer to the proposed Elk Horn Ridge subdivision. The west portion of this site is bordered by partially dedicated right-of-way for the extension of SW 1291h Avenue. Non-remonstrance agreements were created at the time of the platting of Woodford Estates in order that SW 129`h might be extended in accordance with the City's plan for a major collector running north to south through this area. The remainder of dedications necessary to construct SW Greenfield Drive and SW 129`h to collector street standards (at a total right-of-way width of 60 feet) will be granted with this subdivision, as shown on the attached site plan exhibit. SW 129th will be improved with respect to the Elk Horn Ridge subdivision's proportionate share of the street improvements at the time of development as indicated on the Site Plan. To the south of the parcel lies tax lot #1000, which is as of yet undeveloped. Easterly adjacent sites are zoned residential. A small tongue of this parcel reaches out to Bull Mountain Road. Bull Mountain Road improvements will be provided to 33 feet from centerline along the Bull Mountain Road frontage. The extension of streets to serve this subdivision will access from SW Greenfield Drive. The most northerly portions of this site will access from Mountain Highlands #3. APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION CEI JO: 97-111.01 ELK HORN RIDGE ESTATES Page 3 of 13 APPROVAL Revision: June 25, 1998 ZONING DISTRICT, CLASSIFICATIONS, AND REQUIREMENTS CHAPTER 18.52 R-7 Single-Family Residential 18.52.050: Dimensional Requirements The minimum lot area for a detached single-family residence is 5,000 square feet. The average minimum lot width for a detached unit lot is 50 feet. The maximum lot coverage is 80%. Front yard set-backs are a minimum of 15 feet. On corner and through lots the minimum set-backs for each side facing a street shall be 10 feet; the side yard set-back shall be a minimum of 5 feet; rear yard set-backs shall be a minimums of 15 feet; and set- backs for garages are 20 feet. No buildings shall exceed 35 feet in height, and the minimum landscape requirement shall be 20%. Lot sizes in this tentative plat range in size from 5,000 square feet (just above the minimum) to 17,000 square feet, with lots averaging 6,500 to 7,500 square feet along the western and 9,000 square feet along the eastern sides of the subdivision. Lot widths average 55 - 60 feet along the western lots and 75 - 80 feet along the eastern lots. With the large average lot size and with compliance with applicable set-backs, the landscaping requirement of 20% will easily be met. A typical 45-foot wide by 65-foot deep building envelope is indicated on each lot for tree mitigation, which would leave a typical 5,000 square foot lot with 41.5% landscaping. This preliminary subdivision plat as submitted meets all of the dimensional requirements of the R-7 zone. APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION CEI JO: 97-111.01 ELK HORN RIDGE ESTATES Page 4 of 13 APPROVAL Revision: June 25, 1998 • • OVERLAY DISTRICTS CHAPTER 18.84 Sensitive Lands This chapter provides regulations and development criteria for lands potentially unsuitable for development because of their location within the 100-year flood plain, natural drainage ways, wetland areas, steep slopes, or unstable ground. Although no over- lay district for sensitive land exists on this property, as identified by the city, it is the burden of the applicant to provide information which will identify the limits of any sensitive lands which do exist on the property as defined by this section. Sensitive lands were discovered on this site and the Site Plan properly adjusts for the aforementioned features. Dr. Martin Schott conducted a wetland review identifying no wetlands on the property. He did identify two drainages on the property, as depicted on the grading plan. One is the major drainage crossing the northern portion of the site. The other is a spring which originates on the eastern portion site, flowing east. Both drainages will be preserved and protected through jurisdictional easements to the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County. The applicant has provided a comprehensive topographical survey of the site with identification of existing slopes and the natural drainages. The topographical information indicates a much steeper terrain than does the original topographical survey of record with the city. The major criteria of this section affecting this property is the identification of slopes which are in excess of 25% (4:1) slope. Under this section, all lands which are greater than 25% slope are deemed sensitive lands, and will require an application for sensitive lands, and will require a sensitive lands application. This site has some steep terrain, particularly within the major drainage across the northern portion of the site. Throughout the rest of the site slopes are categorized from mild to moderate. Although these moderate slopes can easily be built upon, the approval standard of Chapter 18.84.040 requires that the director approve, or approve with conditions, the application request for a sensitive land permit on slopes of 25% or greater; before being built upon. The criterion for approval is contained in the article of this section. The grading activities necessary to accomplish the extension of 129t' and the main subdivision street, SW Greenpark Street, are depicted on the submitted grading plan. A full geotechnical study is currently underway to address the appropriate siting and design of the structural foundations. With the design of the foundations in accordance with the recommendations of this forthcoming report and the implementation of appropriate erosion control measures for this site, the conditions for approval under this section will be met. APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION CEI JO: 97-111.01 ELK HORN RIDGE ESTATES Page 5 of 13 APPROVAL Revision: June 25, 1998 0 • SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER 18.92 Density Computations This chapter establishes the criteria for determining the number of dwellings permitted. T 1100 Total Area Tax Lot 1100 T30 Total Area Lot 30 T Total Development Area S1100 Sensitive Land Area Tax Lot 1100 S30 Sensitive Land Area Lot 30 S Sensitive Land Area Total Density = Total area less 20% for roads less sensitive area then divided by 5,000 sf.; plus 25% of sensitive areas, divided by 5,000 sf. (T1100 + T30) - 0.20(Tl 100 + T30) - (S1100 + S30) 0.25(S1100 + S30) D 5000 + 5000 T 1100 = 516,622 SF T30 = 23,086 SF T = 539,708 SF S1100 = 258,207 SF S30 = 17,314 SF S = 275,521 SF D _ (516,622 + 23,086) - 0.20(516,622 + 23,086) - (258,207 + 17,314) + 0.25(258,207 + 17,314) 5000 5000 D = 45.03 units With tree retention incentive bonus: Greater than 40% retention, bonus = 20% 20% X 45.03 units = 9 units Allowed density = 54 units APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION CEI JO: 97-111.01 ELK HORN RIDGE ESTATES Page 6 of 13 APPROVAL Revision: June 25, 1998 0 CHAPTER 18. 100 18.100.030 Street Trees Landscaping and Screening 0 Street trees will be required and will be provided as part of this project. 18.100.120 Revegetation Vegetation removed through grading will be required to be re-established. Approximately 9 to 12 inches of topsoil is expected to be scarified from this site. Topsoil will be stockpiled in designated areas and will be replaced on the lots for landscaping. Excess topsoil will be removed from the site. Graded slopes and stormwater facilities will be hydroseeded, with geosynthetic matting where needed, immediately after grading. Individual building envelopes and immediate lawn areas will be seeded or sodded as applicable, along with homeowner landscaping. CHAPTER 18.106 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements 18.106.030 Requires that for residential single-family residences, two off-street spaces are required for each dwelling unit. These homes will have two car garages providing for the two off-street parking spaces required. In addition, with 20 foot garage set-backs, driveways will provide an additional 2 parking spaces for visitors. The off-street parking requirements of this chapter will be met. APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION CEI JO: 97-111.01 ELK HORN RIDGE ESTATES Page 7 of 13 APPROVAL Revision: June 25, 1998 • • DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 18.150 Tree Removal This chapter prohibits the unnecessary removal of trees on undeveloped lots in the city prior to the development of those lots. At the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain trees to accommodate structures, streets, utilities, and other needed or required improvements within the development. The attached tree mitigation plan identifies the removal of trees 12 inch caliper or greater to develop this subdivision. Because much of the site will remain forested, the mitigated trees will need to be planted off-site. An attached arborist's report specifies the required mitigatable inches of the trees to be planted off-site. Oregon Trout has proposed the creation of riparian and wetland enhancement areas within the Tualatin watershed, working from a fund of deposited mitigation monies which are required of development projects within the City of Tigard's jurisdiction. Details of this proposal include the potential for inter-governmental participation in recovery efforts for river and stream restoration. The Developers feel that this would be a worthy contribution and appropriate use of the mitigatable tree inches that they will be required to provide. They would propose a fee- in-lieu for tree mitigation be paid directly to the Oregon Trout organization in the amount of $3,795.00, per the attached bid summary. The necessary tree removal to develop this site with continuation of streets and roads is shown in the attached plan submittal. Along the western boundary of the site, tree removal will be necessary for construction of the 129' extension and for regrading of the westernmost lots. To facilitate building construction on the remainder of lots, a typical 45-foot by 65-foot building envelope will be cleared. Trees will be maintained along the rear property lines and within the rear and side set-backs. Clearing will occur only within the 45-foot by 65-foot building envelope, where a structure will be placed. 18.150.045 Incentives for Tree Retention ...1. Density Bonus. For each two percent of canopy cover provided by existing trees over twelve inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a one percent bonus may be applied to density computations of Chapter 18.92. No more than a twenty percent bonus may be granted for any one development. The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. The developer has chosen to maintain much of the existing canopy, believing retention will create a more marketable product. In these efforts, more than forty percent of the existing canopy has been identified for preservation. This preservation entitles the developer to a bonus of 20% density increase through these incentives, an additional 9 lots, for a density of 54 lots. A site plan providing 49 lots has been prepared. The developer prefers to maintain wider easterly lots to accentuate the rural backdrop and pristine character of this portion of the site. APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION CEI JO: 97-111.01 ELK HORN RIDGE ESTATES Page 8 of 13 APPROVAL Revision: June 25, 1998 0 a LAND DIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CHAPTER 18.160 Land Division: Subdivision 18.160.060 Approval Standards: Preliminary Plat The purpose of this chapter is to provide the hearings officer the power to approve the proposed preliminary plat given compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the applicable zoning ordinance, and other applicable ordinances and regulations. CHAPTER 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.164.030 Streets Improvements: No development shall occur unless the development has frontages or approved access to a public street. This subdivision has access to Bull Mountain Road via existing improvements to 129`h Avenue. 129`h Avenue will be completed to full-street improvements along the western property line in accordance with its proportionate share as shown on the exhibit site plan. In order to accomplish this, additional dedication will be required along the majority of SW 129`h remaining to be built. Because the excessive cost of completing the 129`h/Greenfield connection is beyond the proportional benefit to this project, as suggested by staff, the connection should be completed in the future. Streets within the development will be improved and dedicated in accordance with this title as shown on the attached site plan exhibit. SW 129`h is planned as a major collector (with an ultimate right-of-way width of 60 feet), thereby additional dedications to create the ultimate 60 foot right-of-way will be provided. All interior streets will be dedicated at 50 foot right-of- ways. Half-street dedications and improvements will occur on SW Bull Mountain Road. Access to Arterials and Major Collectors: For development abutting or 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. The proposed plat shows that no direct access is needed or will exist from any of the lots directly onto the extension of SW 129`h Avenue. Private Streets: Two private streets are proposed with this preliminary plat. Neither of those private streets serves more than 6 dwelling units; therefore, these streets will be designed to the design standards established by the City Engineer for private streets. APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION CEI JO: 97-111.01 ELK HORN RIDGE ESTATES Page 9 of 13 APPROVAL Revision: June 25, 1998 0 0 18.64.050 Easements Easements will be required for the extension of sanitary sewers to the project from the Mountain Highlands Subdivision. Water will also be provided within an easement to serve the northern portions of the parcel from the south. These easements are depicted on the attached site plan exhibit. Easements will also be granted on existing drainage courses which traverse the property, in accordance with the Unified Sewerage Agency requirements of 25 feet from each side of the drainage way. Easements also are depicted on the attached site plan exhibit. 18.164.060 Lots - Lot Frontage Lots within new subdivisions are required to have at least 25 feet of frontage on either a public or private street, other than an alley. The frontage of all of the lots within this subdivision exceeds 25 feet, so this criterion is met. Large Lots: In dividing tracks into large lots or parcels which in some future time are likely to be re-divided. The commission may require that the lots be of such size and shape and be so divided into building sites ... which will permit a subsequent division of any track into lots or parcels ... The current proposed preliminary subdivision plat shows parcelization of the complete parent parcel. Although lots on the northern portion of the site are larger than what may be found in other.subdivisions within this zoning area, the topographical restraints would prohibit their parcelization because of the sensitive lands density restrictions. 18.164.070 Sidewalks Sidewalks are proposed to be built along both sides of all arterial and collector streets constructed with this subdivision and both sides of all other internal streets within the subdivision itself. 18.164.090 Sanitary Sewers Sanitary sewers are currently available from Mountain Highlands to the north. Unfortunately as part as that development, sanitary sewer was not adequately extended to serve this parcel, which has necessitated the purchase of lot 30 for access and extension of the sanitary sewer to this subdivision. Because of the additional cost to extend this sewer to serve the proposed Elk Horn Ridge subdivision, the extension is requested to be fully SDC creditable. The logical extension of sanitary sewer southerly through this parcel will also be adequate to serve tax lot 1000. APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION CEI JO: 97-111.01 ELK HORN RIDGE ESTATES Page 10 of 13 APPROVAL Revision: June 25, 1998 0 0 18.164.100 Storm Drainage Storm drainage systems are provided to collect all surface runoff from newly created impervious surfaces, including roofs of the buildings to be constructed. Collected stormwater will be discharged to the existing on-site drainage way, with low-flow treatment storms diverted into a water treatment facility located in the northern portion of the site. 18.164.120 Utilities All utilities which are existing aboveground on Bull Mountain Road or along Greenfield Drive will be located underground as a condition of this development. All new facilities, power, telephone, etc., will be placed underground with the construction improvements of this project. At the time of final plat submittal and approval, a 10-foot public utility easement will exist along the front property lines of all parcel lots within the subdivision. A 5-foot public utility easement will also exist along each side property line and will remain until deemed unnecessary at the discretion of the City Engineer. 18.164.140 Monuments Street centerline and PI monuments will be set in all streets with this development. APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION CEI JO: 97-111.01 ELK HORN RIDGE ESTATES Page 11 of 13 APPROVAL Revision: June 25, 1998 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS AND REQUIREMENTS: Proportionality Analysis This subdivision has been analyzed in relation to the amount of infrastructure required for its construction versus its impact on adjacent services. For this analysis we have calculated the construction costs for Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) creditable improvements required by the city and by this development. Per our TIF analysis, the required fee for 49 lots @ $1,790/unit will be $87,710. The owner of this project must construct a half street improvement for the Greenfield/129th Avenue length of their property. Through negotiation with staff, the developer will construct a full street improvement for over half of their property instead of their half street improvement. The value of a 60 foot wide street improvement is approximately $350/lf. The total length of the unimproved portion of Greenfield fronting the property is 1,5401f and would be valued at $539,000. The proposed improved portion of Greenfield is 921 if and would be valued at $322,350. According to previous studies, a project should pay for approximately 32% of its impacts. Given that the project is required to improve over 3'/z times the value of their projected impact, we believe that this project satisfies its proportional share of the public improvements in relation to its impacts. No other development impacts, which would have an adverse or detrimental effect on the public improvements were identified. Traffic Analysis According to the ITE manual of Traffic Generation, single-family residential units generate approximately 10 trips per day, which will exit onto Bull Mountain Road at 129` Avenue. As zoned the project could buildout at 75 units (if there were no environmental issues). This buildout would generate 750 daily trips. The project will buildout at just 49 units, and will generate 490 daily trips or 65% of the zoning capacity. In addition, there are 33 existing residences located in Woodford Estates who will also utilize this intersection. It is assumed that most of the trips will be directed towards Highway 99. The following are the peak AM and PM generation rates for this project, without Woodford Estates: APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION CEI JO: 97-111.01 ELK HORN RIDGE ESTATES Page 12 of 13 APPROVAL Revision: June 25, 1998 • 0 TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use: Land Use Code: Variable: Variable Value: Single-family Detached Housing 210 Dwelling Units 49 AM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: 0.75 Enter Exit Total Directional Distribution 0.25 0.75 Trip Ends 9 28 37 PM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: 1.0 Enter Exit Total Directional Distribution 0.64 0.36 Trip Ends 31 18 49 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Elk Horn Ridge Estates ENTERING EXITING TOTAL TRIPS TRIPS TRIPS AM Peak Hour 9 28 37 PM Peak Hour 31 18 49 Daily 245 245 490 In summary, neither the AM or PM peak trips pose a significant increase in the number of turning movements at this intersection. In the future when Greenfield is connected through, the city should consider addressing signal warrants for this intersection. APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION CEI JO: 97-111.01 ELK HORN RIDGE ESTATES Page 13 of 13 APPROVAL Revision: June 25, 1998 1 I Jpl L- .- 1 1 , 1 1 '.-r ?i 1 1 1 t a!,Iitf: ? 5 . T . i YS YDD T1 DDD i I 1!: 1 « een w.w«+w , - ADD - 1. r' I 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (? GRMIIIG SClill WaMINGMN 10GNIS 1 I ?. I ? • mn worst-' i - ----------- • .. III a: '. ? _ _-l i? ? ' • _ t5 r L gf$17NTA 7VAPNRI? z; H? ' ?fl 4 a ti ww Pi F x >_ = A -0 fl dx c? x MOUNTAIN WGIQAN06 NO. 2 t' fez V] El .. w MOUNTAIN WGIMIY06 NO. 2 rC0)PD"'T( CITY OF TIGARD L? PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES ;va;?ri;.°?::, RESIDENTIAL , 5/ZZ/97 Arr (1/ // 1?ANDi?E?I 'PLI CANT: gone: IOPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS. TAX MA.PITAX LOT: AGENT: G1!,2i5 Phone: [ I 5118_- /x 63 ZSI q?F?- //oc :CESSARY APPLICATIONISI: SU F?i')\v I Slnt11 'SEh/5171\1, OSAL DESCRIPTION: 59 Gal vl?i [r/S/ON 1MPREHENSIVE AN DESIGNATION: ?NING DESIGNATION: TUIN INVOLVEMENT AM AR EA /V1 ELI UM ^-I InJES1 f I.NT2ff L FACILITATOR: PHONE [5031 PING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot size:Wsq. ft. Average lot width: ft. Maximum building height: S ft. hacks: Front JS7 ft. Side 5- ft. Rear J5_ ft. Corner ft. from street. Maximum site coverage: % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: ZL) % [Refer to Code Section 18._x) OfT10NA1 lOT DIMENSIO!ge? I EE ME i um o Mon: fit, unless lot is created through the Minor Land Partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15-foot wide access easement. The depth of all lots shall not exceed 2'/ times the average width, unless the parcel is less than 1 Y2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. (Refer to Code Section 18.164.060 Lots) Y OFTIMB Pr*4WWJcstloo Coniereeca Motes Pagel of 18 1110111JAUJUILMANOW1 sMtlos sacall IA1 SETBACKS Streets: feet from the centerline of Established areas: feet from Lower intensity zones: feet, along the site's boundary. Flag lot: Ten (10)-foot side yard setback. Zero lot line lots: minimum ten (10)-foot separation between buildings. Multi-family residential building separation: [Refer to Coda Section 18.96.0301 Accessory structures up to 528 square feet in size may be permitted on lots less than 2.5 acres in size. Five (5)-foot minimum setback from side and rear lot lines. - Accessory structure up to 1000 square feet on parcels of at least 2.5 acres in size. [See applicable zoning district setbacks for primary structaresi DIVISION PLUAME RESERVATIO Prior to submitting a Sub (vision land use application with the City of Tigard, applicant's are required to complete and file a subdivision plat naming request with the Washington County Surveyor's Office in order to obtain approval/reservation for any subdivision name. Applications will not be accepted as complete until the City receives the faxed confirmation of approval from the County of the Subdivision Name Reservation. $ t $!. $ (County Surveyor's Office: 648-88841 W LOT BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS Maximum height of 1'/z stories or 25 feet, whichever is less in most zones; 2Y2 stories, or 35 feet in R-7, R-12, R-25 or R-40 zones provided that the standards of Code Section 18.98.0301113) are met. t51DEWM DENSITY CALCU m le belo The Net Residential Units allowed on a particular site may be calculated by dividing the net area of the t developable land by the minimum number of square feet required per dwelling unit as specified by the t applicable zoning designation. Net development area is calculated by subtracting the following land area(s) t from the gross site area: 1. All sensitive lands areas including: a. Land within the 100 year floodplain; b. Slopes exceeding 25%; and c. Drainageways. 2. Public right-of-way dedication. a. Single-family allocate 20% of gross acres for public facilities; and b. Multi-family allocate 15% of gross acres for public facilities. (Refer to Code Section 18.921 AMPLE OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATIONS: .AMPLE: USING A ONE ACRE SITE IN THE R-12 ZONE (3,050 MINIMUM LOT SIZE) PATH NO DEDUCTION FOR SENSITIVE LANDS Single4amily 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 8.712 sa ft (20%%) for oublic daht-of-wav HET: 34,848 square feet 3.050 (minimum loLar 114 Units Per Acre Mul?Mamlly 43,560 sq. R of gross site area _6.534 so- ft. (15%) for oublic rioht-of-wav MET: 37,026 square feet 3.050 (minimum lot ar 12.1 Units Per Acre *Tho Derellpmeat Code re Wires thst the not site Ices mdst fir the neca rrhsli dweilmp =tL NO NOONDINC OP IS t ®M(TTED. k OF nsmo Pro-4UP11catiou Coaference Notes P2oe 2 of l( /utlllUlllcltln/Ttn1111 IMt111 slctl,s 0 0 ROCKS The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1.800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or. pre- existing development. When block lengths greater than 600 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. (Refer to Code Secdon 18.164.0401 SIDEKM DENSITY TRANSFER The City of Tigard allows a Residential Density Transfer of up to 25% of the units that could otherwise have been developed on sensitive lands areas listed in the density calculations that may be applied to the developable portion of the site. (Refer to Code Secdon 18.92.0301. S_ is the responsibility of the applicant for a residential development application to provide a detailed calculation for both the permitted residential density and the requested density transfer. SIDENTIAI DENSM TRANSMON Regardless of the allowed housing density in a zoning district, any property within 100 feet of a designated established area shall not be developed at a density greater than 125 percent of the maximum Comprehensive Plan designation (not zoning) of the adjacent parcel. Transition area applies to any property which is a designated established area.. The subject property is designated as an area. The subject property is adjoined by established/developing/areas to the north, ' south, east and west. UTURE STREET PLAN AND EXTENSION OF STREETS _"'? 1. A future street plan shall: a. Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other parcels within 200 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. b. Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and 1 pedestrian facilities on or within 500 feet of the site. 1 2. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets 1 shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed. 1 [Refer to Code Section 18.164.0301 ESIDENTM DEVELOPMENT SOLAR ACCESS REQUIREMENTS 1 All subdivisions and minor partitions are subject to solar access requirements. These requirements state r that a minimum of 80% of all lots created must be oriented for solar accessibility. The basic standard, 1 which determines solar accessibility, requires that 80% of total number of proposed lots: 1. Demonstrate a north-south dimension of at least 90 feet. 2. Demonstrate a front lot line orientation within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis, 1 kn OFT16AR0 Pre-4allca ou Cstileraace Notes Pape 3 of to ?d1??tlriU?tlutli?Rtuilif IM1.102Tacuba • • The total or partial exemption of a site from the solar access requirement may be approved for the followina reasons: 1. East, west or north slopes steeper than 20%. 2. Off-site shade sources (structures. vegetation, topography). 3. On-site shade sources (vegetation). Adjustments allowing a reduction of the 80% solar lot design requirement may be made for the following reasons: 1. Reduced density or an increased cost of at least five percent due to either: a. East, west or north slope greater than 10%. b. Significant natural feature. C. Existing road or lotting pattern. d. Public easement or right-of-way. 2. Reduction in important development amenities. 3. Pre-existing shade (vegetation). EASE NOTE Maps and text are requlred which are sufflcient to show that the development compiles with the solar design standards, or that specific lots should be exempted or adjusted out The following items shall be included in the analysis: E 1. The north-south lot dimension and front lot line orientation of each proposed lot. 2. Protected solar building lines and relevant building site restrictions, if applicable. 3. For the purpose of identifying trees-related to exemption requests, a map showing existing trees which are at least 30 feet tall and over 6 inches diameter at a point 4 feet above grade shall be submitted. This map shall include the followin4 a. Height. b. Diameter. C. Species. d. A statement declaring that they are to be retained. 4. Copies of all private restrictions relating to solar access. The design characteristics of a developed solar-oriented lot are high levels of wintertime sun striking the south walls and roofs of the house, house orientation maximizing south window area, and a south-sloping roof area. To achieve this, one may utilize the following: 1. Protected Solar Building Line - The solar building line must: a. Be oriented to within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis. b. Provide a minimum distance of 70 feet from the middle of the lot to the south property line. C. Provide a minimum distance of 45 feet from the northernmost buildable boundary of the subject lot to the north property line. 2. Performance Options - There are-two performance options which may be utilized as follows: a. The house to be oriented within 30 degrees of an east-west axis and have at least 80% of the ground floor's south wall protected from shade. b. At least 32% of the glass and 500 square feet of the roof area face south and be protected from shade. Y of nGmD Pro4=11cin.o c•atereau Notes PaOe 4 of 10 J81011IJ111c1(IIt/t1111111 IMIIA1 SicI111 • • SE NOTE Regardless of the option(s) Used through the design of the Subdhnslon or Minor Land Partition all one and two famlty, slugle4amliy residences are reviewed through the building permit process for compliance wfth Solar Balance Point standards. Please contact the Building Dhaslon for further information regarding the Solar Balance Point standards and the options that are available related to building height and constructlom RIUN6 AND ACTRESS All parking,areas and driveways must be paved. - Single family: Requires 2 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit. Multip\11e family: Requires 1.5 parking spaces per unit for 1 bedroom. \ (Multi-family - requires 2 parking spaces per unit for 1+ bedrooms.) Multi-family dwelling units with more than 10 required spaces shall provide parking for the use of guests and shall consist of ?5% of the total required parking. (Refer to Code Section 18.106.0301 No more than 40% ofrequired spaces may be designated and/or dimensioned as compact spaces. Parking stalls shall be dime\ Toned as follows: Standard parking space dimensions: 8 ft. 8 inches X 18 ft. Compact parking space dimensions: 8 ft- X 15 ft- Handicapped parking:?4"aces. I parking areas shall provide appropriately located and dimensioned disabled person parking s The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the par ing stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is av ilable upon request. A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space s rface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. '#YC1E RA S Bicyc racks are required for multi-family, commercial and industrial developments. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile raffc and in convenient locations. Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided on the basis of one space for e ry fifteen (15) required vehicular parking spaces. Minimum number of accesses: Minimum access width: Maximum access width: Minimum pavement width: QUIRED WALKWAY LOCATION Within all \ha ched housing (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each residential dwelling b e connected by walkway to the vehicular parking area, common open space and recreation facilities. LU VISION AREA The City requires that clear vision areas be maintained road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. depends upon the abutting street's functional classification. (Refer to Code Section 18.1021 between three and eight feet in height at The size of the required clear -vision area Y of nGAR0 Pre-Upllcaden Conference Notes page 51118 do loll lltlic$aIRMAIallI IMiJIA SAWII ?FFERING? In o 0 SCREENING r to increase privacy and to either reduce or eliminate adverse noise or visual impacts between adjace developments, especially between different land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Bufie; areas mube occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; thes are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may my be occupied by egetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and siz may be found in the Community Development Code. [Refer to Code Cttapter18.100-1 The required buffer O?dths which are applicable to your proposal area are as follows: ft. along\,north boundary. fL along east boundary. ft. along s th boundary. ft. along west boundary. I In addition, sight obscuring scre ing is required along P- Street trees are required for all developments fronting on a public or private street as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six feet of the right-of-way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two inches when measured four feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A minimum of one tree for ev ry seven parking spaces must be planted in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the ' use of landscaped berms, decor ive walls, and raised planters. For detailed information on design ' requirements for parking areas and cesses. [Refer to Code Chapters18.100,18.106 and 18.1081 FF BF OYA1 PLAIT REQUIREMENTS A tree pan 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 C a subdivision, major partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal where possible. The tree plan shall include the following: > Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.150.070-D.. according to the following standards: Retainage of less than 25 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees; Retainage of from 25 to 50 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070.D; 171' OFTIEUD Pro-UD11atlea Caaiarence Notes page 5 011a 'AlaXaXIAJ IIICIUaAMaIIIsI IM11u &aCaaI E • Retainage of from 50 to 75 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires tha: 5o percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070.D; _Retainage of 75 percent or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation: Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; and A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. Trees removed within the period of one (1) year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Sectiorl 18.150.070. D. _ [Refer to Code Section 18.150.0251 710H Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the following guidelines: A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. > If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damages is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: t > The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property. The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. In lieu of tree replacement under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. (Refer to Code Section 18.150.070 (0) 9GNS Sign permits must be obtained prior to installation of any sign in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sian Code Exception application may be filed for review before the Hearings Officer. SMVE ULNBS The ode provides regulations for lands which are potentially unsuitable for development due to areas within the 100-year floodplain, natural drainageways, wetland areas; "on slopes in excess of 25 percent, or on unstable ground. Staff will attempt to preliminarily identify sensitive lands areas at the pre-application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the res onsibili to rQ ecisely identify sensitive lands areas and th .ir boundaries is the res ors nsihility of tFie a2plicant Areas meetinq the definitions of sensitive lands must hP clearer indicated on plant submitted with the development ap to ication [Refer to Code Chapter 18.841 of nwo f * ADW1cxd*a Caateraoa Metes Page 1 of 1e tI1?R1iIL11uut1?Ntiail?t IMal113 SIC001 Chapter 18.84 also provides relations for the use, protection, or m0fication of sensitive lands areas. Residential dpwdopm_Qntis prohibited within floodolains. ' SLOPES When steep slopes exist. prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.84.040.B. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of 18.84.040.8.2 and 18.84.040.B.3. RED SEWERAGE AGENCY [USAI BUFFER STANDARDS, R s 0 96-4T) Purpose: Land development adjacent to sensitive areas shall preserve and maintain or create a vegetated corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive area. Design Criteria: The vegetated corridor shall be a minimum of 25 feet wide, measured horizontally, from the defined boundaries of the sensitive area, except where approval has been granted by the Agency or City to reduce the width of a portion of the corridor. If approval is granted by the Agency or City to reduce the width of a portion of the vegetated corridor, then the surface water in this area shall be directed to an area of the vegetated corridor that is a minimum of 25 feet wide. The maximum allowable encroachment shall be 15 feet, except as allowed in Section 3.11.4. No more than 25 percent of the length of the vegetated corridor within the development or project site can be less than 25 fee: irl width. In any case, the average width of the vegetated corridor shall be a minimum of 25 feet. Restrictions in the Vegetate Corridor: No structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, except as allowed below: > A gravel walkway or bike path, not exceeding 8 feet in width. If the walkway or bike path is paved, then the vegetated corridor must be widened by the width to the path. A paved or gravel walkway or bike path may not be constructed closer than 10 feet from the boundary of the sensitive area, unless approved by the Agency or City. Walkways and bike paths shall be constructed so as to minimize disturbance to existing vegetation; and > Water quality facilities may encroach into the vegetated corridor a maximum of 10 feet with the approval of the Agency or City. P Location of Vegetated Corridor: 1 In any residential development which creates multiple parcels or lots intended for separate 1 ownership, such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a separate tract, and 1 shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit. 1 [Refer tD R s 0 96-44/USA Regulations -Chapter 3, Design for SMU RAn The applicant shall submit a narrative which provides findings for all applicable-approval standards. Failure 1 to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete 1 and delay review of the proposal. Applicant should review code for applicable criteria. O F T1 CARD R? d?pilgtl w Csatstsacs N des r,n M1 o or" AJ Md"d4 L?Uaftfal smiles sactf•r ODE SECTIONS • 18.80 P"18.92 1-1118.100 _? 18.108 18.120 _?18.150 18.84 - 18.96 _ 18.102 _ 18.114 18.130 ,--18.160 18.88 _ 18.98 -i 18.106 _ 18.116 18.134 _ 18.162 ? 18.164 ACT STUDY As a part of the application submittal requirements, applicants are required to include impact study with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at larae, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. [Retorts Coda ChaptMr18.32 Sacdou.0501 When a condition of approval requires 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. [Refer to Cede Chapter 18.32 Section .2501 E 'BORHOOD MEETING --Tt`e app icant shall notify all property owners within 250 feet and the appropriate CIT Facilitator of their 1 proposal. A minimum of 2 weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Pleaso 1 review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. 1 [Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout] 1 and other related permits will not be accepted for review until a land use approval hag 1:. been issued. -Final t inspection -approvals by -the -Building Division will not be granted until there is 1 compliance with all conditions of development approval. :CYC 1 App' ant should contact franchise hauler for review and approval of site servicing compatibility with 1 Pride posal's vehicles. 1 CONTAC PERSON: Lenny Hing with Pride Disposal at (503) 625-6177. 1 [Refer to Code Section 18.1161 PUMONA1 CONCERNS OR COMMEITTS: 1 f 116 D rr*AmU catl to C tafIIm ct M ties rage 9 tf 11 it0a1 Ladcan•aMs"toI 1?YWaa S•visa OCEDURE • • Administrative Staff Review. 4---Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. 'PIICATION SUBM[ITA1 PROCESS All applications must be accepted by a Planning Division staff member of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted by mail or dropped gff at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be retumed Applications will NOT be ac;cuted after 3:00 P.M. on Fridays or 4:30 on other week day,. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 by 11 inches One(11. 8W' x 11" map_of a_pro op sod project should be submitted for attachment t Q he staff report or administrative decision. Application with unfolded maps shall not be accepted, The Planning Division and Engineering Division will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. The administrative decision or public hearing will typically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. A 10, to 2Q day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is availa)ble from the Planning Division upon request. This pre-application conference and the notes of the conference are intended to inform the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. EASE NOTE The conference and notes cannot cover all Code reaulmments and aspects of good site planning that should apply to the development of your site plan. FaAnre of the staff to provide Informabon required try the Code shall not constliIIte a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended that a prospecItive applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to sabmlWng an appllcatiom Additional pre-application conference(s) islare required if an application(s) is/are to be submitted more than six (6) months following this pre-application conference, unless the additional conference(s) is deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division. PREPARED BY: kxj/ Z?4/yp e-?l CITY OFTIGARD PUNNING DIVISION PHONE 15031639-4M fAX: 15031684-7291 )oginsarY'ar-a?yr ru: i9'neennq section preapo.enq) ?6 J4?r•9 Of TlUMB ftv4JvWatlea Cedergs Now PM l1 et 18 shisie. uca.. 0 1100 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES ENGINEERING SECTION City of Tigard, Oregon PUBLIC FACILITIES The purpose of the pre-application conference is to: (1.) Identify applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions. (2.) To provide City staff an opportunity to comment on specific concerns. (3.) To review the Land Use Application review process with the applicant and to identify who the final decision making authority shall be for the application. The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments area projection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. . Right-of-way dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public: (1.) To increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification right-of- way width as specified by the Community Development Code; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for.- (X) emu- IXrJ ??'? to ?y feet from centerline. ( X) ?s?`Crl I ?1 V Cow?=r'z9- to feet from centerline/(Uo' ( ) to feet from centerline. Street improvements: (x) ?I street improvements will be necessary along -v- ?a . k?ahp (111) "1z. 'co Fu L'_ street improvements will be necessary along t,',ct*+ fs a U?, - ? -«^ ( x) Street improvements on Gnu- U-CQ P-oAt> shall include 2Z feet of pavement from centerline, plus the installation of curb and gutters, storm sewers, underground placement of utility wires (a fee may be collected if determined appropriate by the Engineering Department), a five-foot wide sidewalk (sidewalks may be required to be wider on arterials or major collector CITY OF TIGARO Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 5 t g-e q orputmem $ect.on streets, or in the Ce0l Business District), necessary sto signs and traffic control devices, streetlights, and a two year streetlighting fee. (yQ C.L?!reet improvements on shall include `{J feet of pavement fm-m 'to - - 4eia?e, plus the installation of curb and gutters, storm sewers, underground placement of utility wires (a fee may be collected if determined appropriate by the Engineering Department), a five-foot wide sidewalk (sidewalks may be required to be wider on arterials or major collector streets, or in the Central Business District), necessary street. signs and traffic control devii-:"s, streetlights, and a two year streetlighting fee. (?.) Section 18.164.120 of the TMC requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. This requirement is valid even if the utility lines are on the opposite side of the street from the site. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to 5 27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. There are existing overhead utility lines which run adjacent to this site along SW 16? ?k7rJ . n Prior to --;L P--, , the applicant shall either place these utilities underground, or pay the fee in-lieu described above. In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approval may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to execute a non-remonstrance agreement which waives the property owner's right to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district. The following street improvements may be eligible for such an agreement: (2.) Pedestrianwaystbikeways: Sanitary Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) g inch line which is located i? -t eF «+,,i SrCS kw VJcL-nF,?,_o The proposed development must be connected to a public sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to ?-?--.4p QoC,L- +-u:s 'Rri- I- ? ?t-??. pP-or'??> _ ?s . S't?f? 1?,:Y-t` A?? t? ?'>?-oJ?t? To ApJacb.il W (???P? Si ?? S 1 1 1 ICI Y OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 5 k Erj mwinq orpwmw stel'an WatWat=pplY: 9 %P1 66A The ---FZ-o Water Bit - Phone:(503) Ly`1- 4-11 provides public water service in the area of this site. The District should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your proposed development. I" 9._'_ lv1:'l . Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (Contact: Gene Birchill, (503) 526-2469) provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. Storm Sewer Improvements: All proposed development within the City shall be designed such that storm water runoff is conveyed to an approved public drainage system. The applicant will be required to submit a proposed storm drainage plan for the site, and may be required to prepare a subbasin drainage analysis to ensure that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed. A downstream analysis will also likely be necessary to determine if runoff from the proposed development will cause adverse impacts to the existing storm system downstream of the site. ° r?'R-o?l? D?w?.ls-G?a? a,?a?.MSIS ,s.?a - ?kSr?l Pte( Other Comments: All proposed sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems shall be designed such that City maintenance vehicles will have unobstructed access to critical manholes in the systems. Maintenance access roadways may be required if existing or proposed facilities are not otherwise readily accessible. ORM WATER QUALITY The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 91-47, as amended by R&O 91-75) which requires the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remov; CITY OF TICARO Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 0! 5 hEnpwai v Oeputment Srct,on 65 percent of the phosphol* contained in 100 percent of the0orm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing an on-site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City wil use discretion in determining whether or not the fee in-lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of new impervious surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall be $180.00. - Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. It is anticipated that this project will require: (X) Construction of an on-site water quality facility. ( ) Payment of the fee in-lieu. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES In 1990, Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee program collects fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation of the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based fee category. The TIF shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance In limited circumstances, payment of the TIF may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of the payment until occupancy is permissible only when the TIF is greater than $5,000.00. PA?( .RMITS Engineering Department Permits: Any work withirr a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a permit from the Engineering Department. There are two types of permits issued by Engineering, as follows: Street Opening Permit (SOP). This permit covers relatively minor work in a public right-of-way or easement, such as sidewalk and driveway installation or repair, and service connections to main utility lines. This work may involve open trench work within the street. The permittee must submit a plan of the proposed work for review and approval. The cost of this type of permit is calculated as 4% of the cost of the work and is payable prior to issuance of the permit. In addition, the permittee will be required to post a bond or similar financial security for the work. Compliance Agreement (CAP). This permit covers more extensive work such as main utility line extensions, street improvements, etc. In subdivisions, this type of permit also covers al' grading and private utility work. Plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted for review and approval. The cost of this permit is also calculated as 4% of the cos` of the improvements, based on the design engineer's estimate, and is payable prior to issuance of the approved plan. The permittee will also be required to post a performance bond, or other such suitable security, and execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. Prior to City acceptance of any permitted work, and prior to release of work assurance bond(s). the work shall be deemed complete and satisfactory by the City in writing. The permittee is responsible for the work until such time written City acceptance of the work is posted. CITY OF TIGARO Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of fng;nt1-20r9111" tS.ci.on • • NOTE: If an Engineering Permit is required, the applicant must obtain that permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Department. Building Department Permits: The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Department. For a m ;-e detailed explanation of these permits, contact the Development Services Counter at 639-4171, ext. 304. Site Improvement Permit (SIT). This permit is generally issued for all new commercial, industrial and multi-family projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where lot grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation, grading and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading worn, in cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundation excavation material is not to be hauled from the site. Building Permit (BUP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multi-family buildings. It covers all work necessary for building construction, including sub-trades (excludes grading, etc.). This permit can not be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantially complete and a mylar copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the City. For'.a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required, and return a mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit. Other Permits. There are other special permits, such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for more information. GRADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISIONS All subdivision projects shall require a proposed grading plan prepared by the design engineer. The engineer will also be required to indicate which lots have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections will be required when the lots develop. The design engineer will also be required to shade all structural fill areas on the construction plans. In addition, each homebuilder will be required to submit a specific site and floor plan for each lot. The site plan shall include topographical contours and indicate the elevations of the corners of the lot. The builder shall also indicate the proposed elevations at the four comers of the building. PREPARED BY: ?d S(ZZI?-7 ENGINEERING DE ARTMENT Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 , Wpatty\pr eapp. eng t,naster section. preapp•r.mst} December 23, 1996 CITY Of TIGARO Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 5 [ngm?ainp Otpi'tm.nf sw'on CITY OF TIGARD CONIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST cmr of TIOARD The items on the checklist below are required for the succesful completion of your application submission requirements. This checklist identifies what is required to be submitted with your application. This sheet MUST be returned and submitted with all other applicable materials at the time you submit your land use application. See your application for further explanation of these items or call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 635-4171. Staff: WD Date: /ZZ/c?7 APPLICATION & REL-\TED DOCUNIENT(S) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE V MARKED ITEMS A) Application form (i copy) B) Owner's signature/written authorization C) Title transfer instrument/or grant deed D) Applicant's statement E) Filing Fee cam' No. of Copies S z!z,57 SITE-SPECIFIC MAP(SVPLAN(S) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE / MARKED ITEMS A) Site Information showing: No. of Copies Z`1. Vicinity map cA' 2. Site size & dimensions ?- 3. Contour lines (2 ft at 0-10% or S ft for grades > 100J0) ?. Drainage patterns, courses, and ponds 5. Locations of natural hazard areas including: (a) Floodplain areas - ? (b) Slopes in excess of 25% Er- (c) Unstable ground ?- (d) Areas with high seasonal water table ? (e) Areas with severe soil erosion potential 2-- (0 Areas having severely weak foundation soils (r 6. Location of resource areas as shown on the Comprehensive ,tap Inventory including: ? (a) Wildlife habitats ? (b) Wetlands 7. Other site features: (a) Rock outcroppings ? (b) Trees with 6" + caliper measured 4 feet from ground level 2' 8. Location of existing structures and their uses I, 9. Location and type of on and off-site noise sources ? 10. Location of existing utilities and easements d 11. Location of existing dedicated right-of-ways 2' LAND USc APPUUTION / LIST v.r: , no : \ B) Site Develo • ament Plan Indicating: • No. of Copies 1. T; e proposed site and surrounding properties ? 2 C*rtour line intervals ? 3. Th location, dimensions and names of all: (a) Existing & platted streets & other public ways and easements on the site and on adjoining properties ? (b) Proposed streets or other public ways & easements on the site ? (c) Iternative routes of dead end or proposed streets t?iat require future extension - ? 4. The location and dimension of: (a) Ei4frances and exits on the site ? (b) Par ing and circulation areas ? (c) Loa ing and services area ? (d) Pedestrian and bicycle circulation ? (e) Out8?or common areas ? (f) Above ground utilities ? 5. The location dimensions & setback distances of all: `(a) Existini permanent structures, improvements, utilities, and A easem s which are located on the site and on adjacent property ithin 25 feet of the site ? (b) Proposed tructures, improvements, utilities and easements on the site ? 6. Storm drainage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions ? 7. Sanitary sewer fat lilies ? 8. The location areas o be landscaped ? 9. The location and ty e of outdoor lighting considering crime prevention technique ? 10. The location of mailb es a 11. The location of all stru ures and their orientation ? 12. Existing or proposed se r reimbursement agreements ? Q Grading Plan Indicating: No. of Copies Zg The site development plan shall include a grading plan at-the same scale as the site analysis drawings and shall contain the following information: 1. The location and extent to which grading will take place indicating: (a) General contour lines B--I (b) Slope ratios 2-" (c) Soil stabilization proposal(s) (d) Approximate time of year for the proposed site development 2-' 2. A st atement from a registered engineer supported by data factual substantiating: (a) Subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering report 2-1- (b) The validity of sanitary sewer and storm drainage service proposals ta-" (c) That all problems will be mitigated and how they will be mitigated M"" LAND USE APPLICkTION / LLST PAGE 2 OF 5 D) Architectura)Dra,,vinadicatin?S. of Copies The site development plan proposal shall include: 1. Floor plans ? dicating the square footage of all structures proposed for a on-site 2. Typical elevatio drawings of each structure E) Landscape Plan Indicating: No. of Copies 7-q The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale of the site analysis plan or a larger scale if necessary and shall indicate: 1. Description of the irrigation system where applicable ? 2. Location and height of fences, buffers and screenings ? 3. Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and common open spaces ? 4. Location, type, size and species of existing and proposed plant materials e' 5. Landscape narrative which also addresses: (a) Soil conditions ? (b) Erosion control measures that will be used ? Sign Drawings: ? Sign drawings shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter 18.114 of the Code as part of the Site Development Review or prior to obtaining a Building Permit to construct a sign. G) Traffic Generation Estimate: H) Preliminary Partition/Lot Line Adiustment Map Indicating: No. of Copies 1. The owner of the subject parcel ? 2. The owner's a thorized agent ? 3. The map scale (20,50,100 or 200 feet -1) inch north arrow and date ? 4. Description of arcel location and boundaries ? 5. Location, width and names of streets, easements and other public ways within an - adjacent to the parcel ? 6. Location of all dermanent buildings on and within 23 feet of all property lines ? 7. Location and wi th of all water courses ? 8. Location of any trees within 6" or greater caliper at 4 feet above ground level , ? 9. All slopes greater an 25% ? 10. Location of existin? utilities and utility easements ? 11. For major land partition which creates a public street: (a) The proposed right-of-way location and width _ ? (b) A scaled cross-section of the proposed street plus any reserve strip ? 12. Any applicable deed restrictions ? 13. Evidence that land partition will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable ? LAND USE APPL;G{TiO,,4 / usT PAGE 3 OF 3 Subdivision Prelimina?lat ltap and Data Indicating: , of Copies 2y 1. Scale equaling 30,50, 100 or 200 feet to the inch and limited to one phase per sheet 2 The proposed name of the subdivision 3. Vicinity map showing property's relationship to arterial and collector streets 4. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of the owner, developer, engineer, surveyer and designer (as applicable) 5. Date of application 6. Boundary lines of tract to be subdivided e? 7. Names of adjacent subdivision or names of recorded owners of - adjoining parcels of un-subdivided land r? 8. Contour lines related to a City-established benchmark at 2-foot intervals for 0-10% grades greater than 10% 9. The purpose, location, type and size of all the following (within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision): (a) Public and private right-of-ways and easements e- (b) Public and private sanitary and storm sewer lines e' (c) Domestic water mains including fire hydrants tam (d) Major power telephone transmission lines (50,000 volts or greater) o (e) Watercourses Q' (f) Deed reservations for parks, open spaces, pathways and other land encumbrances t d 10. Approximate plan and profiles or proposed sanitary and storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes indicated on the plans ca-, 11. Plan of the proposed water distribution system, showing pipe sizes and the location of valves and fire hydrants 12. Approximate centerline profiles showing the finished grade of all streets including street extensions for a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision a' 13. Scaled cross sections of proposed street right-of-way(s) 14. The location of all areas subject to inundation or storm water overflow 2___ 15. Location, width & direction of flow of all water courses & drainage-ways 16. The proposed lot configurations, approximate lot dimensions and lot numbers. Where lots are to be used for purposes other than residential, it shall be indicated upon such lots. 17. The location of all trees with a diameter 6 inches or greater measured at 4 feet above ground level, and the location of proposed tree plantings Z. 18. The existing uses of the property, including the location of all structures and the present uses of the structures, and a statement of which structures are to remain after platting 19. Supplemental information including: L (a) Proposed deed restrictions (if any) tY (b) Proof of property ownership o-? (c) A proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvements 0? 20. Existing natural features including rock outcroppings, wetlands & marsh areas 21. If anv of the foregoing information cannot practicably be shown on-the preliminary plat, it shall be incorporated into a narrative and submitted with the application LAND USE APc'LICA TION / LLS T PACE J OF 3 0 J) Solar Access Calculations: K) Other Information 0 Ell- No. of Copies e h:`JoymbanylrtsnlrrsV-cyclist. nsr `lav _], 1995 L.l.NO USE APPLICGTION / LIST P.-,GE 5 OF 5 • DISCUSSION Mitigation Criteria: • The Tigard Municipal code provisions for replacement of trees requires off-site mitigation, with replacement tree sizes as reasonably available on the local market, or compensation to the City for like costs (18.150.070 D.3. and D.S.) Review of the site plan indicates that approximately 54% of the tree canopy will remain. Also, the predominant species is Douglas fir. In any areas with compacted soil, Douglas fir and large pine trees should not be planted without soil treatment, or they will not establish a deep root system. Because the grading plan indicates that the areas of tree removal are for streets and building pads where compaction will take place, the Douglas fir is not an appropriate tree for these areas. With the undisturbed project remaining forested, re-planting of mitigation trees should occur off-site as indicated in the Development Code. RECOMMENDATIONS With re-forestation off-site, the concern on-site will be maintaining the integrity of the remaining trees, with root-zone protection, protection from grading activities, and erosion. Standard measures for tree retention and preservation should be more than adequate, including dripline protection using orange snow fencing, delineation and adherence to grading area limits, and standard practices of preventing sediment, erosion, and scour on slopes within the retention areas. Re-forestation off-site should comply to the standards applicable to seedling care and handling, ground preparation, and after-planting care at the time of re-forestation. The mitigation plan contemplates utilizing re-forestation procedures and techniques utilized by the Weyerhaeuser forest group which have statistically good results. QUALIFICATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND LIMITING CONDITIONS I am a certified arborist and I am registered with the Construction Contractors Board. Field inspections were made on 1998. The field inspections and comparisons to the plan were limited to areas designated as mitigation areas, and not where existing trees are to be retained. Where not tagged by myself, I assume that individual tree measurements are correct, and that all trees 12 inches in diameter at 4 feet above ground level have been accounted for by Christensen Engineering, Inc. personnel. Keith Young Arborist # 0 6-19-98 INVENTORY • ELK HORN RIDGE ESTATES TREE INVENTORY (97-111.01) TREE NO. DIAMETER (INCHES) SPECIES CONDITION 1 18 Douglas Fir Good 21 8 Birch Fair 3 8 Birch Poor 41 6 Birch Poor 51 7 Birch Good 6 12 Douglas Fir Good 71 16 Douglas Fir Poor 8 7 Birch Poor 91 6 Birch Good 101 8 Birch Good 11 7 Birch Good 121 7 Douglas Fir Good 131 6 Birch Good 14 1 6 Douglas Fir Good 15 1 6 Cotton Wood Good 16 8 Birch Good 17 8 Birch Good 18 1 12 Douglas Fir Good 19 1 6 Douglas Fir Fair 20 8 Douglas Fir Poor 21 7 Birch Good 22 1 7 Birch Good 23 1 7 Birch Good 24 1 6 Birch Good 25 1 11 Douglas Fir Good 26 1 6 Birch Fair 27 1 6 Birch Fair 28 1 6 Birch Good 29 1 6 Birch Good 30 6 Birch Poor 31 7 Cotton Wood Good 32 1 7 Birch Good 33 1 6 Birch Good 34 6 Birch Good 35 1 6 Birch Poor 36 1 6 Birch Poor 37 1 7 Birch Good 38 7 Birch Good 39 7 Birch Good Page 1 0 6-19-98 INVENTORY • 401 6 Birch Good 411 6 Birch Good 421 6 Birch Good 431 7 Birch Poor 441 6 Birch Fair 451 6 Birch Good 461 7 Douglas Fir Poor r 471 6 Birch Fair 481 8 Birch Fair 491 24 Cherry Dead 501 13 Douglas Fir Good 51 12 Douglas Fir Good 521 8 Doulgas Fir Good 531 7 Birch Good 54 7 Birch Good 551 8 Birch Fair 561 7 Birch Fair 57 7 Douglas Fir Good 581 7 Birch Good 591 6 Birch Good 601 6 Birch Good 611 7 Birch Good 621 6 Birch Good 63 6 Birch Poor 64 6 Birch Fair 65 6 Birch Fair 66 1 7 Birch Fair 67 1 7 Birch Good 68 6 Birch Good 69 6 Birch Good 70 7 Birch Poor 71 1 10 Birch Poor 72 1 8 Birch Good 73 6 Birch Good 74 1 6 Birch Good 75 6 Birch Good 76 7 Birch Good 77 1 6 Birch Poor 78 9 Douglas Fir Good 79 8 Douglas Fir Good 80 1 6 Birch Good 81 1 6 Birch Good 82 1 11 Douglas Fir Good 83 6 Douglas Fir Good 84 7 Douglas Fir Good 85 8 Douglas Fir Good 86 1 6 Douglas Fir Good 87 9 Douglas Fir Good 88 9 Douglas Fir Good Page 2 0 6-19-98 INVENTORY 89 14 Douglas Fir Good 90 6 Birch Good 91 7 Douglas Fir Good 92 9 Douglas Fir Good 93 8 Douglas Fir Good 94 9 Birch Good 95 10 Douglas Fir Good 96 12 Douglas Fir Good 97 6 Birch Poor 98 10 Birch Fair 99 10 Maple Good 100 6 Birch Fair 101 6 Birch Fair 102 17 Douglas Fir Fair 103 7 Birch Fair 1041 7 Birch Fair 1051 7 Douglas Fir Good 106 10 Douglas Fir Fair 1071 6 Birch Fair 108 7 Douglas Fir Good 109 7 Douglas Fir Good 110 6 Birch Good 111 6 Birch Good 112 7 Birch Good 113 6 Birch Good 114 6 Douglas Fir Good 1151 9 Douglas Fir Good 116 8 Douglas Fir Good 117 8 Douglas Fir Poor 118 6 Birch Good 119 12 Douglas Fir Good 120 6 Birch Fair 121 7 Douglas Fir Fair 122 7 Douglas Fir Good 123 7 Douglas Fir Good 124 7 Douglas Fir Fair 125 6 Birch Poor 1261 6 Birch Poor 127 6 Birch Fair 128 16 Willow Dead 129 28 Douglas Fir Good 130 18 Douglas Fir Good 1311 6 Maple Fair 132 7 Maple Fair 133 6 Cotton Wood Good 1341 6 Birch Good 135 7 Birch Poor 136 8 Douglas Fir Good 1371 8 Douglas Fir Good Page 3 • 6-19-98 INVENTORY • 138 6 Birch Good 139 6 Birch Good 140 6 Birch Fair 141 6 Birch Good 142 6 Birch Good 143 6 Birch Good 144 7 Birch Good 145 6 Birch Good 146 6 Cottonwood Good 147 6 Birch Poor 148 6 Birch Good 149 10 Birch Poor 150 8 Douglas Fir Fair 151 7 Maple Good 152 7 Birch Poor 153 6 Birch Fair 154 7 Maple Good 155 9 Douglas Fir Good 156 10 Douglas Fir Good 157 7 Birch Good 158 9 Douglas Fir Good 159 11 Maple Fair 160 6 Birch Poor 161 8 Birch Good 162 12 Cherry Good 163 10 Maple Good 164 6 Maple Good 165 7 Birch Fair 166 10 Walnut Good 167 7 Birch Good 1681 22 Douglas Fir Good 1691 17 Douglas Fir Good 170 15 Cherry Good 171 13 Douglas Fir Good 172 29 Douglas Fir Good 173 9 Douglas Fir Good 174 20 Douglas Fir Good 175 24 Douglas Fir Good r 176 22 Douglas Fir Good 177 22 Douglas Fir Good 178 51 Douglas Fir Good 179 11 Cherry Fair 180 9 Douglas Fir Poor 181 7 Cherry Good 182 56 Douglas Fir Good 183 38 Douglas Fir Good 184 66 Douglas Fir Fair 185 19 Douglas Fir Good 186 6 Maple Good Page 4 • 6-19-98 INVENTORY • 187 7 Walnut Good 1881 12 Cherry Good 189 11 Birch Poor 190 12 Birch Poor 191 9 Birch Good 192 8 Douglas Fir Good 193 11 Douglas Fir Good 194 9 Birch Good 195 7 Birch Poor 196 7 Willow Poor 197 9 Douglas Fir Good 198 7 Birch Good 199 9 Birch Good 200 7 Birch Fair . 201 8 Douglas Fir Dead 202 25 Douglas Fir Good 2031 10 Douglas Fir Good 204 8 Hawthorne Poor 205 6 Birch Poor 206 6 Birch Good 207 14 Douglas Fir Poor 2081 6 Birch Poor 209 26 Douglas Fir Good 210 9 Douglas Fir Poor 211 9 Cherry Poor 212 25 Douglas Fir Good 213 23 Douglas Fir Good 214 12 Douglas Fir Dead 215 10 Douglas Fir Dead 216 32 Douglas Fir Good 217 13 Willow Poor 218 15 Cherry Fair 219 6 Maple Fair 220 9 Douglas Fir Fair 221 9 Cherry Good 222 18 Fir Good 223 6 Willow Poor 224 7 Birch Fair 225 1 7 Cherry Good 226 7 Cherry Good 227 19 Douglas Fir Good 228 22 Douglas Fir Good 229 10 Cherry Good 230 9 Cherry Fair 231 6 Birch Poor 232 19 Douglas Fir Good 233 28 Douglas Fir Fair 234 11 10 Cherry Poor 235 8 Cherry Good Page 5 9 6-19-98 INVENTORY • 2361 26 Douglas Fir Good 237 10 Douglas Fir Fair 2381 6 Cherry Good 2391 12 Douglas Fir Fair 2401 8 Douglas Fir Fair 241 6 Birch Poor 2421 15 Douglas Fir Dead 243 21 Douglas Fir Good 244 14 Douglas Fir Fair 2451 8 Cherry Good 2461 32 Douglas Fir Good 247 6 Douglas Fir Dead 248 31 Douglas Fir Good 249 18 Douglas Fir Fair 250 6 Douglas Fir Fair 251 7 Willow Poor 252 10 Willow Good 2531 6 Douglas Fir Fair 2541 6 Cherry Good 255 20 Cherry Good 256 31 Douglas Fir Good 257 16 Douglas Fir Poor 258 21 Douglas Fir Good 259 15 Douglas Fir Good 260 29 Douglas Fir Good 261 26 Douglas Fir Good 262 33 Douglas Fir Good 263 10 Cherry Poor 264 10 Douglas Fir Poor 265 18 Douglas Fir Good 266 11 Douglas Fir Fair 267 6 Douglas Fir Poor 268 28 Douglas Fir Good 269 23 Douglas Fir Good 270 15 Douglas Fir Poor 271 20 Douglas Fir Good 272 26 Douglas Fir Good 273 15 Douglas Fir Good 274 13 Douglas Fir Fair 275 12 Cherry Fair 276 7 Birch Poor 277 21 Douglas Fir Good 278 7 Douglas Fir Poor 279 24 Cherry Good 280 6 Cherry Good 281 6 Douglas Fir Dead 282 8 Cherry Good 283 27 Douglas Fir Good 284 12 Cherry Good Page 6 • 6-19-98 INVENTORY 0 285 6 Birch Fair 286 12 Cherry Fair 287 8 Douglas Fir Dead 288 15 Douglas Fir Fair 289 23 Douglas Fir Good 290 25 Douglas Fir Good 291 15 Douglas Fir Fair 292 28 Douglas Fir Good 293 11 Douglas Fir Fair 294 29 Douglas Fir Good 295 27 Douglas Fir Good 296 8 Douglas Fir Dead 297 7 Willow Poor 298 36 Douglas Fir Good 299 24 Douglas Fir Good 300 10 Cherry Fair 301 15 Douglas Fir Good 302 10 Douglas Fir Good 303 28 Douglas Fir Good 304 8 Douglas Fir Dead 305 15 Douglas Fir Good 306 8 Cherry Fair 307 12 Douglas Fir Good 308 14 Douglas Fir Fair 309 9 Douglas Fir Fair 310 28 Douglas Fir Good 311 36 Douglas Fir Fair 312 16 Douglas Fir Dead 313 6 Birch Poor 314 12 Douglas Fir Good 315 19 Douglas Fir Good 316 12 Douglas Fir Dead 317 15 Douglas Fir Poor 318 26 Douglas Fir Good 319 11 Douglas Fir Fair 320 13 Douglas Fir Poor 321 11 Douglas Fir Fair 322 21 Douglas Fir Good 323 20 Douglas Fir Good 324 7 Birch Poor 325 12 Douglas Fir Fair 326 18 Douglas Fir Good 327 10 Douglas Fir Dead 328 48 Douglas Fir Fair 329 12 Douglas Fir Fair 330 31 Douglas Fir Good 331 32 Douglas Fir Good 332 8 Douglas Fir Poor 333 27 Douglas Fir Good Page 7 • 6-19-98 INVENTORY • 334 26 Douglas Fir Good 335 6 Willow Good 336 8 Willow Fair 337 10 Willow Poor 338 17 Douglas Fir Good 339 14 Douglas Fir Fair 340 16 Douglas Fir Good 341 6 Birch Good 342 13 Douglas Fir Good 343 6 Douglas Fir Dead 344 7 Birch Good 345 16 Douglas Fir Poor 346 6 Willow Fair 347 15 Douglas Fir Good 348 6 Cherry Poor 349 36 Douglas Fir Good 350 34 Douglas Fir Good 351 10 Douglas Fir Fair 352 22 Douglas Fir Good 353 9 Douglas Fir Dead 354 13 Douglas Fir Poor 355 27 Douglas Fir Fair 356 28 Douglas Fir Good 357 29 Douglas Fu Good 358 7 Douglas Fir Good 359 14 Douglas Fir Fair 360 24 Douglas Fir Good 361 17 Douglas Fir Good, 362 21 Douglas Fir Good 363 23 Douglas Fir Good 364 8 Douglas Fir Dead 365 6 Birch Fair 366 6 Maple Fair 367 21 Douglas Fir Good 368 31 Douglas Fir Good 369 13 Douglas Fir Good 370 12 Madron Fair 371 21 Douglas Fir Good 372 17 Douglas Fir Good 373 35 Douglas Fir Good 374 6 Birch Poor 375 8 Douglas Fir Dead 376 18 Douglas Fir Good 377 36 Douglas Fir Good 378 6 Douglas Fir Good 379 6 Birch Good 380 23 Douglas Fir Good 381 20 Douglas Fir Good 382 18 Douglas Fir Fair Page 8 • 6-19-98 INVENTORY , 383 6 Birch Poor 384 7 Cherry Good 385 6 Birch Good 386 18 Douglas Fir Good 387 31 Douglas Fir Good 388 23 Douglas Fir Good 389 16 Douglas Fir Good 390 6 Douglas Fir Fair 391 21 Douglas Fir Good 392 29 Douglas Fir Good 393 33 Douglas Fir Good 394 30 Douglas Fir Good 395 9 Willow Good 396 8 Willow Good 397 8 Willow Good 398 6 Birch Fair 399 8 Birch Good 400 6 Willow Good 401 6 Birch Poor 402 8 Douglas Fir Fair 403 30 Douglas Fir Good 404 12 Douglas Fir Good 405 18 Douglas Fir Good 406 6 Birch Poor 407 9 Douglas Fir Good 408 6 Douglas Fir Good 409 9 Willow Fair 410 10 Douglas Fir Good 411 9 Willow Poor 412 8 Willow Good 413 18 Douglas Fir Good 414 6 Birch Good 415 16 Douglas Fir Good 416 6 Birch Poor 417 10 Douglas Fir Good 418 7 Douglas Fir Fair 419 13 Douglas Fir Good 420 7 Douglas Fir Good 421 28 Douglas Fir Fair 422 6 Douglas Fir Dead 423 15 Cherry Poor 424 29 Douglas Fir Good 425 10 Cherry Poor 426 27 Douglas Fir Good 427 24 Douglas Fir Good 428 7 Birch Poor 429 11 Douglas Fir Good 430 29 Douglas Fir Good 431 12 Douglas Fir Good Page 9 • 6-19-98 INVENTORY 432 24 Douglas Fir Fair 433 8 Birch Fair 434 23 Douglas Fir Good 435 14 Maple Fair 436 10 Birch Fair 437 8 Cherry Poor 438 10 Douglas Fir Good 439 14 Cherry Good 440 10 Birch Poor 441 16 Douglas Fir Fair 442 18 Douglas Fir Fair 443 8 Maple Poor 444 33 Douglas Fir Good 445 18 Douglas Fir Fair 446 12 Maple Poor 447 21 Douglas Fir Fair 448 10 Douglas Fir Dead 449 15 Douglas Fir Good 450 33 Douglas Fir Good 451 16 Maple Poor 452 19 Douglas Fir Fair 453 20 Douglas Fir Fair 454 6 Douglas Fir Good 455 16 Douglas Fir Fair 456 19 Douglas Fir Good 457 22 Douglas Fir Good 458 21 Douglas Fir Fair 459 23 Douglas Fir Fair 460 9 Douglas Fir Poor 461 17 Douglas Fir Fair 462 23 Douglas Fir Good 463 22 Douglas Fir Good 464 18 Douglas Fir Fair 465 8 Douglas Fir Dead 466 21 Douglas Fir Good 467 27 Douglas Fir Good 468 7 Douglas Fir Poor 469 19 Douglas Fir Dead 470 21 Douglas Fir Fair 471 17 Douglas Fir Fair 472 8 Douglas Fir Poor 473 7 Douglas Fir Dead 474 8 Douglas Fir Dead 475 14 Douglas Fir Poor 476 13 Douglas Fir Fair 477 16 Maple Poor 478 13 Douglas Fir Fair 479 26 Douglas Fir Good 480 11 Douglas Fir Fair Page 10 i 6-19-98 INVENTORY 481 22 Douglas Fir Fair 482 24 Douglas Fir Good 483 26 Douglas Fir Good 484 6 Douglas Fir Dead 485 9 Douglas Fir Dead 486 20 Douglas Fir Fair 487 13 Cherry Fair 488 13 Douglas Fir Fair 489 18 Douglas Fir Fair 490 16 Douglas Fir Fair 491 10 Douglas Fir Dead 492 11 Douglas Fir Fair 493 9 Douglas Fir Dead 494 17 Douglas Fir Good 495 11 Douglas Fir Poor 496 15 Douglas Fir Fair 497 26 Douglas Fir Good 498 13 Douglas Fir Poor 499 8 Cedar Good 500 9 Douglas Fir Dead 501 14 Douglas Fir Fair 502 12 Douglas Fir Poor 503 19 Douglas Fir Fair 504 19 Douglas Fir Fair 505 12 Douglas Fir Poor 506 10 Douglas Fir Fair 507 19 Douglas Fir Good 508 25 Douglas Fir Good 509 12 Douglas Fir Fair 510 19 Douglas Fir Fair 511 22 Douglas Fir Good 512 12 Douglas Fir Fair 513 17 Douglas Fir Good 514 18 Douglas Fir Fair 515 21 Douglas Fir Good 516 9 Douglas Fir Poor 517 15 Douglas Fir Fair 518 12 Douglas Fir Fair 519 21 Douglas Fir Fair 520 9 Douglas Fir Fair 521 11 Douglas Fir Dead 522 12 Douglas Fir Poor 523 13 Douglas Fir Good 524 22 Douglas Fir Fair 525 11 Douglas Fir Poor 526 10 Douglas Fir Good 527 19 Douglas Fir Good 528 27 Douglas Fir Good 529 10 Douglas Fir Fair Page 11 0 6-19-98 INVENTORY • 530 16 Douglas Fir Fair 531 19 Douglas Fir Fair 532 9 Douglas Fir Fair 533 13 Douglas Fir Good 534 16 Willow Good 535 14 Douglas Fir Fair 536 8 Douglas Fir Fair 537 18 Douglas Fir Fair 538 26 Douglas Fir Fair 539 22 Douglas Fir Fair 540 18 Douglas Fir Good 541 14 Douglas Fir Good 542 16 Douglas Fir Fair 543 6 Douglas Fir Dead 544 18 Douglas Fir Fair 545 11 Douglas Fir Dead 546 20 Douglas Fir Fair 547 21 Douglas Fir Fair 548 14 Douglas Fir Fair 549 34 Douglas Fir Good 550 11 Douglas Fir Poor 551 14 Douglas Fir Fair 552 20 Douglas Fir Good 553 8 Douglas Fir Dead 554 15 Douglas Fir Fair 555 20 Douglas Fir Fair 556 6 Douglas Fir Dead 557 17 Douglas Fir Fair 558 10 Douglas Fir Good 559 9 Douglas Fir Dead 560 19 Douglas Fir Good 561 27 Douglas Fir Good 562 12 Douglas Fir Good 563 7 Douglas Fir Dead 564 12 Douglas Fir Dead 565 17 Douglas Fir Fair 566 9 Maple Fair 567 8 Douglas Fir Dead 568 19 Douglas Fir Fair 569 23 Douglas Fir Good 570 33 Douglas Fir Good 571 18 Douglas Fir Fair 572 13 Maple Fair 573 14 Douglas Fir Fair 574 10 Douglas Fir Dead 575 5 Douglas Fir Fair 576 14 Douglas Fir Fair 577 12 Douglas Fir Poor 578 18 Douglas Fir Fair Page 12 0 6-19-98 INVENTORY 0 579 24 Douglas Fir Fair 580 14 Douglas Fir Poor 581 8 Douglas Fir Dead 582 22 Douglas Fir Fair 583 19 Douglas Fir Poor 584 21 Douglas Fir Good 585 22 Douglas Fir Fair 586 11 Douglas Fir Good 587 14 Douglas Fir Fair 588 23 Douglas Fir Good 589 21 Douglas Fir Good 590 10 Douglas Fir Poor 591 21 Douglas Fir Fair 592 23 Douglas Fir Fair 593 20 Douglas Fir Good 594 19 Douglas Fir Good 595 18 Douglas Fir Fair 596 7 Maple Dead 597 14 Douglas Fir Fair 598 11 Douglas Fir Fair 599 28 Douglas Fir Good 600 18 Douglas Fir Fair 601 22 Douglas Fir Good 602 20 Douglas Fir Fair 603 22 Douglas Fir Fair 604 22 Douglas Fir Good 605 9 Douglas Fir Fair 606 12 Douglas Fir Fair 607 18 Douglas Fir Good 608 14 Douglas Fir Fair 609 10 Douglas Fir Fair 610 27 Douglas Fir Good 611 14 Douglas Fir Fair 612 21 Douglas Fir Fair 613 20 Douglas Fir Fair 614 15 Douglas Fir Poor 615 10 Douglas Fir Dead 616 36 Douglas Fir Good 617 17 Douglas Fir Fair 618 7 Douglas Fir Dead 619 23 Douglas Fir Good 620 20 Douglas Fir Fair 621 17 Douglas Fir Fair 622 16 Douglas Fir Fair 623 7 Douglas Fir Dead 624 13 Douglas Fir Fair 625 23 Douglas Fir Good 626 14 Douglas Fir Fair 627 7 Douglas Fir Dead Page 13 • 6-19-98 INVENTORY • 628 16 Douglas Fir Fair 629 24 Douglas Fir Good 630 25 Douglas Fir Good 631 16 Douglas Fir Fair 632 20 Douglas Fir Fair 633 21 Douglas Fir Fair 634 13 Douglas Fir Dead 635 14 Douglas Fir Fair 636 8 Douglas Fir Dead 637 9 Douglas Fir Fair 638 17 Douglas Fir Fair 639 16 Douglas Fir Fair 640 17 Douglas Fir Good 641 15 Douglas Fir Good 642 15 Douglas Fir Good 643 8 Douglas Fir Fair 644 17 Douglas Fir Fair 645 10 Douglas Fir Fair 646 20 Douglas Fir Fair 647 23 Douglas Fir Good 648 12 Douglas Fir Poor 649 18 Douglas Fir Good 650 19 Douglas Fir Good 651 6 Douglas Fir Fair 652 22 Douglas Fir Good 653 9 Douglas Fir Fair 654 15 Douglas Fir Fair 655 14 Douglas Fir Fair 656 9 Douglas Fir Dead 657 20 Douglas Fir Fair 658 10 Douglas Fir Poor 659 20 Douglas Fir Fair 660 10 Douglas Fir Poor 661 23 Douglas Fir Fair 662 28 Douglas Fir Good 663 12 Cherry Poor 664 14 Douglas Fir Fair 665 15 Douglas Fir Fair 666 16 Douglas Fir Fair 667 13 Douglas Fir Fair 668 6 Douglas Fir Dead 669 12 Douglas Fir Poor 670 9 Douglas Fir Fair 671 6 Douglas Fir Dead 672 10 Douglas Fir Fair 673 13 Douglas Fir Fair 674 24 Douglas Fir Good 675 23 Douglas Fir Good 676 12 Alder Poor Page 14 • 6-19-98 INVENTORY • 677 8 Douglas Fir Poor 678 23 Douglas Fir Fair 679 15 Douglas Fir Good 680 8 Douglas Fir Dead 681 17 Douglas Fir Good 682 13 Douglas Fir Poor 683 30 Douglas Fir Good 684 8 Douglas Fir Dead 685 21 Douglas Fir Good 686 8 Douglas Fir Good 687 8 Douglas Fir Dead 688 10 Douglas Fir Poor 689 10 Douglas Fir Poor 690 10 Douglas Fir Fair 691 12 Douglas Fir Poor 692 41 Douglas Fir Fair 693 30 Douglas Fir Good 694 12 Maple Fair 695 11 Maple Dead 696 18 Douglas Fir Fair 697 15 Maple Poor 698 8 Douglas Fir Dead 699 8 Douglas Fir Dead 700 8 Douglas Fir Poor 701 12 Douglas Fir Fair 702 14 Douglas Fir Poor 703 7 Maple Poor 704 11 Douglas Fir Fair 705 17 Douglas Fir Good 706 10 Douglas Fir Fair 707 8 Douglas Fir Fair 708 13 Douglas Fir Good 709 12 Maple Poor 710 32 Douglas Fir Fair 711 8 Douglas Fir Dead 712 10 Maple Good 713 17 Douglas Fir Good 714 15 Douglas Fir Good 715 19 Douglas Fir Good 716 7 Douglas Fir Fair 717 8 Maple Poor 718 13 Douglas Fir Fair 719 8 Douglas Fir Fair 720 7 Douglas Fir Dead 721 9 Douglas Fir Dead 722 15 Douglas Fir Good 723 12 Douglas Fir Fair 724 10 Douglas Fir Dead 725 15 Douglas Fir Good Page 15 • 6-19-98 INVENTORY • 726 23 Douglas Fir Good 727 10 Douglas Fir Dead 728 10 Maple Fair 729 18 Douglas Fir Fair 730 .6 Douglas Fir Dead 731 10 Douglas Fir Fair 732 15 Alder Fair 733 16 Douglas Fir Fair 734 42 Douglas Fir Good 735 23 Douglas Fir Dead 736 14 Maple Fair 737 7 Douglas Fir Fair 738 12 Douglas Fir Fair 739 14 Douglas Fir Fair 740 10 Maple Good 741 8 Maple Fair 742 20 Douglas Fir Good 743 8 Douglas Fir Dead 744 20 Douglas Fir Good 745 20 Douglas Fir Good 746 15 Douglas Fir Good 747 8 Douglas Fir Dead 748 10 Maple Poor 749 6 Douglas Fir Poor 750 13 Maple Fair 751 15 Douglas Fir Fair 752 6 Douglas Fir Poor 753 15 Douglas Fir Fair 754 6 Douglas Fir Dead 755 10 Maple Good 756 10 Douglas Fir Fair 757 20 Douglas Fir Good 758 16 Douglas Fir Good 759 8 Douglas Fir Poor 760 8 Douglas Fir Fair 761 10 Maple Good 762 7 Maple Poor 763 8 Maple Poor 764 10 Maple Fair 765 41 Douglas Fir Good 766 12 Douglas Fir Fair 767 10 Alder Poor 768 13 Maple Poor 769 8 Maple Poor 770 12 Maple Poor 771 13 Maple Fair 772 10 Maple Fair 775 23 Douglas Fir Dead 776 12 Maple Fair Page 16 0 6-19-98 INVENTORY • 778 39 Douglas Fir Good 779 25 Douglas Fir Good 780 8 Maple Fair 781 32 Douglas Fir Poor 782 8 Douglas Fir Dead 783 44 Douglas Fir Good 785 12 Cherry Fair 787 9 Douglas Fir Fair 788 8 Maple Poor 791 8 Maple Fair 792 24 Douglas Fir Fair 793 24 Douglas Fir Good 794 16 Douglas Fir Dead 796 11 Maple Fair 804 11 Maple Good 805 10 Maple Good 807 11 Maple Fair 809 13 Douglas Fir Good 811 9 Maple Fair 812 9 Maple Fair 813 7 Maple Poor 814 8 Maple Poor 816 10 Maple Poor 817 10 Maple Poor 818 13 Maple Poor 819 38 Douglas Fir Good 820 9 Maple Poor 821 7 Maple Poor 822 24 Maple Poor 823 9 Maple Poor 824 13 Douglas Fir Poor 825 10 Maple Good 826 29 Douglas Fir Good 827 9 Douglas Fir Fair 828 14 Maple Poor 829 26 Douglas Fir Good 830 49 Douglas Fir Good 831 34 Douglas Fir Fair 832 32 Douglas Fir Good 833 41 Douglas Fir Good 834 44 Douglas Fir Good 835 39 Douglas Fir Good 836 9 Maple Poor 838 14 Maple Good 839 13 Maple Poor 841 14 Douglas Fir Poor 842 10 Maple Poor 844 24 Douglas Fir Good 845 21 Douglas Fir Good Page 17 • 6-19-98 INVENTORY 0 846 7 Maple Poor 847 10 Maple Good 848 9 Maple Poor 849 34 Douglas Fir Good 851 8 Maple Fair 856 9 Maple Poor 857 14 Maple Good 858 14 Maple Poor 859 19 Douglas Fir Poor 860 12 Maple Poor 862 13 Maple Dead 864 10 Douglas Fir Poor 867 12 Maple Fair 871 10 Douglas Fir Poor 873 9 Douglas Fir Dead 874 12 Maple Fair 879 14 Maple Poor 880 12 Maple Poor 881 10 Douglas Fir Fair 883 10 Maple Poor 887 13 Maple Poor 888 11 Maple Good 889 8 Maple Good 890 16 Douglas Fir Fair 891 47 Douglas Fir Good 892 18 Douglas Fir Good 896 Maple Good 897 18 Douglas Fir Good 899 16 Douglas Fir Good 902 7 Maple Dead 903 9 Alder Poor 904 _8 Maple Poor 905 19 Douglas Fir Good 906 9 Maple Fair 907 19 Douglas Fir Good 908 49 Douglas Fir Good 909 62 Douglas Fir Good 910 8 Maple Poor 911 7 Maple Fair 913 28 Douglas Fir Poor 914 19 Douglas Fir Poor 915 15 Alder Poor 916 18 Douglas Fir Dead 917 8 Maple Poor 918 30 Douglas Fir Dead 919 10 Maple Fair 920 30 Douglas Fir Good 921 9 Maple Fair 922 14 Maple Fair Page 18 • 6-19-98 INVENTORY • 923 28 Douglas Fir Good 924 24 Douglas Fir Good 925 14 Douglas Fir Fair 926 27 Douglas Fir Good 927 14 Maple Good 929 7 Maple Poor 931 8 Maple Fair 933 12 Maple Fair 934 32 Douglas Fir Good 936 8 Maple Fair 938 9 Maple Fair 939 38 Douglas Fir Poor 940 10 Maple Poor 942 19 Douglas Fir Good 943 14 Maple Good 945 15 Maple Poor 948 8 Maple Poor 949 16 Douglas Fir Good 951 10 Maple Fair 953 11 Maple Fair 954 8 Maple Dead 955 8 Douglas Fir Poor 956 8 Maple Poor 957 8 Maple Poor 961 11 Douglas Fir Fair 963 9 Douglas Fir Fair 964 12 Maple Poor 965 12 Maple Fair 966 12 Maple Fair 968 20 Douglas Fir Dead 969 14 Douglas Fir Poor 970 10 Douglas Fir Fair 971 9 Douglas Fir Poor 972 14 Douglas Fir Poor 973 31 Douglas Fir Good 974 15 Douglas Fir Good 975 13 Maple Poor 976 8 Douglas Fir Dead 977 24 Douglas Fir Good 978 11 Douglas Fir Poor 979 20 Douglas Fir Good 980 10 Maple Poor 981 10 Maple Fair 982 10 Douglas Fir Poor 984 12 Maple Poor 985 46 Douglas Fir Good 986 16 Maple Good 987 7 Douglas Fir Poor 988 8 Douglas Fir Poor Page 19 • 6-19-98 INVENTORY • 989 13 Maple Poor 990 12 Douglas Fir Poor 991 12 Douglas Fir Good 992 12 Douglas Fir Fair 993 17 Douglas Fir Good 994 16 Maple Fair 995 9 Douglas Fir Fair 997 8 Maple Poor 998 8 Douglas Fir Dead 999 22 Douglas Fir Fair 1000 33 Douglas Fir Good 2014 8 Birch Good 2015 8 Douglas Fir Good 2016 10 Birch Good 2017 14 Douglas Fir Good 2018 8 Douglas Fir Good 2019 12 Douglas Fir Good 2020 12 Douglas Fir Good 2021 10 Birch Good 2022 11 Cherry Good 2028 45 Douglas Fir Good 2029 24 Douglas Fir Good 2030 48 Douglas Fir Good 2031 30 Douglas Fir Good 2032 12 Douglas Fir Good 2033 36 Douglas Fir Good 2034 13 Douglas Fir Good 2035 15 Douglas Fir Good 2036 33 Douglas Fir Good 2037 18 Douglas Fir Good 2038 23 Douglas Fir Good 2039 9 Cherry Good 2040 9 Cherry Good 2041 30 Douglas Fir Good 2042 26 Douglas Fir Good 2043 30 Douglas Fir Good 2044 30 Douglas Fir Good 2045 35 Douglas Fir Good 2046 10 Douglas Fir Good 2047 16 Douglas Fir Good 2048 24 Douglas Fir Good 2049 40 Douglas Fir Good 2050 55 Douglas Fir Good 2051 11 Cherry Good 2052 24 Douglas Fir Good 2053 10 Cherry Good 2054 12 Douglas Fir Good 2055 14 Douglas Fir Good 2056 19 Douglas Fir Good Page 20 • 6-19-98 INVENTORY • 2057 38 Douglas Fir Good 2058 24 Walnut Good 2059 46 Douglas Fir Good 2060 16 Douglas Fir Good 2061 48 Douglas Fir Good 2062 32 Douglas Fir Good 2063 27 Douglas Fir Good 2064 27 Douglas Fir Good 2065 18 Douglas Fir Good 2066 46 Douglas Fir Good 2067 48 Douglas Fir Good 2068 8 Douglas Fir Good 2069 27 Douglas Fir Good 2070 14 Douglas Fir Good 2072 20 Douglas Fir Good 2073 36 Douglas Fir Good 2074 22 Douglas Fir Good 2077 20 Douglas Fir Good 2078 42 Douglas Fir Good 2079 20 Douglas Fir Good 2080 16 Douglas Fir Good 2081 12 Douglas Fir Good 2082 18 Douglas Fir Good 2083 15 Douglas Fir Good 2091 27 Douglas Fir Good 2092 30 Douglas Fir Good 2093 19 Douglas Fir Good 2094 19 Douglas Fir Good 2095 10 Maple Good 2096 14 Douglas Fir Good 2110 38 Douglas Fir Good 2111 12 Douglas Fir Good 2122 14 Douglas Fir Good 2123 10 Douglas Fir Good 2124 11 Cottonwood Good 2125 12 Douglas Fir Good 2127 26 Douglas Fir Good 2128 17 Douglas Fir Good 2129 18 Douglas Fir Good 2130 17 Douglas Fir Good 2131 18 Douglas Fir Good 2132 13 Douglas Fir Good 2133 22 Douglas Fir Good 2134 16 Douglas Fir Good 2135 24 Douglas Fir Good 2136 16 Douglas Fir Good 2137 24 Douglas Fir Good 2141 16 Douglas Fir Good 2144 14 Douglas Fir Good Page 21 i 6-19-98 INVENTORY • 2145 19 Douglas Fir Good 2146 18 Douglas Fir Good 2147 18 Douglas Fir Good 2148 22 Douglas Fir Good 2149 29 Douglas Fir Good 2150 22 Douglas Fir Good 2151 15 Douglas Fir Good 2152 10 Maple Good 2153 28 Douglas Fir Good 2154 14 Douglas Fir Good 2161 19 Maple Good 2162 12 Maple Good 2163 18 Douglas Fir Good 2164 38 Douglas Fir Good 2165 50 Douglas Fir Good 2171 15 Maple Good 2172 60 Douglas Fir Good 2173 27 Douglas Fir Good 2174 20 Maple Good 2175 24 Maple Good 2178 36 Douglas Fir Good 2179 52 Douglas Fir Good 2180 45 Douglas Fir Good 2187 54 Douglas Fir Good 2188 20 Maple Good 2189 17 Maple Good 2190 20 Maple Good 2191 24 Maple Good 2192 22 Maple Good 2193 23 Maple Good 2194 20 Maple Good 2195 20 Maple Good 2196 20 Maple Good 2197 18 Maple Good 2201 32 Douglas Fir Good 2203 28 Douglas Fir Good 2204 70 Douglas Fir Good 2205 24 Douglas Fir Good 2209 36 Douglas Fir Good 2212 40 Douglas Fir Good 2213 18 Maple Good 2216 22 Douglas Fir Good 2217 45 Douglas Fir Good 2219 10 Maple Good 2220 27 Douglas Fir Good 2221 27 Douglas Fir Good 2222 10 Maple Good 2223 45 Douglas Fir Good 2224 24 Maple Good Page 22 • 6-19-98 INVENTORY • 2225 12 Maple Good 2226 24 Douglas Fir Good 2227 15 Douglas Fir Good 2228 48 Douglas Fir Good 2229 30 Douglas Fir Good 2230 34 Douglas Fir Good 2231 34 Douglas Fir Good 2232 42 Douglas Fir Good 2233 48 Douglas Fir Good 2234 39 Douglas Fir Good 2235 30 Douglas Fir Good 2236 40 Douglas Fir Good 2237 14 Maple Good 2238 60 Douglas Fir Good 2239 40 Douglas Fir Good Page 23 6-19-98 MITIGATION ELK HORN RIDGE ESTATES TREE MITIGATION (97-111.01) TREE DIAMETER TO BE M SPECIES :CONDITION! NO. (INCHES) REMOVED MITIGATION 6 12 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 18 12 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 51 12 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 96 12 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 119 12 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 162 12 YES YES NO Cherry Good 188 12 YES YES NO Cherry Good 190 12 YES NO YES Birch Poor 214 12 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Dead 239 12 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 275 12 NO NO Cherry Fair 284 12 YES YES NO Cherry Good 286 12 NO NO Cherry Fair 307 12 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 314 12 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 316 12 NO YES Douglas Fir Dead 325 12 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 329 12 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 370 12 NO NO Madron Fair 404 12 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 431 12 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 446 12 YES NO YES Maple Poor 502 _ 12 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 505 12 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 509 12 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 512 12 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 518 12 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 522 12 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 562 12 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 564 12 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Dead 577 12 NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 606 12 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 648 12 NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 663 12 YES NO YES Cherry Poor 669 12 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 676 12 YES NO YES Alder Poor 691 12 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 694 12 YES YES NO Maple Fair 701 12 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 709 12 YES NO YES Maple Poor Page 1 0 6-19-98 MITIGATION 0 TREE DIAMETER TO BE MITIGABLE EXEMPT FROM SPECIES 1 CONDITION, NO. (INCHES) REMOVED MITIGATION 723 12 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 738 12 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 766 12 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 770 12 YES NO YES Maple Poor 776 12 NO NO Maple Fair 785 12 NO NO Cherry Fair 860 12 YES NO YES Maple Poor 867 12 NO NO Maple Fair 874 12 YES YES NO Maple Fair 880 12 YES NO YES Maple Poor 933 12 NO NO Maple Fair 964 12 YES NO YES Maple Poor 965 12 NO NO Maple Fair 966 12 NO NO Maple Fair 984 12 YES NO YES Maple Poor 990 12 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 991 12 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 992 12 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 2019 12 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2020 12 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2032 12 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2054 12 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2081 12 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2111 12 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2125 12 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2162 12 YES YES NO Maple Good 2225 12 YES YES NO Maple Good 50 13 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 171 13 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 217 13 YES NO YES Willow Poor 274 13 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 320 13 NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 342 13 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 354 13 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 369 13 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 419 13 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 476 13 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 478 13 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 487 13 YES YES NO Cherry Fair 488 13 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 498 13 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 523 13 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 533 13 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 572 13 NO NO Maple Fair 624 13 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 634, 13 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Dead 667 13 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair Page 2 • 6-19-98 MITIGATION • TREE DIAMETER TO BE MITIGABLE EXEMPT FROM SPECIES CONDITION NO. (INCHES) REMOVED MITIGATION 673 13 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 682 13 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 708 13 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 718 13 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 750 13 NO NO Maple Fair 768 13 NO YES Maple Poor 771 13 NO NO Maple Fair 809 13 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 818 13 YES NO YES Maple Poor 824 13 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 839 13 NO YES Maple Poor 862 13 YES NO YES Maple Dead 887 13 YES NO YES Maple Poor 975 13 NO YES Maple Poor 989 13 NO YES Maple Poor 2034 13 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2132 13 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 89 14 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 207 14 NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 244 14 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 308 14 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 339 14 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 359 14 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 435 14 YES YES NO Maple Fair 439 14 NO NO Cherry Good 475 14 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 501 14 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 535 14 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 541 14 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 548 14 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 551 14 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 573 14 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 576 14 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 580 14 NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 587 14 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 597 14 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 608 14 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 611 14 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 626 14 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 635 14 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 655 14 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 664 14 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 702 14 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 736 14 NO NO Maple Fair 739 14 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 828 14 YES NO YES Maple Poor 838 14 NO NO Maple Good Page 3 • 6-19-98 MITIGATION • TREE DIAMETER TO BE M SPECIES I CONDITION NO. (INCHES) REMOVED MITIGATION 841 14 NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 857 14 NO NO Maple Good 858 14 NO YES Maple Poor 879 14 NO YES Maple Poor 922 14 NO NO Maple Fair 925 14 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 927 14 NO NO Maple Good 943 14 NO NO Maple Good 969 14 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 972 14 NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 2017 14 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2055 14 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2070 14 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2096 14 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2122 14 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2144 14 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2154 14 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2237 14 YES YES NO Maple Good 170 15 YES YES NO Cherry Good 218 15 NO NO Cherry Fair 242 15 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Dead 259 15 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 270 15 NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 273 15 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 288 15 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 291 15 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 301 15 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 305 15 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 317 15 NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 347 15 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 423 15 NO YES Cherry Poor 449 15 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 496 15 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 517 15 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 554 15 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 614 15 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 641 15 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 642 15 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 654 15 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 665 15 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 679 15 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 697 15 YES NO YES Maple Poor 714 15 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 722 15 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 725 15 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 732 15 YES YES NO Alder Fair 746 15 NO NO Douglas Fir Good Page 4 • 6-19-98 MITIGATION • TREE DIAMETER TO BE MITIGABLE EXEMPT FROM SPECIES i CONDITION NO. (INCHES) REMOVED MITIGATION 751 15 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 753 15 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 915 15 YES NO YES Alder Poor 945 15 YES NO YES Maple Poor 974 15 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2035 15 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2083 15 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2151 15 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2171 15 NO NO Maple Good 2227 15 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 7 16 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 128 16 YES NO YES Willow Dead 257 16 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 312 16 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Dead 340 16 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 345 16 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 389 16 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 415 16 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 441 16 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 451 16 NO YES Maple Poor 455 16 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 477 16 YES NO YES Maple Poor 490 16 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 530 16 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 534 16 NO NO Willow Good 542 16 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 622 16 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 628 16 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 631 16 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 639 16 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 666 16 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 733 16 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 758 16 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 794 16 NO YES Douglas Fir Dead 890 16 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 899 16 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 949 16 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 986 16 NO NO Maple Good 994 16 NO NO Maple Fair 2047 16 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2060 16 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2080 16 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2134 16 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2136 16 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2141 16 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 102 17 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 169 , 17 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good Page 5 • 6-19-98 MITIGATION 0 TREE DIAMETER TO BE MITIGABLE EXEMPT FROM SPECIES CONDITION NO. (INCHES) REMOVED MITIGATION JJ 6 361 372 461 471 494 513 557 565 617 621 638 640 644 681 705 713 993 2128 2130 2189 1 130 222 249 265 326 376 382 386 405 413 442 445 464 489 514 537 540 544 571 578 595 600 607 649 1 i NO NO Douglas 1 it Good 17 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 17 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 17 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 17 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 17 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 17 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 17 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 17 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 17 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 17 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 17 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 17 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 17 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 17 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 17 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 17 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 17 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 17 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 17 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 17 NO NO Maple Good 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 18 YES YES NO Fir Good 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 18 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 18 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 18 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 18 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 18 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 18 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 18 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 18 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 18 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair Page 6 • 6-19-98 MITIGATION • TREE DIAMETER TO BE MITIGABLE EXEMPT FROM SPECIES CONDITION NO. (INCHES) REMOVED MITIGATION I 729 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 892 18 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 897 18 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 916 18 NO YES Douglas Fir Dead 2037 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2065 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2082 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2129 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2131 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2146 18 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2147 18 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2163 18 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2197 18 NO NO Maple Good 2213 18 NO NO Maple Good 185 19 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 227 19 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 232 19 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 315 19 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 452 19 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 456 19 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 469 19 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Dead 503 19 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 504 19 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 507 19 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 510 19 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 527 19 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 531 19 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 560 19 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 568 19 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 583 19 NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 594 19 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 650 19 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 715 19 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 859 19 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 905 19 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 907 19 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 914 19 NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 942 19 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2056 19 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2093 19 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2094 19 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2145 19 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2161 19 NO NO Maple Good 174 20 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 255 20 YES YES NO Cherry Good 271 20 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 323 20 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good Page 7 0 6-19-98 MITIGATION • TREE DIAMETER TO 13E MITIGABLE EXEMPT FROM SPECIES CONDITION NO. (INCHES) 11 REMOVED MITIGATION S 2S 1 453 486 546 552 555 593 602 613 620 632 646 657 659 742 744 745 757 968 979 2072 2077 2079 2174 2188 2190 2194 2195 2196 243 258 277 322 362 367 371 391 447 458 466 470 515 519 547 584 589 591 20 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 20 YES YES NO 20 NO NO 20 YES YES NO Fir Fair YES YES NO Fir Fair Fir Fair Fir Goa 20 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 20 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 20 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 20 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 20 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 20 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 20 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 20 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 20 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 20 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 20 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 20 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 20 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 20 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Dead 20 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 20 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 20 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 20 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 20 YES YES NO Maple Good 20 NO NO Maple Good 20 NO NO Maple Good 20 NO NO Maple Good 20 NO NO Maple Good 20 NO NO Maple Good 21 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good - 21 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 21 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 21 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 21 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 21 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 21 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 21 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 21 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 21 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 21 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 21 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 21 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 21 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 21 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 21 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 21 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 21 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair Page 8 0 6-19-98 MITIGATION TREE DIAMETER TO BE MITIGABLE EXEMPT FROM SPECIES CONDITION NO. (INCHES) REMOVED MITIGATION ol/4 Li YhJ ybs NO Douglas Fir Fair 633 21 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 685 21 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 845 21 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 168 22 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 176 22 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 177 22 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 228 22 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 352 22 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 457 22 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 463 22 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 481 22 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 511 22 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 524 22 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 539 22 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 582 22 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 585 22 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 601 22 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 603 22 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 604 22 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 652 22 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 999 22 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 2074 22 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2133 22 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2148 22 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2150 22 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2192 22 NO NO Maple Good 2216 22 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 213 23 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 269 23 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 289 23 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 363 23 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 380 23 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 388 23 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 434 23 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 459 23 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 462 23 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 569 23 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 588 23 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 592 23 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 619 23 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 625 23 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 647 23 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 661 23 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 675 23 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 678 23 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 726 23 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good Page 9 0 6-19-98 MITIGATION • TREE DIAMETER TO BE MITIGABLE EXEMPT FROM SPECIES CONDITION NO. (INCHES) REMOVED MITIGATION 1 735 23 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Dead 775 23 NO YES Douglas Fir Dead 2038 23 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2193 23 NO NO Maple Good 49 24 YES NO YES Cherry Dead 175 24 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 279 24 YES YES NO Cherry Good 299 24 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 360 24 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 427 24 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 432 24 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 482 24 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 579 24 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 629 24 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 674 24 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 792 24 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 793 24 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 822 24 YES NO YES Maple Poor 844 24 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 924 24 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 977 24 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2029 24 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2048 24 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2052 24 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2058 24 YES YES NO Walnut Good 2135 24 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2137 24 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2175 24 YES YES NO Maple Good 2191 24 NO NO Maple Good 2205 24 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2224 24 YES YES NO Maple Good 2226 24 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 202 25 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 212 25 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 290 25 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 508 25 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 630 25 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 779 25 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 209 26 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 236 26 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 261 26 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 272 26 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 318 26 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 334 26 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 479 26 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 483 26 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 497 26 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good Page 10 • 6-19-98 MITIGATION • TREE DIAMETER TO BE MITIGABLE EXEMPT FROM SPECIES C NO. (INCHES) REMOVED MITIGATION 538 26 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 829 26 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2042 26 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2127 26 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 283 27 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 295 27 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 333 27 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 355 27 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 426 27 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 467 27 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 528 27 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 561 27 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 610 27 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 926 27 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2063 27 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2064 27 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2069 27 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2091 27 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2173 27 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2220 27 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2221 27 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 129 28 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 233 28 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 268 28 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 292 28 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 303 28 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 310 28 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 356 28 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 421 28 NO NO Douglas Fir Fair 599 28 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 662 28 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 913 28 NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 923 28 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2153 28 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2203 28 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 172 29 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 260 29 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 294 29 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 357 29 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 392 29 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 424 29 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 430 29 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 826 29 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2149 29 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 394 30 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 403 30 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 683 30 NO NO Douglas Fir Good Page 11 • 6-19-98 MITIGATION • TREE DIAMETER TO BE MITIGABLE EXEMPT FROM SPECIES CONDITION' NO. (INCHES) REMOVED MITIGATION 693 30 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 918 30 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Dead 920 30 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2031 30 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2041 30 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2043 30 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2044 30 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2092 30 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2229 30 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2235 30 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 248 31 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 256 31 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 330 31 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 368 31 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 387 31 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 973 31 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 216 32 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 246 32 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 331 32 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 710 32 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 781 32 NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 832 32 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 934 32 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2062 32 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good ZZU 1 32 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 262 33 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 393 33 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 444 33 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 450 33 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 570 33 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 1000 33 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2036 33 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 350 34 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 549 34 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 831 34 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 849 34 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2230 34 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2231 34 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 373 35 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2045 35 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 298 36 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 311 36 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 349 36 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 377 36 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 616 36 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2033 36 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2073 36 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good Page 12 0 6-19-98 MITIGATION • TREE NO. D? HES) REMTO BE OVED MITIGABLE I EXEMPT ATIFROM ON I SPECIES ICONDITIONI 2178 36 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2209 36 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 183 38 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 819 38 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 939 38 YES NO YES Douglas Fir Poor 2057 38 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2110 38 YES YF,S Nn Dmiolac Fir (Innrl 2212 40 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2236 40 NO. NO Douglas Fir Good 2239 40 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 692 41 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 765 41 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 833 41 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 734 42 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2078 42 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2232 42 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 783 44 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 834 44 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2028 45 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2180 45 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2217 45 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2223 45 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 985 46 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2059 46 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2066 46 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 891 47 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 328 48 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 2030 48 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2061 48 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2067 48 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2228 48 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2233 48 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 830 49 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 908 49 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2165 50 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 178 51 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2179 52 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2187 54 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2050 55 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 182 56 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Good 2172 60 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2238 60 NO NO Douglas Fir Good Page 13 778 39 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 835 39 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2234 39 NO NO Douglas Fir Good 2049 40 NO NO Douglas Fir Good • 6-19-98 MITIGATION , TREE DIAMETER TO BE MITIGABLE EXEMPT FROM SPECIES CONDITION! NO. (INCHES) REMOVED MITIGATION 909 62 NO _ NO Douglas Fir Good 184 66 YES YES NO Douglas Fir Fair 2204 70 NO NO Douglas Fir Good Totals: (excluding poor or dead condition) 532 363 313 75 Caliper inches (exclusive of poor/dead) 11,979 6,887 6,887 1,158 Caliper inches (inclusive of poor/dead) 13,137 7,644 6,887 1,158 PERCENTAGE OF TREE REMOVAL: 58.83% PERCENTAGE OF TREE RETENTION: 41.17% CALIPER PERCENTAGE OF REMOVAL: 57.49% CALIPER PERCENTAGE OF RETENTION: 42.51% MITIGABLE CALIPER INCHES. 6887 x2/3= 4,591 Page 14 pr-29-98 09:03A •Jr?v?. ? ...vv ? P.02 COPY T K t? v 1 April 28, 1998 Riparian & Wetland Enhancement proposal for the Tualatin Watershed Oregon Trout proposes to the City of Tigard the creation of a riparian & wetland enhancement fund for deposition of mitigation monies required of development projects within the cities jurisdiction. Groups such as The Tualatin Riverkeepers, Tualatin Watershed Council, local friends groups, ' and schools could request funds for riparian or wetland enhancement projects with the Tualatin River drainage and its associated tributaries. The fund could be limited to segments of the river or specific watersheds if constraints are desired. Groups would submit requests for funding as _ site locations are identified and plans are developed for targeted areas. Administration of funds could rest with and number of agencies or non-govemmental bodies depending on the scope of local government participation. Other local governments might find utility in combining mitigation monies thereby creating a capital source for recovery efforts associated with river and stream restoration. This strategy would provide immediate benefit to city officials, prospective developers, as well as local conservation Ind school groups. Recent listing decisions in the Lower Columbia ESU will require stringent management and mitigation of development. Such a central fund will allow mitigation monies used effectively, Site locations and project plans would ensure proper selection, care, and maintenance of trees or other plant material. Oregon trout will be happy to provide additional rriaterial, suggestions or guidance at request. Sincerily, _._ -St e n fy Riverkeeper Coordinator 1• Prol,•r-t rri/d 16•st•rr,- .Vntirr frill a,rd their F.rec.' trnr? 1s Snr:tit tillr,?k Kull. to 1 17 1 ?`; FrnPit t A\kiItcc 9 Porchod. Ort'?t+it 97204 (50.3 1 2 22 -9091 • 1•,\X (S()2) 222.91X7 copy INC. 19170 S. Molalla Avenue Oregon City, OR 97045 Telephone: (503) 655-5524 FAX: (503) 655-6578 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL FORM TO: Mike Weast DATE: April 21, 1998 ATTENTION: FROM: Don Lofthus SUBJECT: Reforestation 3 Pages Including, Transmittal Form MAP Inc. can reforest your parcel as follows: - 9,000 Douglas-fir seedlings $1,665 - planting labor 1,980 - supervision 150 Total $3,795 APR-30-1998 14:54 RISTENSEN ENG/VIKING • P.01 16 . WASHINGTON COUNTY Fick g-7-??,?, LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION SURVEYOR'S OFFICE ??T?DZ?YF3IQ?L?I.AT ?1TX.?Z?? I request that the Wsshingtolm County surveyor's Office reserve the following subdivision nsi>ae: NAME OF SUBDIVISION: RK A1D4E 45'rATZ5 0 P : : LOT NUMAfIi: TAx MMAA NND PP4A Z?J°IAd ? /?Do CITY JURISDICTION Which City?) OR COUNTY JURISDICTION: o.ry of T1 d U OR's NAME: J Nt T?•,M owN 's NAME: s "y 1Aws va.si0 ?/ Jd vS I understand that if the name is not used within two years, it will be automatically canceled. Name of person reserving name: AdIK A.ALSIS.&1 Goo .. 19 `J 6MT A 71V4Y&-.A* Addrass: I V60 fiAJ #l M11!ZR y sr. SAPI' a 1169-6 1Mt4TL"-4P- aA--?7"1 Telephone number: 611-141(rCe number- -7 Date: ?/- 3d I 155 North First Avenue. Suite 350.15 Hillsboro. OR 97123 Fax: 681-2909 i %SHE?REOISUFIYEY%Nr5Hwi1E?SUB14AMt OOC TOTAL P.01 Washington County Surveyor's Office 0 E HRISTENSEN NGINEERING, INC L1Y'i fit,\'i .. V?.?-.?`t':•i?? R; PLANNERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND SURVEYOR EXP!PES_ AUGUST 1, 199$ • JOB NO. 117 -M .01 DATE ?K- 2 1-9 6 DESIGNED BY NE L ra / ZI PROJECT 17oWN s negAM GonJDtTla?tJ /ANALYS/S CHECKED BY ................... ................... ................... ................... ................... .................... ..................... : .......... ......... ,.........,.........,............... . a.cJciQf:T, : us.:w ?2r'::: r?.~Jt>, Z::::??:: }?:¢ Y?Vi¢ L :: c i2oss< ?•? ::: ?.y: ;;%iiiw%5 :.........:.........:......... :.:.:.:.:.::................. ......... .1?a:w•v. S z-FA; ::1711Nf?d:: :1:5: 5?71?:`j' :: otl7'"Jivp :::::: J?/1TH.liV :':. ! f--09A; :: Qe¢` I.i1t ..:Ttl :::$?:7"T•:.oM::oi ::Tiy' ::':'.. . ... 5is;;crF:s?:::F-??2 :::4 ::1'.r,i i?G T. '?i?::: ?? :::l ?j::?:?:o ::1??:??'y:::tlv:,N?:?N :::?:5:::7'YI.C???1::: V. a kv?t i: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.................. . ol. ........... ..................:.............................:.......... V o PiA.:Y :.a .................:.:. ....................................................................... :... . ...................:......... .:........., :.:...........:...................................................................................... ................... :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:................... ...... .....::::::.. TJ`i!"P .: ............. .................:................ TRE, ::: Z'S TAE ........... . ....................................................................... . . . ..._..... :.................................................... l.M ??t Fa t SE i?I :: J ,t'? 1:: FolQ: !.....dP t .77-* : 01= €::o:T"i71g:v7'?4!C: QlE::141?F.:?4 :::::::::::: :: : : : : : : : : ::: :: : : : :...................................................................... ................... :...................:................ ...:................... ................... ...... .............:................... : .................................... ......... ..... l......... .... ..........:...................... ................... . :.:..................:......... ................................ :.Po:aiT'-.:D1rV ctD. D' :: ?-o i ii::: ::::.:ti•.:/ !::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: € .................. . :........................:.........:......:. :. ... .. ... .... ... ... ... .. . .. .... ... .. .. ........ .. ..... . ..... ..... . ... .. . . . . ................................. . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . :. .. ........ .... . ... ... ... .... . .. . .. . . . ........................................ ....................................... ....................................... : 1e1=::=::1?? v q: G? :: :H.9?il?VE .... ti.::: ..... l:•:'7? ......................................................................: D'>?1?a?+6?:::cN9!t?.::::J?1?Q:t.r::::: ::fi!........ :...................................................................... ...................:...................:...............................................................................................: ...Y.......................... .. ...... s 7r",: HAA Ptvo# r'AR :............................:.........:.......... ......... ............ : ...................................................................................................................................................................... :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.'.:SE ......:...... ......... ..:.............. :.............. ...:...................:.............:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. r .:.:.:.:.:..:.:. : :':': :': ........ .......... ..: y•. ).??.:......... ..: ?. ..:- ................... .................... .:.:.:.:.:.:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:...:.E.:.:......:Q:'..' ................ :........... .......:...................:................... ................... :. .............. :..... ......... ......... ......... ............. ...... . .................... :...................:................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .........:. .......... ............. ......... .........: ...:...:...:...:... 5:.:= .:. ...4:7.:.:;.:.:.:r?:::. :.: a : o: :.:;.:.:.5.:.=.: v.:. ...5:.:. A:??....:..........:.................:..:...............:........:....................:...:..:....... 7150 SW Hampton Street, Suite 226 o Portland, OR 97223 u Phone: (503) 598-1866 o Fax: (503) 598-1868 E-Mail: celacybernw.com 180 10.000 168 81000 EXAMPLE 156 6.000 D=42 inches (3.5 feel) 144 61000 0=120 cfs 4.000 132 HW¦ HW 3.000 D feel 120 (1) 2.5 8.8 2,000 1 (2) 2 7 4 108 . . (3) 2.2 7.7 96 ND in feel 1,000 800 (1) ( 2) (3) ENTRANCE TYPE 6. SQUARE EDGE WITH 6. 5 HEADWALL 6. 5. 5. 4. 4. 4 . 3. i 3. PLAN ( 1 ) 3. GROOVE END WITH 84 i 2 ..: 600 . 2. 500 1 W 72 400 2• 1 `? ' U z i 300 f { P 1.5 N ?• PLAN (2) Z 50 U Li S GROOVE END 0 54 ? I GP ? PROTECTING GF5 100 5G' •. 48 a V l 0 > 80 y7 z M / 42 HW ENTRANCE 1 0 U 50 p SCALE TYPE . 1.0 o N 40 Li ° - 1.0 PLAN (3) 6 9 W ° 30 cc .9 HEADWALL W (1) Square edge with LJ ,g Q 33 headwall Q Br: 20 _ 0 .B a 30 < .8 (2) Groove end with = •8 2T heodwall 10 7 24 8 • T (3) groove end .7 5 projecting 21 5 4 To use scale (2) or (3) 6 3 . 18 project horizontally to scale (I), then use 2 straight inclined line through D and 0 scales, 15 or reverse as illustrated. .5 1.0 -.5 .5 12 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR SMOOTH unified ?IINTERIOR PIPE CULVERTS WITH Uff; QO sewerage INLET CONTROL agency C DRAWING NO. 030-CH3 If " ,? 1(: . ?I /{.111 I I- Ir TZpO _? ?? n =f:i __ -: ?y,%r.`a`r' _?? •,{ 54 •;?? • :h `? ?: ?• •? ?ti -ICEwi ?1 ?? o -/ ? n -T. 15. T. 2 S. / f ?. n IVA WR t AF r- -- - •I• a• l II R •?,y.5?• ?'=?,%0'--???'?00/ ( ?%l?\ i.?? I -- ). ?•?- ?'?• •?/^:?? TiganaA. ?'•a????,??' ,Cv \? ? / ? r0 „d ..%?, kj 3199 '? ? ??? -000.. OO ! I ? ?.. _ __?? ?'• 2 a! ,;'4?/ •" - 1 ±S ???€'70 ???J.;?u ? .i• (\.? ?_ ?%, ?+ `c- ? l 25' -?:-? ? ?? L?- / -u _ I `?'-` ?• -•? ?l 'ma'r; 1 = - • r --- '? ? _ _" .J' _ 7: - J •? _?? irSiJr[r._:. / -?r?? _ 29 ., f? I? j?-? I _ I _ is ?• 1? ? I: __ __ _?: :? ?. .. •? K"Z ?L ?•, ( ?"y I ,F- 1 _ - . /?_. ?• W .e1 sW tir 1uc s = "?? ?I .:a-,?• ?Ii• _ , coo ?? ??, - ?_ ?0.. f ?---_ o-.= /???%"t ? -. .\ 400... •? _ ?> r ? ?IJJJ ? ?? ;)(• t : -; ? _ y I m , C?i ?- l j :!r?? ? sw. _ATT E?_ ?•'_' -__ •li I , 0 Y \./ 11 J ? - r / ? ? :?? ?iI4 , ? ? `? ,'',?.? _?-????"' ? J 1- _ -,l.- U • I soO lx ? ? \?. _f hh? \\ / r \? ??...? • ` -?` ??/'it??''?'' >k- t•( I ?? ? ? ` % "' ??I ?, ?i / J? 1?•=:? ? ? •• X091 in • ? ?? I I `?.?? ??o ? -/.. _? .? 1 \ ..?! yf ? ?+'?F ==---=?? ? ,J ` ?? III--r? ? ?? z `?:?''??.?? ??- t - -?O .y..:_ r.? •i • _??'; /%Y a=?? T?? ?.-:._.: 2 ''? h • l • 11 •' ? w 3 5 =n=35o' •?? ?oo_?r 1\'=? - y `y' ??.L..?:. ?I" r'•?•' -i' ?18 X! ??' ';i' ?.'.i•. -I_ ^/ al R. ;d' /" .? ?????r . .ll ?% Y _ ;.?' J r :. ?_-? . Y,r?l. 1::/ ::.. ? t r - I 8 r •'oi_t??AAt' _ x ?9- •-•°='=ii?_ ?'?--- -? - `` N .:71`' J l d% .• f 7 fr;'i%' rt l?sc °J A/ o ?`_ • ?, sl : .j. F?•;^? ?:.? ? :-?-, -?.) ?rN ?J ' _ -? '?`./, _ -?/ ? `/ ? o '' -?••? !i' ` /, Gr ?'?,4?r117?? - / ?? --- 1.'? ' ???IJI!JI9,_ L'd?:+l '?'•,•!I:'?? 7`C - r - ?? -_ ?"•-"_`r '??'?I?.'Id?l?,i `?'?',tV r ??,, `",trr - 5027 ?' - 16-'<•=- •-b LL_Il .•..: I oll •?'•l/ r--- I ,/?^ -r-?l'/J Grp F' l •,; ? ?, -- ? `t o ; / ? ? ? ,\ ' 1` f - Rid 'e v` //` 0J p 'frailer v?r?~\\???. T-?:-•¦•II• ,.Vark??i??3'•M ?. `._--f'?- .----:'rte, Z 1 • TRIBUTARY DRAINAGE TO FANNO CREEK Impact analysis on downstream channel '/z mile Total Drainage Area: 236 acres Pre-Developed Conditions: CN PER = 76 CN IMP = 83 Travel Distance TC = = TC, + TCZ Velocity 2350 3259 TC = + - 60 = 64minutes 14ft/s lft/s • A PER = 29.5 acres A IMP = 206.5 acres Developed Conditions: CN PER = 76 A PER = 17 acres CN IMP = 83 A IMP = 219 acres TC = 64 minutes WATER POND QUALITY ft2 Total Impervious Area: 48 Lots x 2640 - = 126,720 ft2 lot WQV = 0.36in x 126,720 12in/ft WQV = 3802 ft3 WQV = 3810 ft3 Storage Pond Volume: Surface Area = 1520 ft2 Depth = 2.6 ft Pond Volume: 3952 ft3 > 3810 ft3 Tributary Drainage and Water CEI JO: 97-111.01 Pond Quality Calculations ELK HORN ESTATES Page 1 of 1 6 - ADDHYD 7 BASEFLOW 8• PLOTHYD • 9 - DATA 10 - RDFAC 11 - RETURN TO DOS v_.?R OPTION: BUH/SCS METHOD FOR COMPUTING RUNOFF HYDROGRAPH ;ORM OPTIONS: - S.C.S. TYPE-lA - 7-DAY DESIGN STORM - STORM DATA FILE `ECIFY STORM OPTION: C.S. TYPE-lA RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ER: FREQ(YEAR), DURATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES) ,24,3.7 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ****************** S.C.S. TYPE-lA DISTRIBUTION ******************** ******* 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3.70" TOTAL PRECIP. ********* ------------------------------------------------ Li N DEVao %ob h'ER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 1.5,76,206.5,83,64 PRINT-OUT: ;REA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN 1 236.0 29.5 76.0 206.5 83.0 64.0 1 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) ' 55.01 01 8.00 1662767 - kER [d:][path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: kHYD-BW\ELK25U2 FCIFY: C - CONTINUE, N - NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP PROGRAPH DATA PRINT-OUT: !RS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) 0 .00 .00 6.50 10.63 13.00 26.82 19.50 17.33 .17 .00 6.67 12.14 13.17 26.22 19.67 17.31 .33 .00 6.83 14.15 13.33 25.71 19.83 17.30 .50 .00 7.00 16.10 13.50 25.29 20.00 17.29 .67 .00 7.17 18.75 13.67 24.94 20.17 17.29 83 .00 7.33 22.07 13.83 24.65 20.33 17.29 )0 1 .00 7.50 28.28 14.00 24.41 20.50 17.29 .17 .00 7.67 41.56 14.17 24.21 20.67 17.30 .33 .00 7.83 52.56 14.33 24.06 20.83 17.31 .50 .00 8.00 55.01 14.50 23.93 21.00 17.32 .67 .00 8.17 54.27 14.67 23.63 21.17 17.33 .83 .00 8.33 52.72 14.83 23.17 21.33 17.34 .00 .00 8.50 51.50 15.00 22.78 21.50 17.35 .3.50 .00 10.00 36.30 16.50 21.26 23.00 17.51 .67 .00 .83 05 1 10.17 10 330 35.68 35 18 16.67 16 20 * 23.17 17.53 . . . .83 20 23.33 17.55 .00 .20 10.50 34.78 17.00 19.80 23.50 17.56 4.17 .43 10.67 34.05 17.17 19.37 23.67 17.58 ,4.33 .74 10.83 33.01 17.33 19.01 23.83 17.60 50 1.11 11.00 32.15 17.50 18.70 24.00 16.34 _.67 1.58 X4 83 2 11.17 31.43 17.67 18.44 24.17 13.97 . .15 11.33 30.83 - 17.83 18.22 24.33 11 94 '5.00 2.77 11.50 30.34 18.00 18.04 24.50 . 10.21 5.17 3.42 11.67 29.94 18.17 17.89 24.67 8.73 15.33 4.11 11.83 29.62 18.33 17.76 24.83 7.47 15.50 4.82 12.00 29.37 18.50 17.65 25.00 6.38 15.67 5.68 12.17 29.16 18.67 17.57 25.17 5.46 5.83 6.67 16 00 7 12.33 29.01 18.83 17.50 25.33 .00 . .66 12.50 28.90 19.00 17.44 25.50 00 16.17 8.66 12.67 28.39 19.17 17.40 25.67 . .00 16.33 9.65 12.83 27.54 19.33 17.36 25.83 .00 CIFY: C - CONTINUE, N - NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP -------------- ER: A(PERV), -------------- CN(PERV), A(IM --------------------- PERV), CN(IMPERV), TC ------------------- FOR BASIN NO. 2 ,76,219,83,64 'p?vELo t E ? A PRINT-OUT: 'REA(ACRES) PERVIOUS I MPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN 236.0 I 17.0 76.0 21 9.0 83.0 64.0 F-ZkK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) 56.16 8.00 1686034 ?ER [d:][path] filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: kHYD-BW\ELK25D I FCIFY: C - CON TINUE, N - NEW STORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Surface Water Management Division HYDROGRAPH PROGRAMS Version 4.21B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 - INFO ON THIS PROGRAM - SBUHYD - MODIFIED ROUTE ROUTE2 - ADDHYD BASEFLOW PLOTHYD DATA RDFAC RETURN TO SBUHYD DOS 0 • SCHOTT & ASSOCIATES Ecologists & Wetlands Specialists 11977 S. Toliver Rd. • Molalla, OR 97038 • (503) 829-6318 • FAX: (503) 829-3874 March 19, 1998 Dan Gresham US Army Corps of Engineers PO Box 2946 Portland, OR 97208-2946 RE: Wetland Determination for SW 129th Dear Dan: A wetland determination was performed by Schott and Associates on March 17, 1998 on tax lot 1100 (T2S R1 W 9) off of SW 129th Avenue in Tigard, Oregon. The property is proposed for . . residential homes. The surrounding property is already residential homes: The has gentle to steep slopes: The majorityof the property consists of forest community dominated by Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and some big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and hazelnut (Corylus cornuta). Oregon grape (Berberis aquifolium ), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), salal (Gaultheria shallon ), and a few elderberry (Sambucus caerulea) made up the understory. Paper birch (Betula papyrifera) and-Himalayan blackberry (Rub us discolor) dominated the southwest comer of the site. Topography maps indicate three drainages crossing the property in a northeasterly direction. One drainage crosses the northern portion of the property.. This drainage is two to four feet wide and two to three feet deep. There was approximately four inches of water in the drainage at the time of the site visit.. Dominant vegetation located along the drainage were Douglas fir, hazelnut, sword fern, Robert geranium, and Oregon grape. Another drainage was located in the central portion of the property. This drainage starts from a spring located on the site. Below the spring was the remains of an old cistern. The area below the cistern and on the south side of the drainage had a significant amount of exotic plant species. There were significant amount of English ivy (Hedera helix) and laurel in this area. This indicates that there used to be a house in this area. The drainage is two to four feet wide, and appears to have perennial flow. Dominant vegetation along the drainage was the same as the first, with the exception of the ivy and laurel. a • .. ..,, 0 DETERMINATION OF WETLANDS PRESENCE This form is to be used for the determination of the presence or absence of wetlands based on review of the NWl and soil survey and an on site investigation. Review and concurrence by DSL and the Corps is required. This form may not be used for delineations i.e. identifying the wetland boundary, or for waterways, farmed wetlands or other disturbed sites. A minimum of one data sheet in the wettest or lowest portion of the parcel is required. 1. SITE INFORMATION County: aT-klr'64w"1 City: 1 1 A r_? T Z-?; R S? Tax Lots(s) I I Street Location: SW IZ 9?^ '-r_ v-, U_A_ Owner/Agent (circle) Name and Address: 1.0 41 NWI Quad investigator ?56AJu svc? Date of Site Visit 1", i`rg Company Name and Address: 2. ATTACHMENTS (with study area for on-site investigation clearly indicated) Site Data sheet Location Map X Site Map ? NWI/LWI Map x Soils Map X Other 3. RESULTS NW//LWl mapping for site: Site Topography Vegetation: Soils Y/I c '-/ l.. Q-/ k i'l d y 1 C Hydrology: U_.hp7 hA s'va'k-r- i? .raloage Ch_atirel /-17) Q7U Y G `f7 6>17 /, i /' ... r.. reJi' '/`?° Gl-h W ! s 4. CONCLUSIONS (use additional sheets if necessary) Y o r, fie r-? ?2_ p . r4u . DUuG1a S -h'Y lIV?r sf?vLi /Z. Signature V?4 r ?? V 6 5 5- l - - -- / ,. . u.. > r` i • !71111 ,?, 6 , fall . ri 17-s-f1-- al(rr _ -- yEt - W A? wSHIACrw e ° ..' _ tY n si ti 1 2$ ¦T r r of 1 .•.. < . S S - "!? •. _ -RrV .?, ,•i¢ ? I li ???YY/. ' StLNA[ SPI- 4... •.v _ l[Maf al Sl Y- -?_I_-_ SI .? a, r • u,u :.v rftllY SI bFa ,.? -. ,Q , ?,'?I r''^`•. r • .. D ?" -1 r ? ?j.?? ? i r?1S r ? t r •r fl.ll. ? ? I (f l?{y ? N.uO r, ?ituJ ? rr ii rSly ? r ylfi- uu• ?' ,.? rf a M D y Y 1 '? ?I.:J .y.„?.r -?Y?•/ y y .a•lllt y_..I 11 C y, '1? .?• ?I r,V? .r, l 7 t7? `7) CII .INUI_ 51 L 1 ,, Y.Ilal" '. ,u ,.. '' y .1r i.lf .tt 1: , f '100- 'j •1, bpu .'I__" (y, IP ?•/ ?' ( Il: ' • I' ,.. i tl 1 i p : f? (` y 1H ` _ _ T ' atF r sv *°? a lxm xs Rf (. 'r°.. nwrAf ivo s` sr +ea u e va . r /+? s ?' 1 ~ - Y "'a `i f' d. •'r ,rn ll Y.u p .1 `? ". /?T bin ? e?i.u 'd Sy r r- - l ._ - TT!mm_ alY ? '>•y,', I n ?' I >(•y V ..1i W•?, • `' }I• ...?yl \... ` \? ` lAYYlYI' SY I T 1r114YJ _ 51 ?_ N4 11 yi D1, CORRAL _. dY tp, ID x[1(5 i ?l S1 L 1 ?Yf 1 ` L' T- 1+' 1\_ '111 I` ,7. r Ir ., i.?r"r •?' n ?1- !Y, 1 "" ?G tfP. E?• € J :V NAitltl Al I'll•"'.' '? ?E''r .?„'IF Ti., •_ a ' .SS?v ?S_y A[ r? Sv ... .... OAK _ 'I.S!_ 'w _A???s a A e a ... •.I 3r ? sI Ni 77 }f A k 1.1 - `• v? •.Y ?• S@ a stYn • wlrur ` s ? a o ` `} ?h h a? _ u; 5Y ilxl _ BSI f? •1 •.v r.ulr u• 1} ?,?' (YBIfYLC A•a• CRr(_t x ,? A sw A fwd rl: . 7 '/ ?. .1k ut?(?(II,? Nw I t _ J ,? J/ D uiq II '?.?Mr('S S4 lei, Y ?'.g. 01L) Vf?P' ,'rt teas. 1: , i?uyla r ?? `y, a_U( .. ' Sy- _ Su sl• I_A 1 _al -.._ sI A ` `s'/n S: , I; s w•V'`,l I _ I AuO? 1 ? 1 'J 'ss•. I . 01 I. I? r 1 --- 7n . Ilr l I•T? a Ysy Sv ;,Y NuAn > > r I NN SI l? of If - _ Y _ rl IG + ? • AT SIAI (1 - - u - yt .H. r.r, w tl :?t`?i•,y9.€•.la `? ?... _.?I Ec'J't't_i3 ?A. ?, a 'j1' 4 / - 1 -?--p°'r n`„JI:???j ?(Aj 9j !^ ...va A A?arouS' s_! su A_ at _ _ Q 12 d :: t.' Inaln To 17f r a• A . ioaad (•I. t.._? i ;i, -7 ,fir .J i'7 •I ItTiIU s • b M• uid R L •b t)Ilr Bpi l' [ _ ' 31 1' - A; , {' :? t, A 1 Ilrll I ?' •aa !4 4 ?! d tl 'v- a ?'H ??i !:IC r r. :r d d A d. 1 36 t. i i n a .Ilr • s 1.,: r.. ? ?Fy ° `?{•...'!'!a_ i? ? . •?+` r y A' ? A D [? ? d ? A CSC r..l. '6 v Y • I SM I[Affl[ • SI ; Aa / a ,u All MIA SI sv uAl Ml •. 5,I". ( '? y A _ (' f D' a ?• u wulu ' r A 5v .. n ,AM " S ' u rl r nruo 'it `?E > -- - ',• ??' \ ?• . n. ? •' y W ? ? ?( rv% J' f ,?',n r Na; ?? ?f -ilti.o ? !l gsv uvs s, C . rl.n S` •? s ? w ' 3 `, 7 7 ..C?.' ? ?i ,/?- ? - ? ` ? D ??'x ? 7 ;v ; j A? ? i ? , ? sr_iooo ,A sI , J •: r .J `tu.f^ J,-?' P i, A 7 1 IwAI ,l ' . L J __Y s.IYr.. v n In y a,, Ytr W. a ..il. F + t II 1 °I /f(I GA RD w SW _ ° ?Il 'R t r . o CLINT 5?11? I 1 .. n,?,• I1 IA rrI/1 r •IN •IM_[I WMV SI 1,: r- A `9 S :_)Y o?c C A ? ? n I I ? ° ? - _ _ _ _,?+ r.f•..in -rl -. \:"? ?:, '? ? + ?? ! Pawn .Y _ T-? _ Alt 1 '? ? ' •`A„Ir.? +:• I 1?v - ' H4-. .? - ra?iuaiNr }_ _ sr ??CC -E- - T $r ?° c= - r? ?'i'-R g lzyy - - - nrr :_' I 'lIY{ ?'']Gr -.rte ' • ? itiw ? 3;1?- 2 U_>_?_ WWI S;;Tt•.,a . r A t' ?, 1"r.,! \ N10 r it n,u w,u ? •'yA 8 ?? •:? ,?, °? [IMN0.51 S_I I 1 ' ?? .. k'r. f _ /_ . F ?_I J faff ` Y I ¦ 31: - ?j. S ,t ?j s. ? q o v Ip? ,S, i;,oo _ _ _ .f' ±? . 1'f y1 .`'? CS G ; ?t" :s?! .. p M Z 1. I is ?.r L?) s hYf ,?• •NY T \i p '` SY 14 RU50 ' • I `? ' I s;?y? . i V '! a ? ,• „IM?v ? AC rl !1 lu .I `4\ n • !/ rr,G• R: {' W nlllll SI Cl ?{ !tl b. ?•' l?? _ sv e? -- `I r I' A ? Y !) `SW n a:. '` afl??. r, ? « d? S51 ra A,u I.ri SIT ?s „•, •v v 4 ^wS.? E • '• t_• [ - S ?I.I f' :v' lane a rvJ?17 i>`s si •'4 4C r " )Juo si d `.u wlu p;1. 3 `?,? '-r 1, i„7,, .n a `---il' n' lrr`•' .? r, <•'} • r _ °/a v rl t•' Ilt ?? ''f?\?" \? Y\. .f' k;?< f r i ?laY(?cA x d. OR r?. dou s E.?. . J .n ???t14 .f•t, d:! AI NUT .+? _?i, ;y ..I ? f. ?aIF- I s ??•'? o/r.fr, 4 . i L' {' \;, sr[ s nY 4 ?` I J ^ Iw1 F I . :7 uw, 1;,.., t L.1:P__'1l>f ',~'"0 ! 7 Y sv Wis. - ffN ?A W D. _?..• t; (' 1 -- 1 •.V AT PIaIA it (S wo s;:, [1 ?' , _ '? ??- ?a h di '? Lv wra. fr [?[ rt F ! s• ulvu. (. ?? st 'j .: ?II : , ¦+??,3 i?`".Yllr . tl? ?_-i: :?•? _.? .I l: •. uvnn0.-e-?. _ `_ 4 .,I ?.:1.. ? ? .. .} ?ffn •• _ ? ., .?_ ? w•:-.? Mlal?i7 mil-_ ?: ... Q f ,• sH .IVYS wl- J .? ,el l•T?s' 5 ='-0 A Q v -ihL 4?'c t - ii.? ^:t w u ] M .? '••,? ?,Y. ??. 1? tI& AN 7 a :I ,v n xulx 51 }' / a F,r ;?'° w i ! '.} \ 4 izoo F04 r Y. 1 .u IIa ti LA I ?.' .EG .'`?rA'.,•-! y.. r.ylrs . a , 11 ?' 1? _ __ 'S f r. •i, G H I•-. a .Xk .. 1 Y • ' ??,1 ¦ \',v Yl A? sv \ v '?? t '• '?i? f • X7•,a - ? ..?{ \ r •ii ,. t ., au.• Sr (W RNI (MI SAHHUaG I'i fr•,.,,..•/, LAI- ?• P,f.d..rG h/1'y 7 t ?' i ?? D' _J? v. uar Alm:}Yp " • h? ,y t `dry Sy gun +? :, SI , • r 'i S L::.:fl v.• C '!'• 3 A 1' r - --- - A-! 1A alwuln rtV ?' bNf NIIIYIIIL SI r???i n,I YIIY fl r;; ?,.. •u ?5Y 1[CN (r MIfP , •'S RII$ ,; i1.r. [ 'r: t f OJCC? ( a I v' ;r 1?; ''ff r .,, ( 3 ?Il +? oa Y J I Ion L S?l':[ ?•? .?. .r •,M S. ? '1, ?WA'If SIi b,ln - '- "La pnq _. --- b1.tA, +_i,;. `?_`.? .? 'G ---" 1. I'¦''; ?r Y?G /, _ _l1__ 1. ?_ ?,' 4 SN [IImSf "u r ( \ ly' _ j i _ l f?' NkAI,AG I 1 _. ?> D•_ -„ >..1'I. it ?;IiA w C ?CI t+ l.,r,?lfc. rV, *!. ? ? I ? .i? - f,W b Iru ''? I,? A • r\Q. 2'•MI n:° ?'?grV•rJlil ?, ??? a? '•?.?+` /' -- •114 ?Gp w Ixll• rl_ 9l lrt n 1' Y> Ll lr, ??i.,1A _ _ _?YIIIA RU _t` i 'y w [1 I 1,fFI ? __ - - 9Yq tY ,'?•',,. .1'4. :I• m.1. ? • f 1 SI ' II•Iqu ' 6 ? RAO /UW _ ?- lfrrl ? On door I tU'L IITAII t + ?t:r r : ?? sv nre _ Nr0 u a r ll'? c'l to ?'i x .Ill SH. r_"Nxnucr sl _A+ Q ]] SFId161d?s1 s: ?I bi{` v v ( "AI. a .. A n t - I I p II i'' • z - !:v n ?los il,. w, "IF , f , J jrn... o 1 IY!•!! 1 IT `^ ? '•?l!• tl >r Iluls [I ,! N ? A G 1. ul- „a? ,. •:•ii'S.yu FI A ? ? _ ? SIT ,IrUI w •?lruul,a Yu a I , ? des 1 ZS •Iffw >r fMa (1 >r- testy) _ ..lyfr? o-7•• - e""o Nti n LAM SY PJYSS v xr JY j ..r t? ' rr 5? , h (: ?t:., 7y w ?txlUVl(v ? _?q IOOVY? ?SAT.I SJrga r. ty,.an uib1e0 -3Teioo CvQ d ,• yr? S ?•• y - `LI,YIP f. 1!' 'a[-!_'• Df "u UV. } . ll _? :11 sv IUalr I7i S! 'r/ Y /O rr\'C1[y( r ioS0I0? M II r5V rl .fl L.,{.l '.1 /?Y,?/I??1• l •i GDUN Y s 9 ?a,L` D,. OP MY J-? Sr y (Li ?Ir 3' yN4 / 1 I/ -'f I/ 1 „ LlOMY I..IhJUa r .-?- s . 5 l1U -r - v. - r .lul b h> Q• u' xl,l r /? t ,,? •i .' 10 ? `a Jr • Y?1t ¦'=? 'i ?7.?? P , yrlrrp isf .r •+,.?, i / ?Mll ?.P, 1-?. D. ,? ?.sS l •'.I.? _,liv?ll ?'• , j n ?FV Art sD's V` p.n,. Al 11115/(: 1?'( e ' uni !,.tit p. ,? '/: "' r f? . .a0 rCn?nrpy'V A - ryh?'?' S , X ''l a' I ''Ir 31: J I7 t I I .(I f' - r 1 su ?Sr/byluwlAHJ iJ' nlrrny+ uu tt, 0 a Ott F d D l .O . J ° ?i t t Z 7]00 L ? am ? ?olt ?-? ' ) t7 21_ y,m rJ i t20I >a r.. ? a O I SA 2" 1Y! is I SA ICi nYal s • SU r.a z) 1 .00 23-78 )oo am too ?. ?t ? / - Ln ayo ia / r •PLZr r. 4 ono I PUT- » .? Ies ¢: 1100 Z 23-78 ` snr 23-78 T------------ ?SNC uq0 700 ? t j-? ]./e.. CYx 2.00 •, O tt"D 2i Q k n00 2]00 -+ ? 2000 D 2.2DO -p 2100 m 1000 70 Z 7 4"Y W-L L&= 1 7700 27 Z ?t+w+Q U) j7 : 1100 R; II iix.. r ?.w - r.. .? '>00 ^ I t100 700 Zs 11 L ? I t 7 ? t D00 ? Sti0 12 ? t I L ? M L • ? p0 L ?? • 1100 • ! t 8 L U R 1 1) G za d -? 2000 ' zica I . X3307 ^L_ p f e .j .?,.... .,. 300 ,... 25 700 )00 7 7d7c 6? : CIROSVI EII' MA 1$- 1 twr ?r,y W .... C7. .,oo Ems! 1 1 Q ? e. 1000 v u ? tt---uoai? I n ;I ?I 7000 ? ?` '•a.. •? s? :: ? .N 100 a - aoo ? I i z700 t I _ 21 /x?? Z700n ? I iN I? s -µpUHTAIN t ----------- --CULL <GIIMN?.., K. LS4 S It00 `?? 1700 .rte MOO .O. ?,r "? 23 78 • • ulfiaj DATA FORM ROUTINE W.ETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Svc 129 '- Date: -jl I-•I^ti'? Applicant/Owner: County: 0.5 Investioa;or: State: C9, Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? F Community-10: Is the site sionificantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? e Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot 10: (If needed, explain on'reverse.) VEGETATION S', Dominant Plant Soeeies 1 Kdotsuy? mt?In?s,i Stratum Indicator N 45 Dominant Plant Soeeies Stratum Ird;ca for 9 2 ru it (rrIl L.tJ`q _ r? Z FGC . lo. 3. uYli ? l/t• ZU 11. a,??r 1 2. S.®o/h(?riS 6?? rr urs, 7'/; X- F!mr'rG '?:, FaG !? 14. 7.A?io/?c?l,':1:77 TC/1ccr?CS t%'_ (moo t5. 8. V J . 16. Percent of Dominant Special that ar (excludin FAC e 08L. FACW or FAC Q g -). O l Remarks: 0 M C• s s HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): WadAnd Hydrology Indicators: -Stream. Lake, of Tide Gauge Primary Indicators- _ Aerial Photographs _ Inund ad _ Other _Sal died in Upper 12 Inches -No Recorded Data Available W Car Marks rift Lines • Sediment Oepoz;ts Field Obz.r,46ons: Or.inage Pectarnz in Wetlands: Depth of Surface Water: tn.l Seco ary Indicatort (2 or morel fequired): Oxidi;ad Root Channels in Lipper 12 Inches WAterSuinad Leaves Depth to Frio Water in Pit: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Other (Explain in Rcmarksl Ramarkc: 3-3 I SOILS Mao Unit Nemo (Series end Phasal' ; • OrainaQa Class: Tazanamy (Subgroup): Rald Obsaryations Confirm Mapped Type. Yes No Profile Oescription• • Oepth Matrix Color Mottla Colors Monte inches) Horizon Torture. crofians, Mvnsett Moisi Munselt Moist) A bv^dancelContrest Structure, e ettc. 'n 11 t Hydric Sail Indicators: _ Histosol Concretions __ Histic Epipedon _ Hiph Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor - _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Apu(c Moislure Regime -. _ Ustad on_Local Hydric Soils Ust - Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: • WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yas Nol (Circle) (Circle) Wetland Hydrolo y Present? Yes No ' Hydric Soils Present? Yas No Is tt•+s Sarttpang Point Within a Wadand? Yes Na ' II Remarks: e 1 Approves by HQUSa c r ? _ 3-4 • • u-phna DATA FORM ROUTINE WET LAND DETERMINATION 0 937 COE Wetlands Delineation Manuall Project/Site: ;W 129?t- Date: 3I l?-(`j? App(icant/Owner: County: LA10 S Investigator: 111 SG1not'? T-f.1`? tG?-? - State: G? Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? . ' Community-ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es Transect 10: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: ?- (if needed, explain on'reverse.) VEGE TI ATION Dominant Plant Soccici Stret"m Indicator Dominant Plant Soccics Slriturt InJic a for L.LOQ, rtlCn?r{S I ?w S. zslmhucu, to. ?. tA!?=t5 iscolo? 5 ?rcu 5 11. I LUM OALLi tI Ctury1 ?1 eCLA 36 12 ?----- S.4-1 rrnium YDheZrfictrllrrl Iii . 11. 6._ !9I m.i'ea W r -7tf'Sr t 1? E?(L I 1<. ?. Frl'.,1,?r.{(?rllGtin •fCn u.??es ??, ? / 0 1 s. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that ar e 08L. FA CH or FAC Cr (excluding FAC-). O / A4rn, 4rks: /I ? yO wry DS s T HYDROLOGY Racordcd Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge _ Aerial Phocographc _ Other -No Recorded Deca Available Wetland Hydrology Indicatars: Primary Indicators: _1111" aced So in in Upper I 2 Inches _ atsr Marks rift Lines ' Sediment Oeposics Feld Observerione: Oreinage Per•erns in Wetland. Saco arylndicatort (2 or mar. r.wiredl: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Oxidi;ad Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water•Stsinad Laavcs Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data _FAC•Nautral Test Depth to Saturatad Soil: (n.) _Other (Exclain in Rcmarksl Ram ark c: 3-3 SOILS VYETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Presant7 Yes Nol (Circle) (Circle) WArtand Hydrology Presant7 Yas No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Watf,M7 Yes No Remarks: ?J (' ?- ?'/A (?' r V a j GVIiC/? `'? 1 (/L17 '.;?/ ' Approved by HQu1A C r Mao Unit Name (Series and Phasol: Drainage Class- Taxonomy (Subgroup): Feld Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile (Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mortla Texture Concretions iAc h ees Horizon (Munsall Moist) , , Munsell Moistl AbundancafConrrast Structure, etc. l r r Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histosol _ Concretions Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Sur?aca Layer in Sandy Sails Sul(idic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ Aquic Moiszura Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils Ust _ Reducing Conditions _ listed on' National Hydric Soils List _ Glayed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remark ' r r 3-4 ` .. 2? I 4. 1 a 8 i7 % •' i- t 3 In, 211 Dry PEKI X78 7?d-1 B , . y . d _ f 1 i'-? •'' ••, , •x..' a $S^ .. i ," '. ¦ / t.• 45 M 1L7f?j 1 R3CWZ `' ?.:f. ?' !.? arm.. ? r tT 'r •. '?- ? r? -ll,C /' % ?'L%-" .T, ry ..?ic?? .?. / '3 3i3 _ ?'•` as ?i rf Lr _.. ! J `? Yom. t _}? ? 1 //.? •?: '' ,: ?'' ?' ? ?•'' J' ' ?:ftl.: If1 ? r• ?, r 't_ .s•,IS?, •J` ??1• _? . c. ,t. a?•' `'Z: _ 'Y, ;?' ... ./? ?Y x'_•41• -'`. ,o Project :,''i •s" rjSi''Z _ ` .S - iIB ?•^ti• fit •.-•j:t•t?. Arl':1 ?c_? ?''???. I '+'? -°':r?y4 .rYY't? .? ? _.?t I •!•• -101 SIT;'' 1 :?`-•"'?":?:itt?'' ??•a• - ?z =, ?r 'A_ ? - _:?'.?8 ?' -- __ ?. , _• .,. ??... ' r i '} (? ,? Jar. , ? /;y/-.'`.?-.' ? ???/'rte 37Y / • . - = (??"?%•i .. 373 3 -7A 241. 1 7-3 vr IT ??? ?- ,`. ? ?. L/ '? i?• ,r.ti ? .rte?.?_' `,: ': -?! "'1. -- :•y, Y? 1 ?. ?Gj• x'-21 _ ?\`? 30 111 1 _ ?''?' • .. ,, ? ? - '?: . ??-: • CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING, INC. • NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ATTENDANCE RECORD Please fill out the information below. :1?or;C}ffieUse<3?t1::' r Job Name Job Number Q-] -Ili. o Date Location (,F,Vlmi/ ZI Time r? Representative s y (?f { - No. Name Address Phone Number 11 3 euJ LJ1. i 12913/ &A (K39- 250 4 ? s `1M c, (? 1yC/81 5,L4-) i3onf ? 1 525 - 7 6 I 114 I ?u14 213 5? 1?6 ? 6ZQ-PL/3 fr lysv ! (o29 is 8 /7 le 9 75az 10 .-5 ?s4/ 30 -/ S' It ';Jlr? ?A C 1LtLt StJ 13u +' 1 620-U 4y 13 h53 - S"63Y 14 d 3 Sc? 13 ???' 15 Et) DLJ4? i u "= 4r.k- iaLo --s IJ ?-- 16 i q63 Sw I3w4s\j tew LN 63q-25 r 17 ;? l ?'1 J l l i r 3o / 1$ VVV ? 19 70 6 20 ) ac 3 ?Z?U I oz 21 0' P(mcL 22 j 23 24 x Page I PADOCS\FORMSWTTENDNC.XLS Current Resident Clark G. Zeller Barbara Sattler 12780 SW Bull Mountain Road 13290 SW Shore Drive 11245 SW Morgen Court Portland, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Brian Martin Abdullah Alkadi Karl Swanson 10985 SW Pathfinder Way 11905 SW 125`h Court 11410 SW Ironwood Loop Tigard, OR 97223-3930 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Kathie Kallio Bill Gross Christy Herr 12940 SW Glacier Lily Drive 11035 SW 135`h Avenue 11388 SW Ironwood Loop Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, Or 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 June Sulffridge Ed Howden Larry Westerman 15949 SW 146`h Avenue 11829 SW Morning Hill 13664 SW Fern Street Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Benny Viva May Larson Tim & Alice Perrine Kevin & Mary Brown 14465 SW 125`h Avenue 14441 SW 125`' Avenue 14505 SW 126`h Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Willard Strickler & F Marie Bonne & Jim Roach David & Ann Ronne 12705 SW Bull Mountain Road 14447 SW Twekesbury Drive 14614 SW 130`h Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Hillsboro, OR 97124 Raymond & Donna Lapp - Edward & Jill Durgin Joseph & Bethany Voydat 14670 SW 130`h Avenue 14569 SW 130`h Avenue 14627 SW 130`h Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Mousa & Samira Barakat Justin & Nancy Habel William & Rebecca Gray 14503 SW 130`h Avenue 14649 SW 130`h Avenue 14538 SW 130`h Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Lawrence & Jo Ann Altendorf John Arlen & Christi Schaer David & Erika Ohm 14472 SW 130`' Avenue 12765 SW Bull Mountain Road 14658 SW 130`h Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Steven & Sheila Drimmel Daniel & Lisa Cincotta Maxine Dee Roth 12963 SW Birdsview Lane 14583 SW 130`' Avenue 14661 SW 130`h Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 • • qIIINGINEERING, RISTENSEN INC. PLANNERS, CIVIL -ENGINEERS, AND SURVEYORS April 16, 1998 JO: 97-111.01 SUBJECT: MEETING ADDRESS CHANGE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - GREENFIELD PARK - S.W. 1296 Avenue/Greenfield Connection, Tigard, OR Dear CIT Member / Property Owner / Resident: We are writing this letter on behalf of the owner of the property located south of the intersection of S.W. 129`h Avenue and Greenfield (Tax map and Tax Lot # 2S1 09 AD - 1100) who is considering proposing a 59 lot subdivision at this location. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits, we would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with members of the Community Involvement Teams (CIT) and surrounding property owners and residents. Therefore, you are cordially invited to attend a meeting on: April 24, 1998 Embassy One Century 21, Columbia Realty 9020 SW Washington Square Drive, Suite 100 Portland, OR 97223 6:00 p.m. Please note this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the City of Tigard. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting and hearing your thoughts on the proposed project. Sincerely, . CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING, INC. Natasha Natanson 7150 SW Hampton Street, Suite 226 • Portland, Oregon 97223 • Phone: (503) 598-1866 • Fax: (503) 598-1868 E-Mail: cei@cybernNv.com 0 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) SS City of Tigard ) I, Natasha Natanson , being duly sworn, depose and say that on April 8,1998 , I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed 59 lot subdivision located south of the intersection of S.W. 129`h Avenue and Greenfield (Tax map and Tax Lot # 2S 1 09 AD 1100), a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office box located at 7000 SW Hampton Street, Tigard, Oregon, with postage prepaid thereon. ;r I Signature Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me thisday of , 19 28 "'F ICIAL SEAL aUELIC-OREGON ..SV4 NO. 042148 iRES MAY 05, 1999 1Y1 , 1?6 ?' Notary u lic My commission expires: S? 14 S? Pre-App. No.: • • AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE Within Seven (7) Calendar Days of the Sign Posting, Return This Affidavit To: City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 I, A/V410- KOMMOn , do affirm that I represent the party initiating interest in a proposed 59 lot subdivision affecting the land located south of the intersection of S.W. 129h Avenue and Greenfield (Tax map and Tax Lot # 2S1 09 AD 1100), and did on the day of April, 1998 personally post notice indicating that the site may be proposed for a Site Development Review application, and at the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. The sign was posted at Y3 i !?? ?? ?f l (state location you osted notice on property) i i ! Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 16 day of 199 `a' . OFFICIAL SEAL M JO ANN HAYES ? NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON CO.MWSSION NO. 042148 h1Y ;?.i';:: 5!OtI EXPIRES NIAY n5, 1999 Pre-App. No.: lM • ? ARY PUBLIC OF OREGON My Commission Expires: mo3 S j 1c, 57 NEIGHBORHOOD R MEW MEETING HANDOUT # 10 NOTICE SIGN MOCK-UP PUBLIC MEETING On A Preliminary Development Proposal Affecting 4?ir (Y rc4? cncn L->? Sw i za rh live + (are?.heid 16 C q AD n PROPOSED ?9 1DI Q-W,?div1sivn A meeting to discuss the preliminary development proposal is scheduled for Or I ALL INTERESTED PERSONS MAY ATTEND FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: [Use this form and fill in the blank spaces with the information you provided on the notice sign posted at the site if you used the signs available from the City] SWT: DEV-CODE\NEIGHBOR. NITG\PACKET\NIOCKUP.DOC 11 City of Beaverton 3/25/97 Pink II s 0 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES Time/Day/Place: Friday, April 25, 1998 at 6:OOPM Neighborhood Not Present Embassy One - Century 21, Columbia . Representative: Realty Proposed: 49 lot subdivision zoned urban medium residential (R-7) located at the intersection of S.W. 129'" and Greenfield, Tigard, OR Presented: 24" x 36" Site Plan Presented By: Erik Larsen Representative of Christensen Engineering, Inc. and Terry Booke, Developer Century 21, Columbia Realty Project Number 97-111.01 Project Name: Elk Hom Ridge Estates Written By: EL Copy Mailed To: City with Application Main issues raised by residents at the presentation revolved around a couple of main points. Traffic was a concern due to the existing conditions on Bull Mountain Road. Residents were also interested to know what improvements were to be made to the roads. Secondly, some residents raised concern over grading and tree removal impacts. They cited nearby subdivisions, which by their statements, were almost completely cleared of all vegetation, with major ground modifications, when they were built. They did not wish to see such extensive earthwork in the manner of prior construction. Other questions relating to such things as lot size, quality of home ownership, and marketing were discussed. If you should have any questions concerning the neighborhood meeting, please contact Erik Larsen at 598-1866. CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING, INC.- 7150 S.W. Hampton St., Ste. 226 • Portland, OR 97223 • ION CONTACT: JAMES D. IMBRIE, P.E. Carlson Testing (503) 684-3460 n'. ?i ? ? r N.• i. ri M t yA?ySy "' ? r, • ww 1 ` ^ 4 { L?j .. ?y ?? _ .. ¦¦¦? .tea , ?y L 14 F },?/1.. , r a 0 •. Y.. r r 'j Av 1 ? V f I ? f l l y ? a,. 1 S M ,? 1 kv k , ? ` w? I'M v ?N ? fl., nw?., Y" v w r r?gii Ilya! ? s i ?A I •1. t)? a ?11 3 rl. tom. 1 _. \ r y r t aL ) 7 Iti yY? ' 'i r >1 ?.r Ian ,. J t? F'. ?'. +s?^F I 1 ??, 1 V I A,s hr?? / } '?k W 1 i lu ? ? ,I ? IY?i C? 'Z"?) IT?? R17 1 II^ a''^"«F?iNl?4".. u ? 1 =?I.1 ?rsr?f r ?rG i-'t-/ ti _?,,. ? •' Ir ? ,+ ?•,• y ?'1? ? l K } Y x ? ' "TY?TY?(( ail ' I } ytlR l f' + 4 r •i..1Z?', t v'!. ?? I IN r 1,,,..:p,. ?•? . ? ? ,r?? ? tom` ? ? , a } y - FRI Z, J h ??1p ???•:. -J ? Fa 4 a^ ? L l SrY ,yt ,, j •411 ?. 4Y ! IIR' ( L !?1 f. ? rrl t i".^I 1• p n r a a a ?? 4A ?:`+• , ?, 1. 44 .? k;,`,y ? P1 +-'3 '` ? R?r III Y , ?. ? t4 . n•;?; r } r; ???? It IPB1, :' 1-nY't? r , joir , y'? GRhAE S ?rh J t d } ^I T ' 'L.4 Mmumamonn" Sent by: Teknafab Ultrablock 3606940281; 06/01 /98 10:12AM;]tffAL_#712; Page 1/2 • 14 2 til ULTR.ASLOCK INC... Fax Cover Sheet 't it I I . AN I) Pl I it ill {-286.84?4 (: ( ( 111 %, I K WA 1111. 1( 360-094-0141 (A I \, 11(. W,1 FA X 1) 360-694-0281 c ):11c : June 1, 1998 :%-.-r< :INC'I.1)DING, COVER PAGE . : L;L) CHRISTIANSON . ,(uII(:u1y i :I? Nnu?lirr 1-503-598-1866 runt PETER RLUNDFI.I. -.,IIII?? r1 A lMSS-SECTION FOR So' HIGH WALL j• M-N0 A CROSS-SECTION OF A 50'111(;H WALL THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IcI-TItESENTAT[ON OF WHAT YOU COULD BE LOOKING AT. CALL ME WITH 1N'Y 011F.STIONS. Sent by: Teknafab Ultrablock 3606940281; 06/01/98 10:12MA;jetfax #712;Page 2/2 ••..??. rC JC , ( tiGL10 P. BI -40 0 r? o Ps F ? -AIR11'6 STR A r'A 6 R i .DRWaI1 (vet 1. 1 June 1995) ,eta ATA D T Page 9 2 V.07, & 4f j A 3 C, LN 9:101 J 101 2.4 degross 3/91- 0 f? (I.A? tj j ? E1ftRE < <1 v J 0 44 M G ? A Q 'Id .o Z ??s•a 2 "? e C v ? >r ? J o h ? a a P "1 W o o .? Q U U 6 rt L 0v or STRfa?fa 3c? REOC)REO f=oA 31•3" of Jc,` A Sc,iE C _. L • I. < i o P 3.. i 29.47 j?. X,4x?m,4*m ac ne tP46 Lit MUTV-01* sm- 1iE TOOT PX a.S 0 A E 76 0 0 Prf ALL S01c..f ?ZS PLr Pr?1r ?-t Tuerr?_1.ficd[ ion: PWI 0o 6ao 740 SAO 700 ?QC aa ? Proie.'[ NrliriP: PACIFIC TOPSOILS ULTRABLOCK WALL 1+1iN, A?4Vh? t?jivT Ir'??? Se(- t 1 c-:1: EVERETT a;04..t Data h o f ?r 4;14' W4 7-4 k -?` imp ? .SO i r •w ? L Ow1??: PACIFIC TOPSOILS 2? HS20( ^+•'? p.?c•.?.a ?M?t?. Cl i.en1 BUSH,ROED,HITCHINGS INC., ENGRS b LAND SURV. cy?, {Prv-po r,L:d by : CRAIG R. OWEN, STRUCTURAL ENGINE;F.R3) MAX ? MuM J'T-* Date: June 24 1997 1.??o f??.,. Rumor O++! 6QOG+RIn ,?t,N<<? Time 06:22:05 PM ? D??d 6 wf?T o_ 2ay?_ ?, y ?oPS c:\srwa111\pacts205.ha ul l- `) f.1 n 7 C N (.c • (• /? 'J f 7 N 6 O?/ ?1 r ??D /? ?/ • , ?1 y ay ?M •, . . 1 III??? t? ?: 49- 17 ft 61 n? L00e A A ?--- .4-f FA F0 E'SN; C. S p ilJill _1_1111111 JAIM11.1111 a RATA Jac w- type 3 4, - 5TJZAT4100 geosynthetic 5TRATA300 gaosynthatic S fcit TA3U greoSynr.hetic STRATA gao ynthetic STRATAroo geosynrt?etic -? •- AVAIC geosynChet! c 600 5TRATA000 geosynthetic CA. 5MATAMQ geosynthetic STRATAW geosynthetic ? ? Op `-?j? •'? - STRATA geosynthetic .r - - STRATA7tl6i, CJCOZFyn tile tic 7oG - '- C -- STt2ATA qeo;,ynchetlc lop STRATA geosynthetic STRATA700 9vosynthetic - STRA7A700 geosynthatic - STRATA700 geosynthetic 57.RATA700 co Synthetic 6 0 AGENDA ITEM NO. c>2• supplement oral testimony. 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 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 2.2 DATE: SEPTEMBER 28,1998 FILE NAME(S): IAUTTSTERRACE SUBOMSION CASE NO.(S): SUBDIVISION [SUM 98-0005 APPLICANT: R nald Lautt 1100 SW 97th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 OWNER: Same LOCATION: 14140 SW 97th Avenue. MAP & TAX LOT NO.: 25111 BA, Tax Lot 08900 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested subdivision approval to divide one (1) parcel of approximately 1.79 acres into eight (8) lots ranging in size from 7,500 to 9,766 square feet. PLEASE SICN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR THE AGENDA ITEM INDICATED DIRECTLY ABOVE. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2.2 (PAGE--0-OF-L-) SE: SEPTEMBER 28.1998 PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE Prenonent - (Sneaking In Favor) ODQonent - (SDeakinq Aqainst) Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 25 / 2q 7Z 3? Aj Address and Phone No. Name;r g w 44 Name, Address and Phone No. ., C u 9210 Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. , i &i C lei sw -1 &06 012, 9-7 AD- Name, dress and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 0 .0 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising •City of Tigard • ? Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. •Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ? Duplicate Affidavit *Accounts Payable • Legal Notice TT 9 2 31 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ass. I, Kai-hy Smider being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theTi gam-Tualatin Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti gard in the aforesaid county and state; that the a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for nNF successive and consecutive in the following issues: September 17,1998 Subscribed and sworn to b rime this 1 7 tb day of Se t embe r ,19 9 8 OFFICIAL SEAL GC/y? ROBIN A. BURGESS Nota ublic for Oregon j NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 062071 My Commission Expires: My COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 AFFIDAVIT The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Mon- day, September 28, 1998, at 7 P.M., at Tigard Civic Center Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Both public, oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Hearings Officer. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter accompanied by statements or evidence suffi- cient to allow the hearings authority and all parties to respond precludes an appeal, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division. at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling (503) 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION [SUB] 98-0005 > LAUTT'S TERRACE SUBDIVISION < The applicant has requested to divide one (1) lot into eight (8) lots ranging in size from 7,560 to 9,776 square feet. LOCATION: 14140 SW 97th Avenue, WCTM 2S111BA, Tax Lot 08900. ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The pur- pose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Com- munity Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.88, 18.92, 18.94, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. _ -, -'-? 1 TT9231 - Publish September 17, 1998. CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development ShapingA Better Community PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1998. AT 7:00 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO(S): SUBDIVISION (SUB) 98-0005 FILE TITLE: LAWS TERRACE SUBDIVISION APPLICANT(S): Ronald R. Lautt OWNER(S): Same 14100 SW 97th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: A request to divide one (1) lot into eight (8) lots that would range in size from 7,500 square feet to 9,776 square feet. LOCATION: 14140 SW 97th Avenue; WCTM 25111 BA, Tax Lot 08900. ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.88, 18.92, 18.94, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 320 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE HEARINGS OFFICER MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER SEPTEMBER 4. 1998, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ORS 197.763(6). SUB 98-0005 LAUTT'S TERRACE SUBDIVISION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIWF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLA PPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AND ALL PARTIES TO RESPOND PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25G) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25C) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT MARK ROBERTS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER AT (503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. 00 y/<<?IEW CT SUBJECT PARCEL mrnr)mAT n EET N SUB 98-0005 LAUTT'S TERRACE SUBDIVISION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING • • BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by Ronald Lautt for ) FINAL ORDER approval of a preliminary plan to divide 1.79 acres ) into 8 single family lots in the R-4.5 zone at 14140 ) SUB 98-0005 SW 97th Avenue in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Lautt's Terrace) I. SUMMARY A. This final order concerns an application by Ronald Lautt (the "applicant") to subdivide property located at 14140 SW 97th Avenue (the "site"). The applicant proposes to divide the 1.79-acre site into 8 lots. All of the proposed lots do or can comply with dimensional requirements of the R-4.5 zone. The applicant proposes to construct a single family detached dwelling on each of the proposed lots. B. The applicant will extend public sewer and water service to each lot. The applicant will dedicate right of way and construct half width improvements along the site's 97th Avenue frontage. The applicant proposes to dedicate and improve SW Rhonda Court as a roughly 280-foot long cul-de-sac street east of 97th Avenue, across from the intersection of SW Elrose Street. All proposed lots will front on the proposed cul-de-sac street. Four abutting properties east of the site also will access the cul de sac street; tax lots 114, 9000 and 109 and one lot in the Brelynn Woods subdivision. These properties currently access SW 97th Avenue via a 15-foot easement across the site. C. The applicant proposes to collect storm water runoff from impervious areas and to direct it to an existing stormwater line located along the north boundary of this site. The applicant submitted a preliminary downstream analysis demonstrating that adequate capacity to accommodate the increased stormwater runoff from this site. The applicant proposed a drywell for water quality treatment before discharging it to the storm sewer. D. At the public hearing in this matter, City staff recommended approval, subject to conditions. See the Staff Report dated September 28, 1998 (the "Staff Report"). The applicant accepted the staff recommendations with minor exceptions. No one else testified in this case. The principal issues in this case include: • Whether wetlands exist on or near the site and how they must be protected; • Whether the applicant can retain an existing accessory building on the site; • Whether the proposed development will provide adequate treatment of stormwater runoff; and • What the applicant should name the proposed cul de sac street. E. For the reasons provided and referenced in this final order, the hearings officer approves the preliminary plan for the subdivision substantially as proposed, subject to the conditions recommended by City staff with certain modifications described more herein. II. HEARING AND RECORD A. Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer Larry Epstein (the "hearings officer") held a duly noticed public hearing on September 28, 1998 to receive and consider public testimony in this matter. The following testimony was offered at the hearing. • • 1. City planner Mark Roberts summarized the Staff Report and the proposed development. a. He noted that a sensitive area (wetland) may exist on or near the north boundary of the site. The applicant must provide a wetland determination and/or delineation prior to final plat. If any sensitive lands are discovered, the applicant must protect the area with a 25-foot upland buffer. USA regulations require the applicant to create a separate tract for the buffer. b. He noted that each lot must have a minimum 25 feet of frontage on a public street. The applicant must revise the final plat to provide additional frontage for proposed lots 2 and 5. c. The hearings officer observed that the east-west street directly west of the site is named Elrose Street, and that naming the cul de sac street on the applicant's site "Rhonda Court" would be confusing. The Police Department made a similar observation. Mr. Roberts testified city staff identified another section of Rhonda Court east of the site aligned with the proposed cul de sac street on the site, so they believed Rhonda Court was a suitable name for the street. 2. City engineer Brian Rager noted that the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed water quality facilities will provide sufficient treatment to comply with USA regulations. The water quality manhole proposed by the applicant may not provide sufficient treatment. The applicant may need to install additional water quality facilities, potentially including a landscaped facility. In response to a question by the hearings officer he testified that the tree protection required by condition 22 can consist of protective fencing along the dripline of the trees the applicant intends to preserve. 3. Tom Burton appeared as the representative for the applicant. a. He opined that the existing shed on the site will not comply with setback requirements. The applicant intends to use the shed to store construction materials and equipment during construction on the site. He testified that the shed is constructed on a concrete foundation and may be difficult to move. He requested the hearings officer modify condition of approval 19 to allow the applicant to retain the shed and submit a bond or other financial assurance in to ensure its removal upon completion of the development. b. He requested the hearings officer modify condition of approval 24 to, allow the applicant to dedicate a conservation easement to protect any wetlands identified on or near the site. Creation of a separate tract may reduce the number of lots the applicant can plat on the site. 4. The hearings officer closed the public record at the conclusion of the hearing and announced his intention to approve the application. III. DISCUSSION A. City staff recommended approval of the application based on findings and conclusions and subject to conditions of approval recommended in the Staff Report. The applicant accepted those conditions with certain exceptions. The hearings officer agrees generally with those findings, conclusions and conditions, and adopts the affirmative findings in the Staff Report as support for this Final Order except as expressly provided to the contrary in this Final Order. Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-0005 (Lautt's Terrace subdivision) Page 2 • • B. City staff question whether the proposed stormwater facilities, i.e., a drywell, will provide adequate treatment of stormwater runoff. 1. Treatment of stormwater runoff is regulated by USA and enforced by the City. The applicant must obtain City approval of the design of the on-site water quality facilities prior to construction. The applicant has the burden of proof to demonstrate the proposed facilities will provide sufficient stormwater treatment to comply with USA regulations. 2. The applicant may need to construct additional stormwater facilities to achieve compliance with USA regulations. The applicant must locate any above ground treatment facilities in a tract and convey the tract to the City. The applicant also must maintain all stormwater facilities for a minimum of three years after construction is completed. This is required by proposed condition of approval 10. C. USA expressed concern that there may be a "sensitive area" (wetland) on or near the north boundary of the site. The applicant must have this area reviewed by a professional wetlands ecologist or biologist. If sensitive lands exist on or near the site, the applicant must create a 25-foot buffer to protect the sensitive lands from development on the site. See R&O 96-44. USA regulations require the applicant to locate the buffer within a separate tract. 1. If a buffer is required, the applicant proposed to protect the buffer with a conservation easement rather than a tract. Creation of a separate tract will reduce the developable area on the site and may reduce the number of lots the applicant can develop on this site. a. The hearings officer has no authority to approve a conservation easement. Only USA has that authority. The applicant can request USA to approve a conservation easement in lieu of a tract. The hearings officer finds that condition of approval 24 should be modified to this effect. b. If a sensitive lands buffer extends onto the property, and if USA declines to allow the applicant to protect that buffer using a conservation easement, then the applicant shall establish a tract for that purpose, and shall revise the final plat accordingly. That may reduce the number of lots in the plat. D. The hearings officer finds that the applicant must remove the existing shed or relocate it to comply with minimum setback requirements prior to final plat. 1. The existing shed is located in the area of proposed lots 3 and 4 near the proposed cul-de-sac bulb. The shed will not comply with setback requirements from the boundaries of the proposed lots. Therefore, unless the shed is removed prior to final plat approval, filing the plat will create a setback violation. The City cannot approve a subdivision plat which will create a violation. 2. The applicant's proposal to provide a bond or other financial assurance would not alter the violation. If the shed remains in its current location the applicant will create a setback violation when he files the final plat. The City cannot approve creation of a violation. Therefore the applicant must remove or relocate the shed to comply with setback requirements prior to final plat approval. Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-0005 (Laura's Terrace subdivision) Page 3 • • E. The Tigard Police Department opined that the applicant should name the proposed cul de sac street SW Elrose Court, because that is the name of the east-west street west of the site that will align with the cul de sac street on the site. 1. The hearings officer agrees with the observation of the Police Department. The alignment of the proposed cul de sac street on the applicant's site is the same as the alignment of Elrose Street to the west. It would be confusing to have the street segments on either side of 97th Avenue have different names. The applicant is in effect continuing proposed street SW Elrose Street across the intersection with SW 97th Avenue. Therefore it is appropriate to use the same name. 2. There is an existing street named SW Elrose Court roughly 600 feet east of the site, west of SW 93rd Avenue on the same alignment as the cul de sac street on the site. This is further support for continuing the name for the same alignment. 3. Although city staff testified that there is a street named Rhonda Court somewhere east of the site, it is not evident from the record in the case. Even if there is a Rhonda Court at some point east, the street on the applicant's site is much closer to the street segments named Elrose. Therefore that is the name that should be used for the cul de sac street on the site. IV. CONCLUSION The hearings officer concludes that the subdivision application does or can comply with the relevant standards and criteria of the Tigard Community Development Code (CDC) as provided in this Final Order, provided the application is subject to conditions of approval that ensure the final subdivision plat and subsequent development will comply with applicable CDC standards and criteria. Therefore those applications should be approved subject to such conditions. V. DECISION Based on the findings and conclusions provided or referenced in this Final Order, the hearings officer hereby approves SUB 98-0005 (Lautt's Terrace) subject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Report with the following changes: A. Condition of approval 1 is hereby amended to add the following: 1. ... The name of the cul de sac street on the site shall be SW Elrose Court. B. Condition of approval 8 is hereby amended to read as follows: 8. The applicant shall dedicate on the face of the final plat access easements to allow adjacent parcels to access SW Elrose Court... [remainder unchanged] C. Condition of approval 10 is hereby amended to read as follows: 10. Final design plans and calculations for a water quality facility sufficient to comply with the water quality standards of the Unified Sewerage Agency shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) as a part of the public improvement plans... [remainder unchanged] D. Condition of approval 24 is hereby amended to read as follows: Hearings OytcerFinal Order SUB 98-0005 (Lautt's Terrace subdivision) Page-4 24. The applicant shall provide a wetland determination and/or delineation. If wetlands or other sensitive land areas are located on or within 25 feet of the site, the applicant shall revise the plat to provide a 25-foot buffer area from the edge of the sensitive land area. The applicant shall locate the buffer in a separate tract, unless USA approves an alternative protection measure such as a conservation easement. Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-0005 (Laura's Terrace subdivision) Page 5 • • "EXHIBIT A" -- PARTIES OF RECORD (Written Public Testimony received at the hearing) NONE RECEIVED • "EXHIBIT B" -- TAPED PROCEEDINGS (Verbal recording of hearing including public, staff and Hearings Officer communications.) NOTE: Tapes are located in the Records Vault, Planning Section. • • "EXHIBIT C" --WRITTEN TESTIMONY (Applicant's materials and pertinent correspondence filed with Hearings Officer prior to Public Hearing.) a • • Agenda Item: 2.2 Hearing Date: September 28. 1998 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE NEARINGS OFFICER CITY OF TIGARD Community DeveC pment FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ShapingA Better Community SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE(S): FILE NAME: LAUTT'S TERRACE SUBDIVISION Subdivision SUB 98-0005 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested subdivision approval to divide one (1) parcel of approximately 1.79 acres into eight (8) lots ranging in size from 7,500 to 9,766 square feet. APPLICANT: Ronald Lautt OWNER: Same 10100 SW 97th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential; 1-5 Dwelling Units Per Acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential, 7,500 Square Foot Minimum Lot Size; R-4.5. LOCATION: 14140 SW 97th Avenue; WCTM 25111 BA, Tax Lot 08900. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. SECTION II: STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearing's Officer find that the proposed development will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the City. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL, subject to the following recommended Conditions of Approval: 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 1 OF 21 SUB 98-0005 - LAUTT'S TERRACE SUBDIVISION s • • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. Unless otherwise specified, the staff contact for all conditions is Brian Rager with the Engineering Department at 503-639-4171.) 1. Prior to approval of the final plat, public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. (NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall. 2. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement (if one is required) and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 3. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 4. The applicant shall dedicate additional right-of-way along the frontage of SW 97th Avenue to provide 30 feet from centerline. This dedication shall be shown on the face of the final plat. 5. The applicant shall construct the following frontage improvements along SW 97th Avenue as a part of this project: a. 6-foot concrete sidewalk; b. street trees behind the sidewalk spaced per TDC requirements; and c. streetlighting, as determined by the City Engineer. 6. Full width street' improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the interior subdivision streets. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. 7. Lots in this subdivision shall not be permitted to access directly onto SW 97th Avenue. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 2 OF 21 SUB 98-0005 - LAUTTS TERRACE SUBDIVISION r 8. The applicant shall dedicate on the face of the final plat access easements necessary to allow adjacent parcels to access SW Rhonda Court. The properties in question are those that presently are allowed access across the existing access easement. The applicant's construction plans shall also show how driveways will be provided to these adjacent parcels. 9. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed public improvement construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12 per cent of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the public improvement plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 10. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) as a part of the public improvement plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan (if a landscaped facility is proposed) 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 Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 11. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994. 12. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots, and show that they will be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). 13. The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report shall be incorporated into the final grading plan. A final construction supervision report shall be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. 14. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 97th Avenue underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 3 OF 21 SUB 98-0005 - LAUTT'S TERRACE SUBDIVISION • • to the utility lines and will be $ 27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $ 5,280.00 and it shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat. 15. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Submit for City review three paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative; B. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard; C. The right-of-way dedication for SW 97th Avenue and the new street shall be made on the final plat; D. NOTE: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive a letter from the City Engineering Department indicating: 1) that the City has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor, and 2) that the applicant has either completed any public improvements associated with the project, or has at least obtained the necessary public improvement permit from the City to complete the work; and E. Once the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer's signature. 16. The applicant shall provide plans to the water Department for review and approval of the proposed water system including the proposed water connection, water meters and fire hydrants. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Miller, Water Department 17. Any existing homes that are to be kept shall be connected to sanitary sewer service. STAFF CONTACT: David Scott, Building Division. 18. The applicant shall pay a $295 Final Plat review check fee prior to submitting the final plat to the City for review. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 19. The applicant shall either provide evidence that the accessory structure on Lot 3 is located in such a way that it meets setback standards or the structure shall be relocated or removed prior to plat recording. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 20. Prior to recording the subdivision plat, the applicant shall provide a street tree planting plan that indicates the species, size and location of future required street trees. A bond or other method of assurance shall be provided prior to recording the subdivision plat in order to assure planting. Prior to release of the deposit, the street trees shall be planted. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 21. The applicant shall also record a deed restriction for those trees that are to be preserved. The deed restriction may be removed or may be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 22. The applicant shall also construct the recommended tree protection measures for trees that are recommended for preservation. The consulting arborist shall provide a written 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 4 OF 21 SUB 98-0005 - LAUTTS TERRACE SUBDIVISION • 0 report that these measures have been installed. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 23. The applicant shall revise Lots 2 and 5 so that both have a minimum of 25 feet of frontage on the proposed Local Street. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 24. The applicant shall provide a wetland's determination and/or delineation and where necessary make revisions to the plat to provide a 25-foot buffer tract area, to any wetlands or other sensitive land's areas either on this property or on an adjoining property. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 25. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the subdivision plat. 26. Prior to issuance of any building permits within the subdivision, the public improvements shall be deemed substantially complete by the City Engineer. Substantial completion shall be when: 1) all utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities; 2) all local residential streets have at least one lift of asphalt; 3) any off-site street and/or utility improvements are completely finished; and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. 27. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) mylars, and 2) a diskette of the as- builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable. Note: if the public improvement drawings were hand-drawn, then a diskette is not required. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST: 18.160.170 Improvement Agreement: Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the subdivider shall: 1. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and 2. Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 5 OF 21 SUB 98-0005 - LAUTT'S TERRACE SUBDIVISION 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. 18.160.180 Bond: As required by Section 18.160.170, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: 1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; 2. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it may be terminated; or 3. Cash. The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 18.160.190 Filing and Recording: Within 60 days of the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. 18.162.080 Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: Three (3) 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. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 6 OF 21 SUB 98-0005 - LAUTTS TERRACE SUBDIVISION • • The following centerline monuments shall be set: 1. All centerline-centerline intersection points; 2. All cul-de-sac center points; and 3. Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. Monument Boxes Required Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 18.164 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: 18.164.120 Utilities All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.164.130 Cash or Bond Required All improvements installed by the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.160.180. 18.164.150 Installation: Prerequisite/Permit Fee No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefor have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.164.180 Notice to City Required Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 7 OF 21 SUB 98-0005 - LAUTT'S TERRACE SUBDIVISION 0 0 18.164.200 Engineer's Certification Required The land divider's engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to the City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. SECTION III: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site HistoQL The subject Tax Lot 08900 was annexed into the City and received a zone change (ZC 6- 79) in 1979. A subdivision (S 5-81) was approved in 1981 (current Tax Lots 00105 and 08900). A Minor Land Partition (MLP 19-81) was approved in 1981 (current Tax Lots 00105 and 08900). A Subdivision (SUB 90-0013) was denied by Council on appeal in 1990 (current Tax Lots 00105 and 08900). A Lot Line adjustment (MIS 91-0003) was approved in 1991 (current Tax Lots 00105, 00114, and 08900). A Minor Land Partition (MLP 93-0002) was approved in 1993 (current Tax Lots 09000 and 08900). A Lot Line Adjustment (MIS 94-0001) was approved in 1994 (current Tax Lots 00105 and 00114). A Lot Line Adjustment (MIS 97- 0013) was approved in 1997 (current Tax Lots 00105, 00113 and 08900) to increase Tax Lot 08900 in size. No other development applications were found to have been filed with the City. Vicinity Information: To the west the property is adjoined by detached, single-family residences. To the south, the property abuts a detached, single-family residence near SW 97th Avenue. This property has vacant areas behind the home to the east. To the north, the property is adjoined by detached single family residences. To the east and southeast are developed with detached, single-family residences. Site Information and Proposal Description: The site slopes from the south west corner of the property towards the northeast corner a total of 18 feet over a distance of approximately 350 feet. The property is presently developed with detached, single-family residences. The subdivision plan indicates that a total of 24 trees exist on the property. The subdivision plan indicates that 10 of these trees are over 12 inches in diameter. Except for a 12-inch Fir tree on Lot 3, these trees are primarily within 90 feet of the southern property line. The proposal is to subdivide a 1.79 acre parcel into 8 lots to develop detached, single- family residences. A cul-de-sac public street is proposed to be developed as a project entry from SW 97th Avenue. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 8 OF 21 SUB 98-0005 - LAUTTS TERRACE SUBDIVISION SECTION IV: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Impact Studv: Section 18.32.050 states the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Alternatively, an applicant may specifically concur with the requirement for dedication of right-of-way to the public and waive the impact study analysis by dedicating the right-of-way and completion of a waiver statement. An impact study was provided. The applicant proposes to develop under existing required system development fees and construct full street improvements for proposed Local Street and along the SW 97th Avenue project frontage. Any required street improvements to certain collector or higher volume streets, and the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures that are required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 per cent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Presently, the TIF for each trip that is generated is $189.00 The total TIF for a detached, single-family dwelling is $1,890.00. The proposed Local Street, is not eligible for TIF Credits because the Local Street would serve the proposed development. Right-of-way dedication and half street improvements on the site's SW 97th Avenue frontage is assumed to cost $200 per lineal foot. Because the site has approximately 200 feet lineal feet of frontage, a total value for this proposed to street improvement is estimated at $40,000. It is estimated that a TIF credit for approximately 1/2 of the improvement costs to SW 97th Avenue or up to $20,000 would be allowed with construction of these improvements. Upon completion of the subdivision improvements, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $15,120 ($1,890 x 8 dwelling units).* Thus, only up to $15,120 credit can be realized against the estimated construction cost. Based on an estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of the project traffic impact on major streets is $45,360.00 ($5,670 x 8). Assuming the $40,000 street improvement cost is reduced by subtracting the largest potential TIF Credit of $15,120 this would leave a total net street improvement cost of $24,880. Because the project has a total estimated impact on Major Streets of $45,360, the proposed half street improvements along the SW 97th Avenue frontage is less than the cost of the impact of the development on the street system. For this reason it is recommended that the City accept the proposed Public Improvements under the recommended Conditions of Approval. Use Classification: Section 18.42 sets forth use definitions for use classifications. The applicant is proposing to create building sites for detached, single-family residences. This use is classified in Section 18.42 as single family detached residential dwelling. Section 18.42 lists detached, single-family residences as a permitted use in the R-4.5 Zoning District. The applicant proposes to develop 8 new detached, single-family residences that are one of the permitted uses within the R-4.5 Zoning District. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 9 OF 21 SUB 98-0005 - LAUTTS TERRACE SUBDIVISION 0 0 Dimensional Requirements: Section 18.50 states that the minimum lot area for each dwelling unit in the R-4.5 zoning district is 7,500 square feet. An average lot width requirement of 50 feet is required in the R-4.5 Zoning District. Each of the eight (8) proposed lots exceeds the 7,500 square foot lot minimum, in compliance with this standard. Each of the eight (8) lots exceeds the 50-foot average width requirement. Lot 8 is proposed to provide the narrowest width with an average width of approximately 70 feet. Development Standards: Section 18.50 contains standards for the R-4.5 Zoning District. Single-family detached residential units are a permitted use in the zone, and must comply with the following dimensional requirements: Minimum lot size Average lot width Front setback Garage setback Interior sideyard setback Corner sideyard setback Rear setback Maximum building height 7,500 Square Feet 50 Feet 20 Feet 20 Feet 5 Feet 15 Feet 15 Feet 30 Feet The preliminary plat submittal did not indicate the precise building envelope after subtraction of setbacks. However, the proposed building sites appear to be of sufficient width and depth to accommodate detached, single-family residences as proposed. Considering the location of the proposed property lines, the existing home will also comply with the R-4.5 Zoning District setback standards. Although no variance was requested as part of this application, the applicant requested a reduction to the 15-foot rear yard setback to Lot 8 assuming the southern property line was considered the rear yard setback. The applicant requested that this setback be reduced to a 10-foot setback. This lot is a corner lot , the Community Development Code allows for a choice as to the front, side and rear yard setbacks on corner lots where each lot side with street frontage has a minimum of 75 feet of frontage. Lot 8 as proposed would not exceed 75 feet of frontage along the SW 97th Avenue side. Therefore Lot 8's SW 97th Avenue street frontage is considered the front yard. The yard opposite SW 97th Avenue would then be considered the rear yard. For that reason Lot 8's southern property line would be considered an interior sideyard and have a 5-foot side yard setback. For this reason no setback variance is necessary to develop within 5 feet of Lot 8's southern property line. Although this was not shown on the subdivision plat, an accessory shed structure exists approximately within the front yard area proposed as Lot 3. The applicant shall either provide evidence that the accessory structure on Lot 3 is located in such a way that it meets setback standards or the structure shall be relocated or removed prior to plat recording. Solar Access: Section 18.88.040(C)(1) contains solar access standards for new residential development. A subdivision complies with the design standards where 80% or more of the newly created parcels meet either the Basic Solar Access Standard, the Solar Building Line Option or the Performance Option. A lot meets the Basic Solar Access lot standard if it has a north-south dimension of 90 feet or more and has a front lot line that is oriented within 30 degrees of a true east- 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 10 OF 21 SUB 98-0005 - LAUTT'S TERRACE SUBDIVISION 0 0 west axis. Alternatively, an applicant can meet the City's Solar Access Standards by complying with the protected Solar Building Line Option or the Performance Option. Energy efficiency is ensured through the location of the residence with sufficient solar access or through the design of the homes that incorporates window glazing with solar orientation. An applicant can request an exception to the solar access standards based on the following development constraints: Site topography in excess of a 10 percent slope, shade from existing on-site or off-site vegetation or structures, significant natural features, existing street public easement patterns, impacts to density, cost or amenities of the project that adds five percent or more to the cost of each lot. To comply with the Basic Standard, a minimum of seven (7) of the eight (8) lots (or 80 per cent) are required to comply with the Basic Solar Access standard, the Solar Building Line Option, or the Performance Option. As designed, a total of four (4) of the lots comply with the Basic Standard. Specifically Lots 4-7 comply because they provide a minimum north- south dimension of 90 feet or more. Due to impacts to site density that would add more than 5 percent to the cost of each lot, it is recommended that the four (4) remaining lots be exempted from compliance with the standard. Specifically, the subdivision design exemption would apply to Lots 1-3 and 8. Solar Balance Point: Section 18.88.050(B) requires that one and two (2) family residences that are developed on lots that were exempted from Compliance with the Basic Solar Access standards comply with the Solar Balance Point requirements. The Solar Balance Point standards may apply to this development at the time of Building Permit application. The plans for the residences to be built on each of the lots will be reviewed for conformance with the height and building design standards of the Solar Balance Point requirements. Each home will be required to be designed to ensure that the southern building elevation will have access to passive solar energy for heating and cooling purposes. The Solar Balance Point Standards apply to each lot whether they were exempted from the subdivision design standard or not. It should be noted that the repeal of the Solar Access standards will be effective November 26, 1998. Future Building Permit applications filed after the date of adoption would not be subject to the requirements of this standard. Densi : Section 18.92.020 contains standards for determining the permitted project density. The number of allowable dwelling units is based on the net development area. The net area is the remaining area, excluding sensitive lands and land dedicated for public roads or parks. The net area is then divided by the minimum parcel size permitted by the zoning district to determine the number of lots that may be created on a site. The applicant has provided calculations concerning the allowed density for this site. The total gross site area is 1.79 acres or 77,972 square feet. A total square footage of 15,594 square feet or 20 per cent of the site is deducted for areas dedicated to the public for right-of- way. This leaves a net buildable area of 62,377 square feet. By dividing the minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet into the net buildable area, the property has the area to yield up to eight (8) dwelling units. The applicant has proposed to develop a total of eight (8) new dwelling units and therefore the subdivision complies with the applicable density standards. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 11 OF 21 SUB 98-0005 - LAUTTS TERRACE SUBDIVISION Landscaping: Section 18.100 contains landscaping standards for new development. The applicant must also comply with the standards set forth in Section 18.100.035 that requires that all development projects fronting on a public or private street, or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length plant street trees. Section 18.100.035(8) states the specific spacing of street trees by size of tree shall be as follows: 1. 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; 2. 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 3. Large trees (over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart. The applicant's submittal discussed that a street tree planting plan would be provided as the project progressed. Prior to recording the subdivision plat the applicant shall provide a street tree planting plan that indicates the species, size and location of required street trees. A bond or other method of assurance shall also be provided prior to recording the subdivision plat to ensure planting. Prior to release of the deposit, the street trees shall be planted. Visual Clearance Areas: Section 18.102 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30 foot distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway and then connecting these two (2) 30 foot distance points with a straight line. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, signs, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three feet in height. The height is measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. Through the Building Permit review process, setbacks of the structures will be checked. Based on the location of the buildable areas within each lot, it is expected that future site improvements can comply with this requirement. Access: Section 18.108 sets minimum standards for access to residential development. As proposed all of the lots would utilize the proposed public street in compliance with this section. Project trip generation relative to the proposed street type and design is reviewed elsewhere within this report. Tree Removal: Section 18.150.025 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a subdivision application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. The applicant has provided an arborist report identifies all existing trees greater than 12 inches in diameter. The subdivision plan states that ten (10) of these twelve (12) trees are in excess of 12 inches in diameter. The proposed site plan identifies a total of two (2) of these trees that will need to be removed to develop Lot 6. An additional three (3) 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 12 OF 21 SUB 98-0005 - LAUTTS TERRACE SUBDIVISION 0 0 trees will also need to be removed on this lot but these trees are less than 12 inches in diameter. Due to the property configuration it does not appear possible to work around these trees. Since the applicant is retaining more than 75 percent of the existing trees, Section 18.150.070.D does not require tree mitigation for trees that are to be lost. Prior to recording the plat, the applicant shall record a deed restriction for those trees that are to be preserved. The applicant shall also construct recommended tree protection measures to preserve the dripline area of these trees. Subdivision Design: Section 18.160.060(A) contains standards for subdivision of parcels into four or more lots. To be approved, a preliminary plat must comply with the following criteria: 1. The proposal must comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations; 2. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92; 3. Streets and roads must be laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of 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; and 4. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. Compliance with the standards listed in Criterion 1 are addressed elsewhere within this staff report. The proposed Lautt's Terrace plat name is not known to duplicate other plats as, required by Criterion 2. The proposal addresses Criterion 3 because street improvements for the new Local Street and property frontage requirements for the SW 97th Avenue frontage are proposed. No common areas have been proposed as part of this subdivision, therefore, Criterion 4 is met. Street and Utility Improvements Standards: Section 18.164 contains the following standards for streets and utilities serving a subdivision: Street Improvements: Section 18.164.030(A) requires streets within and adjoining a development to be dedicated and improved based on the classification of the street. The applicant has agreed to provide street improvements such as curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the property frontage on SW 97th Avenue and the proposed Local Street, "SW Rhonda Court", through this development. Conditions of Approval related to the timing and construction of these improvements have been recommended. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.164.030(E) provides a range for Public Streets to be developed for Local Street purposes. This chart provides a range for right-of-way and street widths. The right-of-way width range provided for this purpose is 36 to 50 feet. The street width range is 24 to 34 feet of width. The applicant has proposed the use of a public street to serve the existing and new residences. This street, as proposed, has a total right-of-way of 44 feet with a paved section of 28 feet. It is expected that this facility will need to accommodate 130 vehicle trips per day based on the proposed eight (8) dwelling units and the other five (5) existing dwelling units that would utilize this street for access. Based on the estimated number of trips, the street design as proposed is consistent with the Local Street classification. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 13 OF 21 SUB 98-0005 - LAUTTS TERRACE SUBDIVISION Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.164.030(F) states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street. Street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. This site is a small infill property within a largely developed area. The extension of a street to the south towards SW Mountain View Lane is considered to be precluded because the existing residence on Tax Lot 00107 to the south dictates that the alignment of the street extend through a substantial portion of Lots 5 and 6 which would likely make the creation of one of these lots impossible. Extending a street in this area would also require the removal of most or all of the existing trees on proposed Lot 6. For these reasons it is not recommended that a street extension be required. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.164.030(G) requires all local streets that abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. This site is a small infill property within a largely developed area. The extension of a street to the south towards SW Mountain View Lane is considered to be precluded because the existing residence on Tax Lot 00107 to the south dictates that the alignment of the street extend through a substantial portion of Lots 5 and 6 which would likely make the creation of one of these lots impossible. Extending a street in this area would also require the removal of most or all of the existing trees on proposed Lot 6. For these reasons it is not recommended that a street extension be required. Curbs. Curb Cuts. Ramps, and Driveway Approaches: Section 18.164.030(N) requires the following: 1. Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with standards specified in this chapter and Section 15.04.080, and; A. Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except B. Where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval; and C. Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to City configuration standards. Through the required engineering plans, these street improvements will be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department for the applicant's frontage within the subdivision. Future curb, gutter, and sidewalk for these streets will be provided in accordance with City standards. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 14 OF 21 SUB 98-0005 - LAUTT'S TERRACE SUBDIVISION • • Block Design: Section 18.164.040(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. The proposed development of SW Rhonda Court would serve the proposed development but is not proposed to be extended to serve adjoining future and/or existing development. Considering other existing residential development in this area, the extension of a Local Street to the south, is the most that would appear possible in terms of a street extension. However, the existing residence on Tax Lot 00107 to the south dictates that the alignment of the street extend through a substantial portion of Lots 5 and 6 that would likely make the creation of one of these lots impossible. Extending a street in this area would also require the removal of most or all of the existing trees on proposed Lot 6. For these reasons it is not recommended that a street extension be required. Block Sizes: Section 18.164.040(6)(1) states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: A. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development; or B. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads; and C. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. Because the proposed cul-de-sac street would not be extended in the future and is approximately a 270-foot length this block would not exceed an 1,800 foot length. Extension of another street connection to SW 97th Avenue is not possible given the limited 200 feet of site frontage. Considering other existing residential development in this area, the extension of a Local Street to the south, is the most that would appear possible in terms of a street extension. However, the existing residence on Tax Lot 107 to the south dictates that the alignment of the street extend through a substantial portion of Lots 5 and 6 that would likely make the creation of one of these lots impossible. Extending a street in this area would also require the removal of most or all of the existing trees on proposed Lot 6. For these reasons it is not recommended that a street extension be required. Block Lengths: Section 18.164.040(B)(2) states that when block lengths greater than 600 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. The proposed block length of SW Rhonda Court will not exceed 600 feet as proposed. At its longest length the street would have a length of 280 feet. For this reason a requirement for a mid block pedestrian connection is not required. Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.164.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. The subdivision, as designed, complies with this standard. None of the proposed lots will exceed a 2.5 to 1 length to depth ratio. Lo Frontage: Section 18.164.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley. The minimum frontage width standard is met for 6 of the 8 lots because they have frontage in excess of the 25-foot minimum 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 15 OF 21 SUB 98-0005 - LAUTTS TERRACE SUBDIVISION • • requirement. The applicant shall revise Lots 2 and 5 so that both are provided with a minimum of 25 feet of frontage on the proposed Local Street. Sidewalks: Section 18.164.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all residential streets. Sidewalks have been proposed to be provided within the development. Full half-street improvements along the applicant's frontage on SW 97th Avenue are recommended at this time. The proposed Local Street is also proposed to be Local Street standards with required finished street improvements such as curb, gutter and sidewalk. Sanitary Sewers: Section 18.164.090 requires sanitary sewer service. Sanitary sewer facilities are to be extended from a sewer line within SW 97th Avenue. The applicant also proposes to connect sanitary sewer laterals to an existing line that exists along the northern property line. The applicant's engineer states that these lines have sufficient capacity to meet the additional demand that will be created by the development of this subdivision. Storm Drainage: Section 18.164.100 requires adequate provisions for storm water runoff and dedication of easements for storm drainage facilities. The applicant proposes to direct storm water from this subdivision, to a line that is existing along the northern property line of this property and/or to a line that crosses the property and exists along the northern property line. The applicant has provided a preliminary downstream analysis that demonstrates existing facilities have sufficient capacity to handle the increase in storm water runoff that is created by this development. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: Section's 18.164.030(E)(1)(a) (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), 18.164.100 (Storm Drains) and 18.164.120 (Overhead Utilities) are required to be addressed through the development review process. A review of required Water Quality Treatment, Erosion Control and Water Service have also been provided below: STREETS: SW 97th Avenue This site is adjacent to SW 97th Avenue, which is classified as a major collector street on the City's Transportation Plan Map. This roadway requires a 60-foot right-of-way (ROW) (30 feet each side of centerline). At present, there is approximately 30 feet of ROW adjacent to Tax Lot 08900, but only 25 feet adjacent to Tax Lot 00113. The applicant has indicated that they will dedicate additional ROW on 97th Avenue to provide 30 feet from centerline. The roadway is paved to City standards in this area and there is curb on the east side of the roadway. The applicant should be conditioned to provide a concrete sidewalk, street trees and streetlights (if necessary) adjacent to the frontage to complete the street improvement. SW Rhonda Court The applicant proposes to construct a new public street, to be called SW Rhonda Court, into this project from SW 97th Avenue. This new street will be a cul-de-sac and is proposed to be built with a paved width of 28 feet inside a 42-foot ROW. The narrower 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 16 OF 21 SUB 98-0005 - LAUTT'S TERRACE SUBDIVISION • width is allowed by TDC 18.164.030.E, because it is a street where the average daily traffic (ADT) will likely fall below 500 vehicles per day. At present, there are a number of parcels that access SW 97th Avenue via an access easement over this parcel. The applicant's intent is to replace that access easement with SW Rhonda Court and other revised access easements such that these properties are allowed to take direct access onto SW Rhonda Court. Staff approves of this concept, but the preliminary plan is unclear as to how the new access easements will be configured. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall submit a detailed plan that shows how the adjacent parcels will be granted access rights over the applicant's property to reach SW Rhonda Court. WATER: This site will be served from the City's public water system. The applicant proposes to construct a new public water line from SW 97th Avenue into this site with the SW Rhonda Court street improvements. Final design of the water line shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. SANITARY SEWER: There are two existing public sanitary sewer lines that either abut or cross through this site. One line is located adjacent to the north property line and runs west to east. The other sewer line is adjacent to the proposed northerly lot lines of Lots 5, 6 and 7 and then makes a bend to the east of Tax Lot 09000 and heads north to intersect with the previously mentioned sewer line. The applicant's plan does not accurately reflect the location of these existing lines. Because of the close proximity of these sewer lines, the applicant is able to simply extend sewer service laterals from the main lines to serve these lots. Prior to construction, the applicant's engineer will need to submit construction plans that accurately reflect the location of the existing sewer lines and proposed service lateral locations. STORM DRAINAGE: The topography, of this site falls primarily to the northeast. There is an existing public storm drainage line that abuts the northerly property line of this site and flows north to tie into the storm drainage system in SW McDonald Street. The applicant's engineer submitted a downstream analysis which shows that the increased runoff from this site will have a negligible impact on the downstream storm drainage system. The applicant's plan indicates that the runoff from the new street and lots will be directed into a new public storm drainage line that will tie into the existing storm line. A final design of the proposed storm drainage line and connection shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. STORM WATER QUALITY: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 96-44) which require the construction of on-site 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 17 OF 21 SUB 98-0005 - LAUTTS TERRACE SUBDIVISION 0 0 water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan is required to be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant's narrative indicates that they plan to install a water quality manhole that will meet USA design standards. Staff is not sure that a manhole alone will meet the standards; the applicant may need to design additional measures to supplement the proposed manhole in order to meet the design standards. Prior to the City accepting the proposed facility as a public facility, the developer shall maintain it for a minimum of three years after construction is completed. If a pond or other such landscaped facility is proposed, it shall be placed in a tract and conveyed to the City on the final plat. The developer will be required to submit annual reports to the City which show what maintenance operations were conducted on the facility for that year. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL: USA Design and Construction Standards also regulates erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per USA regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The applicant's design engineer will be required to prepare a final grading plan for review and approval. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots that are to be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). 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. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 18 OF 21 SUB 98-0005 - LAUTTS TERRACE SUBDIVISION 0 0 EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES: There are existing overhead utility lines along SW 97th Avenue. Section 18.164.120 of the TMC requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 192 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $ 5,280.00. SECTION V: OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Building Division reviewed this proposal and have offered the following comments: Cul-de-sac shall have a minimum turning radius of 25 feet inside and 45 feet outside. No parking signage shall be posted on one (1) side of SW Rhonda Court for fire truck access. All roof perimeter and underfloor drainage shall be tight piped or to an approved drainage system Lots 1-4). A Fire Hydrant shall be provided at the intersection of SW Rhonda Court and SW 97th Avenue. SW Rhonda Court and the other proposed storm drainage system must meet the requirements of the Uniform Plumbing Code Chapter 11. Note: In 1994 when the City reduced the cul-de-sac size requirements in response to the State's Transportation Planning Rule the Tualatin Valley Fire District was involved in the review of those changes. The Community Development Code allows for a 35 foot paved street section radius. Based on the Uniform Fire Code requirements, the Building Department can require other Fire and Life Safety upgrades because the paved cul-de-sac radius would not meet minimum Uniform Fire Code standards. The Water Department reviewed this proposal and have offered the following comments: The preliminary plan does not indicate the location a water connection, meters or fire hydrant placement. Water service to Tax Lot 00109 needs to be addressed with the development of this project. Note: A Condition of Approval has been recommended requiring review and approval of the proposed water system to serve this site. Tax Lot 00109 is developed and currently provided with water service, however a utility easement may need to be provided as part of this subdivision for existing utilities to Tax Lots 00109, 09000 and 00114. The Police Department reviewed this proposal and have offered the following comments: It appears that SW Rhonda Court would more appropriately named SW Elrose Court as it looks to be consistent throughout in efforts to reduce delays by emergency service providers. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 19 OF 21 SUB 98-0005 - LAUTTS TERRACE SUBDIVISION 0 . 0 Note: Further east of the subdivision a street has already been named SW Elrose Court, so the use of the same name would result in more confusion than the proposed name. For this reason no name change of the proposed street is recommended. Other affected' departments have reviewed this application and have offered no additional comments or objections. SECTION VI: AGENCY COMMENTS The Unified Sewerage Agency reviewed this application and had the following comments: SANITARY SEWER Each lot within the development shall be provided with a means of disposal for sanitary sewer. The means of disposal should be in accordance with R&O 96-44 (Unified Sewage Agency's Construction Design Standards, July 1996 edition). Engineer should verify that public sanitary sewer is available to up-hill adjacent properties or extend service as required by R&O 96-44. STORM SEWER Each lot within the development should have access to public storm sewer. Engineer should verify that public storm sewer is available to up-hill adjacent properties, or extend storm service as required by R&O 96-44. Hydraulic and hydrologic analysis of storm conveyance system is necessary. If downstream conveyance does not have capacity to convey the volume during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the applicant is responsible for mitigating the flow. WATER QUALITY Developer should provide a water quality facility to treat the new impervious surface being constructed as part of this development. SENSITIVE AREA A "Sensitive Area" may exist. Developer must preserve a 25-foot corridor as described in R&O 96-44, separating the sensitive area from the impact of development. The creek wetland/sensitive area shall be identified on plans. Note: A Condition of Approval has been included that requires the applicant to provide a wetland's determination and/or delineation. Where necessary, the applicant shall make revisions to the plat to provide a 25 foot buffer to any wetlands either on this property or on an adjoining property. Other affected agencies have reviewed this application and have offered no additional comments or objections. 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 20 OF 21 SUB 98-0005 - LAUTT'S TERRACE SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID ONLY IF THE FINAL PLAT IS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF TIGARD WITHIN EIGHTEEN MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. 7P&44 e'4e? PREPARED BY: Mark Roberts Associate Planner, AICP I:\CURPLN\MARKR\SUBDIVS\SUB98-05. DOC September 21.1998 DATE September 21.1998 DATE 9-28-98 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 21 OF 21 SUB 98-0005 - LAUTTS TERRACE SUBDIVISION Z ' 30.00 5.0 S i ~ ---- STORM --- n Z` STRUCNRE ---------- - ---------------- - x - - -- ---------- .44 NO -0 1 • r04E S 8874 7 - ------------ ----------- • l 1 W S 0119'00' --. --- --------- --- -------- ,w 30 : o N g 8 57' 8 8' 96.34' V . TAX LOOT 105t ' p5 . owNER: ON LAUTT COT 2 f I N SF o 22 127.34' b TAX LOT 114 pMj BOOR 1080, PACE e59 0 WI CD Do T 1 1.75' 15.59' I I. ° 36 z ^' N e9s1 I °. LOT 3 z I? 8528 SF m -A U o 7712 ° L 3 N o 0 .41 l ? 5 ? 8 J ' 8122 ^ ?1 s Z , 5? 6 j9 5? 8 ?7 D??+ Yom" • "' 0.73 L?88,37• 12• •• I / ? / / t? S I T LOT 109 KER OWN THOMAS PAR Q STREET ?• 877 ' of 7je4'8 6669• kh : L°Z •.. •. o A 4 I TAX LOT 9000 OWNER: RON IAUTT N . 93-28884 DOC. x . o 4 00 T I o, ? L-86.08• m ?,?` Ya s s?q3}4' 2aa9•? ' 73• 592 LOT 8 L-7 + N B95 t J RELOCA D 15 - 069 SF L-16.6 -- - -- - --- T 28.18 -emroe?xsxa 0.01 v EXISTC 1 -- -------- ------- ------- ® ' --- 20'mople LO -- 23.16 CEDAR 10 1` 'CE[AR 2 gg UCED 4AR 1 '4 CEDAR O 0• c y,...../ <7 m9p ? LOT s -250 m T ' i .?? 11'CEOAR 76 SF N r1 TAX LOT 11J o 7500 SF ?4•? 2 CEO n 44 O S I 7500 SF tER: RON uUTf ST 20' FlR e•CEDAR • $ Q o . 4¢' FlR CEDAR B 16.791• i WCEDAR 0' 5 0 . 12J.1 54 TAX LOT 107 OWNER: AASE 14' FlR 10'CEDAR OTTO .248 SITE PLAN CASE Lautt's Terrace • EXHIBIT MAP Subdivision SUB 98-0005 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM VICINITY MAP T IEW CT SUBJECT PARCEL MCDONALD STREET (0 V [t M-r 2 ? F- SUB 98-0005 Lautt's Terrace Subdivision N ' iOuntain 0 110 200 300 400 Feet 1'= 279 feet City of Tigard Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 6394171 http://www.ci.tigard.or.us -Community Development Plot date: sep a, 1 996; G:jma$1C%1MlAG1C02.APK w June 22, 1998 • "Lautt's Terrace" BURTON ENGINEERING & SURVEY CO. 12319 N.E. GLISAN ST. PORTLAND, OREGON 97230 PH. (503)251-2947 FAX (503)251-3714 NARRATIVE TO ACCOMPANY PROPOSED 8 LOT SUBDIVISION "LAUT'S TERRACE" We propose to develop a 8 lot "infill" type subdivision as shown on the included preliminary subdivision plat. This plat proposes development of a full service subdivision, with City standard streets and utilities. We propose to construct and dedicate standard City street (28' width with 46' right of way) and storm drainage collection system to existing drainage way along the north property line. The sanitary sewer main line is in place. We plan to connect services from new lots to this existing system. ZONING The property is presently zoned R 4.5. All lots meet zoning requirements. Lot 2 is a flag lot and is necessary due to the configuration and infill nature of the property. An adjustment to allow a 10 foot rear yard set back is requested for lot 8(assuming the South line is the rear yard). This is necessary to allow an adequate single family home on this lot. Necessary location of Rhonda Ct. requires this adjustment to allow adequate depth for home construction. There is no impact on the adjoining lot to the South because this line is the side yard line for this house. The proposed plat name "Lautt's Terrace" has been submitted to Washington County for approval. DENSITY CALCULATION Parcel size 1.79 acres = 77,972 sq. ft. Less r/w dedication 20%= 8,450 sq. ft. Area Available for lots 69,522 sq. ft./8 = 8,690 sq.ft./lot The length of the cul-de-sac access is approximately 280 feet Block created is therefore less than 600 feet. FUTURE STREET PLAN The proposed subdivision is a small infill parcel and no ;future street development is possible. 1 r • June 22, 1998 • "Lautt's Terrace" S.W. 97th. is served by bus. There are no bus pullouts or transit facilities within 500 feet of the site. A bicycle route exists on S.W. 97th. There is minimal impact from this project. SOLAR ORIENTATION Five of the eight lots meet solar orientation requirements, North - South dimension of 90 feet with a front lot orientation within 30 degrees of East - West for a 62.5% total of lots meeting the requirements. We request an adjustment to the 62.5% because existing road patterns and creation of new public road right of way together with the small size of this infill parcel make additional solar oriented lots almost impossible. PARKING AND ACCESS Single family dwellings will be constructed on the proposed lots. The homes will include a garage and paved driveway that will accommodate at least 2 cars. CLEAR VISION AREA Access from proposed connection to S.W. 97th. offers adequate site distance to S.W. 97th. in both directions. STREET TREES Street trees will be planted along new street frontage per requirements. Type and location will be shown on final plans. TREE REMOVAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS There are no plans to remove trees for construction of subdivision. Future house construction may require some tree removal. Application for tree removal (if any ) at time of house construction will be included with building permit application. SIGNS Sign permits will be obtained at time of street construction. IMPACT STUDY Existing water main located in S.W. 97th. is adequate to serve the project. A new public line is proposed to be installed in the new S.W. Rhonda Ct. to serve the project. An existing sanitary sewer City main line is in place and will adequately serve the project. Service laterals are 2 r . June 22, 1998 • "Lautt's Terrace" proposed to be constructed to serve the new lots. A storm sewer facility is proposed to be constructed within the project, draining to an existing drainageway. Impact to the transportation system is negligible due to the small size of this development. Noise impact is also negligible due to the development small size and it is in compliance with the area zoning. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A neighborhood meeting will be held in compliance with requirements. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS A 15' Easement to the lot in Brelynn Woods has been provide for and the original Easement to this lot is eliminated. Access to tax lots 114, 9000, and 109 will be provided from the proposed cul-de-sac. Tax lot 100 is not shown. Lots in the subdivision will be served by the street as shown developed to full City standards. RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION Right of way on S.W. 97th. will be dedicated to 30' from centerline and a 1/2 street constructed to minor collector standards with a width of 22 feet from centerline. Right of way for S.W. Rhonda Court will be dedicated for a 46 foot width and constructed to local street standards with a width of 28 feet. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS A downstream analysis for storm drainage runoff is provided herewith. A storm drainage collection system is shown on the proposed subdivision plan. We propose to install an approved water quality manhole to meet water quality treatment standards. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES Developer plans to pay traffic impact fee. SITE GRADING Developer plans to retain existing ground topography for the proposed lots. Street grading matches closely existing 3 • June 22, 1998 • "Lautt's Terrace" ground. Grading profile for street is shown on the proposed subdivision plan. TRAFFIC GENERATION ESTIMATE We estimate the number of auto trips generated by the proposed subdivision to be 10 trips per lot per day for a total of 80 trips additional per day for the development. 4 IMPACT STUDY TRANSPORTATION: Right of way will be dedicated to provide SW 97th Avenue with 30 feet from centerline, and a new street with a right of way width of 42 feet and a cul-de-sac with a 44 foot radius extending 240 feet into the site from SW 97th Avenue. SW 97th Avenue currently has a striped bike lane on its East side. There is existing curb on SW 97th; applicant proposes to add sidewalk and street trees. The new street extending into the property will be a 28 foot pavement width, along with curbs, sidewalks, appropriate storm sewer and underground utilities. DRAINAGE SYSTEM: There are existing stone sewer facilities abutting the North property line and in SW 97th Avenue. A downstream analysis will be done to determine adequacy. PARKS: The site has Main Park as its nearest park, approximately one-half mile to the North. WATER: There is an existing waterline is SW 97th Avenue which can serve the site. SANITARY SEWER: Existing sanitary sewer lines abutting the North and East property lines, and in SW 97th Avenue are capable of serving this site by installation of sanitary laterals. NOISE IMPACTS: The addition of 8 residences on the developed lots will create minimal noise impact, mitigated by existing and new trees and landscaping. BURTON & ASSO ES JOB---Z9 ENGINEERS - SUR EYORS SHEETNO. 12319 NE GIISAN ST. PORTLANU, OR. 97230 CALCULATEDBY PH.(503))251 2947 CHECKED BV FAX( 503) 251--3714 SCALE i . I ... .i.. ... ... .Y . ... .......... ... 1... ......... i.. .... .. ..... .. ...... ... i .... .. ... .,.... .... ..l .. i. OF DATE DATE . ........ : ......... :..... il?'la G ?' .. .... .= z J08 Z3 • SHEET NO. / CALCULATED BY?f CHECKED 8Y SCALE OF DATE DATE .........'..... .. ..... _......_y ...... ..... .:.......... ............... ...................... ..................... j 1 i BURTON & ASSO ES ENGINEERS - SURVEYORS 12319 NE GLISAN ST. PORTLAND, OR. 97230 PH.(503 1251-- 2947 FAX(50)251-3714 JOB / • SIIEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BV DATE SCALE + + + i I ? ............................................... .f ......i....... .................l........................... I............................ I i .......... i....... 1 I 1 i .... ..... i ................... + , 0 0 BURTON ENGINEERING & SURVEY CO. 12319 N.E. GLISAN ST. PORTLAND, OREGON 97230 PH. (503)251-2947 FAX (503)251-3714 July 22, 1998 Re: SUB 98-0005/ Lautt's Terrace Final Items per your letter of July 13, 1998 Mark Roberts City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Or. 97223 Item 1. An arborist has been retained to address these requirements including tree removal standards. Trees have been shown more specifically on the plan and submitted to you. Item 2. A neighborhood meeting has been scheduled for July 30, 1998. Item 3. A street extension to the South was previously considered and not shown for the following reasons: 1. Mountain View street extension has been planned for and it is anticipated it will be extended to S.W. 97th. in the near future. This will adequately serve adjoining properties and a southerly connection from this project is not needed. 2. A cul-de-sac has been provided for this project making it more desirable for the residents served by this street by providing privacy and safety, not allowing through traffic. 3. The addition of a street to the South would impose an undue burden on this small infill project making the viability of the project questionable. Sin rely, Thomas H. Burton cc: Ron Lautt 0 . 0 JVlacGennan Arbor Care Professional Care of Trees and Shrubs RECEIVED AUG 2 1 1999 Co !UI!JTY OEVELOPNIENT August 21, 1998 Ronald R. Lautt Construction 14140 S. W. 97th ave. Tigard, Oregon 97224 Arborist report for Ronald Lautt, regarding trees at above address over 12 inch diameter. Of the trees on the property I inspected, most seem to be healthy specimens. The stand consists of Fir, Cedar, Maple and Cherry. One exception is a Grand Fir on the West end of the stand. While presently not an imediate problem, it poses a danger in the future. In the past it sustained damage, most likely the top broke out. The tree has grown substantially to a hight of 60 to 70 feet. The wound it sustained has never fully closed, and decay has started at the cavity. This combined with the fact that the weight is predominently on one side, leads me to sugest removal. Of the remaining 22 trees with 12 inch and over diameters, 5 that Mr. Lautt wishes removed, are Cedars which were planted as a hedge. This would have no ill effect on the integrity of the stand of trees. The most established of the trees, primarily Douglas Fir and Cedars are to be left. Also 30 or more trees have been planted on the other end of the property by Mr. Lautt. If you have any questions regarding this report please feel free to call 992-2150 Sincerely, Donald MacLennan Certified Arborist PN-0351 53470 N.W. Sesame Ln, Forest Grove, OR, 97116 503-992-2150 503-292-6523 i ? AGENDA ITEM NO. -2-3 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.: 2.3 DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1998 FILE NAME(S): SUMMER CREEK WEMOS ENGANCEMENT PROJECT CASE NO.(S): SENSITIVE [ANDS REVIEW [SLR) 98-0008 APPLICANT/ City of Tigard OWNER: 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 OWNER: Larry & Patricia Newth OWNER: Bradley & Jennifer Bernard 12180 SW Merestone Court 12170 SW Merestone Court Tigard, OR 97223 PO Box 23608 Tigard, OR 9 281 OWNER: Charles and Beryl Jean Wiesman Cti OWNER: Grego P I Shantz Dade V? LA?JRGA11 12160 SW Merestone Court 6009 S 33rd Place I Z%so W MER6Srb4u Tigard, OR 97223 Portlp6d,'GR 97210 T7 L. A ti, , oe q l Zg3 OWNER: Edward and Janet Gallher OWNER: David and Teresa Gooley 12140 SW Merestone Court 12130 SW Merestone Court Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97210 LOCATION: The site is a portion of Summer creek, west of SW 121st Avenue, south of the Merestone Subdivision, north east of Mary Woodward Elementary School and east of the Capstone Subdivision. MAP & TAX LOT NO.: 1 S134CB, Tax Lot 03801; and 1 S134CC, Tax Lots 00900, 01000, 01100, 01200, 01300, 01400, 01500, 02000 and 05000. PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested Sensitive Land Review approval for a water resources enhancement project. The project area is a lineal corridor of approximately 6.5 acres within a series of open space tracts of approximately 14 acres. Landform alterations involving 10,100 cubic yards is proposed with some 8,500 cubic yards of soil to be removed. The applicant proposes to construct a channel for Summer Creek through the site with two channel restrictions to force summer flows into newly created ponds and wetlands. Planting of native trees, shrubs, marsh and grass plantings are also proposed to establish wetlands and reduce water temperatures. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR THE AGENDA ITEM INDICATED DIRECTLY ABOVE. r , Ili AGENDA ITEM N0. 2.3 (PAGE V-F / ) SE: SEPTEMBER 28.1996 PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE Prenonent - (Sneakina In Favor) Oaoonent - (Speaking Against) 'ress d Phone No. Name, A Name, Address and Phone No. ? Address and Phone No. N Name, Address and Phone No. T j-rl 610 Name, dress and Phone No. (,. GO `? Name, Address and Phone No. ?AV'D LA"JQfaaL? \ 12.1SD Su.3 M%REq'-rJ"Jt: CT TL.A RD 0Q_ C117-13 C.s14 - 0 3 Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 0 - 0 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising 'City of Tigard • ? Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 'Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ? Duplicate Affidavit 'Accounts Payable 0 Legal Notice TT 9 2 3 3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. 1, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theT iga rd -Tu a 1 a t i n T j me s a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at T ;a rd in the aforesaid county and state; that the Public Hearing-SLR 98-0008 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: Subscribed and sworn to AFFIDAVIT for Oregon ember,1998 OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON *COMMISSION NO. 062071 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 My Commission Expires: i The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Mon- day, September 28, 1998, at 7 P.M., at Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Both public, oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Hearings Officer. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter accompanied by statements or evidence suffi- cient to allow the hearings authority and all parties to respond precludes an appeal, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling (503) 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARING: SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW [SLR] 98-0008 > SUMMER CREEK WETLAND AND 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN ENHANCEMENT PROJECT < A request for Sensitive Lands Review approval to enhance wetlands and perform landform alterations within the 100-year floodplain. LOCA- TION: The subject parcels are located on the west side of SW 121st Avenue, east of Mary Woodward Elementary School, north of SW Katherine Street and south of SW Merestone Court. WCTM IS] 34CB, Tax Lot 03801; and WCTM 1 S 134CC, Tax Lots 00900, 01000, 01100, 01200, 01300, 01400, 01500, 02000 and 05000. ZONE: R-4.5. Single- Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet or (5,000 Square Feet per Unit). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.84 and 18.85. TT9233 - Publish September 17, •1998. - CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development ShapingA Better Community PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY. SEPTEMBER 28,199, AT 7:00 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO: SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLRI 98-0008 FILE TITLE: SUMMER CREEK WETLANDS AND 100-YEAR FLOOOPLAIN ENHANCEMENT PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard OWNER: City of Tigard 125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 OWNER: Larry and Patricia Newth OWNER: Bradley and Jennifer Bernard 12180 SW Merestone Court 12170 SW Merestone Court) Tigard, OR 97223 PO Box 23608 Tigard, OR 97223/97281 OWNER: Charles and Beryl Jean Wiesman OWNER: Gregory Paul Shantz 12160 SW Merestone Court 6009 SW 33rd Place Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97210 OWNER: Edward and Janet Gallher OWNER: David and Teresa Gooley 12140 SW Merestone Court 12130 SW Merestone Court Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97210 REQUEST ? A request for Sensitive Lands Review approval to enhance wetlands and perform landform alterations within the 100-year floodplain. LOCATIONS: The subject parcels are located on the west side of SW 121st Avenue, east of Mary Woodward Elementary School, north of SW Katherine Street and south of SW Merestone Court. WCTM 1 S134CB, Tax Lot 03801; and WCTM 1 S134CC, Tax Lots 00900, 01000, 01100, 01200, 01300, 01400, 01500, 02000 and 05000. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.84 and 18.85. ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 320 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. SLR 98-0008 SUMMER CREEK WETLANDS AND 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN ENHANCEMENT PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE ASSIST'iVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AV?BLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEA*G. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGU INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGU TERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 320 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE HEARINGS OFFICER MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER SEPTEMBER 4. 1998. ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ORS 197.763(6). INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AND ALL PARTIES TO RESPOND PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25C) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25t) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER MARK ROBERTS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER AT (503) 639- 4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. SLR 98-0008 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE SUMMER CREEK WETLANDS AND 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN ENHANCEMENT PROJECT • • BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by the City of Tigard for sensitive ) FINAL ORDER lands review for approval of a water resources enhancement ) project within a Sensitive Lands/Wetlands area in the ) SLR 98-0008 Summer Creek corridor in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Summer Creek Wetland) 1. SUMMARY The City of Tigard (the "applicant") requests sensitive lands review approval for landform alterations and related construction work within a Sensitive Lands/Wetlands areas in the Summer Creek corridor. The applicant proposes to construct a water resources enhancement project on the site. The applicant will construct a series of wetlands and ponds and a new "low-flow" channel for Summer Creek. The applicant will construct two channel restrictions within the new creek channel to direct summer flows into newly created ponds and wetlands. The applicant proposes to plant native trees, shrubs and grasses within the created wetlands. The applicant will excavate roughly 10,100 cubic yards of soil on the site. Roughly 8500 cubic yards will be disposed off-site. The remainder will be used to construct the low flow channel and ponds. The project will affect ten properties within the City of Tigard. The applicant owns five of the affected properties. The remaining properties are privately owned. A duly noticed public hearing was held on September 28, 1998 to review the application. City staff recommended approval. The applicant accepted the staff recommendation without objections. Three area resident testified with questions about the project. The hearings officer approves the sensitive lands review as provided herein. H. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE, SURROUNDINGS AND PUBLIC FACILITIES The hearings officer incorporates by reference the findings about the site and surroundings in Section III of the City of Tigard Staff Reported dated September 21, 1998 (the "Staff Report"), and the City Staff and agency comments in Sections V and VI of the Staff Report. III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS The hearings officer incorporates by reference the approval standards in Section IV of the Staff Report. IV. HEARINGS AND RECORD 1. Hearings Officer Larry Epstein (the "hearings officer") received testimony at the public hearing about this application on September 28, 1998. The record closed at the conclusion of the hearing. The testimony is included herein as Exhibit A (Parties of Record), Exhibit B (Taped Proceedings), and Exhibit C (Written Testimony). These exhibits are filed at the Tigard City Hall. 2. At the hearing, city planner Mark Roberts summarized the proposed enhancement project, the Staff Report and the applicable approval criteria. a. He testified that the applicant owns the majority of the project area. The applicant will need to obtain construction and conservation easements from the owners of affected private properties. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR 98-0008 (Summer Creek Wetland) Page 1 • • b. In response to a question from the hearings officer he agreed that the proposed project is a "utility", i.e., a stormwater management facility. c. He noted that the applicant accepted the Staff Report and recommended conditions of approval without objections or corrections. The applicant chose not to appear at the hearing. d. He testified that City plans call for a bike path through the Summer Creek corridor. However the applicant did not propose a path as part of this project. He testified that the City cannot require the applicant to provide a path, because this project will not create any additional trips on the City's transportation network. 3. David Lawrence, Ed Gallaher and Patricia Newth, owners of property in the project area, testified in support of the project. However they expressed concern about the scope and nature of the required conservation easements. They questioned how the easement would restrict their use of their properties. The easement has not been presented to them for review, and it is not part of the record. a. Mr. Lawrence testified that he owns the property at 12150 SW Merestone Court. He argued that the proposed project should not include a pedestrian/bike path. He argued that the bike path should not be included in the conservation easements. b. Mr. Gallaher, 12140 SW Merestone Court, argued that a bike path through the site would violate CDC 18.84.040(A)(5), because it would be below the elevation of the average annual flood. c. Mrs. Newth, 12180 SW Merestone Court, questioned whether the conservation easement would allow construction of a bike path, among other issues. V. DISCUSSION 1. The hearings officer generally concurs in the analysis and conclusions offered by city staff; to wit, the application shows that the proposal does or can comply with the applicable standards and criteria for sensitive lands review, and adoption of recommended conditions of approval will ensure final plans are submitted consistent with those criteria and standards and will prevent, reduce or mitigate potential adverse impacts of the project consistent with the requirements of the CDC. The hearings officer adopts the findings and conclusions in the Staff Report as his own except as otherwise expressly provided herein. 2. The discussion in the Staff Report generally is complete and responsive to the applicable approval criteria. However the following additional finding is warranted to be more responsive to one of the criteria. a. CDC 18.84.040(A)(2) provides that land form alterations or developments within the 100-year floodplain in areas designated residential are limited to those "[a]ssociated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.42 of the Community Development Code..." The analysis in the Staff Report concluded the project is consistent with this section because "[t]he proposed land form alterations are not for the purpose of reclaiming current floodplain areas." The hearings officer finds that is not responsive to the standard. The hearings officer further finds that the proposed project is a utility, i.e., a stormwater management facility. Therefore the hearings officer finds that the project is permitted by CDC 18.84.040(A)(2) as a utility as defined by CDC 18.42. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR 98-0008 (Summer Creek Wetland) Page 2 • 0 3. The owners of affected properties expressed concerns regarding the scope of the required conservation easement. a. Portions of this enhancement project will occur on private property. The applicant must obtain permission from the owners of these properties to develop the project. The applicant must obtain conservation easements to ensure that existing and future property owners will retain the created wetlands in their enhanced state. b. The scope of the conservation easements will depend on the language of the easement document. The applicant must obtain conservation easements before it can proceed with the project. The owners of affected properties must volunteer to grant the easement.' Therefore the owners of affected properties have the power to influence the scope of the easement, i.e. whether the easement includes a bike path, who is responsible for maintaining the enhancement area, etc. The owners of affected properties should read the text of the easement and consult competent legal counsel to advise them before signing the easement. 4. City plans call for a bicycle path along the Summer Creek floodplain. However the applicant did not propose a bicycle path as part of this project. The proposed development will have no impact on the City's transportation infrastructure. Therefore a condition of approval requiring the applicant to construct a bicycle path would exceed the impact of the proposed development, and the City cannot require the applicant to provide a path consistent with the US Supreme Court decision in Dolan v. Tigard. If a bicycle path is proposed in the sensitive area in the future, it may require a new application for sensitive lands review. The decision is this case does not authorize landform alterations that may be necessary for a bicycle path. VI. CONCLUSION AND DECISION 1. Based on the findings adopted and incorporated herein, the hearings officer concludes that the proposed sensitive lands review complies with the applicable criteria and standards of the Community Development Code, provided development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state, and federal laws. 2. In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the Staff Report and other reports of affected public agencies and testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the hearings officer hereby approves SLR 98-0008, subject to the conditions of approval in Section H of the Staff Report. ' The City cannot require owners to provide an easement, short of condemnation, and the City is unlikely to exercise its condemnation power in this case. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR 98-0008 (Summer Creek Wetland) Page 3 • BIT A" - PARTIES OF REXX= (Written Public Testimony received at the hearing.) NONE RECEIVED 0 0 "EXHIBIT B" -- TAPED PROCEEDINGS (Verbal recording of hearing including public, staff and Hearings Officer communications.) NOTE: Tapes are located in the Records Vault, Planning Section. • • "EXHIBIT C" -- WRITTEN TESTIMONY (Applicant's materials and pertinent correspondence filed with Hearings Officer prior to Public Hearing.) • • Agenda Item: 2.3 Hearing Date: STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING'S OFFICER Cm OF MARD FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Community (Development Shaping ,4 Better Communi 120 DAYS = 11/25/98 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE: FILE NAME: SUMMER CREEK WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Sensitive Lands Review SLR 98-0008 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested Sensitive Land Review approval for a water resources enhancement project. The project area is a lineal corridor of approximately 6.5 acres within a series of open space tracts of approximately 14 acres. Landform alterations involving 10,100 cubic yards is proposed with some 8,500 cubic yards of soil to be removed. The applicant proposes to construct a channel for Summer Creek through the site with two channel restrictions to force summer flows into newly created ponds and wetlands. Planting of native trees, shrubs, marsh and grass plantings are also proposed to establish wetlands and reduce water temperatures. APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER:Ci of Tigard 3 25 SW Hall Boulevard 125 SW Hall Boulevard 1 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 OWNER: Larry and Patricia Newth OWNER:. Bradley & Jennifer Bernard 12180 SW Merestone Ct. 12170 SW Merestone Ct. Tigard, OR 97223 PO Box 23608 Tigard, OR 97281 OWNER: Charles and Beryl Jean WiesmanOWNER: Gregory Paul Shantz 12160 SW Merestone Ct. 6009 SW 33rd Place Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97210 OWNER: Edward and Janet Gallher OWNER: David and Teresa Gooley 12140 SW Merestone Ct. 12130 SW Merestone Ct. Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97210 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential; 1-5 dwelling units per acre. ZONING DESIGNATIONS: R-4.5; Residential, 4.5 units per acre. The R-4.5 Zoning District permits standard urban, low density residential home sites. A portion of the site is also zoned Planned Development which allows for innovative building techniques to more efficiently utilize property. LOCATION: The site is a portion of Summer creek west of SW 121 st Avenue, south of the Merestone Subdivision, north east of Mary Woodward Elementary School and east of the Capstone Subdivision. WCTM 1 S134CB, Tax Lot 03801; WCTM 1 S134CC, Tax Lots 00900, 01000, 01100, 01200, 01300, 01400, 01500, 02000 and 05000. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.80, 18.84, 18.85, and 18.100. 9/28/98 HEARING'S OFFICER STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 OF 8 SLR 98-0008 - SUMMER CREEK WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • The Planning Division recommends that the Hearing's Officer find that the proposed project will promote the general welfare of the City and will not be significantly detrimental nor injurious to surrounding properties provided that development which occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state and federal laws. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL subject to the following recommended conditions of approval: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED:(The staff contact shall be Mark Roberts, Planning Division 639-4171.) The applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit prior to removal of trees. 2. The applicant shall provide a copy of all required Division of State Lands and Army Corps of Engineers Permits. 3. The applicant shall provide copies of recorded construction and conservation use easements for the current owners of Tax Assessor Parcels 1 S134CC, Tax Lots 01000, 01100, 01200, 01300 and 01400. Alternatively, the applicant may provide another satisfactory method of demonstrating agreement to allow the proposed work to commence on the affected adjoining properties. The applicant will also need to provide copies of the property deeds and demonstrate that no deed restriction exists for the proposed conservation use. 4. The applicant shall obtain a SIT Permit from the Building Department and monitoring shall be provided by a consulting Civil Engineer to assure grading is completed in accordance with the approved plan. STAFF CONTACT: Jim Funk or Bob Poskin, Building Division. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: The majority of the subject property was set aside at the time of development of the adjoining Capstone Subdivision, the Ye Olde Windmill Subdivision and the Merestone Subdivision. This area contains streams, wetlands and is within-the 100-Year Floodplain Area. Vicinity Information: Adjoining properties are primarily developed with detached single family residences. The affected properties are primarily owned by the City of Tigard as Open Space Tracts. Certain adjoining properties that presently contain pond areas are proposed to contain enhanced wetland's areas. 9/28/98 HEARING'S OFFICER STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 OF 8 SLR 98-0008 - SUMMER CREEK WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Site Information and Proposal Description: The water resources enhancement project has been proposed in part because several years ago neighboring property owners reinforced an existing beaver dam to create a pond on the subject property. The dam has since been removed. The enhancement project will establish smaller ponds adjacent to the neighboring properties as a resource amenity and establish wetlands as a water resource enhancement. Although the combined acreage of all the open space tracts in this area is approximately 14 acres, the project area is a lineal corridor of approximately 6.5 acres. After completion of grading work shrubs, marsh, grass and 350 native tree plantings are proposed to establish wetlands within this portion of the creek. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Underlying Zoning: The proposed enhancement area has zoning designations of R-4.5 and R-4.5 (PD). Because the applicant is not proposing to establish a community recreational facility but instead to enhance water resources in this area, the proposed enhancements are a permitted use subject to approval of a Sensitive Lands Review. Based on the exception provided in Section 18.80.015(C), the Planned Development Zoning Overlay over a portion of the subject property does not require that the proposed Sensitive Land Review be conducted by the Planning Commission as a Planned Development Review. Sensitive Lands: Section 18.84 contains regulations for lands within 100 year floodplains, wetlands and drainageways that are subject to Sensitive Lands Review. Sensitive Lands Review of proposed developments in these areas is intended to implement protection measures and to protect rivers, streams and creeks by minimizing erosion, promoting bank stability, maintaining and enhancing water quality and fish and wildlife habitat, and preserving scenic quality and recreational potential. Floodplain: Section 18.84.040(A) states that the Hearings Officer shall approve or approve with conditions an application for landform alterations within the 100-year floodplain based upon findings that the applicable criteria have been satisfied. The 100-year floodplain is impacted by the proposed sewer rehabilitation project as shown within the application materials. The following findings are applicable to address impacts of this proposal on the 100-year floodplain: Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway shall not result in any narrowing of the floodway boundary. The applicant proposes to perform land form alterations with 10,100 cubic yards of soil. A total of 8,500 cubic yards of soil would be hauled out of the site. The remaining 1,600 cubic yards of soil would be reused to construct a low flow channel and two rock channels through the site that would force summer storm drainage flows into the newly established wetlands. The applicant also discusses that 20 cubic yards of fill will be imported as compaction material underneath the proposed rock diverter devices. Because a substantial amount of existing material, including an illegal dam are proposed to be removed this work will not result in a rise in the floodway. 9/28/98 HEARING'S OFFICER STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 OF 8 SLR 98-0008 - SUMMER CREEK WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Land form alterations or developments within the 100-year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.42 of the Community Development Code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards. Although the affected properties are designated for residential use, the proposed land form alterations are not for the purpose of reclaiming current floodplain areas. For this reason the proposed landform alterations are permitted within residentially zoned property subject to approval of the proposed Sensitive Lands application. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood. Upon completion of this project the applicant has proposed to remove approximately 8,500 cubic yards of soil that will result in a reduction in the current floodplain elevations through the affected properties. The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the Hearing Officer as untimely. The City's Park Master Plan states that a trail is to be built through this open space area. However, dedication of areas for a bicycle and pedestrian pathway is not necessary because the majority of this property is already owned by the City. The City has not proposed to construct a pathway at this time due to security concerns raised by area residents. Because the project is an enhancement of existing water resources and not new development that would create new vehicle or pedestrian trips on the system, a requirement that the trail be constructed is not considered roughly proportional to the impact of the project. The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood. For the reasons discussed previously, it is not necessary to require right-of-way dedication and construction of a pathway is not roughly proportional to the impact of the proposed enhancement project. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals shall be obtained. A copy of the required permits shall be provided to the City prior to commencement of construction. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. For the reason mentioned above, it is not necessary to require right-of-way dedication for a bicycle/pedestrian way. Construction of a pathway also cannot be required because of the type of enhancement project that is proposed. Drainageway: Section 18.84.040(C) states that the appropriate authority shall approve or approve with conditions an application request for a sensitive lands permit within the drainageways. The following criteria must be satisfied: 9/28/98 HEARING'S OFFICER STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 OF 8 SLR 98-0008 - SUMMER CREEK WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT The extent and mature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to the extent greater than that required for the use; The proposed work that will alter the existing land form contours and, therefore, meets the definition of a landform alteration. The Community Development Code defines a landform alteration in part as, "any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to the following: the addition of buildings or other structures, mining quarrying, dredging, filing, grading ...(ect.)..within an area of special flood hazard". Based on this definition, this standard applies to this proposal but is found to be met because the applicant is proposing to establish new contour elevations that will create wetlands through the site. Proposed native plantings are also proposed to establish these areas as wetlands. The limit of work is entirely within areas affected by the illegal dam that was constructed. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects of hazards to life of property; As required by the Joint Division of State Lands and Army Corps of Engineers Permit, the applicant has proposed to conform with seasonal project timing issues and the Unified Sewerage Agency Erosion Control standards. The water flow capacity of the Drainageway is not decreased; The applicant has proposed to enhance existing water flow capacity of the drainageway to a condition that is better than the current condition through the removal of the existing illegal dam, removal of soils and through contour elevation revisions. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening; The applicant has provided a vegetation plan that is designed to establish native species in this area. In addition the applicant has proposed to reintroduce native tree plantings for the purpose of reducing water temperatures. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan.. The 1981 CH2M Hill Master Drainage Study concerned existing and needed improvements to Citywide storm drainage facilities. Because the proposed project does not replace a drainageway with a public storm drainage facility this standard is not applicable. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals shall be obtained. The applicant is currently in the process of obtaining the necessary permits. A Condition of Approval has been recommended requiring a copy of these permits prior to commencement of construction activity. Where landform alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. Because these properties are already owned by the City right-of-way dedication is also not necessary. The applicant has not proposed to construct a bicycle/pedestrian pathway as part of the enhancement work due to security concerns raised by adjoining property owners. 9/28/98 HEARING'S OFFICER STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 OF 8 SLR 98-0008 - SUMMER CREEK WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT • • Wetlands: Section 18.84.040(D) states that the Director shall approve or approve with conditions an application request for sensitive lands permit within wetlands based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: The proposed landform alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map nor is within 25 feet of such a wetland. The proposed landform alteration is within 25 feet of wetlands designated as significant within the City's Water Resources Overlay which designates significant wetlands within the Comprehensive Plan. However, Section 18.85.050(C) of the Water Resources standards provide a City of Tigard exemption of enhancement projects such as the proposed project. For this reason, this standard is considered to be met. The extent and nature of the proposed landform alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use. The applicant has proposed to create a system of ponds and wetlands in this area in order to improve the quality of water resources within this area. The applicant has also proposed create a more defined stream channel for Summer Creek through this area. The proposed limit of work is dictated by available finances and the fact that this entire corridor has similar existing contour constraints that limit available areas for the creation of wetlands. All of the proposed grading work is necessary to create the proposed series of wetlands and ponds through this corridor. For this reason, no additional disturbance has been proposed beyond what is necessary for the proposed enhancement project. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated. Off-site drainage will not be affected by this proposal, upon completion of the proposed cut and fill work the applicant has proposed to plant native plantings in order to establish wetlands. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to landform alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening. The applicant provided a replacement planting list for areas that would be established with wetlands. All other sensitive land's requirements of this chapter have been met. The applicable sensitive land's requirements have been addressed elsewhere within this report. The provisions of Chapter 18.150, Tree Removal, shall be met. The applicant has proposed to remove two existing trees that are over 12 inches in diameter but to replace these with 356 Oregon Ash, Red Alder, Scoulers Willow, Sitka Willow, Redtwig Dogwood and Douglas Spirea. The applicant is required to obtain a tree removal permit prior to removal of any trees that are located within Sensitive Lands Areas as required by Section 18.150.030. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks, Recreation and Open Space policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied. These policies are implemented by the applicable standards of the Community Development Code that are addressed elsewhere within this staff report. 9/28/98 HEARING'S OFFICER STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 OF 8 SLR 98-0008 - SUMMER CREEK WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Water Resources Overlay: Section 18.85.050 exempts certain types of project from review under the City's Water Resources Overlay Standards as follows: When performed under the direction of the City and in compliance with the provision of City of Tigard standards and specifications on file in the Engineering Division stream and wetlands restoration and enhancement projects are exempt from Water Resources Permit requirements. SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Building Division reviewed this proposal and offered the following comments: It appears that work will occur on non-steeply sloping areas. Some work appears to fall on private lots. Building Department will require a SIT Permit and monitoring by the Civil Engineer to assure grading is completed in accordance with the approved plan. Note: A Condition of Approval has been required to this effect. The Operations Division reviewed this proposal and offered the following comments: No mention is made of any conservation easements related to the private properties. There is also no mention of covenants or deed restrictions related to the properties. How can we be assured that the property owners existing and future will leave this area in its enhanced state that portion on their private properties? Note: A Condition of Approval has been recommended that requires that the applicant provide construction and conservation easements. The applicant will also need to provide copies of the property deeds and demonstrate that no deed restriction exists for the proposed enhancement work. No other comments or objections have been received. SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS The Division of State Lands reviewed this application and offered the following comment: This project is currently being reviewed under Permit Application Number GA 15599. No decision has been made to date and there are concerns about the depth of excavation and weir structure proposed in the project. The United States Army Corps of Engineer reviewed this application and offered the following comment: This project as designed does not qualify under the regional Wetland Enhancement Regional Permit. If the applicant does not want to change the design, an application for an individual permit will be required for the project to proceed through the permitting process. Note: A Condition of Approval requiring all necessary Division of State Lands and Army Corps of Engineers Permits has been required. 9/28/98 HEARING'S OFFICER STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 OF 8 SLR 98-0008 - SUMMER CREEK WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT • 0 The Unified Sewerage Agency reviewed this application and offered the following comment: This site contains floodplain and floodway designations. Grading within the floodplain/floodway shall be done in such a manner as to preserve the flood storage and conveying area without effecting any upstream or downstream properties in accordance with R & O 96-44. A Division of State Lands Permit is required for any work in the creek. No other comments or objections have been received. rdR I, PRE _ RED BY: ark Robertg Associate Planner APPROVED BY W le_? cy " Richard Bew rsdorff Planning M Hager i:\CURPLN\MARKR\SLR\SLR98-08. DEC September 21. 1998 DATE September 21. 1998 DATE 9/28/98 HEARING'S OFFICER STAFF REPORT PAGE 8 OF 8 SLR 98-0008 - SUMMER CREEK WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT r • Summer Creek Wetland Enhancement Site Map moo, ?\ ISo, i I I Z V _ Z Z Z Q ? J d Q Q N _ r SW MERESTONE Ci. -480 II I_?_ j U L:nni 555' Mary Woodward Elementary School SITE PLAN 1 EXHIBIT MAP City of Tigard Summercreek Wetlands and 100-Year Floodplain Enhancement Project SLR 98-0008 Summer Lake Park DAKOTA y CT (10) SUBJEC PARCELS s m Mary Woodward Elementary School GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM VICINITY MAP SLR 98-0008 Summer Creek Enhancement Project ' A N lJ U LN 0 200 400 600 Feet 1'= 480 feet City of Tigard Information on this map is for general location only and Should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 htip:/A .ci.tigard.or.us Aug 21,1998; C:\magic\MAGIC02.API 411, • • Applicant's Statement Summer Creek Stream Enhancement Accompanying this statement are copies of the site-specific maps, plans, and other documents listed as submittal requirements on the application checklist provided for this project by the Current Planning Division. Briefly stated, the proposed project calls for the construction of a low flow channel for Summer Creek and the development of wetlands and ponds along the low flow channel just upstream of SW 121st Avenue. Two rock channel constrictions will force stream flow from summer storms into the wetlands. The site will be graded and planted with native plants to create a scrub-shrub wetlands leading down to emergent marshes and to open water. Native wetland meadows will be developed in the areas of flow form the creek to the wetlands. Willows, dogwood scrub, Ashes, Alders, and coniferous trees also will be planted. Benefits of the project include reducing sunlight exposure to low flows and increasing shading to reduce water temperature. The plants will improve wildlife habitat and the potential for pollution control. The approximate cubic yardage of material proposed to be filled, moved, or altered is 10,100 cubic yards of cut and 1,600 cubic yards of fill. The entire project area is identified as a significant wetland in the city wetlands inventory. The eastern half of the area also is located within the northern fringe of a Goal 5 resource site called the "Summer Creek/Woodward School Fir Grove". According to the comprehensive plan resource document: This heavily treed area has been determined to be a significant Goal #5 resource as a natural area and an outstanding scenic site. The approximately 2.5 acre site is border by the Summer Creek floodplain/greenway on the north and east, the Mary Woodward Elementary School on the south and vacant land/residential land on the west. The resource area is largely covered with mature Douglas Fir with various underbrush especially along its edges. It is one of a few undisturbed fir stands in the northwest portion of Tigard, and is seen as a visual amenity by the various neighborhoods in northwest Tigard. The protection measures recommended by the Resource Document included limiting conflicting uses to trail and related educational uses. The northern tip of this triangular area, about one acre in size, was acquired by the city through donation and is being maintained in a natural condition. The lower 60% of the resource was the site of the Capstone Subdivision, constructed in the early 1990s. This project involved the preservation of a number of large trees through the dedication of floodplain and upland along the development's northern and eastern sides, about 15,000 square feet in all. The project which is the subject of the present sensitive land application includes the planting of trees and shrubs north and east of the Capstone subdivision between the existing tree line and the edge of the ponded areas. The proposed enhancement project along Summer Creek at SW 121st is consistent with the management recommendations for this area contained in the Fanno Creek Watershed Plan. Additionally, the enhancement plan has been reviewed and endorsed by USA, the Friends of the Pond at 121 st (the neighborhood residents group), and the Friends of Summer Creek. UIrpn/dr/121.app MAP 8 NATURAL RESOURCE AREAS IDENTIFIED BY CITY CITYOF TIGAM M3 PARM No MEN SPAM SrMY GOAL 6 NATURAL RESOURCE yq? Ova T F Y RD AREAS ? 9V p J F?Q?y yN 2 T O 1.S ='Q e? T gg ?Q?? P,2 GRF PF ?F ST 6 C ? WALNUT _ srZ??-F ?N wg D r ARD ST r' -QU G? L GhT'q/ RD QP BO RD ?O BEND D BEE QQ' 0 z N n co Of W O O7 a SOURCE: WASHINGTON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1984 BULL MOUNTAIN AND METZGER COMMUNITY PLANS M16/9 • • Application for Sensitive Land Approval for Summer Creek at 121 st Ave Wetland Enhancement The following addresses each of the community development code criteria and comprehensive plan policies that apply to the proposed project. Approval Standards: Section 18.84.040(A) states that the Hearings Officer shall approve or approve with conditions an application request within the 100-year floodplain based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway shall not result in any narrowing of the floodway boundary. The city has conducted a detailed assessment of the proposed project on the flood flows through the stream corridor. An engineering firm that does this type of work performed the required modeling and technical analysis. A copy of the firm's report is attached. Briefly stated, the results of the analysis document that the proposed project would have no significant impact on water surface elevations, including the maintenance of the zero-rise floodway. Land form alterations or developments within the 100-year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.42 of the Community Development Code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards. The land within the boundaries of the project area is zoned R-4.5 and R-4.5 (PD). With the exception of small, lineal area located along the northern fringe of the site, the property is city-owned greenway. The project under discussion will enhance community passive recreation opportunities, such as bird and small animal watching, through the planting of native materials and returning the creek and creekside area to a more natural state, which should attach wildlife. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100- year flood. As noted, the project has been modeled and no impacts to the floodplain elevations are predicted. Page 1 • • The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the Hearing Officer as untimely. The entire project area is designated as a significant wetland in the city wetland inventory. The adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan calls for a path along the entire length of Summer Creek as it flows through the city. However, the only type of pathway permitted within wetland areas under the Tigard Water Resource Overlay regulations is a raised wooded walkway, the typical cost of which is $200-250 per lineal foot. The cost of a full length path would be in the $100,000 range. This is unduly expensive and far beyond the budget for the enhancement project. A pathway within the area also would increase the potential for human disturbance of vegetation and wildlife. Additionally, during the public involvement process, the neighborhood has expressed strong opposition to the installation of a pathway connecting to the existing paved system. The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood. A pathway is not proposed. The necessary US Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals shall be obtained. An joint Corps/DSL permit application has been completed and submitted. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. • The land affected by the project is city-owned. Easements for native plantings and water storage are being obtained from six privately owned properties found along the northern edge of the project area. Section 18.84.040(D) states that the Director shall approve or approve with conditions an application request for sensitive lands permit within wetlands based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: The proposed landform alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map nor is within 25 feet of such a wetland. The aim of the project is to enhance an existing wetland through the construction of a flow channel for Summer Creek as it passes through the site and the development of pond areas Page 2 • ! on both sides of the low flow channel. This scheme will provide an opportunity for the planting of.scrub-shrub wetlands and native wetland meadows. The extent and nature of the proposed landform alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use. The proposed grading and planting scheme is designed to improve the quality and value of the existing wetland. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated. The project will not result in adversely changing drainage patterns. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to landform alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the Surface .Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening. The project proposes to replace existing vegetation with native vegetation and also to plant existing bare and disturbed areas with native species. The plan meets the erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program and also is consistent with the recommendations for this area included in the adopted Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. A copy of the project's master plant list is attached. The provisions of Chapter 118.150, Tree Removal, shall be met. Two trees, both deciduous, having calipers greater than 12" caliper are located within the project area. Both will be removed during the grading of the site. This adverse impact will • be offset by the planting of 356 hundred one-inch and greater caliper native willows, ashes, cottonwoods and chokecherries (see master plant list). A map showing the locations of the two trees to be removed is attached along with a generic map showing the new trees proposed for planting as part of the wetland enhancement. Mike Faha, a certified landscape architect and arborist, prepared the tree planting scheme. The number of replacement trees far exceeds the number of trees required under 18.150. According to 18.150.060, the Director may waive any of the submittal requirements contained in "Application Submission Requirements". Given the nature and natural resource benefits provided by the present project, the applicant hereby requests the waiver of any data and narrative not provided as part of the present submittal. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks, Recreation and Open Space policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied. Page 3 0 0 COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: Citizen Involvement: Policy 2.1.1 provides the City will assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning and development review process. Over the course of the development of the project six public meeting have been held to inform citizens about the project and to discuss management options being considered for the site. Notices were sent to owners and residents of property located within one-fourth mile of the project boundary (mailing list attached). Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards and Wetlands: Policy 3.1.1 provides that the City shall not allow development in areas meeting the definition of wetlands under chapter 18.26 or areas having slopes in excess of 25% except where it can be shown that established and proven engineering techniques related to a specific site plan will make the area suitable for the proposed development. (Note: This policy does not apply to lands designated as significant wetlands on the floodplain and wetlands map.) The proposed project is consistent with the management options for the site contained in the Fanno Creek Management Plan put together by USA and by Tigard as a partner in the development of the plan. Floodplains: Policy 3.2.1 provides that the City will prohibit any development within the 100-year floodplain that would result in any rise elevation of the 100-year floodplain. The project has been modeled and no impacts to the floodplain elevations are predicted as a result of the project.. Floodplains: Policy 3.2.2 provides that the City shall prohibit development in the floodway, except if the alteration preserves or enhances the function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway. As documented in technical studies, the proposed alterations will preserve the function and maintenance of the zero-rise floodway. Floodplains: Policy 3.2.3 provides the zero-rise floodway be maintained, that there be no detrimental upstream or downstream effects, and dedication of open land area for greenway including portions for a pedestrian pathway. The project will result in no detrimental upstream or downstream effects. The land in question is part of the existing greenway system. Page 4 0 0 Floodplains: Policy 3.2.4 provides that the City prohibit development within areas designated a significant wetlands on the floodplain and wetlands map. The proposed project is not a development as such. It instead is an enhancement to an existing city-owned wetland that will reduce sunlight exposure to low flows within Summer Creek and increase plant life within the area. The project benefits include fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, temperature control, and pollution uptake. Page 5 • • Vicinity Map v ?d F 0 Summer Lake Park rhm 'otoj' Mary Woodward Elementary School LLJ q 1S 1 34CC "?`;;;:; ; '•-::. •'-,:'' _;';?^a ,:;:; ::::? ?' ::"3-`" ?" ' a' ? ?;! vii a . ,,?, _ CREST" DRIVE^ e' SW" wn a.,: "I ?o 4600 S 1-85 4800, 9009 15 g 4700 13 13 16 ? 16 a U 1 Vp as l.t '? ,? 6000 TAAa W au K WINTER LAKE DR .t ?? t+? nsei aaae ?. .. ? aaw • e ? SOOT 36ao 370Tj.. 2 3 00 ),0 4 j a 7' c 1700 p2) K 700 000 Is 60p 2 0 v 400 9 w, 111 3 300 0 u ?aa N s 4 800 ? • >tis gala a 7 ? V a ' SW MERESTONE CT ! 1600 900 rw y 111ACT •a• 9 w°0 wm aan ?da/ wK 1000 1 1100 1200 1300 a 1400 9 10 11 12 ¢ 13 ?i i rl f 2000 711ACT'D• )JOK k ig 23-74 2900 t } 16 + 3000 19 6 ? ?) 9 a 2800 \ 1400 9 U t F 3100 2700 17 i 2500 3 13 'S 2300 Ri• 6 M? e.s 3200 3 ?4 ?^ ' 9 19 )aaa )w 3 ,a..n 211 yd ? 12 Y n°s 3 8 2100 gg 2200 6 a>? t 3 2 a S 1S 1 34CC I-- cc Ca=Hdd Taldota For. 18134M 1200.1600.000. I• I m A $'s®S 3 m® n t CARTOGRAPHY . PLOT DATE June 18, 1998 FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY - DO NOT RELY ON FOR OTHER USE 1S 1 34CC TIGARD 1S 1 34CC WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON SW114 SW114 SECTION 34TIS R1W W.M. SCALE 1' - 100' F . " " .. .". _" .,. . . :•. :: •:: 2 , ga 00 t a 10700 b 29 10400 10300 . B7 80 16200 16100 e9 08 10000 e7 is900 166110 80 eb 15700 e4 15000 83 15500 1 5400 II,= U200 fl100 15 000 14900 14800 16760 Opp 1450? . ? 83 61 80 78 7e 77 76 75 74 g n f 72 6 s eo i w„ wm <^ ., q w ww wm wm wm .... ww w wm .... wm m wm wm e «.. wm 3q ? m woo R SW ANTON DRIVE e•a 9 q 6J00 25 S .me nm - - - rm - - .em um .aae um sm aeo am 14,0- 9 In mo o .m. ..,, 4' A 200 9e C 6800 16600 76660 16700 76660 16900 82 83 84 30 95 66 17000 97 17100 90 moo 17300 too 17400 17600 17600 moo 17600 178-0 ) s W O 16000 76100 teMO M2ao N 34 9 Al - 1 r t01? it 1r0?2 107 S K f tpa\I J7 105 „? lp6 107 109 109 Z 6 > Cj - 6100 :p 23 3? 6800 gg a.. p 31 9 + , ) '^ , J "? 0 8 14100 U .an s 0 x 7500t / 6500 a000 !S C 7000 gg 7{00 1 37 7 y 39 - " 47 l 46 -p 6660 y 6EOs 9600 f 1. . . 110 S 14000 1 H 22 at t a2 Y 76 67 5800 L i' V 6 L 740 L .00 7t U .. ?i99 954 2. .+... A* A t . 7100 gg Y ,p 49 L) 00 I rm 7 7 S 18400 g Z mm malts 4 O 4 13860 Z ' nn ti taa R M" S b? _ 33 t ,y 800 b ; 7 ' § ? 18600 17117 Q 1]900 's P 1wa 70?0 6600 ,.?, r. 4 ." g 9200 ; .600 B 5 t 8100 ' a Y r' J 60 9 53 : t' ~ a s ->d 5701 30 "ba '? R 34 19 •'" P•, p , la ? ^ v teen twa ,r w,v ,u 6016 . 2 _^'?-v 8590 . 640=0 ! 043 4 F ^ 8800 6000 8 1ee,. 4 bt i le f 16630 113 •b e d W i nm ` d Ha ) Z ! 62 e. t e•-' ?/ , ? wm w>. . ? . . oR •? •• '?? g 9800 60 18700 co „4 13600 ; rH 5600 b p O DAKOTA q 51 -85 t 07 , G .5300 ?" . C . e .1:• l+ .a .sae wee wee a.. a.e ..e. .om .sa. .va. ,T».a .1. c :,.te 86al i 10000 6500 6400 16 6200 k 5700 50008 13 12 4800s n 478q\00 47r00a 99 0 46001 145006 4409jgg 430^0 620 7 6 6 4 1)00 1 000 ? 800 ""? T ?'a 62 /n il 17 1 ) J 1 I r'1 IS ( 11 q 1400 } 10500 8 1060 4 5 0 b e 9 ... ' 7 S 1a 109 v 111000 11'003 1'00 11]00 i IJ 17400 11500 To 117000 14 la ip 3 17 c 11800 .. to 12000' 20 10300 P e a ..CW MP - n J I I 11900 to 1 2001 6 9 DGEWATER 1*'° cou q SW a.w .e>e 1 t"' a ' n.m 1 01 "'. ' t4 MILLVIEW '"m ,° ) w.,") „Q 4 COURT a 2 ? •": /too 13 ao :1m loloo t f 2 1:00 A 2 2 n. ». 13400 13300 laMO 13100 13000 12900 ^aa• u 33 2800 12700 2600 1250 m .. 205 0 ,4K 206 n 71 2 30 R 29 K i i 25 ; 27 3 s R 26 3 25 t 4003 12 24 ° 300 9 12200 p 4 mm 1/ 9 I J r: a 1,/ x3 . 22 y9 108 ? 3700 1000 t1 )m a 800 $ 600 35 700 may 7 6 600 600 400 300 I it 1100 J J e ,,S,AI lYl ,A1,AI 4 J lYl ~ 3 j ?; 2 1 ; ..° 3600 P w s t m ? ? a rn, q SW w, ,.^ SUMMER STREET q 3801 36 3500 33 3400 32 3300 31 1 6200 30 P m 3,00 xa 1S 1 34CB q SW Ce Cenoe9eo Taft For. 1 SI UM tM. 200.281.202 203 204.209.2I0.2I I.10. 6600. SW w 1S 1 34CB WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON NW114 SW7/4 SECTION 34 T1S R1W W.M. SCALE i- - 100' N CART0G2g W JW q®tt®4I®c1 PLOT DATE June 18, 1998 FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY- DO NOT RELY ON FOR OTHER USE 1S 1 34CB TIGARD 1S 1 34CB z I , 4tV CREST DRIVE s ]OOO 2=00 2600 p 1700 p 2600 c 2900 j 28 a 2e 26 u 2a a 23 3 or 0O I Summer Creek Wetland Enhancement Site Map t k -1-- `? SW MERESTONE C " 480' j I 62 - 560 ?. " ? ,• . . 555' JUL-21-98 TUE 8:57 P.01 • ?• O Post-it" Fax Note 7671 Date 2 91f? * of h. To c+G'I<- be.l From COJDepL Co. Phone # ] Phone # 7 Fax # /• y Z 47 7 Fax # MASTER PLANT LIST QTY. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME FORM Overstory 93 68 Fraxinus latifolia Populus trichocarpa Oregon Ash Black Cottonwood 1" cal. B86 ' 63 36 Prunus emarginata Bitter Chokecherry 4-5 cont. cal. B&B 96 Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis Pacific Willow Sitka Willow 4-5' cont. ' 2-3 cont. Understory 40 490 Amelanchier alnifolia Cornus s Western Serviceberry 3-4' cont. 120 . spp. sericea• Rosa nutkana Redtwig Dogwood 3-4' cont. 200 Spirea douglasii Nootka Rose Douglas' Spirea 3-4' cont. 490 Symphoricarpos albus Common Snowberr 1 gal. cont. 1 l y ga , cont. Cuttings may be substituted for containerized stock at a ratio of 4 cuttings for each containerized plant. Ttn n1 _no mir n - rn P. 02 a QTY, BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME FORM Groundlayer 0.2 lb. Achillea milfolium White Yarrow Seed 0.75 lbs. Aquilegia formosa Red Columbine Seed 0.2 lb, Aster chilensis hall! Hall's Aster Seed 0.2 lbs. Aster subspicatus Douglas' Aster Seed 5.4 lbs. Beckmannia syzigachne Sloughgrass Seed 0.4 lbs. Camassia quamash Common Camas Seed 2.25 lbs. Carex obnupta Slough Sedge Seed 3.0 lbs. Deschampsia caespitosa Tufted Hairgrass Seed 14.7 lbs. Elymus glaucus Blue Wildrye Seed 1.5 lbs. Eschscholzia californica California Poppy Seed 14.7 lbs. Festuca rubra v. rubra Red Fescue Seed 4.5 lbs. Glycerla occidentalis Western Mannagrass Seed 1.5 lbs. Lupinus bicolor Two-color Lupine Seed 0.2 lbs. Lysichiton americanum Skunk Cabbage Seed 0.4 lbs. Ranunculus occidentalis Western Buttercup Seed 0.4 lbs. Wyethia augustifolia Mule's-ears Seed 1,760 Aiisma plantago-aquatica Amer. Water-plantain Propagule 1,760 Carex obnupta Slough Sedge Propagule 1,760 Eleocharis palustris Common Spike-rush Propagule 1,760 Juncus effusis Common Rush Propagule 1,760 Sagitaria latifoNa Arrowhead Propagule 1,760 Scirpus acutus Hardstem Bulrush Propagule Existing Trees H 32 33000- . o cl,A 6q4 •s I? 31 ' ?s ''aa 3200 36 '' 30 J` J -11* IJ lie I J - MIAs 2400 .2300 2200. 2100 2000 1900 11 t, 14 ... ' I5 IB 19 22. e A•I?J) 106' ' 111' III' 111' 111.10 • J `6 3100 '•a DRIVE R SSW SUMMER CREST y 1a C s 69• sY34Y Z 29 3000 $2.10 6e.94 120.16 120.53 120.24 120.12 sa•oo 7000 70.00 v 4429A00 2 2900 2800 2700 2600 2500 4600 4700 4800 C, y ? o R T1 I R l? f? C 8 6 _ 7 g b$ 28 - 27 - 26 - 2 - 24 - 23 eSDO u 3800 N 99.56'45' w . 120.46 I 0.?5 120.21 120.16 OC 100 aO.N O I ` 62.66 12057 .45 . IAA POINT M9l66'16"w 10662 103 .09A: 100",7 .. B9 E 2dEASENEWIT'350 zs- 102 ama 101 .o5Ac. ' `I +. 05800 a?°`J70? ..,.Q -- ---------a3L'D----------- $, ?r =1?? 7 • S 69° 51' }9. E \ u - 100 1? s? ii ' 656.66 700 600 500 s e9•ss'xz E 400 300 200 0.30 5000 6 4 'I 26 35.46 21 ! + aa0o 1500 s I8 62.57. . e6.z1 xzl 460056 4500 2.13AC. 5 8 3 - 2 ° I l L q r .° e 4800 4700 $ sza +a ea R49 8 o +. 12 • \\.P _ r 1 ?' 39.52 a 100 M Pa ° '+4 '? R / _ _ 13 0 t'1 J, S J ? I r 800 ' b 01 ?_ 71. Q 059006:c so '~. 4 15 Ia =' - ?' 7 2. S.W. < MERESTONE COURT 43oo? t s2.5D a9 ,.• b 19 x . e= 9x , ra 4400 5 I .85 ? 125 Ac. 0 6 ?A O q 7 syss 1956 \ ?+0 . 900 34.30 63 65 3497 \.1 509•6Y3s E Ne9•S7'3: w *.:... a• ? °4BJ TRACT A ? e'bv p:m ? ER LAKE> DR. 11 2, 6REENWAr/ PARK 1200 1300 1400 a 4200 E ... IS . so "++°? P?3ly 96.08 aq? ^ - TRACT A' ° 8 6ro/ 1000 1100 R f 2 6000. ??FF cm 2 5100 T(?ACT •B +4?? ((nE£NWAY/PARK ?d ?4/ o y r ?L .20 b,67 6 Q ? 3600 F? 44.'A/ /BAC (PRIVATE DRIVE J) 2d P+ J 9 10 a 11 12 S 13 ° 109.76 e~ 6 6100 '` 500 3700 194 o.es 54.50 3 a Jed 4300 r + T r T-' • N es•sTa w ,tea d _, .,; f 2 w .1 o a = 3800^ 3900 4000 e J r .? s Il 4100 . '-*s aloo 2 a2oo l0 J Mr u 5 0 6 S 7 N 8 9 :aaa o3AC. w w ' INITIAL PT S e ° sI ss E na so' sd so' so' ..W • 94.50 s7' 0 ci co' loe.ez s' 4 • 6 WEST EA 11004 ' 5 e90 19 10r E 566.03 1700 2000. /072 Ac. ;?..- .. ' - SCHOOL D157R1cr 23dL - 13" dogwood MARY WOODWARD ELEMENTARY ns.n 12s.vz ., i ?:as3 1 O O , ?t 30, 12" dogwood 11R St 100 0P SUMMER CREST vi = • 4" T z sy " . s Va c • AKE ? 0,9 ? - w 4- • ?` . 9 • ?G E S.W. M EST NE C a DRIVE N. =r 1 `" . ?` S Gam. v •• C? / • • •. PARK ` L;1. N _ .' • H 10 MARY8 AURMONT Q• WOODWARD ELEMENTARY 30 t scHooL 570 S.W. KATHERINE ST. . FALC? I$?• N ccv 'n • ?•- 3 34 S. W KATHERIN 4 ST. tv b r N 7• E I C, Do C' IMNEY a ' - SW WILLS Pt- S. W. < L NN < ST. e DGE a 1 ? - ai Cr S 123rd CT. J ; gY! A I e $' `3 S. ANN PL. S.W. ANN ST 3 N S KAR ST. 6 _ N ` AVE S RR OK CT W 3 lz t Q w t NISH h N N 101 3 S$ S. MARIE CT 3 57, y S.W. TIPPITT PL. ss,? v. a_S.W. t•`•• -- I r S.W. CARMEN ST. . ??. W r i I 163 1 20 0 20 40 GRAPHIC SCALE 1'-20' LEGEND QS SURVEYED MANHOLES • ASSUMED MANHOLES EXISTING CONTOURS ?i PROPOSED CONTOURS -. y FLOWLINE POND UMITS LANDS iREA i 1 1 \. X60 ti \ i 761 1164 163 164 :-162 f6o ?165 'i i 3 4164 163 165 !_.. - i LLI 1 2 I KCM, Inc. date designed by redsions 7080 SW Fir Loop MAY 1998 drown by PRELIMINARY scale checked by Portland, Oregon 97223 AS NOTED approved by KCM N0. 4 -- _? L ?..?... r \ I , ` ' Ir 163 164 City of Tigard, Oregon SUMMER CHEF( RESTORATION PROJECT CML SITE PLAN drawing number Cl sheet number 1 of 3 i ?I U C9 ? O I 1'63 ?tS4 I .163 --f? 55 b C !i - I I 1 i I I I I I 1 I t I W Z 3 I U Q KCM, Inc. date designed by revisions CIVIL drawing number 7080 SW Fir Loo MAY 1998 drawn by City of Tigard, Oregon Loop PRELIMINARY SUMMER Cfi®C C2 KCMPortland, Oregon 97223 scale checked by RESTORATION PROJECT SITE PLAN sheet number AS NOTED approved by KCM NO. 2880004 2 of 3 20 0 20 40 ' / GRAPHIC SCALE 1 Q20 LEGEND SUR1V,EM1(Y,E?D MANHOLES ASSUED MANHOLES I EXISTING CONTOURS PROPOSED CONTOURS r- . FLOWLINE POND LIMITS / . ?- 160 v. ? I _ I I I I I I ? I 1 '4 / \ 16, \. \\ / 1 , JV ,r ? SW NAERESTONE I , . ? II\ I I 1 I .. 1 q\ I I I ? ;l I I I I I ?,I` I I I I I ?wsr I I I I ? OF.CK I / I N? ' , ^ - ?.... .-.- I I (rPW IND S?gry I .. f OF B0a5E) J _ ---?' _ - 164 ?..?- i i `•`? `\ . ` `(+ ?\ \ ?•.? il I/ `\ .. r14.. 163 -162 \ .., ? 4 \ l I I ,• 1 ? II L- - _ ..`162-... - - - ` - 16 ? ___ o r . ?... J. _...._..?- 163 '1`• r ---•- a FLOW RESTRICTION 1 N 20 0 20 40 GRAPHIC SCALE V-20' LEGEND OS SURVEYED MANHOLES ASSUMED MANHOLES EXISTING CONTOURS ?i PROPOSED CONTOURS ?••. FLOWUNE • / POND LIMITS i Il ?? l Il 1 h?l l 1 t l,`t Q 1 l •1'll Or ??11 1 rl l `1 ? `1 j N KCM, Inc. 7080 SW Fir Loop KCMPortland, Oregon 97223 date designed by MAY 1998 drawn by scale checked by AS NOTED approved by PRELIMINARY revisions City of Tigard, Oregon SUMMER CREEK RESTORATION PROJEE'f CIVIL WE PLAN dramng number C3 sheet number 3 of 3 LEGEND ®-- SCRUB-SHRUB COMMUNITY Oregon Ash - Fraxinus oregona Red Alder - Alnus rubra Scoulers Willow - Salix scouleriana Sitka Willow - Salix sitchensis Redtwig Dogwood - Cornus stolonifera Douglas' Spirea - Spirea douglasii ®-- EMERGENT MARSH Hardstem Bulrush - Scirpus acutus Slough Sedge - Carex obnupta Common Rush - Juncus effusus Tufted Hairgrass - Deschampsia caespitosa - NATIVE GRASSES Red Fescue Festuca rubra v. rubra Blue Wildrye Elymus glaucus Tufted Hairgrass - Deschampsia caespitosa Two-color Lupine - Lupinus bicolor Fireweed - Epilobium angustifolium .G ' P Gr*"Works. P.C. ?.....w a.ree $00 h. en A...., SM. 32? 3*3222 ea KCM, Inc. 7080 SW Fir Loop KCMI?ortlamd, Oregon 97223 date designed by JUNE 1999 drawn by scale checked by AS NOTED approved by G t ST1; R FO r f.. D r. W04AR FAM V p OREGON 1.1111pt_ ARC?\ revlslons CITY OF TIGARD SUMMER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT GENERAL PL.ANTIN I PLAN (east eecfto drowbprwmber L1 sheet rwnber 1or10 X X, 1< r i a v WATERUNE: 162.5' •,V. y?Ix, 1 j -? 1 J \ 158 t _ - KCM, Inc. 7080 SW Fir Loop KCMPortland, Oregon 97223 date deslgned by JUNE 1998 drawn by scale checked by AS NOTED approved by r- f- revislans D F. 1roUa FNIA U a OREGON ki ?'t ARG? KCN N0. C i xx v1x X VYYY ?v''? ' .. N. WATERUNE: 162.0' \ \. CITY OF TIGARD SUMMER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT SEE SHEET L1 FOR LEGEND GENERAL PLANTM PLAN (RIMe eecftO dra.ing number L2 sheet number 2 of 10 i7 r r i r i 7 J U ti P N Gre4mWorks, P.C. m m t.IrevF aew.:nr. N pnFeaneMr Mlyl .-. ,AT Slnb 900 FM 61. ?•Fn,. SM.... oanwl dye. 91709 :01:71 YC KCM, Inc. 7080 SW Fir Loop KCMI?ortland, Oregon 97223 date designed by JUNE 1998 drawn by scale checked by AS NOTED approved by ?CISTER? r I-- revisions D F. MODEL FMA V a OREGON qpF ARCS KCM N0. ?a CITY OF TIGARO SUMMER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT GENERAL. PLANTM PLAN (west section) drawingnunber L3 sheet rwnber 3 of 10 Exi9#1..q Co.,?liohs P/ah i 4 0+ 00 j a y a P v a ? o J ?e ; > G- ,?o ?y tr?"Q s yy? r b a S. W ? ?b } by ?_ ? 61. -?? 170 ?d80-? ` 180 / V 9 ?///FEZ.\P\ / X616 U I n x 6} bb' 0 ' bb T W ~~j ~~y~~~r~~7~ ~~ry~~~ 4 ~ ~ 1l~GG AYU11\l/?~IIJi~x J~if'?l1'? . s ~";~W~< AREA a~ rR~~ R£MovaL kM,rMM~w, rorA~ cANar~~ . s.~a ACRES GRAPHIC SCAM hAY~1 TOTAL CANOPY R£1'Ei~~'iON: 3 90 ACRES ~ ~ 24 60 TRH MIl'iGATi4N N~'1~ a tOG 200 r~ i vMMI ~ i+~ rvrAL rR~ES ~ z' o~ GR~ £R. 5 ~ x 1. FOR DESCRiP~14N OF rRErr SIZE, 1'f(?E, AiVO ~ 32 ~ 4y r CflNDiTION, 5£E ArrAC~+ED kXCEL DOCU¢IENr. f ~ y rOrAL TR£E5 MITIGABLE; 313 ~ ~ tuck ~ 40 t~ f PPaa A l4 2 MITIGATION r~EES ARE DE~'~NEC AS 7 EES pF u ~ Tr 12 OR IARGEI~ l'N OIAM O AL rR££S EX£MPr' 75 ~1'ER. w rorAL rR,EES ro ~e REM v~o. 3 3 POOR AtVD OI:AD rR£ES AR MA ' F 0 63 (58,83~~ E EXE ~ ROM xoRrX qq ~ ' 9 I ~~v' ~ wv~v~ MIr~GArlol~ PROCESS. ~ ~ a a z ~ r-~:_: f PERCENTAGE flI: FREE RETENTION; 41.17 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , x ~ 1Y + ~ ,~r; ~ w w w , ' ~ I 1 ~ ~ 1 F,S ~ i ~ z~ ~ ~ < i ~z E ~1 U~ ~ w ~ ti { ; • ~ ~ ' ~ L ry; t ~ l ~ w a ~ f s ' `,e ~ ~ , i 3 ~ ~ w z , r ~ ~ ~ ~ 'Q 1 1 1~ , . ~ ~ 2116 ~ J ~ ~ ' , . 4 ~ ~ / ~ i our " ~ , ~ n t,, "^-ter'-""' ~ , / , ~ 21e~ s,at + ' a r 'h ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~ ~ n A ~ ~ ' b~ NrYC ~ ~ ~ w / ? ~ , ~ ° ~ ~ 21c6 ~ ~ ~ , ' ,y W \ ~ ~ T ' ilk ~ - °a f ti ~ p~T 71X14116' Y11 4 ~z ' ~ 171( 6C1F ' ~ ~ ~ r~ 1 , ~ 4y f r 1 ~ ~ 3. A~ , \ x ~ ~ xno- N yM;; rrA ^ ; ' 33.. 'W at ~ w °°"^'°1d 4scr ar ~ ra ~~~ro~.rwuw, uor ow. ~+a«~m~s er' a,n «ol its +~w~ww~w ~ . ~ r' ~ \ , ~ b t ~ r ~ er vrn " G34T •/"s - tpbt i ' ~ ~ , ,~..,ti.'w M WJT ~ ~ WJT i ~ T ~ " k ~ • r ^ ~ N7At r 7T > 'lyMp~ ~ r St ~ t ~ 006T ~ r ' '"~~1.'.1 ~ • q ~ ~y ^ ~ ~ g~ ~ / \ ~ 1 `~2 , '~~?Fk > } Sib 4 t a ~ " ' 7W ~ T„l~31r ~ '1+3~ h ' pill ~ ~ ,r 66 ' ^z ~ n ~ a ~ ' 411yy ~ 1~"WT ~ T 1r, 4 ~ ~ ~r ~ ^~jir rr ~iGIL +e, ~ 44~ ~ tj2T ,n ` ~ ~ t ~ k~ ~ 19l ~ r' 6 41' T ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~ Wi r 76Xt t5yr t a~t m_ ~,~,~r ~ 1" ~~Ma , vy Wpt T011 6~2j' 151ti # wit ~ 11711 : ~ 'r '~1 , ~ ~i ~ ~ ~tY1 ,~T rt ~ obi' a ~ ~ o r ~ ' iF 1t1EE 1 ~ ~ \ 1 ~ , ` k. # ~ s+ W ~ s 146, ; ff w ~ i 'byir ' t T ,,t r ~ , ~ ' ti ~ ' 1 + / r11NK ~ T ~ P ~ 1 ~ ~ ' ~ t T '2' ~r fit, aaf~t a%li' ~ i W~AOY ~ nit ^ 49i ~ ~ ! ~ '°i 1 A D14~ \ ~ t 1, , ~ is t i 1 11 a ~ ~ 6 1t '91.0 , . " iM~' ~ ~ "111t or . f, ' ~ 1 ' k " 1 4 • y , ~ ? 614r. ~ \ ti , r, R . r. , ~ ,a,, ~ ~ fit, ~ T V t~'~ ~1~ ~ ~ , ~ T y ~ ~ ~ ' i / ~ ~ 71fi , ~ yr~r ;t~ \ ~ 100r K ' ~ ~ M1 ~ ~ s ,ova ` Y y.. \ ~ ~ ~ ~ • `4 ' ~ ~ Hybl . ~ ~ ,yy i s, ~ ~ fi, p y ~ IO F, , Y ti ~r ~ n ~ ~ ~ `',l ' ~ ~ ~ gy7~2 ~yJ sM s» ~+~x,, +n, a~a«~r~ ~ ~aop~ ~ i'~i ~ ~ `~r~ i , ~ r ar K. eon aw .va, wyp awe ¦1 .wY' 61pt ~ X ' % a ~ °'1y ~ E,.~ ~ °ar +Mww~e~apew r\ W ~ '3 ~ , ~ ~ , 971 5 ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ P ~ a~ , `e ~ ~ a \ ~ w t ,p y 61f4ti' 1 !1 n ~ ~ ~ '`y, pier yrer4 ~3. ~ ~ wit ti~ f',. ~ ~ f y. ~6 / ~ s , i ~ w StM, ~ r It ~ 'L ~ y.~ ~ ~ 9 Y \ ` l~ ~ / e~ 1111 ~ '1111 * 1 M61 `'a . 0 1M+ y. a ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ..~by ~ ^ . ~ ~ s t ~ ~ } ~ 4 f ! ~ ~ ~Y ~ ~ 1 r ~ , ,t ~ y a } ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ » ~ ~ ~a20211' 9111TH ~ ~ , ~ r : ~.a, x 176T k ~ " 1 r~ T 2~; r ~ ~ k ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r i YI` ' qq` .w 'w 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~5 +`Mi ~ 7 , ~ 1 ~ e titi \ " a ~ t , ~ ~ ~iC ' F i ` s, ' ~ n~ 3 ~ F ~ ~ tiM , Kr ~ ~y a' t ~ pl6t 173p `w ~ ~ ,r :x!ea ,mra'"e r 'x x601 ti~ ~ ~ ?1 ~ ` f ~ ~ ~ f w £ ` ~ 17Bf ~ C @ ~ '1 } { A 7 \ . 1i. 1411 T ~ y ~ ~ ' y~ ' `fti y / R 't ~ , , `4 ~ .r a ~ ,yam ~ ~v p' t ~ ~ x~ ~"fir ~ ,x " ~l `$~1a~, ti , ~ ~ < ~ . ` t ~ 1. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rr.r~rr r . ~ 1lryrrr „y ~ 4~f. 'I7SST ~ ~ r~ w > ~ ~j / ~ *1 + NT , r * w~..4. ~t0y 9,fiQT~ ' 4 s ~ ' ' t ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ti ' ~ i73 i$ ~ '^'wSOA ~ VIt~';t ~ 9 t' ti; ~ s'~ ~ +r ZrLUan ' 'ti 2 4 t ~ ~ -,.tits ~ t ~,665~ * ~ { ~ , . ~ 1 k ~ " ; ~ . ~ 4 r , • ~ ~ ' . „ ~ C T 9 Ir i ~++"'yl~i r ,boor I w.w, I k r / ~ ~ f219T • ~FiOr ~ „ r T ~ ~ > , ~ ~ 1, ~~~R • , ~ 2~r ~ ~ ~ ~ 17r ' ~r '~b>ar ~ DoT ~r am " , I ~ .-,fit t , r t• fi S 1 ~w' • F t . .t ~ yfl?T ~o ' ~ 's 11Cir r 691r, r r „ ' r ~ 4 ~ 22 k \ e ~ ~ ' + ~ ! ' ~ er ~ , ~ ` \ a ~ ~ ~9fltir' tar ~ . ~"s~r ah?r`~4T ~ t ' ~aq! ~ owr 6WT ~ ~ ~ V ~ b', r~ 13M ,2161 ~ Y' { s, I & ~ ~ < ~ \ i r / ~ 9161' ~ 6!6T '~69pT 3~ ~ ~ ~ IJ1S ~N~, ~ Y i ~ '~G6~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~T ~ v T 19 fi"Y r . ~ ~f ~ ~ Or ti 4 ? h .g r .~1111 4 t,, " t ~ ~ ~ \ a ^ tp1 ~1~~, ~ ~ ' ~ ''c ~ 5. a q AD49 t { y / ( , AZbi"' { pMWT` ' m~w ~ ~ • , s ~ w ~ q ~ , 't ' Qr' f r I ' ~ t~''' s12p , ~ ~ 1161 ` .h a ~ ~ y711 ' .e .r+.,.,,.,,, 11112 ~g 1 r,, ~ ~ ~ ' ~r wrrrw wl r r wr ylrrrZO~ r ~+yp31+~~ r rr ~r~11^,wwlwrwrW +s, ,b» ~rypr.... eln t~.e ~ ~ '.ti ~ ~ 21`10 2 ~ , ~ ~ , v ~ .,w4,, ~ 1 / r ' 'M3 .y ,n. w.rlnwlple ~ r,lllwo !pl Il,ppy tlll Mli h n rp . F ' \ 1 "5. +~w~ ~ ~ "°8` ~ , F ~ ^`T ° Y `11Ci ~tSN~"'~ r+w' 'w~ .lrritfw„~rfA 3.. ` +!r~.M. av~e.dNM q». w.. gn.. m Hwy ~ ~ 11A4 , a' a i~ d , t ' lr, ~ 1 . ' S ~yl . ; ~ iF w~ ~q. /~INpMaaw ww wN AW OI~eMneeiaA N~ ' 114 • 1 ~ Q ; s 2gZp a 911q{s rn 2,~p 2100 aa' aqs u°' erNrwwt de~aGe xt ~ v3 4 " ~ ~ 7111 r ~ C~11"iB101q +~7r"""~ l~s~~ieY~~w a ~ ~ ~ Oy ~ d 1 ti , r x a ~ , 4 ,1 ~ 2]W 7fu'? s, `~It.. 1101 ~~4 M17 1 ~ ~M ~r ' . . , ~ ~ p96 ~ `A ~ f , ~ ~ i ' ' x ~ ~ Zile ~ ~ , 2~., a f , s'a ~ 2pYy ~ 2161 ~ ,2110. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? <~F~ ~ ww bvw { ~ 2171 9fi79 ` , 'aR' C+`,, 1 9W6 ~ t 2101 ~ ~ ~ g! re ,im. w141.delwi ,[F qq ~ , 8 ~ ~ , h ~ , i ~ ~ ,wc aw. ~ 7Mr. ~~L , ,m,~p~ ~vrvw... wl ~ ~e,,,n I ~ r ~ ~6 1 ~ - 21W~ t a ~ K F ~ ~ ~ / •r i ~ 11GP8 OyD7Y i ~ • AODry r' • ~ ~ ~ . . ~ a ~ t 2po1r 70W ` ~ : urw ~ zts~ ~ r , ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ z a'~ , s U' ` P 3 ~ ~ P ~ Joao . ,,,,d ~iii6 ' s«~~v4x~ n Y " za?6 M, rt ' „ ' ~ ~ a 2G~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ € ~ ° g xo+a F .awnnr~°°'xr ~ ~ ~ s i 1 . ~ ~ ~ 1 ` r H, ~ r ti \ cT ~ N 4 .,k • ~ r. ~ ~ ~ :e, ~ ~ a~ci t k~ ~ ;d ~ ~ i q ~ ~ YN I ~ G a ' ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ GL ~ ~ C ~ - I,t w t ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~z ~ ~ glw.lwn „~Ib ~ ~xo ,Mllk ~1 ,.1111! ~ ~ ~ ~ a 0 ~ ~ i ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ I ~ I {.alwdaArunw , ~ ~ wK w Aw vM IWO 1 n~ w 1 ' / x - i 2M 9QD1 7 2012 t a am 20~ ~ ~ i' pow w 'weA erww.>ten a.. ' 1 ' f , ~1~ M.M~ YM MMIPtsAMe[p Sb M r f N 1 r , B . 1 r r , r ' A u ~ OF oil, Gz; ~ c~ ~°n r ~ l+' ~Q1J r r f / s i , r r r ^ / r / r W ~ o o re 1 r e r ' i 3 a r ' 1 o t DATE.- CZ Q 05119198 R 1 1 I nEPrsro:vs: 06123198~ p o0 I eaww •e~w ~wyrne„~. maa~ eenw avm xaeb i ' • o SHEET 7 7 ~,~tiM,~' r D'.~ ~ t rs S5" ~4 ~s~~~„'.~~ 5 " mrt ~ { ~ p- ~ ~i" _ ,~Wq~ r v~, 't S ' F r a "I~, t aw~a, r ~ ~ ' 1.~, N a ,i ,:F. ~ sb~, %a`" ~,5."4~, bwwi~ `~~P"~~a ''a'~"-fir,`. ^.@ ~W ~U ~,G; z~' "y' 'r s r` 4e'% ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ii ~.w r ~ p ~ sue,'' ~r ` v q~ l'~~ "~,r °r~ « 1 ~yr~ H~yi x I i5 ,R" ~ ~ u y +iF h . ! ; ~ r ,YET" h* ~ y ~ 9 s 1 ~ sE a~ sT} ~ I's 2 ~ d ~ i ,p ~ f ` bpi 1r~'~ ~ww 4. ~7T~A4+. f 1 ~yy ~ t~~~'r ~,~qy~ 1 ~ W k ,q T# 1 S fL ~'~?~r r by y { I y V re 1` ~v ~ . L i~l `",s .r~, ~ , r a ~ ~ ~ ~ jfyk~ •ii~0 ~sv*~ ~ 3i~ r "i r q 1/' '~~f ~ ~ I , tM ` 's - i r ~r ~s ; , Y ~a r n'M q.fr5 3 t T ~ 7 e~'A"Y`Ay" r [{Y 4 ` I ~ M1 r ~ F ~ ~i L 7 ~1`~wr N 1 J e!\ ^n•i Y s fin,. a ~ ~ SJ n t iE 3 ~ l ~~1 , ^~i d 1 1 s ~ Y.°"Y ~ ~ t ~Y,~ r" ~ ~ ~ ~~r4 . a~ k ~ is ~ Fri r~J Y ~ a~.~ As i ~ ~ ~t F W r ~u ~ 3 ~ ~ a e y~nip 1 RS ~ `6 v a ~ ti ~x r ~ e `r~ W~i``1 ~ ~ , , gpi M ~~."~t~~ T ~ y i ~ i~p n~ ~',r , T i 'I ` ` ~ ` i ~ `T ~~~r. 3~e'~ 7 ~ '~7, ''f i ~ +i• ~ a ~ _ N ~ ~J ~ ,gk ~ r t~ t a a ' M~ r`~'Z ~1 4`l ~.`.'a k. a ~ a, ~ ! "r ~ ' ~ i , Y ~ N " y ~ ~s;.~~E:~~„ ~ ~ ; ~ ,R ' ~ ~ .n ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ti s ~~a~ ~ ~ , . { ~ ' T ~r~` ti , y« i i° ' ~ ww+vt . 999 7 4 4 i~, "~`~'4~ q'~ k') ~~ta.l ~ JJ t ' $ `A ,,u ' F ~sr ~ ~ ; 6tl 4~ (V ~ n if ~lm~~,M/~~S~ ~l~ ~ x ~ L ~ e t J r t. ~,~yy 1 '1~ 1 ,'k' 1 FF ; ~I 1 ` b I'1 pp~ f 8`< p R I+ ~;qys~~ i~ ,~Y 4~ y f ` y ~ !4 n~F~r_ Zn ~ 1 < ' r4i * ~~1 a A y " l~ ~ F . 4 lY ~ I y .w;'~,~&a~. ~ ° . Y kx,,~"Iji~ ,fit ~ "+"Rh S `T ,4 r` ~ a ,~4 ~y A,. f~, AVM ~ 1 I 1e~+~ t e 1 ~'J ~ ' ,`4 9 ~ ~Q 6 ~^d d gP~ 't, t ~~~k r~ " . ve` ~.x w ! ~ I'~ i , ~ ~ ~ %"91 ~ u RO r SM ~ ~ M; ~;.`r i +~4 y r~ % ~ 4 r °~°l ~ ' 1, ~ Y ) ` Y W!e"~,~ r F~:n S ~ ¢ I ] ~ . v~ ne~LIAI F~ ~ ,N~~.y, 1 ~aV pr ~ ~ ~ ~ ' S~ ~ M 9 ~J~': t:r ~ ; 4' ! " b 3 ~ b ; i °m+~ ~ r § aRl~ ~ , ~ ~ J~' ~ f. { ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ "aY~~"'~ ' 'K~q ~ ~ r ~ .r.l ~ k~' ~r ll ^'~1 y l0'j ~ i h::' j t 5 ybr~ ~ rr } ~ V F ^y~, R, j e µ f 1 ~ t od~ r.q 1d' s t MI~r iyn~'"~ c s 7~1'^AfF r~ •IiYi"IN4w wM Nrv M~IN.v~NV. 11I' +r~ i r y~ may, ~i ~ S ! & ~ {dE4 L`rot ~ -'4 ~ iMM10C fGil! ~ y P fi i ~ x ~ ~r~ R ~ ~ n 1 ~ , . ~ "~4,`~ ~y , ~ ~ ta...r• A ~,,F ~lyt~ tm ~ ~ ~ ~ .a' t r 1 17 d ~ ~ ~ ~ i~^' v,~, ; ! f /IiY .r..,,,.M„ ~ ~ s 'N «~a r ~ ~ . +j i s R' ~ M ` "d fe \ ~ 3~ry, ~ ~ u'~•~ i r ~ >z-'~~ ~7 ~ ~ r. Tex € , / t, a ° ~ ~ ~ LOT LINE LO? LINE ' r~~ ~r ROW ~ r ~ ~4 ~....wr.~.. ~ 1 b ,w "r~rti~ . C+. i. i ~ ~ 9F . ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ EASTERN 51DEWALK do t,AfvDSGAPE T ~ f O ~ j P t1.E ~ ~ ~ EIE GONST'RllCTED EsY PROPERTft:S P.U.E, , ~ ~ , rrrrr~rsawa~raa~ rrr~r + r' ~ ~ ;Vr" ~ ~ 4 wa~rrr r ~ g 1~.5 3 5,14,5 6• A'9U'RlIVG EA57 SIDE Off' S~'FtEET R/W 4p ROADWAY W, ` y AT 1}IE TIME OF" ?HEIR ~"UTt?RE ~ V V ~aar~wwrwawirw ar ~ 's.~~ ~:i*~~'' 1 ~ ~ ~ ti DEVELOPMENT ~ i i 1 1 1~ 1 1 E fil 1 1 1 f~ f ~ ra ^~I' ~ p~p1 i f ~ ~ ~ i ~ r~ i ~ s p ~ i 8 a d ~ A~ ' 1M . p z „J yr 'M+e Vr ~n1 ~ , w a ~ ~ 4 I "V M\ fir, ~ 11 ~ i F ~ i T w M~f t a ,,w, ~ , r f ~ P" x," _ ,ws`~ f"""r"'~ X5,1 t ` ` r .k li 1 ~ ~ ~ i"'"'""'1 ~ , k / ~ 1~ `pa's! 3 i ~ ~ ~ , ~ r ~ ~ ~ 3: t MAX 3' 1 MAX 1 I j 1 I j 1 i 1 p' ~ ' .r i € S1Y C~gdP11;1.D I;JRIVE 1 ~ ' ~i ! 1 ~ at~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ."r. R~ ,y~~ R~?ADwAY 9ECT10t~ 9l~Ewi4LK 9ECTlON r. i a ~ w ~ ti, r~ ~ H Ar cy~ „ ~f 4~ AC ~ 1 i ~ 3 f ~ (3/~ o ~ z (3/4 -o ~ r~s~ Racx ~ ~ n ww w wv wM.wiArN a w J ~ 6~''i a z z -o ~ M~ ~ f y~~ Y ~ M 1 1 s M~, scA~~• ~ mzo w a.""r"rM 1J,r ~ . ~ X w4 ril s~ . ~ ~.~~,g t x~ h s , ~a,.,. a E a~ w c 9- ~ ~ ~ , v~ n~~ i4 1 ~ ~ ^ 4 L ~a,; LOT LINE LOT LINE L 46 ROW LOT LIVE 33' 1/2 ROW i f a Fr k' P U I PUE E i 5 LOT LINE LOT LINE P U E 6' ~5'3.5' 28' ROADWAY 53 6' 25' ROW PLAN EXHIBIT t 4 ~ ! 122' ROADWAY 5 55 5' g ~ I S ! PU E ~ o , ~ 2 1 MAX L 2.1 MAX P U E fi" SAwCUT IC' A . 20' ROADWAY 6 :1 2 ' p e 7:1 MAX ` ~ ~ r'r~r y ,r 3 1 MAX 3.1 MAX 1 MAX 2.1 MAX 31 MAX 1 MAX A rz t f + i BULL MOt,~t'rA1N F0 SW OREEIVAM . , . , ' HALF STRUT SEC'~OA? Mi? C1~RP 9TftEBT 3 1 MAX 3 1 MAX s w SECT ON i STREET SE+CT10N SIDEWALK a r PRlVA 1 E ~ ~ 1 i 4m AC 41. A C N N N 3" N 4"- N 3 AC 4 AC 3 AC (3/4--0') 2 (3/ 0) BAS.. ROCK fl' ~ r + - OCK fl N fl N 2" (3/4M-0N) 2 (3/4 -0 SASE ROCK 2" (3/4Y-0N) 12 (2 -0 ) y k 80 {2N-00) • 7" (2r-0") t ~ .ivy _Y 1 1 SCALE 1 1=20f p yy ~ aL 4" SCALE- 1N-201 =~i •'ti"' SCALE- i fl-20, An' ¢ 'jam' Vl r i 4 A ya ~ ~ N S ~ • h+ { D44TE• 0.5119198 Sr4vS „ 06123198 r Vt Sig w Il° ° ~ "'~a ~ .y„~~, fie, a , • i' °a,•'Ni ',a 71'4' ` ' T;jP r ~ ~ it': t a L~.~ .Y I Ht ~ 'EL45U!~ R~yrl"~,f ~'~N ~a`°, ~'~c , 'x ate w ~ . ~ , . . i Eye '!r i .fy'E`y ~a'>I ` t9 -r ° : , r r . v . ~ ^y~~ ~Srr' fir 4y`f,L bR y~ - r r r ~ 4 w~ CAS 7 r.i 'iF Nl, raw ~ , ~ .tY ' ~wlN~"E r 'd y a6~ rl,• 1 ' ,c f~'S~y~,,54F~JF °~,NE,~ ~ :r ,i Y+~ 1 ' ti •°t°07 r ,q~, a .~5 .`~,•~,~r ~..~A, a ~,H s _ + ~ ~ '1~~~+~k"~=., y` r , all q~tvddl P~ ~ 'tn,, Y,~+ ie ,i v~ • ,4 - ,k-. y , a ~ k ~ " Slit ~ ~ ~ 3 W m,:bsv r r l I~.„r~., , ~ '.il ~ . t ` er ~ h~zl}•~'~rV. s ~ ,'t+~ "~e'`wyP F ; x•x' ~ , • p~ • ~ R "wY ~ t „y' 0~~~ ~ r r; 7 r - -.q., .A • ~`f.Y~s~, , ~ a . , ~ .1 .Y , ~ ~ r « ~;,f.p~r~ I w xn. ° ~ 1,~~r t. ° p" a 1 3 N~rlt';a• .k s49 •x ' d,' • r~,i, r e A 4.7 i r ,~1 yy,,,, qy~ ris«.,h',1MPif.,'1`y'LY~~y'H~^'K. U ' ~'H '2 '~d v6`~~, 1 N °'J~''~ a, y k~' ' v ~ , ' DNS r ~d-`i"fY,#~ ~ T q t ~~M, .y { µ L Jl ~ i~ I Hf ~ + . x `F pis °i~t, ~ < ~ . . , , e~r ,tt~, .C. , a i~ „ ~S its, ~ ~XIC I i ry tiiS , GRAPHIC S( 4f r; e` :APHiC SCALL H ',x ~t a~•` ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ; ~ i ty, y ~ Q ZS x , fr ti ~ , ~ ty i ~ a ~ ~ V^~ , (tx >~'r } w X (lx~r} P' ; 1 inch = 50 54 ~ 1 inch it 14 ` ' ~ . t ~~r n v S x ~ w >t a Jk ~ t ~ r r y z h d ~~,,nt J ' I NCrRfM i ~ ~ , ~ z y,++,fi ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 k ~y r ( 6~ ,~4 y r ~wr~ - - ~r . - - w-wT 1 nl 1 ~ ~ { yry ~ S • i 1111, w v , Iwo ? ~w ~ ~ • ~ ~ I ~ ~ J1 S r ~ , CL 36+20 h10UNTAIV HIGHUWD NO. 2 W ' ~ ~ ~ a 1 ?ROJECT STREET IMPRdYEMEM'S ENDED. ~ _ 1~ y II ~1 z . ,1 ~ ti~ ~ J 1 ~ ~ ' ~ ti ~ CL STA: 4?+39 i ~ ~ ~ STA: 4?+39 END STREET ' a`" r 'y ~ ' ~ R-O-W D£DICJ4T14N # IM d~ SEf „ , I RpVE~IENTS ~ r I 80 L!: 9~RRICADE PER ~ I r IIEA(TS d: SET , ~RRIC.IDE PER END OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS -FINANCING FOR EXTENSION DF DRAINAGE 1 ~ ins oN s~IE~T e ON SHEET 8 GR05SINC TJ flE PROVIDED 1HRQlIGH LOCAL OR RECIONAI FIJNOlNG Y t; 1 ~ ' • ~ ~ PROROSED R-O-W LINE MECHANISM ~ ,j ~ E , ~ d ' ~ ^'i ~ Exls*1NG ' ' ti R-O-w uN1_ ~ ~ .r ~ Ysl , X tv } ~ , 1 \ ~ i ~ J~ i • • y M1 ..r r1M7G4.1 f~ 50 ftlLt STREET R 0 9 PROJECT o, y ~ ~ ~ ~ t \ ~ ~ IL l301JMONRY ' ~,r<L, - ~ 4 i~ / ` C, ``v ,r ~ w., ~ +.~..~+„1-.w-.. /w '~-.w.~~ - - - ~ - .wow - - - - ~ rrrlK'r~X.f ~w wr....rr-w-~r •r..r.r ar i~hr..+- r t.... ~ ~ _ _ ~ _ I / ~ ~ J/~~ ..ar,,,,~~, - _ ~ -yam q j aw • ' r ilr. ~ r ~iY1 ~ .r~....M•r.ar w ~ -wr~~.r a.w.r...rWl+rr...,r~~r r ~-w 'a w ~a-~. ~ + w~ w ~~r~ w. ,wr wl~~ w R ~11w~+_r + r r .r..rr w ~w~ r r r r ~.w. r w rr+. r r ~r~ r r .+.rrrr r w r r war. w r~rrr r ~r I 491.49' V00°0~'0b".~ ' ~ ~ ~ r, ~ s ~ ~ .,~ti W ~n - _ fry - _ _ .r-r- t p A ' ° r' ~ a ~ _ _ a ~ - ~ iY~ . _ t y r !4a - - r - , ~ -s --t_T-~ ~ _ t - ` ~ - 4 - r ~ a M a . _ ~ ~1U E r kt / ~I}` ~ x • ( - 7 I YY r r ~ • ~ qe • ~ 1 l rr wr rr rr1 -~1 28' ' I i ti ~4.f10 5.00' 59,00' SD.90 500' x+1.00' 59.00' ~.DO' '1.00' ~.DO' 58.001 X8.00 42.Q7 , 1 ` C2r _ r _ r i i ~ • r ~ 1 ~ I M i w • , v}' ~ _ i~ r ' 1 i, a"'• t, ~ ~ i ,i ,.,~I ~ ,a ~ (i~ T~+~ ~l[.3~$4 ~ ' , e" F 1 i I 1 f I I I ! 1 ! I I 1 r Cn n ! (Y1 S` ' ~ ~ ~ W ~ i . ~ C. A ~ . I 1 I ~ 1 1 I r- 1 1 I 4 I I r.,,,.,.~,•..~,,.,..,,.,,I I "~1 .dor r rn ~ ~ ~ y ~ I 11 ~ y I ~ o R -a ~ ~ PROJECT 1' .4, 1' ~I .(7 s not i ~ 01 ~f Q d In N y w ~ N w ~ N ti VI N ~ N '+1 ~ ` , `1 © N S7 'y ~ C1 ~J 00 ~O ~ , , , A°' . ~ ' a d ~ •1! 4 1 O , ~ ~ .I? Q . ~ N A ,Q i . ~ d .G t} ti , • A La7 ~ ; • ~ .+1 i ' , i • ~ i ~ ov t ~ ~ v i ~ a` y ~ .~l ~ ~ W BOl1NDV1R1` r+' ~ ~1 ' '1 ~ i , . , h 'rl1r1, Z ~ 'I ~ cn I ? I ~ ~ ~ I .o p` ~ ! S H 1 ~ 1 I ~ 1 rr ~ I I { I I ~ I ~ I 1 r a ~ ~ M 1 i rt i rr 1 rt # ! I ~ as { ~ N ~ n ~ ~ f € ~ ~1 W . " 1~': r" ar ~ a'^'E ' ~ 1 g A' I ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ' I ; I I ~ I ' ! f I I i ~ ~ 3 o ~ ° I e~ l ~ r / (O O t., ~ ~ + .i t.,..,,,~w,,.....,.....~...,1 ..P.. . ,i ~ '~1'~ ~ ~ W fl \ w rr+r~~ r ~a w.ww~~ .r r rAYI.llrrr.~ r w r ~ ~ `t ~ ~ ~ t Q{ NN ~ " 7 ~Y' yA^~ ' r lr. r` A~YI. ~r{~ r r r ~r r r r .w w ~ i r r y ~ ~ _ cis ~ ~ ti ~ ~ w - _ ~ ~o 'r~ ~ , ' J~ 1Y Z ?1 ~ M~.W 1 \ • 'rT~, . ~ ~ ~~~~~J~~ji.. ! ~ i a ~ t ~'WI~• ~./V ~ ~ I. V,/,1 • . i, ~yyp. r kT~?.~- -w.~~.- ' _...~+r ...-.l_.. r _ _-a_.-~~ . __v-r- 1 ~~_.~Lv... ~ - ~u~-a._ _ _ __3 _ _ _ i',t F~ . _ _ _ ~ 5+1 D9` 43'' ' CIS :l9 ~ r ~ 11 ~ _ cO W ? / r' ~ i r ~ 17.E ? , ~ r~ ~~w ,ei v ' 4 ..I X ' ~ k ~ , ~ is ~ ~ r r ~~t , ~r, 'e ~ ~y,1, ~`S~ 1~~ 14+(~ 1~+rJ^ 1R+Ji~ 1, 1+~~,,!t I't+~V .i!)+Ea(~ ra e ~ ~r h "`""'Lf_ ~ „ `ir V ~ at r, ~ s i~ i ~ ' _ rti ~ i ; -•'-r- __-r.-a -"`.__~'-"~-,r v.'- f^-r ~ --s--•- - ~ i < W- r-~ - ~ T t ti ? ~ z k k • - a . f t -+^-.+o-~i..r±~+.-+~.+~-.t a __~~_~.l ~'J _ ..~,a~ _a _ ~ _.__..._4 _ _ .-.r __W _ ._.a r-._...._ _ - _ ? _ ' 1 _ • . A _ . l _ _ - _ E. ` w 1.s,ra.-5 ~~1 4-~-- - - - ;y,~ w k~ e I t Yrr wr rr ~ rw r• wlwwn•rr rr rr rrw~rr rr rr rrw~.,~r rl~~. s ~r ~ l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , x' ' w~, , .;t , ~ ~ 94,0' . ~ 1 ~ 9;1.91 D4.04 ~ T2.09' ~.E;! E0.00 76199 76.99 76.99 76.99 76.99 76.99 76.99' 77 ~4' ~ ~ t~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ y, ~ K ~ s ~ - i . 1' ~ ~ ~ ti a W ~ ~ a I I I ~ I 1 I ~ + ~ v; ~ 9 ~ 1 a ~ ii ~I S ! Wr ~ y ~ a I ~I ! v ~ i € g .a . X91 zWr, • . ~ d ,r 1 f!1 ~ ~ I a y f ~ 1 1 r (A t+11 ~ ; t ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~p,, ! ~ ~ .,$e ~ r , , i a , ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ rt i a { rt ~ { ,N~ryry ~ C" „r ~O~ ti r ©r i .,a ; O ~ i O ~ i ~ } Gl ~ Y7 ~ 'G ~ 73. f 3~ r ter.,. V r _ r r~~„r i i r ~`~lv~ r \ . IyWY~.Wr~1Y.MYry~1 iv.~..~.vX~~.r~........~~~ ~ V. ~ V/ ~ # Y' ~ ~ C}1 M 1 S ~ ~ . ~ r , ~ ~ t ~ O io ~ 1 ~ ~ I ~ w n I Oo I w I E C.i O I m 1 ~ ~ 0 f R} , w w +`r+M na IM r w iw~r w r r wrw~ r aw w ww~ r r R 1 } # ~ . 1 "f i ~ r ~ Q ~ r! 3 Cn rti ( (0 ~ ~W Q9 C?1 fl i Ep ~ I _...a,y..w... ~ ~ ~s t= 1 1 ~ w lul .~1 #1 I ~~a cal w ~....~..,a~.w ~ D4.00 r-'~04.•~--r ~ +W"'°"'~''~"".~1 ~ 6+~ v w w ~ ~i y tt ~ p.ra- 3 U ~ 1~ ~ ~ I} .Q A iu ~ ~ .o O N tV i , I f ~ ~1 M 'h 'h T .0 +0 „ N tV ~ W "D r0 N g ~ d 3 ~ ~ ~ . u. ~ ~ ~I ! 0 0 ~f o 0 ~I ~ a , , a ~ y r '•j , PRbJEL~` b, ~ ~ ? i i ~ ~ I ~ a, w a 1 I i 1 I I I ' ~ ~ m a a $ 1 1 I 1~ a! ~ I .a v I ~ 1 I I 1 I 1 I ' ~~,r ° 90NFtOr4RY' , n ~ ,n ' ~ ~ i rl r.~.r.rr rr~r~r ~r rw~awr rwl ~~rr rr~~rrir r~~rr~r r~~rrr~~ r~~rr~ s t I r M r r 1 w +.r•w• w r r ~w.r r r a I I . 1 i 1 w ~r•rrwr sr ~rwwrr~r rr~rw~wr w.~.rr rrrrr~r• rr~r.'wrr.r~.ww~w~~.r rr .r rw.r.rrnrrw~~rr 9,~~ 60.65 ~ 76.99 76.99 76.491 78 s9 76.99' 7e.99 76.99' 78.40' 78.60' ~5.69~ 84.23' t 64.1 f' 1X1.27' ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ Ui aa ~~....,.,,x i,,...~-,. ~ ~ Cn ~ ~ ~ t ~ b , ; ~ ( • ~ i ~r I 1 i p e ; ~I W Oo .1204 32' ,500°l~~'1 S"w PROJECT ~ " - $ ° ~.',r ~I 2 ' I o a # Q ~1 2D to O ~I 94UNaAR'~' Mm, ~ , ~ os g ~ f ~ IN ~ i NI , a TABLE 'L $ ' I. N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w LANE TABLE `"'31 ~ b'i ,•MI ~ - 1 4 i n~ I ~ti ~w ' ~ , t' N F ~ i GUQVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA T . ~ . ~ a ~ ~ i~ LIVE LENGTH e~lr~c 55 B+JD+N tlNe ~ . r ' ~ ~ i t..- C1 28?4 1500 t07 31 l5 $ ~ L1 12,50 S00'26'35`W ; FV W ~ ~ w r ~M ~ M ~w UII • r r ~ r• ~1~ rlwi r .r ~ ~ 7• . O. ~F r ,r '~'''f~y:,"`" 97.0+1' 99,50' 96.50' t 1a9' C2 18?$ 12.00 8 161 Li' 1250 S04°26'35'w S~'E DATA ~U11~MARY~ ~ ~ - ..,r ~ ~ ~ r >r , k ,,1 , C2 D 00 305.D0 00'00'DO' L:s 24.00 N90'04'00'E L4 ' ' ~ 34.93' S 2635"W per l 1 3 2520 16.00 94'15'30' ~ 5' ~ 45' ~ 5 L4 1c' S0 ~00'26'35'W "w. I C4 2506 16.D0 89°aa'30• c ? w R6 CRES ~ ~ ~ TOTAL ,41Tu AREA 1186 ACRL`S 53 ACRD'S (MN3 LOS , O) 12 ~ A .f ~ ~ r: , ,J _ 1 ~ } ~ ! t5 12 50 S00.26~35'w ~ } ~ ~ ! ~ ~ C5 340 230.00 00'50'45' t • Lb 12 74 SBq`52;151E 84, F., r J J ry ~ ~ « C6 58,.9 230.D0 14 38'45' L7 12.42 :9q`5215 E • 40' ZO.4'Ia'VC DF.SICNATION R--7 SINGLE FAMILY RL~'SIDENTIAL ~ -w ~ ~ t~ t? 1 C7 2T 46 234.D0 06'50'23' tg 4,b6 S44°3140'E SI'VCL~; L,VITS AL.GOYI ED 5d G,41TS' ~ r ~ ' ~~i . 1 I I G8 2139 170.04 D7'12'29' ~ 1 I q• L4 10,27 Nl2'S0'12'E C9 3133 20.00 8 44 30 f r ' " ' J t I G10 3151 20.40 94'15'30' _ 20 ,1'U'MFF,R OF PROPOSED SINCL,F UA'17'S 49 L'~~'ITS 1 L A r ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ Cll 3l 33 2000 8Q'44'30' R/W LINE 0 w M~ a ~ • C12 3131 2Q00 90']5'30' 1 •~r ~ r ~ ~ AP~ROXIN.A"'I,D AREA OF SI,'_'VSI."'IVE LAND 275.512 ,SQ F"T ~ ~ C13 2'5.20 16.40 g4'l3'30' v ~ Q w f< ~ ~ - C14 25.u6 16,40 tiq•44'3v' TYPICAL BLDG. ' r 1 y _ E C15 38.23 233,40 Oq`24'D5' • ~ ~ r M~ ~ ~ 1 clb 24 46 z33,D4 D6.4o'S5• SETBACKS FUR 5000 SF ~ T `~`~"a ~ c ~ 7 9 4 '41'39' 6,~ ~ q C] 11.2 16.04 2 , .w 1 - , , ' ~ ~ 1 ~ k1rIIIv. I,oT slzE i. } ~ C18 18.48 42,D0 25 12']3` ~ 'q ~ , . ~ I CL STk 5~ 8S SIDE11b1LK C19 42 71 42,00 56.16'07' ~ 1.~ w *'q ~ T` . ~ ~ ~ R/Vb SECTIUiVS ° s • , t 129Tff Ave, wu,F C20 30101 42.00 41.04 03' ~ trl _ , ' ~ 'r ~ SiRt;EC , C21 25 3$ 42 DO 34 37 46' '~1 - r > R ~ J ~ n4~ 1 ~ ~ . ' W ~ l ~ 24 33 42,00 33 11'19' r; ~ \ C 2 ~ M ~ ~ r C 3 2493 42OD 34.00'32' ~ A ~ ~ 2 u 1 ~1„ , ~ ° C24 35 b2 4200 4$'35'36' < ~ ! C25 15.2] 1600 54'27'28' ' 4 4 S1 4K F _ a4+t?0 S3+CK? C~'b 4319 181.29 13'39'01' o ~ C27 53'9 245A0 12'34'42' rrN' i X••~ r> - ~ ~ C28 38.5 305.40 11'02'11 T ` • ~,._,.,r-~'-*--- T"'•^,.--~-~-~.~' ; T a - ~ C29 114,27 3D5.44 2]'27 57' ' N - 0 L N w1 r.~r~.1.rr.±.K, ,,.Ir11rn1+.r~.~. C34 11105 30500 24 51'44' . J ` ~ ~D~R-4-lY ` ~ C3] 2q 16 4200 39.47'04• ~ ^ rii x a r , ' r " ~ C32 3120 42,00 69.51'00' " x ~ p ~ C33 32'3 2000 93'46'00' s ~a ~3a ~ ~ ~ ' 33' 1 ~ ~ r, . G~ s~ C33 3051 2500 59'552 W 14ti \ a " ~ , ~~19' 500'18'1 , n,~„ r' x ~VR •rlr ~ry+rr~ r ~1~rr~~~r l ~ t~ YI _ A , e L,N~IIM1Iti IS"V+wrt j ' PROJECT BOUNMRI' weEw EDM OF NIM w PAVEMENT 1th ~ F T f ¢ > ~ \ Ir r r FUTURE S1REEI y W o r ~ D a ~ l~J ti.r rT ? ~ , J ? ~4 N . r r rW sop II V~ w 7 r Q lT Y i 4~( w~ vo-4 r DATE: 05119198 W i W VIV.[ ONI. 0612-3198 E--4 M1' ^i YEA ~ i• I ~R JI ! 14 i~ P ~ i v rP 4 a V i ~L ~ ~ w 1lII ~ k r { ,y H 0 W 0 ~ Q M w SBEET 2 7 "j,kb A*~ ~s 4,c~~ •r~ ~~r?<ry~ ~,~•n ~ F;h„~,~e~:.i ~ a c `h xs q ~ i rir'~fv a ~F~'; y.a gwb°`,',, vINIM d, ,hn9~ f>f '~`(f `''€'~'yAN` ~~k'~, ' 1 ' 'v a, , ns" , ~S• ! t G e 3 =1^n n •y ' ~ 3, r .f~'a`€at"p., z~,, ~~4~ ,>r 4 ~ a ~ ~•vr i~, ~ `L, ~fins.4~ tan` ° * P , ~ 1 , ~`ik1 t! 7 d a ysw~ k t> M "off r d i f, ~ 'ti~~; v, >.S!Jt ~ b , ~V, , ~ '~.r~s . a ! ~raa 6 'r ~ t , i 5• rc i A t` Yr +S iA ' At a ; fivn.,y Y~~g v,~,r~,,~}e~~14•~~'~~ i' ~°t ,-.z n i ~kr,r9` e,~ Y ~ 1 : `P s'~P.,k, ~ ~ s e ~ ry r ~ y ~ R k a i` ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ J A b P• ~ ~ ~ ~T r 1 ~ ~ , 4 n~Y ' i C~ ~t ~ A f ~j i~ 1 n ~ i ~ Y a,. ,.y , a ? ~ ~ 'i `1 S 1 E i ~ r GRAPHIC GRAPHIC SCALE ~ , L ' ~ ~ o zs ~o 4 90 100 MO 3 N ~ ,,y~ ~ nri a t`d~I y.1 x t fe i ~.~1 6p~ ~1~.~ v~A (IN P" TT'' \ a In CGGI } \ i ` ~ 1 inch = L anon = sa ct ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' 4 e N ~ 5i fi ' ~ ~ , r i ; i w ~aA. ~ \ ~ ~ NOR'f'N ~ z ,f ~ 3N L~OR"~I AV~L,TE , ~ ,~,,w ~ < ~ ~ r _ - - ~ \ ~ l11 4 4 y 1 F+~1 9 i s r a ~ _ I # ~x ~ EXIST DRIVEWAY TO BE € ~ ~ ~ ~k ~I +'K", MOVED ACROSS rp € ~ , # ~ u ~ v ~ ` r~ , ~4~ ,mot CMIRP STREET, ANC1 - - - ~ k ~ GRADES PEOESIGNED IN ~'~'1 ~ J.s~' I ' ~ r~ my ~ pRDER TO COMPENSATE c W ~ ~ Y - ~ i~ \I FOR ROAD GRADE DROP til CL 30+20 1EIpUKTAIN HIGHLAND NO. 2 W r I ,p ~ PROJI:CL' STREET L1rtPR4VEMENIS EMDED. z - ~ I , ~ ~ I CL STA. 42+, z I~.~' Eau ~ ~ x D STRIE>:T q K ~r ~ ~I F IMPROVEMENTS ~ S ROVEMENTS ~ SET Z, 4 dS aw a 4 ~ ~ ' O1LS ON SHEET tf 9~RRIGAE PErt2 END of STREET 1MPROVE~IENTS - RhIMlCING FOR EnrI~IoN OP DRAINAGE ~ ON ~ 9 CR055LNC TO PROVlOEO THROUGH L.OGt. OR REGIONAL FLlNDII'IG ' - ~ ~ ti , ~ € ?AECHANISM. c,~' ~x i ~ € ~ I ,x \ ~ ~ ~ d , ~ ~ ~p~}# ~ ~ 4'-6' RETAINING WAtL ,I _ ~ + 4' RETAINING WALL OR OR SLOPE EASEME'dT o ~ ~ _ ~ _ "~_'...~,."."".,,,,,N--~ I>._ ~ PROJf'CT SLOPE EASEMENT- v ~ ~ ~ ~ a / ( - _ - ~ _ ~ _ - E~OtlNdAltY PRQIQCT ' - r r `Y - ~ •J i1' ' ~ ' ~ ~ \ 7 ~ . ~ . • ~ v r~ I - ti l~ _ i ~ r, ~ .y ~ ~,..44 s~ Y j ~ i ~ < ~-w . f t • f f ~ , ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~o I- ao 43 OQ Y~ r i ~ , ~ , ~ ~ \ , \ f. ~w .J ar,.w~w .rr •~R~ r . r w rw~~ ~w ~ w ' ` _ . - - .;fir., .~.r,,~,. ~ \ 1 \ ~ ~ ~ I ~ -~._4 _ ..,.C'~.c.'wy{iw•-.•- =w. a,y; a wA _ --r- w•.--.. _ a..~ ~ ~ -,,,.,~,r,__ w ~ 7~ ~ \ • 11`x' ~ ~ l~ ~ _ ~ _ `F ~ ~ . 1 ~ . ~ ~ ~„y.L r ' ' ~ e~ ~..w , .,.wL' j ~ ~ c ~ r f . ~ r.r. M, ~9 ~ ' ~ 0 , d ~ !1 ,w, fyr c ~ - , ' ~ I ~ ~ ' t $ i Y ~ t \ ~ 1 Il ~J/5~.f'~ jj ` ~ i { t y ~1 l \ ~ \ ? ~ y - ~ ~ y i ~ V ~ `7`"~-w~. S~ ~ ' V~ i 1 ~i 3 SJ4 $ KEY ~ I ;'.v..,.""'",~ t t t,~°..r. 3 4 t _ 's i N ~ D i p£ c~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ eb R IN ~ ~ I h r ~ E f 1 e t- i r- i k ~I ~ ry ~ f t i Q, ~ .a ~L . ~ ~ ~ ~ hT i t •LTT_[L . i ~ ~ ~11~ 7 a 'dy Q- F ~ ~ r , 4 ~ ~ { r ~ ' 1 A e Cy ~ ~j, ' § ' £ , i 4 s , .Gh C!1 -7 Q? ~ O , ~ t . p Ch rr ~ ~ ~1 I r. 3 'd "1 'a t9~ I ~1 3 r a, t ~ ~ ~ , I . r ' I ~ ~ c jar ` ~ ¢ ; i f ` 1~ ~ \ , ~ f ~ ; ti ~ ~ • , ~ ~ _ , 1 i E ' (JI ( ~ r Q1 V ~ E 1 f ~ `tpt` ` l `,(}i\ \ , \ \ ~ ~ \ « .R a,tr}rY _ _ , ~},ti r I I m ~ I ~ € ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; I ~ ~ iN ''`I , ~ ' .:'~1;•'~~r-~#" > `A ~ a `'v-`4 ? ~ ,p. ~ ~ i`y _ ~ ~ # ~ ~ t _ J~, ~ co y-+ i s v I 9 ~ / .'O ~ I M 14t, , way ~ ti ~ ~ ~ Y I t ~ 4 ~ ~ 1 ~ i ~ ~!1] ~ ~r i r, it ~ . ~ E r«. r ~ # > ~ ~ ~ i ~ , t ~ # l.• 17 O+ ' i I V ' f t , \ - t - PRDAECT ti ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ , i ~i ~ •i1. ~ ~ i _ ~ # ~i ' / f I~ 1 q t Ri g ~""r`I+w....x/ I I~ ....yam ~/.nrd ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ . , 1 1 \ ~ y, t L, ~ rY - _ ! ~ `r _ _ .,,.w. P ~ G, i~ ~ R. ~ w .r ~ r j h ? ~..r' ...y " ' Y~ tw ~ =Jw-~.ew.»..~.~ M'',~w,,..,~ M..rw~^ ~ _ - .~.,,wa.+wos^. w r ,.rw j ~W \ y ~ \ / (h ~ r i I I ~ ~ 'fie;-,-^ ra.r . _~.-.r.j.. y ,a ,yr= _ ~ ti ~ 1' f ~ ..w 1 ~ ~ 'v • ~v ` , v 1 ! ~ ~ , ~ 1y is - t w1w, w'~. t 7 ~ >...•..-..w~,L...`lw..w.. M _ ~ ~T-~.'+._ n ~ „y.r. " 'S i ~ i .rte..,. r....w. Vr ~,...,r.~, .r r ~ww~ w ,w \ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ f ~ _ , rt ? ~ ~y~ ~ J Q ~ ~A it i i i ; I 1 , ~ .3 ~ _r "'GR~ER SAN f - cn ' ~ t ti t ; ~ 1 E ~ . ~ ~ \ „ • : _ j~,,~: - ~ ...a~.-~ ~ ~ ACT' 4 ! ` ~ i i ` ~ ~q 'i~J't _ - . ~ s # ~ # ~w,~ ...,•i•.- s 3 • ~ ? ~ ~ _ _ ! ; ~ ! ~ ~ ~ t _ t 1.ti ( ~ I ~ /ti. ~r ~ `ice -4„~ ~ ~ 3 •U - 1. 'b ' 0 ~ , t ' j ~ i ~r i / 4 ~ ~ 1 V ~'r..w.~m.. V ~ - ~ l F i V A ~ ~ fir. ,y ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ _ f t"1 i i J A • r" v ~ _ < 1 ~~"C7~"'~~ € ~ z ! l I 1 1 1 ~j • ~ .C! "i~ . ~ y"1 to W . e Q t I `v ..i~..,~..at~,.,~ ~ e,...a.w4cl. 'z ~ SD ! ; x- • L l ~ r ` t \ ~ ~ N . .,,r~ _'71 t ~ is ~ (N "Y Y ..,r. { ~ a• ~ F i 1J J I ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 1, l ' ~ ` ~ , , , • qty ` , -••..u....« ,,.,W,.yg,.,~,.,~........~,~....a;,,, ~ i .....r...M..,,., «~taA-, `r. ~i d,+ri~ N `w rt ~iai'~~ • r ~ ~ s,/, ~ r ~ _ g _ i ` ~ w ~ ~Irrr w ~ ~ ~~+y p 1 ~"1 ~ r i ~ ~ , ms's ~ ~ ~ rl r ~1 ~.wY w%r w~~ r .M w~.wr~ er +r.4.~ ,W ~ rawr+ rs r w~X~ w w ~f~.rr r 4 ~1w~ w / E ! ~ \ ~ . i t ~ ~ ~ \ _ ,r .•,.,.E.. ~ w ++.w.r r w w+,. L> w ~.1.,` s~. w ,.4 '...W ` ~ w ` / y/ ~ Q. ~ . t~ e7 g \ t ` • _ _ .:.v - t! i ~ PROJECT t ; \ ~ / ~ _ _ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~M+1 ~ ~~~IIIPllllllilM MaLawl.iwa. ~ ~ 7 1 1 . ~ r k , ~ ~ - ~ - - _ _ r t i . _ - ' . - ~ r . , ~ _ _ _ i' _ ~ GRAD~~GNO'I'ES: - _ - ~ / ~ . _ ~ _ - - ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ W - SLOPES RA?iQS ARE 31 FOR 6' INSIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EASI~ENT THEN 2 1 TLl fi ~ _ , • ' , , DA111CMT WI'H EXITING GROUND ' ~ ' r a ' r ; T q T~ } ~ OTAt Af~'A QF ~5': OR GREATER SLOPES 275,521 SQ FT LIMITS QF SE!VSI11 a QF SE!VSITIVE AREA ~ " ~ 3 ..~.•~---Y""' ~ ~ N f ~ ~r r y ~ _ ~ ~ ~ n r ~ ~ y °S 0 w a a , O h V i ~ ; ~ ~I 1~ 'a ~i'~ 1 r ~ T j ~ ' fl ~EG~ND: ~ ~ ~ . I,~. I { - ~a - ~I w 1 3 e ~ , ~ SENSITIV~ LOTS p. ~ l~E r~M ~ , ~ { c~ f ~ I 'j c~ ~ ~s+oz ~ ~ ~ i . ~ a SIDE~YAL1( - = , I , ~ 9ECIN 129?H AVE W~.F , ~ ErCI r~j , ~fi V rw i ~ ~ ~ l f~ ` ~ ~M 0 ~ ~ ; Y ~ ~ V ~ 3 ' 5~~~7 51.'S~S+ , ~ ~ +00 ~ ~ ~ w ~ r r ~ I - •k I ' ~ 0 I 1 I / ~ ~ ~ ~ > 4 ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ a ' ~ a d '1 ; r r r k~ f Y i J'~ C R -y......w., i w ~ i / rr / , ! r` ~ '31519' ; Sf10'I$`15~ Y ~ ~ ~ / 1 ' ' r j , \ ~ I r ? ..~I~~.~Iw~a.~rr~r.~~rs~..~~rriw•~~.w+r..rr`r.•~~rr.r~r~rrrr.r~rrw..r~..~~rrrrr..~~wr.rrw..rr~+ rwr--~ r ~r_w~rr~wr~___~~rr~~_w__s•_~~__~._~w_•.rr~rr~__~sw_~~rrrrrr__? `y~w_wry__rr?w_~.__~~__r.rr__~~_o~^__ .4 ,S r_ rw rr ' 1 A~Ir w w +ww ~ • rwpr+~ „ , ~ 1 1 1 1 i I { I 1 { \ t+ r I ( 1 1 1 1 1 1 i ~ , ~ 1 f 1 I 1 ~ 1 1 1 I 1 i~ \ ~ r 1 1 1 1dV ~I A ~rr+'~ V 17-4 I s IL ~ r ~ ~ 5 C , i r 1 ~ r y ^1 y ~ M y / t 't 1 t t `i / 1 1 ~ I 1 a 1 a ~ ao o ~ to ~ 1 1 ~ `J \ w~i ~ i ~ i ! ~ 1 ( 4 W y, 1 1 1 1 I I 1 / I 1 1 I 1 i I 1 1 1 j i 1.14 om 1 1 1 V\ + \ 1 O ~ wrwrt~.r. 1•ti~^'w+ .wCw~w r~w~.wr +r ' r? ~ ~A ~ V 'V A ~ ~ ~ \ / / 1 1 1 a 1 I \ t / ~ l1,' Ilk w-~~rr r-nw~rw rr ~ ~1~ { V 1' \ R rr~Ylb.wir.r \ o~ ~1 w is r tr! Mme'' / T FTf ~'f ~r M~1 z J r DATE: 05119198~ m r 4P ( c 1 1 RECISIONS : 06 23198 ' r i ~ 1 1 1 o r ~ r s a~ a K 6 h t-~ , l f f •t f c) 14 N + r I 1 4 . , CJ7 w SBEET 3 7 Ilk. 4 . pj , y y4 , rrrrfr~ . a. .~,..~..d.............~.. ~ i ~ e ~ • ~ ` GRAPHIC S( i CS ~ ~APHI GALE # so o n so I f~ z~ _ ; ~ ~ ~ i l ~ ,,C , • I (IN FEET } ( IN FEET } ~ ?.rl I t inch = 5D t inch = 5D tt ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ , d " i . I ~ ~ i V1 f ,NOR'T'H ~,...J ~ ~ - . v i L~'d AVffi~U8 t w , f z r~ i i c~ 4 z ~ ~ ~ v- i w , ~ a ~ ~ ' - ~ ' ~ i ~ , V I ; ~ ~ 1 1, CL 35+20 MOUNTAIN HIGHWVD NO. 2 M¦I PRO~IECT STREET IMPROVEMEk[5 ENDED. ti ti ~ ! ti~ ~ ~i . V] ~ ~ , x ~ ~ w~ w h~ ~ ! ' CL STA: 42+~9 END STREET ~ ~f,`4 ~>1 f ENS S~l2EET ~ ~ sEr 1 ~r~rrs ti ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~O LF BARRICADE PER BENTS ~ SET ~ , ~ ' ! # I ; ~ I D''1S ON sNEE'T a ~tRICADE PER EN'J OF STREET IMF'ROVEMEI+lTS -FINANCING FOR DC'ENSION OF DRUNAGE ~ ~ ON SHEET 8 GRDSSIN4 TD E!E PROVIDED THROUGH LOCAL DR REGIONAL FUNDING ~ , ~ od ~ ~ I MECHAt'11SM ~ /~Y ti € # i ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ;I q~ 3 ` ~ / y ; 6' ~ ~ ~ I~ M \ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ I . 4 ~ PRO,lt a n , j . s i 9tJUIVDARY $ PRQJECT i ~ . ~ fp(ti ~ h ~ 90UNDARY FUTURE NtATER n~o?R~r ~ ~ ~ s 5 h ~ - ~ ~ c~, , fin` - - ,-->+s~- - - - _ _ _ _ _ - - k ~ ~ ~ - - _ y1, _ + a5+n;, aR ~ r , ""~'±x±~!'r- 1s, ~ ~ f ta, ~,r,T,..... ~ ~ ~ ~ / +K :r ~Y3r~ w r u ~ rT? ,~IRw~. ~ - ~ r ~a arrrr~ .r - .4 Jr ~ r.r..~r~ ~ y._A.w ~.w11M111rIR ~ Imo. Yr w ~ r w ~ `r w A ~ w ww~ w ~ ~ y wrw~ w Iii ~w w r r III w.i / ~ y' 7 ~y~y ~ , .f ~ ~ ~ l ~ T ,L ~ r 'i ~ ~ 1 ` i.,y S ~ v. ~""u"""".tw""`".w.."v°...'•'...,°°~°°~°'! "°'~'Tw'w..... w w ..~.~.,w«y.....w~..w T.~...o I I 1I I \ I I ! ( I ~ i •"",.'Y"`..'.w'"., ,w •.,v~.,, w......,w,p...~w ~ • ` , ~.I, ~ art, n„y,.~ q ~ ~I..u~ ~ ~ ~ r" w r i i' ~ ? ~ 3 I F ~ a ~ 1 ,i ,v, is ! ~I ~ ~ ' i ~ I ~ 1S' ~lSE1HEM' ' f ! ~ f a I ~ ; + A ~ I I I ~ U iA ` Cn t Cr + U in Cn to ~ r,..,~.,.~,„r... ~ i ~ 1 # ~ r q ~ q S : r ! 4 ~ i4 U ! ~ ~ ¢ ! ~ r. k ~ r* ~ t a Cr + S ~ Cr # : µ t" ! I .r I 3 ~ r- j ~ ~ O I c0 I § rnp ~ ~D I ca ! ~'O ~^q # ~ t^q # rn0 ~,q ~ # m0 m # rn0 ~ 3 I ~ ~ t t ~ ~ 3 f~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ q ~ ~ Oo ~ h ~ ~ # y z ~ t~ ~ ~ h y f I , `1 i ; y 3 ; ~ '-i 2 ~ ~ # # ~ ~ ~ N Vi : ~ N ~ ~ N.. N~ S 1 # I ~ q ~ rn p € E` N A q '"I 41 q j~ Ob q b g +r N a~ 3{ ~ p N ~ ~ C I E i ~ N ~ 7 F 0 \ 1 ~ PROdEC1' I ~ ~ o~ la V ~ s 3' .I ; W y ~ / N ! rt ~ ~ I ! ~ m i I .a ~ o ~ .a ~ !v w ~ ~ ~ w E ~ ~ ~ y ~ VI ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 fn ~ I .4 ~ N y s t € # ~ M E ~ ' f t ; # ~ ; • a q • q to w ~ w ~ ~ : i , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . f i [n ! ` ~ Gl IJVYNLR~\i y ~ ~ , , I i A ~ -I, i z i, .L) OQ fff s ~ UI lib ~ \ f 1 a1 ~ ~ rt f r+ ~ t 8 A I ~ d ~ I ~ ! r 1] V f t ~ ~ # rr # r. r+ j ; a s I € s I ? # t ~ a q 1 i , s $ r,,.,,,,,,w..w.,w..~,.,.~+ ~ i 9 3 < I a # s a f ~ ~ s ~ ; ~ ~ L.1- I ~ ~ ~ q i ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ! q q ~ ~ ~ ! "F ~ (rf 1 w ...~~r r w ~ ~ ~ E ~ f ~ T N ~ \ +~l y \ r wrr~ r r rr~rr~ w r ~ r ~ ~ q rw..~...1~ ~...q .}~¦.~_..«..~+i~~~..w~ ....,.i..~..~~~~r_...~{...~..~..+~~~3.w~.~-..~«~y.~.r...r~....~r.~~l..~~~«.~...~,~~~-~,..~~~...,.~~--~,~.... ~~.f~ ~ y\ ~ .....-v~++~wr~.r....~.. ~ « r .~~r~.. ,.........ww~r.v~l..w.~.~..n r w.......~lwrrr a... v.. •wi+w-...~...~..r. s..~..,......w. o_ - w, ...-..r...r. 4. .,.......w..,....,~.....~...,_ .,......,.~..w".~ R 'r e € 7 ~ r ~ Vr ` ~ ~ ~ ti ~ v ~ 1 d ~ ~ ~ M ~ N \ ~ ~ i ~ ~ rte.... , . ~ t ~ - - ~ i ~ ar r rn •n~~~yyrrw ow w~rww.r.w.w -n av. ~r ...~.wnr.w +w .w ~ ~.w•-•w .s... ~ .r.nww. r- w. w ` ~w~www~~~ti ~ ~~~~r ~~~~ww~~ `}r l~wrrrr~r~r I r ~n~ ~ r ww «,~rw. r rr w.w...,v..i...n.., _rrYr ~w_ ~ ^Y~•••^ +w~..~w~ .w .w rw.wnr r. '.w+~ww.• ...^..u~ l ~ t - ` t~ 'ti, ~ ~ C~~~i # I I N+ I ~ ~ i r i Cp , E" .,......M.,.,..w.W.w,ry C w.....~...rr w.,..,.»...........-...,, 4 .....w.... ! ,.....•....v„•...,. r4 h i I r"" I 08 Q I I ~ 1 ( I I # i s s z • ~ 0 ~ 1 ~ I ~ I is } ~ ; f ~ I,c ~ <<~, , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~7 ~ ~ ! I 1 t I ~ a y I ~ ! s # e ' r ! r( I ~ i ( f 3 ' ~ i I I I N.0. ~ N ! I! I I N i+J ~ I v I i ~ i ~ ~ I Q, # "p' 1 ! q I A a i .o © ; .Q V ~ I v .r j ~ I ~ # i cD cD ~ ~ cfl i C 3 I I ~..r~,rt.~ ..............j y x ..,w.............,,...€ q ~ I n r ~`4 # ~ ~o ~ I ,P r~ 6 # ~ t• j ~ r- ~ (n " , + N ~ ........,...r,... a l E to I ~ t 0 1 W q { q t o0 0 I # p a ~ ~I q ~ n N ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ W ~ y,.~..W. W. y.., # {n `t......~ # # `i ~ I t.,• y ! I E.•... I ~ y ~ d ~ (n 0 ~ ~ N~ ' ( I iJ~ I ~ ~ ! ~ ~i ~ W r : I In 1 I I O ~ O I + I CO ' s a, ~ # 1 c~~q II !q c7q ! ~ p Iq it I .p0 q f ' I 3 ~ a f ~ y, ~ ~ ~ C 3 1 _ ~ I Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ { ~ I I y i ; PROd~'!' to r•a I ~ ! I N q I ~ I I I q ~ cn r~ ~ ! 3 ! ~ ! p ~ ~ N E N a ~ v q I .n ~ 9, 1 ~ 1] bo I # _ 190U~iDAPi1' M£ I I I I ~ ~ I ~ 6 I ~ I I r t } ! ~ ~ ' ` , f f ~ ~ t~~ / , e ~ 1 ~ ~ ~'1 F s € ~ I ~ f .1 y # I ( ..w•wr. w.. rv..yr~. ~ I C^~'•"' .w •.r. .w r w wwA~ w i rrrrr r w w w w w + w r?~ w w rrr~ w w ~ w w w~ ~ w . 4 w rwrr+~ r w r•rr. rl r rw.~ r ....w ..,..w..,....~.. .vr w w 3 I rr+r~rr~.~w.~~wr~rrrr~+rr.rw.r,~r~rr~~rw www~..~wrww~wr~rrrwrrrrrrwrr~~ww wr rrrw~~wrw~rrww~~wr I I ~ ~ I f s Ca N~` II !I O. 4 , Qr ~ ql !q Oar` I 19OUNDARY ~,,,,,~.,w.~,,.. ~ ~ ~ 4 Ooi 0 I ~ I ~ (.n ~ ~ ~ ~ I t i Cn q 1 i I I y ~ ~ a ~ ~ N~~1 ~ I ; N i i I I N !„7 a t O i ~ ~ w A - I ~ rn I a I .a cn ~ #u I( t n ~o , I ~ ~ • ~ I v B ~ ~ r~ i PRES$URE$ REDUCING VALVr ~ 1¦1 ~ ~ ~ , ~ r ~ rYrri~~i1..{.wrr 3 1 wrww•.~ww rw~w.rr~ rw rw I ~~t~l ~ a . < z ~ AIR RELF~ISE VALVE V ' ~ p~~~~y ' CV V [~N?1~[ 7 I w l~ ~ 1 r i i ~ FIRE HYDRANT < ~ ~ r t ~ +~a 1 ~ ' i CATCH aAs a w ^N I~ ~ 41 14 STORM MANHOLE ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~ ~ x r ~ ~ i ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , l ! d ~ l~1 SAPffTARY t~IAMHOLE Q W ~ ~ A ~ ! ~ E~ ,l t x ~ 0 i I CLEANO!!T ~ Q v ~ ~ ~ v a ~ ~ ~ 1~(lSTiNO Cl1R9 ~ ~ ~ CL STA: SS*02 € i a ~ SIDEMrAIq( f ~ PLUG EKD T ~r 8ECI4 129TH AVE. HALF ; . } l~~ ~ s~ r- ~ r.~ W ~ F ~ ~ ~ , t ~ ~ ~ 2' TEMF'pRARY BLOW-OFF ~ „ , ~ ~ d ` ~ ~ SR? 129't~~ AVRI~JB ~ . ~ ~ r et C { I STOR4I OUT-FALL ~ m 0 U ~ a L ~ FLOW AKRON'S ~ O ` it ~ . 0 ~ 1Mww* w w ~ww~ w_~„s,r ~~+.~rra~w~Mrw wryf'~IW~ ~3 ~ a? rr ,i b/,r ~ i ~ I , ~ ~ W r l ' r ,i 1 1, ~ o ~ ~ i ~ - i I ! ; y ~ - w ~q 1 ~ ~ f . i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ;pis i9' san~ls-ls~+r ~ • r~ w w rrw,w w r .r w r~rr~ w r w ~r r r wwrr w• ~ l ~ T a # ; ~ + t~ral~cr I~ouNaa~r I f i I I r W ~I ~ Funs sus _._,I.y { 2 ~ t r C~ ka %qWPOF w I ~ - w m, J sF `n e I o~ o ~ G o s k - r+ ~ f ~ ~ I I O~ . e z A T MCI A ~ `r i z w I 3 ' Q f DATE. 051119198 I 1 I hr REVISIONS : 0612.17198 - I w I rww..YM• ~M+M~w~ww .r.+~. w~ww~.~Y~w+ wrr +wY --.~=i..~..i. e I , A 4 r O~VJ ' 3 © r~'y*n ~ I I 4 ~ 1 r j~T~ a `r. o t1~ n o p , N m SBEET 4 7 i? "t I I i I 0 u " s r a vy ~ f ~i4 s dry ih/i~I,~tb ~ 'f4, iy 'Trr ~ t r ~ d Y 3 ~*9~ t ~ ° } ~a ~ ' P l ; , E - , ' il' Y b •y g • V^ t ~ ~ n S~ +u~ r (J1 Vat j ~ o rn - ~ ~ ~ ~ O ` h it ~ I k W ' a ~ I f I 1 i ~ ~ 1 f 1 i t I ~ ~ r ~ I 1 CS ' I I ' , PV1 STA . 10+36 I ~ I C~ ~ I I ' ~ PVi EIEv - a7a 18 ; ~ AD = -1150 E 1 K - 3 00 Fy M 1 LOW POINT ELEV - 4h1 43 ` ~ , 490 - I E 37 50' VC LOW P011 I ~ ago; ~ --Y - ~___T. _ . _ -~H, N~ LOW p0 LOW POINT STA = 11 +41 ' I ~ ~ Imo; rl+~ I PVI I , I + b; n I I I N n l +i r ~ n I PVI E PVI STA - 11+21 W w I t _ I ~ V} i ~ I O~ A i PVI ELEV = 461 43 z A 15 DO . K 2 6" yr.'~ - I ~ I I f i I .N II ~ ~ , ~ [v I I ~ Fr 4,~0 .._a_ _ _ I I W. ~ 000' vC F l I 0 O0' VC W ` I i yr ti -S ~ n ~ ~ ly wa as w r I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I r~ ~a r + I ~ ~ 470 ~ r ~ d~ w I V ' 9~' b' I! i M II . I i ; I f J N i M 11 n 470--.._--a---_ _ i_ I ~4 <~i to w I I I , r----~- - ' I • 4~ > W I I I , ~a h - E_ I . a ~a , ~ , a601 - ~ . I ; 3O~' ~ , y ; HO~C~^OKI'A1, 9CAi~ I" ¦ 100: ; b" I ! .y...___ 46V a E ~ ~ I I I ~ ~ E i i ~ ~ ~ NaQ ~ ~~p , I ; D~77 ~I~V I I t`+~ iN ~ ~~1 r~" fY~ 10~ 'N + e6jn ro. ~ a ' ~h ~ ;o, r d, i *50 AO ~ n o o ~ rr cri~ a0 a3 ~ ~ ^ ~ S0. OD to Iff~ bh ~ d ~ ~ b ~r 6r #n f~ 1n r N r ~ 1004 11+00 f1+OO 10+00 11+00 1'+ 00 10+0p 11+00 ' ~w, ~ Cf. ~ROIP~~ Ci~IDtP sTR~c a r~o~E G PRONE vac sc~u~ r - ~ v~[ar~t. sc~ r - ~ f• - !4' ~..,-W.-..-.,....~.~~,____ _W---~__--- - _--.T_~ _ ~ ~ _ ___r - - _ - - _ _ _ r-- , R~4` ~ I I ; I I I I ..._r.... I - -1r - - - - - - - - i - - ~ - - - ~ - - I t I ~ uL~ t ~ i i I e , I I I I i I ~ I ~ r I E I I I ~ I I i I I i I ~ I k I - _ ~ I ' ~ 1 ~ I\ I ~ ~ I , ' I I ~ -L~-- - I ULTRA-BLOCK I i ~ ~ ~ i Rt'~AINING WAIL I I € - ~1 _ I__ I I I I I I I I I I I ; I I I ~ STRUC'URE t I -1' r f - - - - ' I I I I ! I I I t I ' \ ~ I I I I 1 l ( . I ~ I ~ ~ # -I - ~ - ~ M». - - 530 I ! I I i I I II I , I I I = I i ~ i i s N ~ i P ~ , L 4EN1 Ell r._ _ ---I--..-_ _~----I.-,~ _ i I l Q41N1 E EV 494 ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ I 4 I ; I ~ 3'--64 ' I \ r ° I LO POI+JT I i = Os ~ I STA LO P01+JT ~ STA • ` ' ' i '+41 95 ~ i ~ I ! I i ~ I f s I 1 { 3 I PVI ST.~ ~t_ 30.01 ~ - ~ _ _ - - _ - - _ : - - - - « - _ I j ~ CA9LE T1E5 u°- ' PVI I I I EIEV I ~ ~ I ~ A ~ M PVI ELEV - 4'~1 49 ~ ~ } _ t. - - - _ W_ _ i ~ I 1520 I 4-_._ I II AO - 7 ' ~ wIGH PO NT EIEy = 49 55 I ~ 1 ~ I I K 462 ' i t I I I I < y~ . 1 ~ w W ~1 i I j I ~ 0 3~2 45 H1~HP_91?~.T~TA 4~~0~44 I _ ° - ! 3~2 45' V , I ~ A = 41+8' 29 I 29 5' I p+ ~ I , + ~ s I ~ PVI LEV = 1499 41 I i i ! I ; RETAIti"~G y`t~ ~ , , ~ # } _ ~ _ STRLCiLR I ~ i I E ~ I I E I ~ i ~ I ~ i I I Ic = 25'00 ' _ - - - i_ _ } E DETAIL I I I 514 ; I E ~ I ~ ~ s , t SR GREE:~'FIELD rn M ~ I 47 68' IVC ; , ~ ~ ; h ~ I ' i EXTEYSION ! \ I r I i , + ~ I 3 { I ~ 4 I i E _ rn c I I I i I I ~ _ - dd z i ' i , I i I i II j I I ~ ~ E I 3 v I , I I I - _.ti_,.._ - _ r..._ - - --~-I 500 i e ~ ~ ~ I i I I ~ I I ~ I I I ! ! ~ - R ~ s i i I I I - I - - I ~ ~ I II 1 i I I ~ I I I I , , _ --1.--_. I I I I I I i ° II I I I I - ! 'F. I ! i I I I -h- + - ~ I ~ ~ I I I I ~I I ,t r ~ 33 ; ~ { I ! I I I r ~ I ~ i I .--~J-`_ i ~ ' I E N ~ ~ , 4 I N s i r° a~ I I I I _ ~ ~ ~ I r ~ r t s I I ~ , I I N I RS N WR'M~W I ' ~ ~ i I I I ~ ` - - ° r' - - - - -4 - - - I - - - w h - y - I _ { ' f p I !I I ~ € ' f I ` i i I I , - - - _ ~ I i ~ ' i I ~ ~ ° _ . ~I 484 , I i i ' I I I ' I ~ i ° I ~ , i _.._.y_ _ ___-----i-_ _ -~-----+---------v - I I r I f i i ! I I ~ r I ~ I V ~ -1^^ I I I 1 'i t ~ I I I ~ - ' r I I I - _ _ R - - ' I l I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ . I I ~ I ti, I ~ t ~ I I 1 i ~ ` ~ ~ i• - - ---S~T~G'NRE1..- , _ ti _ _ 470 ~ , i I 4` I I I i r I I I r I I ~ I I i~ I I ~ I I I I ~ i I ~ 4: I I r--....,... . I I I s s i I , I ~ ~ , ~ ~ _ ~ _ ~ I ' , , IOW POINT ELIV - 4231 B I ~ I I I € I I I I I i , I I QNG~p W ~ I 1 I I ~ 1 I ~ ~ pul STA 7+ 4 ! ~ c I I I I 3 &~B 4 ~ I + i~ f I f 1 ! f 'PV! EL - 41$ 95 f _ 0~ 00 ~g, 7 ? t i I I - - - - 1 - r - + - - -I 1 ~ I i I ~ I w~ I ~ ' I I ' I ~ ~ I I I ; I I ~ ~ I I ~ i 4so a~ . ~x~ ~ I I I K 3000 ; W D ~ r _ I ~ ' ~ I 46 90' VC ~ ~ . ti N I W I I _r. i _-F_--...._ ti-._ . f I I I 7 I ' I I = p n ~ I r 4 ~ ~ ; I I I ~ I f I I , 3 N d ~ ' i ' ~ + v ~ I T" I I _ _ v I I ' # j i 1 c ~ _ ry ~ I I I i ~ I I , N JI 1 ; 11 ~ w rl I i I I I I I ~ I - - 1 ~ i ' I I I ~i ~ ~ _ - _ ~ ~ 1 HIGH POINT ELEV. 42954 I I ~ I POINT STA - 34+s6 73 ~ I I r s I I I k I I I ~ ,I I I I ! PVI S*A - 33+92 2' , i I S 1 E I ~ I 3 ~ I f I I I I PN £LEV -430 61 ~ ~ ~ _ # - _ _ t I 1 - 7 ' I ~ f I , ] { i , - - - - _ _ i+ _ . ~ - - 44(.1 A.D 1 ~ 71 rrl I I i 1 I I I I I - ~ ~ 9 i I I K 25 ?5 ~ , I I ~ I ' r I I ' I ~ ~ I I I u7 I i o ~ I I ~ I : ~2~ ~r v~ 1 I I I I ~ I I I I i , I ~ I I ~ I ! I i I I i t I I l ri U ~1 ~ ~ r I ~ I i i I J ; f I 1 I N t N~ ~ , I I f ~ I I 1 I! + N + N ~F y I I I I I , I f - I~a3v w w ~ w ~ I ~ ~ i ~ I v+ w ~ 1 3 I I r ~ II T ¦AT1T.1"//117T a r nK a t .r ~ . ~ It. I I I ~ i 3 I 7 a ~ If- + RndAL 'SCALE I i I I r I 1 I i 3 I I i ~1 EXIS M CL w , I + i ' e I ~ ' ~ , I I V _ I Cl 36+20 MOUNTAIN MK04LANO MM 2 PROJECT I 1 I i SfItEEt• IMPROYEMEhtiS a J I I I I I Emmo. 1 ; FOR C'OMIMVUAMN OF f I r i~4t0 STREET IMPROVEMEMCS 1 t I ' I I II I I I r RECONSTRUCT STREET ~ ..,k I , , I _ START MG AT SI'A: 35+5&50 _ _ r- - ____d__ _ - rI I LY AS SNONTI ON TFIE PRpnlFw I I I I I i I ~ 1 t I I I , TAI i f I I ~ I ~ i I I I I I I' E W ?.a -b- I I I I I I I J i II + -i Opp ~ ' I I + I Y ~ u I I I I I I + ~ , ; I ~ I I I I I I I t I + I I I I 1 i I CL M I , F i I I i I I . I I o , a cv L" J I - ~ - x I 'I r I r c I I a .r I i zl* 7 j f I 1 I I d I I I I - _ - . _E`, 390 , r-~ I CROSSM I I E J 6 'YI I E I ~ I I ! I I ! il C., I i ~ I p • ~ i E I I + I ! - - - - + y i ! i s 1 , r I II i , f I E""r w a ~.,r I I I I {{I + I I ' • e I I + I I I a 6a ; ~ ! II I I f ' I I I I r M~F ~ ; 5 i + I I ~ E I = I I I ~ I i I 3 I 1 4 37p cn GREMELD ,i Mwl I 1 E DROWE I DA ~ O rte 519/98 r 1'ti I I I 1 ! 4-__-~ I i I I f 3 ~ ~ >tl I ,REVISIONS; I ; ; I I I I I Polo, I I I I = [ I I I I / 1 1'':', r N rp N rN Om rf040 93 ~ d~ Ad IDr Nn QON n N~ ~ N M ~ ~rn ~0~ a Nd A~ rN ^ dd rr 0.1 t0~p d~ d cn a kl~ N w ' d t,h m #rn - +00 4R+00 47+00 4$+00 45+00 44+00 43+00 a~+00 41+00 40+00 39+00 3$+00 37+0p f~a 15+00 54+00 53+00 52+00 51+00 50+00 49+00 45 I m o • d d .c , V s SIMET 5 7 Y t 11 ~ 1 ~ ~ , Y i % A nd ~ ` ,I - - i W ~d~ i i~Es. ~ ay, I, y ,r E' W ~ I 9 ' ti~ „ d1 , I~ ~y~ 'I 5 i+~ " , I rte' r ~ m` i N ~ y M A rL RR~~ YI ~ w w r , ~ ~ .r, z ~ ~ ~ U M ~~//~~w V! ~ _ M1~ RW I~-! q M+M I 1 r I V +r A M ~t M rt° O PVI STA ~ 12+94 53 sea - - , - K ~ ! I ~ ~ i ~ f if I K ~ 2~ 44 ~ I ; ~ ~ I a ~ ~ w _ i ! ~ 182 13~VC ! I ~ i I ~ , r , ~ N i i ~ I t ~ _ _ _ _ I i rn N II ~ ~ ' ~ i sa + ! , ~ ! ~ I ~ ~ i i . ~ 8s~ i 8 W i ~ I i i i ! ~ ~ ~ N I ~ ~ ~ _ i C ~ - - m I • ~ I ! 3 ~ ~ I _y ~ I ~ I II` I 3 Sao - - A t`~. ' 1 ~ ? - r 1 ~ - n -1- n,. - 1 - - A-...n . .rr-~-r w...~yx ..-.rte. wu.w r t J ~ f A 1 ` LOW P41NT EtEV = 464!97 ~ ' ~ ~ n ~ ~ W POINT STp ~ 18+3d 24 ~ i ~ n~ - - -ram- - -aM i -~1+1-9°fi ~4 -r' 1',~i'~ +43" _ ~ _ - ..._-.w...w ._.._y..._ ~ ~ ~ - T o~ PVI ~LEv = 453 47 ~ ~ r ~ ~ , ' ~1 N I a i ~ i 490,_ - - - - - - - - - - `-tir - - ` - - K• 33x40 a - - - - + - - - ~ - - - - - -M ~ r _ - - ~ , , I ~ I i Of 38' VC 4 ~ E E u~ ~ ~ ~ I HfG~I P41N7' ELEV 471 3q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ! ~ - - ' ! ~ , r, I PVI STA ~ tg+94 27 i a i * ~ P1+t EL 483 ~ 4 ~ I + i a o ! ~ ~ Y ~ 6 r,, 480 _ _ ~ - ~ II i r ~ •V ! - ? l W ~ ? F r« a Y-. t .A. ? _ _ Z 08 _ ? ....._.A .r-.......~...~.~...~..~..n•.V +n _I ~y ~ I i ~ K- r -24 ~ ~ Mi ~ ~ H 2 I ~ ~ 11 ! ~ r i ~ y~ rr~ ~ N ~ I r i ~ r1 i , , ~ ~ i`~ ~ i ~ I I h , ~ ~ AIM I a7c~ - - fi - - ~ - ~ _ w ^ ~ I ....i t i ~ ~ ( ~ ! 1 I 1 j ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ! ~ f ~ z - i N g ~ I/ ~ ~ 1 i i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ! I ~ i I ~ a60 , ~ ~ w ~ ~ I ~ l ~ , ~ i ~ P N~ i ~ ! I k rn ~ ~ 'r _ ~ E i ~F F , ! i ~ ~ ~ j O iy ag0~- - ~ ~ _ . ~ I I , I~I I~ ~~~y ~ ~ ~ ~ "i j ' I I ! , ~ ~~i! ~ ~ r ! I ! W ! Ys. I ~ ~ ~ F ~i { ' I I `w`-..~ i k T ~ I I ~ ~ r i d i I M i I ~ A F r ; i ~ ~ ~ ~ aao + a o ~ i i s r ~ i ~ ! ~ ` ' ~ ~ ~ F ' ~ ~ ! ~ f i w ~ f O ~ r I I , I I ~ ~ V ~ 430> - ~ - ~ - y i i _ _ ~ ` _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r ~ ~ ~ s i I I i i I I ~ ~ I r ~ '`1 I ~ , a20 - - ~ ! I a i i ~ ~ ~ I w i ~ I d i i I ~ I ~ I ~ 1 4 I 41Ll~ , I i I ' I i I t I I I I 1 I I i k I , I 1 I i ~ ' I I I 1 E ~ ' ~ I I I EE I W i I ' I I I f ~ I ~ I 1 I I I I I i 400 t MkVONT-~L kAiE: 'h ~I I I I, w _ i 4 cQ I ~ scALt: h w I I ~ VtRnCAt I ; .w I ' I ~ I i ; I r - _ _ v - - - + - - - - _ _ + - r - I r I ~ I I 1 I I ~ I S i i I i I f ~ I 390- E I I I 1 ( 1 'I I I i ~ I W ~ I I O -4- T. _ X14 t _ - I I I + I 1 1 ~ k I I I I ~ 1 y, ~ r~ ICJ ~ i I I ~ + 390, w 390, P ~ I I I I I ~ y I h I I I I r7 Z .,1 I I I I I © , wY 4 ~F I I I C7 W Y1 I I ; , I t 3701k v 1 ~rq I I I Z Y i + 1 I 1 1 t 1R f'~ 7 w 360'i DATE.- 45119198 i ~ I I I , I I ; ~ .k ~9y 4 +4 16,00 w p+ DATUM 35500 E ; I I R.Li?' SIGN . r~ 4 % ri$a~ N M* ,D nr 0!f` Oa dd M~ Oqq Q PN nN M~ n EOM rtd moo, ~.q, M1 * oD ~d O? in t m N M • r , 10 W d M MI r N a 1'. Nay M h n n M M ,D fti N ~ 4[I l0 O N O r, T p Y1 ' N 01 ~D 01 ' ~A iy ~fi ~f1 r I~ }h O O (ri O COD O 0~ do 47 Ir ,D Ih 40 ID to ICJ Ip td h 40 P h D h ,D D ~fF Ifl d w d N ry 0Q >ti ' ~ w r ~t1 Jl ,f1 d ~t1 IA eF 8 ~t d d t d a r ~f d d d A .t a a r e rl ~r `k' %i o a a r a rt a a a a a rt rt d ~ a a r a ~ w ~r 10+00 11+0J + H 11+00 12 00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+0@ 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 ..13+00 24*00 t . ra . ~V f ~ n Yea , rks§ y/ AM. < low. 1 14 H { 'SBEET 6 7 o r vPM Li• ' ~ " e T i nF iy'~ ~r~l a s 4ti,: hs a t-~~~T v N w- r M s 9 • " ~ a I n ' 4 = Y i4 ~ d' rt54' ~i a f+~• i. ~ . ~ Y ' v ;x. r~ ~ ~ 7 4y ~}~y ~~~/y7~}~~, 4 r wr. +rv N ~i,LVI\ Lr1,Lf1' # r 1 I ~ ~ ' A~F.~ OE TREE RI:MOVAt TOTAL CANOPY' 9.7a ACRES ~ GRAPHIC v y GRAPHIC SCALE ~,'Y~u ~ ~ ~ ~ o TOTAL CANOPY RETENTION 3 9Q ACRE5 0a foo 200 ~ ~ ~ ' 1 ~ ~'~Y, 11 ~ 4 1 FOR DESCR1PT10N OF TREE SI TYP TOTAL TREES 12" OR GREATER• 532 1 z>±, E, AND ~ ' ~ 71~1yn~~ ' CON©ITION S E ATTACH X M { 1; ED E CEL DOCU ENT T i'L'f~l to- OTAt TREES MI ~ !GABLE 313 ~ t tnch 1 tech = 50 tt ir1~ Q+' a 2 !~ITfGATION TREES ARE DEFINED AS TREES 01= ~ 12" OR R ! TOTAL TREES EXEMPT 75 to GE'R N DIAMETI=R TOTAL TREES TO BE REMOVED 363 (58 83~} ~ 3 POOR AND DFAD TREES ARE EXEMPT FROM ~ NOKrK ~ z V 1~.Y MITIGATION PROCESS I ~ ~ ,ABC . T ~ ~ ~ PERCEN,AGE 0~ TREE RETENTION 41 17~ w r 4 I~ 5 i Y1 3 x I4 J^ 1 a~ r ~ r \ v i / \ w 1 ` ~ ~ z r M I ~ , z # ,w : s' , .i ~ ' e r~ F • _ # # a ~+z0 Mou~r~u~ H1GhILAND No. z ~ ~ PROJECT STREET t~PROVEfAEld15 ENDED. ~ e ~ I # ~ , . ~ l I I ` CL STA 42+J9 ~ ~ ~ ~ Iwo ENO STREI END STREET ~ ~ U~ t ~ ~ f IMPft0VEMENI'S +!t S1 ' ? ~ k ~ 60 1.F ~,ARRIGDE PE tOVEMENPS ~ SI~T \ / ,F ~,ARRIGDE PER E4O OF S'iREET 11rIPRQVE1+lENTS - flNANClNG FOR EXTENSION OF DRAINAGE i ' r~ ' ~ o ~ ~ D'TLS 4N SHEE[ DTIS ON SHEE[ 9 CROSSING TO BE PROVIDED T}iROIlGFI LMAL OR REGIONAL FUNDING ~ ~ ~ I _ ? ~ MECli~W15M, , z e ' 3 I ~ 3 ~ 3 ~ ~ \ ~ ` - - u - _ _ _ > _ PRQJ~I`f f ~ ~ B0tfN~1R'f ~ ~ ~ PR4,1£Cf _ _ _ ~ M 90UNaARY ~ ~ } L~~ ti ~ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ . \ \ , \ ~ ~ , ~r ~ r.w.~ ! r J11• •i41U•IY~1• r111R 44~~ r r r.~r r rr~w r r r w r~ r r ~w r r rr r r ~A~ ~ r r r ~ r Ar r•~ C ~ ~Y• e4ar 74fY ° 9427 vRw r r 4tlbs ~ ~ ?r ~ "s _ \ 'h ` \ 94 \ ~ \ ~ \ \ ~ ,y ~ ~ ~ ~ . i 'l ~ _ • _ -_hw'C-" rah... 'S. t• _ ~ ~ \ \,L~T 92111 i i '~If~ 70eT 1y4T• c r ~ 7e5 ` • ~ y ~ ~ } ~ \ s ° t ~ ' -w-- ~-°t~~_ R ~ r~' r rat ~ ~b3aT i~ `vI ~ A ~ s'_~- \ ~ n `_T 725,x•• ~p~T 7S1T • ~ ~ ~ r .,....r ~ 65ET 4~4\ ~ ~isY 6417 TAT 6 b ° T - • • 9017 bI1T ytaT • . = ~1%i . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ \ \ ; ,b ~ v ~ ~ ~ t I \ \ ' ~ '"'~tl4~' I~r,...w.." ~e .-y~.9.~tt, wlaT ~ ~ _ ee7i •06r • 121r ~ , if i 1 \ v 1 A y s.~ ~ • ~ A6 ~ ~ ~ a, i ~ t `1 ~ ~ « • ~ Ta~15r WSY • k` 9911 • x 1 1. ; loot) ~~~T ~ ~ T ~T a+oY "'~^e..,4 ~ _ _ 74,11 • - zleT °:,n 1 f~ t ~ ~ 1 H! e ~ ~ i S. > ~ ``t d 1 \ ~ ~ y r v ~ ~ ~ ~ T~ e i ~a Y 1 ; 477 Y • e ,047 4 T 0 f41~T • • • at • ~ • • - fir! • / f ` s ~ 5~1~ n4T , ~2~„ ee•Y f 48ZY ~ e,+~• met 4TaT . net '~,+n { iT v~ r¢t • v • ~ ~ ,~It ~r t ~ ear !t Av v A' x ~ ~ n~ 1 • , \ \ ~ ~ ' ' ea57.• ' T • s ~sT TAT " i • i el1T • V j~ ~ \~y tlyr AV • \ . ~y \ y , ~ T ti,~r1 • d ,eel rA • ~ 4577 • ew! i . • t S ~ 7+'r 44D~ o b -'M4( 211e r7C1 t •1r \ ~ 7•B \ v v ~ ; ~ ` f a 241 1 l ~ . , _ • Ab Tti ~ \ f ~ ~ p ,tee ~,_a,~,~ ti Mi • IAf~i! ~ r Mt v 1M '1 ~ ~ ~ ~ d•~ ~ ! • 1011 ~ \ #2 •A ~ ~ r ~ T ` \ \ \ a I \ T aT e • 9 ~ ~ ~ . \ ® • frn 31M~ • 2Ne ~ \ • ~ ~ 7~+Y ` ~ ~ e ~ ~ ti ?t1n PRDJECT 1 iBR '''S ~ \ \ \ S\ 5 \ \ ~ ~ d~tt„ ' ~ e~4i M + • T ~ e 9OUNOIAR'f ~ ? ~ Sar ' \ as . a T Svm ; . ^V ~ n9o - 3 ~ , f r ,0?T ~JA l ,v ~ ~ v v \ V Av ' - ~ M ~ F ~ 'v ` 1.4 ~ ~ v A ~ ' i y, ' , ~e"Kti~\R" MSS V1~r1 \ V `77~T ~ ~ 19AT 1171 • l ',d,l ~ ~ • _s •e91 Q aST 74 T / 9e2T ~Tg a 1 • 1 \ eTR1f ~ ~ \ w~ ~1 ~ Li, \ ~ 4 T 1y~ T • ~ ~ ~ ~ ry~ \~6 r+Z SN3 lwr. r r r.i r r ~•s r w ' _ ~ ~ r ~ .i q .k -as+- M ~ J y \ ~ ~ \6.~57f• . r \ ~11 ^ ~ \7017 ° • 7127. 2 ~ 1• \ ~ 0'~ I~16 • M \ r r '~r"~w~ •Q! ~ •y ' 4 r ~l 'C ~ ..+w~~ fir- ...•71~[. - ~ ~ ~ • • Ju it ~ TI1Q ~ \ \ ~ - t .a.-,- e 1 • ~ i _ ~ RY7 • • \ • ~ s ~ \ \ • ikST • +~i1 • ±~11 ~ 1747 ~ 4_ • - P~s + r \ , bT11T \ ~ -~u ~ A ~ ~ ~ V ~ `•QS4T \ A • • , \ \ 44+fT h ~ , \ ~ \ 7nC ~ ? \ \ \ - '"t ~ T ~ S11 5147 V • i V • ~i * \ ~ 1 , e" . ~ -t- S ti.- i ~ " ~ n w ~ ,1tl7P , hrM0.L I !'4 ~ r w b, - a ~ y ~ e1e ~ ~rM0.L `k ~ , • y,~ t_ _ - l46T ' 7~T ~0 ~ 11H ` ~ \ \ 610 _ abet - • if w t \ ~ I i {ti \ r ' ~ \~T4S \ ~ t'"~"' • "s ~ - "'fir ~+~r 'Sb Io~.~ - ? ~ ~ t ~ fi1T i s ~ v vv si T~q,,, 4 '1y~ ~ ~c r v im ~ 10. b - ~ ~FZ ~ `-t ~ • ; ~ e ~ ~ \ \ J i~ Abii . 4Q~3 • ` t~ir lOr` • • , \ x• \1A 211 \ T 7r T~~ 91 ~S47T M~T ` i9r ~ 1b•t 1>e" ~ R2~ ~ 7S~T ~ \ 1.12 M~T \ t~T \87M' ~ 1 deep ~ 1 S ~2 I s1T, . ~ 1 ~eeT ~ z,~r r, ~ \ \ ~ ~ • ~ \ e ~ t ~ rr ~ •eb • ti ~ -L~ a .e4pT ~ 1 h ~ ~ 4Ty1 } L ~ ~ e3+i•` ~ ' ' :w It ` s 1 n•T I ~ ti• ~ T• i • \ E T T ~sr • \ \ t~tT # •:rrr ~ I»r\ tY • 7+T /Ca! • L ~ • 1 . ~ ~ IsT T 657r 1 e 1 171 ~T • z11r \ \ , • 7~1T ~ \ >Ot, RMT • 'C T • ~ • o \ etin ~ • +~~s • Zak \ 1 ` x ~ ~ 11711 • ~ \YA T ! l 4.31 ~ • T ~ \ s \ i \ , - - ~ : 4 • l 4 I7~T ~ ~ \ f IAj ! ~ 1 ; v 4Y• r ' 1T • • ~ i~;~i,r ~ fir,.,... t v _ \ T 1 ~ Y 7 ~ ~ • ~ : ~ F•ee,T 4atr ~ ~ • A 477 • \ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ ~i • F7jf ! i ~ y~• • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r f c • • 1T • , 944 • szz ' '~f ~ z ~ AAST ~1 j n E aSJT ~ Pu 1 b~T \ R7t1 s ~ • R Y T ~T T \ `t70i~ 6 /r ~e 10 ~ 7!~ • 71,17 y •2217 ~ ~T ~el ~ Lett 4 ~ ~ `elhT ~ 449r iAlr ~ 44 J, 5~ V41Y ~ • • ~ \ ~ \ ~ ~ \ ~ y ~ ~ 261r lo/~ ~ ;SIT t i41rt, • ~ 22 ~Ir ]A7't 11.1 9 ~ \ f ~ 4TRTO ! / ter 3 : t+n • fi r f • r a ~ ya P \ ~ ~ ~ tea,"4 • £ sz/ r?~•aee ~ • r • As77 a ~ 6121 ! • seat ' ~ • 2,2a'~, ltsa •y ~ ~U \ b~11 4 ~ • I • ' "st~nAT ° a2oT ,r 1 ` 4,27 ~+3+ \ \p0, • • ~ ~~1 ~ t t 1 4101 • f iyiT 29 Sr ~ • S~r ? • ~ • 4fYSl ~ 10!1 i ~ ~ i'~.7T 1 t ~ 132~17~TT f SCOT ~T 51pT •~r , • , ~3. • ' s2 \ •net 21ea 21e6 • ~2 -a i ~ 1 ~ •itb4 S i~ 4 E g ~ • fDbr • # • , , • T ~ s Geo'° d24Y , ~ , • ~ 2149 ~e 2Ht \ • 2n4 ~ • ,~T x'h a~sf ~+b.r , ~ z~4r • 2150 \ ° p 216} ~ ~ . ~ ' • ~ i • JI/T "~2'S x'11 1 i 1~ ~ 2~* ~ ? ?111 # t ~S 461st 3 I S ! ~ t t 4Y4T ~ { i • e ~ ^ 2! M 21M j . 5 . iS"' ~ .,w....jM,...,,,,, w~ ~ ~.~.2/1K1. ~ ~ ~ ~ aw~~ ~ fr «~rr ~ ; ~+r ~ w rr~ r r .~~L ~ ~ ~r~ ~ ~ 4 s s} • t ~ • y. ~ < r r r rrrr ~r rr~•ir r rr r i •r.rr r r r~wr r M • • • I ! ~ r~?r~rr rrrrrrrwrw~w ~~.ww•rrr rr rrw~rr~wrrrw 0~ I X10 Rig, , z2,e ~ \ 4ew ; \ td~ • ? ~ I zFx~ \ ! "0' ~ ~ • f I ~ k ~ Ii T tai! ~ • ~ • \ ~ 0 4011 BOUirQARY j~ i 4e•a _ ~ao~T t' v R } ski a i # ~ 4oea\~1i ~ ~ ~O° 7eie zr+ I~ ~ ` +4110rww~ r gi f+ i .I 0 ~ r5 rl , ~ ~ ~N~~ r J ~ , ~ ~ ~ i 1 ' 1 • i M J .,,I ~ Q , ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ a i ~ ~ ~ z i`~ t ' ~ ' ~ 1 ~ i I l ~ r~ ~ I ~ N `I ~ ~ Q1 E ! ~ ~ . ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ I t - ` ~ 0 ~ ~ i I , I - W '1 a. ~ 1 ' I ~ o~ x ? I ~ I ~ I o ~ Q v W ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ t a ~ l~ ~ ~ i { ~ ; ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ z 9 y,~~y~ /y~~ 7M" ` ~ EA~.711r•V WRO I 1 1 ~ ~ ~ > e t CC $TA. 3'~h02 ~ 9IrCIN 129T'H AYE, IW,F ~ SIDEIMALK ~ ~ ~ ~b ~ ~ ' j ~ ~ SIREEC ( ~ ~ 0 I IAIPFtCNEM v ~ ; u ~ .,.~..~...r -~.r...._. - m.., ~ d ~ 'rwrGY L~~a Az'V'~:'~,,,w ~ ~ W ' ~ ~ rr~ r ~ ~ . • !a ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 1 w ~ , / ~ ~ ~ ~ ` • ~ f !f ~ • x+oo a os pp7 ~ 4014 ii'~ ` f'1 ' ti i aye . 2A ` 2M. i inns saa 1 l ~ w ~rr~ w~ r wiwrr w w r PRGI T 9OUMDIAW 4 rJ i , ! S - n } I L rf E I i I rrr . rT o ~ w WM* a ~m FUTURE STREETS k r w ~ ~ °;~jzels r~,1 00 , w o ~ ~w z~ w 4 Y /I r f s . aCQ I 1 ~ 1 F~-1 M f (wM w z -4 o ~ odolm, 4 i I.I ! y _ = 4 DA T': 05,119198 --t r = , 1 F - REVISIONS , 06I23198 r ,•r, I ap, I. b w 1 C) a 'a 1 ~W 1 r a I ~ w i k t ~ I SHEET 7 7 10+, v _ ! 3 w ~ ~r* ~ .r x ` i ~ f~ m' i~:~+;~9d;~,'v~n is' ilcu w v 'jj, ~1~r ~ v~~ ~ nEi l , w. x ~ .i ~ ~i,' L 4' 't • t I k ~ . 7 ~~.~pLL,.i,. Y,..y.!•°,... • h': ai.7~~ ` ~ p~~` ~?n . ,"~k Y ° ~ ! ~ ryyxl~ , i ne qI J, A- unvr yT ~ 14 AHK C~YDESON.f ~ ^ ~ `,1Y • • ~ ~ • ~ ~ swear ~ ~ s~ur g Ltirocaon,LR ~ ~b7"' ~ ~y, X 1 9w,~ ~ Sr rr may,, 11 W W A ~T ~ ~ q ~ f ~r s ~,~'~~N I ~ ~ ,i ~ 9 ~ II 9 3o,ao s.o ,5 II 1 ORM ~ C 5 ~ /f ~ ~"mrr ~ MAIN y1 swcwrxva+sT ~ / ~ f S~ ~ PARK a ; ` ~d'j, ~ q1, IIsT - - - L' ~~hSTRUCNRE er SW POt ER ST + tOEap ~ ' \ --r - SW FONNEP S7 yp 1D'i~ ~ ~Pl l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I * w 1 7.30, 11,4 _ 'R~LIM~NAF~Y ~'L arl 4 li ' swnEAwro~ucr,`4'ar„ /J ~ V~;/ ~ ~ f"11T ~xS~r , y I ~ l ~ ~ ~ FANNO EASEM r -,r _ - ~ ENT PER FEE,_N4 814 72 2d1q'~ S 88'4704 ~ TAX LOTS 105, 890( ,'T I g., ~J sw Puac sr I ~ 'ill / ~ 'ti > 1 D5, 8900, AND 113, MAP 2S 1 11 BA ~ ~w~~-i - - - 3~ ` PAfZK ~ 30 ~N ~ ~ 5 1 LOCATEQ IN THE NORT~- 5+~ n r O N $ 5~ ~ ~ ' SCALE 1 ~~-0 N 7 8 9x.34 ~E NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 11 ~~4~~L/(y~~ 1' ~II~I ~ ` s~~/~ ~°~AMST~ ~ F WF+11Hu\VEk it Il Syr FAIP1~VEN ST ,~.1 ~A Sw DAUfu Sf F~ ; ~ y~ a T,ax DoT ~o,~ w I TOWNSHIP ~ SOUTH RAN JTH, RANGE 1 WEST, WiLLA~lETTE MERIDIAN ~ ~Gr /~F~Po~~ ~~~w ` ~ a ''7 Q7 1J o ~ ~ 34 ~ , _ I OWNER. DN LAUTT LOT Z . I CITY O F TIGARQ, W~ ~t s+v +un~Erv s.N ~ ~ sk. ` _ _ ~P + ~ ~j~ fi sw Fnorwooo sr GARD, WASHINGTON COUNTX OREGON ' ~ r;w~fa = H ~ y~ ~r ~ ~ ~ JOB N0. L.AUTl ENG _ t zz sF of I ~ ~ f`-~ ~Y 7ArYTHONY nEv~+oKrur _ ~ ~rwNilLSy ~w~r[LjnF ~~~Cr~ ~ m C>~ ~ 127 34' r;l ) ~ TAX LOT 114 ° ~ z ~ ~ Dp Q " ~ aoDx iD6o, PAGE esa ~ ~ %ti r-iu ERY I ~~n , ~ 6bioo ~ sloo MCDONALD 5T a«,o~,_ ~ Bonita ~ t r run r~ ~ 51Ar GA DE 5 ~ ~ ~ a sw G0~ cNEEx cr 1 1,75 15 59 I I r ~ co ~ r ~ PREP.A~ED FOR: l! I- ~ ~ t ~~C`~ r,~,x,~ I~ ~ s~'f~_, I I. O r- 89 51' I ° LOT rn s RON LAUTT -OWNER ~ - ~-~~t Ix i 9 ~gwYK~flR~ ~ ~~a ~Y ~ y ~ M 1410D S.W. 97TH AVE. ~ ~ ~ s„~,°~~~ ~.~1r~~ sw,~ 9W'~"s ` ~ 8328 SF t ~ I ' i~ ' "t~ ` ~„~C~ . ~rFi sr l sw n~ztr _ . ~ ~ sw 7s_z q~ ~ sw 9 !J ~ TIGARD, OREGON 97224 ~ sw ~ 5 _II ~~"5 r ~`~~"~P~ a~°°~ ~ is ~ S~ to N 6P 5 5~ w ~ ti `y~( a ® ~ TT~ LO r' a I r ~,5 gg ~ 6 V vl 7712 ~ ~ ~ r P GG y~ ~t10 L ~ kTAIIV RD / Syr R ~ SW M DOCK ST uiW~'~c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ awe ~ sW,(~u_ sr ~ ~ t ~,-nr,~[ ~ ~ I a g'~~ ^ L 3 ~ 10'~~ , "wl N I ~ ~q5 , Csa ~ 8122 5 ~ ~ ~ 6 / 5 T5 g6 I ~ ~ o,, 63 SURVEYOR: , ~ ~ ~ ~ sw~ ~ G ew lu~alTH tT ~ A ~ 3~ ~ ~3 ~y ~ . ti 0 73 ~ a , y DANfEL T. BURTON ~ ~ srr ~ ~ r ~ sw I,ooovlEw oR s rnEa sr ~ , ~ , W SATTLEA 5T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t 665?' y S' ~ ,any ~ 38 ~ 0 4 I 6435 SE 22ND r ~ ~ Q~ ~ AlIAERFlEl[]CT ~ ~ S' ~ r ti's sw r~Ef y. - _ ~ l ~ ~ ,t ' ~ 4 / ~ ~ t 2 1R ~ T LOT 109 PORTILAND, OREGON 97202 t'~.z ~ ~'~'~~FI~4"1G1 ~ X31{ st s.w Etas ~rK~~m " ~ , 88 ~ 0 E50,7 ' OWN ~ THOMAS PARKER C°73840 ~ ~ ~ 4 TAX LOT 9000 DOC, N . 93-28884 ~ ~I~ ~ ~ ~sww(~~-L~~CO~~+~vtiausl 1~ srr, rw aw ! ph: (503)970--0330 `~a i,rl _ L-==- o ~ ~ 0 DD 7 ° L ~ ~ ~ x R° 3 bs ~ OWNER. RON LAUTT ~ kw,u~?~ ELD a~F 1 E~ /1 I VIC1NlTlf MAP-NO SCAE.E ~ ~V , . N l~j~ + R ~ I ENGINEER: OU °~r Lag . R ' I BURTlON ENGR. A550C, r~ r B p8. ~ ~ S ~ 4 f ab3y a ~ 2319 NE GLESAN w na 8'AT~jLf402~ 2asy,`~ ~ ~°39 RELOCA D 15' . PORTLAND, OREGQN 97230 g ~ 7~ N 69'5 1 ~ LOT 8 L~7g ~ a ~ SEMEN ph: (503)251--2947 069 SF ~ 9Z La 6 a2 ~4 1 63 26,16 ~..~......r ' ~ TGrT~A~X~C~T LHJ - EKroI'4 EAR SEW[~1 r EXIST G 1 ~ ~ Q~ 1 "ED R D I ~ O C A QD S `t 123,16 " 24 mfl CEDAR ~ eEOAR " ~ " " 14 CEDAR ~p10 C n 4 ma e LOT 5 ~ o p " CEDAR ° 0 5D ~ ~ " m 76 SF ~,OT 7 11 CEDAR ~ ~ N " 5 750a s~ 2 CEDAR ~ rax Lor ~ ~3 0 " 4 CEDA EDAR 7504 SF 44 20 FIR p~ ~ " X52 8 CEDAR ~ ~l I ER: RON LAUT? I B"CEDAR 2~" FIR 16" ~ ~ 8"CEDAR ' 7 04 7~.~1 J~, ' 5 14" FIR 46 ir6 4 10"CEDAR TAX LOT 107 OWNER AASI: OTTO 48 a 5 a,s' LOW POINT ELEV 243 34 HIGH POINT ELEV ~ 244 20 LOW POINT STA s 1+21.48 HIGH P41NT STA ~ 2+D5,23 PVI STA ~ 1+08 55 PUI STA ~ 2+05 57 TANaARO PVI ELEV ~ x42 98 pVI ELEV a 244.43 poEwAlK E?aS11ND ASPHALT A D. y -4 73 A D, = 3.42 zox K ~ t47s v~, tN K # 19 $6 ?x ax 70 oD' vc , so,oa vc 1 " cuss 'c' AC. I N ' 3f4"-a' CRUSHED ROC N ~ m a' Y-a" CRVSHED ROCK ~ ~ ~ N fl1 U1 ~ I l ~ n ¢ vj Y1 N O N ~ ~ N ~ f 't 'n ~ N N N TYPICAL SECTION ~s ~ ~ ~ r r V V ~ N U ~f C V ~2 STREET IMPROVEMENTS ~ > F ~ ~ ~ >m k~ ti ~ m scA~ t'-s' S 0 r ~ ~ c > m do r m ~i ~r J Y DATTN F,L~'V 14d QO 1a 01 01 r d' ~ ~ P O N N ~ ~ to ~ * ~ w ~ ~ n ~ ~ ri n N N N N N~ N N N Nd N N ~ N ~y N p+DD 0+50 1+DD 1+50 2+DD 2+50